+(,121/,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 2005
Federal 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: Final rule.

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 track hazardous waste

from a generator's site to the site of its

disposition. The revisions announced

today will standardize the content and

appearance of the manifest form and

continuation sheet (Forms 8700-22 and

22a), make the forms available from a

greater number of sources and adopt

new procedures for tracking certain

types of waste shipments with the

manifest. The latter types of shipments

include hazardous wastes that

destination facilities reject, wastes

consisting of residues 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 in the EDOCKET

index at http://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 not placed on

the Internet and will be publicly

available only in hard copy form.

Publicly available docket materials are

available either electronically in

EDOCKET or in hard copy at the 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 for the Public Reading Room is

(202) 566-1744, and the telephone

number for the EPA Docket Center is

(202) 566-0270.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information regarding specific

aspects of this notice, contact Bryan

Groce, Office of Solid Waste, (703) 308-

8750, groce.bryan@epa.gov, or Richard

LaShier, Office of Solid Waste, (703)

308-8796, lashier.rich@epa.gov. Mail

inquiries may be directed to the Office

of Solid Waste, (5304W), 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,

DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Rule Apply to Me?

This rule affects up to 139,000 entities

in at least 45 industries (see table below)

involved in shipping approximately 12

million tons of RCRA hazardous wastes

annually (non-wastewaters and

wastewaters), using between 2.4 and 5.1

million EPA Uniform Hazardous Waste

Manifests (EPA Form 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. If you have any

questions regarding the applicability of

this rule to a particular entity, consult

the people listed under 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 or sub-sector identity Item SIC NAICS [ Industry or sub-sector identity

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 2005
Federal 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 SHEETContinued

[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. How Can I Get Copies of This

Document and Other Related

Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an

official public docket for this action

under Docket number RCRA-2001-

0032. The official public docket consist

of the documents specifically reference

in this action, any public comments

received, and other information related

to this action. Although a part of the

official docket, the public docket does

not include Confidential Business

Information (CBI) or other information

whose disclosure is restricted by statut,

The official public docket is the

collection of materials 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 for the 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 of the 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 of the contents of the official

public docket, and access those

documents in the 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 in the system,

select "search," then key in the

appropriate docket identification

number.

t Outline

d

I. Background

II. Detailed Discussion of the Final Rule

A. Standardization of the Hazardous Waste

Manifest.

B.I. Elimination or Consolidation of

Existing Data Elements-Introduction.

2. Proposed Removal of State Manifest

Tracking Number.

3. Proposed Removal of State Generator ID

Field.

4. Proposed Removal of State Transporter's

ID Fields.

5. Proposed Removal of Transporter's

Phone Fields.

6. Proposed Removal of State'Facility's ID

Field.

7. Proposed Removal of Facility's Phone

Field.

u 8. Proposed Consolidation of Additional

Descriptions and Special Handling

Fields.

9. Continuation Sheet.

C.1. Addition of New' Data ElementsIntroduction.

2. Addition of Generator Site Address

Field.

3. Addition of Emergency Response Phone

Number Field.

4. Addition of International Shipments

Field.

5. Proposed Addition of Third Transporter Field.

D. Reduction or Elimination of ' Optional"

Field Designations.

E.1. Proposed Standardization of Handling

Codes-Introduction.

2. Content of the Handling Code Proposal.

3. Standardization of Handling Codes.

.4. Adoption of Hazardous Waste Report

Management Method Codes.

5. Designation of Process Codes as

Mandatory.

6. Party Responsible for Completing Item

19.

F.1. Proposed Standardization of RCRA

Waste Code Fields-Introduction.

2. Comment Analysis.

3. Final Rule Determinations-Number and

'Allocation of Waste Codes.

4. Final Rule Determinations-Entering

State Waste Codes.

5. .Final Rule Determination-Waste Code

Hierarchy.

6. Final Rule Determination-Waste Codes

are Mandatory Fields.

G.1. Other Manifest Form RevisionsIntroduction.

2. Definition of Bulk Container.

3. Use of Fractions.

4. Offerors and the 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

with DOT 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 at 40

CFR 262.34.

,B.1. Final Tracking Procedures for Rejected

Waste and Residue Shipments.

2. Comment Analysis and Final Provisions

for Second Manifest.

3. Comments Analysis and Final Generator

Certification Block.

4. Comments Analysis and Final Returned

Shipments.

10777

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10777 2005
Federal 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 Waste Reporting

Requirements

VI. Administration and Enforcement of These

Regulatory Changes in-the States

A. Uniform Applicability of Revised

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 and Executive- Order Reviews

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 of Executive

Order 13045.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use.

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act.

J. Congressional Review Act.

I. Background

* On May 22, 2001, EPA published a

notice of proposed 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 of the manifest as a tool to

track hazardous waste shipments that

are shipped from the site of generation

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 of hazardous waste shipments,

and by allowing the manifest to be

completed, signed, transmitted and

stored electronically. Thus, the

proposed rule consisted of manifest

system reforms of two distinct types: (1)

Revisions to the manifest form itself and

the procedures for Using the form

(hereafter, "form revisions"); and (2)

revisions aimed at replacing the paperbased manifest system with a nearly

paperless, electronic approach to

tracking hazardous waste shipments

(hereafter, "e-manifest").

EPA received 64 sets of public

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 state hazardous waste

agencies. Commenters generally

supported our goals of further

standardizing the manifest form

elements and reducing variability

among the manifests that authorized

RCRA state agencies currently

distribute. However, the commenters

had differing views on many of the

particulars of the proposed revisions to

the manifest. Moreover, there were a

substantial number of comments that

took issue with EPA's proposed

approach to the e-manifest, particularly

with respect to the technical rigor of the

proposal, the assumptions relied upon

by EPA in its projections of burden and

cost reductions, the feasibility of the

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.

We believe 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 final rule.

Therefore, EPA has decided to separate

the e-manifest from the form revisions

portion of the final rulemaking. Today's

notice announces our final rule

approach only with respect to the

manifest form revisions. Final action on

the e-manifest will be based 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 by EPA or by

another party; (2) if a decentralized

approach were to be adopted, how

EPA's standards should address

interoperability of private systems; (3)

whether the final e-manifest approach

should be integrated with biennial

reporting or other functions supported

by EPA,.the states orother agencies; (4)

what electronic signature methods

should be included in the final rule;

and, (5) the technical rigor and detail

necessary in EPA's final standards to

ensure a workable approach to the emanifest.

While today's rule finalizes action

only on the manifest form revisions, the

e-manifest remains a high priority 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 a national

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 it is willing to help fund

the establishment and operation of an emanifest system through the payment of

reasonable user or transactional fees for

e-manifest services. Given the strong

interest expressed by stakeholders in a

national e-manifest system, EPA is now

exploring if there is a feasible means for

EPA or another party to develop and

implement a national e-manifest system,

as well as exploring in more detail the

design and performance requirements of

any such system. The Agency expects to

announce its-decision on the future

direction of the e-manifest by the end of

Fiscal Year 2005.

In Section II of this preamble, we

discuss the elements of the final form

revisions rule, including a summary of

our May 2001 proposal, the significant

comments raised in response to the

proposal, our final rule determinations,

and the rationale for those

determinations. On balance, 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 of comments

urging EPA not to retain any manifest

data fields as "optional". fields. Thus,

today's final rule introduces changes

from the proposal 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 on the form, we

accepted the comments asking us to

expand this field to include the

generator's site address, if different from

10778

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10778 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

the mailing address already required on

the form. We are also finalizing the

proposed changes to the manifest form

acquisition requirements, and providing

more guidance and information on the

particulars of the 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 or return shipments

to generators, rather than always require

treatment, storage, and disposal

facilities (TSDFs) to initiate a new

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 shipments bear the limited

liability of an "offeror" with respect to

the forwarded wastes, and not the more

extensive liabilities of RCRA generators.

We discuss these and other changes

from the proposed rule in the following

section.

II. Detailed Discussion of the Final Rule

A. Standardization of the Hazardous

Waste Manifest. As we explained in the

May 22, 2001 proposed rule (see 66 FR

28240 at 28243), the adoption of the

Uniform Manifest in 1984 did not

entirely eliminate the problems with

lack of consistency and uniformity that

have existed since the inception of the

manifest program. Many problems arise

from states' varying use of available

optional fields, users' different

understandings about what information

to enter in the current data fields, and

different copy distribution systems and

submission requiremnents among

authorized state programs. All of these

differences have forced waste handlers

to expend considerable effort and incur

significant paperwork burden in order

to comply with the varying state

manifest requirements. We received

many strongly positive comments

endorsing our proposal to further

standardize the manifest format and

procedures, effectively reducing the

burden on waste handlers.

Standardization of the manifest form

involves three related measures that we

included in the proposed rule. First, the

proposed rule discussed eliminating or

consolidating several of the 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 of the manifest for tracking

waste. Third, the proposed rule

addressed eliminating or reducing the

number of optional fields for use by the

states. The Uniform Manifest adopted in

1984 included eleven such optional

fields. The states varying

implementation of these optional 'fields

on state-specific formats resulted in

generators, transporters and TSDFs•

having to stock a variety of states'

manifest forms and remain cognizant of

the differences in states' requirements.

We will explain how the final rule

addresses each of these three proposed

measures.

B.1. Elimination or Consolidation of

Existing Data Elements-Introduction.

In the NPRM, we proposed to remove

nine data elements from the Uniform

Manifest form. All but one of these nine

items appear in what'is known as the

"state optional" or upper right area of

the current manifest, rather than being

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. Item J Additional Descriptions for

Materials.

In short, the proposed rule would

have removed all of the 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 of this

preamble includes a discussion of the

final rule's treatment of waste code

information. With respect to Item J/we

proposed to standardize the information

to be entered here around the hazardous

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 of the nine

elements were redundant with each

other; (3) the recognition that a few

states were using several of the optional

fields as tools for "niche" data

reporting, sometimes in ways that were

not contemplated by EPA or DOT 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 of several new

tracking fields to the form will of

necessity require space to be freed up on

the form for this new information, and

require us to remove items that appear

less essential for tracking waste

shipment and management information.

We received several comments

endorsing the proposal to eliminate all

nine of these "optional" fields as a way

of reducing burden and variability in

the manifest system. These commenters

pointed out that the data involved

consisted largely of state ID Numbers,

facility phone numbers, or other static

information that emergency responders

or waste handlers could obtain

elsewhere. These comments were

balanced by other comments suggesting

that most of the fields we proposed to

remove provided some useful contact

information that should be entered on

the form for the benefit of emergency

responders, state agency personnel, or

in some instances, other waste handlers.

However, we clearly could not retain all

of these 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 of the 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 that have been raised by users

with Continuation Sheets that can be

separated and misplaced during transit,

we do not believe 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 on this subject,

but had to exercise its judgment in

determining which data elements were

most essential to the transportation and

tracking functions of the 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 most benefit to

the greatest number of stakeholders. We

explain our final decisions for each of

these nine data elements below.

2. Proposed Removal of State,

Manifest Tracking Number. The State

Manifest Tracking Number is not

necessary, 'given the new manifest

acquisition process discussed in Section

III.A.3 of this preamble. When the new

manifest form becomes effective, a

registered printer will assign each

manifest a unique, 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 longer will be separate state

versions of the manifest form, and

authorized states will no longer control

the assignment of State Manifest '

Numbers to the new form. Thus, the

State Manifest Number's role-assuring

uniqueness of each manifest and

facilitating the tracking of manifests in

databases-is subsumed by the new

mandatory requiremenffor Manifest

Tracking Numbers to be pre-printed on

the forms.

3. Proposed Removal of State

Generator ID Field. We proposed in the

May 2001 NPRM to 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 as hazardous waste

generators under their programs, but the

generators do not have EPA ID numbers.

For example, cases exist where a facility

generates a waste regulated by the state

as hazardous (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 as many of the federal

exemptions from the definition of solid

or hazardous wastes, or, the state may

not recognize the status of conditionally

exempt small quantity generators or

other conditionally exempt wastes. In

these cases, EPA would not issue such

a generator an EPA Generator ID.

However, the state would have a legitimate interest in assigning a State

Generator ID Number to identify that

generator on manifests or other

submissions and in the state's databases.

We agree with these conmenters that

there are valid reasons for retaining the

State Generator ID field on the manifest

and for providing the state authority to

require such an ID when no ,

corresponding EPA ID Number 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 ID Number. In

this way, it is not necessary to retain the

State Generator ID item as a separate

data field. We emphasize that the State

Generator ID Number should only be

entered in this field when there is no

available EPA ID Number for the

generator.

4. Proposed Removal of State

Transporter's ID Fields. 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 all hazardous waste

transporters would have EPA ID

numbers; there was no reason to retain

data elements that would 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 of information that were

not authorized, under the 1984 Uniform

Manifest Rule that established the

optional fields and set restrictions on

their use. We intended the Transporter

ID number field to record numbers

established by EPA or states to identify

a transportation company. Over the

years, however, some states elected to

use this field to collect identifying

information on particular 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 field be

retained in this rule. Several state

agencies and a waste management

facility commenter pointed out that

some states, in fact, use this field to

check whether waste transporters or

their vehicles 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 ID Number fields

on the revised manifest. In fact, these

comments-only confirm our belief that

the use of this field over the 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 the transporters' statelicensed status other than requiring

generators to enter license information

or vehicle registration numbers on each

hazardous waste manifest. The

Transporter ID field'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 not believe that the

Uniform Manifest should contain statespecific data requirements aimed at

enforcing transporter licensing

requirements that vary from state to

state. We did not receive any comments

suggesting that there were state

regulated .transporters that lacked an

EPA ID number. Therefore, this final

rule removes the State Transporter ID

fields from the manifest form, and

affirms that it is sufficient for the

purposes of the revised manifest to enter

only the transportation company's EPA

ID number.

5. Proposed Removal of Transporter's

Phone Fields. Under the existing form,

Items D and F are optional fields where

users can record phone numbers for up

to two transporters that may be

identified in the mandatory transporter

fields of the 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 fields because of the

convenience accorded waste handlers

who have grown accustomed to finding

this contact information on the form.

EPA does not agree with the

commenters that convenience of the

parties in this 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 if there were information in .

the comments suggesting that this is

vital information for emergency

responders. However, the revised form

now includes an Emergency Response

Phone Number field (explained in

Section II.C.3 of this preamble), which

is consistent with DOT requirements for

hazardous materials shipping papers.

We believe that including this new data

element-dedicated to Emergency

Response purposes-effectuates the

manifest's emergency response purpose

more effectively than recording each

transporter company's phone number

on the form. Moreover, the revised

manifest still requires phone numbers

for the generator and, the designated

facility, who are directly responsible for

reconciling discrepancy and exception

events. Waste handlers should not be

10780

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10780 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

greatly inconvenienced if they 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 final rule

removes the transporter phone number

data elements from the revised manifest

form.

6. Proposed Removal of State

Facility's ID Field. Item G is an optional

field on the existing Uniform Manifest,

used to record a State Facility ID

number. We proposed to. remove this

data element in May 2001 based on our

belief that it produced duplicate

information already provided by the

EPA ID Number in Item 10 of the

existing form. Designated facilities with

EPA ID Numbers already are identified

uniquely on the 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 issue their 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

rule removes the State Facility ID data

element from the revised manifest form.

7. Proposed Removal of Facility's

Phone Field. The existing manifest 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 the revised 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 of these critical tracking

functions. Therefore, the revised

manifest form retains space for entering

the facility's phone number. The revised

manifest will include this space in the

Designated Facility's Name and Site

Address field as a mandatory data

element.

8. Proposed Consolidation of

Additional Descriptions and Special

Handling Fields. In the May 2001

NPRM, we proposed to remove Item J.

(Additional Descriptions for Materials

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 to create 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 on this proposal reflected

a variety of views. While commenters

did not object per se to 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 in this 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 in this

space by existing federal and state

programs. State commenters echoed this

concern, and one state (New York)

added that the proposed field would not

allow the state to track parameters such

as the specific gravity of wastes (used to

convert waste volume units to units of

mass) or the 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 -of information. These

commenters worried that eliminating

many of the current "state optional"

I The manifest reform effort began in 1990 with

the filing of a rulemaking petition by the

Association of State and Territory Solid Waste

Management Officials (ASTSWMO). The petition

requested, among other things, greater

standardization of the manifest form, including the

consolidation of these two elements. For further

information about this petition, see RCRA Docket

F-2000-UWMP-FFFFF.

fields from the form would result in

state programs requiring waste handlers

to enter this information instead in Item

14 of the revised form. These

commenters urged EPA to explicitly

restrict the information that state

agencies could require in this block, so

that the anticipated paperwork burden

reductions under the revised form

would not be diminished.

In response to these comments,

today's revised manifest form includes

Item 14 as proposed, but with 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 of Item 14.

More significantly, we are limiting the

scope of information that users may

enter in this field. Due to today's

changes to other manifest form data

elements, some of the previously

required information in the "Special

Handling" field of the Uniform Manifest

will no longer need to be entered in

Item 14. For example, the revised form

includes a new International Shipment

field, which tracks imports and exports

of hazardous waste. Thus, it will not be

necessary to enter export shipments'

port of exit information in the revised

form's Special Handling and Additional

Information Block, nor will it be

necessary for transporters to sign and

date the manifest here to indicate when

a waste shipment has left the U.S.

Moreover, the revised form has space to

enter up to six RCRA waste codes for

each waste stream identified in Item 9b

of the new form. Today's rule also

clarifies that no more than six waste

codes may be entered for each waste.

stream (see Section II.F.3 of this

preamble), which should eliminate the

need to enter additional RCRA waste

codes in this block.

Under today's final rule, EPA is

limiting the use of new 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 of waste materials as required

by their companies' business processes.

With regard to the "Special Handling"

aspect of this Item, we expect.waste

handlers to continue to use this field to

enter waste profile numbers, container

codes, Emergency Response Guide

numbers, bar codes or other 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 of the revised Item 14

to enter chemical names, constituent

percentages, physical state or specific

gravity of wastes identified with volume

units in Item 9b of the revised-form.

The federal regulatory uses of the

Special Handling field of Item 14 are

limited to: (1) Identification of the

original manifest tracking number for

rejected waste or residue shipments that

are being forwarded to an alternate

facility or returned to the generator

under a second manifest; and (2)

specification of PCB waste descriptions

and PCB out-of-service dates under 40

CFR 761.207. Waste handlers, however,

cannot be required to enter information

in this space to meet state regulatory

requirements.

We recognize 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 of specific wastes for

differential fees or assessments levied

by some states based on how these

wastes are managed. Since the revised

form will no longer allow state-specific

information of this type to be entered in

Item 14, states will need to find other

means to flag state-specific information

of this type so that the standardized

manifest does not become 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 of the new form. In

this way, all state-specific information

requirements could be conveyed in Item

13 rather than being dispersed across

several data elements. EPA will support

the dissemination of information 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 of this rule.

9. Continuation Sheet. In the NPRM,

we explained that the manifest system

includes both the Uniform Hazardous

Waste Manifest (EPA Form 8700-22)

and the Uniform Hazardous Waste

Manifest Continuation Sheet (EPA Form

8700-22A). We clarified that the

continuation sheet includes many of the

same data elements as the manifest form

and merely adds additional fields to

identify additional transporters or waste

streams which do not fit on the

manifest. In this regard, we explained

our intent to implement the proposed

revisions with respect to both the

manifest and the corresponding data

fields found on the continuation sheet.

EPA requested that commenters

consider both the manifest and

continuation sheet in providing

comments. The majority of commenters

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

the rule will continue to be used in the

same way as the previous continuation

sheet (e.g., when more than two

transporters transport the waste).

Moreover, the design of the new

continuation sheet closely mirrors the

previous continuation sheet, except that

it has been revised to incorporate

changes being made to the manifest

form. Thus, the continuation sheet no

longer includes fields for State

Transporter ID numbers or phone

numbers or the field -on the 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 us to add an additional

low in the U.S. DOT Description block,

increasing the number of rows from

nine to ten. The continuation sheet no

longer includes blocks for a Manifest

Document Number or a State Manifest

Document Number. These have been

replaced by a block requiring a unique,

pre-printed Tracking Number 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 field if 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 of discrepancy or a designated

space to provide the manifest reference

number. EPA believes 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 of the U.S. DOT Description

field, EPA has removed these letters

from this field in the new continuation

sheet and will now require 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 of wastes being shipped. The

numbering of the 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 New Data ElementsIntroduction. 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 for tracking

waste shipments, for facilitating

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 a third Transporter field to the

transporter information area of the

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 on the

form reserved for recording RCRA waste

codes (current Block 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 of Generator Site Address

Field. While requesting comment on our

proposed reductions in state optional

fields (see 66 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 of or 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 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

Generator Site Address field in the

proposed rule form, we highlighted the

issue and solicited comment on its

merits. Originally, we refrained from

including the Site Address field in the

proposed rule form because we wanted

to avoid introducing duplicative data

elements to the manifest form. At that

time, we thought that the manifest

already included the site-specific

Generator ID number, and we believed

that this site-specific number, in tandem

with the generator's mailing address,

was sufficient to identify a generator 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 of great interest to the

authorized states who identified the

addition of the generator site address as

a priority issue during the development

of the proposed rule. Our state agency

partners advised us that the mailing

address for a 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 ID number was not

always a reliable site-specific identifier

of generation, and that the Generator's

Site Address on the manifest would be

a more reliable indicator of the origin of

a waste shipment in a manifest system

that purports to track waste from

"cradle-to-grave." Furthermore, a site

address is necessary in those instances

where shipments must be returned to

the generator. Although industry

commenters tended to oppose the

proposal to add a Generator's Site

Address field to the form, some agreed

it would be useful for returning

shipments.

