U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–936 PDF 2013

ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

MANIFESTS: MODERNIZING FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

ECONOMY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 21, 2012 

Serial No. 112–154 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

Ranking Member 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

WITNESSES

Suzanne Rudzinski, Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Environmental Protection 

Agency ................................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 52 

Lisa Silvia, Senior Waste Inspector, Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality, on Behalf of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste 

Management Officials .......................................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 55 

David R. Case, Executive Director, Environmental Technology Council ............ 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 58 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter, dated March 28, 2011, from Scott Slesinger, Legislative Director, 

National Resources Defense Council, to Hon. John Thune, U.S. Senate, 

submitted by Mr. Green ...................................................................................... 7 

Letter, dated July 20, 2012, from Peter A. Molinaro, Vice President, Federal 

and State Government Affairs, Dow Chemical Company, to Mr. Upton, 

submitted by Mr. Shimkus .................................................................................. 28 

(1) 

ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF HAZARDOUS 

WASTE MANIFESTS: MODERNIZING FOR THE 

21ST CENTURY 

THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:13 a.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Harper, Green, 

Butterfield, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Charlotte Baker, 

Press Secretary; Jerry Couri, Professional Staff Member, Environment; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; David McCarthy, 

Chief Counsel, Environment and the Economy; Chris Sarley, Policy 

Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Jacqueline Cohen, 

Democratic Counsel; Greg Dotson, Democratic Energy and Environment Staff Director; and Stephen Salsbury, Democratic Staff Assistant. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. We are going to start about 2 minutes early. We 

do have votes pending that will be called fairly soon, so we are 

going to try to make sure that we get people through the cycle as 

fast as possible, get the testimony, and then move forward. So we 

want to welcome you, and I call the hearing to order. I recognize 

myself for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Good morning. Today, our subcommittee will be looking into the 

issue of hazardous waste manifests required under Section 3002 of 

the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and whether it makes sense to have 

these manifests submitted in paper form, or converted into an electronic format. I think it undoubtedly makes sense to modernize to 

electronic filing. 

With the commonplace usage of laptops, computers, scanners, 

PDAs, and tablets, the idea of having this information maintained 

electronically seems like a no-brainer to me. I hope this hearing 

helps us understand what good reason has prevented us from using 

an electronic system, and if it is legal in nature, how Congress can 

help encourage a transition. 

2 

When I first learned EPA was requiring multiple copies of a 

paper manifest to track every movement of hazardous waste from 

the generator through the transporter, and to final disposal site, I 

was surprised a more user-friendly format was not being used. 

When I then found out EPA required these same manifests be sent 

via postal mail back to the original waste generator and the State 

regulator to be kept on file, I was astounded at the inefficiency of 

the system, and the cost to both government and the private sector. 

When the agency was last proposing revisions that would standardize RCRA subtitle C manifesting data requirements, EPA’s Web 

site claims about 12 million tons of hazardous waste per year was 

being manifested for shipment, involving 2.4 to 5.1 million RCRA 

manifests, requiring about 4.4 to 9.2 million waste handling labor 

hours, costing about $187 to $733 million annually. That is a staggering amount. Moreover, 34 State governments reportedly spend 

$199,000 to 416,000 labor hours, costing $6.3 to $37 million annually to administer the current RCRA hazardous waste manifest 

program, which when added to waste handler burden totals 4.6 to 

9.7 millions hours, or in terms of cost, $193 to $770 million per 

year in baseline national paperwork burden. 

According to EPA, the agency estimates the cost of the paperwork burden on State and private entities from the current paper 

manifest system to be from $193 million to over $400 million annually. Specifically, EPA’s fiscal year 2013 budget states a fully implemented electronic manifest system is estimated to reduce the reporting burden for firms regulated under RCRA’s hazardous waste 

provisions by $76 to $124 million annually. 

Especially in a time of unacceptably high unemployment and 

enormous Federal debt and limited State budgetary resources, Congress should be looking for ways to lighten the fiscal burden generated by the paper manifest system, but do so in a way that 

makes sense for tracking enforcement and public health concerns. 

In addition to the regulatory and economic relief an electronic 

manifest provides, proponents also believe collateral benefit of an 

electronic system to include increased transparency, access to critical public safety and security information for first responders, better tracking services for our citizens, improved data for informed 

policy decisions, and program management and greater accountability for how hazardous wastes are transported and managed. 

The Senate has twice passed legislation with the support of environmental advocacy groups, industry stakeholders, and State regulators that created an electronic manifest system at EPA. Their approach melded private sector expertise with technology and EPA’s 

concern for what a meaningful manifest system needed. If the 

House is going to act on this issue, we need to understand why this 

needs to be done, and how best to make it work for Federal and 

State regulators, the regulated community, and the U.S. taxpayer. 

Furthermore, if the industry wants this system and is willing to 

pay for it, the system should be viable, performance-based, and industry should not be forced to overpay for the system, nor have 

their money held hostage by Congress or the Executive Branch. 

