# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 70 Fed. Reg. 10775 2005

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed May 29 07:27:52 2013

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

## Friday,

March 4, 2005



# Part M



# Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Parts 260, 261, et al.
Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System; Final Rule

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10775 2005Federal Register /Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005 /Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, and 271 [FRL-7867-4]

RIN 2050-AE21

Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Finalrule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)is establishing new requirements revising the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest regulations and the manifest and continuation sheet forms used to trackhazardous waste from a generator's site to the site ofits disposition. The revisions announced today will standardize the content and
appearance ofthe manifest form and continuation sheet (Forms 8700-22 and 22a), make the forms available from a greater number ofsources and adopt

new procedures for tracking certain types ofwaste shipments with the manifest. The latter types ofshipments include hazardous wastes that destination facilities reject, wastes consisting ofresidues from non-empty hazdrdous waste containers, and wastes entering or leaving the United States. DATES: This final rule is effective September 6, 2005. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. RCRA-2001-0032. All documents in the docket are listed inthe EDOCKET index athttp://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is notplaced on the Internet and willbe publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET orin hard copy atthe EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number forthe Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, andthe telephone number forthe EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-0270. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding specific aspects ofthis notice, contact Bryan Groce, Office ofSolid Waste, (703) 308- 8750, groce.bryan@epa.gov, orRichard LaShier, Office ofSolid Waste, (703) 308-8796, lashier.rich@epa.gov. Mail inquiries may be directed to the Office ofSolid Waste, (5304W), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does ThisRuleApply toMe?

This rule affects up to 139,000 entities in atleast 45 industries (seetable below) involved in shipping approximately 12 million tons ofRCRA hazardous wastes annually (non-wastewaters and wastewaters), using between 2.4 and 5.1 million EPA Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifests (EPAForm 8700-22 and continuation sheets EPA Form 8700- 22A). These entities include but are not limited to: Hazardous waste generators; transporters; treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs); federal facilities; state governments; and governmental enforcement personnel dealing with hazardous waste transportation issues. Ifyou have any questions regarding the applicability of this rule to a particular entity, consult the people listedunder FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT..

LIST OF INDUSTRIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY REVISIONS TO THE RCRA MANIFEST FORM AND CONTINUATION SHEET [EPA form 8700-22 &22a]

Item SIC NAICS I Industry orsub-sector identity Item SIC NAICS 

# [ Industry or sub-sectoridentity

Construction excavation work

... Food and

.kindred products

manufacturing. Coated fabrics manufacturing Lumber and wood products

manufacturing. Furniture and fixtures manufacturing. Pulp and allied products manufacturing. Printing and publishing

.............

Chemicals and allied products

mfg. Petroleum and coal products

mfg. Rubber & misc plastic products

mfg. Stone, clay and glass products

mfg. Primary metal manufacturing industries. Fabricated metal products manufacturing. Industrial machinery & equipment mfg. Electronic & other electric

equipment mfg. Transportation equipment manufacturing. 4512 4613

4789 4813

49

4953

4959

50

51

5912

6552

7216

73

7532

7699

8062' 48111 48691

488999

5133

2211

562211

562910

421

422

44 to 45

23311

81232

541

811121

561

62211 Air transportation. Refined petroleum pipelines.

Transportation services n.e.c. Telephone communications.

Electric, gas & sanitary services. Hazardous waste treatment &

disposal. Hazardous waste remediation

services. Wholesale trade (durable

goods). Wholesale trade (nondurable

goods). Drugstores &proprietary retail

stores. Real estate sub-dividers & developers., Dry cleaning plants.

Business services.

Top, body & upholstery repair &

paint shops. Repair shops & related services

n.e.c. General medical & surgical hospitals. 1

............ 2

............

3

............
4

............
5

...... ......

6

............

7

............

8

............

9

............
10

..........
11

..........
12

.........
13

..........

14

..........
15

..........
16

.......... 23593 311

31332

321

337

322

511

325

324

326

327

331

332

333

335

336 2295

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

32

33

34

35

36

37 

### 10776

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10776 2005Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005

### /Rules and Regulations

LIST OF INDUSTRIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY REVISIONS TO THE 

### RCRA MANIFEST FORM AND CONTINUATION SHEET

### Continued
[EPA form 8700-22 & 22a]

Item SIC NAICS Industry or sub-sector identity Item SIC NAICS Industry or sub-sector identity

17

.......... 38 334 Instruments & related products "40 8221 61131 Colleges & universities. mfg. 18

.......... 39 339 Miscellaneous -manufacturing 41 87 541 Engineering & management industries. services. 19

.......... 4111 485 Local and suburban passenger 42 8999 541 Services n.e.c. transit. 20

.......... 4173 48849 Terminal service facilities for 43 95 924 to 925 Environmental quality &housvehicle transport. ing administration. 21

.......... 42 484 Trucking and warehousing

........ 44 9661 92711 Space research &technology. 22

.......... 4212 562112 Hazardous waste collection 45 9711 92811 National security (e.g. military services. -bases). 23

.......... 4491 4883 Marine cargo handling..

B. HowCanIGet CopiesofThis DocumentandOtherRelated Information?

1.Docket.EPA has established an official public docket forthis action under Docket numberRCRA-2001- 0032. The official public docket consist ofthe documents specifically reference in this action, any public comments received, and other information related
to this action. Although a part ofthe official docket, the public docket does
not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) orother information whose disclosure is restricted by statut, The official public docket is the collection ofmaterials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room is open from 8:3(

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. The telephone number forthe Reading Rom is (202) 566-1742 and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-0270.

2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the "Federal Register" listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.This Federal Register also may be accessed from EPA's main manifest web page at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswerl hazwaste/gener/manifest/index.htm. A electronic version ofthe public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/to view public comments, access the index listing ofthe contents ofthe official public docket, and access those documents inthe public docket that an available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified above. Once inthe system, select "search," thenkey in the appropriate docket identification number.

t Outline d I.Background II.Detailed Discussion ofthe FinalRule

A. Standardization ofthe Hazardous Waste

Manifest. B.I.Elimination orConsolidation of

Existing Data Elements-Introduction. 2. Proposed Removal ofState Manifest

Tracking Number. 3. Proposed Removal ofState Generator ID

Field. 4. Proposed Removal ofState Transporter's

ID Fields. 5. Proposed Removal ofTransporter's

Phone Fields. 6. Proposed Removal ofState'Facility's ID

Field. 7. Proposed Removal ofFacility's Phone

Field.

u 8. Proposed Consolidation ofAdditional Descriptions and Special Handling Fields. 9. Continuation Sheet. C.1.Addition ofNew'Data ElementsIntroduction. 2. Addition ofGenerator Site Address

Field. 3. Addition ofEmergency Response Phone

Number Field. 4. Addition ofInternational Shipments

Field. 5. Proposed Addition ofThird Transporter

Field. D. Reduction orElimination of' Optional"

Field Designations. E.1.Proposed Standardization ofHandling

Codes-Introduction. 2. Content of the Handling Code Proposal. 3.Standardization ofHandling Codes. .4.

Adoption ofHazardous Waste Report Management Method Codes. 5.Designation ofProcess Codes as

Mandatory. 6.

Party Responsible for Completing Item 19. F.1. Proposed Standardization ofRCRA

Waste Code Fields-Introduction. 2.Comment Analysis. 3. Final Rule Determinations-Number and

'Allocation of Waste Codes. 4. Final Rule Determinations-Entering

StateWaste Codes. 5. .FinalRule Determination-Waste Code

Hierarchy. 6. Final Rule Determination-Waste Codes

are Mandatory Fields. G.1. Other Manifest Form RevisionsIntroduction. 2. Definition ofBulk Container. 3. Use ofFractions. 4. Offerors andthe Preparation of

Hazardous Waste Shipments and Manifests. H.1. Delayed Compliance D3ate for Revised

Form-Introduction. 2. Comment Analysis. 3. Delayed Compliance Date-Final Rule

Approach. 4. Delayed Compliance Date-Iiteraction

withDOT Authority. III. Manifest Form Acquisition and Registry

A.1. Manifest Form AcquisitionIntroduction. 2. Proposed Manifest Acquisition

Provisions. 3. Final Manifest Acquisition Provisions. B.1. Proposed Manifest Registry and

Printing Specifications-Introduction. 2. Final Manifest Registry. 3. Final Manifest Print Specifications. 'IV. Rejected Load and Container Residue Shipments A.1. Rejected Load and Container Residue

Shipments-Introduction. 2. Proposed Added Fields to Discrepancy

Item. 3. Proposed §§ 264.72(d) and 265.72(d). 4. Proposed §§ 264.72(e), (fl and 265.72(e),

(f0. '

5. Proposed §§ 264.72(g) and 265.72(g). 6. Proposed Changes to §263.21(b). 7. Proposed Generator Regulations at40

CFR 262.34. ,B.1. Final Tracking Procedures for Rejected

Waste and Residue Shipments. 2. Comment Analysis andFinal Provisions

for Second Manifest. 3. Comments Analysis andFinal Generator

Certification Block. 4. Comments Analysis and Final Returned

Shipments. 

### 10777

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10777 2005Federal Register /Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

5. Comment Analysis and Final Staging

Waste at the Rejecting Facility. V. Final Unmanifested WasteReporting Requirements VI. Administration and Enforcement ofThese Regulatory Changes in-the States A. Uniform Applicability ofRevised

Manifest Requirements in All States. B. General Policy on RCRA Applicability of

Federal Rules in Authorized States. C. Authorization of States for Today's Final

Rule. D. Consistency Requires Adoption of

Revised Manifest in All States. VII. Statutory andExecutive-OrderReviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act. C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

With Tribal Governments. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children-Applicability ofExecutive Order 13045. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, orUse. I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act. J. Congressional Review Act.

I. Background

* On May 22, 2001, EPA published a notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM).
to revise the hazardous waste manifest system (66 FR 28240). The revisions, proposed in May 2001, aimed to reduce the manifest system's paperwork burden

on users, while enhancing the effectiveness ofthe manifest as atool to track hazardous waste shipments that

are shipped from the site ofgeneration
to treatment, storage, or disposal facilities (TSDFs). The proposed rule would have accomplished this by adopting a standardized manifest form with fewer or no optional data fields, by adopting a new approach for distributing and acquiring the form, by standardizing further the data elements. and procedures for tracking certain types ofhazardous waste shipments, and by allowing the manifest to be completed, signed, transmitted and stored electronically. Thus, the proposed rule consisted ofmanifest system reforms oftwo distincttypes: (1) Revisions to the manifest form itselfand the procedures for Using the form (hereafter, "form revisions"); and (2) revisions aimed atreplacing the paperbased manifest system with a nearly paperless, electronic approach to tracking hazardous waste shipments (hereafter, "e-manifest").

EPA received 64 sets ofpublic

comments in response to the May 22, 2001 proposed rule notice from hazardous waste generators, transporters', waste management firms, consultants, an information technology vendor and ten statehazardous waste agencies. Commenters generally supported our goals offurther standardizing the manifest form elements and reducing variability
amongthe manifests that authorized RCRA state agencies currently distribute. However, the commenters had differing views onmany ofthe particulars ofthe proposed revisions to the manifest. Moreover, there were a substantial number ofcomments that took issue with EPA's proposed approach to the e-manifest, particularly with respect to thetechnical rigor ofthe proposal, the assumptions relied upon byEPA in its projections ofburden and
cost reductions, the feasibility ofthe proposed electronic signature options, the highly detailed security requirements aimed at preventing fraud and data corruption, the reliance on regulated industry to develop private emanifest systems, and the NPRM's suggestion that state programs may not be required to adopt the e-manifest requirements within their authorized RCRA state programs.

Webelieve that the comments addressing the e-manifest proposal raised significant substantive issues that merit further analysis and stakeholder outreach prior to adopting a final approach. The comments received in
response to the form revisions proposal,

on the other hand, raised fewer difficult issues that would deter us from going forward at this time with a finalrule. Therefore, EPA has decided to separate the e-manifest from the form revisions portion ofthe finalrulemaking. Today's notice announces our final rule approach only withrespect to the manifest form revisions. Final action on the e-manifest will bebased on the results of continuing analysis and outreach on several key rulemaking issues that are fundamental to the ultimate decision regarding whether EPA will adopt the e-manifest.

The key e-manifest issues that must be resolved include: (1)Whether the emanifest should be decentralized as proposed and hosted by multiple private systems, centrally byEPA orby another party; (2)ifadecentralized approach were to be adopted, how EPA's standards should address interoperability ofprivate systems; (3) whether the final e-manifest approach should be integrated withbiennial reporting or other functions supported by EPA,.the states orother agencies; (4) what electronic signature methods should be included inthe final rule; and, (5)the technical rigor and detail necessary inEPA's final standards to ensure a workable approach to the emanifest.

While today's rulefinalizes action only on the manifest form revisions, the e-manifest remains a highpriority for the Agency. EPA conducted a stakeholder outreach meeting dedicated
to the e-manifest during May 19-20, 2004 in Washington, DC. We learned from these focused stakeholder discussions that there is strong support for the e-manifest among the various private and public sector interests involved with waste generation and management, as well as among the State agencies that collect manifest data and

oversee compliance with the manifest system. In particular, we learned that there is strong support among stakeholders for a consistent, national emanifest system, although there are varying views on whether anational system should be privately or publicly hosted and funded, or, developed as a joint public/private venture. Significantly, the user community indicated at the May 2004 stakeholder meeting that itis willing to help fund the establishment and operation ofan emanifest system through the payment of reasonable user or transactional fees for e-manifest services. Given the strong interest expressed by stakeholders ina national e-manifest system, EPA is now exploring ifthere is afeasible means for EPA or another party to develop and implement a national e-manifest system,

aswell as exploring in more detail the design and performance requirements of any such system. The Agency expects to

announce its-decision onthe future direction ofthe e-manifest by the end of Fiscal Year 2005.

In Section II ofthis preamble, we discuss the elements ofthe final form revisions rule, including a summary of

our May 2001 proposal, the significant
comments raised inresponse to the proposal, our final rule determinations, and the rationale forthose determinations. Onbalance, the final form revisions resemble the.proposed rule's contents very closely. We adopted relatively minor changes in response to public comments. For example, we accepted the great number ofcomments urging EPA notto retain any manifest data fields as "optional". fields. Thus, today's final rule introduces changes from theproposal to the RCRA waste code fields and to the handling code fields, since these elements will be mandatory fields to be completed on all manifests.

With respect to the Generator Identification field onthe form, we accepted the comments asking us to expand this fieldto include the generator's site address, ifdifferent from 

### 10778

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10778 2005

### Federal Register

### /Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

the mailing address alreadyrequired on the form. We are also finalizing the proposed changes to the manifest form acquisition requirements, and providing

more guidance and information onthe particulars ofthe Registry process by which EPA will authorize entities adhering to the new federal printing specification to print and distribute manifests.

In addition,with respect to the proposed rejected waste and residue fields and procedures, we accepted the

numerous comments asking EPA to allow users to mark up the original manifest in some instances when they forward rejected waste shipments to alternate facilities orreturn shipments
to generators, rather than always require treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs)to initiate anew manifest. We also adjusted the rejected
waste proposal to explain that the TSDFs that initiate new manifests for
purposes of forwarding rejected waste or residue shipmentsbear the limited liability of an "offeror" with respect to the forwarded wastes, and notthe more extensive liabilities ofRCRA generators. We discuss these and other changes from the proposed rule in the following section.

II.Detailed Discussion ofthe Final Rule

A. Standardization oftheHazardous WasteManifest.As we explained inthe May 22, 2001 proposed rule (see 66 FR 28240 at 28243), the adoption ofthe Uniform Manifest in 1984 did not entirely eliminate the problems with lack ofconsistency and uniformity that have existed since the inception ofthe manifest program. Many problems arise from states' varying use ofavailable optional fields, users' different understandings aboutwhat information
to enter inthe current data fields, and different copy distribution systems and submission requiremnents among authorized state programs. All ofthese differences have forced waste handlers
to expend considerable effort and incur significant paperworkburden in order
to comply with the varying state manifest requirements. Wereceived many strongly positive comments endorsing ourproposal to further standardize the manifest format and procedures, effectively reducing the burden on waste handlers. Standardization ofthe manifest form involves threerelated measures that we included inthe proposed rule. First,the proposed rule discussed eliminating or consolidating several ofthe existing data fields whose waste transportation

or data tracking functions were neither essential nor appeared justified by the burden they caused to the manifest system. Second, the proposed rule discussed adding several new fields that EPA, states, or stakeholders believed

were necessary to improve the effectiveness ofthe manifest for tracking
waste. Third,the proposed rule addressed eliminating orreducing the number ofoptional fields foruse bythe states. The Uniform Manifest adopted in 1984 included eleven such optional fields. The states varying implementation ofthese optional'fields

on state-specific formats resulted in generators, transporters and TSDFs• having to stock avariety ofstates' manifest forms and remain cognizant of the differences in states' requirements. We will explain how the final rule addresses each ofthese three proposed

measures.

B.1. EliminationorConsolidationof ExistingDataElements-Introduction. In the NPRM, we proposed to remove nine data elements from the Uniform Manifest form.All butone ofthese nine items appear in what'is known asthe "state optional" or upper rightarea of the current manifest, rather thanbeing among the items that are designated as mandatory fields. The nine data elements that we proposed to remove or consolidate with other spaces on the manifest were: VIII. Item A State Manifest Document Number, IX. Item B State Generator's ID, X. Item C State Transporter's ID, XI. Item D Transporter's Phone, XI1. Item E State Transporter's ID, XIII. Item F Transporter's Phone, XIV. Item G State Facility's ID, XV. Item H Facility's Phone, and XVI. ItemJ Additional Descriptions for Materials.
In short, the proposed rule would have removed all ofthe fields currently designated as "state optional," except for current optional Item I, which is reserved'for collecting RCRA waste code information, and current Item J,which collects data on handling codes. With regard to Item I,.we proposed to retain, enlarge and make mandatory the optional data element for collecting
waste codes. Section II.F.6 ofthis preamble includes a discussion ofthe final rule's treatment ofwaste code information. With respect to ItemJ/we proposed to standardize the information
to be entered here around thehazardous
waste management method codes entered for hazardous waste reporting
purposes.

The proposal to remove the other nine data elements was grounded on several factors: (1) A desire to reduce the time spent completing the manifest; (2)the recognition that several ofthe nine elements were redundant with each other; (3) the recognition that a few
states were using several ofthe optional fields as tools for "niche" data reporting, sometimes inways that were not contemplated byEPA orDOT in 1984 wheriiwe decided to include the optional fields on the manifest; and (4) the recognition that all shareholders prefer that the manifest remain a onepage format that collects the most essential waste shipment information. Thus, the addition ofseveral new tracking fields to the form will of necessity require space to be freed up on the form for thisnew information, and require usto remove items that appear less essential fortracking waste shipment and management information.

We received several comments endorsing the proposal to eliminate all nine ofthese "optional" fields as a way ofreducing burden and variability in the manifest system. These commenters pointed out that the data involved consisted largely ofstate ID Numbers, facility phone numbers, or other static information that emergency responders

orwaste handlers could obtain elsewhere. These comments were balanced by other comments suggesting that most ofthe fields we proposed to

remove provided some useful contact information that should be entered on the form for the benefit ofemergency responders, state agency personnel, or in some instances, other waste handlers. However, we clearly could not retain all ofthese data elements and still accommodate any changes to the form that would add or delineate in more detail other waste tracking information that stakeholders urged us to adopt as part ofthe manifest revision effort, unless we were willing to expand the manifest to a two-page document. Given that the current one-page manifest already entails preparing and filing between four and eight copies, and the

concerns thathave been raised byusers with Continuation Sheets that canbe separated and misplaced during transit,

we do notbelieve that a two-page format would be an acceptable outcome. We believe that-it is essential to retain the manifest's one-page format, and this choice necessitates that additions to the form be offset with deletions. Thus, in making final decisions on what fields to eliminate, the Agency relied heavily on the numerous comments onthis subject, but had to exercise itsjudgment in determining which data elements were most essential to the transportation and tracking functions ofthe manif6st, which data elements avoided duplication with data colleeted elsewhere, and which data elements 

### 10779

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10779 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

seemed to provide the mostbenefit to the greatest number ofstakeholders. We explain our final decisions for each of these nine data elements below.

2. Proposed Removal ofState, ManifestTracking Number.The State Manifest Tracking Number is not necessary,'given the new manifest acquisition process discussed inSection III.A.3 ofthispreamble. When the new manifest form becomes effective, a registered printer will assign each manifest aunique, pre-printed Manifest Tracking Number. Printers can obtain authority to print manifests by registering with EPA under the Registry process and adhering to the federal printing specification for the manifest. There no longerwill be separate state versions ofthe manifest form, and authorized states will no longer control the assignment ofState Manifest ' Numbers to the new form. Thus, the State Manifest Number's role-assuring uniqueness ofeach manifest and facilitating the tracking ofmanifests in databases-is subsumedby the new mandatory requiremenffor Manifest Tracking Numbers to be pre-printed on the forms.

3. Proposed Removal ofState Generator IDField.We proposed inthe May 2001 NPRMto remove this data element from the revised manifest form, but comments we received have persuaded us to retain a State's ability to require a State Generator ID number in certain instances. Several comments from state agencies pointed out that,in certain instances, states regulate generators ashazardous waste generators under theirprograms, butthe generators do not have EPA ID numbers. For example, cases exist where a facility generates awaste regulatedby the state

ashazardous (states may have broaderin-scope programs), but is not a " hazardous waste under the federal RCRA waste listings or characteristics. Similarly, the state may implement a broader-in-scope program that does not include asmany ofthe federal exemptions from the definition of solid

or hazardous wastes, or, the state may not recognize the status ofconditionally exempt small quantity generators or other conditionally exempt wastes. In these cases, EPA would notissue such

a generator an EPA Generator ID. However, the state would have a legitimate interest in assigning a State Generator ID Numberto identify that generator on manifests or other submissions and inthe state's databases. We agree with these conmenters that there are valid reasons forretaining the State Generator ID field on the manifest and forproviding the state authority to require such an IDwhen no , corresponding EPA IDNumber is assigned to that generator. Therefore, in this final rule, the manifest form will provide a common field for entering the generator's EPA or State IDNumber. In this way, it is notnecessary to retainthe State Generator ID item as a separate data field. We emphasize that the State Generator ID Number should only be entered inthis field when there is no available EPA ID Number for the generator.

4. Proposed Removal ofState Transporter's IDFields.Under the existing Uniform Manifest, users record State Transporter's ID numbers in optional Items C and E We proposed to

remove these data elements in the May 2001 proposed rule,primarily because

we believed that allhazardous waste transporters would have EPA ID numbers; there was no reason to retain data elements thatwould collect redundant information. In addition, we proposed to remove these data elements because we understood that states were using the Transporter ID field to collect certain types ofinformation that were not authorized,under the 1984 Uniform Manifest Rule that established the optional fields and setrestrictions on their use.We intended the Transporter ID number fieldto record numbers established byEPA or states to identify

a transportation company. Over the years, however, some states elected to

use this field to collect identifying information onparticular vehicles (e.g., registration numbers) or drivers (e.g., training certification numbers). EPA previously has issued guidance or interpretations stating that such uses are inconsistent with the federal program.

Several commenters requested that the State Transporter ID fieldbe retained in this rule. Several state agencies and a waste management facility commenter pointed outthat

some states, infact, use thisfield to check whether waste transporters or theirvehicles are properly licensed in the state. EPA does not agree with these
commenters that the states' interest in licensing hazardous waste transporters

or registering transportation vehicles or drivers is sufficient to warrant retaining the State Transporter IDNumber fields

on the revised manifest. Infact, these comments-only confirm our beliefthat the use ofthis field overthe years has extended to areas that were not contemplated or allowed when the Uniform Manifest Rule was issued in 1984. The federal regulations do not require states to issue licenses to hazardous waste transpoirters. There are ways to verify thetransporters' statelicensed status other thanrequiring generators to enter license information or vehicle registration numbers on each hazardous waste manifest. The Transporter IDfield's purpose was to identify each transporter company uniquely and indicate its eligibility under RCRA to handle and transport hazardous waste. While states may issue licenses to hazardous waste transporters, we do notbelieve that the Uniform Manifest should contain statespecific data requirements aimed at enforcing transporter licensing requirements that vary from state to state. We didnot receive any comments suggesting that there were state regulated .transportersthatlacked an EPA ID number. Therefore, this final rule removes the State Transporter ID fields from the manifest form, and affirms that itis sufficient forthe purposes ofthe revised manifest to enter only the transportation company's EPA ID number.

5.Proposed Removal ofTransporter's PhoneFields.Under the existing form, Items D and F are optional fields where

users can record phone numbers forup to two transporters that maybe identified in the mandatory transporter fields ofthe Uniform Manifest. The May 2001 NPRM proposed to remove Items D and F because we believed it was unnecessary to record the transporter phone numbers along with the other mandatory phone numbers. Several
conmenters asked us to retain the transporter phone fieldsbecause ofthe convenience accorded waste handlers who have grown accustomed to finding this contact information onthe form.

EPA does not agree with the
commenters that convenience ofthe parties inthis instance provides a sufficiently compelling argument for retaining the transporter phone number fields on the form.We believe that the argument for retaining transporter phone contact information would be compelling ifthere were information in

. the comments suggesting that this is vital information for emergency responders. However, the revised form

nowincludes an Emergency Response Phone Number field (explained in Section II.C.3 ofthis preamble), which is consistent with DOT requirements for hazardous materials shipping papers. We believe that including thisnew data element-dedicated to Emergency Response purposes-effectuates the manifest's emergency response purpose
more effectively than recording each transporter company's phone number

onthe form. Moreover, the revised manifest still requires phone numbers forthe generator and,the designated facility, who are directly responsible for reconciling discrepancy and exception
events. Waste handlers should notbe 

### 10780

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10780 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

greatly inconvenienced ifthey must at times resort to their internal contact lists rather than the Uniform Manifest to obtain a transporter's current phone number. Therefore, today's finalrule

removes the transporter phone number data elements from the revised manifest form.

6.Proposed Removal ofState Facility's IDField.Item G is an optional field on the existing Uniform Manifest, used to record a State Facility ID number. Weproposed to.remove this data element inMay 2001 based on our beliefthat itproduced duplicate information already provided by the EPA ID Number inItem 10 ofthe existing form. Designated facilities with EPA ID Numbers already are identified uniquely onthe manifest and in RCRA databases (e.g., RCRAInfo). While
commenters suggested it was convenient to use these numbers to

ensure compliance with state licensing requirements, we did not receive
comment that refuted our argument concerning redundancy. While permitted states may issuetheir own facility identification numbers, it is not necessary to burden waste handlers or the revised, standardized manifest form, with a requirement to enter duplicative facility identifiers. Therefore, this final ruleremoves the State Facility ID data element from the revised manifest form. 7. Proposed Removal of Facility's PhoneField.The existingmanifest form designates Item H as an optional data element where users can record the designated facility's phone number. The NPRM proposed to remove this data element from therevised form because

we believed that users could obtain this
contact information through means other than the manifest. However, we received a substantial number of comments from waste handlers and authorized states urging EPA to retain this data field. We learned .from these
commenters that generators, transporters and agency personnel use this information to address discrepancies, exceptions or other issues that arise from shipments of
waste moving in commerce. Resolving discrepancies and exceptions are important waste tracking functions served by the manifest, and the
comments persuaded us that the facility's phone number facilitates the performance ofthese critical tracking functions. Therefore, the revised manifest form retains space forentering the facility's phone number. The revised manifest will includethis space inthe Designated Facility's Name and Site Address field as a mandatory data element. 8. ProposedConsolidationof AdditionalDescriptionsandSpecial HandlingFields.Inthe May 2001 NPRM, we proposed to remove Item

### J. (Additional Descriptions forMaterials Listed Above) from the manifest and to consolidate this information with that of existing Item 15 (Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information). Today's rule creates a combined data element, Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information, which appears as Item 14

on the revised manifest form. We proposed to consolidate these two data elements tocreate space on the revised form to accommodate the new International Shipments field and expanded discrepancy space, and because stakeholders previously had petitioned EPA to combine these two information fields.1

Comments onthis proposal reflected

avariety ofviews. While commenters did not objectperseto our proposal to consolidate these two data elements, we received several comments expressing

concerns about the amount of space allotted to the field, as well as many comments concerning the type of -information that individual states might require inthis block. Comments from generators, waste industry members and states stressed the need for more space

on the revised manifest for the Special Handling and Additional Information field than we originally proposed. Industry commenters expressed the

concern that the field, as proposed, would leave waste handlers too little
space to enter waste profile information, bar codes depicting waste information,

or information already required inthis
space by existing federal and state programs. State commenters echoed this
concern, and one state (NewYork) added that theproposed field would not allow the state to track parameters such

as the specific gravity ofwastes (usedto convert waste volume unitsto units of mass) orthe ultimate handling code for wastes processed by multiple TSDFs. Industry comments also voiced strongly and frequently the concern that the revised Special Handling and Additional Information field would become a "catch-all" for entering various types-ofinformation. These commenters worried that eliminating many ofthe current "state optional"

IThe manifest reform effortbegan in 1990 with the filing ofa rulemaking petition bythe Association ofState and Territory Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO). The petition requested, among other things, greater standardization ofthe manifest form, including the consolidation ofthese two elements. Forfurther information about thispetition, seeRCRA Docket F-2000-UWMP-FFFFF. fields from the form would resultin
state programs requiring waste handlers
to enter this information instead in Item 14 ofthe revised form. These
commenters urged EPA to explicitly restrict the information that state agencies could require inthis block, so that the anticipated paperworkburden reductions under the revised form would notbe diminished.

Inresponse to these comments, today's revised manifest form includes Item 14 asproposed, butwith minor modifications. Because we accepted
comments suggesting that EPA not include a third Transporter block on the revised form, and accepted also the
comment that the proposed form provided too much space for the new International Shipment field, we were able to create additional space for
purposes ofItem 14.

More significantly, we are limiting the scope ofinformation that users may enter in this field. Due to today's changes to other manifest form data elements, some ofthe previously required information inthe "Special Handling" field ofthe Uniform Manifest will no longer need to be entered in Item 14. For example, the revised form includes a new International Shipment field, whichtracks imports and exports ofhazardous waste. Thus, itwill notbe necessary to enter export shipments' port ofexit information in the revised form's SpecialHandling and Additional Information Block,nor will it be necessary fortransporters to sign and date the manifest here to indicate when

awaste shipment has left the U.S. Moreover, the revised form has space to enter upto six RCRA waste codesfor each waste stream identified inItem 9b ofthe new form. Today's rule also clarifies that no more than six waste codes may be entered for each waste.
stream(seeSection II.F.3 ofthis preamble), which should eliminate the needto enter additional RCRA waste codes in this block.

Under today's final rule, EPA is limiting the use ofnew Item 14 primarily to waste handlers to record their site-specific or shipment-specific information. This will allow waste handlers to supply information to facilitate the proper management or tracking ofwaste materials as required by their companies' business processes. With regard to the "Special Handling" aspect ofthis Item, we expect.waste handlers to continue to use this field to enter waste profile numbers, container codes, Emergency Response Guide numbers, bar codes orother site-specific

or company-specific tracking information. We anticipate that waste handlers may use the "Additional 

### 10781

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10781 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/ Friday, March 4, 2005 /Rules and Regulations

Description" field ofthe revised Item 14
to enter chemical names, constituent percentages, physical state or specific gravity ofwastes identified with volume units in Item 9b ofthe revised-form.

The federal regulatory uses ofthe Special Handling field ofItem 14 are limited to: (1)Identification ofthe original manifest tracking number for rejected waste orresidue shipments that

are being forwarded to an alternate facility orreturned to the generator under a second manifest; and (2) specification ofPCB waste descriptions and PCB out-of-service dates under 40 CFR 761.207. Waste handlers, however,
cannotbe required to enter information in this space to meet state regulatory requirements.

Werecognize that states have previously used the Additional Description field to record state-specific information such as ultimate process codes for treating wastes, information relating to eligibility for state-specific exemptions, and information indicating the eligibility ofspecific wastes for differential fees or assessments levied by some states based onhow these
wastes are managed. Since the revised form will no longer allow state-specific information ofthis type to beentered in Item 14, states will need to find other

means to flag state-specific information ofthis type so that the standardized manifest does notbecome burdened with state-specific data requirements. To the extent that such state-specific information can be captured by waste code information, we urge the states to develop appropriate waste codes to convey this information, and require its entry among the Waste codes to be recorded in Item 13 ofthe new form. In this way, all state-specific information requirements could beconveyed in Item 13 rather than being dispersed across several data elements. EPA will support the dissemination ofinformation to manifest users on state waste code requirements, and we urge states to address any needed waste code changes during the period before the delayed compliance date ofthis rule.

9. Continuation Sheet.In the NPRM,

we explained that the manifest system includes both the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (EPAForm 8700-22) and the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Continuation Sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A). We clarified that the continuation sheet includes many ofthe

same data elements as the manifest form and merely adds additional fields to identify additional transporters orwaste streams which do not fit on the manifest. In thisregard, we explained

our intent to implement the proposed revisions withrespect to boththe manifest and the corresponding data fields found on the continuation sheet. EPA requested that commenters consider boththe manifest and continuation sheet in providing
comments. The majority ofcommenters

on the continuation sheet asked for clarification on its use and design.

In response to commenters' requests,

we are clarifying today that the continuation sheet being published in therule will continueto be used inthe

same way asthe previous continuation sheet (e.g., when more than two transporters transport the waste). Moreover, the design ofthe new continuation sheet closely mirrors the previous continuation sheet, except that ithas beenrevised to incorporate changes being made to the manifest form.Thus, the continuation sheet no longerincludes fields for State Transporter ID numbers or phone numbers or the field-onthe previous continuation sheet denoted Item S, Additional Descriptions for Materials Li~ted Above. Eliminating these blocks freed up space on the continuation sheet which allowed usto add an additional low inthe U.S. DOTDescription block, increasing the number ofrows from nine to ten. The continuation sheet no longer includes blocks for a Manifest DocumentNumber or a State Manifest Document Number. These have been replaced by ablockrequiring a unique, pre-printed TrackingNumber that will

serve essentially the same function as the Manifest Document Number and State Manifest Document Number. However, the new continuation sheet includes a single field for the generator's EPA or state ID Number. The continuation sheet also includes fields for federally required waste codes and Hazardous Waste Report Management Method Codes and includes a Discrepancy fieldif additional space is needed to describe a 'manifest discrepancy. Unlike the Discrepancy field on the manifest form, the continuation sheet's Discrepancy field "does not include check boxes to indicate the type ofdiscrepancy or a designated
space to provide the manifest reference number. EPAbelieves the manifest form's Discrepancy field provides ample
space for this information. Finally,

. whereas the previous continuation sheet included letters "a" through "i" in'the nine rows ofthe U.S. DOT Description field, EPA has removed these letters from this field in the new continuation sheet and will nowrequire the manifest preparer to number these rows. EPA

reasons that the manifest preparer may need to complete multiple continuation sheets for a shipment and that the preparer should number these rows consecutively from one continuation sheet to the next, to reflect the total number ofwastes being shipped. The numbering ofthe wastes on the first continuation sheet should start with Waste #5, and should continue from there forward until all wastes being shipped have been numbered and identified.