After considering these comments, we

have decided to include the Generator's

Site Address field on the manifest. We

retained the current requirement to

enter a generator's mailing address,

because we believe that the generators

should be able to designate a corporate

office where signed copies of the

manifest are collected and managed. We

do not believe 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 text explicitly stating

that the site address should only be

entered when it is different from the

mailing address.

3. Addition of Emergency Response

Phone Number Field. Because the

hazardous waste manifest is also a "shipping paper" under DOT's

Hazardous Materials Regulations

(HMRs), it must include information

specified in the HMRs for shipping

papers. As we explained in the

proposed rule, DOT currently requires

an Emergency Response Phone Number

on the shipping paper for most

shipments of hazardous 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 either the

margin of the form, the Generator's

Phone Number field, the Special

Handling field, or in the spaces

designated for DOT shipping

descriptions.

The Emergency Response Phone

Number field provides vital information

for emergency responders to use in the

event of an accident or other serious

incident that occurs while a hazardous

materials shipment is en route to its

destination. The phone number must

belong to the generator or other agency

or organization that accepts

responsibility for providing detailed

information about the 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

this phone must have either personal

knowledge or immediate access to a

person with knowledge of the material

being shipped, as well as

comprehensive emergency yesponse,

spill cleanup and incident mitigation

information about the material. To

communicate the importance of this

information, EPA proposed in the

NPRM to add a specific data element to

record this information. Also, to ensure

that there would be neither redundancy

in the recording of phone numbers nor

ambiguity about which phone was

intended for emergency response

purposes, we proposed to eliminate the

two optional Transporter. Phone Number

fields. We are finalizing this approach

in today's final rule. Therefore, under

today's revised manifest form, the

manifest will continue to require the

phone numbers of the generator and the

designated TSDF (so that exceptions

and discrepancies can be resolved) to be

entered, and it will now require as well

the phone number designated for the

vital emergency response functions. The

revised manifest form will not provide

space for entering additional transporter

phone numbers.

The use of the Emergency Response

Phone Number field (Item 3) is

appropriate for those cases in which the

listed phone number applies to every

item of waste material listed in Item 9b

of the manifest. However, there may be

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, DOT regulations 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 order to maintain consistency with

the applicable DOT regulations, today's

rule also clarifies that Item 3 is to be

used for entering emergency response

phone information only when there is

one Emergency Response Phone

Number that applies to all the waste

materials described in Item 9b.

Otherwise, the phone number

associated with each specific material

should be entered after the description

of the material in Item 9b.

4. Addition of International

Shipments Field. In the May 22, 2001

NPRM, we proposed to revise the

manifest form by adding an explicit

field for recording information on

transboundary shipments of hazardous

wastes. These shipments involve

imports and exports of hazardous 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 of exit on the

form; transporters exporting waste must

sign and date the manifest to indicate

when the shipment left U.S. territory

and leave a copy of the manifest with

U.S. Customs officials.

While these hazardous waste export

requirements already apply to exporters

and transporters, the current Uniform

Manifest does not reserve any specific

space for collecting this data. In order to

comply with existing regulations,

exporters enter the port of exit and

transporters provide the date and

signature for a shipment leaving the

U.S. in the Special Handling and

Additional Information field of the

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 this problem 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 check box

to indicate an export and a space for

entering the port of exit. Similarly, this

data element would provide

transporters with a discrete data

element for indicating 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 in the International Shipments

field. The proposed import elements

parallel those that already apply to

exports of hazardous 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 not propose any

requirements for transporters to sign off

on import shipments in this new data

field because import shipments will be

closed out domestically by the signature

of the receiving facility in the U.S.

However, the NPRM proposed that

transporters importing hazardous waste

shipments leave a copy of the manifest

with U.S. Customs. This copy aids EPA

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 of the

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 for this purpose. -Since nearly

all available space on the proposed form

has been utilized, one commenter

suggested that the International

* Shipments field be 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 blarify that

exporters rather than generators are

responsible for entering the required

'export data, and that EPA should clarify

the status of international shipments

that are rejected by consignees and must

bareturned to the country of origin.

In response to these comments, EPA

is finalizing the rule with the

International Shipments field retained

on the revised form, as proposed but

with some modifications. First, we have

reduced the field size since excessive

space was dedicated to the field on the

proposed form relative to the amount of

data that actually needs to be collected.

We also emphasize that primary

exporters are required to complete

export manifests as required under

current regulitions. As long as they are

not the 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 of waste export policies

and bilateral agreements that are beyond

the scope of this 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 a U.S. Customs

official at the point of entry into the

United States. Instead, we have added a

new provision (a)(3) in paragraph (a) of

§§ 264.71 and 265.71. This new

provision requires the receiving facility

to mail a final, signed copy of the

manifest to the following address within

30 days of delivery: 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 of the manifest

for delivery to the U.S. Customs official

at the point the hazardous waste enters

the United States in accordance with

§ 263.20(g)(4). We revised this provision

by removing the reference 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 of these revisions to the

proposed requirements would still be

the same as that of the proposed

requirements-i.e., copies of import

manifests will be delivered to EPA for

tracking purposes. However, the means

for achieving this result have changed

from a drop-off requirement for the

transporter to a direct mailing "

requirement for the receiving facility.

We believe this reviied approach is

more appropriate than the proposed

approach, because it parallels 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 of manifests to

generators within 30 days of delivery of

hazardous waste shipments. (In

addition, some states also require

receiving facilities to mail them copies

of manifests 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 of the manifest to EPA for

tracking purposes since they are already

required to, and are in the practice of,

mailing a copy of the same document to

generators and, in some cases, to states

as well. EPA believes that TSDF mailing

of a copy of the manifest to EPA is a

more direct and efficient way for EPA fo

receive this document than the

proposedapproach of transporter dropoff of acopy of the manifest to U.S.

Customs at the port of entry into the

U.S. In addition, this new approach

results in EPA's receipt of a copy of the

manifest at a final stage of the transport

process when the receiving facility has

actually received the hazardous waste,

rather than at an earlier stage of the

process, when the transporter has

brought the hazardous waste into the

U.S. port of entry. It makes more sense

for EPA to receive a copy of the manifest

from the receiving facility at this final

stage, when there is clear closure to the

manifest process.

Finally, EPA has not accepted the

comment requesting the adoption of a

separate manifest for international

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

if the International Shipment field was

not established, we believe that the

more desirable outcome of this

rulemaking is to adopt one standardized

manifest format, rather than adopting

multiple formats with redundant

information.

5. Proposed Addition of Third

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 us that waste

shipments implicate a third transporter

frequently enough to warrant our

creating a new 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 on the proposed rule did

not support including a third

Transporter field. Upon viewing the

draft of the 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 a third

Transporter block should not be

included on the revised' form, since a

third transporter was not used often

enough to warrant taking up valuable

space that could be better allocated

toward shipping descriptions or other

data elements that commenters regarded

as more critical. We agree with these

comments and have accepted the

suggestions to exclude the third

Transporter itemn from the revised form.

Today's final rule withdraws both-the

third Transporter item and 'the

corresponding signature space for the

third transporter from the revised

manifest form.

D. Reduction or Elimination of

"Optional" Field Designations. Another

facet of manifest form standardization

deals with the degree to which the form

will continue to provide state optional

fields for use by authorized states. In the

1984 Uniform Manifest Rule, EPA

announced the availability of eleven

such fields that states could select from

and require waste generators to.

complete. These optional fields were

established based 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 of the

form included the mandatory federal

data elements supporting RCRA

mandated and federally required core transportation-related and waste

shipment routing 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 allow for such state variations.

However, at the time the Uniform

Manifest Rule was initially developed,

EPA and DOT were convinced that

including optional fields would be

acceptable. If these types of information

needs could be accommodated on the

manifest form, then it would not be

necessary for the states to require waste

handlers and facilities to submit

separate reports containing this

information.

While this policy may have seemed

beneficial in 1984, we now have had

almost twenty years of experience with

the Uniform Manifest and the

coexistence on the form of mandatory

federal elements and state optional

fields. Over the course of the negotiated

manifest reform rulemaking activity in

the early 1990s and continuing through

the development of our proposed rule in

May 2001, we have consistently heard

strong complaints from manifest users

about the 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 or regulations

and distributed by the various states.

Thus, it became a goal of this

rulemaking to reduce or eliminate this

variability, if this 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 of the data elements on

the current manifest. We removed

several optional fields that were either

duplicative or nonessential, while

retaining several others and designating

them as mandatory for future purposes

in the revised form. In total, we

eliminated nine of the current optional

fields; we also revised § 271.10(h)(1) by

removing the provisions in this section

that correspond to those nine optional

fields. Whether these fields were

eliminated-or designated mandatory,

they will no longer cause burdensome

variability under the newly revised

form.

In our May 2001 proposed rule notice,

we proposed to retain two optional

fields on the revised form. We knew

from years of experience with the

manifest system that states considered

RCRA Waste Codes'(current Item I) and

Handling Codes (current Item K) two of

the most valuable fields on the form.

States used these codes to track waste

generation and management trends, to

facilitate the completion of or verify

annual or biennial report submissions,

and to support state assessments that are levied for waste generation or

management activities. Our intention at

the time of the 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 this issue 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 of the 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 manifest form.

Therefore, EPA declares that all fields

set out in this final rule's revised form

are mandatory. You can find additional

discussion of the standardization of "

handling code and waste code reporting

on the manifest in Sections II.E.5. and

II.F.6. of this preamble. When the

revised form is in use among the states,

there will no longer be optional fields to

determine and compldte.

E.1. Proposed Standardization of

Handling Codes-Introduction. In the

May 2001 NPRM, EPA proposed to

standardize the Handling Codes

information field on the revised

manifest. On the.current form, Handling

Codes is a state optional field, to be

entered in Item K of the Uniform

Manifest. As we explained in the

proposed rule preamble (see 66 FR

28240 at 28256), authorized states

currently implement the Handling

Codes field in a variety of ways. Some

states require handling codes- as set out

in Appendix I, Table 2 under 40 CFR

Parts 264 and 265, while other states

require processing codes assigned for

purposes of the RCRA Biennial Report.

Other states have developed their own

process codes, which have special

meaning in the states' databases and

determine how states assess waste

management fees. Stakeholders

identified variability in the states' use

and meaning of handling codes as an

issue under the current manifest system,

particularly for the generators and

TSDFs that were subject to multiple

states' handling code requirements.

Moreover, during meetings on the

development of the 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, but it 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. Content of the Handling Code

Proposal. Based on broad 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 as the

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 been revised somewhat

and renamed the Hazardous Waste

Report Management Method Codes.

3. Standardization of Handling Codes.

EPA also requested comment on

whether state, industry, and other

stakeholders would prefer a new list of

codes as an alternative to using the full

list of Hazardous Waste Report

Management Method Codes. There was

some sense that a smaller code set could

be more manageable 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 on biennial 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 final rule clarify that the code

entered here should reflect the final

handling of the waste by the-TSDF

shown as the designated facility on the

manifest, and not the ultimate

disposition of the 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 for the designated facility.

Most of the commenters agreed with

the reasoning set out in 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 of commenters also

preferred using the entire list of process

codes developed for biennial reporting,

rather than creating a new list

containing a subset of the process codes.

4. Adoption of Hazardous Waste

Report Management Method Codes.

Based on comments we received on this

subjedt, today's final rule establishes

one set of codes 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 of the 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 how the 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 for this 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 of the Hazardous Waste

Report forms. For the convenience of

readers of this final rule, EPA is

publishing the updated list of

Hazardous Waste Report Management

Method Codes as they exist at the time

of this rule's publication. However,

these codes are subject to change over

time, and manifest users are urged to

refer to the most recent instructions for

the Hazardous Waste Report for the

most currefnt and accurate set of codes

to be entered in Item 19. You can also

find an updated list of codes at EPA's

Web site: www.epa.govlepaoswerl

hazwaste/data/index.htm#br. The left

column of the table below corresponds

to the Hazardous Waste Report

Management Method Code for a process,

while the right column corresponds to

the System Type Codes that Were in use

before the establishment of the

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-M 029,.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-site fuel 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 a fuel .....................................................................

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

Cyanide destruction with or without precipitation .....................................................................................

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

W et air oxidation ....... I ..................................................................................... I .........................................

Other chemical precipitation with or without 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 2005
Federal 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 or steam stripping ..................................................................................

I............................................... M083

H101 ............ Sludge treatment 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

H 122 ............ E vapo ratio n ........................................................................................

M 122

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 ............ Land treatment or application (to include on-site treatment and/or stabilization) ...... *....................... M131

H132 ............ Landfill or surface impoundment that will 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

or disposal (H131-H135) at this site.

For clarification only. Use the Hazardous Waste Report Management Method codes in the left column only (i.e., codes beginning H_ ).

5. Designation of Process Codes as

Mandatory. While we proposed to retain

the revised handling codes as an

optional field for use by states, we also

requested comment on whether to deem

Hazardous Waste Report Management

Method Codes a mandatory field. At

that time, we were wary of imposing

new reporting burdens on those waste

handlers in states that did not require

handling codes. On the other hand, we

were aware that much of the manifest

use burden arose not so much from

completing individual data elements,

but from determining what elements

were required in individual states and

by complying with state-specific

information and instructions. The great

majority of commenters expressed a

strong desire to designate the handling

codes mandatory for use in all states.

Because most states which currently

require the codes will continue to .

require them, the commenters did not

see any reason to maintain the optional

status. The commenters also believed

that making one set of codes 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 in manifest requirements

and likely reduce paperwork burdens.

Therefore, today's final rule mandates

the entry of the Hazardous Waste Report

Management Method Codes on the

manifest. In addition, EPA has redesignated the Hazardous Waste Report

Management Method Code field as Item

19 (rather than Block B) in the revised

form and placed it in the bottom section

of the form among the data elements

that designated facilities must complete.

6. Party Responsible for Completing

Item 19: The majority of commenters

supported our proposal to identify the

designated TSDF as the party

responsible for completing Item 19.

TSDFs often determine waste

management methods on a day-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 *vould choose for a particular

shipment of waste. On the other hand,

several commenters were concerned

that the generator would continue to be

held responsible for the disposal of the

waste, yet the generator would lose

control of the waste's disposal if TSDFs

entered this information.

Today's rule finalizes the requirement

for TSDFs to complete Item 19 as

proposed. While generators must ensure

their wastes are disposed of at

authorized facilities, their responsibility

does not extend to controlling the

disposal process. In most instances, the

disposal firm is an independent

contractor. Therefore, we believe it is

appropriate for TSDFs to enter the

process code reflecting their

management of the waste, rather than

requiring the generator to enter this

information.

F.1. Proposed Standardization of

RCRA Waste Code Fields-Introduction.

In the May 2001 NPRM, we proposed:

(1) To iedesignate 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 of federal waste codes,

and the bottom three spaces for state

waste codes; and, (4) to establish a

toxicity-based hierarchical approach for

determining the ordering of waste codes

on the new Waste Codes field. The

purpose of the hierarchical approach

was to ensure that waste codes

suggesting the presence of high 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 of the

proposal, we did not want to impose

additional reporting burdens on waste

handlers operating in states that did not

require waste code data.

2. Comment Analysis. 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 how to allocate the

expanded space between federal and

state waste codes. Some state comments

supported a side-by-side array of the

federal and state codes, while others

asked us not to differentiate between

federal and state codes. Industry

commenters provided additional detail

on these points. While most industry

commenters supported the proposal to

provide space for three to six waste

codes, two large TSDFs noted that in

their vast experience with manifests,

space for four 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 as they 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

space between 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 of entering all

applicable waste codes (utilizing the

Additional Descriptions space).

Believing that six codes were more than

sufficient to characterize the properties

of a 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 that they 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 of this rulemaking.

However, the waste code issue that

generated the greatest level of interest

was the proposed hierarchical approach

to entering federal waste codes in the

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 not have

applied to state waste codes. The

proposed hierarchy specified the

following ordering of federal 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 first in Block A, ahead of the

waste types that would otherwise

appear first in the above hierarchy.

While several commenters supported

the hierarchy concept, EPA received

many more comments critical of the

hierarchy proposal The supportive

comments pointed out that a hierarchy

would usefully limit the 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 all jurisdictions. A few comments

suggested that the hiearchy approach

would be improved if ignitable and

reactive wastes always were placed at

the top of the hierarchical ordering,

while other comments indicated that the

order should not be affected at all by

ignitable or reactive wastes.

However, the commenters criticizing

the proposed waste code hierarchy

raised many other concerns. The

strongest comments of this 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 in minuscule

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 not serve our stated

purpose. They emphasized that TSDFs

rely upon their waste profile

information to determine the

acceptability of wpstes'at their facilities,

while users and emergency responders

relied much more on DOT nomenclature

(i.e., the shipping descriptions entered

in Item 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 of a waste.

3. Final Rule DeterminationsNumber and Allocation of Waste Codes.

While the proposed rule suggested that

additional waste codes could be entered

in Item 9b (as part of the U.S. DOT

Description) and in the "Additional

Information" space (Item 14 of the

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

14 that might be applicable to a waste

stream. We are persuaded that the

provision of space for six codes in Item

13, augmented by any other codes

required to be included in Item 9b for

n.o.s. shipping descriptions, will be

sufficient to describe-hazardous wastes

for the purposes of the manifest.

Corhmenters pointed out that many

facilities provide large lists of waste

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 for trying to

allocate space between generator state

codes and consignee state codes.

Therefore; the final rule leaves it largely

to the users' discretion to assign the

appropriate combination of federal and

state codes to describe a waste, up to a

maximum of six 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 when a hazardous

waste is described by a non-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 6 waste codes that describe

such a waste. We also are finalizing the

waste code space on the revised form

without any partitions between

individual digits or characters, since

commenters indicated that the inclusion

of partitions actually could frustrate

reporting these data legibly.

4. Final Rule DeterminationsEntering State Waste Codes. In addition

to commenting on the number of waste

codes users may enter in Item 13 of the

revised form, conmenters suggested

that the RCRA hazardous waste manifest

should only include information on

federally regulated.RCRA wastes. Other

commenters expressed the view that

this rule should affirm that states may

require users to enter state waste codes

on the revised form, -so long as no

corresponding federal code exists that

describes the same waste. Other

commenters expressed the same or

similar point of view, suggesting that

redundant state waste codes should.not

be entered on the form.

We continue to believe, as we first

indicated with the first Uniform

Manifest Rule in 1984, that it is

preferable to include federal and state

waste codes on the RCRA manifest.

Including both types 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 of the 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 in cases

where a state code duplicates entirely a

federal code for a RCRA hazardous

waste, it serves the burden reduction

purposes of this rulemaking to enter

only the federal code. on the revised

manifest. Thus, state waste codes must

be entered on the revised form to

describe state regulated hazardous

wastes for which 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 in connection

with what are known as the "state only"

hazardous wastes, that is, wastes which

are regulated as hazardous in an

authorized state program, but not 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

the state adopts a unique code or

perhaps adds another character to the

federal waste code to designate that

there are requirements unique to that

state that _apply to the waste. Since this

information is not conveyed by the

federal code itself, the state's adoption

of a unique code or its 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 must be

entered in the space allotted for federal

and state waste codes in Item 13 of the

revised form. There is no discretion to

omit such state codes from Item 13 of

the revised form.

As one example, a state may regulate

a hazardous 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 or more extensively

than the EPA rules (e.g., a state regulates

lead wastes at the 1.0 mg/L level or

higher). Similarly, a state may regulate

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'to be recycled, or may 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, it is not a redundant

state code if the state code or a staterequired addition to a federal code

serves to distinguish a waste that is

regulated uniquely or differently in the

state, or to distinguish wastes subject to

differential fees or similar requirements

based on the nature of the waste or how

it is processed.

EPA has made it a focus of this

rulemaking to reduce the variability that

appeared among the manifest forms that

are currently distributed by authorized

states. The elimination of optional

fields, the standardization of handling

codes, and the new registry and

acquisition procedures are examples of

significant manifest reforms we have

adopted to address this issue.

Nevertheless, all variability cannot be

eliminated. However, we believe that

the variability problem has been greatly

improved by this rule, in that variability

which may have been dispersed among

11 optional fields on the old form has

been reduced to variability limited to

the reporting of state waste codes. States

may develop additional waste codes in

response to today's rule in order to

designate wastes which qualify for state

specific exemptions, wastes which are

subject to a differential waste

management fee based on how a waste

is managed, or wastes which are subject

to other state-specific management

conditions. While this may have the

effect of increasing the number of statespecific waste codes, we believe this is

a preferred outcome to allowing varying

information to populate other fields of

the form.

5. Final Rule Determination-Waste

Code Hierarchy. Many commenters

expressed vibws about the proposed

hierarchy approach. We were most

impressed by the significant number of

comments assuring us that in the great

majority of cases, there really was no

need to apply any hierarchical ordering

of waste codes. These commenters

stated that four to six waste codes

would be sufficient in all but a few

cases to describe a waste's properties,

and with space provided now to show

six codes, it was not critical to order

them With a hierarchy.

