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 more 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 once 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 EPA cross-references to U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) definitions are outdated. 

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 editng, 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 generators, under certain situations involving release of hazardous waste from a 

transport vehicle, to comply with 263.30. One of the conditions of 263.30(c) references 49 CFR 171.16 for submitting a 

written report to DOT under certain circumstances. However, the address in 263.30(c)(2) is not consistent with the address 

provided in 49 CFR 171.16. PhRMA 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 refer 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 

availableto 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 regulations 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). In comparison, one of the criteria that defines a liquid as 

“corrosive” in the DOT HMRs is that the liquid corrodes steel at a rate greater than 6.25 millimeters per year (49 CFR 173.136 

and 173.137). Similarly, the RCRA regulations define a material as ignitable if its flashpoint is less than 140oF (40 CFR 

261.21). In comparison, the DOT HMRs define a liquid as flammable if its flashpoint is less than or equal to 141oF (49 CFR 

173.120). The 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 conflicts.

7 commenters; 8 comments