I am aware that there have been concerns raised about various 

facets of the Senate-passed bill, including whether it requires some 

spending offset, even though it would be fully funded by user fees, 

3 

and whether those funds, once collected, should be appropriated. 

These are issues that we will investigate fully and address to the 

extent that they need to be. 

I look forward to working with all parties, and I want to thank 

the witnesses for taking time out of their busy schedules to be with 

us. We appreciate your testimony and look forward to being better 

educated by your experience. 

Before I yield back, I want to finish this. I am going to forward 

this so it is submitted for the record to Monica back in the back. 

This is obviously a new technology, and we are going to send it, 

and that is all we are asking for us to do electronically to be able 

to follow this and in a very transparent system. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

4 


80936.001
5 


80936.002
6 

Mr. SHIMKUS. With that, I yield back my time and yield to my 

ranking member, Mr. Green from Texas. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just so we don’t get to 

the point where you and I are e-mailing between us up here, that 

we can sit down and talk to each other. We don’t want to lose the 

history of conversation by e-mailing. 

But I appreciate the chairman calling the hearing today, and 

welcome both our panels. 

Commonsense change should have broad support in this committee, with the Senate having already acting on the issue. I hope 

we will move expeditiously to introduce legislation establishing an 

electronic manifest system that ensures that hazardous wastes are 

designated for and indeed arrive safely at designated hazardous 

waste management facilities. 

The benefits of an electronic manifest are obvious, ranging from 

reduced paperwork, administrative burdens, and millions of dollars 

such a system could save. That is why both EPA and the regulating industry agree that we should develop legislation to create 

an e-Manifest system and fund it through user fees. With this kind 

of agreement and participation, there is no reason why we cannot 

pass the bill into law this year. 

So my goal for this hearing is to hear from any concerns our witnesses have with Senate Resolution 710, if any, so that we can address them and move forward with the bill in the House. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert 

a letter in the record from the Natural Resource Defense Council, 

showing their support for e-Manifest program. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Without objection, I am happy to receive this from 

my friends at the NRDC. 

[The information follows:] 

7 


80936.003
8 

Mr. GREEN. I feel the same way sometimes. 

With that, thank you again to our witnesses for appearing. I look 

forward to hearing your testimony. I will just hand you my statement. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I will see that. The gentleman yields back his 

time. Does the gentleman from Georgia seek time? 

Seeing no other members present, the chair now recognizes Ms. 

Rudzinski from the Environmental Protection Agency. Welcome. 

Your full statement is considered accepted into the record, and you 

have 5 minutes for an opening statement. Thank you for coming. 

STATEMENT OF SUZANNE RUDZINSKI, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY, OFFICE OF 

SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. I will focus my remarks on the need for and efforts necessary to establish a national electronic manifest system, 

or e-Manifest, to track hazardous waste shipments more effectively 

and efficiently. 

The uniform manifest to track hazardous waste shipments in use 

today is a six-copy multiple paper form that documents the chain 

of custody for waste shipment. Each person in the chain must sign 

the manifest and then ultimately file a copy at their own facility, 

as well as the final facility must file a copy back with the original 

generator to confirm that the waste got received. 

Each year, hazardous waste generators prepare about two to five 

million manifest forms. We believe it is time that this paper-intensive process enter the 21st century with an efficient e-Manifest system, but legislation is needed to do so. 

The administration believes there are very significant benefits to 

an e-Manifest system, both in cost savings and program efficiencies 

for the regulated community and the regulators. Eliminating most 

of the manual processing steps is expected to result in significant 

cost savings. The cost savings that we would be estimating would 

be at least $75 million annually for users and State agencies. The 

savings should be higher if updated to account for today’s costs. 

Additionally, an e-Manifest system would improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the national hazardous waste tracking 

system, providing increased protection to human health and the environment. For example, the e-Manifest would produce better data 

quality. Second, the e-Manifest system would provide nearly real 

time tracking capabilities. Users would no longer have to wait 30 

days or more for paper copies to be mailed, processed, and then finally learn whether or not their shipment arrived. You could track 

delays and discrepancies very quickly. Third, users could rely on a 

national e-Manifest system as their single point of contact for both 

their Federal and State required manifest data reporting. Fourth, 

the e-Manifest system could reduce the need for onsite labor intensive inspection of paper records. Finally, full implementation of eManifest could foster new data management and cost saving possibilities, such as simplification and consolidation of existing requirements and systems for our biennial reporting of hazardous waste. 

The administration supports the development of a fee-based centralized e-Manifest system. Legislation must be enacted to make 

9 

this a reality. Since manifest users would receive the greater part 

of the benefits and cost savings from using the e-Manifest, it seems 

fitting to the Agency and the users themselves that the manifest 

users should fund the development and operation of the system. On 

May 23 of 2011, the administration transmitted to the House and 

Senate an e-Manifest legislative proposal. Legislation would need 

to authorize EPA to collect user fees for system related activities, 

and to deposit those fees in a special Treasury account from which 

funds could be expended only for system-related activities. This authorization could explicitly provide that the monies collected as 

user fees would be available to EPA for use for the payment of eManifest system costs. 