Ordering of waste codes, however,

could be more useful for special types

of wastes (e.g., lab packs, incinerator

ash) for which there are potentially

more than six waste codes that could

describe the wastes. We examined the

comments to determine if there 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 if commenters

persuaded us that waste code data were

being used strategically or critically by

emergency responders responding to

accidents or by TSDFs determining the

acceptability of wastes at their

permitted facilities. Rather, we found

the comments persuasive on the point

that emergency responders rely far more

heavily on the DOT hazard

classification system and nomenclature

when identifying appropriate response

actions in emergencies: Likewise, the

10789

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10789 2005
10790 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 a risk-based ordering of waste 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

or brought into an authorized state for

management. States use this information

to monitor trends in waste management,

levy assessments based on waste

generation or management in the state,

or prepare the RCRA biennial report.

For over 20 years, waste handlers have

been entering waste codes without the

benefit of a 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 that the

choice to enter waste codes should be

left to the judgment of the users

completing the form. The users should

ascertain the waste codes that are most

representative of the waste, giving due

regard to the degree of the hazardous

properties presented (i.e., toxicity,

reactivity, ignitability), the waste

properties that are most material to the

chosen management process, and the

volume or relative quantity of the

material associated with the waste code

in question. We believe 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. Final Rule Determination-Waste

Codes are Mandatory Fields. In the May

2001 NPRM, we proposed to maintain

RCRA waste codes as one of only two

optional fields on the revised manifest.

While EPA did not propose or solicit

specific comment on designating RCRA

waste codes as a mandatory data field,

comments were submitted in response

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 a burden

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 of a trulyuniform 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 with the collection of RCRA

Report data, streamlining the overall

process. Finding these comments

persuasive, we are imposing a

mandatory requirement for users to

report waste codes in Item 13 on all

manifests in all states.

G. 1. Other Manifest Form RevisionsIntroduction. While the NPRM clearly

focused on standardizing the form's data

elements, it also discussed several other

changes 'to terms and procedures

affecting the manifest's use.

Specifically, the NPRM discussed how

the Subtitle C regulations define "bulk"

containers for purposes 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 of whether a

TSDF initiating a new manifest for a

rejected waste or container residue signs

that manifest as ari "offeror" of the

rejected waste shipment, or, as the agent

signing "on behalf'of" the original

generator. The "offeror" issue in fact has

a much broader impact than the

management and tracking of rejected

wastes and residues, and in recognition

of this broader impact, the final rule is

revising the Generator's Certification

statefnent on the form so that it will in

the future be identified as the

Generator's/Offeror's Certification. This

preamble section explains our final rule

positions for each- of these areas. 2. Definition of Bulk 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, or equal to 110

gallons in size. Section 261.7(b)(1)(iii)

establishes criteria for determining if a

hazardous waste container is "empty,"

while § 262.32 requires a generator to

mark containers of 110 gallons or less.

In each case, the 110 gallon threshold

was selected to conform to a 1.982 DOT

regulation that defined bulk packaging

as packaging of 110 gallons or more. Thus, the current RCRA regulations

established distinct "empty" container

thresholds for bulk and non-bulk

hazardous waste containers. However,

DOT standards were revised in 1991 to

harmonize them with international

requirements, which distinguished bulk

from non-bulk packagings at a threshold

of 450 L or 119 gallons (see 55 FR

52471, December 21, 1990). To maintain

conformity with DOT requirements, we

proposed to revise the regulations so

that they distinguish bulk from nonbulk containers at the 119 gallon

threshold.

We received 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 DOT requirements. Therefore,

today's final rule amends

§ 261.7(b)(1)(iii)(A), § 261.7(b)(1)(iii)(B)

and § 262.32 by substituting the 119

gallon threshold for the 110 gallon

threshold that appears in the existing

regulations.

3. Use of 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 in Item 13 of the

existing manifest. We proposed this

language in response to reports from

several states, which noted an increase

in the number of manifests 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 in the

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, for waste

quantities reported in tons, a waste

quantity reported as 1.5 tons is far more

precise than the alternative of truncating

the quantity reported to only 1 ton or

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. We received 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 any use 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 split between

'those that agreed that fractions should

not be used on the manifest, 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 that the accuracy issue

would be resolved if smaller units of

measure were used in the waste

descriptions.

EPA agrees with commenters who

pointed out that the issue is not the use

of fractions per se, but rather quantity

reporting precision. This data quality

issue is not necessarily 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 or decimals;

states reasonably may have relied upon

EPA's earlier guidance recommending

against fractions and decimals when

they designed their data systems.

Moreover, if waste quantities .routinely

included fractional or decimal entries,

we believe that a significant number of

errors could-result from attempts to

interpret the fractions or to determine

when and where a decimal point was

present.. Given the use of carbonless and

non-carbon papers to transmit data

entries from the top copy of the manifest

to lower copies, we do not believe that

fractions or decimal points are likely to

be transmitted through clearly to the

"lower copies in the package. The

possible misinterpretation of these

entries could further reduce the

precision of waste quantity reporting on

the manifest. Therefore, the manifest

instructions included in today's final

rule continue to 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 not be entered on the

manifest, we also believe that

commenters raised a valid point that

generators must give greater attention to

the appropriateness of the units they

select to report waste quantities. We

agree with the numerous state and

industry commenters who suggested

that greater waste quantity reporting

precision could be achieved if waste

handlers exercised greater care when

selecting the units. Bulk shipment

quantities (those > 110 gals.) should be

reported in units of gallons, 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 not be used on the

manifest, except to describe very large

bulk quantities, such as the contents of

a rail car, barge or tank truck.:

However, additional care in the

selection of quantity units alone will not

resolve all the data quality issues that

arise in connection with reporting waste

quantity information on the manifest. In

our discussions with the authorized

states who consulted with EPA during

development of this rule, we learned

that there is another significant issue

affecting the quality of waste quantity

data reported on the manifest.

According to several authorized states, a

significant source of imprecision results

.from generators routinely reporting

container capacities as quantities

shipped, regardless of whether the

container is in fact full when placed in

transportation. In other words, some

generators are reporting 55 gallons of

waste shipped for every drum included

in a shipment, even though the drums

may only be partially filled. The same

practice is allegedly used for reporting

quantities shipped in larger bulk

packages, presenting an even greater

potential for waste quantities to be

misrepresented on the manifest.

Since the manifest system was first

announced by EPA in 1980, it has been

assumed that generators aid TSDFs

understood their mutual responsibilities

with respect to generators entering

quantities shipped and TSDFs verifying

thW quafitities (or reporting

discrepancies) at the time of receipt.

The manifest system was created to

foster accountability for waste

shipments among the generators,

transporters and TSDFs. The manifest

regulations have always required and

continue to require generators to enter

the actual quantities of wastes shipped

and not merely the capacity of the

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 are required either to acknowledge

that the quantities of wastes indicated as

.shipped were in fact received, or to

report a discrepancy on the form if the

quantities received db not match closely

the generator's "as shipped," quantities.

The underlying purpose of the manifest

in ensuring accountability for off-site

waste shipments is undermined if

generators are not reporting quantities

shipped accurately, and if TSDFs are

overlooking these inaccuracies when.

they' receive wastes at their facilities. In

addition, any future efforts- by EPA and

the states to streamline the RCRA

biennial reporting process by relying

more heavily on manifest data will be

frustrated if we conclude that waste

quantities reported on the manifest are

not a reliable source of information 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 of wastes

to a high level of precision, we believe

that a good faith effort to estimate

quantities shipped as accurately as

possible represents a more acceptable

standard or practice than simply

reporting container capacities. We

believe that it is a violation of the

current manifest requirements for

generators to report container capacities

as the quantities shipped, when it is

known that a container is not filled 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 in Item

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 of their

quantity entries when they realize that

the receiving facilities are paying close

attention to reconciling the quantities

reported as shipped and received..

4. Offerors and the Preparation of

Hazardous Waste Shipments and

Manifests. The proposed rule would

have added a new definition of

"preparer" to the definitions in 40 CFR

260.10. While this new definition was

proposed in the context of those 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 a waste

shipment for transportation to also

10791 I

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

prepare and sign the electronic manifest

on behalf of the generator. The

discussi gn in the NPRM of the proposed. "preparer" definition referred to the

instructions for Iterh 16 of the 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 behalf of" the

generator. Thus, this aspect of the

proposed rule raised an issue dealing

with the activities of shipment

preparers, their authority to initiate and

sign the manifest for the generator, and

their resulting responsibilities.

Similarly, in the context 'of TSDFs

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 of the responsibility and

liability of the 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 of an "offeror"

of the shipment, but we asked for

comment whether the TSDF forwarding

a rejected waste under a new manifest

should be viewed instead as signing the

manifest as the agent of the generator.

Today's final rule affirms that the TSDF

rejecting waste and completing a new

manifest to track the rejected waste to

an alternate facility (or the generator

site) signs the manifest in the capacity

as offeror of the shipment, and not as an

agent of the generator. Nor would 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 of TSDFs rejecting

wastes and their offeror responsibilities

when they complete and sign new

manifests is addressed in detail in

section IV.B.3. of this 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 of the 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) of the Department of

Transportation (DOT). The HMRs apply

to persons who transport.hazardous

materials in commerce, as well as to

persons who offer hazardous materials

for transportation. Since hazardous

wastes are also hazardous materials

within the scopd of the 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 offer hazardous

materials for transportation ("offerors")

apply to hazardous waste shipments

and those who offer hazardous wastes in

transportation. DOT consistently has

interpreted the "offeror" status as

connoting those persons in,'olved with

performing certain "pre-transportation"

functions that must occur before

hazardous materials are transported in

commerce. Over the 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 a package, filling a hazardous

materials package, preparing a

hazardous materials shipping paper

(including the hazardous waste

manifest), providing emergency

response information, and certifying

that a hazardous material is in proper

condition for transportatiop in

conformance with the 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 of pretransportation 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

of the HMRs to loading, unloading, and

storage. See 68 FR 61906 (October 30,

2003). In this rule, DOT codified gnew

regulatory definition of "pre- -

transportation function," and listed the

above-described activities and others as

examples of theses functions that are

specified in the HMR and "required to

assure the safe transportation of a

hazardous material in commerce." See

49 CFR 171.8.

In the preamble discussion of the "pre-transportation functions," DOT

explains that a pre-transportation -

function is performed to prepare a

hazardous material and its

accompanying shipping documentation

for transportation and is required to

assure its safe transportation in

commerce. 68 FR 61906 at 61909. The

rule further explains that it does not

matter if the pre-transportation function

is performed by the shipper's

(generator's) personnel or by the

carrier's (transporter's) personnel. The

HMR requirements apply to any person

who performs or is 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 must be demonstrated,

DOT has stated that it would generally

expect an offeror to be able to

demonstrate compliance with all

applicable pre-transportation

requirements at the tine the hazardous

material is staged for loading and, the

shipping paper is signed, as this is the

offeror's certification that the material

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 of that 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 of a

generator or other preparer to complete

and sign the Generator's Certification

statement on the manifest are governed

by the same considerations, discussed by

DOT with respect to "offerors" and the

performance of the pre-transportation

functions described in 49 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 in the.manifest

instructions or on "preparer" signatures,

etc.

Therefore, this final rule resolves the

issues pending in this rulemaking

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 of the waste shipment

(or of the manifest) for transportation,

rather than the waste generator. . While the proposed rule discussed the

offeror status while dealing with the

issue of TSDFs rejecting and re-shipping

wastes, we wish to 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 when the 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 or reviewing it for compliance

with the HMRs and RCRA), the

transporter performing such pretransportation functions may be an

offeror with respect to the shipment.

While a generator may certainly sign the

generator certification statement in its

capacity as the generator, today's rule is

intended to clarify that another person,

such as a transporter making a waste

pick-up and helping with the pretransportation functions, may sign the

certification statement on the manifest

in their capacity as an offeror. This

person may sign as an offeror if they

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 or national

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 of the certification statement.

The offeror is liable in its independent

offeror capacity for discharging their

offeror responsibilities, regardless of

whether or not they may also be viewed

as performing these activities "on behalf

of" or the agent of the generator, as the

generator's independent service

contractor, or pursuant 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 for inclusion in

§ 260.10. Nor are we expanding or

otherwise modifying the meaning of the

language in the 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 in the

instruction to the signature item in

order to effectuate the limited purpose

for which this language was added in

1986, that is, to connote that generator

(and now 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 or generator. The offeror's

responsibilities are limited to the proper

discharge of the 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 CFR part 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 liability that attaches to the

offeror status. Therefore, a TSDF 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 for the new movement

of the waste, but it would not be subject

to the full range of generator

requirements. This issue is explained

further in section IV.B.3. of this

preamble.

H. 1. Delayed Compliance Date for

Revised Form-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 to become familiar with the new

requirements, entities with existing "

stocks of manifests would want to use

up their supplies of the "old forms,"

and new manifest printers would

require time to register with EPA and

prepare for printing and distributing the

revised'manifest. Likewise, state

agencies would need sufficient time to

amend their regulatory programs and

adapt their databases to meet the new

form requirements.

Cognizant of these 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, for the first

two years dfter the effective date of this

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 would be

required to comply with the form

changes, instructions, and procedures

applicable to the new form. At the

conclusion of the proposed two year

delayed compliance period, the revised

form would be the only valid manifest

that could be printed, distributed or

used.

2. Comment Analysis. Commenters

generally expressed support for the

"delayed compliance date" or transition

period approach. State agency

commenters supported a phase-in

period for the new form, but several

cautioned that not every state would be

able to make the necessary statutory and

regulatory changes by the end of the

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

both the 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 of manifest

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 be realized 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 on users'

ability to implement the new form

during the transition period. In

particular, industry commenters urged

EPA to clarify that waste handlers could

begin to use the new form at any time

during the transition period, regardless

of whether the.'states had adopted the

revised form requirements in their

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. Delayed Compliance Date-Final

Rule Approach. 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 of the new form's benefits- for

more than two years; (2) we should be

sensitive to states' interests and allow

the states a reasonable amount of time

to adopt regulations and modify

databases to accommodate the new

form; (3) we should minimize or avoidany period of dual compliance with

both the old and new manifest forms;'

and, (4) we should clarify more

precisely when users may 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 of the rule, which is

September 6, 2005, and end 12 months

later on September 5, 2006. The overall

effect of the effective date and the

delayed compliance period is that

implementation of the revised manifest

form and requirements will be delayed

until September 5, 2006. We believe that

this approach is much easier to

implement than our proposed two year

transition period. Since it is standard

practice for EPA regulations to include

a six month delayed effective date

measured from the date of publication,

today's final rule simply adds an

additional 12 months of delayed

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 will have

a full 18 months to use up their stocks

of existing 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 final rule is published, nor any

problems arising from dual

implementation of the old and new

forms. In addition, EPA will have

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 of hazardous waste initiated

by generators or offerors on or after this

date must be accompanied by the

revised manifest form. Manifests

initiated under the old forms and

procedures by generators or offerors

before this date may continue to

accompany waste shipments that are

already' in transportation after the

delayed compliance date for today's

rule. By the end of the 18-month

delayed compliance period, we expect

that all necessary preparations for the

use of the new form should be

completed, so that no significant

hardship should result from requiring

the exclusive use of the revised form

and requirements after this date.

4. Delayed Compliance DateInteraction with DOT Authority, Since

the promulgation of the Uniform

Manifest by EPA and DOT in March

1984, the Agencies have emphasized

that the RCRA manifest derives its

implementation authority from both

RCRA Subtitle C and DOT's Hazardous

Materials ("Hazmat") laws. The

manifest's joint RCRA/Hazmat nature

affects the implementation of the

revised manifest announced in today's

final rule, particularly with respect to

implementation of the new form after

the rule's delayed compliance date.

Therefore, this section of the preamble

explains the interaction with hazardous

materials authority, since this

interaction produces results that are not

typical of other RCRA requirements

based on non-HSWA authority (i.e.,

statutory authority predating the

Hazardous and Solid Waste

.Amendments of 1984).

For other RCRA Subtitle C regulations

based on pre-HSWA authority, federal

revisions such as today's rule do not

take effect until the 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 be made

effective. immediately on the effective

date of the 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 of shipping papers.

As we said in the 1984 rule,

These DOT amendments operate

independently of RCRA requirements

and will be applicable in all states,

regardless of their 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 of the rule. EPA and DOT

agree that there are sound reasons for

this delayed compliance period, which

has the effect of delaying the actual

implementation of the 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

of September 5, 2006, today's final rule

and the new manifest form will be

implemented under DOT's authority to

regulate these matters'uniformly,

regardless of RCRA state authorization

status. Indeed, when today's final rule is

in fact implemented on September 5,

2006, DOT will have 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 of the preparation, execution

and use of shipping 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 for today's rule, only

the revised or new manifest . requirements will remain valid. Federal

and state officials may enforce the new

manifest requirements under the

authority of the federal hazardous

materials transportation laws. They may

also enforce the new manifest under the

state law authorities of the RCRA

authorized states at such time as the

states adopt the new form requirements

and obtain authorization for them from

EPA. However, it must be emphasized

that on the delayed compliance date, the

new manifest requirements will become

applicable uniformly in all states under

10794

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

the authority of the hazardous materials

transportation laws, regardless of state

authorization status. While the new

manifest requirements will also take

effect as RCRA requirements once the

authorized states obtain authorization

for their program revisions adopting the

new form, the new form and

requirements will be applicable in all

authorized states under hazardous

materials authority in the interim period

between the delayed compliance date

and the date the states' program

revisions are authorized by EPA.

III. Manifest Form Acquisition and

Registry

A.1. Manifest Form AcquisitionIntroduction. 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).

If that state supplies a manifest 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 must use the manifest

required by its state. If neither the

consignment state nor generator state

supplies a manifest, the generator can

obtain the manifest from any source. In

addition, 40 CFR 271.10 requires states

to follow the federal format for EPA

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 of the Hazardous Materials

Transportation Act (49 U.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.

In May 2001, EPA proposed revisions to

these manifest acquisition regulations,

limiting the types of information that

state agencies could require on the 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 Manifest Acquisition

Provisions. EPA proposed to remove the

manifest hierarchy acquisition system

and replace it with 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 obtain the manifest from a

number of sources. 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 conduct business in multiple

states that require Use of their 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 state copy

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 of their waste

2 Public 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 of fees during

distribution of state-printed RCRA manifests,

totaling an estimated $1.16 to $2.44 million per year

(see "Economics Background Document" for basis

of this estimate). However, as of 2004, 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 a few 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 of the

sale price of the 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 of this rule also have

indicated that they will in the future

collect their processing fees by a means

not tied to the sale of blank 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 for recovering their

processing costs, we do not believe 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 of additional state

waste codes as a means to flag statespecific requirements that would have

significance to collecting such fees.

Thus, if there are limited instances

where a state is using revenues from

selling blank manifests for other waste

program purposes beyond offsetting

form printing costs or processing costs,

we believe that any reduction in such

revenue tied to the proposed acquisition

approach could be recouped 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 issue raised by commenters

is sufficient enough to warrant

abandoning or altering 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 the proposed

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

.would result to 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 fact more 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 of the manifest

would increase burden on a large

percentage of waste handlers who

would need to maintain a separate filing

system for state directions.

3. Final Manifest Acquisition

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 or other

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 able to

determine this state-specific information

from a variety of sources, such as Web

sites, state regulations 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 it had

proposed to eliminate all but two

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. (See sections II.E.4

and II.F.6 for further 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 for both printers

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 out the specific requirements/

components of the application package,

along with examples of what EPA

expects to see (e.g., examples of quality

control procedures for tracking

numbers, definition of terms, etc) and a

Q&A document of frequently asked

questions.

* A guidance document that sets forth

print specifications that registrants may

use in preparing manifest samples for

Registry evaluation.

* An up-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 of the

delayed compliance date, and related

matters, applicable state requirements

(e.g., state manifest 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 of revenue, we

understand these concerns, but as we

explained above, after a more thorough

consideration of this issue, we believe

that the revenue losses that will result

from the new acquisition approach will

either be insignificant or'can be avoided

by the states as they plan for the

implementation of the revised form.

B.1. Proposed Manifest Registry and

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 on each manifest, and

to reduce the possibility of printing

many variations of manifest 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 assigning manifest tracking

numbers and distributing the form

without submitting an application to

EPA and receiving approval of their

manifest tracking number system. In

general, the proposed regulations

required the following administrative

procedures and printing specifications:

* Applicants must register with EPA

to obtain manifest 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 of their numbering system

(i.e., creating and assigning of 11-digit

alphanumeric manifest tracking

numbers to manifests);

* Applicants must submit a manifest

proof;

* Applicants must sign a certification

to ensure tracking numbers will not be

duplicated intentionally and, if

applicable, will adhere to all printing

specifications;

* The form must be printed in the

same format as EPA Form 8700-22 and

22A, according to the federal printing

specifications at 40 CFR 262.21(b); * Manifest tracking nufmber must be

assigned in accordance with a

numbering system approved by EPA

and must be pre-printed on the form;

* Applicants cannot add additional

boxes on the form;

e Applicants cannot delete existing

boxes on the form;

e Applicants must print the form

with manifest dimensions of 81/2 by 11

inches;

* Applicants must print the form in

black ink so that it can be photocopied

or faxed;

* Applicants must print the

standardized manifest instructions,

provided in the appendix to Part 262, on,

the back of the manifest; and,

* Applicants must print the form as a

six-copy form and must indicate on the

form that copies of the form are

distributed as follows:

Page 1 (top copy): "Designated facility

to consignment state" (if required);

Page 2: "Designated facility to

generator state" (if required);

Page 3: "Designated facility to

generator";

Page 4: "Designated facility copy";

Page 5: "Transporter copy"; and,

Page 6 (bottom copy): "Generator's

initial copy."

In the proposal, we stated that

generators should provide a photocopy

of the manifest if their state requires it.

The proposal also noted that a

completed manifest may contain fewer

pages if the state does not require

submission of forms; however, printers

are required to print six-copy forms.

