[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 42 (Friday, March 4, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10776-10825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1966]



[[Page 10775]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Parts 260, 261, et al.



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

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

[[Page 10776]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 hazardous 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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#afc8ddc0ccca81cdddd6cec1efcadfce81c8c0d9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ea8d9885898fc48898938b84aa8f9a8bc48d859c">[email protected]</span></a>, or Richard LaShier, Office 
of Solid Waste, (703) 308-8796, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#442825372c2d21366a362d272c042134256a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="402c2133282925326e32292328002530216e272f36">[email protected]</span></a>. 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Industry or sub-                                       Industry or sub-
     Item         SIC        NAICS       sector identity      Item       SIC        NAICS       sector identity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............       1794        23593  Construction               24       4512        48111  Air
                                        excavation work.                                       transportation.
2............         20          311  Food and kindred           25       4613        48691  Refined petroleum
                                        products                                               pipelines.
                                        manufacturing.
3............       2295        31332  Coated fabrics             26       4789       488999  Transportation
                                        manufacturing.                                         services n.e.c.
4............         24          321  Lumber and wood            27       4813         5133  Telephone
                                        products                                               communications.
                                        manufacturing.
5............         25          337  Furniture and              28         49         2211  Electric, gas &
                                        fixtures                                               sanitary
                                        manufacturing.                                         services.
6............         26          322  Pulp and allied            29       4953       562211  Hazardous waste
                                        products                                               treatment &
                                        manufacturing.                                         disposal.
7............         27          511  Printing and               30       4959       562910  Hazardous waste
                                        publishing.                                            remediation
                                                                                               services.
8............         28          325  Chemicals and              31         50          421  Wholesale trade
                                        allied products                                        (durable goods).
                                        mfg.
9............         29          324  Petroleum and coal         32         51          422  Wholesale trade
                                        products mfg.                                          (nondurable
                                                                                               goods).
10...........         30          326  Rubber & misc              33       5912     44 to 45  Drugstores &
                                        plastic products                                       proprietary
                                        mfg.                                                   retail stores.
11...........         32          327  Stone, clay and            34       6552        23311  Real estate sub-
                                        glass products                                         dividers &
                                        mfg.                                                   developers.
12...........         33          331  Primary metal              35       7216        81232  Dry cleaning
                                        manufacturing                                          plants.
                                        industries.
13...........         34          332  Fabricated metal           36         73          541  Business services.
                                        products
                                        manufacturing.
14...........         35          333  Industrial                 37       7532       811121  Top, body &
                                        machinery &                                            upholstery repair
                                        equipment mfg.                                         & paint shops.
15...........         36          335  Electronic & other         38       7699          561  Repair shops &
                                        electric                                               related services
                                        equipment mfg.                                         n.e.c.
16...........         37          336  Transportation             39       8062        62211  General medical &
                                        equipment                                              surgical
                                        manufacturing.                                         hospitals.

[[Page 10777]]

 
17...........         38          334  Instruments &              40       8221        61131  Colleges &
                                        related products                                       universities.
                                        mfg.
18...........         39          339  Miscellaneous              41         87          541  Engineering &
                                        manufacturing                                          management
                                        industries.                                            services.
19...........       4111          485  Local and suburban         42       8999          541  Services n.e.c.
                                        passenger transit.
20...........       4173        48849  Terminal service           43         95   924 to 925  Environmental
                                        facilities for                                         quality & housing
                                        vehicle transport.                                     administration.
21...........         42          484  Trucking and               44       9661        92711  Space research &
                                        warehousing.                                           technology.
22...........       4212       562112  Hazardous waste            45       9711        92811  National security
                                        collection                                             (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 
consists of the documents specifically referenced 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 statute. 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 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room 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/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/manifest/index.htm. An 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 are 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.

Outline

I. Background
II. Detailed Discussion of the Final Rule
    A. Standardization of the Hazardous Waste Manifest.
    B.1. 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.
    8. Proposed Consolidation of Additional Descriptions and Special 
Handling Fields.
    9. Continuation Sheet.
    C.1. Addition of New Data Elements--Introduction.
    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 Revisions--Introduction.
    2. Definition of Bulk Container.
    3. Use of Fractions.
    4. Offerors and the Preparation of Hazardous Waste Shipments and 
Manifests.
    H.1. Delayed Compliance Date for Revised Form--Introduction.
    2. Comment Analysis.
    3. Delayed Compliance Date--Final Rule Approach.
    4. Delayed Compliance Date--Interaction with DOT Authority.
III. Manifest Form Acquisition and Registry
    A.1. Manifest Form Acquisition--Introduction.
    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 Sec. Sec.  264.72(d) and 265.72(d).
    4. Proposed Sec. Sec.  264.72(e), (f) and 265.72(e), (f).
    5. Proposed Sec. Sec.  264.72(g) and 265.72(g).
    6. Proposed Changes to Sec.  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.