Additionally, legislation may need to clarify any requirements for 

use of unique or unconventional contracting arrangements for eManifest. If e-Manifest legislation or related appropriation bills 

were to authorize and appropriate funds to EPA to build the eManifest system, as suggested in the administration’s proposal, 

EPA would likely procure the development of the system using conventional Federal acquisition procedures and rely on user fees to 

cover systems operations and maintenance costs. However, if Congress authorizes use of a different contracting approach for the system build, such as the ‘‘Share-in-Savings’’ type of performancebased contract that was authorized in the Electronic Government 

Act of 2002, then the contents and requirements of such a contract 

may need to be addressed in the legislation. 

It is also important for the legislation to include provisions that 

will ensure that the e-Manifest system and the authorizing regulations developed by EPA be effective in States on the same date, initially as a Federal requirement, but which the States can subsequently be authorized for after enacting the necessary State laws. 

The e-Manifest can be effective as a cost savings tool for users and 

a profitable venture for vendors only if it is assured that the eManifest will be implemented consistently in all States on the 

same date. 

We look forward to working with Congress to enact legislation to 

provide for the development of an efficient, effective e-Manifest system. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

be here today. That concludes my statement, and I would be 

pleased to answer any questions that you or other members of the 

subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rudzinski follows:] 

10 


80936.004
11 


80936.005
12 


80936.006
13 


80936.007
14 


80936.008
15 


80936.009
16 


80936.010
17 


80936.011
18 


80936.012
19 


80936.013
20 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great, thank you very much. It sounds like there 

is much in agreement, and great possibilities forward. So we indeed 

look forward to working with you. 

Let me recognize myself for the first set of questions. 

In 2006, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

received testimony that the hazardous waste manifest burden was 

the most expensive paperwork requirement EPA imposes under 

Subtitle C. Do you believe that that is still the case? 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. I believe that is correct. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And in your testimony, you mentioned that EPA 

first started analyzing the economic benefits of transitioning to an 

electronic manifest system. The agency estimated that a 75 percent 

participation rate could result in an annual net savings of $75 million to users and State agencies. How realistic do you think that 

75 percent rate in that evaluation is? 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. The 75 percent relates to not the generators 

themselves, but actually the number of manifests that would be 

covered, so that would be out of the two to five million paper forms 

that are floating around every year. We think that is a very realistic number initially and could go higher over time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I agree with you. I think people are just 

itching to move from this to this, away from that. 

So if given the authority to set up an electronic manifest system, 

what is a reasonable and appropriate time frame for finding a vendor, negotiating a contract, and issuing implementing rules, and 

how much do you think this would cost? 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. The length of time for the contract will depend 

on what kind of mechanism we use, because there have been different types of mechanisms suggested. If we use a very conventional procurement approach, typically those contracts for other 

things take in the range of 12 to 18 months. If in the case of a 

novel contract, it may potentially take more time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And my last question is how much do you envision 

it will cost a vendor to build a viable electronic manifest system? 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. At this point, we are estimated somewhere prob- ably between $7 and $16 million, but that is based on old estimates 

that have not yet been updated, and would also be dependent upon 

what the actual specifications are of the system. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great, thank you. That ends my questions. 

I would like to yield to Mr. Green, the ranking member, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Rudzinski, you mentioned in your testimony that if e-Manifest legislation or related appropriations bill were to authorize and 

appropriate funds for EPA for the e-Manifest system build as suggested by the administration’s proposal, EPA would like to procure 

the development of the system by using conventional Federal acquisition procedures and rely on user fees to cover the cost of system operations and maintenance. Senate bill 710 instead does a 

‘‘Share-in-Savings’’ approach, and you indicate the EPA would need 

the contents and requirements for such a contract to be addressed 

in the legislation. 

I really hesitate for Congress to pick winners and loser, although 

I have to admit the Federal Government doesn’t have a good hisVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:56 Jun 28, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-15~4\112-15~1 WAYNE
21 

tory of picking technology programs. The IRS is probably the best 

at that. 

But anyway, has EPA ever done a ‘‘Share-in-Savings’’ contract 

before? 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. I am not positive, but I can certainly get back to 

you for the record if you would like. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. When the authority was available for these contracts under the e-Government Act of 2002, EPA worked with GSA 

to use a ‘‘Share-in-Savings’’ contract for e-Manifest. Is that correct? 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. That is correct. 

Mr. GREEN. Can you discuss that further, what happened from 

there? 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. Basically we were in the process of working on 

it with GSA. We were working on getting the necessary regulations 

out that would enable us to do the ‘‘Share-in-Savings’’ and I believe 

the Act expired before we were able to implement. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Does Senate Resolution 710 adequately address 

the requirements you will need for a ‘‘Share-in-Savings’’ approach? 