Under certain circumstances (e.g.,

107b6

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10796 2005
Federal 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 of a manifest may be

necessary. In these cases, the generator

or transporter must photocopy the most

legible copy of the 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 on the Registry and the

tracking number system than we

provided in the proposal. Commenters

also requested that information be

provided to the regulated community so

that they can be assured that

prospective form registrants are granted

authorization by EPA to print and

distribute manifests forms. One industry

comment suggested that EPA provide

more information in areas such as:

procedures for registering 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 obtain unique

numbers via the internet.

State comments on the proposed

Registry and manifest tracking number

system varied. Some state commenters

favored the proposed Registry provided

that EPA implements procedures which

ensure the printing of non-duplicate

numbers. A few of these commenters

also suggested that EPA post a Registry

of printers 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 the proposed

Registry suggested that EPA assign

blocks of numbers 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 a hodgepodge of different

tracking schemes or other difficulties.

Some of these commenters suggested

that states control the distribution of

blocks of tracking 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 shoilld be

operational in nature. 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 of corporate

logos, advertising or other information

not explicitly allowed in the rule;

eliminate shading on the form; use a

black border to designate sections of the

manifest; ensure minimum quality of

paper; and, ensure readability of

instructions on the back of the 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 or in guidance.

Although EPA generally agrees with the

commenters' suggestions, we also

recognize, based on our research, that

certain printing specifications shouldbe

left to the discretion of printers. For

these reasons, the final rule leaves a

considerable amount of discretion to the

registrant-in designing its manifest.

Refer to section III.B.3 of this preamble

for a discussion of the final print

specifications.

2 Final Manifest Registry. The

registration approach being finalized

today under § 262.21(a) through (e)

reflects our desire to fully evaluate the

ability of the 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 not have received a proof

of the 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 of the

registrant's forms before they are used or

sold. Hence, the final.Registry approach

requires the registrant to submit a fuller

description of its printing operations

and several samples of its manifest.

Although some commenters favored

EPA developing a Registry application

form, we have chosen not to do so. We

believe that discussions given in today's

final rule detailing the application

process, supplemented by posting

Registry information on the 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, or have

printed, the manifest for use or

distribution unless it has received

approval by EPA to do so under

§ 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.

hold the 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 of organizational

controls (e.g., clear lines of

communication, accountability and

oversight) and production-related

controls (e.g., the use of quality

management systems in the printing

process). It also could include the use of

contract terms and conditions that

encourage strong performance by

contracted firms.

In addition, § 262.21(a)(2) provides

that the registrant is the only entity that

can assign manifest tracking numbers to

its manifests, except that the registrant

can delegate this activity. We believe

this provision is needed to ensure tight

control and accountability over its

numbers. One of our highest priorities

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 will be able to assign and

pre-print tracking numbers onto

manifests without any direct Agency

oversight, we believe it is critical that

the registrant be held accountable for

ensuring that each manifest has a

unique tracking number.

To become registered, a registrant

must submit an initial application to the

EPA under § 262.21(b). The application

must provide basic information on the

registrant's organization (e.g., contact

information). The application also must

include a description of the sccpe of the

operations that the registrant plans to

undertake in printing, distributing and

using its manifests. The registrant must

describe whether it intends to print its

manifests in-house or through-a separate

(i.e., unaffiliated) printing company

pursuant to contrat.

In this regard, EPA recognizes that

registrants will likely propose various

ways to print the manifest. We expect

that some registrants will be waste

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 job to

a subcontractor. Finally, there may be

state agencies that will register to print

the manifest, but contract with a

commercial printer for these services.

If the registrant intends to use a

separate printing company to print the

manifest on its behalf, the application

must identify this printing company.

The application must discuss how the

registrant will oversee the company to

ensure compliance with all applicable

requirements. If this includes the use of

intermediaries (e.g., -prime and

subcontractor relationships), the role of

each must be discussed.

As mentioned earlier, one of our

highest priorities is ensuring that each

manifest used or distributed to the

public has a unique manifest tracking

number. To this end, the application

must describe how the registrant will

ensure that a unique manifest tracking

number will be 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. In particular, the

application must describe how the

registrant will assign manifest tracking

numbers to its manifests. If computer

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 may be

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 will remain unique

across facilities. In those cases where a

registrant will rely 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 with the

tracking numbers of any other registrant

who may contract with the same printer

for its manifest printing jobs. In the end,

each registrant will need to use its

discretion to determine the amount of

information necessary to demonstrate

that tracking numbers will remain

unique, given its particular prifting

arrangements and the complexity of its

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 must indicate how the

registrant intends to use the manifests

(e.g., whether it intends to use them for

its own hazardous waste operations, sell

them, or otherwise make them available

to generators).

Under § 262.21(b)(6), the registrant

must describe the qualifications of the

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 of these establishments to

print the manifest. Registrants that

intend to use a separate printing

-company must describe the

qualifications of this 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 must propose a

unique, three-letter suffix to be used in

pre-printing a unique manifest tracking

number on each manifest. EPA

evaluated several different schemes

before selecting a three-letter suffix.

EPA decided to require a suffix because

of its concern about duplicating

manifest tracking numbers previously

used by the states on their forms. States'

manifest tracking numbers normally

begin with a two- or three-letter prefix,

followed by six or seven digits. Under

the tracking number scheme being

finalized today, each registrant's preprinted number must consist of nine

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

would need 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

then be numbered sequentially as it

passes through the printing process.

A duly authorized employee of the

registrant must sign its application to

certify that the organizations and

companies in its application will

comply with the procedures of the

application and requirements of

§ 262.21 and that it will notify EPA of

any duplicated manifest tracking

numbers on manifests that have been

used or'distributed as soon as this

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 be corrected promptly.

Under § 262.21(c), EPA will either

approve the application or request

additional information or modification

before approval. Once it is approved,

EPA will email the registrant an

electronic file of the manifest,

continuation sheet, and manifest

instructions and ask it to submit three

fully assembled manifests that meet all

of the specifications at-Section 262.21(f).

The registrant also must describe its

manifest's paper type, paper weight, ink

color of the manifest's instructions, and

binding method (See § 262.21(d)). If

screening of the ink was used for the

mdnifest's instructions, the registrant

must indicate the extent of the

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 of its continuation

sheet, so long as the continuation sheet

will be printed using the same paper

type, paper weight, ink color of the

instructions, and binding method of the

manifest form.

After EPA receives the form samples,

we will evaluate them to determine if

the specificdtions of § 262.21(f) have

been met (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 ink of the

manifest's instructions does not bleed

through the front of the copies.

If the manifests pass these tests, EPA

will approve the registrant to print,

distribute and use the manifest as

desired. The registrant may not use 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 extend beyond the default fortyfive day time frame if unforseen

circumstances arise, or we determine

that the registrant's forms are

unacceptable. If EPA finds the forms

unacceptable, we will request additional

information or modification before

approving or denying them. An

approved registrant must print 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 must be 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

must provide adequate support to

maximize the likelihood that their

manifests will pass EPA'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 in ensuring that registrants

develop an approvable manifest on the

first try so they do not incur any added

expense of redesigning their forms

based on EPA's comments on the

original samples. To this end, EPA will

provide an electronic file of the

manifest, continuation sheet, and

manifest instructions to registrants,

which will relieve them of the need to

completely typeset their forms. Using

EPA's electronic file should ensure that

their forms 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 for the instructions). Registrants

need not follow these recommendations,

as there are many other combinations of

specifications that will be acceptable.

However, the registrant might increase

its likelihood of being approved if it

considers the guidance in designing its

forms. The guidance also will describe

how we will perform our tests of the

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 not required to conduct

such tests, they can increase its

likelihood of approval 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 which the registrant fully

understands how it is 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), we note

that some commercial printers have

expressed concern about it. They argue

that three form samples will not provide

us with much.useful information on a

registrant's ability to consistently print

forms to our satisfaction. This is because

each print job can vary (e.g., brightness

of the paper and the expertise of the

print supervisor on shift can vary).

Instead, some commercial printers have

suggested that we require each registrant

to typeset the form (i.e., prepare it from

scratch in a computer program), submit

a proof on bond paper that shows the

format and appearance of the 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 should be all'we need

to approve the registrant and be

confident that it will produce adequate

forms. They indicate that this approach,

also will be 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 of the

registrafit to print the form to our

satisfaction under the § 262.21(f)

specifications. For many commercial

printers, this will be straightforward.

States have relied on commercial

printers for years 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 will be

completely new to multi-part forms

printing and may not have the necessary

knowledge and capabilities. For

example, certain hazardous.waste

handlers may want to print their own

forms, but lack prior experience in

forms printing. If the Registry required

only that the registrant typeset the form,

print it on bond paper, indicate the type

of paper 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 a large scale.

Although we do not want to

discourage legitimate organizations from

registering, we must ensure that each

registrant is competent to print the form.

Because the Registry will be 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 will be 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 or approved

specifications (e.g., paper weight, etc.),

we fully expect that a number of

registrants will submit forms samples

whose specifications are unfamiliar to

us. In such situations, we may not be

certain that the proposed forms will be

adequate. Even if the registrant also

provides us with samples of the blank

paper it intends to use (e.g., so we could

write on them to test legibility), we

could not be sure that the forms would

be fully compliant with the § 262.21(f)

specifications. For example, we could

not be sure of the extent to which the

registrant's proposed ink color of the

instructions might bleed through the

front of the copies when photocopied,

scanned, or faxed. We also may not be

certain whether a registrant's proposed

binding method will ensure that copies

10799

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

do not become inadvertently detached

during normal use of the form. There are

different ways to bind copies together,

some of which may not be effective. The

only way for us to evaluate these aspects

of the form confidently and fairly is for

the registrant to submit form samples.

Because of these reasons, the final rule

includes the requirement for registrants

to submit to the Registrythree form

samples that meet the § 262.21(f)

specifications.

Under Section § 262.21(g), a generator

or other waste handler may obtain-its

manifests from any registered 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 -for a shipment

regulates any additional wastes (beyond

those regulated Federally) as hazardous

wastes under these states' authorized

programs. Generators also must

determine whether the consignment

state.or generator state requires the

generator to submit any copies of themanifest 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 of the manifest to these

states. As mentioned above, EPA

intends to post or provide 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 it is the

responsibility of the 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 or change its application.

approved under § 262.21(c) or its

manifest or continuation 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 in the application approved

under § 262.21(c) by revising and.

submitting it to EPA, along with an

indication or explanation of the.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 of information as necessary (e.g.,

company name or phone number). EPA

either will approve or deny any

substantive revisions. If EPA 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

request a new manifest tracking number

suffix (e.g., if it needs additional

numbering capacity). The registrant

must propose a new unique suffix, along

with the reason for requesting it. EPA

will either approve the suffix or deny

the suffix and provide an explanation

for the 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

must print 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 of manifest .

instructions :and binding method of its

approved form..Section 262.21(h)(3)

provides that, if an approved registrant

would like to change its approved -

manifest or continuation sheet- in -regard

to paper type, paper weight, ink color of

manifest instructions, or binding

method, it must submit revised samples

to the Agency for review and approval.

The registrant cannot use or distributa

its revised forms-until EPA approves

them. The registrant must address the

Agency's comments or questions before

the revised forms can be 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 first glance, seem overly burdensome

to some registrants. In speaking with

commercial printers, we found some of

them supportive of the requirement for

form samples and others opposed to it.

Printers opposed to the requirement

expressed concern that submitting a

form sample each time a registrant.

changes the specifications will be

burdensome and delay its customers'

print jobs. They also Were concerned

about the uncertainty associated with -

EPA review of forms that have already

been printed and .are ready 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 of the revised

forms in the mail. If the 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 will be 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 will be comfortable

with them under their approved

registration. If a printing company

seeking to register with EPA has two

types of paper in its inventory, it may

decide to submit two sets of samples to

the Registry, to get approval for both

paper types. A printing company also

might want to get approved for two

paper types so it has the flexibility to

use one paper type or the other in the

event that one paper type is

discontinued by the manufacturer or

goes up in price. There is nbthing in the

regulations to prevent a registrant from

submitting.multiple sets.of samples

under § 262.21(d). Further, EPA expects

that some approved registrants will

submit samples of their revised forms to

the Registry. in advance- of their

receiving customer orders for them.

Obtaining EPA's approval of the revised

forms in advance of customer 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,

if it would like for a new company to •

print the manifest. For many of the same

reasons explained above, the Agency

understands that printers vary in their

competence to print the forms. EPA

believes it is essential to evaluate all

companids that will print the manifest

by reviewing its forms and print

qualifications.

As provided by § 262.21(i), if,

subsequent to its approval under

§ 262.21(e), a registrant typesets its

manifest and continuation sheet instead

of using the electronic file of the form

provided by EPA, it must submit a

sample of the manifest and continuation

sheet to the Registry for approval. EPA

recognizes that most registrants that get

approved will print one or more batches

of forms 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

need to create a new printing plate. We

are not requiring the registrant to

resubmit a sample of its 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 of the manifest,

continuation sheet, and manifest

instruqtions. We fully expect them to

save the file directly as an electronic

image (or negative) of the forms in their

computer system to recreate their

printing plate when needed. In this way,

the Agency expects minimal typesetting

and therefore minimal risk of human

error in replicating the appearance and

format of EPA's forms. As long as all of

the approved registrants use EPA's

electronic file and avoid typesetting

their forms, we do not see the need to

apbrove the form each time the printer

develops a new plate for them.

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 a registrant might request an

exemption.

For example, it would not be unusual

for two or more registrants to rely on the

same commercial printer to print their

forms under the Registry. If a

commercial printer prints the manifest

on behalf. of an approved registrant and

then, subsequently, a second registrant

applies to use that same printer, we do

not believe it is necessary for the second

registrant to submit new form samples

under § 262.21(d), so long as the same

printer will be printing the manifest

using the same paper type, paper

weight, ink color of the instructions and

binding method of the 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 must use that printer to print

its forms according to the specifications

at § 262.21(f), as well as the paper

weight, paper typQ, ink color of the

instructions, and binding method of the

printer's originally approved form

samples. It also must pre-print a unique

manifest tracking number on each

manifest using its approved suffix.

Another common situation would be

where a registrant gets approved to print

a manifest using a certain paper type,

paper weight, ink color of the

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 might be some exceptions to this.

For example, we do not believe we need

to evaluate a revised form sample if we

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 may post approved form

specifications (e.g., paper type, paper

weight) on our Web site. If an approved

registrant, would like to change one or

more of its form's specifications to.

another approved specification on our

Web site, the registrant may notify EPA

that it intends to do so, in lieu of

submitting revised form samples. EPA

could then relieve the registrant of the

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 it becomes

aware that it has duplicated tracking

numbers on any manifests that have

-been used or disfributed to other parties.

The states have emphasized to EPA the

importance of registrants notifying EPA

of even minor duplications of tracking

numbers. Therefore, EPA has included

this requirement to ensure registrants

notify.EPA of such occurrences. Upon

notification of a duplicated number,

EPA will try to determine the location

of the forms in question and contact the

customer to prevent the use of the

forms. If this is not possible, we will

notify the state manifest programs that

the forms are in circulation.

Under § 262.21(1), if, subsequent to

approval of a registrant, EPA becomes

aware that the registrant's approved

form does not satisfactorily meet the

print specifications in paragraph (f) of

this section, EPA will contact the

registrant and require modifications to

the form as needed. As discussed earlier

in this preamble, EPA will request and

evaluate samples of the registrant's

proposed form under § 262.21(e) to

determine Whether it satisfies the print

specifications at § 262.21(f). In the vast

majority of cases, we expect this

evaluation to provide enough

information for EPA to determine

effectively whether the registrant's form,

as designed, will satisfactorily meet all

of the print specifications when

produced by the registrant. In rare 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 of the. limitations

inherent in evaluating samples of a

registrant's forms (e.g., the quality of its

forms may vary significantly from one

batch to the next based on many

factors). If we become aware that the

forms produced and distributed by a

registrant do not satisfactorily meet the

specifications (e.g., based on complaints

from states or waste handlers), we will

contact the registrant to learn more

about the problem and, if needed,

request changes to the form or printing

operation.

Under § 262.21(m), EPA might

suspend and, if necessary, revoke

printing privileges if we find that the

registrant (i) has used or distributed

forms that deviate from its approved

form samples in regdrd to paper weight,

paper type, ink color of the instructions,

or binding method; or (ii) exhibits a

continuing pattern of behavior 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. If the registrant

does not come in compliance by the

specified date, EPA will send a second

letter notifying the registrant that EPA

has suspended or revoked its printing

-privileges. EPA believes suspension or

revocation of printing privileges will be

very rare.

Section 262.21(m) also requires an

approved registrant to provide

information on its printing activities to

EPA, if requested. EPA notes that the

rule does not require registrants to

submit any scheduled reports to the

Agency that would enable us to evaluate

whether they have used or distributed

forms with duplicated tracking

numbers. As an initial matter,

registrants must follow the procedures

of their approved applications to tightly

control their tracking numbers. We

expect these procedures to be effective

in minimizing the potential for

duplication of numbers. Further, in its

communications with states and

commercial printers, EPA has found

that, if a commercial printer identifies a

duplicated number in a batch, it will

address the problem (e.g., by destroying

the manifests containing the error) in

order to maintain a good relationship

with its customers. EPA believes the

same dynamic will occur under the

Registry process. A registrant that is

itself a commercial printer will have 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 a clean 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 will itself be that

printer's customer. In this case, the

printer has a similarly strong incentive

to minimize and detect tracking number

duplications.

Moreover, it is common industry

practice for customers that enter into

contractual arrangements with a printer

to include terms and conditions

controlling against the potential

duplication of numbers (e.g., by using

terms such as "no duplicated numbers")

and requiring reports to the customer of

missing numbers. In fact, a registrant

may choose to incorporate relevant

provisions of its application into its

contract with the printer.

3. Final Manifest Print Specifications.

EPA is publishing 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 of consistency

across registrants' manifests (e.g.,

prescribing that each manifest must

include six copies). Beyond this, the

rule sets forth performance-based

requirements that all manifests must

achieve (e.g., "handwritten and typed

impressions on the form must be legible

on all six copies") and allow each

registrant to design its manifest

accordingly. EPA has chosen this

approach in recognition of commenters'

requests for flexibility -under the

Registry system. In addition, 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 of paper).

Applicants who print 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 of the

manifest, continuation sheet, and

manifest instructions. They will convert

the file into a suitable electronic image

of the forms in their computer system

and create a printing plate. EPA will

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

must be pre-printed in Item 4 of the

form. The tracking number must consist

of a three-letter suffix following nine

digits. Each registrant will need to select

a unique three-letter suffix. If approved

to print the manifest, the registrant will

use this suffix to generate its unique

tracking numbers. EPA will post on our

Web site a list of suffixes that have

previously been approved. A

prospective registrant will need to refer

to the list to identify those that are

already in use and thus unavailable to

new registrants. Manifest tracking

numbers.can be added using one of at

least two methods: crash numbering

(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 of numbering.

However, we believe that crash

numbering will generally result in fewer

numbering errors. Under press

numbering, miscollation of copies

subsequent to the printing process can

occur. This could result in a manifest

that contains one or more copies -whose

tracking number is incorrect. This risk

is not present with crash numbering.

Because of this, EPA strongly

encourages the use of crash numbering

over press numbering. If a registrant

proposes to use press numbering, its

application should describe quality

control measures to ensure proper

collation of manifest copies.

* The form must be printed on 81/2 x

11-inch white paper, excluding common

stubs (e.g., top-or side-bound stubs). The

paper must be 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 six copies and paper

durability.

0 The form, including manifest

tracking number, must be printed in

black ink that can be legibly

photocopied, scanned, and ffaxed,

except that the marginal words

indicating copy distribution must be in

red ink.

e The form must be printed as a sixcopy form. Copy-to-copy registration

must be exact within '/32nd of an inch.

Handwritten and typed impressions on

the form must be legible on all six

copies. Copies must be bound together

by one or more conmon stubs that

reasonably ensure that they will not

become detached inadvertently during

normal use. In our communications

with the states, we learned of their deep

concern that the sixth copy of manifests

is often illegible. This is a concern

because generators may need to

photocopy or fax the sixth copy to

states. If the copy is illegible, this limits

the state's ability to perform its

functions effectively. Because of this,

we require that handwritten and typed

impressions on the form must be legible

on all six copies.

e If the form does not have 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 a black line of the form). To

address this, we require copy-to-copy

registration within 1/32nd of an inch.

This is a standard specification within

the printing industry.

* The copies of each form must be

bound together by one or more common

stubs that reasonably ensure that they

will not become detached inadvertently

during normal use.

e Each copy of the manifest and

continuation sheet must indicate how

that copy must be distributed, as

follows:

Page 1 (top copy): "Designated facility

to destination State (if required)"

-Page 2: "Designated facility to

generator State (if requir6d)"

Page 3: "Designated facility to

generator"

Page 4: "Designated facility copy"

Page 5:-"Transporter copy"

Page 6 (bottom copy): "Generator's

initial copy"

* The instructions in the appendix to

40 CFR part 262 must appear legibly on

the back of the manifest copies as

provided in this paragraph. The

instructions must not be visible through

the front of the 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 of the above requirement

is to ensure that the manifest

instructions are consistently displayed

on the back of the 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 show through the

front of the forms when scanned,

photocopied or faxed. If the paper

weight is too light and/or the ink color

of the instructions is too dark, the

instructions might bleed through the

front of the copies. If the ink color is too

light, it may not be legible to waste

handlers that may be filling out the

manifest in dimly lit situations (e.g.,

inside of a truck). Registrants must

determine the appropriate ink color and

the extent of screening of the ink, if

,needed, to minimize bleed through but

ensure legibility.