C.1. Addition of NewDataElementsIntroduction.The May 2001 NPRM suggested several new data elements that stakeholders argued were necessary

or useful to improve the hazardous
waste manifest as a tool fortracking
waste shipments, forfacilitating emergency responders' activities and recording waste management data. Specifically, the NPRM proposed and solicited comment on: (1)Adding a Generator Site Address field to the form; (2)adding an Emergency Response Telephone Number field; (3) adding an International Shipments field; and, (4) adding athird Transporter field to the transporter information area ofthe manifest.

The NPRM also included several other new waste tracking elements that could be viewed as additions to the manifest form. Specifically, we proposed to expand the space onthe form reserved for recording RCRA waste codes (currentBlock I). The current Uniform Manifest includes space for

one RCRA code; the proposed rule would have enlarged this space to accommodate up to six federal or state waste codes. Furthermore, the proposed rule suggested expanding the Discrepancy field by adding check boxes and information fields to facilitate tracking rejected waste shipments and shipments involving non-empty container residues. We received many comments on our proposal to expand the waste codes, as well as the rejected
waste and residue tracking requirements. Since these proposals involved more complex substantive issues than the other proposed additions summarized in this section, we discuss

. our final decisions on the waste code and discrepancy space proposals below in separate Sections II.F. and IV.A.2 of this preamble.

2.Addition ofGenerator SiteAddress Field.While requesting comment onour proposed reductions in state optional fields (see66 FR 28240 at 28254), we also requested comment on a stakeholder suggestion to include a space on the form to record the generator's physical site address, either in lieu ofor in addition to the current requirement for generators to provide their mailing address on the form. Although we did not, include the 

### 10782

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10782 2005Federal Register

### /Vol. 70, No. 42/ Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

Generator Site Address field in the proposed ruleform, we highlighted the issue and solicited comment on its merits. Originally, we refrained from including the Site Address field inthe proposed ruleform because wewanted
to avoid introducing duplicative data elements to themanifest form. At that time, we thoughtthat themanifest already included the site-specific Generator IDnumber, and we believed that this site-specific number, in tandem withthe generator's mailing address,

was sufficient to identify agenerator site by location. 

### ' Comments on this issue, however, persuaded us to include the Generator's Site Address field on the revised form.- This issue was ofgreat interest to the authorized states who identified the addition ofthe generator site address as

a priority issue during the development ofthe proposed rule. Our state agency partners advised us that the mailing address fora company's corporate offices could be in a different state from the site address where waste shipments actually initiated. Thus, manifest copies. could be routed erroneously to the state corresponding to the mailing address, rather than to the state responsible for overseeing the generation site. In addition, these states suggested that the EPA Generator IDnumber was not always a reliable site-specific identifier ofgeneration, and thatthe Generator's Site Address onthe manifest would be

a more reliable indicator ofthe origin of

a waste shipment ina manifest system that purports to track waste from "cradle-to-grave." Furthermore, a site address is necessary inthose instances where shipments mustbereturned to the generator. Although industry
commenters tended to oppose the proposal to add a Generator's Site Address fieldto the form, some agreed it would be useful for returning shipments.

After considering these comments, we have decided to include the Generator's SiteAddress field on the manifest. We retained the current requirement to enter a generator's mailing address, because webelieve that the generators should be able to designate a corporate office where signed copies ofthe manifest are collected and managed. We do notbelieve that requiring generators to enter their site address overburdens them since they only have to do so when this location differs from their mailing address. To ensure that the new field's limited use is understood clearly by waste handlers, the field's caption contains distinct textexplicitly stating that the site address should only be entered when it is different from the mailing address. 3. Addition of EmergencyResponse PhoneNumberField.Because the hazardous waste manifest is also a "shipping paper" under DOT's Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs), itmust include information specified in the HMRs for shipping papers. As we explained inthe proposed rule, DOT currently requires

anEmergency Response Phone Number

on the shipping paper formost shipments ofhazardous materials (See 49 CFR 172.604). Without dis'crete space provided for this regulatory requirement

on the manifest, generators have complied by entering the emergency responder's phone number in eitherthe margin ofthe form, the Generator's Phone Number field, the Special Handling field, or inthe spaces designated for DOT shipping descriptions.

The Emergency Response Phone Number field provides vital information for emergency responders to use inthe
event ofan accident or other serious incidentthat occurs while ahazardous materials shipment is en route to its destination. The phone number must belong to the generator or other agency

ororganization that accepts responsibility forproviding detailed information aboutthe shipment. Additionally, the number must correspond to a phone that is monitored 24 hours per day while the waste is in transportation. The person assigned to thisphone musthave either personal knowledge or immediate access to a person with knowledge ofthe material being shipped, aswell as comprehensive emergency yesponse, spill cleanup and incident mitigation information about the material. To communicate the importance ofthis information, EPA proposed in the NPRM to add a specific data element to record thisinformation. Also, to ensure that there would be neither redundancy inthe recording ofphone numbers nor ambiguity aboutwhich phone was intended foremergency response purposes, we proposed to eliminate the two optional Transporter.Phone Number fields. We are finalizing this approach intoday's finalrule. Therefore, under today's revised manifest form, the manifest will continue to require the phone numbers ofthe generator and the designated TSDF (so that exceptions and discrepancies can be resolved)to be entered, and itwill now require as well the phone number designated forthe vital emergency response functions. The revised manifest form will not provide
space for entering additional transporter phone numbers.

The use ofthe Emergency Response Phone Number field (Item 3) is appropriate for those cases in whichthe listed phone number applies to every item ofwaste material listed inItem 9b ofthe manifest. However, there maybe instances (e.g., consolidated shipments) where more than one emergency response number may apply to the various waste items listed on the manifest, because specific listed items may be associated with different
emergency response numbers. In these
cases, DOTregulations specify that the applicable emergency response numbers should appear immediately following the shipping descriptions under Item 9b. See 49 CFR 172.604(a)(3). Therefore, in orderto maintain consistency with the applicable DOT regulations, today's rule also clarifies thatItem 3 isto be used for entering emergency response phone information only when there is

one Emergency Response Phone Number that applies to allthe waste materials described in Item 9b. Otherwise, the phone number associated with each specific material should be entered after the description ofthe material in Item 9b.

4. Addition of International ShipmentsField.In the May 22, 2001 NPRM, we proposed to revise the manifest form by adding an explicit field for recording information on transboundary shipments ofhazardous wastes. These shipments involve imports and exports ofhazardous waste to and from the U.S. under bilateral agreements or other arrangements with foreign governments, waste importers and waste exporters. Current regulations require hazardous waste exporters to record the waste's port ofexit onthe form; transporters exportingwaste must sign and date the manifest to indicate when the shipment left U.S. territory and leave a copy ofthe manifest with U.S. Customs officials.

While these hazardous waste export requirements already apply to exporters and transporters, the current Uniform Manifest does notreserve any specific
space for collecting this data. Inorder to comply with existing regulations, exporters enter the port ofexit and transporters provide the date and signature for a shipment leaving the U.S. in the Special Handling and Additional Information field ofthe
current form. In several cases, transporters found to be out of compliance with the current requirements have alleged that their violations resulted liartly from a lack of clarity on the manifest form as to how and where they should enter the information.

To alleviate thisproblem and reduce the complexity and burden of completing the manifest, we proposed 

### 10783

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10783 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

to add International Shipments, Item 16,
to the revised form. The proposed changes provide explicit spaces for entering currently required information. The Inteinational Shipment field would provide the exporter with a checkbox
to indicate an export and a space for entering the port ofexit. Similarly, this data element would provide transporters with a discrete data element forindicating the date an export shipment leaves the U.S. and a signature line to attest to it.

With respect to imports, the NPRM proposed to add new tracking requirements and corresponding data elements inthe International Shipments field. The proposed import elements parallel those that already apply to exports ofhazardous waste. Thus; the proposed International Shipments field would provide a check box for importers to indicate an import shipment and a space to identify the port of entry.We did notpropose any requirements for transporters to sign off

on import shipments inthis new data field because import shipments will be closed out domestically by the signature ofthe receiving facility inthe U.S. However, the NPRM proposed that transporters importing hazardous waste shipments leave a copy ofthe manifest with U.S. Customs. This copy aidsEPA in collecting consistent information on hazardous waste imports,rather than relying on the piecemeal information that currently comes to the Agency under informal arrangements with border states and port authorities.

Generally, commenters reacted positively to the proposed International Shipments field and the proposed requirement to submit a copy ofthe import manifest to U.S. Customs. Most generators, TSDFs and authorized states agreed that including an explicit field for transboundary waste movements

was a good idea and would not pose any unreasonable compliance issues. However, many commenters contended that too muich space seemed to be allocated forthis purpose.-Sincenearly all available space on the proposed form has been utilized, one commenter suggested that the International * Shipments fieldbe removed from the

domestic manifest and that a distinct

new manifest form be developed to address international waste movements. Other commenters expressed the view that the rule should blarifythat exporters rather than generators are responsible for entering the required 'export data, and that EPA should clarify the status ofinternational shipments that arerejected by consignees and must bareturned to the country of origin. Inresponse to these comments, EPA is finalizing the rule with the International Shipments field retained

onthe revised form, as proposed but with some modifications. First, we have reduced the field size since excessive
space was dedicated to the field onthe proposed form relative to the amount of data that actually needsto be collected. We also emphasize that primary exporters are required to complete export manifests as required under
current regulitions. As long as they are notthe primary exporters, domestic generators do not have to complete this portion. Although some commenters requested that EPA clarify the status of rejected import shipments, that involves interpretations ofwaste export policies and bilateral agreements that arebeyond the scope ofthis rulemaking.

Second',we are removing the proposed provision at 

### §263.20(i), which required transporters who are transporting hazardous waste into the United States'to leave an extra copy of the manifest with aU.S. Customs official atthe point of entry into the United States. Instead, we have added a

new provision (a)(3) inparagraph (a) of 

### §§ 264.71 and 265.71. This new provision requires the receiving facility
to mail afinal, signed copy ofthe manifest to the following address within 30 days ofdelivery: International Compliance Assurance Division, OFA/ OECA (2254A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.

We also have revised the proposed provision at §262.60(e), which required the importer to provide the transporter with an additional copy ofthe manifest for delivery to the U.S. Customs official
at the point the hazardous waste enters the United States inaccordance with § 263.20(g)(4). Werevised this provision byremoving thereference to § 263.20(g)(4) and replacing that reference with references to new §§ 264.71(a)(3) and 265.71(a)(3). The resulting effect ofthese revisions to the proposed requirements would still be the same as that ofthe proposed requirements-i.e., copies ofimport manifests will be delivered to EPA for tracking purposes. However,the means for achieving this resulthave changed from a drop-offrequirement for the transporter to a direct mailing " requirement forthe receiving facility.

Webelieve this reviied approach is

more appropriate than the proposed approach, because itparallels existing manifest mailing requirements for receiving facilities. Specifically, §§ 264.71(a)(2)(iv) and 265.71(a)(2)(iv) in the proposed rule require receiving facilities to mail copies ofmanifests to generators within 30 days ofdelivery of hazardous waste shipments. (In addition, some states also require receiving facilities to mail them copies ofmanifests upon receipt of hazardous
waste shipments.) EPA believes that TSDFs, as receiving facilities, are well situated to mail a copy of the final, signed copy ofthe manifest to EPA for tracking purposes since they are already required to, and are in the practice of, mailing acopy ofthe same document to generators and, in some cases, to states

aswell. EPAbelieves that TSDF mailing ofa copy ofthe manifest to EPA is a

more direct and efficient way forEPA fo receive this document than the proposedapproach oftransporter dropoffofacopy ofthe manifest to U.S. Customs atthe port ofentry into the U.S. In addition, thisnew approach results inEPA's receipt of acopy of the manifest at afinal stage ofthe transport process when the receiving facility has actually received the hazardous waste, rather than at an earlier stage ofthe
process, when the transporter has brought the hazardous waste into the U.S. port ofentry. It makes more sense forEPA to receive acopy ofthe manifest from the receiving facility atthis final stage, whenthere is clear closure to the manifest process.

Finally, EPA has not accepted the
commentrequesting the adoption ofa separate manifest forinternational shipments. The great majority of
commenters seemed to agree that the proposed International Shipments field should appear on the Uniform Manifest. While we understand that space could be saved on the domestic manifest form ifthe International Shipment field was not established, we believe that the

more desirable outcome ofthis rulemaking is to adopt one standardized manifest format, rather than adopting multiple formats with redundant information.

5. Proposed Addition ofThird Transporter Field.The May 2001 NPRM proposed to revise the form by adding

a third Transporter field. At the time,

we believed that providing a third Transporter field would be useful for
waste handlers and would reduce paperwork burden in the manifest system. In previous discussions, stakeholders advised usthat waste shipments implicate a third transporter frequently enough to warrant our creating anew field on the Uniform Manifest, and that completing a third Transporter field would cause less burden than completing the more extensive data requirements contained in the continuation sheet. 

### 10784

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10784 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42 /Friday, March 4, 2005 /Rules and Regulations

Comments onthe proposed rule did not support including a third Transporter field. Upon viewing the draft ofthe revised form, commenters became aware that no space was available to accommodate non-essential data elements..We received several
comments from industry and state commenters suggesting that athird Transporter block should notbe included on therevised'form, since a third transporter was notused often enough to warrant taking up valuable spacethat could bebetter allocated toward shipping descriptions or other data elements that commenters regarded

asmore critical. We agree with these
comments and have accepted the suggestions to exclude the third Transporter itemn from the revised form. Today's final rulewithdraws both-the third Transporter item and'the corresponding signature space forthe third transporter from the revised manifest form.

D.ReductionorEliminationof "Optional"FieldDesignations. Another facet ofmanifest form standardization deals with the degree to which the form will continue to provide state optional fields for use by authorized states. Inthe 1984 Uniform Manifest Rule, EPA announced the availability ofeleven such fields that states could select from and require waste generators to. complete. These optional fields were establishedbased on state agency consultations and were intended to

ollect information commonly required by authorized state programs. The eleven state optional fields were displayed primarily in the form's upper right portion. The left-hand side ofthe form included the mandatory federal dataelements supporting RCRA mandated and federally required core transportation-related and waste shipmentrouting functions. Neither the federal transportation laws nor RCRA 3003 mandated the establishment of these optional fields, and EPA and DOT could have established a manifest that did not allowfor such statevariations. However, atthe time the Uniform Manifest Rule was initially developed, EPA and DOT were convinced that including optional fields would be acceptable. Ifthese types ofinformation needs could be accommodated onthe manifest form, then itwould not be necessary for the states to require waste handlers and facilities to submit separate reports containing this information.

Whilethis policy may have seemed beneficial in 1984, we now have had almost twenty years ofexperience with the Uniform Manifest and the coexistence on the form ofmandatory federal elements and state optional fields. Over the course ofthe negotiated manifest reform rulemaking activity in the early 1990s and continuing through the development ofour proposed rule in May 2001, we have consistently heard strong complaints from manifestusers aboutthe current system. Users have told us that the-current manifest system is burdensome because it allows too much vaiability among the manifests codified in state statutes orregulations and distributed by the various states. Thus, itbecame a goal ofthis rulemaking to reduce or eliminate this variability, ifthis could be done practically and could be accomplished without undue disruption to the authorized states' RCRA programs.

In Section II.B., we explained our final decisions on action we took to

remove several ofthe data elements on the current manifest. Weremoved several optional fields that were either duplicative or nonessential, while retaining several others and designating them as mandatory for future purposes inthe revised form. Intotal, we eliminated nine ofthe current optional fields; we also revised §271.10(h)(1) by removing theprovisions inthis section that correspond to thosenine optional fields. Whether these fields were eliminated-or designated mandatory, they will no longercauseburdensome variability under the newly revised form.

In our May 2001 proposed rulenotice,

we proposed to retaintwo optional fields on the revised form.We knew from years ofexperience with the manifest system that states considered RCRA Waste Codes'(current Item I)and Handling Codes (current Item K) two of the mostvaluable fields on the form. States used these codes to track waste generation and management trends, to facilitate the completion oforverify annual orbiennial report submissions, and to support state assessments that are levied forwaste generation or management activities. Our intention at the time ofthe proposal was to expand
waste code information space and to standardize any handling codes that

users entered to describe waste management processes. We proposed to retain these elements as optional fields. However, we requested comments on whether handling codes should be made mandatory in all the states, and on additional ways to integrate manifest data collection.with the RCRA biennial reporting process.

The comments on thisissue were strong and nearly unanimous. Nearly every commenter urged EPA to finalize the rule with mandatory waste codes and handling codes, rather than retaining their current optional field designations. Commenters further explained that completing a manifest that was consistent across states would reduce their compliance burden because they would.not have to spend time determining which ofthe optional fields

were used by each state. The Agency,

was impressed that commenters identified standardization as a preeminent goal. Commenters urged us to go further than our proposed rule by adopting a truly standardized manifest that eliminates all optional field designations.

EPA agrees with the comments urging

us to eliminate all optional field designations from the manifestform. Therefore, EPA declares that all fields
set out inthis finalrule's revised form

are mandatory. You can find additional discussion ofthe standardization of " handling code and waste code reporting

on the manifest in Sections II.E.5. and II.F.6. ofthis preamble. When the revised form is in use among the states, there will no longer be optional fields to determine andcompldte.

E.1. ProposedStandardization of HandlingCodes-Introduction. Inthe May 2001 NPRM, EPA proposed to standardize the Handling Codes information field on the revised manifest. Onthe.current form, Handling Codes is a state optional field, to be entered inItem Kof the Uniform Manifest. As we explained inthe proposed rule preamble (see 66FR 28240 at 28256), authorized states currently implement the Handling Codes field in avariety ofways. Some
states requirehandling codes-as set out in Appendix I, Table 2under 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, while other states require processing codes assigned for purposes ofthe RCRA Biennial Report. Other states have developed theirown process codes, which have special meaning in the states' databases and determine how states assess waste management fees. Stakeholders identified variability inthe states' use and meaning ofhandling codes as an issue under the current manifest system, particularly forthe generators and TSDFs that were subject to multiple states' handling code requirements.

Moreover, duringmeetings on the development ofthe proposed rule, industry members and states both urged EPA to standardize the handling codes and harmonize them with RCRA Biennial Report process codes. This would not only eliminate variability among the states on what codes would be entered, butit also would help integrate manifest data collection with the biennial reporting process. Ultimately, including the process codes 

### 10785

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10785 2005

### Federal Register /Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules .and Regulations

used for biennial reporting could eliminate or greatly reduce waste handlers' and states' current burden of separately gathering and reporting this
waste management information.

2. ContentoftheHandling Code Proposal. Based onbroad stakeholder interest in this issue, EPA proposed in May 2001 to rename the Handling Code field "Item B," since, at that time, this field would remain optional. In cases where the states required handling codes, we proposed that responsibility
to enter the process code information would fall on TSDFs, who are most familiar with the waste management processes and the codes used to identify them. Additionally, consistent with stakeholders' views, we proposed that the handling codes entered would be the process codes used in connection with the RCRA Biennial Report. At the time we developed the proposed rule, these codes were referred to asthe Biennial Report System Type Codes. Recently, the biennial reporting system

was revised and is now known as the Hazardous Waste Report. The process codes also have beenrevised somewhat andrenamed the Hazardous Waste Report Management Method Codes.

3. Standardization ofHandlingCodes. EPA also requested comment on whether state, industry, and other stakeholders would prefer anew list of codes as an alternative to using the full list ofHazardous Waste Report Management Method Codes. There was

some sense that a smaller code set could be moremanageable to implement, and might still irovide sufficient information distinguishing major
process types. Convnents nearly unanimously expressed support for standardizing the handling codes on the revised manifest and particularly the proposal to standardize the data to be entered based onbiennial report process codes. Only one TSDF commenter argued against including this information on the manifest, contending that the information was not necessary to track waste. Other TSDFs and authorized states agreed that including and standardizing the process codes would be beneficial. While a few TSDFs argued that generators should enter the process codes, the large majority of TSDFs, as well as states commented that the TSDFs could enter this information

on the manifest more effectively. Several industry commenters suggested that the finalrule clarify that the code entered here should reflect the final handling ofthe waste by the-TSDF shown as the designated facility on the manifest, and not the ultimate disposition ofthe waste by some other facility. Similarly, one state suggested that the form provide a second box for entering codes for the final disposition process, if different than the process code forthe designated facility.

Most ofthe commenters agreed with the reasoning set outin the proposed rule that using the proposed System Type Codes (now known as Hazardous Waste Report Management Method Codes)'would increase consistency with

- the biennial report requirements, thus

aiding in completing and reducing the burden associated with the biennial report. The majority ofcommenters also preferred using the entire list ofprocess codes developed forbiennial reporting, rather than creating anew list containing a subset ofthe process codes.

4. Adoption ofHazardousWaste ReportManagementMethod Codes. Based on comments we received on this subjedt, today's finalrule establishes

one set ofcodes and instructions for all manifest users in all states for the aforemenfioned reasons. Therefore, today's rule requires TSDFs to enter data in Item 19, entitled Hazardous Waste Report Management Method Codes. We are also clarifying, as commenters suggested, that the code in Item 19 corresponds with the final disposition ofthe waste by the designated facility on the manifest. EPA believes that it would be confusing and inappropriate to expect a TSDF to enter

an "ultimate disposition" code reflecting howthe waste was to be processed at another facility. Thus, we

are not accepting the comments suggesting that space be provided for entering ultimate disposition codes, as there was not significant support expressed forthis approach.

Hazardous Waste Report Management Method Codes should be entered in Item 19 of the revised manifest. These codes

are updated routinely and published in the instructions accompanying the
current edition ofthe Hazardous Waste Report forms. For the convenience of readers ofthis finalrule, EPA is publishing the updated list of Hazardous Waste Report Management Method Codes asthey exist atthe time ofthis rule's publication. However, these codes are subject to change over time, and manifest users are urged to refer to the mostrecent instructions for the Hazardous Waste Report forthe
most currefnt and accurate set ofcodes
to be entered inItem 19. You can also find an updated list ofcodes at EPA's Web site: www.epa.govlepaoswerl hazwaste/data/index.htm#br. The left column ofthe table below corresponds
to the Hazardous WasteReport Management Method Code for aprocess, while the right column corresponds to the System Type Codes that Were inuse before the establishment ofthe Hazardous Waste Report Management Method Codes.

Hazardous Waste Report Management Method codes describe the type of hazardous waste management system used to treat or dispose a hazardous
waste.

Corresponding codes Code Hazardous waste report management method code group from 1999 hazardous waste report*

Reclamation and Recovery

H010

............ Metals recovery including retorting, smelting, chemical, etc

.................................................................... MO11-M019 H020

............ Solvents recovery ................................................................ ................................................................... M 021-M029,.M 104 H039

............ Other recovery or reclamation for reuse including acid regeneration, organics recovery, etc

................ M031-M039 H050

............ Energy recovery at this site-use as fuel (includes on-sitefuel blending)

.............................................. M051-M059 H061

............ Fuel blending prior to energy recovery at another site

................................... M061

Destruction or Treatment Prior to Disposal at Another Site

Incineration- thermal destruction other than use as afuel

..................................................................... Chemical reduction with or without precipitation

...................................................................................... Cyanide destruction with orwithout precipitation

..................................................................................... Chemical oxidation

................................................................................................................................... Wet air oxidation

....... I

..................................................................................... I

......................................... Other chemical precipitation with orwithout pre-treatment

...................................................................... Biological treatment with or without precipitation

..................................................................................... M041-49 M071 M073 M075 M076, M084, M093 M072, M074, M077 M081, M091 H040

............ H071

............ H073

............ H075

............ H076

............ H077

............ H081

............ 

### •10786

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10786 2005Federal Register/ Vol. 70, No. 42 /Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

Corresponding codes Code Hazardous waste report management method code group from 1999 hazardous waste report*

H082

............ Adsorption

.................................................................................................... .... ................ M082,M092,M103 H083

............ Air orsteam stripping

................................................................................... I............................................... M083 H101

............ Sludgetreatment and/or dewatering

................................................................................................ M101, M102, M109 H103

............ Absorption

................................................................................................................................................. M103 H111

............ Stabilization or chemical fi?(ation prior to disposal at another site

......................................................... M1i1 H112

............ Macro-encapsulation prior to disposal at another site

............................................................................ M112, NEW H121

............ Neutralization only

.................................................................................................................................... M121 H122

............ E

vaporatio n ................................................................................................................................................ M122 H123

............ Settling or clarification

............................................................................................................................... M123 H124

............ I Phase separation

...................................................................................................................................... M124 H129

....... O.... Other treatment
......................................................................................................................................... M078, M079, M085,

M089, M094, M099, M119, M125, M129

- Disposal
H131

............ Landtreatment or application (to include on-site treatment and/or stabilization)

...... *

....................... M131 H132

............ Landfill or surface impoundment thatwill be closed as landfill (to include on-site treatment and/or sta- M132, M133

bilization). H134

............ Deepwell or underground injection (with or without treatment)

................................................................ M134 H135

............ Discharge to sewer/POTW or NPDES (with prior storage- with or without treatment)

.......................... M135, M136 Storage and Transfer

H141

............ Storage, bulking, and/or transfer off site-no treatment/recovery (H010-H129), fuel blending (H061), M141

ordisposal (H131-H135) at this site.
For clarification only. Use the Hazardous Waste Report Management Method codes inthe left column only (i.e., codes beginning H_ ).

5.Designationof ProcessCodesas Mandatory. While we proposed to retain the revised handling codes as an optional field foruse by states, we also requested comment on whether to deem Hazardous WasteReport Management Method Codes amandatory field. At that time, we were wary ofimposing

new reporting burdens onthose waste handlers in states that did notrequire handling codes. Onthe other hand, we
were aware that much ofthe manifest

useburden arose not so much from completing individual data elements, but from determining what elements

were required in individual states and bycomplying with state-specific information and instructions. The great majority ofcommenters expressed a strong desire to designate the handling codes mandatory foruse in all states. Because most states which currently require the codes will continueto

. require them, the commenters did not

see any reason to maintain the optional
status. The commenters also believed that making one set ofcodes mandatory would reduce the burden associated with completing the manifest; rather than having the regulated community learn several different coding systems,

one set of codes would be used in every state. This change would increase consistency inmanifest requirements and likely reduce paperwork burdens. Therefore, today's final rule mandates the entry ofthe Hazardous Waste Report Management Method Codes on the manifest. Inaddition, EPA has redesignated the Hazardous Waste Report Management Method Code field asItem 19 (rather than Block B) inthe revised form and placed it inthe bottom section ofthe form among the data elements that designated facilities mustcomplete.

6. Party Responsible for Completing Item 19: The majority ofcommenters supported our proposal to identifythe designated TSDF asthe party responsible for completing Item 19. TSDFs often determine waste management methods on aday-by-day basis, (e.g., TSDFs may use fuel. blending on a waste stream on one day and solvent recovery the next). Consequently, many commenters argued that generators could not be expected to foresee the management method the TSDF *vouldchoose for aparticular shipment ofwaste. Onthe other hand, several commenters were concerned that the generator would continue to be held responsible forthe disposal ofthe waste, yet the generator wouldlose control ofthe waste's disposal ifTSDFs entered this information.

Today's rule finalizes the requirement for TSDFs to complete Item 19as proposed. While generators must ensure their wastes are disposed ofat authorized facilities, theirresponsibility does not extend to controlling the disposal process. In most instances, the disposal firm is an independent
contractor. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate forTSDFs to enter the process code reflecting their management ofthe waste,rather than requiring the generator to enter this information.

F.1.Proposed Standardization of RCRA Waste CodeFields-Introduction. Inthe May 2001 NPRM, we proposed: (1)Toiedesignate the block for entering RCRA waste numbers as Block A and to title this block "Waste Codes;" (2)to expand the space provided for entering waste codes to accommodate up to six codes for each material identified with

a distinct DOT description; (3)to designate the top three spaces in Block A for the entry offederal waste codes, and the bottom three spaces for state waste codes; and, (4) to establish a toxicity-based hierarchical approach for determining the ordering ofwaste codes

on the new Waste Codes field. The purpose ofthe hierarchical approach

was to ensure that waste codes suggesting the presence ofhigh toxicity
wastes would appear first on the form,

so that manifest users and emergency responders would be alerted to their
presence. Finally, EPA proposed to retain RCRA waste codes as an optional field for states. At the time ofthe proposal, we did notwant to impose additional reporting burdens on waste handlers operating in states that didnot require waste code data.

2. CommentAnalysis.We received many comments from authorized states and from industry on the proposal to expand the waste code field and the 

### 10787

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10787 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

proposal to divide space between federal and state waste codes. State
agency commenters strongly favored the proposed expansion that would allow the reporting of up to six waste codes in proposed Item A, although comments differed on howto allocate the expanded spacebetween federal and
state waste codes. Some state comments supported a side-by-side array ofthe federal and state codes, while others asked us notto differentiate between federal and state codes. Industry
commenters provided additional detail

on these points. While most industry
commenters supported the proposal to provide space forthree to six waste codes, two large TSDFs noted that in their vast experience with manifests, space forfour federal codes ordinarily would be sufficient.As with the state comments, several industry commenters suggested that the rule allow users to allocate the space between federal and
state codes asthey saw fit,rather than limiting them to entering three federal codes-and three state codes. These
comments also criticized the proposed approach to divide the state waste code spacebetween the generator state and the consignee state, as this would probably generate confusion.

State commenters generally supported requiring or allowing users to enter all applicable waste codes, entering any overflow from existing Block A in the "Additional Descriptions" space. Several industry commenters also. supported the idea ofentering all applicable waste codes (utilizing the Additional Descriptions space). Believing that six codes were more than sufficient to characterize the properties ofa hazardous waste, others suggested that the final rule should restrict waste code entries to no more than six codes per waste stream.

Industry commenters raised additional concerns related to using the RCRA manifest to enter state waste codes. In an effort to further reduce the burden incurred by users in entering
waste code data, several commenters suggested that EPA clarify in the final rule that state waste codes could be entered on the revised manifest form only to the extent thatthey were not redundant with federal waste codes established by EPA. These commenters argued that it makes little sense to use both a federal code and a distinct state waste code to describe the same material on the manifest, especially since paperwork burden reduction is a major objective ofthisrulemaking.

However, the waste code issue that generated the greatest level ofinterest

was the proposed hierarchical approach
to entering federal waste codes inthe Item A space. In the May 2001 NPRM,

we proposed a waste code hierarchy intended to order federal waste codes according to their toxicity properties, alerting manifest users and emergency responders to their presence. The hierarchical approach would nothave applied to state waste codes. The proposed hierarchy specified the following ordering offederal waste codes:

I. All acutely hazardous wastes, including all P-listed wastes and all acutely hazardous F-listed wastes,

II. U-listed wastes (toxic), III. K-listed wastes (specific sources), IV. Non-acute F-listed wastes (nonspecific sources), and

V. D wastes (characteristic). The proposed rule also stipulated that in instances where states designated ignitable and reactive wastes as priority
waste classes, these wastes would be entered firstin Block A, ahead ofthe
waste types that would otherwise appear first in the above hierarchy.

While several commenters supported the hierarchy concept, EPA received
many more comments critical ofthe hierarchy proposal The supportive
comments pointed outthat ahierarchy would usefully limitthe number of codes entered on the form, because one would only need to enter the first six codes identified under the hierarchy. Other commenters emphasized that the hierarchy would be useful for completing the manifest consistently

across alljurisdictions. A few comments suggested that the hiearchy approach would be improved ifignitable and reactive wastes always were placed at thetop ofthe hierarchical ordering, while other comments indicated that the order should notbe affected at allby ignitable or reactive wastes.

However, the commenters criticizing the proposed waste code hierarchy raised many other concerns. The strongest comments ofthis type suggested that the proposed hierarchy

was valueless for communicating the real hazard posed by a waste. These
comments pointed out that the hierarchy could miscommunicate hazards posed, since a P or U waste code still might be associated with a waste under the RCRA "derived-from" rule, even though the constituent involved may be present inminuscule quantities. Other comments focused on the overly simplistic assumptions underlying the proposed hierarchy, stating that one could not assume that all P wastes were more toxic than U wastes or that all U wastes were more toxic than K wastes, etc. Still other
commenters explained.that the hierarchy did notserve our stated purpose. They emphasized that TSDFs rely upon their waste profile information to determine the acceptability ofwpstes'at their facilities, while users and emergency responders relied much more onDOT nomenclature (i.e., the shipping descriptions entered inItem 9b) to gauge the hazards of materials in transportation. It was further suggested that the proposed
waste code hierarchy would be duplicative with DOT's system and could result in confusion. The
commenters that were highly critical of the proposed hierarchy scheme preferred to allow manifest users to exercise their own judgment when ascertaining which waste codes are most representative ofa waste.

3. Final RuleDeterminationsNumberandAllocationofWaste Codes. While the proposed rule suggested that additional waste codes could be entered in Item 9b (aspart ofthe U.S. DOT Description) and inthe "Additional Information" space (Item 14 ofthe revised form), we were persuaded by
comments stating that six waste codes normally would be more than adequate
to describe hazardous wastes commonly shipped under the manifest. Waste codes must continue to be included in the Item 9b "U.S. DOT Descriptions" where a RCRA waste code is required to complete a shipping description for a hazardous waste with the DOT "not otherwise specified," or "n.o.s," notation. However, it is not necessary to list any additional waste codes in Item 14that might be applicable to a waste stream. We are persuaded that the provision ofspace for six codes inItem 13, augmented by any other codes required to be included inItem 9b for

n.o.s. shipping descriptions, willbe sufficient to describe-hazardous wastes for the purposes ofthe manifest. Corhmenters pointed out that many facilities provide large lists ofwaste codes on the current manifest as a protective filing measure. We believe that this creates unnecessary burden in completing the manifest, without improving appreciably the quality of the hazardous waste data.