If not, can you elaborate on what needs to be done? 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. The bill S.710 does address the requirements. It 

has the basic needs in it for us, if that was the bill that was going 

to be enacted. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Mr. Chairman, those are all my questions. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair, 

without objection, would like to go into a colloquy with Mr. Waxman. You have permission to do an opening statement, if you 

would like to do so. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. WAXMAN [continuing]. Witness for your testimony. I want to 

thank Ranking Member Green. We requested this hearing back in 

January, and we are looking to see how we modernize the tracking 

system for hazardous waste shipments in this country. The goals 

of these efforts are to reduce burden, save money, improve data 

quality. At present, the Federal manifest system still relies on 

paper manifests, just as it did when the system was established in 

1980. 

So we have got to bring this system into the 21st century. Technology has advanced significantly over the last 32 years, and we 

shouldn’t be relying on carbon copies to track potentially dangerous 

shipments. I think you would get a unanimous agreement on that 

point from members of the committee here. 

The adoption of an electronic manifest system was proposed by 

EPA more than 11 years ago. It has been supported by the chemical companies, State agencies, environmental organizations. But it 

still hasn’t been adopted. Ironically, there were technological concerns—questions about the enforceability of digital signatures are 

one. 

22 

So I didn’t hear your testimony, but I know that it has been submitted in writing. So we are concerned about how this program is 

going to be funded. For many years, hazardous waste generators, 

shippers, processors have expressed a willingness to fund the program through user fees. I hope we can adopt that concept. I think 

we will hear legislation—about legislation from the Senate that 

embodies the concepts that are widely supported, authorizing an 

electronic manifest system with regulatory authority for EPA, and 

a user fee to cover its costs. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, the rest of my statement I would like to 

have in the record. I appreciate the courtesy you have given me in 

letting me come in at this point in the hearing to make these comments. In S.710—I think we ought to look at it. The bill calls for 

a ‘‘Share-in-Savings’’ contract, and in a standard ‘‘Share-in-Savings’’ contract, the contractor agrees to bear the initial project cost. 

I think this is something we ought to examine carefully. 

I thank you for holding this hearing, and I hope we can work together to solve this problem. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:] 

23 


80936.014
24 


80936.015
25 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Waxman. Now would you like to 

ask any questions of the witness? 

Mr. WAXMAN. I am going to pass on asking questions and let others who have been here longer have their chance, because we are 

going to have votes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, sir. Now the chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, who has no desire for questions. 

Gentleman from North Carolina is recognized. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you, Director, for your testimony today. I will try to be as brief as 

I can. 

Protecting the public from hazardous waste is certainly a critical 

mission of the Department of Transportation and EPA. Both departments, in coordination with industry and State agencies, have 

been vigilant in the treatment and transport of hazardous waste 

because of the safeguards established by the hazardous waste 

manifest system. Paper manifests provide shipping information to 

help with the tracking of potentially dangerous materials, and information about the contents of each shipment for emergency responders. Since 2001, EPA has proposed a nearly paperless manifest system which would reduce the financial burden of paperwork 

on States and the industry by more than $75 million per year. 

I support improving the hazardous waste manifest system by 

using information technologies. I look forward to transitioning from 

the existing paper system while continuing to make safety our top 

priority. 

Let me just ask you, if I can, Madam Director. S.710 proposes 

a user fee on people who continue to use paper manifests. Is that 

generally how user fees are allotted, or is that tantamount to a 

tax? 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. In terms of the user fees for paper, users that 

want to stay with paper currently, in many States, do actually 

have a user fee because at the end they have to submit it to the 

State and the State oftentimes charges fees for being—to enter that 

manifest data into a system. 

In the system that is being proposed for electronic manifests, a 

user would have an option of either going electronically or continuing to use paper. At the end of that time, you would still need 

to submit the paper—the final paper form back into the system. So 

they will still be users of the system and they will be appropriately 

charged. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I guess what I am getting at, would a sliding 

fee scale be better? 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. One of the things—that is an issue that we 

would certainly look at if legislation is enacted so that we could impose user fees, and we would certainly work with the user community to try to make sure we knew what was appropriate. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Just trying to mitigate the amount that would 

be assessed to small businesses, you know. We are always trying 

to protect small businesses and their bottom line, if we can. 

Do paper manifests get lost during transit? 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. Paper manifests can get lost. They can have data 

quality issues. You can have illegible handwriting so that people 

26 

don’t know exactly what is there. E–Manifest offers a far superior 

approach to that. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Is intentional fraud an issue with paper manifest? 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. How large an issue that is, I am not sure, but 

I can get back to you. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. All right. Those are my four areas of interest. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. Now the chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Harper, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome. I appreciate your being here today with us, and I have a few questions. 

If a vendor is operating the electronic manifest system on behalf 

of EPA, how many EPA staff would be required to work full-time 

on issues related to the electronic manifest system? 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. Initially the number of people at EPA that would 

be working on it would be working not only on procuring the contract, and also developing the regulations that would be needed, 

but that should go down over time because the regulations, once 

they are actually in place, those staff would no longer be needed. 

So it would depend on the actual nature of the contract system 

adopted as to how many staff would be needed. Initial estimates 

are about five to cover the entire span of contracting and regulatory activity. 