The specifications at § 262.21(f) leave

a number of decisions to the

registrants's discretion that should be

further clarified. These include the

following:

Paper type. Registrants may select the

appropriate type of paper to use for their

manifest. As provided at

§ 262.21(d)(2)(i), EPA defines "paper

type" to include the manufacturer of the

paper and grade.of paper. EPA has

found that paper manufacturers

generally provide a range of paper

grades. These grades may be more or

less appropriate for a six-part form. For

example, the highest quality papers are

generally the brightest (whitest), and

hence, handwritten and typed imprints

are generally most legible on them. In

addition, the highest quality carbonless

papers normally contain the highest

amount of coating, which results in a"

more effective transmission of imprint

from copy to copy. EPA believes 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

their forms, unless they seek EPA

approval of the changes under

§ 262.21(h)(3).

In addition, some papers may contain

a range of recycled content. All

commenters on the proposed rule

believed EPA should take the lead on

encouraging the use of recycled paper.

In fact, one commenter recommended

that EPA require registrants to use

recycled paper for manifest forms. EPA

has not taken this recommendation,

which goes beyond the scope of today's

rulemaking. EPA notes, however, that it

has developed guidelines for federal

procurement of recycled-content paper

under section 6002 of RCRA and section

505 of Executive Order 13101. Under

these guidelines, EPA requires

procuring agencies to buy uncoated

printing and'writing grade papers, such

as those used for manifest forms,

containing 30% post-consumer fiber.

The agency urges registrants to consider

for the manifest recycled paper that

meets the specifications at § 262.21(f).

Paper weight. Paper weight has

several implications for the manifest.

Lighter paper is generally thinner, and

therefore, it is easier to make

impressions copy-to-copy. However, if

paper is too light, it is prone to tearing

in normal use (e.g., tearing in an

automatic-feed copier or when

detaching a copy from the manifest).

Registrants must select a paper weight

for each copy of the 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 a number of forms

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

is too fragile and tears easily. Because of

the wide range of paper weights that

result in legible bottom copies of the

manifest, EPA has refrained from

prescribing a paper weight and leaves

this decision to the registrant. However,

EPA believes it is important to hold

registrants to their paper weight

selection, as provided under § 262.21(e),

so that they do not switch paper weights

subsequent to approval of their forms,

unless they seek EPA approval of the

changes under § 262.21(h)(3).

Ink color of the manifest instructions.

As described earlier, the instructions on

the back of the manifest must be light

enough so that they do not: (1) Show

through on the front (e.g., printed in

black ink in 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 must be

legible.

EPA has not prescribed an ink color

or ink darkness. We recognize that the

appropriate ink color and darkness will

depend on, at the least, the paper weight

of each copy. Because we do not

prescribe paper weight, we do not

prescribe ink color or darkness.

However, xve hold registrants to their

ink color, as provided under § 262.21(e),

so that they do not switch ink colors

subsequent to approval of their forms,

unless they seek EPA approval of the

changes under § 262.21(h)(3).

Binding method of manifest copies.

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 for use

with continuous feed printers (such as

impact printers), whereas unit sets are

appropriate for typewriters and manual

completion. Because some users prefer

one type of binding or the other, we

believe it would be too constraining to

require only one type. Therefore, we

leave the binding of the form to

registrant discretion. However, we are

concerned that some registrants might

choose to crimp the sheets together but

not glue them, thereby increasing the

likelihood of the 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 for forms that have few

pages, but could conceivably be tried for

a six-part form. Edge-glued forms are

unacceptable for manifest purposes and

are not allowed because the sheets

become loose when one ply is removed.

Therefore, the rule provides that "copies

must be bound together by one or more

common stubs that reasonably ensure

that they will not become detached

inadvertently during normal use."

Although we do not prescribe a binding

method, we hold registrants to the

binding method of their approved

forms, as provided under § 262.21(e), so

that they do not switch methods

subsequent to EPA approval, unless

they seek EPA approval of the changes

under § 262.21(h)(3).

IV. Rejected Load and Container

Residue Shipments

A.1. Rejected Load and Container

Residue Shipments-Introduction. In

the May 2001 NPRM, we proposed to

improve the tracking of certain

problematic hazardous waste shipments

known as "rejected loads" or "container

residues" by adding data elements to

the manifest form for identifying

rejected-wastes and residues and by

clarifying the manifest requirements and

procedures for tracking these wastes. In

the proposal, we discussed container

residue as "the hazardous waste that

remains in containers such as drums

and in vehicles used for transport (such

as tanker cars or box cars) after most of

the contents of the container have been

removed." These residues may be

difficult to remove "because the 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% of a

hazardous waste in a container less than

or equal to 119 gallons, or more than

0.3% of a hazardous waste in a

container greater than 119 gallons, and

10803

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

that must be managed 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 of restrictions in

the facility's permit or capacity

.limitations A rejected load includes all

shipments a facility rejects, in whole or

in part, whether rejection occurs before

or after the facility has signed the

manifest.

The proposed rule addressed both the

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 of the

rejected load or residue 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 Added Fields to

Discrepancy Item. As part of the new

tracking procedures for rejected waste

and container residues, we proposed to

modify the Discrepancy field (i.e., Item

19 on old manifest) by providing more

explicit tracking specifications for

regulated residues and rejected wastes.

EPA also proposed to provide more

space in the Discrepancy field for the

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 the new manifest form On the 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 for use by the next facility,

if necessary (e.g., if the shipment is

rejected a second time).

EPA also proposed codifying the

proposed changes at 40 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 on the manifest for both waste

receipts and waste rejections. We

emphasized in the proposal that the

facility certification attests to the receipt

of the 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

manifest relating to shipments brought

to a facility for delivery, either to

acknowledge receipt of all the materials

on the manifest, or to acknowledge that

those materials identified in the

discrepancy space (including rejected

wastes and residues) were not received

for management at the facility.

The proposed modifications to the

manifest regulations at 40 CFR 264.72

(265.72 for interim status facilities)

reflect the changes proposed to the

discrepancy space of the manifest form.

The form includes new data fields in the

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 of the term "manifest

discrepancies" would be-broadened to

include not only the significant

differences in waste quantities or types

that are the subject of the current

discrepancy regulation, but also rejected

wastes and regulated container residues:

We proposed to retain previous

requirements for identifying, reconciling

and reporting "significant

discrepancies" at § 264.72(b) and (c),

which would address these as "significant differences" in quantity or

in type of wastes. We also proposed to

codify the new procedure4 for

addressing rejected wastes or regulated

container residues as manifest

discrepancies af new § 264.72(d), (e), (f),

and (g) for permitted facilities, and-in

new § 265.72(d), (e), (f), and.(g) for

interim status facilities. The proposed

fracking procedures for rejected waste

shipment and container residues are

detailed below.

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 for forwarding 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 110 gallons to 119 gallons to be

3 As noted previously in the preamble to today's consistent with the DOT regulations.

rule, the Agency is modifying the definition of bulk

10804

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

4. Proposed §§ 264.72(e),(f) and requirements for 40 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 into transportation, we proposed to

require them to sign the Generator's

Certification field to verify that they are

shipping or offering the wastes in

transportation and would be liable, in

this capacity, for the truth of the "shipper's certification" language

included in the generator's certification

statbment. Since the rejecting facility is

not the RCRA generator of the waste, it

is not bound by the waste minimization

certification language. In the 2001

NPRM, we requested comment on an alternative approach to signing the

generator certification. That is, we took

comment on requiring the rejecting

facility to consult with the generator

about the disposition of the rejected

waste, and then sign the generator's

certification "on behalf of" the initial

generator. This would result in the

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 be bound by the

rejecting facility's signature on the

certification statement. The rejecting

facility signs the certificatioft as the

generator's authorized agent, but would

not be liable for the proper execution of

any pre-transportation acts that it

performed. (Arguably, however, the

rejecting facility would meet the

definition of an "offeror" under DOT's

HMR and would not be 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 a full or partial load or

container residue shipment after it has

signed and returned the original

manifest to the generator. If, after

signing and returning the original

manifest, a facility rejects part or all of

a shipment, or discovers regulated

residues, it must send the generator and

delivering transporter a revised 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. Proposed Changes to § 263.21(b).

We proposed to amend 40 CFR

263.21(b) by adding paragraph (b)(2).

Paragraph (b)(2) distinguishes between

the transporter responsibilities for

wastes characterized as "undeliverable"

due to either emergency, rejection or

container residues. We proposed 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 the generator for further

directions and revise the manifest

according to the generator's

instructions. We did not reconsider,

reopen or request comment on these

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 or operator's

signed and dated certification

identifying the rejection on the

manifest. The transporter also would

need to retain one copy of this manifest,

and give any remaining copies of the

manifest to the rejecting TSDF, who

processes them in accordance with the

new procedures at §§.264.71 and 264.72.

7. Proposed Generator Regulations at

40 CFR 262.34. Furthermore, the '

proposal revised the hazardous waste

generator accumulation provisions at 40

CFR 262.34 by adding paragraph (j).

Paragraph (j) requires hazardous waste

generators to manage a rejected load and

container residue shipment according to

40 CFR 262.34(a) or 262.34(d)

depending on whether the generator

was subject to the 90-day or 180-day

accumulation time provisions 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 or container residue to an

alternate facility, as long as the

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 (or more

than 270 days if the generator must

transport this waste, or offer this waste

for transportation, over a distance of 200

miles or more) to send the rejected

shipment or container residue to an

alternate facility. In the preamble

proposal, we incorrectly explained that

the accumulation time for the returned

shipment is based on the generator's

status at the 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 1000 kg or more on-site

at the time the wasteis sent) or

§ 262.34(d) (for generators with less than

1000kg on-site).

B. 1. Final Tracking Procedures for

Rejected Waste and Residue Shipments.

EPA retained most of the 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 in response 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 manifest in all rejected waste or

residue scenarios; (2) Requiring the

rejecting TSDF to sign the 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

shipment before it forwards the

shipment to an alternate facility or

return the shipment back to the original

generator. Detailed discussions on the

final changes to the manifest

discrepancy provisions are provided

below.

2. Comment Analysis and Final

Provisions for Second Manifest. Several

commenters supported our proposed

tracking procedures for rejected waste

and container residue shipments.

However, several commenters objected

to the requirement that the designated

facility prepare a second manifest in all

rejected waste or residue scenarios

because, in their 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 of hazardous waste; the

original and new manifest cover the

same quantity of waste (or a portion of

it, in the case of residues).

Consequently, states could potentially

tax waste handlers again for the 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 of these commenters

suggested, as an alternative, that waste

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 of new form) so that both the

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 to note and sign the original

-manifest for full load rejections, we

have modified §§ 264.72(e) (permitted

facilities) and 265.72(e) (facilities with

interim status). With today's action, the

rejecting TSDF can use the original

manifest to forward a rejected shipment

or container residue to an alternate

facility or original generator, provided

that the following conditions are met:

(1) The rejecting facility must reject the

full shipment; and (2) The transporter

attempting the delivery must still be at

the facility at the time of the rejection,

in order to continue transporting the

rejected shipment to the alternate

facility. In these 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 of waste 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 (or the

original generator if the shipment is

being returned), and a new signature

space (Item 18c) for the alternate facility

(or the original generator if the shipment

is being returned) to sign and date the

form to indicate the receipt of the

shipment.

Thus, today's action requires the

TSDF to complete a second manifest

only if it rejects a partial load or

container residue shipment, or if it

rejects a full load or container shipment

at a point in time 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 must retain a manifest

copy for its records, send a copy to the

generator, and give the remaining copies

of the manifest to the transporter to

accompany the shipment. The Agency

notes, however, that a manifest copy

may not be available. In these cases, the

facility must photocopy or fax the most

legible copy of the form available to

ensure that the extra manifest copy is

legible.

Also, today's rule modifies our

proposal for manifest 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 or generator who

receives a full load rejection or

container residue shipment. They can

sign the new Item 18c to close out the

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) for permitted facilities or

265.71(a) for interim status facilities that

a facility must sign and date the facility

owner or operator certification on the

manifest for both waste receipts and

waste rejections. Therefore, the alternate

facility (or the original generator if the

shipment is being returned) must sign

and date the manifest to acknowledge

receipt of a shipment in Item 18c, but

must note any discrepancies associated

with that shipment either by hand in the

alternate facility field, if space allows,

or by attaching a separate sheet

explaining the materials covered by the

discrepancy and the reasons for the

discrepancy or efforts to resolve it.

Other commenters suggested that the

rejecting facility should use the original

form for all rejected load and container

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 are consistent with the view

that the rejected waste shipment is'

continuing in transportation. The

generator information, the transporter

information, and description of the

types and quantities of wastes shipped

remains accurate, and only the

information on the destination facility is

being revised. Since the transportation

of the 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 not be required to initiate and

sign a new manifest as the offeror.

When a waste shipment is partially

rejected, on the other hand, only part of

the original shipment is re-introduced

into transportation. These facts require

that the shipping paper (manifest) be

revised to accurately describe the

contents of the re-shipment. In some of

these cases, the materials being reshipped also may require re-packaging,

re-labeling, and re-marking as well. In

any case, we believe that these facts

support the view that there is a new

movement with respect to the partially

rejected waste, and that the rejecting

facility must complete a new manifest

and sign the certification statement to

indicate that the materials are properly

described and are being offered in

proper condition for transportation.

Also, except in the most simple

examples of partially 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 or otherwise

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 of the wastes

being re-shipped, and since we believe

that it is 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 of offeror with respect to the wastes

being re-shipped, we conclude that

these purposes are best served by the

initiation of a new manifest. for all

partial rejections.

Also, when a full load is rejected; but

temporarily staged by the rejecting

facility after the delivering transporter

has left the premises, the original

transportation of the waste shipment

has ended. Therefore, it will require a

new movement of the 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 or weeks might pass

while the materials are staged at the

rejecting facility, it is important that the

rejecting facility certify that the

materials are properly described and in

proper condition for transportation at

the time the new movement begins.

Also, under these facts, the. information on transporters and destination facilities

must be updated to reflect the new arrangements for the rejected shipment.

We conclude that these purposes are

best served again by-requiring a new

manifest to be initiated by the rejecting

facility in all cases where rejected

wastes are temporarily staged at the

facility. In addressing.the issues in this

section, we introduced the idea that a

rejecting TSDF may be offering these

rejected wastes in transportation when

they are re-shipped. The offeror concept

is explained in greater detail in the

following preamble section.

3. Comments Analysis and Final

Generator Certification Block.

Commenters were divided on our

proposal to require the rejecting facility

offering the waste in transportation to

sign the shipper's certification as the

party offering the wastes in

transportation. Generators expressed

strong support for the proposal, and

greatly preferred the proposal to the

alternative under which the rejecting

TSDF would be viewed as signing the

new manifest "on behalf of" or as the

agent of the 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 TSDF to

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 of the shipment in

transportation by signing the :

Generator's Certification in the capacity

as offeror of the shipment.

Several commenters in'the TSDF

sector criticized this approach, arguing

that the rejecting facility would appear

to be assuming full generator liabilities

for the waste by virtue of signing 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 in fact be liable for the

proper performance of all the pretransportation acts, including those

already performed by the initial

generator. In general, these commenters

argued that under the "offeror" •

proposal, the responsibility for properly

packaging and re-shipping the waste

would now appear to fall on the TSDF,

when the generator already may have

selected and filled the container, and

may be more aware than the rejecting

TSDF of the exact nature of the material.

Therefore, these commenters contend

that the rejecting facility cannot really

attest to the packaging and other pretransportation requirements performed

by the generator, and so should not be

held responsible for their performance

when re-shipping rejected wastes.

In general, those TSDF commenters

that criticized the proposed approach

tended to support the alternative

approach requiring TSDFs to sign "on

behalf of" 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

TSDF is initiating the new shipment.

Another trade organization (the

Environmental Technology Coun6il)

that represents TSDFs supported the

offeror proposal, if the form were revised to make it more 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" the generator,

the generators that commented on the

proposed rule submitted strong

comments opposing this alternative.

These commenters in the generator

sector argued that this "on behalf of"

alternative would cause generators to be

liable under DOT regulations for any

pre-transportation. functions performed

improperly by the rejecting facility.

They argued further that the generator

could not possibly supervise from a

distance the proper execution of the pretransportation acts that the rejecting

facility might perform before signing the

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 by renaming it the

"Generator's/Offeror's Certification,!' in.

order-to clarify that either the generator

or an offeror may sign the certification.

The generator's signature certifies to

both the waste minimization and ,

shipper's certification statements, while.

a rejecting facility signing as an offeror

of a shipment certifies only to the .

content of the shipper's certification

language, as it applies to information

the offeror knows or has a reason to

know.

Today's action also clarifies that any

rejecting facility that prepares and signs

a new manifest to re-ship a rejected

waste will be 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"

of the rejected waste, and generally is

not subject to the full hazardous waste

generator requirements under 40 CFR

part 262t

We are finalizing the 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 we believe that it addresses the

rejecting facility's responsibilities for reshipments more appropriately. We agree

with the generator comments to the

effect that rejecting TSDFs should not be

viewed as agents of the generators when

they re-ship rejected wastes and sign the

manifest to initiate a new movement of

the rejected materials. If a shipment, for

example, has been partially received

and partially rejected by a TSDF, it is

fitting that the TSDF rejecting a partial

load be responsible for ensuring that the

portion of the waste to be re-shipped is

properly described on the new manifest,

and that the packages are in good

condition and properly marked and

labeled at the time the rejected waste

again moves in commerce. Also, if the

facility has rejected a full load and

staged it temporarily at its facility

pending new arrangements for reshipment, it is appropriate that the

rejecting facility, when it initiates the

new movement of the shipment by

signing the new manifest, verify that the

shipment is properly described and in

proper condition for transportation at

the time the new movement begins. This

is accomplished when the rejecting

facility signs as offeror of the re-shipped

1"0807

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10807 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

wastes, as the offeror is then certifying

to the proper performance of the pretransportation functions. Moreover, we

believe that this is the result requited

under the applicable requirements of

the HMRs as implemented by DOT for

the transportation of hazardous

materials in commerce. These

hazardous waste shipments are subject

to the HMRs, and as we discussed above

in section II.G.4. of this preambler, DOT

recently has issued a final rule which

clarifies the responsibilities of shippers,

carriers, and other offerors for

performance of the pre-transportation

functions, and the significance of the

offeror's signature in certifying that a

hazmat shipment has been prepared in

accordance with the HMRs. See 68 FR

61906 at 61908-61912 (October 30,

2003). RCRA hazardous waste

transportation requirements must be

implemented consistently with the

HMRs. The HMRs require that facilities

which re-ship rejected wastes (either

partial load rejections or full loads that

have been staged for a'time and then

reintroduced in transportation) to

assume the offeror responsibilities for

the re-shipments, since the re-shipment

of the waste is a new movement. In each

case, there is a new movement of the

hazardous waste, and the shipper's

certifications must be curkent at the time

the new movement of the rejected

wastes begins. On the 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.back to the

generator) by coinpleting the Alternate

Facility item on the revised form, there

is not a new movement of the waste.

Rather, the waste shipment in such a

case remains in transportation, and the

rejecting facility does not need to sign

the Generator's/Offeror's Certification,

as it has not engaged in any pretranportation functions with respect to a

fully and immediately rejected waste

shipment.

Moreover, with respect to the TSDF

comments that objected to the offeror

approach because they would be

responsible for pre-transportation acts

(e.g., selecting, filling, marking

containers) that already were performed

by the original generator, we wish to

provide additional clarification of their

offeror liability under the final rule. In

the October 30, 2003 final rule 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), -while relying 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 the intermediaries liable for errors

made by parties over which they have

no operational control. Instead, DOT

explained that intermediaries who

prepare shipping papers and sign the

shipper's certification assume

responsibility for compliance with the

pre-transportation requirements "for all

aspects of that shipment about which he

knew or should have known." Id. In its

explanation of this issue, DOT stated

that it was proper for the intermediary

preparing a shipping paper to rely upon

the information supplied by the original

shipper, unless it conflicts with other

information he obtains about the

shipment. Id.

Since hazardous waste handlers also

are subject to these HMR provisions, we

believe that this discussion from the

October, 2003 DOT rule addresses fairly

the concerns expressed by RCRA TSDFs

who reject and re-ship wastes. The

TSDF that signs a new manifest as

offeror of a rejected waste shipment is

responsible for performing properly any

of the pre-transportation functions that

it actually" performs (e.g., repackaging

and marking specific containers,

completing the manifest), but the TSDF

may reasonably rely upon the

information supplied and pretransportation functions previously

performed by the original generators or

transporters. If the TSDF knows of an

error, for example, in classifying or

describing a specific waste, or if it

should know that a container is leaking

or is not properly labeled, it must

correct these problems before

reintroducing the rejected wastes into

transportation. However, the TSDF reshipping such wastes is not responsible

for errors made by previous waste'

handlers in their performance of pretransportation functions, if the errors are

such that it can be said that the TSDF

neither knew, nor should have known,

about the errors. We believe that this

policy mitigates any concerns that

TSDFs might have about the unfairness

of their being asked to certify to the

proper performance of the pretransportation functions. The TSDF will

be able to rely upon what has been done

already and supplied by previous

handlers, as long as they do not have a

reason to believe the information

provided by'previous handlers is false.

The rejecting TSDF need not re-perform

all of the 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 in the

HMRs.