We also are accepting the comments that criticized the proposed rule for trying to allocate the space available between three federal waste codes and three state waste codes, and fortrying to allocate space between generator state codes and consignee state codes. Therefore; the finalrule leaves it largely
to the users' discretion to assign the appropriate combination offederal and
state codes to describe a waste, up to a maximum ofsix codes. As we explain below in section II.F.4., the users' discretion to assign these waste codes is 

### 10788

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10788 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

limited somewhat whena hazardous
waste is described by anon-redundant
state waste code that identifies that a waste is regulated uniquely or subject to

a differential fee imposed by a state hazardous waste program. In such a case, the state waste code must appear * among the 6waste codes that describe such a waste. We also are finalizing the
waste code space on therevised form without any partitions between individual digits or characters, since
commenters indicated that the inclusion ofpartitions actually could frustrate reporting these data legibly.

4. Final RuleDeterminationsEnteringState Waste Codes.In addition
to commenting on the number ofwaste codes users may enter inItem 13 ofthe revised form, conmenters suggested thatthe RCRA hazardous waste manifest should only include information on federally regulated.RCRA wastes. Other
commenters expressed the view that thisrule should affirm that states may require users to enter state waste codes

on the revised form,-solong asno corresponding federal code exists that describes the same waste. Other
commenters expressed the same or similar point ofview, suggesting that redundant state waste codes should.not be entered onthe form.

We continue to believe, as we first indicated with the first Uniform Manifest Rule in 1984, that itis preferable to include federal and state waste codes on the RCRA manifest. Including bothtypes of codes avoids the need for hazardous waste handlers to develop separate recording systems to report their involvement with state regulated wastes. However, in this final rule,we clarify in Item 13 ofthe form instructions and in §271.10(h)(1) that
state waste codes are to be included on the revised manifest form where they

are not tedundant with federal waste codes describing the same waste. The federal RCRA waste codes are understood nationwide, so incases where a state code duplicates entirely a federal code for aRCRA hazardous waste, it serves the burden reduction
purposes ofthis rulemaking to enter only the federal code.on the revised manifest. Thus, statewaste codes must be entered on the revised form to describe state regulatedhazardous
wastes forwhich there is no corresponding federal code, as well as state codes which convey additional information not conveyed by the corresponding federal code. These state codes most often appear inconnection with what are known as the "state only" hazardous wastes, that is,wastes which

are regulated as hazardous in an authorized stateprogram, butnot under the Federal Subtitle C regulations.

However, examples also exist where there may be a federal waste code that corresponds generally to a waste,but thestate adopts a unique code or perhaps adds another character to the federal waste code to designate that there arerequirements unique to that
state that _apply to the waste. Since this information is not conveyed by the federal code itself,the state's adoption ofa unique code orits addition of another character to the federal code would not be considered redundant with the federal code for purposes of this rule. These state codes mustbe entered in the space allotted forfederal and state waste codes inItem 13 ofthe revised form. There is no discretion to omit such state codes from Item 13 of the revised form.

As one example, a statemay regulate

ahazardous waste identified with a federal waste code (e.g., lead wastes, regulated federally for lead levels at or above 5.0 mg/L, and denoted D008), but regulate differently ormore extensively than the EPA rules (e.g., a state regulates lead wastes atthe 1.0 mg/L level or higher). Similarly, a state mayregulate

a listed federal hazardous waste, but regulate it for the presence of constituents other than those which gave rise to the federal listing decision. In such cases, a specific state code that identifies the materials that are regulated uniquely by the state in such

a manner must be included on the manifest.

As another example, a state may require its generators to add the letter "R" to a federal waste code to indicate that the waste described by the federal code is'tobe recycled, ormay require the letter "C" to be added to a federal code to indicate a waste has been commingled with other generators'
wastes. The state may need to know which wastes are recycled or commingled because it assesses a differential waste mainagement fee or applies additional management requirements to the recycled or commingled wastes that are so identified. Again, itis not aredundant
state code ifthe state code ora staterequired addition to a federal code

serves to distinguish awaste that is regulated uniquely or differently in the state, orto distinguish wastes subject to differential fees or similarrequirements based on the nature ofthe waste orhow it is processed.

EPA has made it a focus ofthis rulemaking to reduce the variability that appeared among the manifest forms that

are currently distributed by authorized
states. The elimination ofoptional fields, the standardization ofhandling codes, and the new registry and acquisition procedures are examples of significant manifest reforms we have adopted to address thisissue. Nevertheless, all variability cannotbe eliminated. However, webelieve that the variability problem hasbeen greatly improved by this rule, inthat variability which may have been dispersed among 11 optional fields onthe old form has been reduced to variability limited to the reporting ofstatewaste codes. States
may develop additional waste codes in
response to today's rule in orderto designate wastes which qualify for state specific exemptions, wastes which are subject to a differential waste management fee based onhow a waste is managed, or wastes which are subject
to other state-specific management conditions. While thismay have the effect ofincreasing the number ofstatespecific waste codes, we believe this is

apreferred outcome to allowing varying information to populate other fields of the form.

5. Final RuleDetermination-Waste CodeHierarchy. Many commenters expressed vibws about the proposed hierarchy approach. We were most impressed by the significant number of
comments assuring usthat in the great majority ofcases, there really was no need to apply anyhierarchical ordering ofwaste codes. These commenters stated that fourto six waste codes would be sufficient in all but afew

cases to describe a waste's properties, and with space provided now to show six codes, it wasnot critical to order them With a hierarchy.

Ordering ofwaste codes, however, could be moreuseful for special types ofwastes (e.g., lab packs, incinerator ash) forwhich there are potentially

morethan six waste codes that could describe the wastes. We examined the
comments to determine ifthere were views expressed suggesting that these complex wastes might benefit from a waste code hierarchy.

After considering all these comments, the final rule abandons the requirement
to order waste codes according to any hierarchy. We may have reached a different conclusion ifcommenters persuaded us that waste code data were being used strategically or critically by
emergency responders responding to accidents orby TSDFs determining the acceptability ofwastes at their permitted facilities. Rather, we found the comments persuasive on the point that emergency responders rely farmore heavily on the DOThazard classification system and nomenclature when identifying appropriate response actions inemergencies: Likewise, the 

### 10789

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10789 200510790 Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

TSDFs commented persuasively that they rely on the more detailed waste profile information that they develop to classify waste streams and the processes they use to manage wastes received under the manifest. Thus, we conclude that arisk-based ordering ofwaste codes is currently unnecessary as a risk communication tool for the revised manifest.

Instead, we have found that manifest
waste code data primarily inform state agencies of materials generated within

orbrought into an authorized state for management. States use this information to monitor trends in waste management, levy assessments based on waste generation ormanagement inthe state,

orprepare the RCRA biennial report. For over 20 years, waste handlers have been entering waste codes without the benefit ofa hierarchy rule, and we are not aware that waste handler judgment in assigning codes has resulted in serious problems for authorized states. Therefore, we are accepting the
comments submitted by both industry members and state agencies thatthe choice to enterwaste codes should be left to the judgment ofthe users completing the form. The users should ascertain the waste codes that are most representative of the waste, giving due regard to the degree ofthe hazardous properties presented (i.e., toxicity, reactivity, ignitability), the waste properties that are most material to the chosen management process, and the volume orrelative quantity ofthe material associated with the waste code in question. Webelieve it is more practical to rely upon waste handler judgment, rather than develop a rigorous rule that presumes a precise toxicity-based ordering that is neither practical nor credible.

6. FinalRuleDetermination-Waste CodesareMandatory Fields.Inthe May 2001 NPRM, we proposed to maintain RCRA waste codes as one of only two optional fields onthe revised manifest. While EPA did notpropose or solicit specific comment ondesignating RCRA
waste codes as a mandatory data field,
comments were submitted inresponse to our request for comment on additional ways to better integrate the collection of manifest data with the biennial reporting process. Commenters provided very strong and nearly unanimous comments urging EPA to designate waste codes as mandatory rather than optional. Commenters argued that designating waste code as reporting mandatory would be aburden reduction measure, since it would obviate the need to determine from state to state whether the codes were • required. We were further advised by the comments that the benefits ofatrulyuniform manifest would outweigh any incidental burden arising from including RCRA waste codes on all manifests. State commenters tended to emphasize that waste code data were needed nationally in order to support RCRA reporting requirements. Industry and state commenters suggested that mandatory waste code reporting could he, to integrate manifest data collection withthe collection ofRCRA Report data, streamlining the overall
process. Finding these comments persuasive, we are imposing a mandatory requirement forusers to report waste codes inItem 13 on all manifests in all states.

G.

1. OtherManifestFormRevisionsIntroduction.While theNPRM clearly focused on standardizing the form's data elements, it also discussed several other changes 'toterms and procedures affecting the manifest's use. Specifically, the NPRM discussed how the Subtitle C regulations define "bulk" containers forpurposes of managing empty containers, and it addressed the

use of fractions in reporting waste. quantities on the manifest. In addition, the NPRM raised the issue ofwhether a TSDF initiating a new manifest for a rejected waste or container residue signs that manifest as ari "offeror" ofthe rejected waste shipment, or, as the agent signing "on behalf'of" the original generator. The "offeror" issue infact has

a much broader impact than the management and tracking ofrejected
wastes and residues, and in recognition ofthis broader impact, the final rule is revising the Generator's Certification statefnent on the form so that it will in the future be identified asthe Generator's/Offeror's Certification. This preamble section explains our final rule positions for each-ofthese areas.

2. DefinitionofBulk Container. The May 2001 NPRM proposed to modify several current regulations that distinguish between bulk and non-bulk containers. Current regulations (40 CFR 261.7(b)(1)(iii) and §262.32) make reference to containers that are either greater than, less than, orequal to 110 gallons in size. Section 261.7(b)(1)(iii) establishes criteria for determining ifa hazardous waste container is "empty," while § 262.32 requires agenerator to mark containers of 110 gallons orless. Ineach case, the 110 gallon threshold

was selected to conform to a 1.982 DOT regulation that defined bulk packaging

aspackaging of 110 gallons ormore. Thus, the current RCRA regulations established distinct "empty" container thresholds forbulk and non-bulk hazardous waste containers. However, DOT standards wererevised in 1991 to harmonize them with international requirements, which distinguished bulk from non-bulk packagings at a threshold of450 L or 119 gallons (see55 FR 52471, December 21, 1990). To maintain conformity with DOTrequirements, we proposed to revise the regulations so that they distinguish bulk from nonbulkcontainers at the 119 gallon threshold.

Wereceived only a few comments that addressed this issue, but they supported the proposal to conform the bulk container threshold in the hazardous waste regulations with the
current DOTrequirements. Therefore, today's finalrule amends § 261.7(b)(1)(iii)(A), § 261.7(b)(1)(iii)(B) and §262.32 by substituting the 119 gallon threshold forthe 110 gallon threshold that appears in the existing regulations.

3. Useof Fractions. In the May 2001 NPRM, EPA proposed new language for the manifest form instructions to clarify the Agency's position on including fractions or decimals in the waste quantities reported inItem 13 ofthe existing manifest. We proposed this language in response to reports from several states, which noted an increase in the number ofmanifests containing quantity descriptions with fractions. This can pose problems for state databases, which may not accommodate entries that include a fraction or a decimal. Therefore, several states urged EPA to adopt new regulatory language that more clearly would exclude

- fractions from the quantity descriptions reported on the form.

EPA has provided guidance on this issue in past manifest rulemakings. As

we explained in the proposed rule preamble (see 66 FR 28250), EPA has historically discouraged the use of fractions or decimals. We stated inthe March, 1984 Upiform Manifest Rule that quantity descriptions should be as accurate as possible without using fractions or decimals. However, EPA also is aware that a strict exclusion of fractional quantities could cause waste handlers to report waste quantities that lacked precision. For example, forwaste quantities reported in tons, a waste quantity reported as 1.5 tons is farmore precise than the alternative oftruncating the quantity reported to only 1tonor rounding up the quantity reported to 2
tons.

In order to address this problem, we proposed to revise the manifest instructions to require only whole numbers to describe non-bulk shipments, but allowing fractions to be used where necessary to describe bulk shipments. Wereceived varying
comments in response to this proposal.

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10790 2005

### Federal Register/ 

## Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March , 2005/Rules and Regulations

Several state agencies provided strong comments discouraging anyuse of fractions in waste quantities, while one state advised that allowing fractions in bulk shipment descriptions should be extended to non-bulk shipments of.
acute hazardous wastes. The states opposed to reporting fractional quantities argued that state databases would have to be rewritten to accommodate fractions, and that we could avoid the precision issue by requiring smaller units of measure to describe bulk waste quantities. Industry
commenters tended to be splitbetween 'those that agreed that fractions should
not beused on themanifest, and those that believed that generators should decide whether to use whole numbers

or fractions. Some commenters raised the concern that prohibiting fractions would result in lower accuracy, although several industry commenters also advised thatthe accuracy issue would be resolved ifsmaller units of

measure were used in the waste descriptions.

EPA agrees with commenters who pointed out that the issue is notthe use offractionsperse,but rather quantity reporting precision. This data quality issue is notnecessarily resolved by precluding the use of fractions or decimals. However, after considering all the comments, we believe that our earlier direction precluding the use of fractions or decimals remains the more sound guidance for the manifest. Many
state databases are not set up to receive data reported as fractions ordecimals;
states reasonably may have reliedupon EPA's earlier guidance recommending against fractions and decimals when they designed their data systems. Moreover, ifwaste quantities .routinely included fractional or decimal entries,

we believe that a significant number of

errors could-result from attempts to interpret the fractions orto determine when and where a decimal pointwas present..Given theuse ofcarbonless and non-carbon papers to transmit data entries from the top copy ofthe manifest
to lower copies, we do notbelieve that fractions or decimal points are likely to be transmitted through clearly to the "lowercopies in the package. The possiblemisinterpretation ofthese entries could further reduce the precision ofwaste quantity reporting on the manifest. Therefore, the manifest instructions included in today's final rule continueto state that waste quantities on the manifest are to be reported as accurately as possible without using fractions or decimals.

While we believe that fractions and decimals should notbe entered onthe manifest, we also believe that commenters raised a validpoint that generators must give greater attention to the appropriateness ofthe unitsthey select to report waste quantities. We
agree with the numerous state and industry commenters who suggested thatgreater waste quantity reporting precision could be achieved ifwaste handlers exercised greater care when selecting the units. Bulk shipment quantities (those > 110 gals.) should be reported in units ofgallons, liters, pounds, or kilograms. Larger units of

measure (e.g., tons, cubic yards, cubic meters) that do not allow for precision when quantities are expressed as whole numbers should notbe used on the manifest, except to describe very large bulk quantities, such asthe contents of

a rail car, barge or tank truck.:

However, additional care inthe selection ofquantity units alone will not resolve all the data qualityissues that arise in connection with reporting waste quantity information on the manifest. In

our discussions withthe authorized
states who consulted with EPA during development ofthisrule, we learned that there is another significant issue affecting the quality ofwaste quantity data reported onthe manifest. According to several authorized states, a significant source of imprecision results .from generators routinely reporting container capacities as quantities shipped, regardless ofwhether the container is infact full when placed in transportation. In other words, some generators arereporting 55 gallons of
waste shipped for every drum included in a shipment,even thoughthe drums may only be partially filled. The same practice is allegedly used for reporting quantities shipped inlarger bulk packages, presenting an even greater potential forwaste quantities to be misrepresented onthe manifest.

Since the manifest system was first announced by EPA in 1980, ithas been assumed that generators aid TSDFs understood their mutual responsibilities with respect to generators entering quantities shipped and TSDFs verifying thW quafitities (orreporting discrepancies) at the time ofreceipt. The manifest system was created to foster accountability forwaste shipments among the generators, transporters and TSDFs. The manifest regulations have always required and continue to require generators to enter the actual quantities ofwastes shipped and not merely the capacity ofthe containers selected for shipment. Likewise, the manifest regulations have always placed the responsibility and continue to place responsibility for verifying the actual quantities received

on the designated facilities (TSDFs), who arerequired either to acknowledge that the quantities ofwastes indicated as .shipped were infact received, orto report a discrepancy on the form ifthe quantities received db not match closely the generator's "as shipped," quantities. The underlying purpose ofthe manifest in ensuring accountability for off-site
waste shipments is undermined if generators are notreporting quantities shipped accurately, and if TSDFs are overlooking these inaccuracies when. they'receive wastes at theirfacilities. In addition, anyfuture efforts-by EPA and the states to streamline the RCRA biennial reporting process byrelying

moreheavily on manifest data willbe frustrated ifwe conclude that waste quantities reported on the manifest are nota reliable source ofinformation on quantities shipped or waste receipts.

EPA is therefore including additional language in the manifest instructions emphasizing the generators' responsibility to report quantities shipped and not simply container capacities. While EPA recognizes that

some generators may not be in a position to measure quantities ofwastes to a high level ofprecision, we believe that a good faith effortto estimate quantities shipped as accurately as possible represents a more acceptable standard orpractice than simply reporting container capacities. We believe that it is aviolation ofthe
current manifest requirements for generators to report container capacities

as the quantities shipped, when it is known that a container is notfilled to capacity. The clarification in the revised form instructions should remove any doubts that may remain concerning the requirement that generators accurately report actual quantities shipped inItem 11. We will also look to TSDFs to comply with the requirement to report discrepancies on the form when generators fail to report quantities, shipped accurately, since generators will likely improve their methods of
measurement and the accuracy oftheir quantity entries when they realize that the receiving facilities are paying close attention to reconciling the quantities reported as shipped and received..

4. Offerorsand thePreparation of HazardousWaste Shipmentsand Manifests.The proposed rule would have added a new definition of "preparer" to the definitions in40 CFR 260.10. While this new definition was proposed inthe context ofthose using

an electronic manifest, the purpose of the definition was to extend to the electronic manifest sufficient flexibility
to enable the person performing the steps necessary to prepare awaste shipment fortransportation to also 

### 10791

I

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10791 2005Federal Register /Vol. 70, No...42 /Friday, March 4, 2005 /Rules and Regulations

prepare and sign the electronic manifest

onbehalf ofthe generator. The discussignin the NPRM ofthe proposed. "preparer" definition referred to the instructions for Iterh 16 ofthe current manifest paper form as a precedent for this flexibility in the paper context, since the Item 16 instruction allows signatures on the generator certification
statement to be made "on behalfof" the generator. Thus, this aspect ofthe proposed rule raised an issue dealing withthe activities ofshipment preparers, their authority to initiate and signthe manifest forthe generator, and their resulting responsibilities. Similarly, inthe context 'ofTSDFs rejecting waste shipments and preparing manifests to forward rejected waste to alternate facilities (or return the shipment to the generator), the NPRM raised the issue ofthe responsibility and liability ofthe rejecting TSDF when it initiates a new'manifest and signs the generator's certification statement. For the latter issue, we proposed that the TSDF in such cases was signing the manifest in the capacity ofan "offeror" of the shipment,but we asked for
comment whether the TSDFforwarding

a rejected waste under a new manifest should be viewed instead as signing the manifest as the agent ofthe generator. Today's final rule affirms that theTSDF rejecting waste and completing a new manifest to track the rejected waste to

an alternate facility (orthe generator site) signs the manifest inthe capacity

as offeror ofthe shipment, and not as an agent ofthe generator. Norwould the TSDF be functioning as a generator by intitiating such a manifest, although the NPRM would have had-the facility sign the Generator's Certification statement. The specific issue ofTSDFs rejecting
wastes and their offeror responsibilities when they complete and sign new manifests is addressed in detail in section IV.B.3. ofthis preamble. However, because the offeror concept carries broader implications for hazardous waste shipments and waste handlers, and overlaps with the, "preparer" concept that we proposed in the May, 2001 NPRM, we are including additional discussion here ofthe offeror
status and how it impacts more generally those who prepare hazardous
waste shipments and manifests for transportation.

The term "offeror" refers to a status that is well understood under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs) ofthe Department of Transportation (DOT). The HMRs apply
to persons who transport.hazardous materials incommerce, as well as to persons who offer hazardous materials for transportation. Since hazardous
wastes are also hazardous materials within the scopd ofthe HMRs, and since

our RCRA statute requires us to regulate hazardous waste transportation-related activities consistent with DOT regulations, the requirements and policies adopted in the HMRs with respect to those who offerhazardous materials fortransportation ("offerors") apply to hazardous waste shipments and those who offerhazardous wastes in transportation. DOT consistently has interpreted the "offeror" status as connoting those persons in,'olved with performing certain "pre-transportation" functions that must occurbefore hazardous materials are transported in

commerce. Overthe years, DOT has described the pre-transportation functions that may be performed by an "offeror" as including activities such as deteimining a material's hazard class, selecting a packaging, making and labeling apackage, filling a hazardous materials package, preparing a hazardous materials shipping paper (includingthe hazardous waste manifest), providing emergency response information, and certifying that ahazardous material is inproper condition for transportatiop in conformance withthe HMRs. The latter certification is in fact made when one signs the shipper's certification on a hazardous materials shipping paper, Which occurs with respect to the hazardous waste manifest when one signs the Generator's Certification
statement. DOT has issued interpretive letters and-policy statements respecting offerors and their responsibilities when they perform the types ofpretransportation activities described above. However, these activities and responsibilities were further clarified by DOT when the Department codified these policies in a recent final regulation dealing with the applicability ofthe HMRs to loading, unloading, and storage. See 68 FR 61906 (October 30, 2003). Inthis rule, DOT codified gnew regulatory definition of"pre-

- transportation function," and listedthe above-described activities and others as examples oftheses functions that are specified inthe HMR and "required to

assure the safetransportation ofa hazardous material in commerce." See 49 CFR 171.8.

In the preamble discussion ofthe "pre-transportation functions," DOT explains that a pre-transportation

- function is performed to prepare a hazardous material and its accompanying shipping documentation fortransportation and is required to

assure its safetransportation in commerce. 68FR 61906 at 61909. The rule further explains that it does not matter ifthe pre-transportation function is performed by the shipper's (generator's) personnel orby the carrier's (transporter's) personnel. The HMR requirements apply to any person who performs oris responsible for performing the pre-transportation functions, and that person must perform the functions in accordance with the HMRs. See 68 FR at 61909-61911. Moreover, as to when compliance or non-compliance mustbe demonstrated, DOThas stated that it would generally expect an offeror to be able to demonstrate compliance with all applicable pre-transportation requirements atthe tine the hazardous material is staged forloading and,the shipping paper is signed, as thisis the offeror's certification that thematerial has been prepared properly for transportation in accordance with the HMRs. Id. at 61911-61912. At the same time, however, DOT has clarified that "intermediaries" who certify as the offeror assume responsibility only "for. all aspects ofthat shipment about which he knew or should have known."

EPA is today clarifying that the issues concerning the activities of shipment "preparers" and the corresponding issues tied with the authority ofa generator or other preparer to complete and sign the Generator's Certification
statement on the manifest are governed by the same considerations, discussedby DOT with respect to "offerors" and the performance ofthe pre-transportation functions described in49 CFR 171.8. Since hazardous waste shipments and
waste handlers are subject to the HMRs, and DOT recently has finalized a rulemaking under the HMRs which. provides more clarity on these issues, EPA is deferring to these DOT requirements, rather than adopting its

own definitions or differing interpretations based on the "on behalf of" language inthe.manifest instructions or on "preparer" signatures,
etc.

Therefore, this final rule resolves the issues pending in thisrulemaking relating to preparers signing manifests and TSDFs initiating new rejected waste manifests consistent with the DOT requirements in the HMRs pertaining to offerors and pre-transportation functions. Moreover, we have amended the Generator's Certification statement

on the manifest form so that it will be described on the revised form as the Generator's/Offeror's Certification. This change more accurately represents the fact that the person signing the certification statement may in some instances be an offeror involved with 

### 10792

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10792 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

the preparation ofthe waste shipment (orofthe manifest) fortransportation, rather than the waste generator.

. While the proposed rule discussed the offeror status while dealing with the issue ofTSDFs rejecting and re-shipping wastes, we wishto emphasize that the offeror concept is broad enough to cover many waste shipment scenarios. Indeed, the offeror status and signature would be encountered most commonly in connection with the waste pick-up and transportation arrangements made between generators and waste transporters whenthe transporters service the generators' sites. Since the transporter's personnel frequently will aid generators in preparing their waste shipments for transportation (e.g., selecting packages, labeling containers, filling and closing containers, selecting and affixing placards, completing the manifest orreviewing it for compliance with the HMRs and RCRA), the transporter performing such pretransportation functions may be an offeror with respect to the shipment. While agenerator may certainly sign the generator certification statement in its capacity asthe generator, today's rule is intended to clarify that another person, such as a transporter making awaste pick-up and helping with the pretransportation functions, may signthe certification statement on the manifest intheir capacity as an offeror. This person may sign as an offeror ifthey have performed pre-transportation functions, and can certify that the shipment has been properly described, classified, packed, marked, and labeled, and is in all respects in proper condition for transportation under the applicable international ornational regulations. The person preparing the shipment and making the certification is responsible for the proper discharge of the offeror functions they perform and the truth ofthe certification statement. The offeror is liable in its independent offeror capacity for discharging their offeror responsibilities, regardless of whether or notthey may also be viewed

as performing these activities "on behalf of" orthe agent ofthe generator, asthe generator's independent service contractor, orpursuant to a course of dealing with the generator. I

Because we believe that the "offeror" approach and ihe new regulatory requirements in the HMRs concerning pre-transportation functions deal effectively with the issues we raised.in the NPRM with respect to shipment preparers and manifest signatures, we

are not finalizing the definition of "preparer" we proposed forinclusion in § 260.10. Nor are we expanding or otherwise modifying the meaning ofthe language inthe Item 16 manifest form instruction enabling one to include the words "on behalf of" in connection with

a signature, although it will now apply both to generator and offeror signatures. A preparer who assists with pretransportation functions under the HMRs, and who can cdtify to the "shipper's certification" statements in the Generator's/Offeror's Certification, may sign this certification and initiate the manifest as an offeror. The "on behalf of" language is retained inthe instruction to the signature item in orderto effectuate the limited purpose forwhich this language was added in 1986, that is, to connote that generator (andnow offeror) organizations typically act through their employees or agents, and that the employee/agent signatures bind the organizations they represent.

The term "offeror" thus connotes a status in hazardous materials management distinct from that of'a shipper orgenerator. The offeror's responsibilities are limited to the proper discharge ofthe pre-transportation functions they perform or certify to being properly performed. While it is
true that a generator may often elect to perform the pre-transportation functions, these represent only a subset of the full generator responsibilities set out in 40 CFRpart 262. Likewise, when 'an entity other than a generator (e.g., transporter or TSDF) performs pretransportation functions as an offeror, it does not thereby assume full generator responsibilities. Rather, it assumes only the more limited responsibilities (for the pre-transportation functions) and the distinct liabilitythat attaches to the offeror status. Therefore, aTSDF that only is offering hazardous waste in transportation after rejecting and staging the waste temporarily at its facility would be subject to the offeror responsibilities forthe new movement ofthe waste, but it would not be subject
to the full range of generator requirements. This issue is explained further in section IV.B.3. ofthis preamble.

H.1. DelayedComplianceDate for RevisedForm-Introduction. When we proposed the manifest form revisions in May 2001, we were interested in according manifest users and authorized
states adequate time to phase-in use of the new form. We realized that waste handlers and states would need some time tobecome familiar with the new requirements, entities with existing " stocks of manifests would want to use up their supplies ofthe "old forms," and new manifest printers would require timeto register with EPA and prepare for printing and distributing the revised'manifest. Likewise, state agencies would need sufficient time to amend theirregulatory programs and adapt their databases to meet the new form requirements.

Cognizant ofthese factors, we proposed a "delayed compliance date"
to allow time to transition to the new form. Under the proposed approach, the final rule would become effective six months after publication in the Federal Register, as is typically the case with RCRA regulations. However, forthe first two years dfter the effective date ofthis final rule, we proposed that manifest

users (i.e.,waste handlers) could choose which manifest form to use. They could

use either the "old" manifest forms or the "new" manifest form established by this rulemaking. Those using the old manifest forms during the transition period would continue to record state tracking numbers and follow the instructions that accompany those forms. Anyone using the new form during the transition period wouldbe required to comply with the form changes, instructions, and procedures applicable to the new form. At the conclusion ofthe proposed two year delayed compliance period, the revised form would be the only valid manifest that could be printed, distributed or used.

2. CommentAnalysis.Commenters generally expressed support for the "delayed compliance date" ortransition period approach. State agency commenters supported a phase-in period forthe new form,but several cautioned that not every state would be able to make the necessary statutory and regulatory changes by the end ofthe proposed two-year period. However, several other state commenters claimed that two years was sufficient to implement the new form. In addition, state'commenters also expressed

concerns about their ability to adapt their tracking data bases to the new form requirements, and in particular, the confusion that would occur during the proposed two-year transition period if boththe new form and old form were acceptable.

Industry commenters also supported the proposed'transition period. However, their comments revealed a greater concern about the possible delay in achieving the benefits ofmanifest reform due to the transition period. While most industry commenters supported the two-year period, some desired to shorten the transition period
to one year. These commenters argued this would ensure that the new form's benefits would berealized sooner in all states, and it would minimize problems associated with supporting dual 

### 10793

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10793 2005

### Federal Register /Vol. 70, No. 42/ Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

administrative systems. State aid industry commenters shared the view that the proposed rule failed to clearly address the effect that authorized state program status would have onusers' ability to implement the new form duringthe transition period. In particular, industry commenters urged EPA to clarify that waste handlers could begin to usethe new form atany time during the transition period, regardless ofwhether the.'states had adopted the revised form requirements intheir authorized programs. These commenters

were concerned that the states could delay the new form's benefits beyond the two year transition period if they delayed adopting the new form.

3. DelayedComplianceDate-Final RuleApproach.After considering all the
comments on this issue, we have decided to modify the transition approach from that whichwe proposedin May 2001. The comments that most influenced our decision were those suggesting that: (1)We should not extend the transition period or delay the realization ofthe new form's benefits-for

more than two years; (2)we should be sensitive to states' interests and allow the states a reasonable amount oftime
to adopt regulations and modify databases to accommodate the new form; (3)we should minimize oravoidany period ofdual compliance with both the old and new manifest forms;' and, (4) we should clarify more precisely when usersmay implement the new form.

In order to accommodate these key interests, today's final rule announces a. delayed compliance period of 12 months for the new manifest form and its requirements. The delayed compliance period will begin on the effective date ofthe rule, which is September 6, 2005, and end 12 months later on September 5, 2006. The overall effect ofthe effective date and the delayed compliance period is that implementation oftherevised manifest form and requirements willbe delayed until September 5, 2006. Webelieve that this approach is much easier to implement than ourproposed two year transition period. Since itis standard practice for EPA regulations to include

a six monthdelayed effective date measured from the date ofpublication, today's final rule simply adds an additional 12 months ofdelayed compliance to allow users, state agencies, EPA and form printers to prepare to use the new form.

Therefore, prior to September 5, 2006, the existing manifest forms and requirements will continue to be implemented. Users and states willhave

a full 18months to use up their stocks ofexisting manifests, and the states will be able to utilize this time to revise their regulatory requirements and adopt any necessary changes to their databases. Since only the existing forms will be accepted during this time, there should be no confusion about which form to

use during the initial 18-month period after this finalrule is published, nor any problems arising from dual implementation ofthe old and new forms. In addition, EPA willhave adequate time to establish the manifest registry system, and registrants should have ample time to register with EPA and prepare to print and distribute the

new form during the 18-m6'nth period.

After September 5, 2006, only the new manifest form and requirements established under today's final rule will be valid and acceptable for use. All shipments ofhazardous waste initiated by generators or offerors on or after this date mustbe accompanied by the revised manifest form. Manifests initiated under the old forms and procedures by generators or offerors before this date may continueto accompany waste shipments that are already'intransportation after the delayed compliance date fortoday's rule. Bythe end ofthe 18-month delayed compliance period, we expect that all necessary preparations for the

use ofthe new form should be completed, so that no significant hardship shouldresult from requiring the exclusive use ofthe revised form and requirements after this date.

4.DelayedComplianceDateInteractionwith DOT Authority,Since the promulgation ofthe Uniform Manifest by EPAand DOT inMarch 1984, the Agencies have emphasized that the RCRA manifest derives its implementation authority from both RCRA Subtitle C and DOT'sHazardous Materials ("Hazmat") laws. The manifest'sjoint RCRA/Hazmat nature affects the implementation ofthe revised manifest announced in today's final rule, particularly withrespect to implementation ofthe new form after the rule's delayed compliance date. Therefore, this section ofthe preamble explains the interaction with hazardous materials authority, since this interaction produces results that are not typical ofother RCRA requirements based onnon-HSWA authority (i.e., statutory authority predating the Hazardous and Solid Waste .Amendments of 1984).

For other RCRA Subtitle C regulations based onpre-HSWA authority, federal revisions such astoday's rule do not take effect untilthe states adopt the new requirement under state law and receive authorization from EPA for the program revision. However, as we explained in the 1984 Uniform Manifest Rule, any changes That EPA and DOT adopt to the hazardous waste manifest may bemade effective.immediately on the effective date ofthe regulation, regardless of when states become authorized for the revisions to the manifest system. This result follows from the DOT's authority. under the hazardous materials laws to regulate uniformly the requirements for the use and content ofshipping papers. As we said inthe 1984 rule, These DOT amendments operate independently ofRCRA requirements and willbe applicable in all states, regardless oftheir authorization status" (55 FR 10490 at 10492 (March 20, 1984)). However, unlike the 984 Rule, today's Manifest Form Revisions Rule includes an additional 12 months of delayed compliance measured from.the effective date ofthe rule. EPA and DOT
agree that there are sound reasons for this delayed compliance period, which has the effect ofdelaying the actual implementation ofthe new form until September 5, 2006. Thus, today's final rule will not be implemented immediately on the rule's effective date. Rather, on the delayed compliance date ofSeptember 5, 2006, today's finalrule and the new manifest form will be implemented under DOT's authority to regulate these matters'uniformly, regardless ofRCRA state authorization
status. Indeed, when today's finalrule is in fact implemented on September 5, 2006, DOT willhave the express statutory authority to preeinpt any state and local requirements that are not "substantively the same" as the federal manifest requirements announced in today's rule. This results from the inclusion ofthe preparation, execution and use ofshipping documents among the so-called "covered subjects" within the express preemption provisions of the Hazmat statute and regulations. See 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1), 49 CFR 107.202(a)(3).