Mr. HARPER. What would be the benefit to EPA or DOT of real 

time tracking that the electronic manifest would provide, just in 

general? 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. Real time tracking allows you to know where a 

shipment is, if there’s a problem on the road, if the shipment has 

been delayed you know immediately where you can find it and can 

actually get help to it more quickly. It will also allow you to—if 

there is some kind of an incident, it will help first responders being 

able to get there. 

Mr. HARPER. All right. You had mentioned that the e-Manifest 

system could foster new data management possibilities. Could you 

quantify what the cost savings to EPA would be through these possibilities that you mentioned? 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. Qualitatively I can talk to you about it, because 

it will be dependent upon what system is actually adopted. The 

types of things that we are looking at right now is you have got 

biannual reporting systems that for all hazardous waste, a lot of 

that could be incorporated into the e-Manifest system so that potentially you do not have to do extra reporting. Things like our hazardous waste export notifications could potentially be melded in as 

well, so you could do away with other system requirements. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. Why does the administration believe that a feebased centralized e-Manifest system has the greatest chance of succeeding, versus other methods? 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. The industry and EPA have—and the States 

have—all been working together, and indicated that user fees are 

important because in these budget times, it is important to find 

ways to fund the system. So the thought was that the users, and 

27 

the users themselves agree, that they should help bear the cost of 

the system. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to thank my colleague real briefly before we 

let you go. The only system-related activities on user fees is—I 

think that was a great point to raise. This real-time tracking is like 

UPS, like FedEx, like the U.S. Postal Service, so we should be able 

to get there. And by the time I did my opening statement, sent it 

back to the clerks to file, they had already sent me a confirmation 

that they have it. That is really where we want to go and I think 

we can get there, we just need to work together. 

I appreciate my colleagues on the minority side. It looks like 

there is something we might be able to do. 

With that, we want to dismiss you. Thank you for coming, and 

I call our second panel up. 

Ms. RUDZINSKI. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to thank the second panel. First I would 

like to ask unanimous consent for a letter from Dow Chemical in 

support of e-Manifest legislation. Is there any objection? Hearing 

none, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

28 


80936.016
29 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Now we also want to welcome Ms. Silvia—is that 

pronounced correctly? 

Ms. SILVIA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Who is the Virginia Department on Environmental 

Quality, the Senior Waste Inspector. Thank you very much. Also 

joining her is David Case, Executive Director, Environmental Technology Council. Your full statements are in the record. We will give 

you 5 minutes to summarize, and we will start with you, Ms. 

Silvia. So welcome. 

STATEMENTS OF LISA SILVIA, SENIOR WASTE INSPECTOR, 

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, ON 

BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL 

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS; AND DAVID R. 

CASE, PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 

STATEMENT OF LISA SILVIA 

Ms. SILVIA. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members 

and representatives of this subcommittee. My name is Lisa Silvia, 

and I am a senior waste inspector with the Virginia Department 

of Environmental Quality, Tidewater Regional Office in Virginia 

Beach, Virginia. I am here today on behalf of the Association of 

State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, 

ASTSWMO, to offer perspective as a regulatory compliance inspector of a uniform hazardous waste manifest system, in particular, 

the proposed development and enactment of the electronic manifest 

system. 

In addition to the views expressed in this testimony, I would like 

to note that individual, State, or territorial waste programs may 

have other perspectives based on their State experience with the 

use and management of manifests. 

ASTSWMO supports the development and enactment of a hazardous waste electronic manifest system for many reasons, including reason one, real time tracking of hazardous waste from generation through transport to its final destination for treatment, storage, or disposal. At each stop along this travel route, a signature 

is collected and a page of the current multi-copy paper manifest 

form is removed. Oftentimes, the waste is transferred between 

transporters and they make many stops prior to its final destination. The generator may be unaware of the location of his waste 

along the route, although he continues to maintain responsibility 

for it. Knowledge of the waste being received and accepted at its 

final destination is not certain until the generator receives a final 

signed paper copy of the manifest from the destination facility. 

With an electronic database, the waste could be tracked at each 

stop, allowing the regulated community, that is, businesses, government entities, and non-profits, as well as regulators and other 

government officials, to know where the waste is in real time. 

Electronic tracking also provides an emergency response benefit. 

Emergency responders would be able to access information online 

of a transport vehicle’s contents, or the expected hazardous wastes 

at a facility, thus potential hazards could be known or anticipated 

prior to or en route to a transportation or facility incident. 

30 

Second, for the time and cost savings of the regulated community 

as well as regulators from postage and paper form acquisition and 

retention costs, to the time impact on businesses as I, the inspector, review paper on site. During a hazardous waste compliance 

regulatory inspection, inspector will typically review 3 years worth 

of manifests. This time includes reviewing the documents, but may 

also include time waiting for the forms to be located and pulled. In 

addition, the regulated community loses time while overseeing the 

inspector as she completes her review on site. This is time lost to 

the regulated community member’s business. As an inspector, I 

would prefer to spend the time on site with the regulated community providing compliance assistance and reducing hazardous waste 

generation as opposed to reviewing paper. 

Reason three, providing access to tracking information in real 

time across State borders, something not readily accessible under 

the current paper-based manifest system. 