4. Comments Analysis and Final

Returned Shipments. In general,

commenters supported our proposals to

allow generators to receive rejectedshipments from the rejecting facility,

and to allow them additional Dn-site

accumulation time to locate an alternate

facility and send the rejected shipment

there. Industry and state commenters

both tended to support the proposed'

rule's clarification that in the case of a

return shipment of rejected waste to a

generator, the generator may be shown

on the manifest as the designated

facility for.the receipt of the returned

waste. However, several state agency

commenters suggested that this policy

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" in 40 CFR 260.10

to clarify explicitly that generators

receiving waste shipments that are being

returned to the generator after a "

rejection by a TSDF are another type of

-designated facility that may be named

on the hazardous waste manifest to -

receive these types of waste shipments.

Other commenters supported

returning the rejected shipment back to

the generator, but did not support

granting the generator another 90 or 180

day accumulation period. These

commenters argued that extra time

would not help 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 to ensure 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 of the waste and would not

lead to a situation where a small

quantity generator could not take back

rejected wastes, because it would

exceed their site accumulation

limitation.

We understand these commenters'

concerns, but believe it is more

appropriate to grant generators the

10808

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10808 2005
Federil 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 a hauler 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. Comment Analysis and Final

Staging of Waste at the Rejecting

Facility. In general, commenters

supported our proposal, but some

expressed concern that the qualitative

term "timely manner" has too broad a

range of interpretation, since the term is

not clearly defined. EPA agrees with

these commenters and has thus revised

§ 264.72(d)(1) to include a default

timeframe of 60 days. Commenters

differed on the length of time 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 if they can not

locate an alternate facility.

After analyzing comments, EPA

believes 60 days is sufficient time for

the rejecting TSDF to consult with the

generator, locate an alternate facility

and forward the shipment or return it to

the generator. While we understand that

there is some precedent for a 90-day

accumulation period for generators

when they initially accumulate their

wastes on-site, we believe that there are

distinguishing features which we

believe support a 60-day limit on staging by a rejecting TSDF. First, there

are very few management controls on

temporary staging of rejected 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

them under its RCRA 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 of arranging the

forwarding or return of temporarily

staged wastes should not raise difficult

issues for the TSDF. Finally, in most

cases, the rejecting TSDF can return the

staged waste to the generator, if it is not

able to find an alternate facility. We

have also revised the regulation 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, but by

regulation or by permit restrict the

staging times to significantly less than

60 days. We acknowledge that a staging

timeframe of less 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 of new waste

profiles, or other unforseen

circumstances may arise that could

require TSDFs to stage a rejected waste

or residue for a number of weeks. In

such instances, a shorter timeframe

would not afford the TSDF adequate

time to reconcile the rejected shipment

or residue. We believe 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 for permitted 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 on EPA form

8700-13B within 15 days after they

have received a waste shipment without

a manifest. Specifically, the proposal

removed the requirement that the TSDF

use EPA form 8700-13B to submit its

unmanifested report, and proposed that

the TSDF submit either a typed,

handwritten or electronic note. The

typed, handwritten or electronic note

must be legible, and must contain the

following information: (a) The EPA ID

Number, name and address of the

facility; (b) The date the facility received

the waste; (c) The EPA ID Number,

name, and address of the generator and

the transporter, if available; (d) A

description and the quantity of each

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 brief explanation of why the

waste was unmanifested, if known.

We explained in the proposal that the

unmanifested requirements the Agency

announced in the 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 for biennial

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 still required 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 or raisedsuggestions on the proposed procedures

for unmanifested wastes reports. A

number of commenters suggested that

EPA revise the manifest so that an

unmanifested report could be Punsubmitted" using a manifest (e.g.,

using a check box). While we appreciate

this suggestion, EPA does not believe

that it is a workable option. Ono

commenter expressed concern that the

proposed procedures did not offer'a

standard reporting approach, which

could lead to data quality problems. The

commenter suggested that TSDFs

provide a report 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 in the States

A. Uniform Applicability of Revised

Manifest Requirements in All States. In,

I

10809

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10809 2005
Federal: Register/V61 70,)No. 42f/Friday:iMaich 4,.c,2005:/Rirlbs" and3 $dgilations

the May, 2001 proposedruld;EPA

explained how the revised manifest

requirements would apply in authorized

states, in the context of the statutory and

regulatory authorities that govern

generally the authorization of state

hazardous waste programs for revisi6ns

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. As we

explained when we issued the Uniform

Manifest Rule in March, 1984, the joint

RCRA/hazmat basis for the manifest

gives rise to unique implementation

consequences.

The most significant consequence of

the joint RCRA/Hazmat authority for the

manifest is that the revised manifest

requirements announced in today's rule

will be implemented in all states on the

delayed compliance date of September

5, 2006. This result follows from the

hazardous materials laws that require

consistency in the use of hazardous

materials shipping papers such as the

manifest. Just as we indicated with

respect to the applicability of the

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 of the manifest system. Therefore,

based again on the requirements in

Hazmat law foi consistency in the

content and use of shipping papers, the

revised manifest form and procedures

announced in today's final rule will be

implemented uniformly on September

5, 2006, regardless of any state's

authorization status under RCRA. This

means-that, with one minor exception

(the changes to the waste minimization

certification requirements discussed

below), implementation and

enforcement of the revised manifest in

authorized states will be based 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 of this section

discusses the state authorization

implications for today's revised

manifest requirements. While the

revised manifest will be implemented in

all states under the hazardous materials

authorities on the delayed compliance

date, the revised manifest requirements

will be 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 for these

manifest program revisions.

B. General Policy on RCRA

Applicability of Federal Rules, in

Authorized States, Under Section 3006

of RCRA, EPA.hay,aiithbrike qualified.

states to administer the RCRA .

hazardous waste program within the

State. Following authorization, the State

requirements authorized by EPA apply

in lieu of the equivalent Federal RCRA

requirements and become Federally

enforceable as requirements of RCRA.

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 CFR Part 271. See 40

CFR 271 for the 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 of new 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 in the Federal

program. See also 40 CFR 271.1(i).

Therefore, authorized States are

generally not required to adopt Federal

regulations, both HSWA and nonHSWA, 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 which require

all states to maintain consistency with

the Federal manifest, regardless of

whether any Federal changes could be

considered more stringent or less

stringent than existing requirements.

C. AuthoriZation of States for Today's

Final Rule. Except- for one provision, we

are promulgating today's final rule

mainly under~honr.HSWA statutory

authority. -The section of today'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 out in fullion the face of the

manifest form itself. Therefore, we are

adding this section of the rule to Table

1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which identifies all

the Federal program requirements that

are promulgated pursuant to the

statutory authority that was addedby

HSWA. States may apply for final

authorization for the HSWA provisions

in Table 1, as discussed in the following

section of this preamble.

EPA emphasizes that this rule's

codification of the full waste

minimization certification in § 262.27 is

intended only for convenience, and is

not intended 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,

but which the revised form incorporates

by reference 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 of the

actual language now appears in the

regulation rather than on the form.

Because Congress established the

waste minimization certification

requirement in the 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 of 40 CFR 271.1(j).

Therefore, since § 262.27 is the only

component of today's final rule that is

based on HSWA authority, we are

clarifying that only this provision will

be implemented as a HSWA

requirement. The impact of the HSWA

designation is that the waste

minimization requirements appearing in

§ 262.27 will be 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 for the waste

minimization certification will continue

to be in effect under Federal law, even

if a 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 provision being designated a

HSWA-based requirement.

All the other parts of today's final rule

are based on'pre-HSWA authority, so

they will be implemented under RCRA

authority in authorized States only

when these states revise their programs

and receive authorization for the final

rule requirements. For users of the

manifest, the reliance on pre-HSWA

authority for most of the content of

today's rule is largely a moot point,

since the new form and requirements

will be implemented in all states on the

delayed compliance date (i.e., 18

months after publication) based on Federal hazardous materials law. To

regulatory agencies, the point is

significant, since it means that the new

manifest requirements cannot be

implemented-and thus enforced under

RCRA authority until the states have

received authorization for the necessary

revisions to their authorized hazardous

waste programs.

D. Consistency Requires Adoption of

Revised Manifest in All States. Under

today's rule, authorized States will be

required to adopt the revised Uniform

Manifest form and requirements. To

obtain and maintain authorization,

States and territories are required 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 Federal requirements, as long as

they are equivalent to or more stringent,

section 3006(b) also requires States to

have regulations that are consistent with

the federal regulations. The

requirements of this statutory provision

are codified in 40 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 of implementing

the RCRA program that a proliferation 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 trying to 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 of the Uniform

Manifest would be required from

authorized States, and that, with the

exception of the limited State

information that was allowed then in

the optional fields, authorized States

could not require any other manifest or

information to accompany a waste

shipment. Id. Based on nearly 20 years

of experience with the Uniform

Manifest, EPA has concluded that

variability in the current manifest

system must be reduced further, since

the current level of variability 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 of the revised manifest

form and requirements as set out in

today's final rule.

Under 40 CFR 271.4(c) and 271.10(f)

and (h), in order to be consistent with

the federal -program, and receive

approval from EPA, States must have a

manifest system that includes a manifest

format that follows the Federal format

required in 40 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 are form revisions that

would eliminate all optional fields and

establish a new procedure for obtaining

a standard manifest form from registered

printers or distributors. The new,

standard manifest format and the

corresponding federal printing

specification will not provide areas of

potential variability for users and states.

The final rule 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 of statespecific waste codes that are not

redundant with federal codes, and the

authority to require the submission of

manifest copies to state offices for use

in their data systems.

Because the revised -uniform manifest

is (except for § 262.27 as explained

above) being promulgated pursuant to

non-HSWA authority, it will not become

.effective as a RCRA requirement in

authorized States until those States

revise their programs and receive

authorization.

EPA has involved the authorized

States, as co-implementers of the RCRA

program, in the development of today's

rule. We believe that there is general

support among the States fdr these

manifest revisions that will result in a

truly standardized manifest form. EPA

also believes that the States will

generally be able to revise their RCRA

programs to include the revised

manifest within the final rule'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 of the federal hazardous

materials laws. Thus, any delays at the

state level in adopting state program

revisions will not impair the ability of

users to obtain the benefits of the new

form, nor impede the accomplishment

of a truly standardized manifest form.

VH. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order No. 12866 (58

FR 51735, October 4, 1993), Federal

agencies must determine whether a -regulatory action is "significant" and

therefore subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines a "significant

regulatory action" agone that is likely

to result in a rule that may: "(1) Have

an annual effect on the eponomy of $100

million or more or adversely affect, in

a material way, the economy, a sector of

the-economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, focal, or tribal

governments or communities; (2) create

serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned, by another.agency; (3)

materially alter the 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 of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive.

Order."

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, we determined that this.

rule is a "significant regulatory action"

because it contains novel policy issues,

although it is not economically

significant. As such, this action was

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for review. Changes

-made in response to OMB suggestions or

recommendations are documented in

the docket for today's rule.

In order to estimate the anticipated

economic effects of today's final rule,

we conducted an evaluation of the

potential effects of this rule on

hazardous waste handlers and on State

government regulatory agencies:

"Economics Background Document:

Economic Analysis of the 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 Solid Waste, 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 in the United States generate,

transport or manage (i.e. treat, recycle,

store, dispose) RCRA hazardous waste.

About 12 million tons of hazardous

waste (non-wastewaters and

wastewaters) per year are manifested for

shipment (i.e. transport by truck, 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 annually to

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) per year in baseline 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

paperwork burden reduction benefits

associated with a reduction of 249,000

to 397,000 annual burden hours. This

representsa 4% to 5% burden hour

reduction compared to the national

burden hour baseline of 4.6 to 9.7

million hours as estimated in the

"Economics Background Document"

(EBD). In comparison to these burden

estimates, the next section presents an

alternative estimate of baseline

paperwork burden and expected burden

reduction for today's final rule, based on

OMB's "Information Collection

Request" (ICR) paperwork burden

estimation method. The ICR burden

estimation method purposedly excludes

manifest burden to Federal facilities and

excludes manifest burden for state-only

regulated hazardous wastes, whereas the

burden estimates of the EBD include

manifest burden to both Federal

facilities and non-Federal facilities, as

well as paperwork burden associated

with manifesting both RCRA-regulated

and state-only regulated hazardous

wastes. Consequently, the burden hour

estimates in the next section are less

than the estimates presented above in

this section.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

fequirements in this rule have been

submitted for approval to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)'under

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. 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 for this final rule (available

from the EPA Docket at http://

www.epa.gov/edocket), EPA expects

today's final rule revisions to the RCRA

manifest form to produce an average

annual net reduction of 375,000 hours

in paperwork burden to RCRA -

hazardous waste handlers and to state

governments. This expected burden

reduction represents a 12% reduction in

annual burden hours compared to the

ICR baseline burden of 3.2 million hours

per year (note that this baseline burden

estimate is less than the baseline

estimate of the "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, and does

not include the EBD's alternative upperbound estimate of annual manife ts).

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal Agency. This includes the time

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; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to

respond to a collection of information;

search data sources; complete and

review the collection of information;

and transmit or otherwise disclose the

information.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond tb a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB -control

numbers for EPA's regulations in 40

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When

this ICR is approved by OMB, the

Agency will publish a technical

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the

Federal Register to display the OMB

control number for the approved

information collection requirements

contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,

generally requires an agency to prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements under the

Administrative Procedure Act or any

other statute, uriless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions.

For purposes df assessing the impacts

of today's rule on small entities, small

entity is defined as: (1) A small business

that is defined by the Small Business

Administration by category of business

using North America: Industrial

Classification System (NAICS) and

codified at 13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small

governmental jurisdiction that is a

government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a

population of less than 50,000; and (3)

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated arid is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of today's final rule on small

entities, I certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

In determining whether a rule has a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities, the

impact of concern is any significant -

adverse economic 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 of the rule

on small entities." 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities if the rule relieves regulatory

burden, or otherwise has a positive

economic effect on all of the small

entities subject to the rule.

Today's final rule includes both

regulatory and deregulatory features.

However, the net effect of these changes

should reduce, not increase, the

paperwork and related burdens of the

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 of acquiring,

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. Unfunded Mandates Reform 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

their regulatory actions on State; local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the 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 to the 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 if the Administrator

publishes with the final rule an

explanation why that alternative was

not adopted. Before promulgating a rule

for which a written statement is needed,

section 205 of the UMRA requires

Federal agencies to identify and

consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives and adopt the

least costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objectives of the rule. The

provisions of section 205 do not apply

when they 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 must have developed,

under section 203 of the UMRA, a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials to have meaningful and timely

input in the development of regulatory

proposals, and informing, educating and

advising small governments on

compliance with the regulatory

requirements.

This final rule does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

expenditures of $100 million or more 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

final rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of

UMRA. Furthermore, public data

sources we reviewed in 2003 indicate

that 12 state governments (AR, CA, CT,

DE, IL, LA, MD, MI, MO, NH, NJ, PA)

collect reVenues from direct assessment

of fees during distributiQn of stateprinted RCRA manifests, totaling an

estimated $1.16 to $2.44 million per

year (see "Economics Background

Document" for basis of this estimate).

However, more recently 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 direct fee assessment

mechanism in these 7 to 12 states. In

cases where states lose revenue as a

result of this rule, they may reconfigure

their hazardous waste manifest fee

assessments to maintain these existing

annual revenues such as by charging

fees to process collected manifests, or by

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 this final rule would have a

significant or unique effect on small

governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: 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 in the

development of regulatory 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,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government." This final rule

does not have federalism implications.

It would not have substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as

specified in Executive Order 13132.

The final rule would alter the

information that a State may require a

generator or transporter to submit on the

Uniform Manifest, and it would also

alter the States' current role in

distributing manifests. However, these

changes represent relatively minor

adjustments to the current manifest

system, and they do not alter

substantially the relationship between

the Federal government and the States,

or the distribution of power and

•respongibilities among the various

levels of government. The manifest

would remain a tracking document and

shipping paper that is primarily based

on Federal requirements found in RCRA

and in the 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 rule does not

impose substantial direct costs on States

and localities. Although States with

manifest data tracking programs may

incur some start-up costs in converting

their tracking systems to accept the

revised paper manifest, the' final rule

does not mandate that States collect

manifests, as a part of their programs.

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does notapply to this final rule.

Although Section Six of Executive

Order 13132 does.not apply to this rule,

EPA consulted substantially with

representatives of State government in

developing this rule prior to

finalization. The Agency invited State

representatives to participate in two

public meetings during which we

presented our rulemaking objectives and

strategies, and solicited comments and

concerns. EPA conducted these public

meetings on December 10-11, 1997, and

on January 7-8, 1998. Representatives of

23 States and Territories participated in

these meetings. In addition, State

representatives were invited to

participate in the meetings of the EPA

work group 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 final rules.

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 of the

concerns raised during consultations

with the States, and EPA's response to

those concerns, is provided elsewhere

in this preamble, as well as in our

"Response to Comments" document

(available to the public from the EPA

Docket).

10813

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

F. Executive Order.13175: Consultation

With Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled

"Consultationand Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure "meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications."

This final rule does not have tribal

implications, as specified in Executive

Order 13175. It does not impose any

new requirements on tribal officials nor

does it impose substantial direct

compliance costs on them. This rule

does not create a mandate for tribal

governments, nor does it impose any

enforceable duties on these entities.

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not

apply to this rule.

*G. Executive Order 13045:'Protection of

Children-Applicability of Executive

Order 13045

The Executive Order 13045, entitled

"Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)

applies to any rule that EPA determines

(1) to be "economically significant" as

defined under Executive Order 12866,

and (2) concerns an environmental

health or safety risk that EPA has reason

to believe may have a disproportionate

effect on children. If the regulatory

action meets both criteria, the Agency

must evaluate the environmental health

or safety effects of the planned rule on

children, and explain why the planned

regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably

feasible alternatives considered'

This final rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 because it is not

an economically significant regulatory

action as defined by Executive Order

12866.In addition, the Agency does not

have reason to believe the

environmental health or 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 protect human health

and the environment during the

transportation of hazardous waste by

providing information about the waste

to persons handling the waste and to

emergency response personnel.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

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 it is not likely to have

a significant adverse effect on the

supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law No.

104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to 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

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards. This

final rule does not involve technical

standards. Therefore, EPA is not

considering the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

.Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A Major 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 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule

will be effective September 6, 2005.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 260

Environmental protection, Exports,

Hazardous materials transportation,

Hazardous waste, Imports, Labeling,

Packaging and containers, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Recycling, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 262

Environmental protection, Exports,

Hazardous materials transportation,

Hazardous waste, Imports, Labeling,

Packaging and containers, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 263

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 CFR Part 265

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Packaging and containers,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR Part.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,

Acting Administrator.

m For the reasons stated in the preamble,

title 40, chapter 1 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 260-HAZARDOUS WASTE

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

m 1. The authority citation for part 260

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 is amended by

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 facility means: (1) A hazardous waste treatment,

storage, or disposal facility which:

(i) Has received a permit (or interim

status) in accordance with the

10814

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10814 2005
FederaLRegister /Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005i/Rules and.,Regulations

requirements of parts 270-and 124.'of

this chapter;

(ii) Has received a periiiit (or interim

status) from a State authorized in

accordance with part 271 of this

chapter; or

(iii) Is regulated under § 261.6(c)(2) or

subpart F of part 266 of.this chapter;

and

(iv) That has been designated on the

manifest by the generaior. pursuant to

§ 262.20.

(2) Designated facility also 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) of this chapter.

(3) If a waste is destined to a facility

in an authorized State which has not yet

obtained authorization to regulate that

particular waste as hazardous, then the

designated facility must be a facility

allowed by the receiving State to accept

such waste.

Manifest means: The shipping

document EPA Form 8700-22

(including, if necessary, EPA Form

8700-22A), originated and signed by the

generator or offeror in accordance with

the instructions in the appendix to 40

" CFR part 262 and the applicable

requirements of 40 CFR parts 262

through 265.

Manifest tracking number means: The

alphanumeric identification number

(i.e., a unique three letter suffix

preceded by nine numerical digits),

which is pre-printed in Item 4 of the

Manifest by a registered source.

PART 261-IDENTIFICATION AND

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

E 31 The authority citation for part 261

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,

6922, 6924(y) and 6938.

Subpart A-General

* 4. Section 261.7 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(1)(iii) to read as

follows:

§261.7 Residues of hazardous waste in

empty containers.

(b)(1) * * *

(iii)(A) No more than 3 percent by

weight of the total capacity of the

container remains in the container or inner liner if the container is less than

or equal to 119 gallons in size; or

(B) No more than 0,3 p ercent by

weight of the total capacity of the

container remains in the container or

inner, liner if the container is greater'

than 119 gallons in size.

PART 262-STANDARDS APPLICABLE

TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS

WASTE

a 5. The authority citation for part 262

continues t o read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922-

6925, 6937, and 6938.

Subpart B-The Manifest

* 6. Section 262.20 (a) is revised to read

as follows:

§262.20 General requirements.

(a)(1) A generator who transports, or

offers for transport a hazardous waste

for offsite treatment, storage, or

disposal, or a treatment, storage, and

disposal facility who offers for transport

a rejected hazardous waste load, must

prepare a Manifest (OMB Control

number 2050-0039) on EPA Form 8700-

22, and, if necessary, EPA Form 8700-

22A, according to the instructions

included in the appendix to this part.