Therefore, after the delayed compliance date fortoday's rule, only the revised ornew manifest



### . requirements will remain valid. Federal and state officials may enforce the new manifest requirements under the authority ofthe federal hazardous materials transportation laws. They may also enforce the new manifest under the
state law authorities ofthe RCRA authorized states at such time as the
states adopt the new form requirements and obtain authorization forthem from EPA. However, itmust be emphasized that onthe delayed compliance date, the

new manifest requirements willbecome applicable uniformly in all states under 

### 10794

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10794 2005Federal Register /Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005 /Rules and Regulations

the authority ofthe hazardous materials transportation laws, regardless ofstate authorization status. While the new manifest requirements will also take effect asRCRA requirements once the authorized states obtain authorization fortheir programrevisions adopting the

new form, the new form and requirements willbe applicable in all authorized states under hazardous materials authority inthe interim period between the delayed compliance date and the date the states' program revisions are authorized byEPA.

III. Manifest Form Acquisition and Registry

A.1. ManifestFormAcquisitionIntroduction.The May 2001 NPRM discussed 40 CFR 262.21 (i.e., acquisition hierarchy), which requires generators to look first to the consignment state's manifest requirements (i.e., the state in which the hazardous waste shipmentwill be transported and subsequently managed). Ifthat state supplies amanifest and requires its use, the generator is required to use that state's manifest for the waste shipment. If, however, the consignment state does not supply a manifest, but the generator's state supplies one and requires its use, then the generator mustuse the manifest required by its state. If neither the consignment state nor generator state supplies amanifest, the generator can obtain the manifest from any source. In addition, 40 CFR 271.10 requires states to follow the federal format forEPA Manifest form 8700-22, and, if
necessary, EPA Form 8700-22A but allows.states the option to supplement the federal manifest format, to a limited extent, provided that their manifest complies with the consistency requirements ofthe Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). Thus, states are able to print and distribute their own manifests and are afforded some discretion to include state-specific instructions for optional fields, minor formatting variations and variations for copy submission schemes. InMay 2001, EPA proposed revisions to these manifest acquisition regulations, limiting the types of information that
state agencies could require onthe new form.

The following sections discuss the proposed changes to the manifest acquisition system, Registry, printing specifications, copy submissions, and the regulatory changes to 40 CFR 262.21 resulting from today's rule.

2. Proposed ManifestAcquisition Provisions.EPA proposed to remove the manifest hierarchy acquisition system and replace itwith a standardized acquisition approach. We also proposed
to establish a new operational function, called the "Registry," in which we would provide minimal oversight to

ensure that the new forms are printed properly. According to the proposed acquisition approach, state agencies could no longer require generators to

use their state's manifest, and users could obtainthe manifest from a number ofsources. State agencies could print the new form, but would have to register with EPA first. Similarly, the

new acquisition system would allow
waste handlers (generators,transporters and TSDFs) and commercial business form printers to print the form,but they, too, would be reqtuired to register with the Agency before doing so. Thus, state agencies, generators and other waste handlers that need the form could register with EPA to print the form themselves or they could obtain manifests from other r6gistered sources.

In general, industry commenters supported the proposed manifest acquisition approach, indicating that it would reduce the administrative burden

on certain waste handlers, particularly those who conductbusiness in multiple
states that require Use oftheir state manifest. State agency's comments on the proposed changes to the manifest acquisition system varied. State
commenters who supported the proposed changes also suggested that

we post certain state-specific information such as state waste codes,
state mailing address and statecopy submission requirements on an EPA hosted Web site. State commenters who. criticized the new manifest acquisition approach did so for several reasons.

First,the proposed approach would

remove states' ability to control exclusively the manifest production and distribution system. According to these commenters, the proposed changes would economically disadvantage those
states that currently sell blank forms because they will lose the revenue they currently collect from selling manifests.2

Following discussions with most of the states that collect fees for selling blank forms, EPA has learned that these
states generally use the revenues from selling blank manifests only to recoup their printing costs, and not to fund other components oftheir waste

2Public data sources we reviewed in 2003 indicate that 12 state governments (AR, CA, CT, DE, IL, LA, MD, MI, MO, NH, NJ, PA)may collect

revenues from direct assessment offees during distribution ofstate-printed RCRA manifests, totaling an estimated $1.16 to $2.44 million per year (see "Economics Background Document" for basis ofthis estimate). However, as of2004, we estimate there may only be seven states collecting manifest printing and distribution fees. programs. Some states also have collected fees to offset the costs of processing collected manifest forms (e.g., entering data into tracking databases), and in afew cases, the

revenues collected from selling blank forms have been used to offset these processing costs as well as the printing
costs. However, in our discussions with the states on manifest form fees, we found that several states no longer collect their processing fee as part ofthe sale price ofthe blank forms, but as a distinct charge divorced from the sale of the forms. Other states which collect these fees and consulted with us on the 'development ofthis rule also have indicated that they will in the future collect their processing fees by a means not tied to the sale ofblank forms. Since most states only are recovering their printing costs when they sell manifests, and the states charging processing fees also have identified other means not tied to selling forms forrecovering their processing costs, we do notbelieve that the proposed acquisition approach for the revised manifest would impact significantly these state program

revenues.

The states with manifest tracking programs.typically use their manifest' data to assess additional waste management fees tied to the amount of
waste being generated or managed in the
states. The proposed acquisition approach would not impair states' ability to assess and collect these waste management fees, and we are encouraging the use ofadditional state waste codes as ameans to flag statespecific requirements that would have significance to collecting such fees. Thus, ifthere are limited instances where a stateis using revenues from selling blankmanifests for other waste program purposes beyond offsetting form printing costs orprocessing costs,

we believe that any reduction in such

revenue tied to the proposed acquisition approach could berecouped by adjustments to the waste management feesi.After considering these comments and the information we learned from discussing the revenue issue with additional states, we do not believe that the revenue issueraised by commenters is sufficient enough to warrant abandoning oraltering the proposed acquisition approach.

As a second key concern, several state commenters argued that the new manifest acquisition approach would result in less net burden reduction than the proposal suggested. These
commenters suggested that theproposed acquisition approach provides neither the time and buiden savings nor the decreased complexity that we claimed 

### 10795

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10795 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

.wouldresultto the regulated community. They noted that the proposed approach would continue to require generators to contact all states in which they conducted business to obtain information on individual state requirements (e.g., information on requirements for generator form submission to generator state, waste codes, etc.). Finally, some state commenters argued that the proposed changes are in factmore confusing because they prohibit the inclusion of state-specific information and instructions on the form. One
commenter stated that eliminating the state's ability to print complete directions on the back ofthe manifest would increase burden on a large percentage ofwaste handlers who would need to maintain a separate filing system for state directions.

3. Final ManifestAcquisition Provisions.The final rule substantively retains the proposed manifest acquisition and Registry regulations at §262.21. Under the final §262.21 manifest acquisition requirements, a waste generator, transporter or TSDF

can register with EPA to print its own manifests, or it could obtain manifests from other registered sources such as states, commercial printers orother waste handlers. The final manifest acquisition requirements do not allow
states to require generators to use their
state form.

The Agency recognizes that although today's action standardizes the manifest acquisition provisions, generators must still be cognizant of state-specific information, such as state waste code and generator manifest copy submission instructions. Generators will be ableto determine this state-specific information from a variety ofsources, such as Web sites, stateregulations and other published materials, or contacts with State agency staff. We, however, do not

- agree with commenters' argument that
waste handlers will need to maintain a separate filing system for state directions. The Agency notes that ithad proposed to eliminate all buttwo optional fields (i.e.,Waste Codes and Handling Codes, previously Items I and K, respectively) from the form and has since made these two blocks mandatory with today's action. (Seesections II.E.4 and II.F.6 forfurther discussion on management method codes and waste codes, respectively.)

Further, in response to commenters' suggestions to provide additional support to industry under the revised manifest procedures, EPA is planning to design a Web site to: (1)Assist registrants to prepare their applications; (2) provide a means forbothprinters and the public to communicate with the Registry; and, (3) assist waste handlers in completing their manifests to accompany hazardous waste shipments. In addition, we would post the following guidance documents (once they are finalized)at the EPA Web site:

.• Registration instructions that will lay outthe specific requirements/ components ofthe application package, along with examples ofwhat EPA expects to see (e.g., examples ofquality control procedures for tracking numbers, definition ofterms, etc) and a Q&A document offrequently asked questions.

* A guidance document that sets forth print specifications that registrants may

use in preparing manifest samples for Registry evaluation.

* Anup-to-date list of all approved registrants, contact information, and approved numbering schemes. The list would allow: (i) Prospective registrants
to develop and propose unique suffixes; (ii) states to learn which entities are printing manifests in their state; and, (iii)the public to contact registrants for, forms; and Information and/or links to assist waste handlers in completing the manifest, including the manifest instructions,'a description ofthe delayed compliance date, and related matters, applicable state requirements (e.g., statemanifest copy submission requirements, contacts, waste codes), federal waste codes and Hazardous Waste Report Management Method codes.

With regard to the state manifest programs' potential loss ofrevenue, we understand these concerns, but as we explained above, after a more thorough consideration ofthis issue, we believe that the revenue losses that willresult from the new acquisition approach will either be insignificant or'can be avoided by the states as they plan for the implementation ofthe revised form.

B.1. Proposed ManifestRegistryand Printing Specifications-Introduction. We proposed a Registry system that described procedural mechanisms and offered federal printing specifications to

ensure that printers used unique tracking numbers oneach manifest, and
to reduce the possibility ofprinting
many variations ofmanifest forms. The manifest tracking number would be a unique pre-printed 11-digit number (i.e., the applicant's proposed unique threeletter prefix followed by eight numeric digits). EPA proposed to prohibit people from assigningmanifest tracking numbers and distributing the form without submitting an application to EPA and receiving approval oftheir manifest tracking number system. In general, the proposed regulations required the following administrative procedures and printing specifications:

* Applicants mustregister with EPA
to obtainmanifest tracking number system approval and to ensure that they adhere to federal printing specifications and procedures. Prospective registrants
must submit their company's profile information (e.g., company name, address, EPA Identification number, mailing address, etc.), their proposed, unique three-letter prefix and a detailed description oftheir numbering system (i.e.,creating and assigning of 11-digit alphanumeric manifest tracking numbers to manifests);

* Applicants must submit amanifest proof;

* Applicants must sign a certification
to ensure tracking numbers will notbe duplicated intentionally and, if applicable, will adhere to all printing specifications;

* The form mustbe printed in the

same format asEPA Form 8700-22 and 22A, according to the federal printing specifications at 40 CFR 262.21(b);

* Manifest tracking nufmber mustbe assigned in accordance with a numbering system approved byEPA and must be pre-printed onthe form;

* Applicants cannot add additional boxes on the form;

e Applicants cannot delete existing boxes on the form;

e Applicants must printthe form with manifest dimensions of81/2 by 11 inches;

* Applicants must print the form in black inkso that it can be photocopied

orfaxed;

* Applicants must print the standardized manifest instructions, provided inthe appendix to Part 262, on, theback ofthe manifest; and,

* Applicants mustprint the form as a six-copy form and must indicate on the form that copies ofthe form are distributed as follows:

Page 1 (topcopy): "Designated facility
to consignment state" (ifrequired);

Page 2: "Designated facility to generator state" (ifrequired);

Page 3: "Designated facility to generator";

Page 4: "Designated facility copy"; Page 5: "Transporter copy"; and, Page 6 (bottomcopy): "Generator's initial copy."

In the proposal, we stated that generators should provide aphotocopy ofthe manifest iftheir state requires it. The proposal also noted that a completed manifest may contain fewer
pages ifthe state does not require submission offorms; however, printers

arerequired to print six-copy forms. Under certain circumstances (e.g., 

### 107b6

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10796 2005Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

exports, imports, additional transporters, exception reporting, and/or
states requiring additional copies), more than six copies ofamanifest may be necessary. Inthese cases, the generator

ortransporter must photocopy the most legible copy ofthe form available to

ensure that the extra manifest copies are legible.

In general, industry commenters supported the Registry process, but indicated that EPA should provide greater detail onthe Registry and the tracking number systemthan we provided inthe proposal. Commenters also requested that information be provided to the regulated community so that they canbe assured that prospective form registrants are granted authorization byEPA to print and distribute manifests forms. One industry
comment suggested that EPA provide

more information in areas such as: procedures forregistering and applying for the unique numbers; information on how to contact the Registry; the mechanism for obtaining manifest numbers; and a verification process by which the public can confirm that waste handlers are authorized to use their assigned numbers, etc. Another
commenter recommended that EPA develop a registration application form for the manifest and make it available to waste handlers and states. Industry
commenters also suggested that EPA conduct the Registry electronically and by mail so that waste handlers and states could register and obtainunique numbers via the internet.

State comments on the proposed Registry and manifest tracking number system varied. Some state commenters favored the proposed Registry provided thatEPA implements procedures which

ensure the printing ofnon-duplicate numbers. A few ofthese commenters also suggested thatEPA post a Registry ofprinters on the EPA Web site so that they and others could have links to the Web site and could access manifest information easily. Other state commenters supporting theproposed Registry suggested that EPA assign blocks ofnumbers to entities and make information regarding tracking number assignment for printers available to states. One commenter suggested that EPA should ensure its numbering scheme does not duplicate states'
current numbering conventions. However, several state commenters expressed concern that delegating printing responsibility to industry would lead to ahodgepodge ofdifferent tracking schemes or other difficulties. Some ofthese commenters suggested that states control the distribution of blocks oftracking numbers. We understand that the states want

assurance that approved registrants will pre-print a unique tracking number on each manifest. However, EPA does not believe that it or state agencies must have strict control assigning and distributing tracking numbers. We believe our involvement is necessary to

some extent,but only shoilldbe operational innature. In other words,

we will implement policies and procedures needed to run the Registry, provide the necessary guidance and/or detailed specification for designing the manifest, and set forth procedures for approving or denying form printers' applications.

Commenters also provided suggestions for the form printing specifications. Several commenters suggested that EPA: Include hash marks in Item 14; prohibit the use ofcorporate logos, advertising or other information
not explicitly allowed in the rule; eliminate shading on the form; use a black border to designate sections ofthe manifest; ensure minimum quality of paper; and, ensure readability of instructions on theback ofthe manifest. EPA researched state manifests and consulted five commercial printers and four states to identify additional specifications that the.Agency should require in today's rule orin guidance. Although EPAgenerally agrees with the commenters' suggestions, we also recognize, based on ourresearch, that certain printing specifications shouldbe left to the discretion ofprinters. For these reasons, the final rule leaves a considerable amount ofdiscretion to the registrant-in designing its manifest. Refer to section III.B.3 ofthispreamble for a discussion ofthe final print specifications.

2 Final ManifestRegistry.The registration approach being finalized today under §262.21(a) through (e) reflects our desire to fully evaluate the ability ofthe registrant to tightly control the use of its tracking numbers and to print an acceptable manifest. In many respects, our final Registry approach resembles the proposed approach. However, we have expanded the proposed approach, keeping commenters' concerns and suggestions in mind. Most notably, the final approach requires a registrant to submit
two separate application components to the Agency. This differs from the proposed approach, under which. registrants would have submitted a single application to the Agency. EPA revised the proposed approach because

we determined that the Agency would
not have received enough information in one application submission to effectively evaluate the registrant's printing capabilities. In particular, the Agency would nothave received a proof ofthe manifest for which approval is requested. Because the print specifications being published today leave considerable discretion to the registrant to design its maiiifest, the Agency believes it is essential that we evaluate and approve samples ofthe registrant's forms before they are used or sold. Hence, the final.Registry approach requires the registrant to submit afuller description ofits printing operations and several samples ofits manifest.

Although some commenters favored EPA developing aRegistry application form, we have chosen notto do so. We believe that discussions given in today's finalrule detailing the application
process, supplemented by posting Registry information onthe EPA Web site, are prescriptive enough for registrants to provide sufficient information. We also do not anticipate receiving a substantial number of applications. Because on these factors,

we do not believe an application form is warranted.

Section 262.21(a)(1) provides that the registrant may not print, orhave printed, the manifest for use or distribution unless it has received approval by EPA to do sounder §262.21(c) and (e). Section 262.21(a)(2) provides that the registrant is responsible for ensuring that the organizations identified in its application are in compliance with the approved application and the requirements of §262.21.

Because the §262.21(a) provisions. holdthe registrant directly accountable for compliance, we fully expect the registrant to use whatever mechanisms

are available to ensure that the organizations and companies in its application also comply with the requirements. This could include, for example, the use oforganizational controls (e.g., clear lines of communication, accountability and oversight) and production-related controls (e.g., the use ofquality management systems in the printing process). It also could includethe use of
contract terms and conditions that encourage strong performance by contracted firms.

In addition, §262.21(a)(2) provides that theregistrant is the only entitythat

can assign manifest tracking numbers to its manifests, except that the registrant

can delegate this activity. Webelieve this provision is needed to ensure tight control and accountability over its numbers. One ofour highestpriorities under the Registry is ensuring that each manifest used or distributed (e.g., sold
to the public) has a unique manifdst 

### 10797

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10797 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

tracking number. Because approved registrants willbe able to assign and pre-print tracking numbers onto manifests without anydirect Agency oversight, we believe it is critical that the registrant beheld accountable for ensuring that each manifest has a unique tracking number.

To become registered, aregistrant
must submit an initial application to the EPA under §262.21(b). The application
mustprovide basic information on the registrant's organization (e.g., contact information). The application also must include a description ofthe sccpe ofthe operations that the registrant plans to undertake inprinting, distributing and using its manifests. The registrant must describe whether itintends to print its manifests in-house or through-a separate (i.e., unaffiliated) printing company pursuant to contrat.

Inthis regard, EPA recognizes that registrants will likely propose various ways to print the manifest. We expect that some registrants will bewaste handler companies or forms brokers that do not have in-house printing capabilities. These companies may contract with a separate printing company to print their manifests. Other registrants might be commercial printers that may either print the forms themselves or outsource the print jobto

a subcontractor. Finally, there may be
state agencies that willregister to print the manifest, but contract with a commercial printer for these services.

Iftheregistrant intends to use a separate printing company to print the manifest on its behalf, the application
must identify thisprinting company. The application must discuss how the registrant will oversee the company to

ensure compliance with all applicable requirements. Ifthis includes the use of intermediaries (e.g., -primeand subcontractorrelationships), the role of each must be discussed.

As mentioned earlier, one ofour highest priorities is ensuring that each manifest used ordistributed to the public has aunique manifest tracking number. To this end, the application
must describe how the registrant will

ensure that aunique manifest tracking number willbe pre-printed on each manifest. The application must discuss the internal control procedures to be followed by the registrant and unaffiliated companies to ensure that numbers are tightly controlled and remain unique. Inparticular, the application must describe howthe registrant will assign manifest tracking numbers to its manifests. Ifcomputer systems or other infrastructure will be used to maintain, track, or assign numbers, these should be indicated. The application also must indicate how the printer will print a unique number on each form (e.g., crash or press numbering).

The rule does not specify how much information the registrant should provide in describing its processes and procedures for assigning and controlling numbers. This is left to the registrant's discretion. For registrants that propose a relatively simple printing arrangement (e.g.,-a registrant that will assign tracking numbers directly to an in-house printer), the description maybe relatively straightforward. Other organizations may propose more complex arrangements, e.g., a waste handler corporation that will delegate tracking numbers to multiple different facilities within the corporation. In this
case, the registrant will need to indicate how the numbers willremain unique

across facilities. In those cases where a registrant willrely on a commercial printer to print their manifests, the registrant should explain the control processes that it and the commercial printer will follow to ensure that the registrant's tracking numbers will be unique and not confused withthe tracking numbers ofany other registrant who may contract with the same printer for its manifest printing jobs. Inthe end, each registrant will need to use its discretion to determine the amount of information necessary to demonstrate that tracking numbers willremain unique, given its particular prifting arrangements and the complexity ofits operations.

The application also must describe the other quality procedures to.be followed by each establishment and

- printing company to ensure that all required print specifications are consistently achieved and that printing violations are identified and corrected at the earliest practicable time. Finally, the application mustindicate how the registrant intends to use the manifests (e.g., whether itintends to usethem for its own hazardous waste operations, sell them, or otherwise make them available
to generators).

Under §262.21(b)(6), theregistrant must describe the qualifications ofthe company that will print its manifest. A registrant that intends to print the manifest in-house (i.e., using its'own establishments) must describe the qualifications ofthese establishments to print the manifest. Registrants that intend to use a separate printing -company must describe the qualifications ofthis company. The registrant may use readily available information to do so (e.g., corporate brochures, product samples, customer references, Web site address), so long as such information pertains to the establishments or company being proposed.

The registrant also mustpropose a unique, three-letter suffix to beused in pre-printing a unique manifest tracking number on each manifest. EPA evaluated several different schemes before selecting athree-letter suffix. EPA decided to require a suffix because ofits concern about duplicating manifest tracking numbers previously used by the states on their forms. States' manifest tracking numbers normally begin with atwo- orthree-letter prefix, followed by six or seven digits. Under the tracking number scheme being finalized today, eachregistrant's preprinted number must consist ofnine digits followed by its unique suffix. As mentioned earlier, EPA is planning to design a Web site, and would include a table that identifies all suffixes that have been approved. A prospective registrant wouldneed to consult the Web site to determine which suffixes have not been approved and are therefore available. The registrant can propose any available suffix.'EPA expects that most approved registrants will burn their suffix directly
onto a printing plate. Each manifest can thenbe numbered sequentially as it passes through the printing process.

A duly authorized employee ofthe registrant must sign its application to certify that the organizations and companies in its application will comply with the procedures ofthe application and requirements of §262.21 and that it will notify EPA of any duplicated manifesttracking numbers on manifests that have been used or'distributed as soon asthis becomes known. EPA believes this certification is important to emphasize
to the registrant the importance of. ensuring that its printing operations produce consistently high quality manifests, that tracking numbers be tightly controlled, and that print violations becorrected promptly.

Under §262.21(c), EPA will either approve the application orrequest additional information or modification before approval. Once it is approved, EPA will email theregistrant an electronic file ofthe manifest, continuation sheet, and manifest instructions and askit to submit three fully assembled manifests that meet all ofthe specifications at-Section 262.21(f). The registrant also must describe its manifest's paper type, paper weight, ink color ofthe manifest's instructions, and binding method (See §262.21(d)). If screening ofthe ink was used for the mdnifest's instructions, the registrant
mustindicate the extent ofthe screening. The registrant need not 

### 10798

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10798 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005 /Rules and Regulations

-

submit samples ofits continuation sheet, so long as the continuation sheet willbe printed using the same paper type, paper weight, ink color ofthe instructions, and binding method ofthe manifest form.

After EPAreceives the form samples,

we will evaluate them to determine if the specificdtions of §262.21(f) have beenmet (See §262.21(e)). For example,

we will evaluate them to determine whether they have acceptable copy-tocopy registration, imprints appear legibly on all copies, and the inkofthe manifest's instructions does not bleed through the frontofthe copies.

Ifthe manifests pass these tests, EPA will approve the registrant to print, distribute and use the manifest as desired. The registrant may notuse or distribute its forms until EPA approves them. EPA anticipates the evaluation of the sample forms and their subsequent approval will take forty-five days. However, this process conceivably could extendbeyond the default fortyfive day time frame ifunforseen circumstances arise, orwe determine thatthe registrant's forms are unacceptable. IfEPA finds the forms unacceptable, we willrequest additional information or modification before approving or denying them. An approved registrant mustprint its manifest and continuation sheet according to its application approved under § 262.21(c) and the print specifications at §262.21(f). The forms also mustbe printed according to the paper type, paper weight, ink color of the instructions, and binding method of the approved form sample.

For the registration process to be successful and attractive to registrants and printers, we understand that we mustprovide adequate support to maximize the likelihood that their manifests will passEPA's tests on the first try.EPA recognizes that most printers will run a small test batch of forms to produce the form samples for EPA review, and thus, they will incur

some production costs. EPA is keenly interested inensuring that registrants develop an approvable manifest on the first try so they do not incur any added
expense ofredesigning their forms based on EPA's comments onthe original samples. To this end, EPA will provide an electronic file ofthe manifest, continuation sheet, and manifest instructions to registrants, which will relieve them ofthe needto completely typeset their forms. Using EPA's electronic file should ensure that theirforms have exact registration to EPA's forms and do not contain any typographical errors. In addition, EPA is planning to post manifest print guidance on its Web site. The guidance will set forth examples of manifest specifications that we have found to be acceptable under our tests (e.g., acceptable paper weights, ink colors forthe instructions). Registrants neednot follow these recommendations,

as there are many other combinations of specifications that will be acceptable. However, the registrant might increase its likelihood ofbeing approved ifit considers the guidance in designing its forms. The guidance also will describe how we will perform our tests ofthe form samples under §262.21(e) and will discuss the timeframe needed to review and approve registrants to print and distribute their manifest forms. While the registrant is notrequired to conduct such tests, they can increase its likelihood ofapproval by performing such tests on its forms before submitting them to the Registry. By setting forth print guidance and explaining our tests,

we believe we are creating a transparent process in whichthe registrant fully understands how itis being evaluated and how it can develop an approvable manifest.

Although many commercial printers agree with our requirement under §262.21(d) for registrants to submit form samples that meet the print specifications of§262.21(f), wenote that some commercial printers have expressed concern about it.They argue that three form samples will notprovide

uswith much.useful information on a registrant's ability to consistently print forms to our satisfaction. This is because eachprint job can vary (e.g.,brightness ofthe paper and the expertise ofthe print supervisor on shift can vary). Instead, some commercial printers have suggested that we require eachregistrant
to typeset the form (i.e., prepare it from scratch in a computer program), submit

a proofonbond paper that shows the format and appearance ofthe form, and indicate the.paper type, binding method, and other specifications they intend to use. Because these
commenters believe that printing the manifest is relatively straightforward, such a submittal shouldbe all'we need
to approve the registrant and be confident that it will produce adequate forms. They indicate that this approach, also willbe less expensive than requiring form samples that meet the § 262.21(f) specifications.

We disagree with these printers in several respects. First, we acknowledge the several limitations of evaluating a multi-part form sample. However, we believe the requirement for form samples provides critical information on the registrant. Form samples demonstrate the competence ofthe registrafit to print the form to our satisfaction under the §262.21(f) specifications. For many commercial printers, this willbe straightforward. States have relied on commercial printers foryears to print their forms, and these printers have developed an institutional knowledge and methods for ensuring appropriate binding, ink color for the instructions, and other aspects.

We expect,-however,that certain prospective registrants willbe completely new to multi-part forms printing and may nothave the necessary knowledge and capabilities. For example, certain hazardous.waste handlers may want to print their own forms, butlack prior experience in forms printing. Ifthe Registry required only that the registrant typeset the form, print it onbond paper, indicate the type ofpaper and other specifications, and submit these materials with its application, anyone with a personal computer could register, including persons with no demonstrable capability to print the forms with consistent quality on alarge scale.

Although we do notwant to discourage legitimate organizations from registering, we must ensure that each registrant is competent to print the form. Because the Registry willbe open to everyone, we feel an obligation to the
states and waste handlers-those who will use the forms-to separate legitimate registrants from the others. In effect, a registrant who submits form samples meeting the § 262.21(f) specifications willbe demonstrating its competence under the Registry.

In addition, we believe form samples will be necessary for us to determine if the registrant's forms meet the §262.21(f) specifications. Although we plan to provide guidance on our Web site on acceptable orapproved specifications (e.g., paper weight, etc.),

we fully expect that anumber of registrants will submit forms samples whose specifications are unfamiliar to

us. In such situations, we may not be certain that the proposed forms willbe adequate. Even ifthe registrant also provides us with samples ofthe blank
paper it intends to use (e.g., so we could write on themto testlegibility), we could notbe sure that the forms would be fully compliant with the §262.21(f) specifications. For example, we could
notbe sure of the extent to which the registrant's proposed ink color ofthe instructions might bleed through the front ofthe copies when photocopied, scanned, or faxed. We also may not be certain whether a registrant's proposed bindingmethod will ensure that copies 

### 10799

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10799 2005federal Register/.Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

do notbecome inadvertently detached during normal use ofthe form. There are different ways to bind copies together,

some ofwhich may not be effective. The only way for us to evaluate these aspects ofthe form confidently and fairly is for the registrant to submit form samples. Because ofthese reasons, the final rule includes the requirement for registrants
to submit to the Registrythree form samples that meetthe §262.21(f) specifications.

Under Section §262.21(g), agenerator

or other waste handler may obtain-its manifests from anyregistered source (e.g., a state agency, commercial printer,

or other waste handler). In completing its manifest, the generator also must determine whether the generator state or the consignment state -fora shipment regulates any additional wastes (beyond those regulated Federally) ashazardous
wastes under these states' authorized programs. Generators also must determine whether the consignment state.or generator state requires the generator to submit any copies ofthemanifest to these states. In cases where the generator must supply copies to either the generator's state or the consignment state, the generator is responsible for supplying legible photocopies ofthe manifest to these states. As mentioned above, EPA intends to post orprovide links to statespecific information on its Web site regarding copy distribution and state waste codes. Although this-information is meant to assist waste handlers in completing their forms, they should
note that there may be other sources of this information, and that itis the responsibility ofthe waste handlers to determine what state-specific information is required on their manifests.

-Subsequent to its approval to print the manifest, a registrant may want to update orchange its application. approved under § 262.21(c) or its manifest orcontinuation sheet approved under 262.21(e). To this end, §262.21(h) establishes procedures for updating or changing the approved application and form. Section 262.21(h)(1) provides that

an approved registrant may update the information inthe application approved under §262.21(c) by revising and. submitting itto EPA, along with an indication or explanation ofthe.change. EPA does not expect that registrants will often make changes to the substantive portions of its application (e.g., quality control procedures under §262.21(b)(5)). Rather, EPA expects registrants will simply update certain pieces ofinformation asnecessary 

### (e.g.,
company name or phone number). EPA either will approve or deny any substantive revisions. IfEPA denies a substantive revision, it will explain the

reasons for the denial and request that the registrant modify its proposed substantive changes before EPA will consider issuing an approval.

Under §262.21(h)(2), a registrant may requesta new manifest tracking number suffix (e.g., ifitneeds additional numbering capacity). The registrant
mustpropose a new unique suffix, along with the reason forrequesting it. EPA will either approve the suffix or deny the suffix and provide an explanation forthe denial. EPA expects that a denial would be rare,-since our-Web site will identify suffixes that are already approved and therefore unavailable.

Section 262.21(h)(3) addresses changes to an approved registrant's manifest forms, continuation sheets, or manifest printing company. As provided in §262.21(e), an approved registrant
mustprint the manifest according to its application approved under §262.21(c) and the manifest specifications in § 262.21(f). It also must.print the manifest according-to the paper type, paper weight, ink color ofmanifest

. instructions:and bindingmethod ofits approved form..Section 262.21(h)(3) provides that, ifan approved registrant would like to change its approved

- manifest or continuation sheet- in-regard to paper type, paper weight, ink color of manifest instructions, orbinding method, itmust submit revised samples
to the Agency forreview and approval. The registrant cannot use or distributa its revised forms-until EPA approves them. The registrant must address the Agency's comments orquestions before the revised forms canbe used or distributed. In the meantime, the registrant can continue to use the forms for which it was originally approved.

We recognize that this approach may, at firstglance, seem overly burdensome
to some registrants. In speaking with commercial printers, we found some of them supportive ofthe requirement for form samples and others opposed to it. Printers opposed to the requirement expressed concern that submitting a form sample each time aregistrant. changes the specifications willbe burdensome and delay its customers' printjobs. They also Were concerned about the uncertainty associated with

- EPA review offorms that have already been printed and.areready for shipment
to the customer.

As an initial point, EPA does not agree with the commercial printers that the requirements at 262.21(h)(3) are overly burdensome. EPA is allowing the registrant to run its print job as usual and requesting only that the registrant provide a few samples ofthe revised forms inthe mail. Ifthe registrant takes

care in redesigning its manifest (e.g., referring to EPA print guidance and testing its revised manifest before • submittal to the Registry), the registrant should fully expect its revised forms to be approved.

Beyond this, EPA expects that most registrants willbe forward-looking in their approach to printing the manifest. They will determine what their desired
paper type, paper weight and other specifications are when they initially register, so that they willbe comfortable withthem under their approved registration. If aprinting company seeking to register with EPA has two types ofpaper in its inventory, itmay decide to submit two sets ofsamples to theRegistry, to get approval forboth
paper types. Aprinting company also might want to get approved fortwo paper types so ithas the flexibility to

use onepaper type or the other in the
event that one paper type is discontinued by the manufacturer or goes up inprice. There is nbthing inthe regulations to prevent aregistrant from submitting.multiple sets.ofsamples under §262.21(d). Further, EPA expects that some approved registrants will submit samples oftheir revised forms to the Registry.in advance-oftheir receiving customer orders for them. Obtaining EPA's approval ofthe revised forms in advance ofcustomer requests will obviate any potential delay in printing the customer's order.

Section.262.21(h)(3) also requires a registrant to submit new manifest samples, along with the printer's qualifications to print multi-part forms, ifit would like for anew company to • print the manifest. For many ofthe same

reasons explained above, the Agency understands that printers vary in their competence to print the forms. EPA believes itis essential to evaluate all companids that will print the manifest by reviewing its forms and print qualifications.

As provided by § 262.21(i), if, subsequentto its approval under §262.21(e), a registrant typesets its manifest and continuation sheet instead ofusing the electronic file ofthe form providedby EPA, itmust submit a sample ofthe manifest and continuation sheet to the Registry forapproval. EPA recognizes that most registrants that get approved will print one or more batches offorms for use or sale. After the print jobs are done, the printer will destroy or recycle the printing plate and move on to the next print j6b. When it wishes to print more manifests, the printer will needto create a new printing plate. We

are not requiring the registrant to resubmit asample ofits approved 

### 10800

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10800 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

manifests each time it develops a new printing plate.As mentioned earlier, we will provide each registrant with an electronic file ofthe manifest, continuation sheet, and manifest instruqtions. We fully expect them to

save the file directly as an electronic image (ornegative) ofthe forms intheir computer system to recreate their printing plate when needed. Inthis way, the Agency expects minimal typesetting and therefore minimal risk ofhuman

error inreplicating the appearance and format ofEPA's forms. As long as all of the approved registrants use EPA's electronic file and avoidtypesetting their forms, we do not see the need to apbrove the form each timethe printer develops a new plate forthem.