Four, giving an inspector access to information to prioritize and 

focus inspection efforts through desktop reviews. This allows for 

more productive use of the taxpayer’s dollar. 

Reason five, electronic manifests would provide for a true adherence to paperwork reduction. Virginia, like many States, has moved 

toward electronic retention of all documents. This not only reduces 

paper, but makes records more accessible to everyone, most importantly, the public. 

And finally, six, making compliance with regulatory manifest retention requirements easier for business by having everything in 

one place. 

In conclusion, an electronic manifest system would ensure national consistency and compliance, save time and costs, make information more accessible, and provide for safer roads and emergency 

response. ASTSWMO is committed to moving hazardous waste 

management, like most every other government program, into the 

21st century. 

That concludes my statement. I am open to questions, and thank 

you for the opportunity to speak with you today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Silvia follows:] 

31 


80936.017
32 


80936.018
33 


80936.019
34 


80936.020
35 


80936.021
36 


80936.022
37 


80936.023
38 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Case. Sir, your full statement is in 

the record. You have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID R. CASE 

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Green, and members 

of the subcommittee, thank you very much for your invitation to 

testify this morning. 

The Environmental Technology Council is the leading trade association for the hazardous waste management industry, and our 

companies produce two to five million manifests every year in order 

to track hazardous wastes from the original point of generation at 

our customer’s facility, over the highways or over the rail tracks, 

to eventually the recycling or treatment or disposal facility that our 

member companies operate. 

I, too, have a list of reasons why the electronic manifest system 

is so important, but I have heard from the chairman most of my 

list of reasons, and from the other witnesses this morning. I think 

we are all in agreement that an electronic manifest system is long 

overdue. Therefore, I would like to use my 5 minutes this morning 

to address some of the other questions that have been raised about 

the system, and in particular, I thought I would focus first on the 

user fee. 

Industry stepped up many years ago when we were first planning an electronic system and said we would be willing to pay for 

the system through a user fee. I know that raises concerns about 

whether the user fee is a kind of indirect tax on industry, but we 

don’t see it that way. The important point to remember is we already pay for the paper system. We pay an enormous amount of 

money for the paper system. We have buy the manifests, we have 

to bear the cost of mailing all the copies through the U.S. mail. We 

have storage facilities where there are reams and reams of file 

drawers containing paper manifests, and we have to bear that cost. 

We see the user fee as a way of obtaining a much more efficient 

and cost effective system that will save us money. So in the end, 

the user fee is a way of getting a net savings while also improving 

the operation of the e-Manifest system. 

The second question that has been raised is about our proposal— 

our support for a ‘‘Share-in-Savings’’ contract as the way of developing the e-Manifest system, and the reason we support that is we 

think a ‘‘Share-in-Savings’’ contract incentivizes the IT contractor 

to build a system that would be best for all the users, otherwise, 

the contractor won’t properly get back its investment and its profit. 

The vendor will only get paid if it develops an efficient, cost effective, user friendly system. We much prefer that approach to a 

standard government contract where the contractor simply meets 

specifications that EPA issues in order to get paid. So we think the 

‘‘Share-in-Savings’’ contract is a preferable way to go. We are not 

wedded to it. If the only way this bill could move forward is if there 

were some conventional contract requirement, we could live with 

that, but we just think a ‘‘Share-in-Savings’’ contract is a much 

preferred way. 

The third issue that has come up has to do sometimes with the 

security of the system. We recognize that paper manifests are not 

39 

particularly secure. They can errors, they can have all sorts of 

problems associated with them, including not being able to read 

handwriting, and we think an e-Manifest system will provide a 

much more secure system. The vendor will have security provisions 

in the software to avoid people hacking in or whatever, and I think 

it will work out just fine. 

Lastly, we have been asked why doesn’t the industry develop a 

system on their own? Why do you need legislation? Why do you 

need EPA to do this? We thought very seriously about developing 

our own system. As you can imagine, our industry, our companies 

have already developed very sophisticated and innovative businessto-business electronic systems. We do all of our hazardous waste 

management, from the initial customer order to waste profiling to 

waste receipts to invoicing, electronically. The only thing that is 

not done electronically is the manifest, and we could very easily integrate that into our system. However, in our discussions with EPA 

and most particularly, the Justice Department, they have emphasized that the manifest is not just a data collection system, it is a 

very important compliance and enforcement system under the law, 

and therefore, it has to be designed, operated, and enforced by the 

government, by EPA. It could not be done by a private entity. 

I think those are the major questions, Mr. Chairman. I am open 

to any other questions, of course, that the committee may have. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Case follows:] 

40 


80936.024
41 


80936.025
42 


80936.026
43 


80936.027
44 


80936.028
45 


80936.029
46 


80936.030
47 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Case, and Mr. Case does yield 

back his time. 

Let me just go briefly to a couple questions. First of all, we understand storage here, and we understand digitization of records. 