(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 part 262, shall not apply

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 part 262, contained in the

40 CFR, parts 260 to 265, edition revised

as of July 1, 2004, shall be 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) A registrant may not print, or have printed, the manifest for use or

distribution unless it has received

approval from the EPA Director of the

Office of Solid Waste to do so under

paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section.

(2) The approved registrant is

responsible for ensuring that the

organizations identified in its

application are in compliance with the

procedures of its approved application.

and the requirements of this section.

The registrant is responsible for

assigning manifest tracking numbers to

its manifests.

(b) A registrant must submit an initial

application to the EPA Director of the

Office of Solid Waste that contains the

following information:

(1) Name and mailing address of

registrant;

(2) Name, telephone number and

email address of contact person;

(3) Brief description of registrant's

governmentor business activity;

(4) EPA identification number of the

registrant, if applicable;

(5) Description of the scope of the

operations that the registrant plans to

undertake in printing, distributing, and'

using its manifests, including:

(i) A description of the printing

operation. The description should

include an explanation of whether 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 printing company and

discuss how the registrant will oversee

the company. If this includes the use of

intermediaries (e.g., prime and

subcontractor relationshios), the role of

each must be discussed. The application

must provide the name and mailing

address of each company. It also must

provide the name and telephone

number of the contact person at eadh

company.

(ii) A description of how the registrant

will ensure that its organization and

unaffiliated companies, if any, comply

with the requirements of this section.

The application must discuss how the

registrant will ensure that a unique

manifest tracking number will be preprinted on each manifest. The

application must describe the internalcontrol procedures to be followed by the

registrant.and unaffiliated companies to .ensure that 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 will be used to 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 all required

print specifications are consistently

achieved and that printing violations are

identified and corrected at the earliest

practicable time.

(iii) An indicatiQn of whether the

registrant intends to use the manifests

for its own business operations or to

distribute the manifests to a separate

company or to 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) A brief description of the

qualifications of the 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 of ISO certification), 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. If the

registrant is approved to print the

manifest, the registrant must use this

suffix to pre-print a unique manifest

tracking number on each manifest.

(8) A signed certification by a duly

authorized employee of the registrant

that the organizations and companies in

its application will comply with the

procedures of its approved application

and the requirements of this Section and

that it will notify the EPA Director of

the Office of Solid Waste of any

duplicated manifest tracking numbers

on manifests that have been used or

distributed to other parties as soon as

this becomes known.

(c) EPA will review the application

submitted under paragraph (b) of this

section and either approve it or request

additional information or modification

before approving it.

(d)(1) Upon EPA approval of the

application under paragraph (c) of this

section, EPA will provide the registrant

an electronic file of the manifest,

continuation sheet, and manifest

instructions and ask the registrant to

submit three fully assembled manifests

and continuation sheet samples, except

as noted in paragraph (d)(3) of this

section. The registrant's samples must

meet all of the specifications in

paragraph (f) of this section and be

printed by the company that will print

the manifest as identified in the

application approved under paragraph

(c) of this section.

(2) The registrant must submit a

description of the manifest samples as

follows:

(i) Paper type (i.e., manufacturer and

grade of the manifest paper);

(ii) Paper weight of each copy;

(iii) Ink color of the manifest's

instructions. If screening of the ink was

used, the registrant must indicate the

extent of the screening; and

(iv) Method of binding the copies.

(3) The registrant need not submit

samples of the continuation sheet if it

will print its continuation sheet using

the same paper type, paper weight of

each copy, ink color of the instructions,

and binding method as its manifest form

samples.

(e)EPA will evaluate the forms and

either approve the registrant to print

them as proposed or request additional

information or modification to them

before approval. EPA will notify the

registrant of its 'decision by mail. 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) of this section and

the manifest specifications in paragraph

(f) of this section. It also must print the

forms according to the paper type, paper

weight, ink color of the manifest

instructions and binding method of its

approved forms.

(f) Paper manifests and continuation

sheets must be printed according to the

following specifications:

(1) The manifest and continuation

sheet must be 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

must be pre-printed in Item 4 of the

manifest. The tracking number must

consist of a unique three-letter suffix

following nine digits.

(3) The manifest and continuation

sheet must be printed on 81/2 x 11-inch

white paper, excluding common stubs

(e.g., top- or side-bound stubs)..The

paper must be durable enough to

withstand normal use.

(4) The manifest and continuation

sheet must be printed in black ink that

can be legibly photocopied, scanned,

and faxed, except that the marginal

words indicating copy distribution must

be in red ink.

(5) The manifest ahd continuation

sheet must be printed as six-copy forms.

Copy-to-copy registration must be exact

within 1/32nd of an inch. Handwritten

and typed impressions on the form must

be legible on all six copies. Copies must

be bound together by one or more

common stubs that reasonably ensure

that they will not become detached

inadvertently during normal use.

(6) Each copy of the manifest and

continuation sheet must indicate how

the copy must be distributed, as follows:

(i) Page 1 (top copy): "Designated

facility to destination State (if

required)".

(ii) Page 2: "Designated facility to

generator State (if required)".

(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 CFR part 262 must appear legibly

on the back of the copies of the manifest

and continuation sheet as provided in

this paragraph (f). The instructions must

not be visible through the front of the

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 for Treatment,

Storage, and Disposal Facilities" 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 of the printed form has received

approval from EPA to print the manifest

under paragraphs (c) and (e) of this

section.'A registered source may be a:

(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 of hazardous waste for

transportation.

(2) A generator must determine

whether the generator state or the

consignment state for a shipment

regulates any additional wastes (beyond

those regulated Federally) as hazardous

wastes under these states' authorized

programs. Generators also must

determine whether the consignment

state or generator state requires the

generator to submit any copies of the

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 of the manifest to these

states.

(h)(1) If an approved registrant would

like to update any of the information

provided in its application approved

under paragraph (c) of this section (e.g.,

to update a company phone number or

name of contact person), the registrant

must revise the application and submit

it to the EPA Director of the Office of

Solid Waste, along with an indication or

explanation of the 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. If the 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) If the registrant would like a new

tracking number suffix, the registrant

must submit a proposed suffix to the

EPA Director of the Office of Solid

Waste, along with the reason for

requesting it. The Agency will either

approve the suffix or deny the suffix

and provide an explanation why it is

not acceptable.

(3) If a registrant would like to change

the paper type, paper weight, ink color

of the manifest instructions, or binding

method of its manifest or continuation

sheet subsequent to approval under

paragraph (e) of this section, theA the

registrant must submit three samples of

the revised form for EPA review and

approval. If the approved registrant

would like to use a new printer, the

registrant must submit three manifest

samples printed by the new printer,

along with a brief description of the

printer's qualifications to print the

manifest. EPA will evaluate the

manifests and either approve the

registrant to print the forms as proposed

or request additional information or

modification to them before approval.

EPA will notify the registrant of its

decision by mail. The registrant cannot

use or distribute its revised forms until

EPA approves them.

i) If, subsequent to its approval under

paragraph (e) of this section, a registrant

typesets its manifest or continuation

sheet instead of using the electronic. file

of the forms provided by EPA, it must

submit three samples of the manifest or

continuation sheet to-the registry for

approval. EPA will evaluate the

manifests or continuation sheets and

either approve the registrant to print

them as proposed or request additional

information or modification to them

before approval.'EPA will notify the

registrant of its 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

under paragraph (d) or (h)(3) of this

section if the Agency is persuaded that

a separate review of the 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 of the

instructions and binding method of the

form samples approved for some other

registrant). A registrant may request 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 of a

registrant under paragraph (e) of this

section, EPA becomes aware that the

approved paper type, paper weight, ink

color of the instructions, or binding

method of the 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 or distributed forms that

deviate from its approved form samples

in regard to paper weight, paper type,

ink color of the instructions, or binding

method; or

(ii) Exhibits a continuing pattern of

behavior in using or distributing

manifests that contain duplicate

manifest tracking numbers.

(2) EPA will send a warning letter to

the registrant that specifies the date by

which it must come into compliance

with the requirements. If the registrant

does not come in compliance by the

specified date, EPA will send a second

letter notifying the registrant that EPA

has suspended or revoked its printing

privileges. An approved registrant must

provide information on its printing

activities to EPA if requested.

Subpart B-[Amended]

* 8. Subpart B is amended by adding

new § 262.27 to read as follows:

§262.27 Waste minimization certification.

A generator who initiates a shipment

of hazardous waste must certify to one

of the following statements in Item 15

of the uniform hazardous waste

manifest:

(a) "I am a large quantity generator. I

have a program in place to reduce the

volume and toxicity of waste generated

to the degree I have determined to be

economically practicable and I have

selected the practicable method of

treatment, storage, or disposal currently

available to me Which minimizes the

present and future threat to human

health and the environment;" or

(b) "I am a small quantity generator.

I have made a good faith effort to

minimize my waste generation and

select the best waste management

method that is available to me and that

I can afford."

Subpart C-Pre-Transport

Requirements

9. Section 262.32 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§262.32 Marking.

(b) Before transporting hazardous

waste or offering 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 of 49

CFR 172.304:

HAZARDOUS WASTE-Federal Law

Prohibits Improper Disposal. If found,

cfntact the nearest police or public safety

authority or the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

Generator's Name and Address

Generator's EPA Identification Number "*

Manifest Tracking Number

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, a generator must

placard or offer the initial transporter

the appropriate placards according to

Department of Transportation

regulations for hazardous materials

under 49 CFR part 172, subpart F. If

placards are not required, a generator

must mark each motor vehicle according

to 49 CFR 171.3(b)(1).

* 11. Section 262.34 is amended by

adding new paragraph (m) to read as

follows:

§262.34 Accumulation time.

(m) A generator who sends a

shipment of hazardous waste to a

designated facility with the

understanding that the designated

facility can accept and manage the

waste and later receives that shipment

back as a rejected load or residue in

accordance with the manifest

discrepancy provisions of § 264.72 or

§ 265.72 of this 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 of hazardous waste on-site in

that calendar month. Upon receipt of

the returned shipment, the generator

must:

(1) Sign Item 18c of the manifest, if

the transporter returned the shipment

using the original manifest; or (2) Sign Item 20 of the manifest, if the

transporter returned the shipment using

a new manifest. , 1 1 .. ,

10817

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10817 2005
Federal Register/-V61., 70,'No.. 42/.Friday,:MatrCh 4, 2005 /Rules and Regtilations

Subpart E-Exports'of HazarddUs

Waste

m 12. 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 of manifests (e.g., states, waste

handlers, and/or commercial forms

printers).

Subpart F-Imports of Hazardous

Waste

* 13. Section 262.60 is amended by

revising paragraph (c) and by adding

paragraphs (d) and (e) to read.as follows

§262.60 Imports of hazardous waste.

(c) A person who imports hazardous

waste may obtain the manifest form

from any source that is registered with

the U.S. EPA as a supplier of manifests

(e.g., states, waste handlers, and/or

commercial forms printers).

(d) In the International Shipments

block, the i~mporter must check the

import bok and enter the point of entry

(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) of this chapter.

* 14. The Appendix to Part 262 is

revised to read as follows:

Appendix to Part 262-Uniform

Hazardous Waste Manifest and

Instructions (EPA Forms 8700-22 and

8700-22A and Their Instructions)

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 be used-press

down hard.

2. Federal regulations require generators

and transporters of hazardous waste and owners or operators of hazardous 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,

M anifest 8700-22 . - I 1 = r

The following statement must be included

with each Uniform Hazardous Waste

Manifest, either on the form, in the

instructions to the form, or accompanying the

form:

Public reporting burden for this collection

of information is estimated to average: 30

minutes for generators, 10 minutes for

transporters, and 25 minutes for owners or

operators of treatment, 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 of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

I. Instructions for Generators

Item 1. Generator's U.S. EPA Identification

Number

Enter the generator's U.S. EPA twelve digit

identification number, or the State generator identification number if the generator site

does not have an EPA identification number.

Item 2. Page 1 of_

Enter the total number of pages used to

complete this Manifest (i.e., the first page

(EPA Form 8700-22) plus the number of

Continuation Sheets (EPA Form 8700-22A),

if any).

Item 3. Emergency Response Phone Number

Enter a phone number for which

emergency response information can be

obtained in the event of an incident during

transportation. The embrgency response

phone number must:

1. Be the number of the generator or the

number of an agency or organization who is

capable of and 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 of the hazardous waste being

shipped and has comprehensive emergency

response and spill cleanup/incident

mitigation information for the material being

shipped or has immediate access to a person

who has that knowledge and information

about the shipment.

Note: Emergency Response phone number

information should only be entered in Item

3 when 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 in Item 9b.

Item 4. Manifest Tracking Number

This unique tracking number must be preprinted on the manifest by the forms printer.

Item 5. Generator's Mailing Address, Phone

Number and Site Address

Enter the name of the generator, the

mailing address to which the completed

manifest signed by the designated facility

should be mailed, and the generator's

telephone number. Note, the telephone

number (including area code) should be the

number where the generator or his

authorized agent may be reached to provide

instructions in the event of an emergency or

if the designated and/or alternate (if any)

facility rejects some or all of the shipment.

Also enter the physical site address from

which the shipment briginates only if this

address is different than the mailing address.

Item 6. Transporter I Company Name, and

U.S. EPA ID Number

Enter the company name and U.S. EPA ID

number of the first transporter who will

transport the waste. Vehicle or driver

information may not be entered here.

Item 7. Transporter 2 Company Name and

U.S. EPA ID Number

If applicable, ent6r the company name and

U.S. EPA ID number of the second

transporter who will transport the waste.

Vehicle or driver information may not be

entered here.

If more than two transporters are needed,

use a Continuation Sheet(s) (EPA Form 8700-

22A).

Item 8. Designated Facility Name, Site

Address, and U.S. EPA ID Number

Enter the company name and site address

of the facility designated to receive the waste

listed on this manifest. Also enter the

facility's phone number and the U.S. EPA

twelve digit identification number of the

facility.

Item 9. U.S. DOT Description (Including

Proper Shipping Name, Hazard Class or

Division, Identification Number, and Packing

. Group)

Item 9a. If the wastes identified in Item 9b

consist of both hazardous and nonhazardous

materials, then identify the hazardous

materials by entering an "X" in this Item next

to the corresponding hazardous material

identified in Item 9b.

Item 9b. Enter the U.S. DOT Proper

Shipping Name, Hazard Class or Division,

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: If additional space is needed for

waste descriptions, enter these additional

descriptions in Item 27 on the Continuation

Sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A). Also, if more

than one Emergency Response phone number

applies to the various wastes described in

either Item 9b or Item 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 (Number and Type)

Enter the number of containers for each

waste and the appropriate abbreviation from

Table I (below) for the type of container.

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-off s).

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 (tank trucks).

Item 11. Total Quantity

Enter, in designated boxes, the total

quantity of waste. Round partial units to the

nearest whole unit, and do not enter

decimals or fractions. To the extent practical,

report quantities using appropriate units of

measure that wvill allow you to report

quantities with precision. Waste quantities

entered should be based on actual

measurements or reasonably accurate

estimates of actual quantities shipped.

Container capacities are not acceptable as

estimates. -

Item 12. Units of Measure (Weight/Volume)

Enter, in designated boxes, the appropriate

abbreviation from Table II (below) for the

unit of measure.

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. Waste Codes

Enter up to six federal and state waste

codes to describe each waste streamidentified in Item 9b. State waste codes that

are not redundant with federal codes must be

entered here, in addition to the federal waste

codes which are most representative of the

properties of the waste.

Item 14. Special Handling Instructions and

Additional Information.

1. Generators may enter any special

handling or shipment-specific information

necessary for the proper management or

tracking of the materials under the

generator's or other handler's business

processes, such as waste profile numbers,

container codes, bar codes, or response 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 of wastes.

identified with volume units in Item 12.

2. This space may be used to record limited

types of federally required information for

which there is no specific space provided on'

the manifest, including any alternate facility

designations; the manifest tracking number of

the original manifest for rejected wastes and

residues that are re-shipped under a second

manifest; and the specification of PCB waste

descriptions and PCB out-of-jervice dates

required under 40 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's Certifications

1. The generator must read, 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) of RCRA 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 of the

shipper's certification statement is as follows:

I hereby declare that the contents of this

consignment are fully and accurately

described above by proper shipping name

and are classified, packed, marked, and

labeled, and are in all respects in proper

condition for transport by highway according

to applicable international and national

governmental regulations. When a party

other than the generator prepares the

shipment for transporta*tion, this party 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

signature block or may hand write this

statement in the signature block prior to

signing the generator/offeror certification, to

indicate that the individual signs as the

employee or agent of the named principal.

Note: All of the above information except

the handwritten signature required in Item 15

may be pre-printed.

II. Instructions for International Shipment

Block

Item 16. International Shipments

For export shipments, the primary exporter

must check the export box, and enter the

point of exit (city and state) from the United

States. For import shipments, the importer

must check the import box and enter the

point of entry (city and state) into the United

States. For exports, the transporter must sign

and date the manifest to indicate the day the

shipment left the United States. Transporters

of hazardous waste shipments must deliver a

copy of the manifest to the U.S. Customs

when exporting the waste across U.S.

borders.

III. Instructions for Transporters

Item 17. Transporters'Acknowledgments of

Receipt

Enter the name of the person accepting the

waste on behalf of the first transporter. That

person must acknowledge acceptance of the

waste described on the manifest by signing

and entering the date of receipt. Only one

signature per transportation company is

required. Signatures are not required to track

the movement of wastes in and out of transfer

facilities, unless there is a change of custody

between transporters.

If applicable, enter the name of the person

accepting the waste on behalf of the second

transporter. That person must acknowledge

acceptance of the 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 of the

designated (or alternate) facility's owner or

operator must note in this space any

discrepancies between the waste described

on the Manifest and the waste actually

received at the facility. Manifest

discrepancies are: significant differences (as

defined by §§ 264.72(b) and 265.72(b))

between the quantity or type of hazardous

waste designated on the manifest or shipping

paper, and the quantity and type of

hazardous waste a facility actually receives,

rejected wastes, which may be a full or

partial shipment of hazardous waste that the

TSDF cannot accept, or container residues,

which are residues that exceed the quantity

limits for "empty" containers set forth in 40 •

CFR 261.7(b).

2. For rejected loads and residues (40 CFR

264.72(d), (e), and (f), or 40 CFR 265.72(d),

(e), or (f)), check the appropriate box if the

shipment is a rejected load (i.e., rejected by

the designated and/or alternate facility and is

sent to an alternate facility or returned to the

generator) or a regulated residue that cannot

be removed from a container. Enter the

reason for the rejection or the 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 or residue

shipment on the original manifest. Indicate

the original manifest tracking number in Item

14, the Special Handling Block and

Additional Information Block of the

additional manifests.

3. Owners or operators of facilities 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 of receiving 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 of the Manifest at issue

describing the discrepancy and attempts to

reconcile it (40 CFR 264.72(c) and 265.72(c)).

4. Owners or operators of facilities located

in authorized 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 of Full Load Rejections

Enter the name, address, phone number,

and EPA Identification Number of the

Alternate Facility which the rejecting TSDF

has designated, after consulting with the

generator, to receive a fully rejected waste

shipment. In the event that a 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 to be used to forward partially rejected

loads or residue waste shipments.

Item 18c. Alternate Facility (or Generator)

Signature

The authorized representative of the

alternate facility (or the generator in the

event of a returned shipment) must sign and

date this field of the form to acknowledge

receipt of the fully rejected vxastes or

residues identified by the initial TSDF.

Item 19. Hazardous Waste Report

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 in which the waste is to be managed

when received'by the TSDF.

Item 20. Designated Facility Owner or

Operator Certification of Receipt (Except As

Noted in Item 18a)

. Enter the name of the person receiving the

waste on behalf of the owner or operator of

the facility. That person must acknowledge

receipt or rejection of the waste described on

the Manifest by signing and entering the date

of receipt or rejection where indicated. Since

the Facility Certification acknowledges

receipt of the waste except as noted in the

Discrepancy Space in Item 18a, the

certification should be signed for both waste

receipt and waste rejection, with the rejection

being noted and described in the space

provided in Item 18a. Fully rejected wastes

may be forwarded or returned using Item 18b

after consultation with the generator. Enter

the name of the person accepting the waste

on behalf of the owner or operator of the

alternate facility or the original generator.

That person must acknowledge receipt or

rejection of the waste described on the

Manifest by signing and entering the date

they received or rejected the waste in Item

18c. Partially rejected wastes and residues

must be re-shipped under a new manifest, to

be initiated and signed by the rejecting TSDF

as offeror of the shipment.

Manifest Continuation Sheet

Instructions-Continuation Sheet, U.S. EPA

Form 8700-22A

Read all instructions before completing

this form. This form has been designed for

use on a 12-pitch (elite) typewriter; a firm

point pen may also be used-press down

hard.

This form must be used as a continuationsheet to 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 and related information in Item

9 of U.S. EPA Fo~rm 8700-22.

Federal regulations require generators and

transporters of hazardous waste and owners

or operators of hazardous waste treatment,

storage, or disposal facilities to use the

uniform hazardous waste manifest (EPA

form 8700-22) and, if necessary, this

continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A) for

both interstate and intrastate transportation.

Item 21. Generator's ID Number

Enter the generator's U.S. EPA twelve digit

identification number or, the State generator

identification number if the generator site

does not have an EPA identification number.

Item 22. PageEnter the page number of this Continuation

Sheet.

Item 23. Manifest Tracking Number

Enter the Manifest Tracking number from

-Item 4 of the Manifest form to which this

continuation sheet is attached.

Item 24. Generator's NameEnter the geneFator's name as it appears in

Item 5 on the first page of the Manifest.

