**Summary of Stakeholder Comments By Topic (Transporter Regulations)**  Stakeholder: State of Michigan Topic: Eliminate the generator requirement to have placards available for the transporter Comment: Eliminate the generator requirement to have placards available for the transporter. The 49 CFR requirements should apply, and therefore, not be a part of the hazardous waste inspection process (40 CFR 262.33) Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic: Eliminate redundancy with DOT rules Comment: **40 CFR 262. 30, 262.31, 262.32(a), and 262.33**  . Compliance with the packaging, labeling, and placarding regulations of USDOT is already required under that agency’s regulations. We suggest removing this duplicate requirement. **Stakeholder: ESS Group Topic:**  Clarify non -bulk packaging requirements for consistency

with DOT **Comment: 40 CFR 262.32(b** ). USDOT applies different marking standards to bulk and non
-bulk packages. In general, a bulk package is a package with a capacity m ore than 450 L (approximately 119 gallons ). We suggest that the requirement for additional marking apply to non
-bulk packages instead of packages of 110 gallons or less to be more consistent with DOT regulations. Further, the requirement to include the manifest document number should be revised o nce the new uniform manifest is finalized. Stakeholder: **Gerald L. Mason** - **Private Citizen** Topic: **Update regulations to be consistent w/DOT**  **Comment:** Problem Definition. EPA cross
- references to U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) definitions are out dated. Background and Proposed Resolution. When EPA promulgated the characteristic definitions found in 40 CFR 261 subpart C, the Agency relied on current DOT hazard classifications. Since then, DOT has modified their classifications to fit international standards; however, EPA has not updated the references. The table below illustrates both the current problem and the proposed resolution. See Table included in Docket . Stakeholder: **Pacific NW National Laboratory** Topic: **Update regulations to be consistent**  **w/DOT Comment: Lost comment in process of**  **e ditng, but gist is to continue updating regulations to be consistent with** **DOT.**

**Stakeholder:** PhRMA **Topic:** Update regulations to be consistent w/DOT Comment: 262.20(f)

- This paragraph requires g enerators, under certain situations involving release of hazardous waste from a transport vehicle, to comply with 263.30. O ne of the conditions of 263.30(c) references 49 CFR 171.16 for submitting a written report to DOT under certain circumstances. H owever, the address in 263.30(c)(2) is not consistent with the address provided in 49 CFR 171.16. P hRMA recommends that EPA either ensure consistency with the address in the DOT regulations, or preferably, remove the address from 263.30(c)(2) and simply refe r to 49 CFR 171.16 for the reporting requirements. **Stakeholder:** Alcoa **Topic:** Placarding
- Update and clarify Comment: **§ 262.33**
**– PLACARDING.**  The requirement for generators to placard transport vehicles or make placards available to transporters should be modified. In most cases today transporters provide placards. As such, the requirement should be changed such that generators continue to be responsible for ensuring that hazardous waste transport vehicles are properly placarded, but should no longer be responsible for providing placards to transporters. Stakeholder: Department of Energy (DOE) **Topic:** Harmonize RCRA regulations defining corrosivity and ignitability with DOT’s Comment: 1. **While the hazardous waste characteristic definitions are not part of the hazardous waste generator program, DOE believes generator compliance with hazardous waste determination and pre**  **- transport requirements**  **would benefit from harmonization of the RCRA reg ulations defining corrosivity and ignitability with the U.S.**  **Department of Transportation’s (DOT) hazardous materials regulations (HMRs) defining corrosivity and flammability.** Currently, one property included in the definition for a “corrosive” liquid in the RCRA regulations is that the liquid corrodes steel at a rate greater than 6.35 millimeters per year (40 CFR 261.22). I n comparison, one of the criteria that defines a liquid as “corrosive” in the DOT HMRs is that the liquid corrodes steel at a rate gr eater than 6.25 millimeters per year (49 CFR 173.136 and 173.137). S imilarly, the RCRA regulations define a material as ignitable if its flashpoint is less than 140oF (40 CFR 261.21). I n comparison, the DOT HMRs define a liquid as flammable if its flashp oint is less than or equal to 141oF (49 CFR 173.120). T he reasons for these types of small differences between the RCRA and DOT regulations are not clear, but addressing the inconsistencies between the two regulatory programs could avoid potential conflic ts. 7 commenters; 8 comments