Section 262.21(j) provides that EPA may, at its discretion, exempt a registrant from the requirement to submit a form sample under Sections 262.21(d) or (h)(3). A registrant may request an exemption from EPA by indicating why an exemption is warranted. We envision several reasons why aregistrant might request an exemption.

For example, it would notbe unusual fortwo ormore registrants to rely on the

same commercial printer to print their forms under the Registry. Ifa commercial printer prints the manifest

onbehalf.ofan approved registrant and then, subsequently, a second registrant applies to use that same printer, we do
notbelieve it is necessary forthe second registrant to submit new form samples under §262.21(d), so long as the same printer willbe printing the manifest usingthe samepaper type, paper weight, ink color ofthe instructions and binding method ofthe form samples approved for the first registrant. After the printer's forms get approved the first time, the second registrant could submit the printer's original form samples for evaluation under the Registry. Once approved under § 262.21(e), the second registrant mustuse that printer to print its forms according to the specifications
at 

### §262.21(f), aswell as the paper weight, paper typQ, ink color ofthe instructions, and binding method ofthe printer's originally approved form samples. It also mustpre-print aunique manifest tracking number on each manifest using its approved suffix.

Another common situation would be where aregistrant gets approved to print

a manifest using acertain paper type, paper weight, inkcolor ofthe instructions, and binding method, and subsequently wants to change one or
more of these specifications. Under 

### §262.21(h)(3) 4he registrant must submit three form samples and get EPA approval. As discussed earlier, we believe the § 262.21(h)(3) requirement is important for evaluating whether a registrant's revised manifest meets the specifications at §262.21(f). However, there mightbe some exceptions to this. For example, we do notbelieve we need
to evaluate a revised form sample ifwe
are aware that the revised specifications have already been approved for another registrant. As we evaluate and approve form samples under §§ 262.21(e) and (h)(3), we maypost approved form specifications (e.g., paper type, paper weight) onour Web site. Ifan approved registrant,would like to change one or

more ofits form's specifications to. another approved specification on our Web site, the registrant may notify EPA that it intends to do so, inlieu of submitting revised form samples. EPA could then relieve the registrant ofthe requirement to submit revised form. samples.

Section 262.21(k) provides that an approved registrant must notify EPA by phone or e-mail as soon'as itbecomes

aware that it has duplicated tracking numbers on any manifests that have -beenused or disfributed to other parties. The states have emphasized to EPA the importance ofregistrants notifying EPA ofeven minor duplications oftracking numbers. Therefore, EPA has included this requirement to ensure registrants notify.EPA ofsuch occurrences. Upon notification ofa duplicated number, EPA will try to determine the location ofthe forms in question and contact the
customer to prevent the use ofthe forms. Ifthisis notpossible, we will notify the state manifest programs that the forms are in circulation.

Under §262.21(1), if, subsequent to approval ofa registrant, EPA becomes

aware that the registrant's approved form does not satisfactorily meet the print specifications inparagraph (f) of this section, EPA will contact the registrant and require modifications to the form asneeded. As discussed earlier in this preamble, EPA willrequest and evaluate samples ofthe registrant's proposed form under § 262.21(e) to determine Whether it satisfies the print specifications at § 262.21(f). Inthe vast majority of cases, we expect this evaluation to provide enough information forEPA to determine effectively whether the registrant's form,

as designed, will satisfactorily meet all of the print specifications when produced by the registrant. Inrare cases, however, we believe it is possible that, subsequent to our approval under paragraph (e), we may become aware that forms produced by a registrant do
not meet all specifications in a satisfactory manner.In particular, we

are fully aware ofthe.limitations inherent in evaluating samples ofa registrant's forms (e.g., the quality ofits forms may vary significantly from one batch to the next based on many factors). Ifwe become aware that the forms produced and distributed by a registrant do not satisfactorily meet the specifications (e.g., based on complaints from states orwaste handlers), we will
contact the registrant to learn more about the problem and, ifneeded, request changes to the form orprinting operation.

Under §262.21(m), EPA might suspend and, ifnecessary, revoke printing privileges ifwe find that the registrant (i)has used or distributed forms that deviate from its approved form samples inregdrd to paper weight, paper type, inkcolor ofthe instructions,

orbinding method; or (ii)exhibits a continuing pattern ofbehavior in using

or distributing manifests that contain duplicate manifest tracking numbers. We will send a warning letter to the registrant that specifies the date by which it must come into compliance with the requirements. Ifthe registrant does not come incompliance by the specified date, EPA will send a second letter notifyingthe registrant that EPA has suspended or revoked its printing -privileges. EPA believes suspension or revocation ofprinting privileges will be very rare.

Section 262.21(m) also requires an approved registrant to provide information on its printing activities to EPA, ifrequested. EPA notes that the rule does notrequire registrants to submit any scheduled reports to the Agency that would enable us to evaluate whether they have used ordistributed forms with duplicated tracking numbers. As an initial matter, registrants must follow the procedures oftheir approved applications to tightly control their tracking numbers. We expect these procedures to be effective inminimizing the potential for duplication ofnumbers. Further, in its communications with states and commercial printers, EPA has found that,if acommercial printer identifies a duplicated number in abatch, it will address the problem (e.g., by destroying the manifests containing the error) in order to maintain a good relationship with its customers. EPAbelieves the

same dynamic will occur under the Registry process. Aregistrant that is itself acommercial printer willhave a strong incentive to minimize, detect and report any duplicated numbers on forms that have been used or distributed. This will ensure good relationships with its
customers and maintain aclean track record under the Registry. Registrants that use an unaffiliated company to 

### .10801

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10801 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

print the manifest willitself bethat printer's customer. In this case, the printer has a similarly strong incentive
to minimize and detect tracking number duplications.

Moreover, itis common industry practice for customers that enter into contractual arrangements with a printer
to include terms and conditions controlling against the potential duplication ofnumbers (e.g.,by using
terms such as "no duplicated numbers") and requiring reports to the customer of missing numbers. Infact, a registrant may choose to incorporate relevant provisions of its application into its
contract with theprinter.

3. Final ManifestPrintSpecifications. EPA ispublishing the final manifest print specifications at § 262.21(f). As intended, the print specifications are minimally prescriptive. They prescribe specifications only where needed to

ensure a basic level ofconsistency

across registrants' manifests (e.g., prescribing that each manifest must include six copies). Beyond this, the rule sets forth performance-based requirements that allmanifests must achieve (e.g., "handwritten and typed impressions on the form mustbe legible

on all six copies") and allow each registrant to design its manifest accordingly. EPA has chosen this approach in recognition ofcommenters' requests forflexibility -underthe Registry system. Inaddition, the Agency acknowledges that there are many different ways to design an acceptable manifest. It would have been unnecessarily arbitrary to prescribe a single specification for each aspect of the manifest. Under the approach being finalized today, each registrant has considerable flexibility to design its manifest according to its own printing capabilities, customer preferences, and available resources (e.g., existing inventory ofpaper).

Applicants whoprint the manifest form must adhere to the following printing specifications:

* The form must be printed with the
exact format and appearance as EPA -Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A. We believe registrants will easily achieve this requirement, since we will provide them with an electronic.file ofthe manifest, continuation sheet, and manifest instructions. They will convert the file into a suitable electronic image ofthe forms intheir computer system and create a printing plate. EPAwill provide the forms in a software program that will ensure that the manifest is consistently replicated across registrants' systems.

* A unique manifest tracking number assigned in accordance with a numbering system approved by EPA mustbe pre-printed in Item 4 ofthe form. The trackingnumber must consist ofa three-letter suffix following nine digits. Each registrant will need to select

a unique three-letter suffix. Ifapproved
to print the manifest, the registrant will

use this suffix to generate its unique tracking numbers. EPAwill post on our Web site alist ofsuffixes that have previously been approved. A prospective registrant will need to refer
to the list to identify those that are already inuse and thus unavailable to

new registrants. Manifest tracking numbers.can be added using one ofat least two methods: crashnumbering (i.e., imprinting the number on the first copy and letting the number impress on the other copies) or press numbering (i.e., imprinting the number on each copy and subsequently assembling the copies into the manifest). EPA is not requiring either method ofnumbering. However, we believe that crash numbering will generally result infewer numbering errors. Under press numbering, miscollation ofcopies subsequentto the printing process can

occur. This could result in amanifest that contains one or more copies-whose tracking number is incorrect. This risk is notpresent with crashnumbering. Because ofthis, EPA strongly
encourages the use ofcrash numbering

over press numbering. Ifaregistrant proposes to use press numbering, its application should describe quality control measures to ensure proper collation ofmanifest copies.

* The form mustbe printed on 81/2 x 11-inch white paper, excluding common stubs (e.g., top-or side-bound stubs). The
papermustbe durable enough to withstand normal use. EPA is not specifying paper type or weight. Registrants must select the appropriate
paper type and weight to ensure legibility on all sixcopies and paper durability.

0 The form, including manifest tracking number, mustbe printed in black ink that canbe legibly photocopied, scanned, and ffaxed, except that the marginal words indicating copy distribution mustbe in red ink.

e The form mustbe printed as a sixcopy form. Copy-to-copy registration
mustbe exact within '/32nd ofan inch. Handwritten and typed impressions on the form mustbe legible on all six copies. Copies must be bound together by one or more conmon stubs that reasonably ensure that theywill not become detached inadvertently during normal use. In our communications with the states, we learned oftheir deep

concern that the sixth copy ofmanifests is often illegible. This is a concern because generators may need to photocopy or faxthe sixth copy to states. Ifthe copy is illegible, this limits the state's ability to perform its functions effectively. Because ofthis,

we require that handwritten and typed impressions on the form mustbe legible

on all six copies.

e Ifthe form does nothave very close copy-to-copy registration, this could result in impressions on the inner and bottom copies that do not fall within the appropriate blocks. This could limit states' and waste handlers' ability to interpret or scan the impression (e.g., if it falls on ablack line ofthe form). To address this, we require copy-to-copy registration within 1/32nd ofan inch. This is a standard specification within the printing industry.

* The copies ofeach form mustbe bound together by one or more common stubs that reasonably ensure that they will notbecome detached inadvertently during normal use.

e Each copy ofthe manifest and continuation sheet must indicate how that copy mustbe distributed, as follows:

Page 1 (top copy): "Designated facility
to destination State (ifrequired)"

-Page 2: "Designated facility to generator State (ifrequir6d)"

Page 3: "Designated facility to generator"

Page 4: "Designated facility copy" Page 5:-"Transporter copy" Page 6 (bottomcopy): "Generator's initial copy"

* The instructions in the appendix to 40 CFR part 262 must appear legibly on the back ofthe manifest copies as provided inthis paragraph. The instructions must notbe visible through the front ofthe copy when scanned, photocopied, or faxed..

Manifest Form 8700-22:

e The "Instructions for Generators"

on Copy 6;

* The "Instructions for International Shipment Block" and "Instructions for Transporters" on Copy 5; and,

e The "Instructions'for Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities" on Copy 4.

Manifest Form 8700-22A:

- The "Instructions for Generators"

on Copy 6;

- The "Instructions for Transporters"

on Copy 5;and,

- The "Instructions for Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities" on Copy 4.

The purpose ofthe above requirement is to ensure that the manifest instructions are consistently displayed

on the back ofthe manifest copies. In 

### 10802

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10802 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42 /Friday, March 4, 2005 /Rules and Regulations

addition, the requirement provides that instructions cannot showthrough the front ofthe forms when scanned, photocopied orfaxed. Ifthe paper weight is too light and/or the inkcolor ofthe instructions is too dark,the instructions might bleed through the front ofthe copies. Ifthe inkcolor is too light, itmay not be legible to waste handlers that may be filling outthe manifest in dimly lit situations (e.g., inside ofatruck). Registrants must determine the appropriate ink color and the extent ofscreening ofthe ink, if ,needed,to minimize bleed through but

ensure legibility.

The specifications at § 262.21(f)leave

anumber ofdecisions to the registrants's discretion that should be further clarified. These include the following:

Papertype.Registrants may select the appropriate type ofpaper to use fortheir manifest. As provided at §262.21(d)(2)(i), EPA defines "paper type" to include the manufacturer ofthe paper and grade.of paper. EPA has found that paper manufacturers generally provide a range ofpaper grades. These grades may be more or less appropriate for a six-part form. For example, the highestquality papers are generally the brightest (whitest), and hence, handwritten and typed imprints

are generally most legible on them. In addition, the highestquality carbonless papers normally contain the highest
amount ofcoating, which results in a"

more effective transmission ofimprint from copy to copy. EPAbelieves it is important to hold registrants to their
paper type selection, as provided under §262.21(e), so that they do not switch
paper types subsequent to approval of theirforms, unless they seekEPA approval ofthe changes under §262.21(h)(3).

Inaddition, some papers may contain

arange ofrecycled content. All
commenters on the proposed rule believed EPA should take the lead on encouraging the use ofrecycled paper. In fact, one commenter recommended that EPA require registrants to use recycled paper for manifest forms. EPA has nottaken thisrecommendation, which goes beyond the scope of today's rulemaking.EPA notes, however, that it has developed guidelines for federal procurement ofrecycled-content paper under section 6002 of RCRA and section 505 ofExecutive Order 13101. Under these guidelines, EPA requires procuring agencies to buyuncoated printing and'writing grade papers, such

as those used for manifest forms, containing 30%post-consumer fiber. The agency urges registrants to consider forthe manifest recycled paper that
meets the specifications at §262.21(f).

Paperweight.Paper weight has several implications forthe manifest. Lighter paper is generally thinner, and therefore, it is easier to make impressions copy-to-copy. However, if paper is too light, itis prone to tearing in normal use (e.g., tearing in an automatic-feed copier orwhen detaching a copy from the manifest). Registrants must select a paper weight for each copy ofthe form that conveys handwritten and typed impressions
onto all six copies, but that is also durable enough to withstand normal

use. In evaluating existing manifest forms, EPA has found anumber offorms with varying paper weights that transmit impressions effectively. Other forms consist of paper that is too heavy
to produce legible bottom copies. We also have found forms with paper that istoo fragile and tears easily. Because of the wide range of paper weights that result in legible bottom copies ofthe manifest, EPA has refrained from prescribing a paper weight and leaves this decision to the registrant. However, EPA believes itis important to hold registrants to their paper weight selection, asprovided under §262.21(e),

so that they do not switch paper weights subsequent toapproval oftheirforms, unless they seek EPA approval ofthe changes under §262.21(h)(3).

Ink colorofthe manifestinstructions. As described earlier, the instructions on the back ofthe manifest mustbe light enough so that they do not: (1) Show through onthe front (e.g., printed in black inkin a light enough screen to appear as light gray so that photocopiers and scanners do not pick up the text);

or,(2)interfere with the transmission of the image from copy to copy (e.g., from
copy 4 to copy 5) when the manifest is filled out. The instructions also mustbe legible.

EPA has notprescribed an ink color

or inkdarkness. Werecognize that the appropriate ink color and darkness will depend on, atthe least, the paper weight ofeach copy. Because we do not prescribe paper weight, we do not prescribe ink color or darkness. However, xve hold registrants to their inkcolor, asprovided under §262.21(e),

so that they do not switch inkcolors subsequent to approval oftheirforms, unless they seek EPA approval ofthe changes under §262.21(h)(3).

Bindingmethodofmanifestcopies. Some manifest forms are currently printed on continuous forms with side perforations. Others are printed on individual forms (unit sets), which are typically bound on top. Continuous forms generally are intended foruse with continuous feed printers (such as impact printers), whereas unit sets are appropriate fortypewriters and manual completion. Because some users prefer

onetype ofbinding or the other, we believe it would be too constraining to require only one type. Therefore, we leave the binding ofthe form to registrant discretion. However, we are concerned that some registrants might choose to crimp the sheets togetherbut
notglue them, thereby increasing the likelihood ofthe pages inadvertently separating during normal use. In addition, some registrants might bind top bound forms without a stub by "edge gluing." The edge gluing method is typically used forforms that have few
pages, but could conceivably be tried for

a six-part form.Edge-glued forms are unacceptable formanifest purposes and

are notallowed because the sheets become loose when one ply is removed. Therefore, the ruleprovides that "copies
mustbe bound together by one ormore

common stubs that reasonably ensure that they will notbecome detached inadvertently during normal use." Although we do not prescribe a binding method, we holdregistrants to the binding method oftheir approved forms, as providedunder §262.21(e), so that they do not switchmethods subsequent to EPA approval, unless they seek EPA approval ofthe changes under §262.21(h)(3).

IV. Rejected Load and Container Residue Shipments

A.1. RejectedLoadandContainer Residue Shipments-Introduction. In the May 2001 NPRM, we proposed to improve the tracking ofcertain problematic hazardous waste shipments known as "rejected loads" or "container residues" by adding data elements to the manifest form foridentifying rejected-wastes and residues and by clarifying the manifest requirements and procedures fortracking these wastes. In the proposal, we discussed container residue as "the hazardous waste that remains in containers such as drums and invehicles used fortransport (such

as tanker cars or box cars) after most of the contents ofthe container have been removed." These residues maybe difficult to remove "becausethe contents may have congealed and the receiving facility may not have the equipment to completely empty the container. As a result, the-container may contain more waste than the regulatory threshold allows for meeting the RCRA definition of"empty," that is, more than 3% ofa hazardous waste in a container less than

orequal to 119 gallons, ormore than 0.3% ofa hazardous waste in a container greater than 119 gallons, and 

### 10803

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10803 2005Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005 /Rules and Regulations

that must bemanaged as hazardous waste. 3 The proposal also described a rejected load as a shipment of hazardous waste that a facility receives, but cannot accept, either because ofrestrictions in the facility's permit orcapacity .limitations Arejected load includes all shipments afacility rejects, inwhole or in part, whether rejection occurs before

or after the facility has signed the manifest.

The proposed rule addressed boththe manifest procedures that would track rejected wastes and residues to alternative facilities, and the procedures that would deal with the rare occasions when a facility must return rejected wastes or container residues to the generator. In all such cases, the proposed regulations would require facilities to note information about the rejected waste or regulated residue on the original manifest, to sign the original manifest certification and to issue a new manifest to continue the shipment ofthe rejected load orresidue to another offsite destination. Detailed discussions of the new tracking procedures for a rejected load and container residue shipment and the proposed modifications to the manifest discrepancy provisions follow.

2. Proposed AddedFieldsto DiscrepancyItem.As part ofthe new tracking procedures forrejected waste and container residues, we proposed to modify the Discrepancy field (i.e.,Item 19 on old manifest)by providingmore explicit tracking specifications for regulated residues and rejected wastes. EPA also proposed to provide more space in the Discrepancy field forthe designated facility to identify the material affected by the discrepancy and
to explain the reason for the discrepancy. In addition, EPA provided additional space on the manifest form (titled "Manifest Tracking Number") for the rejecting facility to cross-reference the original manifest with the "new" Manifest Tracking Number associated with thenew manifest form Onthe new manifest, the facility also would reference the "old" manifest tracking number in the Special Handling field. The Discrepancy field and Facility Certification on the new manifest would be reserved foruse by the next facility, if necessary (e.g., ifthe shipment is rejected asecond time).

EPA also proposed codifying the proposed changes at40 CFR 264.71 and 264.72 (40 CFR 265.71 and 265.72 for interim status facilities), and 263.21(b)
to providemore explicit requirements for tracking rejected wastes and regulated container residues. For instance, the proposal clarified in § 264.71(a) that a facility must sign the facility Owner or Operator Certification field onthe manifest forboth waste receipts and waste rejections. We emphasized inthe proposal that the facility certification attests to the receipt ofthe hazardous wastes described on the manifest, except as noted in the Discrepancy field. The proposal also clarified that residues and rejected wastes, including full or partial load rejections, are discrepancies to be reported on the Discrepancy field. So, facilities must sign the Owner or Operator Certification field on every manifestrelating to shipments brought to a facility for delivery, either to acknowledge receipt ofall the materials on the manifest, orto acknowledge that those materials identified inthe discrepancy space (including rejected
wastes and residues) were not received for management atthe facility.

The proposed modifications to the manifest regulations at40 CFR 264.72 (265.72 for interim status facilities) reflect the changes proposed to the discrepancy space ofthe manifest form. The form includes new data fields inthe discrepancy space to track rejected
waste and residue shipments. Specifically, the Agency proposdd to revise 40 CFR 264.72(a), to clarify that the scope ofthe term "manifest discrepancies" would be-broadened to include not onlythe significant differences inwaste quantities ortypes that are the subject ofthe current discrepancy regulation, but also rejected
wastes and regulated container residues: Weproposed to retainprevious requirements for identifying, reconciling and reporting "significant discrepancies" at § 264.72(b) and (c), which would address these as "significant differences" in quantity or intype ofwastes. We also proposed to codify the new procedure4 for addressingrejected wastes or regulated container residues as manifest discrepancies af new §264.72(d), (e), (f), and (g) forpermitted facilities, and-in

new §265.72(d), (e), (f), and.(g) for interim status facilities. The proposed fracking procedures forrejected waste shipment and container residues are detailedbelow.

3. Proposed §§ 264.72(d)and 265.72(d).The proposed requirements for 40 CFR 264.72(d) and 265.72(d) are
as follows:

If you are

. . . You must.

. . And

. . . However,

A facility rejecting a waste or con- Contact the generator for instruc- Send the waste according to the If it is impossible to locate, in a

tainer residue that exceeds tions forforwarding the waste to generator's instructions. timely manner, an alternate faquantity limits for "empty" as de- an alternate facility. cility that can promptly receive fined in 40 CFR 261.7(b). the waste, you may return it to the generator, with the generator's consent. A facility forwarding rejected waste Ensure that either the delivering Prepare a new manifest according N/A.

or container residue to an alter- transporter maintains custody of to the relevant requirements nate facility, the waste or, if the transporter (§264.72(e) or (f) for permitted leaves the premises, provide for facilities; §265.72(e), or (f) for

secure temporary custody of interim status facilities. the waste.

container from 110gallons to 119 gallons to be 3As noted previously in the preamble to today's consistent with the DOT regulations. rule, the Agency is modifying thedefinition ofbulk 

### 10804

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10804 2005Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

4. Proposed §§ 264.72(e),(f) and requirements for40 CFR 264.72(e),(f)

265.72(e),(f). The proposed and 265.72(e),(f) are as follows:

If you are.

. . You must.

. . And...

A facility forwarding rejected wastes or con- Prepare a new manifest in accordance with Follow the relevant instructions in either

tainer residues off-site to an alternate facility. §262.20(a). §264.72(e)(1)

. through (e)(6), or §265.72(e)(1) through (e)(6). A facility returning rejected waste to its gener- Prepare a new manifest in accordance with Follow the relevant instructions in either

ator. § 262.20(a). §264.72(f)(1) through (f)(6), or §265.72(f)(1) through (f)(6).

Because the rejecting facility was responsible for putting the reject waste back intotransportation, we proposed to require them to sign the Generator's Certification field to verifythat they are shipping or offering the wastes in transportation and would be liable, in thiscapacity, forthe truth ofthe "shipper's certification" language includedin the generator's certification statbment. Since the rejecting facility is
notthe RCRA generator ofthe waste, it is notbound by thewaste minimization certification language. Inthe 2001 NPRM, we requested comment on an alternative approach to signing the generator certification. That is,we took
comment onrequiring the rejecting facility to consult with the generator about the disposition ofthe rejected waste, and then sign the generator's certification "on behalfof" the initial generator. This would result inthe manifest being completed in the same

manner (i.e.,Items 1 and 4 and listing the destination facilities) as under the proposed approach. However, by signing the generator's certification "on behalf of" the initial generator, the generator would bebound by the rejecting facility's signature on the certification statement. The rejecting facility signs the certificatioft asthe generator's authorized agent, but would
notbe liable forthe proper execution of
any pre-transportation actsthat it performed. (Arguably,however, the rejecting facility would meet the definition ofan "offeror" under DOT's HMR and would notbe relieved of liability.)

5. Proposed§§ 264.72(g)and 265.72(g).Paragraph (g), as proposed, would clarify manifest completion procedures for any designated facility that rejects afull or partial load or container residue shipment after ithas signed and returned the original manifest tothe generator. If, after signing and returning the original manifest, a facility rejects part or all of

a shipment, or discovers regulated residues, itmust send the generator and delivering transporter arevised copy of the original manifest, reflecting the rejected waste or residue information in the discrepancy space. The facility must also re-sign and date the manifest, certifying the facts as amended.

6.ProposedChangesto §263.21(b). Weproposed to amend 40 CFR 263.21(b)by adding paragraph (b)(2). Paragraph (b)(2) distinguishes between thetransporter responsibilities for
wastes characterized as "undeliverable" due to either emergency, rejection or container residues. Weproposed to retain §263.21(b)(1), the existing transporter requirements, that apply to shipments that cannot be delivered due
to an emergency, such as a strike, fire or similar emergency event which closes the designated facility's or next transporter's operations or that otherwise precludes the transporter from delivering the waste. In such emergencies, the transporter that cannot deliver the waste shipment to the designated facility, alternate designated facility or next designated transporter
must contact thegenerator forfurther directions and revise the manifest according to the generator's instructions. We did not reconsider, reopen orrequest comment onthese existing requirements. We merely recodified the existing provision at §263.21(b)(1). Oijr proposed changes to §263.21(b)(2) addressed transporters'. responsibilities with respect to rejected
wastes. Transporters would need to obtain the facility owner's oroperator's signed and dated certification identifying therejection on the manifest. The transporter also would need to retain one copy ofthis manifest, and give any remaining copies ofthe manifest tothe rejecting TSDF, who processes them in accordance with the

new procedures at §§.264.71 and 264.72. 7.ProposedGenerator Regulationsat 40 CFR262.34.Furthermore, the
' proposal revised the hazardous waste generator accumulation provisions at40 CFR 262.34 by adding paragraph (j). Paragraph (j)requires hazardous waste generators to manage arejected load and container residue shipment according to 40 CFR 262.34(a) or262.34(d) depending onwhether the generator

was subject to the 90-day or 180-day accumulation timeprovisions when the waste shipment was returned to the generator. Generators who are subject to the 90-day accumulation provisions have up to 90 days to send the rejected shipment orcontainer residue to an alternate facility, as long asthe generator received the shipment in accordance with the manifest discrepancy provisions at § 264.72 or 265.72; however, generators who are subject to the 180-day accumulation provisions have up to180 days (ormore than 270 days ifthe generator must transport this waste, or offer this waste fortransportation, over a distance of200 miles or more) to send the rejected shipment or container residue to an alternate facility. Inthe preamble proposal, we incorrectly explained that the accumulation time forthe returned shipment is based on the generator's
status atthe time the original shipment

was sent to the TSDF. We also explained that generators would not be required to obtain a RCRA permit while the returned waste is on-site as long as they complied with § 262.34(a) (for generators with 1000kg or more on-site
at the time the wasteis sent) or §262.34(d) (forgenerators with less than 1000kg on-site).

B.1.FinalTrackingProcedures for Rejected WasteandResidueShipments. EPA retained most ofthe manifest discrepancy provisions we originally proposed, including those provisions for rejected loads and container residue shipments. However, we are finalizing the proposed paragraph 262.34 (j)as

new paragraph 262.34 (in) (New paragraph (k)and (1)were added to §262.34 after the May 2001 proposal.) In addition,we altered certain provisions inresponse to suggestions from commenters. In general, most
commenters supported our proposed tracking procedures for rejected waste and container residue shipments.

However, several commenters expressed concern and suggested changes to the proposed manifest discrepancy provisions, particularly in the following areas: (1)Preparing a second manifestin all rejected waste or residue scenarios; (2) Requiring the rejecting TSDF to signthe generator 

### 10805

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10805 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005 /Rules and Regulations

certification; (3) Allowing the original generator who receives a rejected load back from the rejecting facility to accumulate that waste for 90 or 180 days before sending it off-site to an alternate TSDF; and, (4) Allowing the rejecting facility to stage the waste shipmentbefore it forwards the shipment to an alternate facility or return the shipment back to the original generator. Detailed discussions onthe final changes to the manifest discrepancy provisions are provided below.

2. CommentAnalysis andFinal Provisions forSecondManifest.Several
commenters supported our proposed tracking procedures forrejected waste and container residue shipments. However, several commenters objected
to the requirement that the designated facility prepare a second manifest inall rejected waste orresidue scenarios because, intheir view, preparing a second manifest imposes unnecessary burden and complexity to the system. Furthermore, commenters argued that preparing a second manifest will lead to double counting ofhazardous waste; the original and new manifest cover the

same quantity ofwaste (or a portion of it, in the case ofresidues). Consequently, states could potentially
tax waste handlers again forthe same .shipment. These commenters argued

that a second manifest is not necessary when a fully rejected load is returned to the generator or sent to an alternate facility. Many ofthese commenters suggested, as an alternative, thatwaste handlers note and sign the original manifest insuch conditions. One"
commenter also suggested that EPA add

an additional signature block in the Discrepancy field on the form (i.e.,Item 18c ofnew form) so that boththe alternate facility and the original generator who receives a rejected load from the rejecting facility can sign the original form for return shipments.

In response to commenters' suggestions to allow designated facilities tonote and sign the original

-manifest for full loadrejections, we have modified §§264.72(e) (permitted facilities) and 265.72(e) (facilitieswith interim status). Withtoday's action, the rejecting TSDF canuse the original manifest to forward arejected shipment

or container residue to an alternate facility or original generator, provided that the following conditions are met: (1)The rejecting facility mustreject the full shipment; and (2) The transporter attempting the delivery must still be at the facility at the time ofthe rejection, in order to continue transporting the rejected shipment to the alternate facility. Inthese limited circumstances, the final rule considers that the rejected
waste shipment is continuing in transportation, such that all the information describing the source, types and quantities ofwaste shipped remains accurate, and only a new destination facility needs to be entered on the form. Today's final rule provides two new fields to implement this procedure: an alternate facility space (Item 18b)to identify the alternate facility (orthe original generator ifthe shipment is being returned), and a new signature
space (Item 18c) forthe alternate facility (orthe original generator ifthe shipment isbeing returned)to sign and date the form to indicate the receipt ofthe shipment.

Thus, today's action requires the TSDFto complete a second manifest only ifitrejects a partial load or container residue shipment, or if it rejects a full load orcontainer shipment
at apoint intime after the transporter

. attempting delivery has left the facility's premises. Paragraph (e)(7) describes the manifest close-out requirements for facilities that use the original manifest
to forward a full load rejection to an alternate facility. Specifically, the rejecting facility mustretain a manifest
copy for its records, send a copyto the generator, and give the remaining copies ofthe manifest to the transporter to accompany the shipment. The Agency notes, however, that a manifest copy may not be available. Inthese cases, the facility mustphotocopy orfax the most legible copy ofthe formavailable to

ensure that the extra manifest copy is legible.

Also, today's rule modifies our proposal formanifest discrepancy provisions, and allows the rejecting facility to nott and sign the original manifest for full load rejections provided the transporter has not departed from the facility's premises. Also, EPA has modified the proposed Discrepancy field on the manifest form by adding a new item for use by an alternate facility orgenerator who receives a full loadrejection or container residue shipment.They can sign the new Item 18c to close outthe original manifest once they receive the hazardous waste shipment from the rejecting facility. Importantly, the manifest discrepancy provisions do not change the proposed requirement at 264.71(a) forpermitted facilities or 265.71(a) forinterim status facilities that

a facility must sign and date the facility

owner or operatorcertification on the manifest forboth waste receipts and
waste rejections. Therefore, the alternate facility (orthe original generator ifthe shipment isbeing returned) must sign and date the manifest to acknowledge receipt ofa shipment in Item 18c,but
mustnote any discrepancies associated withthat shipment either byhand in the alternate facility field, ifspace allows,

orby attaching a separate sheet explaining the materials coveredby the discrepancy andthe reasons for the discrepancy orefforts to resolve it.

Other commenters suggested that the rejecting facility should use the original form for allrejected load andcontainer residue scenarios. EPA limited use of the original manifest to track full and immediate rejections, because this is a fairly simple scenario that the original manifest form should be able to track without introducing complexity or confusion to the form. Moreover, the immediate, full load rejection presents facts that areconsistent with the view that the rejected waste shipment is' continuing in transportation. The generator information, the transporter information, anddescription ofthe types andquantities ofwastes shipped remains accurate, and only the information on the destination facility is being revised. Since the transportation ofthe waste continues, the rejecting facility is not offering the shipment in transportation under these facts, and it is not acting as an offeror. Thus, we concluded that the rejecting facility should notbe required to initiate and sign anew manifest as the offeror.

When a waste shipment is partially rejected, onthe other hand, onlypart of the original shipment is re-introduced into transportation. These facts require that the shipping paper (manifest)be revised to accurately describe the
contents ofthe re-shipment. In some of these cases, the materials being reshipped also mayrequire re-packaging, re-labeling, and re-marking aswell. In
any case, we believe that these facts support the view that there is a new movement with respect to thepartially rejected waste, andthat the rejecting facility must complete anew manifest and signthe certification statement to indicate that the materials areproperly described and arebeing offered in proper condition fortransportation. Also, except inthe most simple examples ofpartially rejected loads, it would be very difficult to correct the shipping descriptions for-the items shipped under the original manifest by trying to delete items orotherwise trying to markup these descriptions to
sort out what items and quantities were received, what items and quantities

were rejected and were being reshipped, etc. Since we believe it is essential to present an accurate and unambiguous description ofthe wastes being re-shipped, and since webelieve that itis appropriate that the facility 

### 10806

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10806 2005

### Federal.Register /Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005 /Rules and Regulationg8

rejecting a partial shipment'assume the role ofofferor with respect to thewastes being re-shipped, we conclude that these purposes are bestserved by the initiation ofanew manifest.for all partial rejections.

Also, when a full load isrejected; but temporarily staged by the rejecting facility after the delivering transporter has left the premises, the original transportation ofthe waste shipment has ended. Therefore, itwill require a
new movement ofthe waste shipment to reintroduce the rejectedwastes in

- transportation. Under today's rule, the rejecting facility initiates this new movement by completing.a new manifest and signing it as the one offering the wastes in transportation. Since several days orweeks might pass while the materials are staged atthe rejecting facility, it is important that the rejecting facility certify that the materials are properly described and in proper condition fortransportation at the timethe new movement begins. Also, under these facts, the.information

on transporters and destination facilities
mustbe updated to reflect the new arrangements forthe rejected shipment. We conclude that these purposes are best served againby-requiring a new manifest to be initiated by the rejecting facility in all cases where rejected wastes are temporarily staged atthe facility. In addressing.the issues inthis section,we introduced the idea that a rejecting TSDFmay beoffering these rejected wastes in transportation when they arere-shipped. The offeror concept is explained in greater detail in the following preamble section.