If you go to any member’s office, especially in this building, you 

have a whole wall of file cabinets, which I would guess, other than 

Mr. Sarley’s softball gear, I am not sure what is being stored in 

there anymore because everything is digital and filed away—and 

we just don’t have that space. So multiply that by numerous copies 

along the process of what you put in. That is a very good point. 

I think the other one is—and I would like to go to Ms. Silvia, explain the real time—I guess your testimony talked about real time, 

but you added the phrase ‘‘across State lines.’’ So can you just expound on that, and the importance of that for you? 

Ms. SILVIA. Well, I guess I will start with in Virginia, the facilities that I inspect, most of that waste leaves Virginia. It may be 

generated in Virginia but it leaves Virginia, and in order for me to 

verify it has been received, or if I want to check on the status, I 

would have to coordinate with my counterparts in other State 

agencies, where with this system, I would in theory be able to pull 

that information up and see that it is there. 

In some enforcement cases, there may be a requirement on a 

generator to verify that they have removed some hazardous waste. 

This would give them the opportunity of being able to show me instantaneously when it was received in whatever State it went to. 

So it would bring them back to compliance quicker. 

So it is just—right now we don’t have—each State does not necessarily manage manifests in the same way when they are received. A single system like this would allow me to see what is 

going on across the country. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I think any young adult 25 years or younger would 

be aghast at the file cabinets and carbon copy documents that you 

have got to pull from file cabinets, especially in your job inspecting, 

and I think your testimony also raised that issue of when you are 

doing a 3-year back look, actually going and grabbing and pulling 

the files out, that really happens, right? 

Ms. SILVIA. Oh yes, it does. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Very time consuming? 

Ms. SILVIA. Very time consuming. There is no regulatory requirement to keep the paper on site, so oftentimes there is a need to coordinate to go get the paper from wherever it is being kept. For 

smaller businesses in particular, they don’t know what these pieces 

of paper really mean so some pieces may be in one department, another may be with another person, or it may not have even been 

kept. So there is a time element just waiting for them to locate 

those pieces of paper. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. I am going to end and I am going to 

yield now to Mr. Green, the ranking member. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Silvia, you mentioned in your testimony Virginia has established electronic shipping system to track medical waste, and how 

was the upstart of that system paid for? 

Ms. SILVIA. I am afraid I can’t answer that. I am aware of the 

system. It was done at the request of a medical waste transporter, 

48 

but I don’t work directly in the medical waste program. But I 

would be happy to find that information out for you, if you like. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, I would be interested because obviously when 

we are talking about hazardous waste it would be similar for medical waste, how it works and how it was created, a much smaller 

system. 

I know you represent a number of State governments, and I have 

a very urban district in Houston, and industrial wastes are part of 

our everyday life that we live. I have five refineries and chemical 

plants. We try and recycle everything that we can because you 

make money doing it, but there are some things you just can’t do, 

and so you do have to transfer it though to different locations, including some, you know, landfills. 

I know we have a big effort in our area, both with our State 

agency, our city agencies, going down the road our trucks get 

stopped real often. When I am driving in my district I see—whether it is Houston police, the country sheriff, or like I said, Department of Public Safety, and I am sure they are going to stop some 

of the trucks that are in our district. Would that still be—comply 

with what most State laws require to have that manifest on that 

vehicle with electronic waste? Would your members who—I know 

I probably represent a bunch of your members, but would they be 

able to do that with that vehicle? 

Mr. CASE. The Department of Transportation, separate from 

EPA, requires certain kinds of shipping papers to be on the vehicle, 

and those would continue to be on the vehicle. The manifest, 

though, is different. It has lots of very important information on 

the hazard posed by the waste, the volumes, the proper responses, 

so that unlike—you are describing kind of a standard DOT 

stop—— 

Mr. GREEN. Typically it is weight issues, but they also do a full 

inspection. 

Mr. CASE. Right. But even the larger concern, I think, is if there 

is an emergency, if there is a fire on the truck, if there is a spill. 

The current regulations require that the manifest be kept on the 

vehicle. You can imagine if there is a fire in the back of the vehicle, 

and emergency responder doesn’t want to crawl into the cab to find 

the manifest. We would like them to be able to go on a laptop or 

use their smartphone to find all the information they need for the 

response. 

Mr. GREEN. So that would be available to the regulatory agency 

to the law enforcement who is having the response—the first responders? 

Mr. CASE. Yes, indeed. The system as we envision it—and another reason for a ‘‘Share-in-Savings’’ contract is it gives us an opportunity to work with that vendor and make sure all these features are in the system. We would like emergency responders to 

have their own password and identities and ability to access the information they need in the event of an emergency. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I know I am almost out of time and 

I want to have time for my North Caroline colleague, but like I said 

earlier, I have some hesitancy about the Federal Government picking a system, because we don’t have a good record of picking our 

own computers, much less one like that. So I think ‘‘Share-in-SavVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:56 Jun 28, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-15~4\112-15~1 WAYNE
49 

ings’’ may give us that kind of trial and error, because we want to 

make sure it works when you pay for it. 

Mr. CASE. Precisely. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. Chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Harper, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to you each 

for being here today. 