Item 25. Transporter-Company Name

If additional transporters are used to

transport the waste described on thi's

Manifest, enter the company name of each

additional transporter in the order in which

they will transport the waste. Enter after the

word "Transporter" the order of the

transporter. For example, Transporter 3

Company Name. Also enter the U.S. EPA

twelve digit identification number of the

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 of each

additional transporter in the order in which

they will transport the waste. Enter after the

word "Transporter" the order of the

transporter. For example, Transporter 4

Company Name. Each Continuation Sheet

can record the names of two additional

transporters. Also enter the U.S. EPA twelve

digit identification number of the transporter

named in Item 26.

Item 27. U.S. D.O.T. Description Including

Proper Shipping Name, Hazardous Class,

and ID Number (UN/NA)

For each row enter a sequential number

under Item 27b that corresponds to the order

of waste codes from one continuation sheet

to the next, to reflect the total number of

wastes being shipped. Refer to instructions

for Item 9 of the manifest for the information

to be entered.

Item 28. Containers (No. And Type)

Refer to the instructions for Item 10 of the

manifest for information to be entered.

Item 29. Total Quantity

Refer to the instructions for Item 11 of the

manifest form.

Item 30. Units of Measure (Weight/Volume)

Refer to the instructions for Item 12 of the

manifest form.

Item 31. Waste Codes

Refer to the instructions for Item 13 of the

manifest form.

Item 32. Special Handling Instructions and

Additional Information

Refer to the instructions for Item 14 of the

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

of the person accepting the waste on behalf

of the Transporter (Company Name)

identified in Item 25. That person must

acknowledge acceptance of the waste

described on the Manifest by signing and

entering the date of receipt.

Item 34. Transporter-Acknowledgment of

Receipt of Materials

Enter the same number of the Transporter

as identified in Item 26. Enter also the name

of the person accepting the waste on behalf

of the Transporter (Company Name)

identified in Item 26. That person must

acknowledge acceptance of the waste

described on the Manifest by signing and

entering the date of receipt.

-Owner and Operators of Treatment, Storage,

or Disposal Facilities

Item 35. Discrepancy Indication Space

Refer to Item 18. This space may be used

to more fully describe information on

discrepancies identified in Item 18a of the

manifest form.

Item 36. Hazardous Waste Report

Management Method 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 will be processed when

received. If additional continuation sheets

are attached, continue numbering the waste

materials and process code fields

sequentially, and enter on each sheet the

process codes corresponding to the waste

materials identified on that sheet.

PART 263-STANDARDS APPLICABLE

TO TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS

WASTE

N 15. The auth6rity citation for part 263

is revised 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 amended by

revising paragraphs (a) and (g) to read as

follows:

§ 263.20 The manifest system.

(a)(1) Manifest requirement. A

transporter may not accept 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 of exports

other than those subject to subpart H of

40 CFR part 262, a transporter may not

accept such waste from a primary

exporter or other person if he knows the

shipment does not conform to the EPA

Acknowledgment of Consent; and

unless, in addition to a manifest signed

by the generator as provided in this

section, the transporter shall also be

provided with an EPA Acknowledgment

of Consent which, except for shipments

by rail, is attached to the manifest (or

shipping paper for exports by water

(bulk shipment)). For exports of

hazardous waste subject to the

requirements of subpart H of 40 CFR

part 262, a transporter may not accept

hazardous waste without a tracking

document that includes all information

required by 40 CFR 262.84.

(3) Compliance Date for Form

Revisions. The revised Manifest form

and procedures in 40 CFR 260.10, 261.7,

263.20, and 263.21, shall not apply until

September 5, 2006. The Manifest form

and procedures in 40 CFR 260.10, 261.7,

263.20, and 263.21, contained in the 40

CFR, parts 260 to 265, edition revised as

of July 1, 2004, shall be applicable until

September 5, 2006.

(g) Transporters who transport

hazardous waste out of the United

States must:

(1) Sign and date the manifest in the

International Shipments block to

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 of the

manifest to the generator; and

(4) Give a copy of the 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) If the hazardous waste cannot

be delivered in accordance with

paragraph (a) of this section because of

an emergency condition other than

rejection of the waste by the designated

facility, then the transporter must

contact the generator for further

directions and must revise the manifest

according to the generator's

instructions.

(2) If hazardous 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 or for

regulated quantities of container

residues, a copy of the original manifest

that includes the facility's date and

signature, and the Manifest Tracking

Number of the new manifest that will

accompany the shipment, and a

description-of the partial rejection or

container residue in the discrepancy

block of the original manifest. The

transporter must retain a copy of this

manifest in accordance with § 263.22,

and give the remaining copies of the

original manifest to the rejecting

designated facility. If the transporter is

forwarding the rejected part of the

shipment or a regulated container

residue to an alternate facility or

returning it to the generator, the

transporter must obtain a new manifest

to accompany the shipment, and the

new manifest must include all of the

information required in 40 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 back by the transporter, a copy

of the original manifest that includes'the

rejecting facility's signature and date

attesting to the rejection, the description

of the rejection in the discrepancy block

of the manifest, and the name, address,

phone number, and Identification

Number for the alternate facility or

generator to whom the shipment must

be delivered. The transporter must

retain a copy of the manifest in

accordance with § 263.22, and give a

copy of the manifest containing this

information to the rejecting designated

facility. If the 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

m 18. The authority citation for part 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 is revised to read as

follows:

§264.70 Applicability.

(a) The regulations in this subpart

apply to owners and operators of both

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 of on-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).

Section 264.73(b) only applies to

permittees who treat, store, or dispose 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 in 40 CFR

260.10, 261.7, 264.70, 264.71. 264.72,

and 264.76, contained in the 40 CFR,

parts 260 to 265, edition revised as of

July 1, 2004, shall be applicable until

September 5, 2006.

0 20. Section 264.71 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(4) and

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 264.71 Use of manifest system.

(a)(1) If a facility receives hazardous

waste accompanied by a manifest, the

owner, operator or his/her agent must

sign and date the manifest as indicated

in paragraph (a)(2) of this section to

certify that the hazardous waste covered

by the manifest was received, that the

hazardous waste was received except as

noted in the discrepancy space of the

manifest, or that the hazardous waste

was rejected as noted in the manifest

discrepancy space.

(2) Ifa facility receives a hazardous

waste shipment accompanied by a

manifest, the owner, operator or his

agent must:

(i) Sign and date, by hand, each copy

of the manifest;

(ii) Note any discrepancies (as defined

in § 264.72(a)) on each copy of the

manifest;

(iii) Immediately give the transporter

at least one copy of the manifest;

(iv) Within 30 days of delivery, send

a copy of the manifest to the generator;

and

(v) Retain at the facility a copy of each

manifest for at least three years from the

date of delivery.

10821

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10821 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42/Friday, March 4, 2005/Rules and Regulations

(3) If a facility receives hazardous

waste imported from a foreign source,

the receiving facility must mail a copy

of the manifest to the following address

within 30 days of delivery: International

Compliance Assurance Division, OFA/

OECA (2254A), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,,

Washington, DC 20460. (b) * * *

(4) Within 30 days after the delivery,

send a copy of the signed and dated

manifest or a signed and dated copy of

the shipping paper (if the 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 state requires the facility to

submit any copies of the manifest to

these states.

0 21. Section 264.72 is revised to read as

follows:

§264.72 Manifest discrepancies.

(a).Manifest discrepancies are:

(1) Significant differences (as defined

by paragraph (b) of this section) between

the quantity or type of hazardous waste

designated on the manifest or shipping

paper, and the quantity and type of

hazardous waste a facility actually

receives;

(2) Rejectedwastes, which may be a

full or partial .shipment of hazardous

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 in quantity

are: For bulk waste, variations greater

than 10 percent in weight; for batch

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 or waste

analysis, such as waste solvent

substituted for waste acid, or toxic

constituents not reported on the

manifest or shipping paper.

(c) Upon discovering a significant

difference in quantity or type, the owner

or operator must attempt to reconcile

the discrepancy with the waste

generator or transporter (e.g., with

telephone coniversations). If the

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 at issue.

(d)(1) Upon rejecting waste or

identifying a container residue that

exceeds the quantity limits for "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. If it 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 of the rejection

or the container residue identification.

(2) While the facility is making

arrangements for forwarding rejected

wastes or residues to another facility

under this section, it must ensure that

either the delivering transporter retains

custody of the waste, or, the facility

must provide for secure, temporary

custody of the waste, pending delivery

of the waste to the first transporter

designated on the m&nifest prepared

under paragraph (e) or (f) of this section.

(e) Except as provided in paragraph

(e)(7) of this 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)

of this chapter and the following

instructions:

. (1) Write the generator's U.S. EPA ID

number in Item 1 of the new manifest.

Write the generator's name and mailing

address in Item 5 of the new manifest.

If the mailing address is different from

the generator's site address, then write

the generator's site address in the

designated space for Item 5.

(2) Write the name of the alternate

designated facility and the facility's U.S.

EPA ID number in the designated

facility block (Item 8) of the new

manifest.

(3) Copy the manifest tracking number

found in Item 4 of the old mnifest to

the Special Handling and Additional

Information Block of the 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 of the new manifest to

the manifest reference number line in

the Discrepancy Block of the old

manifest (Item 18a) of this chapter.

(5) Write the DOT description for the

rejected load or the residue in Item 9

(U.S. DOT Description) of the new

manifest and write the container types,

quantity, aiad volume(s) of waste.

(6) Sign the Generator's/Offeror's

Certification to certify, as the offeror of

the 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

present at the facility, the facility may

forward the rejected shipment to the

alternate facility by completing Item 18b

of the original manifest and supplying

the information on the next destination

facility in the Alternate Facility space.

The facility must retain a copy of this

manifest for its records, and then give

the remaining copies of the manifest to

the transporter to accompany the

shipment. If the 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) of this

section.

(f) Except as provided in paragraph

(f)(7) of this section, for rejected wastes

and residues that must be sent back to

the generator, the facility is required to

prepare a new manifest in acc9rdance

with § 262.20(a) of this chapter and the

following instructions:

(1) Write the facility's U.S. EPA ID

number in Item 1 of the new manifest.

Write the generator's name and mailing

address in Item 5 of the new manifest.

If the mailing address is different from

the generator's site address, then write

the generator's site address in the

designated space for Item 5.

(2) Write the name. of the initial

generator and the generator's U.S. EPA

ID number in the designated facility

block (Item 8) of the new manifest.

(3) Copy the manifest tracking number

found in Item 4 of the old manifest to

the Special Handling and Additional

Information Block of the 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 of the new manifest to

the manifest reference number line in

the Discrepancy Block of the old

manifest (Item 18a).

(5) Write the DOT description for the

rejected load or the residue in Item 9

(U.S. DOT Description) of the new

manifest and write the container types,

quantity, and volume(s) of waste.

(6) Sign the Generator's/Offeror's

Certification to certify, as offeror of the

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 of the mihifest and

supplying the generaor'g sinformation in

the Alternate Facility space. The facility

must retain a copy foiiits records and

then give the remaining copies of the

manifest to the transp'orter-to

accompany the shipment.'If the original

manifest is not used, then the facility

must use a new manifest and comply

with paragraphs (f)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5),

and (6) of this 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 of the manifest to the delivering

transporter or to the generator, the

facility must amend its copy of the

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 Item 4 of the new manifest to the

Discrepancy space of the amended

manifest, and must re-sign and date the

manifest to certify to the information as

amended. The facility must retain the

amended mahifest for at least three

years from the date of amendment, and

must within. 30 days, send a copy of the

amended manifest to the transporter and

generator that received copies prior to

their being amended.

N 22. Section 264.76 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 264.76 Unmanifested waste report.

(a) If a facility accepts for treatment,

storage, or disposal any hazardous waste

from an off-site source without an

accompanying manifest, or without an

accompanying shipping paper as

described by § 263.20(e) of this chapter,

and if the waste is not excluded from

the manifest requirement by this

chapter, then the owner or bperator

must prepare 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 of the facility;

(2) The date the facility received the

waste;

(3) The EPA identification number,

name and address of the generator and

the transporter, if available;

(4) A description and the quantity of

each unmanifested hazardous waste the

facility received; '

(5) The method of treatment, storage,

or disposal for each hazardous waste;

(6) The certification signed by the

owner or operator of the facility or his

authorized representative; and,

(7) A briof explanation'of why the

waste was unmanifested, if known.

(b) [Reserved]

PART 265-INTERIM STATUS

STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND

OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUSWASTE

TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND

DISPOSAL FACILITIES

m 23. The authority citation for part 265

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 is revised to read as

follows:

§265.70 Applicability.

(a) The regulations in this subpart

apply to owners and operators of both

on-site and off-site facilities, except as

§ 265.1 provides otherwise. Sections

265.71, 265.72, and 265.76 do not apply

to owners and operators of on-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

not apply until September 5, 2006. The

Manifest form and procedures in 40 CFR

260.10, 261.7, 265.70, 265.71. 265.72,

and 265.76, contained in the 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 amended by

revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(4) and

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 265.71 Use of manifest system.

(a)(1) If a facility receives hazardous

waste accompanied by a manifest, the

owner, operator or his/her agent must

sign and date the manifest as indicated

in paragraph (a)(2) of this section to

certify that the hazardous waste covered

by the manifest was received, that the

hazardous waste was received except as

noted in the discrepancy space of the

manifest, or that the hazardous waste

was rejected as noted in the manifest

discrepancy space.

(2) If a facility receives a hazardous

waste shipment accompanied by a

manifest, the owner, operator or his/her

agent must:

(i) Sign and date, by hand, each copy

of the manifest; . !

(ii) Note ahy discrdpancies (ak dfined

in § 265.72(a)) on each copy of the

manifest;

(iii) Immediately give the transporter

at least one copy of the manifest

(iv) Within 30 days of delivery, send

a copy of the manifest to the generator;

and

(v) Retain at the facility a copy of each

manifest for at least three years from the

date of delivery.

(3) If a facility receives hazardous

waste imported from a foreign source,

the receiving facility must mail a copy

of the manifest to the following address

within 30 days of delivery: 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 of the signed and dated

manifest or a signed and dated copy of

the shipping paper (if the 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 state requires the facility to

submit any copies of the manifest to

these states.

m 26. Section 265.72 is revised to read hs

follows:

&265.72 Manifest discrepancies.

(a) Manifest discrepancies are:

(1) Significant differences (as defined

by paragraph (b) of this section) between

the quantity or type of hazardous waste

designated on the manifest or shipping

paper, and the quantity and type of

hazardous waste a facility actually

receives;

(2) Rejected wastes, which may be a

full or partial shipment of hazardous

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 in quantity

are: For bulk waste, variations greater

than 10 percent in weight; for batch

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 or waste

analysis, such as waste solvent

substituted for waste '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

or operator must attempt to reconcile

the discrepancy with the waste

generator or transporter (e.g., with

telephone conversations). If the

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 at issue.

(d)(1) Upon rejecting waste or

identifying a container residue that

exceeds the quantity limits for "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. If it 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 of the rejection

or the containerresidue identification.

(2) While the facility is making

arrangements for forwarding rejected

wastes or residues to another facility

under this section, it must ensure that

either the delivering transporter retains

custody of the waste, or the facility must

provide for secure, temporary custody of

the waste, pending delivery of the waste

to the first transporter designated on the

manifest prepared under paragraph (e)

or (f) of this section.

(e) Except as provided in paragraph

(e)(7) of this 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)

of this chapter and the following

instructions:

(1) Write the generator's U.S. EPA ID

number in Item 1 of the new manifest.

Write the generator's name and mailing

address in Item 5 of the new manifest.

If the mailing address is different from

the generator's site address, then write

the generator's site address in-the

designated'space in Item 5.

(2f Write the name of the alternate

designated facility and the facility's U.S.

EPA ID number in the designated

facility block (Item 8) of the new

manifest.

(3) Copy the manifest tracking number

found in Item 4 of the old manifest to

the Special Handling and Additional

Information Block of the 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 of the new manifest to

the manifest reference number line in.

the Discrepancy Block of the old

manifest (Item 18a) of this chapter. (5) Write the DOT description for the

rejected load or the residue in Item 9

(U.S. DOT Description) of the new

manifest and write the container types,

quantity, and volume(s) of waste.

(6) Sign the Generator's/Offeror's

Certification to certify, as the offeror of

the shipment, that the waste has been

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 at the facility, the facility may

forward the rejected shipment to the

alternate facility by completing Item 18b

of the-original manifest and supplying

the information on the next destination

facility in the Alternate Facility space.

The facility must retain a copy of this

manifest for. its records, and then give

the remaining copies of the manifest to

the transporter to accompany the

shipment. If the 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) of this

section.

(f) Except as provided in paragraph

(f)(7) of this section, for rejected 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) of this chapter and the

following instructions:

(1) Write the facility's U.S. EPA ID

number in Item 1 of the new manifest.

Write the generator's name and mailing

address in Item 5 of the new manifest.

If the 'mailing address is different from

the generator's site address, then write

the generator's site address in the

designated space for Item 5.

(2)-Write the name of the initial

generator and the generator's U.S. EPA

ID number in the designated facility

block (Item 8) of the new manifest.

(3) Copy the manifest tracking number

found in Item 4 of the old manifest to

the Special Handling and Additional

Information Block of the 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 of the new manifest to

the manifest reference number line in

the Discrepancy Block of the old

manifest (Item 18a),

(5) Write the DOT description for the

rejected load or the residue in Item 9

(U.S. DOT Description) of the new

manifest and write the container types,

quantity, and volume(s) of waste.

(6) Sign the Generator's/Offeror's

Certification to certify, as offeror of the

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

original manifest by completing Item

18b of the 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 of the manifest to the

transporter to accompany the shipment.

If the original manifest is not used, then

the facility must use a new manifest and

comply with paragraphs (f)(1), (2), (3),

(4), (5), and (6) of this 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 of the minifest to the delivering

transporter or to the generator, the

facility must amend its copy of the

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 Item 4 of the new manifest to the

discrepancy space of the amended

manifest, and must re-sign and date the

manifest to certify to the information as

amended. The facility must retain the

amended manifest for at least three

years from the date of amendment, and

must within 30 days, send a copy of the

amended manifest to the transporter and

generator that received copies prior to

their being amended.

0 27. Section 265.76 is revised to read as

follows:

§265.76 Unmanifested waste report.

(a) If a facility accepts for treatment,

storage, or disposal any hazardous waste

from an off-site source without an

accompanying manifest, or without an

accompanying shipping paper as

described by § 263.20(e) of this chapter,

and if the 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) The EPA identification number,

name and address of the facility;

(2) The date the facility received the

waste;

(3).The EPA identification number,

name and address of the generator and

the transporter, if available;

(4) A description and the quantity of

each unmanifested hazardous waste the

facility received;

(5) The method of treatment, storage,

or disposal for each hazardous waste;

10.824

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 10824 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and. Regulations

(6) The certification signed by the PART 271-REQUIREMENTS FOR s 29. Section 271.1(j) is amended by

owner or operator of the facility or his AUTHORIZATION OF STATE adding the following entries to Table 1

authorized representative; and HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS in chronological order by date of

(7) A brief explanation of why the publication in the Federal Register, to

waste was unmanifested, if known. n 28. The authority citation for part 271 read as follows:

(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 ......................................... W aste Minimization Certification in the [Insert FR page numbers] .................... Sept. 6, 2005.

Revised Manifest Rule.

m 30. Section 271.10 is amended by

revising paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3),

and (h) introductory text, (h)(1), and

(h)(2) to read as follows:

§271.10 Requirements for generators of

hazardous wastes.

(* * ***

(1) Use a manifest system that ensures

that interstate and intrastate shipments

of hazardous waste are -designated for

delivery and, in the case of intrastate

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 of the manifest format as

required by § 262.20(a). No other

manifest form, shipping document, or

information, other than that.required by

federal law, may be 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 by rail or water, as

specified in 40 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 as hazardous

wastes by the state, if the state codes are

not redundant with a federally required

code for the same waste. No state,

however, may impose enforcement

sanctions on a transporter during

transportation of the shipment for

failure of the form to include a staterequired waste code.

(2) Either the State to which a

shipment is manifested (consignment

State) or the State in which the

generator is located (generator State), or

both, may require that copies of the

manifest form be submitted to the State.

E 31. Section 271.11 is amended by

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 271.11 Requirements for transporters of

hazardous waste.

(c)(1) The State must require

transporters to carry the manifest during

transport, except in the case of -

shipments by rail or water, 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 on the ;nanifest,

which in the case of return shipments

of rejected wastes or regulated container

residues, may also include the original

generator of the 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 of hazardous waste,

the state must require the transporter to

refuse to accept hazardous waste for

export if the transporter knows the

shipment does not conform t6 the EPA

Acknowledgment of Consent, to carry

an EPA Acknowledgment of Consent to

the shipment, to sign and date the

International Shipments Block of the

manifest fo indicate the date the

shipment leaves the U.S., and to provide

a copy of the manifest to the U.S.

Customs official at the point the waste

leaves the United States. * * * * *

m 32..Section 271.12 is amended by

revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:

§271.12 Requirements for hazardous

waste management facilities. * * * * *

(i) Compliance with the manifest

system including the requirement that

facility owners or operators return a

signed copy of the manifest:

(1) To the generator to certify delivery

of the hazardous waste shipment or to

identify discrepancies; and

(2) To EPA's International

Compliance Assurance Division

program, at the address referenced in 40

CFR 264.71(a)(3) and 265.71(a)(3), to

indicate the receipt of a 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