3. CommentsAnalysisandFinal GeneratorCertification Block. Commenters were divided on our proposal to require the rejecting facility offering the waste in transportation to sign the shipper's certification asthe party offering the wastes in transportation. Generators expressed strong support fortheproposal, and greatly preferred the proposal to the alternative under which the rejecting TSDF would be viewed as signing the

new manifest "on behalfof" or asthe agent ofthe generator. The commenters supporting this offeror approach encouraged EPA to adopt the proposed regulatory language at § 264.72(d)(1) and (e)(6), which would require the TSDFto explain to the original generator its

reasons for rejecting the waste and to consult with the generator and determine where the rejected waste or container residue shipments should be sent. After doing so, the rejecting facility would then initiate the new manifest for the new movement ofthe shipment in transportation by signing the : Generator's Certification inthe capacity

as offeror ofthe shipment.

Several commenters in'the TSDF
sector criticized this approach, arguing that the rejecting facility would appear to be assuming full generator liabilities forthe waste by virtue ofsigning the Generator's Certification. Other TSDF commenters also objected to the proposed approach because it seemed to suggest that the rejecting TSDF acting as "offeror" could infact be liable forthe proper performance ofallthe pretransportation acts, including those already performed by the initial generator. Ingeneral, these commenters argued that under the "offeror" • proposal, the responsibility for properly packaging and re-shipping the waste would now appear to fall on theTSDF, when the generator already may have selected and filled the container, and may bemore aware than the rejecting TSDF ofthe exact nature ofthe material. Therefore, these commenters contend that the rejecting facility cannotreally attest to the packaging and other pretransportation requirements performed by the generator, and so should notbe heldresponsible for theirperformance when re-shipping rejected wastes.

Ingeneral, thoseTSDF commenters that criticized the proposed approach tended to support the alternative approach requiring TSDFs to sign "on behalfof" the initial generator. One TSDF commenter, however, noted that a TSDF rejecting and re-shipping waste would be liable as offeror regardless of the "on behalf of" language, since the TSDFis initiating the new shipment. Anothertrade organization (the Environmental Technology Coun6il) that represents TSDFs supported the offeror proposal, ifthe form were revised to make itmore explicit that the TSDF is signing the manifest as an offeror, not a generator.

While the TSDFs objecting to the proposal tended to support the alternative approach under which the rejecting TSDF would sign the new manifest "on behalf of" thegenerator, the generators that commented on the proposed rule submitted strong comments opposing this alternative. These commenters inthe generator sector argued that this "on behalf of" alternative would cause generators to be liable under DOTregulations for any pre-transportation. functions performed improperly by the rejectingfacility. They argued further that the generator could notpossibly supervise from a distance the proper execution ofthe pretransportation acts that the rejecting facility might perform before signingthe certification statement, so it would be. unfair to have the generator become'

., bound by the TSDF's igning the form

as the generator's agent.
. . I

In response, we are codifying in

. today's final rule the manifest signature requirements at §264.72(d)(1) and (e)(6).. As explained in section II.G.4. above,

we also are modifying the Generator's Certification field byrenaming itthe "Generator's/Offeror's Certification,!' in. order-to clarify that either the generator

or an offeror may signthe certification. The generator's signature certifies to both thewaste minimization and , shipper's certification statements, while.

a rejecting facility signing as an offeror ofa shipment certifies only to the

. content ofthe shipper's certification language, as it applies to information the offeror knows orhas areason to know.

Today's action also clarifies that any rejecting facility thatprepares and signs

a new manifest to re-ship arejected waste willbe subject to liability only for the limited "offeror" or pretransportation requirements. In such
cases, the rejecting facility acting as anofferor is not considered a "generator" ofthe rejected waste, and generally is
not subject to the full hazardous waste generator requirements under 40 CFR part 262t

We are finalizingthe proposed approach concerning rejecting facilities signing new manifests because we believe that this approach is the
outcome required under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs), and because webelieve that it addresses the rejecting facility's responsibilities forreshipments more appropriately. We agree with the generator comments to the effect that rejecting TSDFs should not be viewed as agents ofthegenerators when they re-ship rejected wastes and signthe manifest to initiate a new movement of the rejected materials. Ifa shipment, for example, has been partially received and partially rejected by aTSDF, it is fitting that the TSDF rejecting a partial load be responsible forensuring that the portion ofthe waste to be re-shipped is properly described on the new manifest, and that the packages are ingood condition and properly marked and labeled atthe timethe rejected waste again moves incommerce. Also, ifthe facility has rejected a full load and staged ittemporarily atits facility pending new arrangements forreshipment, itis appropriate that the rejecting facility, when itinitiates the

new movement ofthe shipment by signing the new manifest, verifythat the shipment is properly described and in proper condition fortransportation at the timethe new movement begins. This is accomplished whenthe rejecting facility signs as offeror ofthe re-shipped 

### 1"0807

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10807 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

wastes, asthe offeror is then certifying
to the proper performance ofthe pretransportation functions. Moreover, we believe that this is the resultrequited under the applicable requirements of the HMRs as implemented by DOT for the transportation ofhazardous materials in commerce. These hazardous waste shipments are subject
to the HMRs, and as we discussed above in section II.G.4. ofthispreambler, DOT recently has issued a final rule which clarifies the responsibilities ofshippers, carriers, and other offerors for performance ofthe pre-transportation functions, and the significance ofthe offeror's signature in certifying that a hazmat shipment has beenprepared in accordance withthe HMRs. See 68 FR 61906 at61908-61912 (October 30, 2003). RCRA hazardous waste transportation requirements mustbe implemented consistently with the HMRs. The HMRs require that facilities whichre-ship rejected wastes (either partial loadrejections or full loads that have been staged for a'time and then reintroduced intransportation) to

assume the offeror responsibilities for the re-shipments, since the re-shipment ofthe waste is a new movement. In each
case, there is a new movement ofthe hazardous waste, and the shipper's certifications mustbe curkent atthe time the new movement ofthe rejected
wastes begins. Onthe other hand, when

a facility rejects immediately a full
waste shipment, and directs the transporter to forward the rejected waste to an alternate facility (or.backto the generator) by coinpleting the Alternate Facility item onthe revised form, there is not a new movement ofthe waste. Rather, the waste shipment in such a

case remains in transportation, and the rejecting facility does notneed to sign the Generator's/Offeror's Certification,

as ithas notengaged in any pretranportation functions with respect to a fully and immediately rejected waste shipment.

Moreover, with respect to theTSDF
comments that objected to the offeror approach because they would be responsible forpre-transportation acts (e.g., selecting, filling, marking containers) that already were performed by the original generator, we wish to provide additional clarification oftheir offeror liability under the finalrule. In the October 30, 2003 finalrule codifying the pre-transportation functions, DOT confronted similar issues from brokers, freight forwarders, and other 3rd party intermediaries who handle hazmat shipments. These intermediaries similarly questioned the fairness of subjecting them to full compliance with the pre-transportation functions, when the intermediaries might perform only limited pre-transportation functions of their own (e.g., issue a house bill of lading),-whilerelying heavily on the information supplied and functions previously performed by shippers or underlying carriers. See 68 FR 61906 at 61911. In responding to this comment, DOT stated that it agreed with the
commenters that it would be unfair to hold theintermediaries liable for errors made byparties over whichthey have

no operational control. Instead, DOT explained that intermediaries who prepare shipping papers and signthe shipper's certification assume responsibility for compliance with the pre-transportation requirements "for all aspects ofthat shipment about which he knew or should have known." Id. In its explanation ofthis issue, DOT stated that it was proper for the intermediary preparing a shipping paper to rely upon the information supplied bythe original shipper, unless it conflicts with other information he obtains aboutthe shipment.Id.

Since hazardous waste handlers also

are subject to these HMR provisions, we believe that this discussion from the October, 2003 DOTrule addresses fairly the concerns expressed by RCRA TSDFs who reject and re-ship wastes. The TSDF that signs a new manifest as offeror ofa rejected waste shipment is responsible for performing properly any ofthe pre-transportation functions that it actually"performs (e.g., repackaging and marking specific containers, completing the manifest), butthe TSDF
may reasonably rely upon the information supplied and pretransportation functions previously performed bythe original generators or transporters. Ifthe TSDFknows of an error, for example, inclassifying or describing a specific waste, or ifit should know that acontainer is leaking

oris notproperly labeled, it must correct these problems before reintroducing the rejected wastes into transportation. However, the TSDF reshipping such wastes is notresponsible for errors made by previous waste' handlers in theirperformance ofpretransportation functions, ifthe errors are suchthat it can be said that the TSDF neither knew, nor should have known, aboutthe errors. Webelieve that this policymitigates any concerns that TSDFs might have about the unfairness oftheirbeing asked to certify to the
proper performance ofthe pretransportation functions. The TSDF will be able to rely upon what has been done already and supplied byprevious handlers, aslong as they do nothave a reason to believe the information provided by'previous handlers is false. The rejecting TSDF need notre-perform all ofthe offeror responsibilities; it need only re-perform those activities that it knows or should know are necessary to bring a shipment into compliance with the pre-transportation functions inthe HMRs.

4. CommentsAnalysis andFinal ReturnedShipments.In general,
commenters supported our proposals to allow generators to receive rejectedshipments from the rejecting facility, and to allow them additional Dn-site accumulation timeto locate an alternate facility and send the rejected shipment there. Industry and state commenters both tended to support the proposed' rule's clarification that inthe case ofa return shipment ofrejected waste to a generator, the generator maybe shown

on the manifest as the designated facility for.the receipt of the returned
waste. However, several state agency commenters suggested that thispolicy would be further strengthened and clarified if-the definition of "designated facility" in 40 CFR 260.10 were amended to include generators taking back their rejected wastes. EPA agrees with these comments, and today's final rule amends the definition of "designated facility" in40 CFR 260.10
to clarify explicitly that generators receiving waste shipments that arebeing returned to the generator after a " rejection by a TSDF are another typeof -designated facility that may benamed

on the hazardous waste manifest to

- receive these types ofwaste shipments.

Other commenters supported returning the rejected shipmentback to the generator, but did not support granting the generator another 90 or 180 dayaccumulation period. These
commenters argued that extra time would nothelp to prevent problem shipments or sham activities. One commenter suggested that EPA grant generators 30 additional days. The
commenter argued that the reduced timeframe would help toensure that problem shipments would not occur, because generators would review designated facilities more closely to make sure they had the means to

remove residues from the containers. The commenter further argued that the approach would foster improved management ofthe waste and would not lead to a situation where asmall quantity generator could not take back rejected wastes, because it would exceed their site accumulation limitation.

We understand these commenters'
concerns, but believe itis more appropriate to grant generators the 

### 10808

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10808 2005Federil Register/Vol. 70, No. 42 /Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

additional 90/180 days to locate an alternate facility. First, :the 90/180 day timeframe already exists.under the existing 40 CFR 262.34 accumulation provisions, and we do not believe we have sufficient record to support a shorter time frame. Second, given that the generator will have to make new arrangements with ahauler to transport the waste off-site and arrange with an alternate facility to receive the shipment, it has essentially begun a new event. Therefore, the contingencies and timing affecting the original time frame

no longer applies to the returned shipment. Based on these factors, today's rule grants generators an additional 90/180 days to send the waste shipment to an alternate facility.

5. CommentAnalysisandFinal StagingofWaste attheRejecting Facility. In general, commenters supported our proposal, but some expressed concern that the qualitative
term "timely manner" has too broad a range ofinterpretation, since the term is notclearly defined. EPA agrees with these commenters and has thusrevised §264.72(d)(1) to include a default timeframe of 60 days. Commenters differed on the length oftime that EPA should grant a rejecting facility to stage the rejected load or container residue shipment. Several commenters suggested that EPA grant the rejecting facility 90 days to stage the rejected
waste or container residue so that they could reconcile the problem shipment with the generator, forward it to an alternate facility or return it to the generator. These commenters stated that without adequate time,the rejecting facility would have no choice but to return the shipment to the generator. Other commenters suggested shorter timeframes, ranging from 10 to 30 days, pointing out that the TSDF can return the waste to the generator ifthey can not locate an alternate facility.

After analyzing comments, EPA believes 60 days is sufficient time for the rejecting TSDF to consult withthe generator, locate an alternate facility and forward the shipment or return itto thegenerator. While we understand that there is some precedent for a 90-day accumulation period for generators whenthey initially accumulate their wastes on-site, we believe that there are distinguishing features which we believe support a60-day limit on stagingby arejecting TSDF. First, there

are very few management controls on temporary staging ofrejected wastes by TSDFs, as opposed to the detailed technical requirements that apply to generator accumulation under 40 CFR 262.34(a). Since there are few requirements imposed on TSDF staging, we believe that a shorter time period for temporary staging of rejected wastes is appropriate, particularly given that such
wastes may be rejected because the TSDF lacks authorization to manage themunder itsRCRA permit. Second, TSDFs rejecting waste are usually much

more familiar with the waste management industry than are generators. TSDFs deal with waste transporters and other waste management facilities as a matter of
course, so the logistics ofarranging the forwarding orreturn oftemporarily staged wastes should not raise difficult issues forthe TSDF. Finally, inmost cases, the rejecting TSDF can return the staged waste to the generator, ifit is not able to find an alternate facility. We have also revised theregulation to clarify that the TSDF does not need permission to return the shipment to the generator.

We are aware that some states currently allow TSDFs to stage rejected waste shipments at their facility, butby regulation or bypermit restrict the stagingtimes to significantly less than 60 days. We acknowledge that a staging timeframe ofless thafi 60 days (e.g., 10

or 30 days)may be adequate time in

some instances. However, based on comments, we believe that scheduling difficulties, preparation ofnew waste profiles, or other unforseen circumstances may arise that could require TSDFs to stage a rejected waste

orresidue for a number ofweeks. In such instances, a shorter timeframe would not afford the TSDF adequate timeto reconcile the rejected shipment

orresidue. Webelieve the default 60- day time limit will provide rejecting facilities sufficient time to reconcile such shipments and forward them to an alternate facility.

V. Final Unmanifested Waste Reporting Requirements

In the May 2001 NPRM, EPA proposed to revise the unmanifested
waste reporting requirement at § § 264.76 forpermitted facilities and 265.76 for interim status facilities. Sections 264.76 and 265.76 currently require TSDFs to submit an unmanifested waste report to the Regional Administrator onEPA form 8700-13B within 15 days after they have received awaste shipment without

amanifest. Specifically, the proposal removed the requirement that the TSDF

useEPA form 8700-13B to submit its unmanifested report, and proposed that the TSDF submit either a typed, handwritten orelectronic note. The typed, handwritten orelectronic note mustbe legible, and must contain the following information: (a) TheEPA ID Number, name and address ofthe facility; (b) The date the facility received the waste; (c) The EPA ID Number,
name, and address ofthe generator and the transporter, ifavailable; (d) A description and the quantity ofeach unmanifested hazardous waste the facility received; (e) The method of treatment, storage, or disposal for each hazardous waste; (f)The certification signed by the owner or operator of.the facility or his authorized representative; and (g)A briefexplanation ofwhy the
waste was unmanifested, ifknown.

We explained in the proposal that the unmanifested requirements the Agency announced inthe January 28, 1983 FR that it was deleting EPA form 8700-13B and its predecessor, EPA form 8700-13, which had appeared in the May 19, 1980 FR. Although both forms were linked to annual reporting requirements
at that time and were supposed to be adapted for unmanifested waste reporting, we deleted them due to the change from annual to biennial reporting. We never published a new form for unmanifested waste reporting and the form now reqiiired forbiennial reporting, EPA form 1300-A/B, "Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and Forms," is not adaptable for unmanifested waste reporting. Although

we never published a replacement form for reporting unmanifested waste,the regulations stillrequired this form which is generally unavailable to those seeking a copy.

The final rule retains the proposed unmanifested reporting requirements at 40 CFR 264.76 and 265.76. Commenters generally supported our unmanifested reporting approach. However, several
commenters expressed concern orraisedsuggestions on the proposed procedures for unmanifested wastes reports. A number ofcommenters suggested that EPA revise the manifest so that an unmanifested report could be Punsubmitted" using amanifest (e.g., using acheck box). While we appreciate this suggestion, EPA does notbelieve that it is aworkable option. Ono
commenter expressed concern that the proposed procedures didnot offer'a standard reporting approach, which could lead to data quality problems. The
commenter suggested that TSDFs provide areport using company letterhead and signed by a company official. We do not agree with the suggestion and are not convinced that data entry problems may result from the proposed approach.

VI. Administration and Enforcement of These Regulatory Changes inthe States

A. UniformApplicabilityof Revised ManifestRequirementsinAll States.In, I 

### 10809

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10809 2005Federal: Register/V61 70,)No. 42f/Friday:iMaich 4,.c,2005:/Rirlbs" and 3$dgilations

the May, 2001 proposedruld;EPA explained how the revised manifest requirements would apply in authorized states, inthe context ofthe statutory and regulatory authorities that govern generally the authorization ofstate hazardous waste programs forrevisi6ns
to EPA's Subtitle C regulations. However, the hazardous waste manifest is based on both RCRA authority and the hazardous materials statutes and regulations administered by DOT. Aswe explained when we issued the Uniform Manifest Rule in March, 1984, thejoint RCRA/hazmat basis forthe manifest gives rise to unique implementation
consequences.

The most significant consequence of the jointRCRA/Hazmat authority for the manifest is that the revised manifest requirements announced in today's rule will be implemented in all states onthe delayed compliance date of September 5, 2006. This result follows from the hazardous materials laws that require consistency in the use ofhazardous materials shipping papers such asthe manifest. Just aswe indicated with respect to the applicability ofthe Uniform Manifest Rule (see 49 FR 10490
at 10493, March 20, 1984), EPA continues to believe that a uniform implementation date is an important part ofthe manifest system. Therefore, based again on the requirements in Hazmat law foi consistency in the
content and use ofshipping papers, the revised manifest form and procedures announced in today's finalrule willbe implemented uniformly on September 5, 2006, regardless ofany state's authorization status under RCRA. This means-that, with oneminor exception (the changes to the waste minimization certification requirements discussed below), implementation and enforcement ofthe revised manifest in authorized states will bebased solely on federal hazmat law, rather than RCRA authority, until the states have obtained authorization for the program revisions included in today's rule.

The remainder ofthis section discusses the state authorization implications for today's revised manifest requirements. While the revised manifest will be implemented in all states under thehazardous materials authorities on the delayed compliance date, the revised manifest requirements willbe implemented in the states as RCRA requirements as well, depending
upon a state's authorization status and its progress in revising its laws and obtaining approval from EPA forthese manifest program revisions.

B. General PolicyonRCRA Applicabilityof Federal Rules,in AuthorizedStates,Under Section 3006 ofRCRA, EPA.hay,aiithbrike qualified.
states to administer the RCRA

. hazardous waste program within the State. Following authorization, the State requirements authorized by EPA apply inlieu ofthe equivalent Federal RCRA requirements and become Federally enforceable as requirements ofRCRA. EPA maintains independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA Sections 3007,3008, 3013, and 7003. Authorized States also have independent authority to bring enforcement actions under State law. A State may receive authorization by following the approval process described under 40 CFRPart 271. See 40 CFR 271 forthe overall standards and requirements for authorization.

After a State receives initial authorization, new Federal requirements promulgated under RCRA .authority existing prior to the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in that State under RCRA authority until the State adopfs and receives authorization for equivalent State requirements. The State must generally adopt such requirements to maintain authorization.

In contrast,under RCRA Section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed pursuant to HSWA provisions take effect under RCRA in authorized States
at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized States.'Although authorized States are still required to update their hazardous waste programs to remain equivalent to the Federal program, EPA carries out HSWA-based requirements and prohibitions in authorized States, including the issuance ofnew permits implementing those requirements, until EPA authorizes the States to doso.

Authorized States generally are required to modify their programs only when EPA promulgates Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than existing Federal requirements. RCRA Section 3009 allows the States to impose standards

more Itringent than those inthe Federal program. See also 40 CFR 271.1(i). Therefore, authorized States are generally notrequired to adopt Federal regulations, both HSWA andnonHSWA, that are considered less stringent. However, as we explain below, the hazardous waste manifest is
not governed by this policy, but is instedd subject to special program consistency requirements whichrequire all states to maintain consistency with the Federal manifest, regardless of whether any Federal changes could be considered more stringent or less stringent than existingrequirements.

C.AuthoriZationofStates forToday's Final Rule. Except-for one provision, we

arepromulgating today's finalrule mainly under~honr.HSWA statutory authority.-Thesection oftoday's rule that is promulgated under HSWA

- authority (specifically, RCRA Section 3002(b)) is §262.27, which consists of the new regulatory provision that codifies the waste minimization certification language which.previously

was set outin fullion the face ofthe manifest form itself.Therefore, we are adding this section ofthe rule to Table 1in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which identifies all the Federal program requirements that

are promulgated pursuant to the statutory authoritythat was addedby HSWA. States may apply for final authorization forthe HSWA provisions inTable 1,as discussed in the following section ofthis preamble.

EPA emphasizes that this rule's codification ofthe full waste minimization certification in § 262.27 is intended only for convenience, and is
notintended as a-substantive change to the manifest requirements. This-final rule provision contains the same waste minimization certification language which is on the current manifest form, butwhich the revised form incorporates byreference to §262.27. Generators are still required to certify to the same waste minimization statements they previously certified to each time a manifest is initiated, but much ofthe actual language now appears inthe regulation rather than on the form.

Because Congress established the
waste minimization certification requirement inthe 1984 HSWA statute, EPA must designate any regulatory changes that affect the waste minimization certification as a HSWAbased regulatory revision and identify it

as such in Table 1 of40 CFR 271.1(j). Therefore, since §262.27 is the only component oftoday's final rule that is based on HSWA authority, we are clarifying that only this provision will be implemented as aHSWA requirement. Theimpact ofthe HSWA designation is that the waste minimization requirements appearing in § 262.27 willbe effective immediately under Federal RCRA authority in all authorized States, before the states become authorized for their equivalent requirements under state law. Thus, when new manifest forms.which do not contain the full waste minimization certification are distributed, the full requirements forthe waste minimization certification will continue
to be in effect underFederal law, even ifa state is delayed'in adopting these 

### 108"10

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10810 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/ Rules and Regulations

changes under its state law authorities. That is the only significant or practical
outcome that results from this one regulatory provisionbeing designated a HSWA-based requirement.

All the other parts oftoday's final rule

arebased on'pre-HSWA authority, so they will beimplemented under RCRA authority in authorized States only when these states revise theirprograms and receive authorization forthe final rulerequirements. For users ofthe manifest, the reliance onpre-HSWA authority formost ofthe content of today's rule is largely a moot point, since the new form and requirements willbe implemented in allstates on the delayed compliance date (i.e., 18 months afterpublication) based on Federalhazardous materials law. To regulatory agencies, the point is significant, since itmeans that the new manifest requirements cannotbe implemented-and thus enforced under RCRA authority until the states have received authorization for the necessary revisions to their authorized hazardous
waste programs.

D. ConsistencyRequiresAdoption of RevisedManifestinAll States.Under today's rule, authorized States will be required to adopt the revised Uniform Manifestform and requirements. To obtain and maintain authorization, States and territories arerequired to be consistent with the federal program and other State programs. Although sections 3006 and 3009 of RCRA allow States to have regulations that are different than the Federalrequirements, aslong as they are equivalent to ormore stringent, section 3006(b) also requires States to have regulations that are consistent with the federal regulations. The requirements ofthis statutory provision

are codified in40 CFR 271.4, which specifically applies the consistency requirement to the-manifest system under 40 CFR 271.4(c). When EPA originally promulgated the Uniform Manifest in 1984, we found that consistency was extremely important where requirements addressing transportation are concerned. We found during the early years ofimplementing the RCRA program that aproliferation of many State-specific manifest forms could amper the movement of hazardous waste to waste management facilities, and that differing manifest use and information requirements between States caused added burdens and confusion among those tryingto comply with the Subtitle C regulations. See 49 FR 10490 at 10491 (March 20&, 1984). Therefore, in 1984, EPA announced that consistency in the use ofthe Uniform Manifest would be required from authorized States, and that, with the exception ofthe limited State information that was allowed then in the optional fields, authorized States could not require any other manifest or information to accompany awaste shipment. Id. Based on nearly 20 years ofexperience with the Uniform Manifest, EPA has concluded that variability in the current manifest system must bereduced further, since the current level ofvariability under the 1984 Uniform Manifest continues to produce excessive burden, confusion, and compliance problems. Therefore, EPA emphasizes that program consistency considerations under RCRA section 3006 and 40 CFR 271.4(c) demand that all authorized States must require the use oftherevised manifest form and requirements as set outin today's final rule.

Under40 CFR 271.4(c) and 271.10(f) and (h),in order tobe consistent with the federal -program,and receive approval from EPA, States musthave a manifest system that includes a manifest format that follows theFederal format required in40 CFR 262.20(a) and

- 262.21. Today's rule amends §271.10(h)
to correspond with the changes to the revised manifest format and the procedures for its use. Key among these amendments areform revisions that would eliminate all optional fields and establish anew procedure for obtaining

a standard manifest form from registered printers or distributors. The new, standard manifest format and the corresponding federal printing specification willnot provide areas of potential variability for users and states. The finalrule thus amends §,271.10(h)
to eliminate provisions addressing States' ability to supplement the form. The States will, however, retain the authority to require the entry ofstatespecific waste codes that are not redundant with federal codes, and the authority to require the submission of manifest copies to state offices foruse intheir data systems.

Because the revised -uniformmanifest is (exceptfor § 262.27 as explained above) being promulgated pursuant to non-HSWA authority, it will notbecome .effective as a RCRArequirement in authorized States until those States revise theirprograms and receive authorization.

EPA has involved the authorized States, as co-implementers ofthe RCRA program, in the development oftoday's rule. We believe that there is general support among the States fdrthese manifest revisions that will resultin a truly standardized manifest form. EPA also believes that the States will generally be ableto revise their RCRA programs to include therevised manifest within the finalrule's transition period. Hoever, should any states experience delays in adopting the
program revisions corresponding to today's rule, we emphasize that the revised form and requirements will apply uniformly in all states on this rule's delayed compliance date, under the authority ofthe federal hazardous materials laws. Thus, any delays at the
state level inadopting state program revisionswill not impair the ability of

users to obtain the benefits ofthe new form, nor impede the accomplishment ofa truly standardized manifest form.

VH. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order12866: Regulatory Planning andReview
Under Executive Order No. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), Federal agencies must determine whether a -regulatoryaction is "significant" and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements ofthe Executive Order. The Order defines a "significant regulatory action" agone that is likely
to result in arule that may: "(1) Have

an annual effect on the eponomy of$100 million ormore or adversely affect, in

amaterial way, the economy, a sector of the-economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, orState, focal, or tribal governments orcommunities; (2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned,by another.agency; (3) materially alterthe budgetaryimpact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients; or, (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out oflegal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive. Order."

Pursuant to the terms ofExecutive Order 12866, we determined that this. rule is a "significant regulatory action" because it contains novel policyissues, although itis not economically significant. As such, this action was submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) for review. Changes -madein response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are documented in the docket fortoday's rule.

In orderto estimate the anticipated economic effects oftoday's final rule,

we conducted an evaluation ofthe potential effects ofthis rule on hazardous waste handlers and on State government regulatory agencies: "Economics Background Document: Economic Analysis ofthe USEPA's Final Rule Revisions to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest Form," Mark 10811

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10811 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

Eads, Office of SolidWaste, 24 November 2004, 67 pages (available to the public from the EPA Docket at http://www.epa.gov/edocket).

We estimate that upwards of 139,000 facilities inthe United States generate, transport ormanage (i.e. treat, recycle, store, dispose)RCRA hazardous waste. About 12 million tons ofhazardous
waste (non-wastewaters and wastewaters) per year are manifested for shipment (i.e. transport bytruck, rail or barge), involving 2.4,to 5.1 million hazardous waste shipment manifests for off-site management annually, requiring about 4.4 to 9.2 million waste handler labor hours, costing about $187 to $733 million annually. In addition, twentythree state governments reportedly spend 199,000 to 416,000 labor hours. costing $6.3 to $37 million annuallyto administer the current RCRA hazardous'
waste manifest program, which when added to waste handler burden,totals to 4.6 to 9.7 million hours ($193 to $770 million) peryear inbaseline national paperwork burden.

Relative to this paperwork burden baseline, we estimate that today's final rule revisions to the RCRA manifest form and-acquisition, are expected to produce a national total of$12.7 to $20.6 million in average annual paperworkburden reduction benefits associated with areduction of249,000
to 397,000 annual burden hours. This representsa 4% to 5% burden hour reduction compared to the national burden hourbaseline of4.6 to 9.7 million hours as estimated in the "Economics Background Document" (EBD). In comparison to these burden estimates, the nextsection presents an alternative estimate ofbaseline paperworkburden and expected burden reduction fortoday's final rule, based on OMB's "Information Collection Request" (ICR) paperworkburden estimation method. The ICR burden estimation method purposedly excludes manifest burden to Federal facilities and excludes manifestburden for state-only regulated hazardous wastes, whereas the burden estimates ofthe EBD include manifestburden to both Federal facilities andnon-Federal facilities, as well aspaperwork burden associated with manifesting both RCRA-regulated and state-only regulated hazardous
wastes. Consequently, the burden hour estimates inthe next section are less than the estimates presented above in this section.

B.Paperwork ReductionAct
The information collection fequirements in thisrule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)'under thePaperwork ReductionAct, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.

According to the estimates provided in the 2004 ICR Nr. 801.15 Supporting Statement forthis final rule (available from the EPADocket athttp:// www.epa.gov/edocket), EPA expects today's final rule revisions to the RCRA manifest form to produce an average annual net reduction of375,000 hours in paperworkburden to RCRA

- hazardous waste handlers and to state governments. This expected burden reduction represents a 12% reduction in annual burden hours compared to the ICRbaseline burden of3.2 million hours per year (notethat thisbaseline burden estimate is less than the baseline estimate ofthe "Economics Background Document" (EBD) summarized in the previous section, because the ICR methodology excludes manifest burden associated with Federal facilities and state-only hazardous wastes, anddoes
not include the EBD's alternative upperbound estimate ofannual manife ts).

Burden means the totaltime, effort, or financial resources expendedby persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or fora Federal Agency. This includes thetime needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjustthe existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to a collection ofinformation; search data sources; complete and review the collection ofinformation; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and aperson is not required to respond tb a collection ofinformation unless it displays a currently valid OMB controlnumber. The OMB-control numbers forEPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listedin 40 CFR part9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency willpublish atechnical amendmentto 40 CFRpart 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB controlnumber for the approved information collection requirements contained inthis final rule.

C.RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 etseq., generally requires an agency to prepare aregulatory flexibility analysis ofany rulesubject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, uriless the agency certifies that the rulewill not have a significant economic impact on a substantial numberof small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes dfassessing the impacts oftoday's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1)A small business that is defined by the Small Business Administration by category ofbusiness using North America: Industrial Classification System (NAICS) and codified at 13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small governmentaljurisdiction that is a government of acity, county, town, school district or special district with a population ofless than 50,000; and (3)

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated arid is not dominant inits field.

After considering the economic impacts oftoday's final rule on small entities, Icertify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number ofsmall entities. In determining whether a rulehas a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact ofconcern is any significant

- adverseeconomic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives "which minimize any significant economic impact ofthe rule

on small entities." 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will nothave a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities ifthe rulerelieves regulatory burden, orotherwise has apositive economic effect on all ofthe small entities subject to the rule.

Today's final rule includesboth regulatory and deregulatory features. However, the net effect ofthese changes should reduce, not increase, the paperwork and related burdens ofthe RCRA hazardous waste manifest. For businesses in general, including all small businesses, the changes in the RCRA manifest form, although required,

are designed to reduce the long-term labor time and other costs ofacquiring, completing, and submitting hazardous
waste manifests. We have therefore concluded that today's final rule will relieve regulatory burden for all small entities. 

### 10812

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10812 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005 /Rules and Regulations

.D. UnfundedMandatesReform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the effects of theirregulatory actions on State;local, andtribal governments and the private
sector.Under section 202 ofthe UMRA, Federal agencies generally must prepare
a written analysis, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with "Federal mandates" that may result in expenditures to State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or tothe private sector, of$100 million or

more in any one year. Moreover, section 205 allows Federal agencies to adopt an alternative other than the least costly,
most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative ifthe Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was notadopted. Before promulgating a rule forwhich a written statement is needed, section 205 ofthe UMRA requires Federal agencies to identify and consider areasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly,most cost-effective, orleast burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives ofthe rule.The provisions ofsection 205 do not apply whenthey are inconsistent with applicable law. Before a Federal agency establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it musthave developed, under section 203 ofthe UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials tohave meaningful and timely input in the development ofregulatory proposals, and informing, educating and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

This final rule does notinclude a Federal mandate that mayresult in expenditures of$100 million ormore to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, because the UMRA generally excludes from the definition of"Federal intergovernmental mandate" duties that arise from participation in a voluntary federal program. States are not legally required to have or maintain a RCRA authorized program. Therefore, today's finalrule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. Furthermore, public data

sources wereviewed in 2003 indicate that 12 stategovernments (AR, CA, CT, DE, IL, LA, MD, MI, MO, NH, NJ, PA) collect reVenues from direct assessment offees during distributiQn ofstateprinted RCRA manifests, totaling an estimated $1.16 to $2.44 million per year (see "Economics Background Document" forbasis ofthis estimate). However, morerecently as 2004, we estimate there may only be seven states collecting manifest printing and distribution fees. Today's rule will override existing requirements for hazardous waste shippers to acquire state-printed RCRA manifests and thus reduce the existing directfee assessment mechanism inthese 7 to 12 states. In

cases where states lose revenue as a result ofthis rule, theymay reconfigure their hazardous waste manifest fee assessments tomaintain these existing annual revenues such as by charging fees to process collected manifests, orby altering waste management fee mechanisms. In addition,this final ruJe contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments under section 203 of UMRA. Therefore, EPA does not believe that thisfinal rule would have a significant orunique effect on small governments.