Ms. Silvia, I have a couple of questions I would like to ask you 

first, if I may. You mentioned that you have encountered problems 

with the regulated entities’ paperwork, including their inability to 

find the paperwork. EPA also testified about the ability of an electronic system to substantially reduce data problems. 

So my first question would be, how prevalent is it that regulated 

entities either cannot find their paperwork, the paperwork is hard 

to comprehend, or the regulated entity has had problems filling out 

the paperwork? 

Ms. SILVIA. Well, I will just state that from my own experience 

as an inspector, particularly the smaller businesses, they rely often 

on their service vendor to prepare the form for them. They are unaware of what it means, what the information on it says. It is all 

Greek to them, excuse the term. And so they don’t understand the 

significance of that piece of paper, so it tends not to get the respect 

that it would deserve and gets lost. It is a bill for them, for want 

of a better term. And so oftentimes when I go to a smaller business 

who does not have staff that just do environmental compliance, 

they don’t have this paper. That is a citable violation, and so to 

have an electronic system that would be already in existence. They 

would not have that violation—apparent violation assessed against 

them. 

Mr. HARPER. So you obviously agree with the EPA’s assessment 

that the electronic system would certainly improve that manifest 

data quality? 

Ms. SILVIA. Absolutely, and we see oftentimes because they rely 

on a third party to complete the form for them, there may be errors 

on the form because the person filling it out doesn’t necessarily 

have the firsthand knowledge that the generator themselves have, 

and that too can lead to potential violations for that generator. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. Case—— 

Mr. CASE. Sir. 

Mr. HARPER [continuing]. Our witnesses have mentioned the benefit of the electronic manifest for first responders. I wasn’t here, I 

haven’t heard anybody mention the case out of Akins, North Carolina, and could you tell me how that e-Manifest system may have 

been helpful in that instance? 

Mr. CASE. I would be happy to. 

There was an incident in Akins, North Carolina, probably 4 years 

ago in which a small storage facility—we call them 10-day transfer 

facilities—contained a variety of hazardous wastes and a small fire 

began. We now think that the fire was a result of pool chemicals 

that had been picked up and stored at the facility, and that the fire 

was then accelerated by other wastes that were present. When— 

as I understand it, when the emergency responders arrived they 

50 

did not have the manifest information for what was in the warehouse. They didn’t want to go into the warehouse to try to find it, 

and so they evacuated an enormous amount of people as a safeguard, and they let the building burn down. 

Our belief is the fire could have easily been put out initially if 

the information about the waste was available immediately, electronically and the emergency responders could have had that information. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. The chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Case, let me just pick up where you left off there with the 

emergency responders. Do you envision if we go to an e-Manifest 

system that the responders will have that technology in their vehicles onsite, or would they have to rely on a third party for the information? 

Mr. CASE. We believe they will have ready access on their vehicles to the electronic information. They case use an iPhone, a 

smartphone, an iPad, as Mr. Chairman has in front of him, any of 

the commonly available electronic devices—— 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. And would you envision them getting all of 

the manifest, or just relevant portions of it? 

Mr. CASE. An advantage of an electronic system is it would be 

indexed by transporter, by generator, by any way you wanted to 

index the information so you could easily access it. You wouldn’t 

be searching through lots of electronic documents. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Do you represent the smaller shippers or the 

waste generators? 

Mr. CASE. As customers we do. Our companies are major hazardous waste management companies, but we service dry cleaning 

shops, gas stations, all of the small businesses across the United 

States. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Would you speak to the sliding fee scale that 

I mentioned earlier? Would a fee scale based on the amount of 

waste be helpful? 

Mr. CASE. Yes. I think the vendor will have to come up with a 

fee scale that promotes maximum usage of the electronic system, 

and for those generators who have to use paper, we will accommodate them and simply require some sort of fee for transferring their 

data into the electronic system. It will still be a lot cheaper for 

them than the current system. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Just thinking ahead about the small businesses, I don’t want them to be overly burdened with large fees. 

Mr. CASE. Absolutely, and I think they will be able to take advantage of the electronic system and the savings inherent in that, 

and whatever paper manifests are still required will be handled 

more cheaply. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. 

I will just finish by saying for the first-line responders, which we 

work with very closely, especially in the Telecom Subcommittee, 

and some of the pieces of legislation, whether it is spectrum aucVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:56 Jun 28, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-15~4\112-15~1 WAYNE
51 

tion and whatever dollars go to, what we have been trying to do 

is make sure that Federal dollars do help the local first-line responders and so that the chief or the engine does have the iPad or 

the iPad 2 where they can take pictures or they can drill down and 

look at a building and see the structure and stuff. So I do think 

working together that they can have much more information than 

they have now, which they really have zero now. 

So this is very exciting. We look forward to working with you. 

Thank you for your time. Thank you for the expeditious nature in 

us getting through this, as they have just called votes. Seeing no 

other members and hearing no requests for time, I will call the 

hearing now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

52 


80936.031
53 


80936.032
54 


80936.033
55 


80936.034
56 


80936.035
57 


80936.036
58 


80936.037
59 

Æ 


80936.038