E.Executive Order13132:Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled "Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires Federal agencies to develop an accountable process to

ensure "meaningful and timely input by State and local officials inthe development ofregulatory policies that have federalism implications." The Executive Order defines "policies that have federalism implications" to include regulations that have "substantial direct effects on the States,

onthe relationship between the national government and the States, oron the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment." This final rule does nothave federalism implications. It would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or onthe distribution of power andresponsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132.

The final rulewould alterthe information that a State may require a generator ortransporter to submit on the Uniform Manifest, and it would also alterthe States' current role in distributing manifests. However, these changes represent relatively minor adjustments to the current manifest system, and they do notalter substantially the relationship between the Federal government and the States,

orthe distribution ofpower and •respongibilities among the various levels ofgovernment. The manifest would remain a tracking document and shippingpaper that is primarily based

on Federal requirements found inRCRA and inthe hazardous materials transportation laws administered by DOT. As with existing hazardous waste manifest requirements, States would retain the authority to require generators and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to provide additional information related to the hazardous
waste shipment under separate cover, so long as such requirements are not inconsistent with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) or HMTA regulations.

In addition, the final ruledoes not impose substantial direct costs on States and localities. Although States with manifest data tracking programs may incur some start-up costs inconverting their tracking systems to accept the revised paper manifest, the'final rule does not mandate that States collect manifests, as apart oftheir programs. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does notapply to thisfinal rule.

Although Section Six ofExecutive Order 13132 does.not apply to this rule, EPA consulted substantially with representatives ofState government in developing thisrule priorto finalization. The Agency invited State representatives to participate in two public meetings duringwhich we presented our rulemaking objectives and strategies, and solicited comments and

concerns. EPA conducted these public meetings on December 10-11, 1997, and

onJanuary 7-8, 1998. Representatives of 23 States and Territories participated in these meetings. In addition, State representatives were invited to participate in the meetings ofthe EPA workgroup which developed this rule. Representatives from five States (IN, MI, NH, PA and RI) were selected to participate in the work group meetings, and these States discussed rule options and draft rule language extensively with EPA throughout the development of both the proposed and finalrules.

During our consultations with States

on this rule, the State representatives identified several concerns about: (1) The reductions in the optional fields which States have used to require additional information from facilities; and (2) the changes for printing and acquiring manifests. A summary ofthe

concerns raised during consultations with the States, and EPA's response to those concerns, is provided elsewhere inthis preamble, as well asin our "Response to Comments" document (available to the public from the EPA Docket). 

### 10813

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10813 2005Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

F. ExecutiveOrder.13175:Consultation With TribalGovernments

Executive Order 13175, entitled "Consultationand Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requiresEPA
to develop an accountable process to

ensure "meaningful andtimely input by tribal officials inthe development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications."

This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified inExecutive Order 13175. It doesnot impose any

new requirements on tribal officials nor does itimpose substantial direct compliance costs onthem. This rule does not create a mandate for tribal governments, nor does itimpose any enforceable duties onthese entities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to thisrule.

*G. Executive Order13045:'Protection of Children-Applicability of

Executive Order13045

The Executive Order 13045, entitled "Protection ofChildren from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule thatEPA determines (1) to be "economically significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety riskthat EPA has reason to believe may have adisproportionate effect on children. Ifthe regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency
must evaluate the environmental health

or safety effects ofthe planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation ispreferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered'

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because itis not

an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.In addition, the Agency does not have reasonto believe the environmental healthor safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children, because the RCRA manifest does not itself give rise to environmental media transfer issues. The manifest serves as a tracking device which creates clear lines of accountability among the participants in the hazardous waste manifest system. It also serves to protecthuman health and the environment during the transportation ofhazardous waste by providing information about the waste
to persons handling the waste and to emergency response personnel. H.Executive Order 13211:Actions That SignificantlyAffectEnergySupply, Distribution,orUse

This rule is not a "significant energy action" as defined in Executive Order

- 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations

That Significantly Affect Energy.Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because itis not likely to have

a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use ofenergy.
I.NationalTechnology Transferand AdvancementAct

Section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law No. 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPAto use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures,'and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
notto use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This final rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use ofany voluntary

consensus standards.



### .Congressional ReviewAct
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added bythe Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rulemust submit a rulereport, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. AMajor rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a "major rule" as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2). Thisrule willbe effective September 6, 2005.
List ofSubjects

40 CFRPart260

Environmental protection, Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Imports, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFRPart261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFRPart262

Environmental protection, Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Imports, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFRPart263

Environmental protection, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous
waste.

40 CFR' Part 264
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
40 CFRPart265

Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Packaging andcontainers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFRPart.271

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste,Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: January 27,2005. Stephen L. Johnson, ActingAdministrator.

mForthereasons statedinthe preamble, title 40, chapter 1 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended asfollows:

PART 260-HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

m1. The authority citation forpart260 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921- 6927.6930, 69a4, 6935,6937,6938,6939, and 6974. Subpart B-Definitions

E 2. Section 260.10 isamendedby removing the definition of "Manifest document number," by revising the definitions of"Designated facility" and "Manifest," and by adding the definition of "Manifest tracking number" in alphabetical order to read as follows:
§260.10 Definitions.

Designated facilitymeans: (1) A hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility which:

(i) Has received a permit (orinterim status) inaccordance with the 10814

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10814 2005

### FederaLRegister /Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005i/Rules and.,Regulations

requirements ofparts 270-and 124.'of this chapter;

(ii) Has received aperiiiit (orinterim status) from a State authorized in accordance with part 271 ofthis chapter; or

(iii)Is regulated under §261.6(c)(2) or subpart F ofpart 266 of.this chapter; and

(iv)That has been designated on the manifest by the generaior.pursuant to § 262.20.

(2)Designated facilityalso means a generator site designated on the manifest to receive its 'vaste as a return shipment from a facility that has rejected the waste in accordance with § 264.72(f) or §265.72(f) ofthis chapter.

(3)Ifa waste is destined to a facility in an authorized State whichhas not yet obtained authorization to regulate that particular waste ashazardous, then the designated facility mustbe a facility allowed by the receiving State to accept such waste.

Manifestmeans: The shipping document EPA Form 8700-22 (including, ifnecessary, EPA Form 8700-22A), originated and signed by the generator or offeror in accordance with the instructions inthe appendix to 40
" CFRpart 262 and the applicable

requirements of40 CFR parts 262 through 265.

Manifesttrackingnumbermeans: The alphanumeric identification number (i.e., aunique three letter suffix preceded by nine numerical digits), which is pre-printed in Item4 ofthe Manifest by aregistered source.

PART 261-IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

E 31 The authority citationforpart 261 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and 6938. SubpartA-General

* 4. Section 261.7is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1)(iii)to read as follows:
§261.7 Residues ofhazardous waste in empty containers.


### (b)(1) * * * (iii)(A) No more than 3 percent by weight ofthe total capacity ofthe container remains in the container or inner liner ifthe container is less than

orequal to 119 gallons in size; or

(B) No more than 0,3 percent by weight ofthe total capacity ofthe container remains in the container or inner,liner ifthe container is greater' than 119 gallons in size.

PART 262-STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

a 5.The authority citation forpart262 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922- 6925, 6937, and 6938. Subpart B-The Manifest

* 6. Section 262.20 (a) isrevised to read

as follows:
§262.20 General requirements.

(a)(1) A generator who transports, or offers for transport ahazardous waste for offsite treatment, storage, or disposal, or atreatment, storage, and disposal facility who offers fortransport

a rejected hazardous waste load, must prepare a Manifest (OMB Control number 2050-0039) onEPA Form 8700- 22, and, ifnecessary, EPA Form 8700- 22A, according to the instructions included inthe appendix to thispart.

(2) The revised Manifest form and procedures in 40 CFR 260.10, 261.7, 262.20, 262.21, 262.27, 262.32, 262.33, 262.34, 262.54, 262.60, and the appendix to part262, shall notapply until September 5,2006. The Manifest form and procedures in 40 CFR 260.10, 261.7, 262.20, 262.21, 262.32, 262.33, 262.34, 262.54, 262.60, and the appendix to part262, contained in the 40 CFR, parts 260 to 265, edition revised

as ofJuly 1,2004, shallbe applicable
until September 5, 2006.
* * * * *

n 7.Section 262.21 is revised (including the Section heading) to read as follows:
§262.21 Manifest tracking numbers, manifest printing,and obtaining manifests.

(a)(1) Aregistrant may not print, or have printed, the manifest foruse or distribution unless it has received approval from the EPA Director ofthe Office ofSolid Wasteto do so under paragraphs (c) and (e) ofthis section.

(2) The approved registrant is responsible for ensuring that the organizations identified in its application are incompliance with the procedures ofits approved application. and the requirements ofthis section. The registrant is responsible for assigningmanifest tracking numbers to its manifests.

(b) A registrant must submit an initial application to the EPA Director ofthe Office ofSolidWaste that contains the following information: (1)Name and mailing address of registrant; (2)Name, telephone number and email address ofcontact person;

(3)Briefdescription ofregistrant's governmentor business activity;

(4) EPA identification number ofthe registrant, ifapplicable;

(5) Description ofthe scope ofthe operations that the registrantplans to undertake inprinting, distributing, and' using its manifests, including:

(i) A description of the printing operation. The description should include an explanation ofwhether the registrant intends to print its manifests in-house (i.e., using its own printing establishments) or through a separate (i.e., unaffiliated) printing company. If the registrant intends to use a separate printing company to print the manifest

on its behalf, the application must identify this printingcompany and discuss how the registrant will oversee the company. Ifthis includes the use of intermediaries (e.g., prime and subcontractor relationshios), the role of each mustbe discussed. The application
mustprovide the name and mailing address ofeach company. It also must provide the name and telephone number ofthe contact person at eadh company.

(ii)A description ofhow the registrant will ensure that its organization and unaffiliated companies, ifany, comply with therequirements ofthis section. The application must discuss how the registrant will ensure that aunique manifest tracking number will bepreprinted on each manifest. The application must describe the internalcontrol procedures to be followed by the registrant.and unaffiliated companies to
.ensurethat numbers are tightly controlled and remain unique. In particular, the application must describe how the registrant will assign manifest tracking numbers to its manifests. If computer systems or other infrastructure willbe usedto maintain, track, or assign numbers, these should be indicated. The application must also indicate how the printer will pre-print

a unique number on each form (e.g., crash or press numbering). The application also must explain the other quality procedures to be followed by each establishment and printing company to ensure that allrequired print specifications are consistently achieved and that printing violations are identified and corrected at the earliest practicable time.

(iii) An indicatiQn ofwhether the registrant intends to use the manifests for its own business operations orto distribute the manifests to a separate company orto the general public (e.g., for purchase).. 

### 10a15

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10815 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005 /Rules and Regulations

(6) Abriefdescription ofthe qualifications ofthe company that-will print the manifest. The registrant may

use readily available information to do

so (e.g., corporate brochures, product samples, customer references, documentation ofISOcertification), so long as such information pertains to the establishments or company being proposed to print the manifest.

(7) Proposed unique three-letter manifest tracking number suffix. Ifthe registrant is approved to print the manifest, the registrant mustuse this suffix to pre-print a unique manifest tracking number on each manifest.

(8) A signed certification by a duly authorized employee ofthe registrant that the organizations and companies in its application will comply with the procedures ofits approved application and the requirements ofthis Section and that it will notify the EPA Director of the Office ofSolid Waste ofany duplicated manifest tracking numbers

onmanifests that have been used or distributed to other parties as soon as this becomes known.

(c) EPA willreview the application submitted under paragraph (b)ofthis section and either approve it orrequest additional information ormodification before approving it. (d)(1) Upon EPA approval ofthe application under paragraph (c) ofthis section,EPA will provide the registrant

an electronic file ofthe manifest, continuation sheet, and manifest instructions and ask theregistrant to submit three fully assembled manifests and continuation sheet samples, except

as noted inparagraph (d)(3) ofthis section. The registrant's samples must meet all ofthe specifications in paragraph (f) ofthis section and be printed by the company that will print the manifest asidentified in the application approved under paragraph (c) ofthis section.

(2)The registrant must submit a description ofthe manifest samples as follows:

(i) Paper type (i.e., manufacturer and grade ofthe manifest paper);

(ii) Paper weight ofeach copy; (iii)Ink color ofthe manifest's instructions. If screening ofthe ink was used,the registrant mustindicate the
extent ofthe screening; and

(iv) Method ofbinding the copies. (3)The registrant need not submit samples ofthe continuation sheet ifit willprint its continuation sheet using the same paper type, paper weight of each copy, inkcolor ofthe instructions, and binding method asits manifest form samples.

(e)EPA will evaluate the forms and either approve the registrant to print them asproposed or request additional information or modification to them before approval. EPA will notify the registrant ofits 'decisionbymail. The registrant cannot use br distribute its forms until EPA approves them.An approved registrant must print the manifest and continuation sheet according to its application approved under paragraph (c) ofthis section and the manifest specifications in paragraph (f)ofthis section. It also mustprint the forms according to the paper type, paper weight, inkcolor ofthe manifest instructions and bindingmethod ofits approved forms.

(f)Paper manifests and continuation sheets mustbe printed according to the following specifications: (1)The manifest and continuation sheet mustbe priited with the exact format and appearance as EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A, respectively. However, ihformation required to complete.the manifest may be preprinted on the manifest form.

(2)A unique manifest tracking number assigned in accordance with a numbering system approved by EPA
mustbe pre-printed in Item 4 ofthe manifest. The tracking number must consist ofa unique three-letter suffix following nine digits.

(3)The manifest and continuation sheet mustbe printed on 81/2 x 11-inch white paper, excluding common stubs (e.g., top- or side-bound stubs)..The paper mustbe durable enough to withstand normal use.

(4) The manifest and continuation sheet mustbe printed inblack inkthat

canbe legibly photocopied, scanned, and faxed, exceptthat the marginal words indicating copy distribution must be inred ink.

(5)The manifest ahd continuation sheet must be printed as six-copy forms. Copy-to-copy registration mustbe exact within 1/32nd ofan inch. Handwritten and typed impressions on the form must be legible on all six copies. Copies must bebound together by one ormore

common stubs that reasonably ensure that they will notbecome detached inadvertently during normal use.

(6) Each copy ofthe manifest and continuation sheet must indicate how the copy mustbe distributed, as follows:

(i) Page 1 (top copy): "Designated facility to destination State (if required)".

(ii)Page 2: "Designated facility to generator State (ifrequired)".

(iii)Page 3: "Designated facility to generator".

(iv) Page 4: "Designated facility's copy".

(v) Page 5: "Transporter's copy". (vi)Page 6 (bottom copy): "Generator's initial copy".

(7) The instructions in the appendix
to 40 CFRpart 262 must appear legibly

on the back ofthe copies ofthe manifest and continuation sheet asprovided in this paragraph (f). The instructions must not be visible through the front ofthe copies when photocopied or faxed.

(i) Manifest Form 8700-22. (A)The "Instructions for Generators"

on Copy 6;

(B) The "Instructions for International Shipment Block" and "Instructions for Transporters" on Copy 5; and

(C) The "Instructions forTreatment, Storage, and DisposalFacilities" on Copy 4.

(ii) Manifest Form 8700-22A. (A) The "Instructions for Generators"

on Copy 6;

(B) The "Instructions for Transporters" on Copy 5; and

(C) The "Instructions for Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities" on Copy 4.

(g)(1) A generator may use manifests printed by any source so long as the

source ofthe printed form has received approval from EPA to print the manifest under paragraphs (c)and (e) ofthis section.'A registered source may bea:

(i) State agency; (ii) Commercial printer; (iii)Hazardous waste generator; transporter or TSDF; or

(iv)Hazardous waste broker or other
preparer who prepares or arranges shipments ofhazardous waste for transportation.

(2) Agenerator must determine whether the generator state or the consignment state for a shipment regulates any additional wastes (beyond those regulated Federally) ashazardous
wastes under these states' authorized programs. Generators also must determine whether the consignment
state or generator state requires the generator to submit any copies ofthe manifest to these states. In cases where the generator must 9upply copies to either the generator's state or the consignment state, the generator is responsible for supplying legible photocopies ofthe manifest to these
states.

(h)(1) If an approved registrant would like to update any ofthe information provided in its application approved under paragraph (c)ofthis section (e.g.,
to update acompany phone number or
name of contact person), the registrant
mustrevise the application and submit itto the EPADirector ofthe Office of Solid Waste, along with an indication or explanation ofthe update, as soon as practicable after he change occurs. The Agency either will approve or deny the 

### 10816

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10816 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

revision. Ifthe Agency denies the revision, it will explain the reasons for the denial, and it will contact the registrant and request firther modification before approval.

(2)Iftheregistrant would like a new tracking number suffix, the registrant
must submit a proposed suffix to the EPA Director ofthe Office ofSolid Waste, along with the reason for requesting it.The Agency will either
approve the suffix or deny the suffix andprovide an explanation why it is
not acceptable.

(3)If aregistrant would like to change the paper type, paper weight, ink color ofthe manifest instructions, or binding method ofits manifest or continuation sheet subsequent to approval under paragraph (e) ofthis section, theA the registrant must submit three samples of the revised form forEPA review and approval. Ifthe approved registrant would like to use a new printer, the registrant must submit three manifest samples printed by the new printer, along with abrief description ofthe printer's qualifications to print the manifest. EPA will evaluate the manifests and either approve the registrant to print the forms as proposed

orrequest additional information or modification to them before approval. EPA will notify the registrant ofits decision by mail. The registrant cannot

use ordistribute its revised forms until EPAapproves them. 

### i)If, subsequent to its approval under paragraph (e) ofthis section, a registrant typesets its manifest or continuation sheet instead ofusing the electronic.file ofthe forms provided by EPA, it must submit three samples ofthe manifest or continuation sheet to-the registry for approval. EPA will evaluate the manifests orcontinuation sheets and eitherapprove the registrant to print them as proposed or request additional information or modification to them before approval.'EPA will notify the registrant ofits decision by mail. The registrant cannot use or distribute its typeset forms until EPA approves them. (j)EPA may exempt a registrant from the requirement to submit form samples underparagraph (d) or (h)(3) ofthis section ifthe Agency is persuaded that

a separate review ofthe registrant's forms would serve little purpose in informing an approval decision (e.g., a registrant certifies that it will print the manifest using the same paper type, paper weight, ink color ofthe instructions and binding method ofthe form samples approved for some other registrant). Aregistrant mayrequest an exemption from EPA by indicating why

an exempjtion is warranted. (k) An approved registrant must notify EPA by phone or email as soon as it becomes aware that it has duplicated tracking numbers on any manifests that have been used or distributed to other parties.

(1)If, subsequent to approval ofa registrant under paragraph (e) ofthis section, EPA becomes aware that the approved paper type, paper weight, ink color ofthe instructions, orbinding method ofthe registrant's form is' unsatisfactory, EPA will contact the registrant and require modifications to the form.

(m)(1) EPA may suspend and, if. necessary, revoke printing privileges if

we find that the registrant: (i) Has used ordistributed forms that deviate from its approved form samples inregard to paper weight, paper type, inkcolor ofthe instructions, orbinding method; or

(ii)Exhibits a continuing pattern of behavior in using or distributing manifests that contain duplicate manifest tracking numbers.

(2)EPA will send awarning letter to theregistrant that specifies the date by which it must come into compliance withthe requirements. Ifthe registrant does not come in compliance by the specified date, EPA will send a second letter notifying the registrant that EPA has suspended orrevoked its printing privileges. An approved registrant must provide information on its printing activities to EPA ifrequested.
Subpart B-[Amended]

* 8. Subpart B isamended by adding

new §262.27 to read as follows:
§262.27 Waste minimization certification.

A generator who initiates a shipment ofhazardous waste must certify to one ofthe following statements in Item 15 ofthe uniform hazardous waste manifest:
(a) "I am a large quantity generator. I have a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity ofwaste generated
to the degree Ihave determined to be economically practicable and Ihave selected the practicable method of treatment, storage, or disposal currently available to meWhich minimizes the present and future threat to human health and the environment;" or

(b) "I am a small quantity generator. Ihave made a good faith effortto minimize my waste generation and select the best waste management method that is available to me and that Ican afford." Subpart C-Pre-Transport Requirements

9. Section 262.32 isamended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§262.32 Marking.

(b) Before transporting hazardous
waste oroffering hazardous waste for transportation off-site, a generator must mark each container of 119 gallons or less used in such transportation with the following words and information in accordance with the requirements of49 CFR 172.304:

HAZARDOUS WASTE-Federal Law Prohibits Improper Disposal. Iffound, cfntact the nearest police or public safety authority or theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Generator's Name and Address Generator's EPA Identification Number "*

Manifest TrackingNumber

E 10..Section 262.33 is revised to read as. follows:
§262.33 Placarding.

Before transporting hazardous waste

or offering hazardous waste for transportation off-site, agenerator must placard or offer the initial transporter the appropriate placards according to Department ofTransportation regulations forhazardous materials under 49 CFRpart 172, subpart F. If placards are notrequired, a generator must mark each motor vehicle according
to 49 CFR 171.3(b)(1). * 11. Section 262.34 isamended by adding new paragraph (m) to read as follows: §262.34 Accumulationtime.

(m) A generator who sends a shipment ofhazardous waste to a designated facility with the understanding that the designated facility can accept and manage the
waste and later receives that shipment back asa rejected load or residue in accordance with the manifest discrepancy provisions of§ 264.72 or §265.72 ofthis chapter may accumulate the returned waste on-site in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) or (d), (e) and (f)of this section, depending on the
amount ofhazardous waste on-site in that calendar month. Upon receipt of the returned shipment, the generator must:

(1)Sign Item 18c ofthe manifest, if the transporter returned the shipment using the original manifest; or (2) Sign Item 20 ofthe manifest, ifthe transporter returned the shipment using

anew manifest. , 1 1

.., 

### 10817

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10817 2005Federal Register/-V61., 

### 70,'No.. 42/.Friday,:MatrCh 4, 2005 /Rules 

### and Regtilations

Subpart E-Exports'of HazarddUs Waste

m12. Section 262.54 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as follows:
§262.54 Special manifest requirements.

(c) In the International Shipments block, the primary exporter must check the export box and enter the point of exit (city and State) from the United
States.

(e) The primary exporter may obtain the manifest from any source that is registered with the U.S. EPA as a supplier ofmanifests (e.g., states, waste handlers, and/or commercial forms printers).

Subpart F-Imports of Hazardous Waste

* 13. Section 262.60 isamended by revising paragraph (c) and by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read.as follows
§262.60 Importsof hazardous waste.

(c) Aperson who imports hazardous waste may obtain the manifest form from any source that is registered with the U.S. EPA as a supplier ofmanifests (e.g., states, waste handlers, and/or commercial forms printers). (d) Inthe International Shipments block, the i~mporter must check the import bok and enter the point ofentry (city and State) into the United States. (e) The importer must provide the transporter with an additional copy of the manifest to be submitted by the receiving facility to U.S. EPA in accordance with §264.71(a)(3) and §265.71(a)(3) ofthis chapter. * 14.The Appendixto Part 262 is revised to read as follows: Appendix to Part262-Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest and Instructions (EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A and TheirInstructions)
U.S. EPA Form 8700-22

Read all instructions before completing this form.

1.This form has been designed for use on

a 12-pitch (elite) typewriter which is also compatible with standard computer printers;

a firm point pen may also beused-press down hard.

2. Federal regulations require generators and transporters ofhazardous waste and

owners or operators ofhazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to complete this form (8700-22) and, if necessary, the continuation sheet (8700-22A) for both inter- and intrastate transportation of hazardous waste. 1 1, Manifest 8700-22

. - I 1= r
The following statement mustbe included witheach Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, either on the form, in the instructions to the form, or accompanying the form:

Public reportingburden for thiscollection ofinformation is estimated to average: 30 minutes for generators, 10 minutes for transporters, and 25 minutes for owners or operators oftreatment, storage, and disposal facilities. This includes time for reviewing instructions, gathering data, completing, reviewing and transmitting the form. Send
comments regarding the burden estimate, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Chief,Information Policy Branch (2136), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building;' 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs, Office ofManagement and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

I. Instructions forGenerators

Item 1. Generator'sU.S. EPAIdentification Number

Enter the generator's U.S. EPA twelve digit identification number, orthe State generator identification number ifthe generator site

does nothave anEPA identification number.

Item 2. Page 1of_

Enter the total number ofpages used to complete this Manifest (i.e., the first page (EPA Form 8700-22) plus the number of Continuation Sheets (EPA Form 8700-22A), ifany).

Item 3. EmergencyResponsePhoneNumber

Enter a phone number for which
emergency response information can be obtained in the event ofan incident during transportation. The embrgency response phone number must:

1.Be the number ofthe generator or the number ofan agency ororganization who is capable ofand accepts responsibility for providing detailed information about the shipment;

2.Reach a phone that is monitored 24 hours a day at all times the waste is in transportation (including transportation related storage); and

3. Reach someone who is either knowledgeable ofthe hazardous waste being shipped and has comprehensive emergency response and spill cleanup/incident mitigation information for the material being shipped orhas immediate access to a person who has that knowledge and information about the shipment.

Note: Emergency Response phone number information should only be entered inItem 3when there is one phone number that applies to all the waste materials described in Item 9b.If a situation (e.g.,-consolidated shipments) arises where more than one Emergency Response phone number applies
to the various wastes listed on the manifest, the phone numbers associated with each specific material should be entered after its description inItem 9b. Item 4.ManifestTrackingNumber
This unique tracking number must be preprinted on the manifest by the forms printer.

Item 5. Generator's Mailing Address,Phone NumberandSiteAddress

Enter the name ofthe generator, the mailing address to which the completed manifest signed by the designated facility should be mailed, andthe generator's telephone number. Note, the telephone number (including area code) shouldbe the number where the generator orhis authorized agent may bereached to provide instructions in the event ofan emergency or if the designated and/or alternate (ifany) facility rejects some or all of the shipment. Also enter the physical site address from which the shipment briginates only ifthis address is different than the mailing address.

Item 6. Transporter I CompanyName, and U.S. EPAIDNumber

Enter the company name andU.S. EPA ID number ofthe firsttransporter who will transport the waste. Vehicle ordriver information may not be entered here.
Item 7. Transporter 2 CompanyName and
U.S.EPA IDNumber

Ifapplicable, ent6r the company name and U.S. EPA ID number ofthe second transporter who will transport the waste. Vehicle ordriver information may not be entered here.

Ifmore than two transporters are needed,

use a Continuation Sheet(s) (EPAForm 8700- 22A).

Item 8. Designated Facility Name, Site Address,andU.S. EPA IDNumber

Enter the company name and site address ofthe facility designated to receive the waste listed onthis manifest. Also enter the facility's phone number andthe U.S. EPA twelve digit identification number ofthe facility.

Item 9. U.S. DOTDescription(Including Proper ShippingName,HazardClassor Division,IdentificationNumber,andPacking

. Group)

Item 9a.Ifthe wastes identified in Item 9b consist ofboth hazardous and nonhazardous materials, then identify the hazardous materials by entering an "X" inthis Item next to the corresponding hazardous material identified in Item 9b.

Item 9b.Enter the U.S. DOT Proper Shipping Name, Hazard Class orDivision, Identification Number (UN/NA)and Packing Group for each waste as identified in 49 CFR 172. Include technical name(s) and reportable quantity references, if applicable.

Note: Ifadditional space is needed for
waste descriptions, enter these additional descriptions in Item 27 on the Continuation Sheet (EPAForm 8700-22A). Also, ifmore than one Emergency Response phone number applies to the various wastes described in either Item 9b orItem 27, enter applicable Emergency Response phone numbers immediately following the shipping descriptions for those Items. 

### .1081,8

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10818 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005 /Rules and Regulations

Item 10. Containers(NumberandType)

Enter the number ofcontainers for each waste and the appropriate abbreviation from Table I (below)for the type ofcontainer.

TABLE I.-TYPES OF CONTAINERS

BA = Burlap, cloth, paper, or plastic bags. CF = Fiber or plastic boxes, cartons, cases. CM = Metal boxes, cartons, cases (including

roll-offs).
CW = Wooden boxes, cartons, cases. CY = Cylinders. DF = Fiberboard or plastic drums, barrels,

kegs. DM= Metal drums, barrels, kegs. DT = Dump truck. DW = Wooden drums, barrels, kegs. HG = Hopper or gondola cars. TC = Tank cars. TP = Portable tanks.

-r = Cargo tanks (tanktrucks).

Item 11. Total Quantity

Enter, indesignated boxes, the total quantity ofwaste. Round partial units to the nearest whole unit, and donotenter decimals orfractions. To the extent practical, report quantities using appropriate units of

measure that wvill allow you to report quantities with precision. Waste quantities entered should bebased on actual measurements or reasonably accurate estimates ofactual quantities shipped. Container capacities are not acceptable as estimates.

-
Item 12. UnitsofMeasure(Weight/Volume)

Enter,in designated boxes, the appropriate abbreviation from Table II (below) for the unit ofmeasure.

TABLE I.-UNITS OF MEASURE

G = Gallons (liquids only). K = Kilograms. L = Liters (liquids only). M = Metric Tons (1000 kilograms). N = Cubic Meters. P = Pounds. T = Tons (2000 pounds). Y = Cubic Yards.

Note: Tons, Metric Tons, Cubic Meters, and Cubic Yards should only be reported in con- nection with very large bulk shipments, such
as rail cars, tank trucks, or barges.

Item 13. WasteCodes

Enterup to six federal and state waste codes to describe each waste streamidentified in Item 9b. Statewaste codes that

are not redundant withfederal codes must be entered here, in addition to the federal waste codes which are mostrepresentative ofthe properties ofthe waste.

Item 14. SpecialHandlingInstructionsand AdditionalInformation.
1.Generators may enter any special handling or shipment-specific information necessary forthe proper management or tracking ofthe materials under the generator's or otherhandler's business processes, such as waste profile numbers, container codes, bar codes, orresponse guide numbers. Generators also may use this space to enter additional descriptive information about their shipped materials, such as chemical names, constituent percentages, physical state, or specific gravity ofwastes. identified withvolume units in Item 12.

2. This space maybe used to record limited types offederally required information for which there is no specific space provided on' the manifest, including any alternate facility designations; themanifest tracking number of the original manifest for rejected wastes and residues that are re-shipped under a second manifest; andthe specification ofPCB waste descriptions and PCB out-of-jervice dates required under40 CFR 761.207. Generators, however, cannot be required to enter information in this space to meet state regulatory requirements.

Item 15. Genera tor's/Offeror'sCertifications
1.The generator mustread, sign,and date the waste minimization certification statement.In signing the waste minimization certification statement, those generators who have not been exempted by statute or regulation from the duty to make a waste minimization certification under section 3002(b) ofRCRA are also certifying that they have complied with the waste minimization requirements. The Generator's Certification also contains the required attestation that the shipment has been properly prepared and is in proper condition for transportation (the shipper's certification). The content ofthe shipper's certification statement is as follows: I hereby declare that the contents ofthis consignment are fully and accurately described above by proper shipping name and are classified, packed, marked, and labeled, and arein all respects in proper condition for transport by highway according to applicable international and national governmental regulations. When a party otherthan the generator prepares the shipment for transporta*tion, thisparty may also sign the shipper's certification statement

as the offeror of the shipment.

2. Generator or Offeror personnel may preprint the words, "On behalf of" in the signatureblock or may hand write this
statement in the signature block prior to signing the generator/offeror certification, to indicatethat the individual signs as the employee or agent ofthe named principal.

Note: All ofthe above information except the handwritten signature required in Item 15
maybe pre-printed. II. Instructions forInternational Shipment

Block

Item 16.InternationalShipments

For export shipments,the primary exporter must check the export box, and enter the point ofexit (city and state) from the United States. Forimport shipments, the importer
mustcheck the import box and enter the point ofentry (city and state) into theUnited States. For exports, the transporter must sign and date the manifest to indicate the day the shipment left the United States. Transporters ofhazardous waste shipments must deliver a copy ofthe manifest to the U.S. Customs when exporting the waste across U.S. borders. III. InstructionsforTransporters

Item 17. Transporters'Acknowledgments of Receipt

Enter the name oftheperson accepting the
waste on behalf ofthe first transporter.That person must acknowledge acceptance ofthe waste described on the manifestby signing and entering the date ofreceipt. Only one signature pertransportation company is required. Signatures are not required to track the movement ofwastes in and out oftransfer facilities, unless there is a change ofcustody between transporters.

Ifapplicable, enter the name ofthe person accepting the waste onbehalf ofthe second transporter. That person must acknowledge acceptance ofthe waste described on the manifest by signing and entering the date of receipt.

Note: Transporters carrying imports, who

are acting as importers, may have responsibilities to enter information in the International Shipments Block. Transporters carrying exports rhay also have responsibilities to enter information in the International Shipments Block. See above. instructions for Item 16. IV. Instructions for Owners and Operators of
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities

Item 18.Discrepancy
Item 18a. Discrepancy Indication Space

1.The authorized representative ofthe designated (oralternate) facility's owner or operator must note in this space any discrepancies between the waste described

on the Manifest and the waste actually received atthe facility. Manifest discrepancies are: significant differences (as defined by §§ 264.72(b) and 265.72(b)) between the quantity ortype ofhazardous
waste designated on the manifest or shipping
paper, and the quantity andtype of hazardous waste a facility actually receives, rejected wastes,which maybe a full or partial shipment ofhazardous waste that the TSDF cannot accept, or container residues, which are residues that exceed the quantity limits for "empty" containers set forth in40 • CFR 261.7(b).

2. For rejected loads and residues (40 CFR 264.72(d), (e), and (f), or40 CFR265.72(d), (e), or(f)), check the appropriate boxifthe shipment is a rejected load (i.e.,rejected by the designated and/or alternate facility and is
sent to an alternate facility orreturned to the generator) or a regulated residue that cannot be removed from a container. Enter the

reason for the rejection orthe inability to

remove the residue and a description of the
waste. Also, reference the manifest tracking number for any additional manifests being used to track the rejected waste orresidue shipment on the original manifest. Indicate the original manifest tracking numberin Item 14, the Special Handling Block and Additional Information Block ofthe additional manifests.

3. Owners or operators offacilities located in unauthorized States (i.e., states in which the U.S. EPA administers the hazardous waste management program) who cannot resolve significant differences in quantity or type within 15 days ofreceiving the waste 

### 10819

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10819 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/ Rules and Regulations

must submit to their Regional Administrator

a letter with a copy ofthe Manifest at issue describing the discrepancy and attempts to reconcile it (40 CFR264.72(c) and 265.72(c)).

4. Owners or operators of facilities located inauthorized States (i.e., those States that have received authorization from the U.S. EPA to administer the hazardous waste management program) should contact their State agency for information-on where to report discrepancies involving "significant differences" to state officials.
Item 18b. Alternate Facility (or Generator) for Receipt ofFull Load Rejections

Enter the name, address, phone number, andEPA Identification Number ofthe Alternate Facility which therejecting TSDF has designated, after consulting with the generator, to receive a fully rejected waste shipment. In the event thata fully rejected shipment is being returned to the generator, the rejecting TSDF may enter the generator's site information in this space. This field is
not tobe used to forward partially rejected loads orresidue waste shipments.
Item 18c. Alternate Facility (or Generator) Signature

The authorized representative ofthe alternate facility (orthe generator inthe
eventofa returned shipment)must sign and date this field ofthe form to acknowledge receipt ofthe fully rejected vxastes or residues identified by the initial TSDF.

Item 19. HazardousWasteReport Management Method Codes
Enter the most appropriate Hazardous Waste Report Management Method code for each waste listed in Item 9. The Hazardous Waste Report Management Method code is to be entered by the first treatment, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF)that receives the
waste and is the code that best describes the way inwhich the waste is tobe managed when received'by the TSDF.

Item 20.Designated Facility Owneror OperatorCertification ofReceipt(ExceptAs NotedinItem 18a)

. Enter the name ofthe person receiving the
waste onbehalf ofthe owner or operator of the facility. That person must acknowledge receipt orrejection ofthe waste described on the Manifest by signing and entering the date ofreceipt orrejection where indicated. Since the Facility Certification acknowledges receipt ofthe waste except as noted in the Discrepancy Space inItem 18a, the certification should be signed for both waste receipt and waste rejection, withtherejection being noted and described inthe space provided in Item 18a. Fully rejected wastes maybe forwarded orreturned using Item 18b after consultation with the generator. Enter the name ofthe person accepting the waste

on behalf ofthe owner oroperator ofthe alternate facility orthe original generator. Thatperson must acknowledge receipt or rejection ofthe waste described on the Manifest by signing and entering the date they received or rejected the waste in Item 18c. Partially rejected wastes andresidues
must bere-shipped under a new manifest, to beinitiated and signed by therejecting TSDF

as offeror ofthe shipment. Manifest Continuation Sheet

Instructions-Continuation Sheet, U.S. EPA Form 8700-22A

Read all instructions before completing thisform. This formhas been designed for

use on a 12-pitch (elite) typewriter; a firm point pen may also beused-press down hard.

This formmust be used as a continuationsheetto U.S. EPA Form 8700-22 if:

* More than two transporters are to be used to transport the waste; or

* More space is required for the U.S. DOT descriptions andrelated information in Item 9 ofU.S. EPA Fo~rm 8700-22.

Federal regulations require generators and transporters ofhazardous waste and owners

oroperators ofhazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities to use the uniform hazardous waste manifest (EPA form 8700-22) and, ifnecessary, this continuation sheet (EPAForm 8700-22A) for both interstate and intrastate transportation.

Item 21. Generator's IDNumber
Enter the generator's U.S. EPA twelve digit identification number or, the State generator identification number ifthe generator site does not have an EPA identification number.

Item 22.PageEnter the page number ofthisContinuation Sheet.

Item 23.ManifestTracking Number
Enter the Manifest Tracking number from -Item 4 ofthe Manifest form to which this continuation sheetis attached.

Item 24. Generator'sNameEnter the geneFator's name as it appears in Item 5 on the first page ofthe Manifest.

Item 25. Transporter-Company Name
If additional transporters are used to transport the waste described on thi's Manifest, enter the company name ofeach additional transporter in the order in which theywill transport the waste. Enter after the word "Transporter" the order ofthe transporter. For example, Transporter 3 Company Name. Also enter the U.S. EPA twelve digitidentification number ofthe transporter described in Item 25.

Item 26. Transporter-Company Name
If additional transporters are used to transport the waste described on this Manifest, enter the company name ofeach additional transporter in the order in which theywill transport the waste. Enter after the word "Transporter" the order ofthe transporter.For example, Transporter 4 Company Name. Each Continuation Sheet

canrecord the names oftwo additional transporters. Also enter the U.S. EPA twelve digitidentification number ofthe transporter named in Item 26.

Item 27. U.S.D.O.T.Description Including Proper ShippingName,HazardousClass, andIDNumber(UN/NA)

For each row enter a sequential number under Item 27bthat corresponds to the order ofwaste codes from one continuation sheet
to the next, to reflect the total number of wastes being shipped. Refer to instructions for Item 9 ofthe manifest for the information
to be entered.

Item 28. Containers(No.And Type)

Refer to the instructions for Item 10 ofthe manifest for information to be entered.

Item 29. TotalQuantity

Refer to the instructions for Item 11 ofthe manifest form.

Item 30. UnitsofMeasure(Weight/Volume)

Refer to the instructions for Item 12 ofthe manifest form.

Item 31. Waste Codes

Refer to the instructions for Item 13 ofthe manifest form.

Item 32.SpecialHandlingInstructions and AdditionalInformation

Refer to the instructions for Item 14 ofthe manifest form. Transporters

Item 33. Transporter-Acknowledgment of Receipt of Materials

Enter the same number of the Transporter

as identified in Item 25. Enter also the name ofthe person accepting the waste on behalf ofthe Transporter (Company Name) identified inItem 25. Thatperson must acknowledge acceptance ofthe waste described on theManifest by signing and entering the date ofreceipt.

Item 34. Transporter-Acknowledgment of Receipt of Materials
Enter the same number ofthe Transporter

as identified in Item 26. Enter also the name ofthe person accepting the waste on behalf ofthe Transporter (CompanyName) identified in Item 26.That person must acknowledge acceptance ofthe waste described onthe Manifest by signing and entering the dateofreceipt. -Ownerand OperatorsofTreatment,Storage,

orDisposal Facilities

Item 35. Discrepancy IndicationSpace
Refer to Item 18.This space maybe used
to more fully describe information on discrepancies identified in Item 18a ofthe manifest form.

Item 36.HazardousWasteReport ManagementMethod Codes

For each field here, enter the sequential number that corresponds to the waste materials described under Item 27, and enter the appropriate process code that describes how the materials willbe processed when received. If additional continuation sheets

are attached, continue numbering the waste materials andprocess code fields sequentially, and enter on each sheetthe process codes corresponding to the waste materials identified on that sheet.

PART 263-STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

N 15. Theauth6rity citation for part 263 isrevised to read as follows: 

### -10820

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10820 2005

### Federal Register

### /Vol. 70, No. 42

### /Friday, March 4, 2005

### /Rules and Regulations

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922- 6925, 6937, and 6938.

a 16. Section 263.20 is amendedby revisingparagraphs (a) and (g)to read as follows: 

### §263.20 The manifest system.

(a)(1) Manifestrequirement. A transporter may notaccept hazardous
waste from a generator unless the transporter is also provided with a manifest signed in accordance with the requirements of §262.23. (2) Exports.In the case ofexports other than those subject to subpart H of 40 CFRpart 262, a transporter may not accept such waste from a primary exporter or other person ifhe knows the shipment does not conform to the EPA Acknowledgment ofConsent; and unless, inaddition to a manifest signed by the generator as provided in this section, the transporter shallalso be provided with an EPA Acknowledgment ofConsent which, except for shipments by rail, is attached to the manifest (or shipping paper forexports by water (bulk shipment)). For exports of hazardous waste subject to the requirements ofsubpart H of40 CFR part 262, atransporter may notaccept hazardous waste without a tracking documentthat includes all information required by 40 CFR262.84. (3) ComplianceDate forForm Revisions.The revised Manifest form and procedures in40 CFR 260.10, 261.7, 263.20, and 263.21, shall notapply until September 5, 2006.The Manifest form and procedures in 40 CFR 260.10, 261.7, 263.20, and 263.21, contained inthe 40 CFR, parts 260 to 265, edition revised as ofJuly 1, 2004, shall be applicable until September 5, 2006.

(g) Transporters who transport hazardous waste out ofthe United Statesmust:

(1) Sign and date the manifest in the International Shipments blockto indicate the date that the shipment left the United States;

(2) Retain one copy in accordance with §263.22(d);

(3) Return a signed copy ofthe manifest to the generator; and

(4) Give a copy ofthe manifest to a U.S. Customs official at the point of departure from the United States.

m 17. Section 263.21 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§263.21 Compliance with the manifest.

(b)(1) Ifthe hazardous waste cannot be delivered in accordance with paragraph (a)ofthis section because of an emergency condition other than rejection ofthe waste by the designated facility, then the transporter must contact the generator forfurther directions and must revise the manifest according to the generator's instructions.

(2) Ifhazardous waste is rejected by the designated facility while the. transporter is on the facility's premises, then the transporter must obtain the following:

(i) For a partial load rejection orfor regulated quantities ofcontainer residues, a copy ofthe original manifest that includes the facility's date and signature, and the Manifest Tracking Number ofthe new manifestthat will
accompany the shipment, and a description-ofthe partial rejection or container residue inthe discrepancy block ofthe original manifest. The transporter mustretain a copy ofthis manifest in accordance with §263.22, and give the remaining copies ofthe original manifest to the rejecting designated facility. Ifthe transporter is forwarding the rejected part ofthe shipment or aregulated container residue to an alternate facility or returning it to the generator, the transporter must obtain anew manifest
to accompany the shipment, and the

new manifest must include all ofthe information required in40 CFR 264.72(e)(1) through (6) or (f)(1) through (6) or 40 CFR 265.72(e)(1) through (6) or (f)(1) through (6).

(ii) For a full load rejection that will be taken backby the transporter, a copy ofthe original manifest that includes'the rejecting facility's signature and date attesting to the rejection, the description ofthe rejection in the discrepancy block ofthe manifest, and the name, address, phone number, and Identification Number for the alternate facility or generator to whomthe shipment must be delivered. The transporter must retain a copy ofthe manifest in accordance with § 263.22, and give a copy ofthe manifest containing this information to the rejecting designated facility. Ifthe original manifest is not used,then the transporter must obtain a.

new manifest for the shipment and comply with 40 CFR 264.72(e)(1) through (6) or 40 CFR 265.72(e)(1) through (6).

PART 264-STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

m18.The authority citation forpart 264 is revised to read as follows:

- Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and 6925. Subpart E-Manifest System, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

* 19. Section 264.70 isrevised to readas follows:
§264.70 Applicability.

(a)The regulations in this subpart apply to owners and operators ofboth on-site and off-site facilities, except as §.264.1 provides otherwise. Sections 264.71, 264.72, and 264.76 do not apply
to owners and operators ofon-site facilities that do notreceive any hazardous waste from off-site sources,

nor to owners and operators of off-site facilities with respect to waste military munitions exempted from manifest requirements under 40 CFR 266.203(a). Section 264.73(b) only applies to permittees who treat, store, ordispose of hazardous wastes on-site where such
wastes were generated.

(b) The revised Manifest form and procedures in 40 CFR 260.10, 261.7, 264.70, 264.71. 264.72, and 264.76, shall
not apply until September 5, 2006. The Manifest form and procedures in40 CFR 260.10, 261.7, 264.70, 264.71. 264.72, and 264.76, contained inthe 40 CFR, parts 260 to 265, edition revised as of July 1, 2004, shallbe applicable until September 5, 2006. 0 20. Section 264.71 is amendedby revising paragraphs (a)and (b)(4)and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§264.71 Use of manifest system.

(a)(1) Ifa facility receives hazardous
waste accompanied by a manifest, the

owner, operator orhis/her agentmust sign and date the manifest asindicated in paragraph (a)(2) ofthis section to certify that the hazardous waste covered by the manifest was received, thatthe hazardous waste was received except as noted in the discrepancy space ofthe manifest, orthat the hazardous waste

was rejected as noted in the manifest discrepancy space.

(2)Ifa facility receives ahazardous
waste shipment accompanied by a manifest, the owner, operator orhis agent must: (i) Sign and date, by hand, eachcopy ofthe manifest;

(ii)Note any discrepancies (as defined in § 264.72(a)) on each copy ofthe manifest;

(iii)Immediately give the transporter atleast one copy ofthe manifest;

(iv)Within 30 days ofdelivery, send

a copy of themanifest to the generator; and

(v)Retain atthe facility a copy ofeach manifest for atleast three years from the date ofdelivery. 

### 10821

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10821 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

(3) Ifa facility receives hazardous
waste imported from a foreign source, the receiving facility mustmail a copy ofthe manifest to the following address within 30 days ofdelivery: International Compliance Assurance Division, OFA/ OECA (2254A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ArielRios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,, Washington, DC 20460.

(b) * * * (4)Within 30 days after the delivery, send a copy ofthe signed and dated manifest ora signed and dated copy of the shipping paper (ifthe manifest has
not been received within 30 days after delivery) to the generator; and

* * * .* * (e) A facility must determine whether the consignment state for a shipment regulates any additional wastes (beyond those regulated Federally) as hazardous wastes under its state hazardous waste program. Facilities must also determine whether the consignment state or generator staterequires the facility to submit any copies ofthe manifest to these states. 0 21. Section 264.72 isrevised toread as follows:
§264.72 Manifest discrepancies.

(a).Manifest discrepancies are: (1) Significant differences (as defined byparagraph (b) ofthis section) between the quantity or type ofhazardous waste designated on the manifest or shipping
paper, and the quantity and type of hazardous waste a facility actually receives;

(2) Rejectedwastes, which maybe a full or partial.shipment ofhazardous
waste that the TSDF cannot accept; or

(3) Container residues, which are residues that exceed the quantity limits for "empty" containers set forth in 40 CFR 261.7(b).

(b)Significant differences inquantity

are: For bulk waste, variations greater than 10 percent in weight; forbatch waste, any variation in piece count, such as a discrepancy of one drum in a truckload. Significant differences in type are obvious differences which can be discovered by inspection orwaste analysis, such as waste solvent substituted for waste acid, or toxic constituents notreported on the manifest or shipping paper.

(c) Upon discovering a significant difference in quantity ortype, the owner

or operator must attempt to reconcile the discrepancy with the waste generator or transporter (e.g., with telephone coniversations). Ifthe discrepancy is not resolved within 15 days after receiving the waste, the

owner or operator must immediately submit to the Regional Administrator a letter describing the discrepancy and attempts to reconcile it, and a copy of the manifest or shipping paper atissue.

(d)(1) Upon rejecting waste or identifying a container residue that exceeds the quantity limitsfor "empty" containers set forth in 40 CFR 261.7(b), the facility must consult with the generator prior to forwarding the waste to another facility that can manage the
waste. Ifit is impossible to locate an alternative facility that can receive the waste, the facility may return the rejected waste orresidue to the generator. The facility must send the waste to the alternative facility or to the generator within 60 days ofthe rejection

orthe container residue identification.

(2)While the facility is making arrangements for forwarding rejected
wastes orresidues to another facility under this section, it must ensure that either the delivering transporterretains custody ofthe waste, or, the facility
must provide for secure, temporary custody ofthe waste, pending delivery ofthe waste to the first transporter designated on the m&nifest prepared under paragraph (e) or (f)ofthis section.

(e) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(7) ofthis section, for full or partial loadrejections and residues that are to be sent off-site to an alternate facility, the facility is required to prepare a new manifest in accordance with §262.20(a) ofthis chapter and the following instructions:

. (1)Write the generator's U.S. EPA ID numberin Item 1 ofthe new manifest. Write the generator's name and mailing address in Item 5 ofthe new manifest. Ifthe mailing address is different from the generator's site address, then write the generator's site address inthe designated space for Item 5.

(2) Write the name ofthe alternate designated facility and the facility's U.S. EPA ID number inthe designated facility block (Item 8) ofthe new manifest.

(3) Copy the manifest tracking number found in Item4 ofthe old mnifest to the Special Handling and Additional Information Block ofthe new manifest, and indicate thatthe shipment is a residue orrejected waste from the previous shipment.

(4) Copy the manifest tracking number found in Item 4 ofthe new manifest to the manifest reference number line in the Discrepancy Block ofthe old manifest (Item 18a) ofthis chapter.

(5)Write the DOT description forthe rejected load or the residue in Item 9 (U.S. DOTDescription) ofthe new manifest and write the container types, quantity, aiad volume(s) ofwaste. (6) Sign the Generator's/Offeror's Certification to certify, asthe offeror of the shipment, that the waste has been properly packaged, marked and labeled and is in proper condition for transportation.

(7)For full loadrejections that are made while the transporter remains present at the facility, the facility may forward the rejected shipment to the alternate facility by completing Item 18b ofthe original manifest and supplying the information on the next destination facility in the Alternate Facility space. The facility mustretain a copy ofthis manifest for its records, and then give the remaining copies ofthe manifest to the transporter to accompany the shipment. Ifthe original manifest is not used, then the facility must use a new manifest and comply with paragraphs (e)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) ofthis section.

(f) Except as provided inparagraph (f)(7) ofthis section, for rejected wastes and residues that mustbe sent back to the generator, the facility is required to prepare a new manifest in acc9rdance with § 262.20(a) ofthis chapter and the following instructions:

(1)Write the facility's U.S. EPA ID number inItem 1 ofthe new manifest. Write the generator's name and mailing address in Item 5 ofthe new manifest. Ifthe mailing address is different from the generator's siteaddress, then write the generator's site address in the designated space for Item 5.

(2) Write the name.ofthe initial generator and the generator's U.S. EPA ID number inthe designated facility block (Item 8) ofthe new manifest.

(3) Copy the manifest tracking number found in Item 4 ofthe oldmanifest to the Special Handling and Additional Information Block ofthe new manifest, and indicate that the shipment is a residue orrejected waste from the previous shipment.

(4) Copy the manifest tracking number found in Item 4 ofthe new manifest to the manifest reference number line in the Discrepancy Block ofthe old manifest (Item 18a).

(5) Write the DOT description for the rejected load orthe residue in Item 9 (U.S. DOTDescription) ofthe new manifest and write the container types, quantity, and volume(s) ofwaste.

(6) Sign the Generator's/Offeror's Certification to certify, as offeror ofthe shipment, that the waste has been properly packaged, marked and labeled and is in proper condition for transportation.

(7)For full load rejections that are made while the transporter remains at the facility, the facility may return the shipment to the generator with the 

### 10822

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10822 2005

### Fed.i'! Regiter /Vol.:701 No. 42'/Friday, Marcia4,.O050Rle's 

### at.. Re "ulati 

### ns

original.malifest by1dmo ldtiiig Item 18a and 18b ofthe mihifest and supplyingthe generaor'g sinformation in the Alternate Facility space. The facility
must retain a copy foiiits records and then give the remaining copies ofthe manifest to the transp'orter-to
accompany the shipment.'If the original manifest is not used, then the facility
mustuse a new manifest and comply withparagraphs (f)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) ofthis section'

(g) If a facility rejects a waste or. identifies a container residue that exceeds the quantity limits for "empty" containers set forth in40 CFR 261.7(b) after ithas signed, dated, and returned

a copy ofthe manifest to the delivering transporter orto the generator, the facility must amend its copy ofthe manifest to indicate the rejected wastes

orresidues in the discrepancy space of the amended manifest. The facility must also copy the manifest tracking number from Item 4 ofthe new manifest to the Discrepancy space ofthe amended manifest, and mustre-sign and date the manifest to certify to the information as amended. The facility mustretain the amended mahifest for at least three
years from the date ofamendment, and
must within.30 days, send a copy ofthe amended manifest to the transporter and generator that received copies prior to theirbeing amended.
N22. Section 264.76is revised to readas follows: 

### §264.76 Unmanifested waste report.

(a) If afacility accepts for treatment, storage, or disposal any hazardous waste froman off-site source without an accompanying manifest, or without an accompanying shipping paper as described by §263.20(e) of this chapter, and ifthe waste is not excluded from the manifest requirement by this chapter, thenthe owner orbperator
mustprepare and submit a letter to the Regional Administrator within 15 days after receiving the waste. The unmanifested waste report must contain the following information:

(1)The EPA identification number,

name and address ofthe facility;

(2) The date the facility received the waste;

(3)The EPA identification number,

name and address ofthe generator and the transporter, if available;

(4) Adescription and the quantity of each unmanifested hazardous waste the facility received; '

(5) The method oftreatment, storage,

or disposal for eachhazardous waste;

(6) The certification signed by the

owner oroperator ofthe facility or his authorized representative; and, (7) A briofexplanation'of why the
waste was unmanifested, ifknown. (b) [Reserved]

PART 265-INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUSWASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

m 23. Theauthority citation forpart265 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6906, 6912, 6922,6923,6924,6925,6935,6936,and• 6937, unless otherwise noted. 

### Subpart E-Manifest System, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

E 24. Section 265.70 isrevised toread as
follows:
§265.70 Applicability.

(a) The regulations inthis subpart apply to owners and operators ofboth on-site and off-site facilities, except as §265.1 provides otherwise. Sections 265.71, 265.72, and 265.76 do notapply
to owners and operators ofon-site facilities that do not receive any hazardous waste from off-site sources,
nor to owners and operators of off-site facilities with respect to waste military munitions exempted from manifest requirements under 40 CFR 266.203(a).

(b)The revised Manifest form and procedures in 40 CFR 260.10, 261.7, 265.70, 265.71. 265.72, and 265.76, shall
notapply until September 5, 2006. The Manifest form and procedures in40 CFR 260.10, 261.7, 265.70, 265.71. 265.72, and 265.76, contained inthe 40 CFR, parts 260 to 265, edition revised as of July 1,2004, shall be applicable until September 5, 2006.
* 25. Section 265.71 is amendedby revisingparagraphs (a)and (b)(4) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

### §265.71 Use ofmanifest system.

(a)(1) Ifa facility receives hazardous
waste accompanied by a manifest, the
owner, operator or his/her agent must sign and date the manifest as indicated inparagraph (a)(2) ofthis sectionto certify that the hazardous waste covered by the manifest was received, that the hazardous waste was received except as noted in the discrepancy space ofthe manifest, or that the hazardous waste

was rejected as noted in the manifest discrepancy space.

(2) Ifa facility receives ahazardous
waste shipment accompanied by a manifest, the owner, operator orhis/her agentmust:

(i) Sign and date,by hand, each copy ofthe manifest;

. ! (ii) Note ahydiscrdpancies (ak dfined in §265.72(a)) on each copy ofthe manifest;

(iii) Immediately give the transporter at least one copy ofthe manifest

(iv)Within 30 days ofdelivery, send

a copy ofthe manifest to the generator; and

(v) Retain at the facility a copy ofeach manifest for atleast three years from the date ofdelivery.

(3) Ifa facility receives hazardous
waste imported from a foreign source, the receiving facility must mail a copy ofthe manifest to the following address within 30 days ofdelivery: International Compliance Assurance Division, OFA/ OECA (2254A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.

(4) Within 30 days after the delivery, send a copy ofthe signed and dated manifest or a signed and dated copy of the shippingpaper (ifthe manifest has
not been received within 30 days after delivery) to the generator; and

(e) A facility must determine whether the consignment state for a shipment regulates any additional wastes (beyond those regulated Federally) as hazardous
wastes under its state hazardous waste program. Facilities must also determine, whether the consignment state or generator staterequires the facility to submit any copies ofthe manifestto these states.

m26. Section 265.72 is revised to readhs follows:

&265.72 Manifestdiscrepancies.

(a) Manifest discrepancies are: (1) Significant differences (as defined by paragraph (b) ofthis section)between the quantity ortype ofhazardous waste designated on the manifest or shipping paper, and the quantity and type of hazardous waste a facility actually receives;

(2) Rejected wastes, which maybe a full or partial shipment ofhazardous
waste that the TSDF cannot accept; or (3)Container residues, which are residues that exceed the quantity limits for "empty" containers set forthin 40 CFR 261.7(b). (b) Significant differences in quantity

are: For bulk waste, variations greater than 10 percent inweight; for batch waste, any variation in piece count, such as adiscrepancy of one drum in a truckload. Significant differences in type are obvious differences whichcan be discovered by inspection or waste analysis, such as waste solvent substituted forwaste 'acid,or toxic

### -0811:3

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10823 2005

### Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regilations

constituents not reported on the manifest-or shipping paper.

(c) Upon discovering a significant difference in quantity or type, the owner

oroperator must attempt to reconcile the discrepancy with the waste generator ortransporter (e.g., with telephone conversations). Ifthe discrepancy is not resolved within 15 days after receiving the waste, the

owner or operator must immediately submit to the Regional Administrator a letter describing the discrepancy and attempts to reconcile it, and acopy of the manifest orshipping paper at issue. (d)(1) Uponrejecting waste or identifying a container residue that exceeds the quantity limits for "empty" containers set forth in40 CFR 261.7(b), the facility must consult with the generator prior to forwarding the waste to another facility that can manage the
waste. Ifit is impossible to locate an alternative facility that can receive the waste, the facility may return the rejected waste or residue to the generator. The facility must send the waste to the alternative facility or to the generator within 60 days ofthe rejection

orthe containerresidue identification.

(2)While the facility is making arrangements forforwarding rejected
wastes or residues to another facility under this section, it must ensure that either the delivering transporter retains custody ofthe waste, or the facility must provide for secure, temporary custody of the waste, pending delivery ofthe waste to the first transporter designated on the manifest prepared under paragraph (e)

or (f) ofthis section. (e)Except as provided inparagraph (e)(7) ofthis section, for full or partial load rejections and residues that are to be sent off-site to an alternate facility, the facility is required to prepare a new manifest in accordance with §262.20(a) ofthis chapter and the following instructions:

(1)Write the generator's U.S. EPA ID number in Item 1ofthe new manifest. Write the generator's name and mailing address in Item 5 ofthe new manifest. Ifthe mailing address is different from the generator's site address, then write the generator's site address in-the designated'space in Item 5.

(2fWrite the name ofthe alternate designated facility and the facility's U.S. EPA ID number in the designated facility block (Item 8) ofthe new manifest.

(3) Copy the manifest tracking number found inItem 4 ofthe old manifest to the SpecialHandling and Additional Information Block ofthe new manifest, and indicate that the shipment is a residue orrejected waste from the previous shipment. (4) Copy the manifest tracking number found inItem 4 ofthe new manifest to the manifest reference number line in. the Discrepancy Block ofthe old manifest (Item 18a) ofthis chapter.

(5)Write the DOT description forthe rejected load orthe residue in Item 9 (U.S. DOTDescription) ofthe new manifest and write the container types, quantity, and volume(s) ofwaste.

(6) Sign the Generator's/Offeror's Certification to certify, as the offeror of the shipment, that the waste hasbeen properly packaged, marked and labeled and is in proper condition fo: transportation.

(7)For full load rejections that are made while the transporter remains present atthe facility, the facility may forward the rejected shipment to the alternate facility by completing Item 18b ofthe-original manifest and supplying the information on the next destination facility in the Alternate Facility space. The facility must retain a copy ofthis manifest for.its records, and then give the remaining copies ofthe manifest to the transporter to accompany the shipment. Ifthe original manifest is not used, then the facility must use a new manifest and comply with paragraphs (e)(1), (2), (3),(4), (5), and (6) ofthis section.

(f)Except as provided in paragraph (f)(7) ofthis section, forrejected wastes and residues that must be sent back to the generator, the facility is required to prepare a new manifest in accordance with §262.20(a) ofthis chapter and the following instructions: (1)Write the facility's U.S. EPA ID number in Item 1ofthe new manifest. Write the generator's name and mailing address inItem 5 ofthe new manifest. Ifthe 'mailing address is different from the generator's site address, then write the generator's site address inthe designated space forItem 5.

(2)-Write the name ofthe initial generator and the generator's U.S. EPA IDnumber in the designated facility block (Item 8) ofthe new manifest. (3) Copy the manifest tracking number found in Item 4 ofthe old manifest to the Special Handling and Additional Information Block ofthe new manifest, and indicate that the shipment is a residue or rejected waste from the previous shipment,

(4) Copy the manifest tracking number found in Item 4 ofthe new manifest to the manifest reference number line in the Discrepancy Block ofthe old manifest (Item 18a),

(5)Write the DOT description for the rejected load or the residue in Item 9 (U.S. DOT Description) ofthe new manifest and write the container types, quantity, and volume(s) ofwaste.

(6) Sign the Generator's/Offeror's Certification to certify, as offeror ofthe shipment, that the waste has been properly packaged, marked and labeled and is inproper condition for transportation,

(7) For full load rejections that are made while the transporter remains at the facility, the facility may return the shipment to the generator with the original manifest by completing Item 18b ofthe manifest and supplying the generator's information in the Alternate Facility space. The facility must retain

a copy for its records and then give the remaining copies ofthe manifest to the transporter to accompany the shipment. Ifthe original manifest is not used, then the facility mustuse anew manifest and comply with paragraphs (f)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) ofthis section.

(g) If a facility rejects a waste or identifies a container residue that exceeds the quantity limits for "empty" containers set forth in 40 CFR 261.7(b) after it has signed, dated, and returned

a copy ofthe minifest to the delivering transporter or to the generator, the facility must amend its copy ofthe manifest to indicate the rejected wastes

or residues in the discrepancy space of the amended manifest. The facility must also copy the manifest tracking number from Item4 ofthe new manifest to the discrepancy space ofthe amended manifest, and must re-sign and date the manifest to certify to the information as amended. The facility must retainthe amended manifest for atleast three years from the date ofamendment, and
must within 30 days, send a copy ofthe amended manifest to the transporter and generator that received copies prior to their being amended. 0 27. Section 265.76 isrevised to read as follows:
§265.76 Unmanifested waste report.

(a) Ifa facility accepts for treatment, storage, or disposal anyhazardous waste from an off-site source without an accompanying manifest, or without an accompanying shipping paper as described by §263.20(e) ofthis chapter, and ifthe waste is not excluded from the manifest requirement by this chapter, then the owner or operator must prepare and submit a letter to the Regional Administrator within fifteen days after receiving the waste. The unmanifested waste report must contain the following information:

(1)TheEPA identification number,

name and address ofthe facility;

(2)The date the facility received the waste;

(3).The EPA identification number,

name and address ofthe generator and the transporter, ifavailable;

(4) A description and the quantity of each unmanifested hazardous waste the facility received;

(5) The method oftreatment, storage,

or disposal foreach hazardous waste; 

### 10.824

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10824 2005Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and. Regulations

(6) The certification signedby the PART 271-REQUIREMENTS FOR s 29. Section 271.1(j) isamended by

owner oroperator ofthe facility orhis AUTHORIZATION OF STATE adding the following entries to Table 1 authorized representative; and HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS inchronological orderby date of

(7) Abriefexplanation ofwhy the publication in the FederalRegister, to

waste was unmanifested, ifknown. n 28. The authority citationforpart 271 read asfollows:

(b) [Reserved] continues to read as follows: §271.1 Purpose

### and scope. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and * * * * * 6926. -() * * *

TABLE 1.-REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date

Mar. 4, 2005

......................................... Waste Minimization Certification in the [Insert FR page numbers]

.................... Sept. 6, 2005. Revised Manifest Rule.

m30. Section 271.10 is amendedby revising paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3), and (h)introductory text, (h)(1), and (h)(2) to read as follows:
§271.10 Requirementsfor generators of hazardous wastes.

(* * ***

(1)Use a manifest system that ensures that interstate and intrastate shipments ofhazardous waste are-designatedfor delivery and, inthe case ofintrastate shipments, are delivered to facilities that are authorized to operate under an approved State program or the federal program. The manifest system must require the use ofthe manifest format as requiredby § 262.20(a). No other manifest form, shipping document, or information, other than that.required by federal law, maybe required by the State to travel with the shipment.

(2)Initiate the manifest and designate

on the manifest the treatment, storage or disposal facility to which the waste is to be" shipped. (3) Ensure that all wastes offered.for transportation are accompanied by a manifest, except:

(i) Shipments subject to 40 CFR 262.20(e) or (f);

(ii) Shipments byrail or water, as specified in40 CFR 262.23(c) and (d).

• * * * *

(h)The State must follow the Federal manifest format for the form and instructions (40 CFR 262.20 and the appendix to part 262).

(1)A state may require the entry of waste codes associated.with particular wastes that are regulated ashazardous
wastes by the state, ifthe state codes are notredundant with a federally required code forthe same waste. No state, however,may impose enforcement sanctions on a transporter during transportation ofthe shipment for failure ofthe form to include a staterequired waste code.

(2) Either the State to which a shipment is manifested (consignment State) or the State inwhich the generator is located (generator State), or both, mayrequire that copies ofthe manifest form be submitted to the State.

E 31. Section 271.11 is amendedby revising paragraph (c) to read asfollows:
§271.11 Requirements fortransporters of hazardouswaste.

(c)(1) The State mustrequire transporters to carry the manifest during transport, exceptin the case of

- shipments by rail orwater, transporters may carry a shipping paper, as specified in 40 CFR 263.20(e) and (f);

(2) The State must require the transporter to deliver waste only to the facility designated onthe ;nanifest, which inthe case ofreturn shipments ofrejected wastes orregulated container residues, may also include the original generator ofthe waste shipment.

(3) The State program must provide requirements for shipments by rail or water equivalent to those under 40 CFR 263.20(e) and (f).' (4) For exports ofhazardous waste, the statemust require the transporter to refuse to accept hazardous waste for export ifthe transporter knows the shipment does notconform t6 the EPA Acknowledgment ofConsent, to carry

an EPA Acknowledgment ofConsent to the shipment,to sign and date the International Shipments Block ofthe manifestfo indicate the date the shipment leaves the U.S., and to provide

a copy ofthe manifest to the U.S. Customs official at the point the waste leaves the United States.

* * * * *

m32..Section 271.12 is amendedby revising paragraph (i)to read as follows:
§271.12 Requirements forhazardous waste managementfacilities.

* * * * *

(i) Compliance with the manifest system including the requirement that facility owners or operators return a signed copy of themanifest:

(1)To the generator to certify delivery ofthe hazardous waste shipment orto identify discrepancies; and

(2)To EPA's International Compliance Assurance Division
program, at the address referenced in40 CFR 264.71(a)(3) and 265.71(a)(3), to indicate the receipt ofa shipment of hazardous waste imported into the U.S. from a foreign source.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-1966 Filed 3-3-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

### 10825

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10825 2005