[[Page 10778]]

    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 paper-based 
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 e-manifest 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 e-manifest 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 or other 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 e-manifest.
    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 e-manifest 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 e-manifest 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

[[Page 10779]]

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 
requirements 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,
XII. 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 when we decided to include the optional fields on the manifest; 
and (4) the recognition that all shareholders prefer that the manifest 
remain a one-page 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 
manifest, which data elements avoided duplication with data collected 
elsewhere, and which data elements

[[Page 10780]]

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 requirement for 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 broader-in-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 commenters 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 transporters. There are ways to 
verify the transporters' state-licensed 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 state-specific 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 commenters 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

[[Page 10781]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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'' 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

[[Page 10782]]

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 Listed Above. Eliminating these blocks freed 
up space on the continuation sheet which allowed us to add an 
additional row 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 <greek-i>5, and should 
continue from there forward until all wastes being shipped have been 
numbered and identified.
    C.1. Addition of New Data Elements--Introduction. 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

[[Page 10783]]

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 discrete 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 response, 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 partly 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

[[Page 10784]]

to add International Shipments, Item 16, to the revised form. The 
proposed changes provide explicit spaces for entering currently 
required information. The International 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 much 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 clarify 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 be returned 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 regulations. 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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  263.20(g)(4). We revised this provision by 
removing the reference to Sec.  263.20(g)(4) and replacing that 
reference with references to new Sec. Sec.  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 revised approach is more appropriate than the 
proposed approach, because it parallels existing manifest mailing 
requirements for receiving facilities. Specifically, Sec. Sec.  
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 to receive this document 
than the proposed approach of transporter drop-off of a copy 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.

[[Page 10785]]

    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 item 
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 
collect 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 variability 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 Sec.  
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 
complete.
    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

[[Page 10786]]

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 provide 
sufficient information distinguishing major process types. Comments 
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 subject, today's final rule 
establishes one set of codes and instructions for all manifest users in 
all states for the aforementioned 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 current 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.gov/epaoswer/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     from 1999 hazardous
                                                             group                            waste report*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Reclamation and Recovery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H010.................................  Metals recovery including retorting, smelting,    M011-M019
                                        chemical, etc.
H020.................................  Solvents recovery...............................  M021-M029, M104
H039.................................  Other recovery or reclamation for reuse           M031-M039
                                        including acid regeneration, organics recovery,
                                        etc.
H050.................................  Energy recovery at this site--use as fuel         M051-M059
                                        (includes on-site fuel blending).
H061.................................  Fuel blending prior to energy recovery at         M061
                                        another site.
--------------------------------------
                           Destruction or Treatment Prior to Disposal at Another Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H040.................................  Incineration--thermal destruction other than use  M041-49
                                        as a fuel.
H071.................................  Chemical reduction with or without precipitation  M071
H073.................................  Cyanide destruction with or without               M073
                                        precipitation.
H075.................................  Chemical oxidation..............................  M075
H076.................................  Wet air oxidation...............................  M076, M084, M093
H077.................................  Other chemical precipitation with or without pre- M072, M074, M077
                                        treatment.
H081.................................  Biological treatment with or without              M081, M091
                                        precipitation.

[[Page 10787]]

 
H082.................................  Adsorption......................................  M082, M092, M103
H083.................................  Air or steam stripping..........................  M083
H101.................................  Sludge treatment and/or dewatering..............  M101, M102, M109
H103.................................  Absorption......................................  M103
H111.................................  Stabilization or chemical fixation prior to       M111
                                        disposal at another site.
H112.................................  Macro-encapsulation prior to disposal at another  M112, NEW
                                        site.
H121.................................  Neutralization only.............................  M121
H122.................................  Evaporation.....................................  M122
H123.................................  Settling or clarification.......................  M123
H124.................................  Phase separation................................  M124
H129.................................  Other treatment.................................  M078, M079, M085, M089,
                                                                                          M094, M099, M119,
                                                                                          M125, M129
--------------------------------------
                                                    Disposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H131.................................  Land treatment or application (to include on-     M131
                                        site treatment and/or stabilization).
H132.................................  Landfill or surface impoundment that will be      M132, M133
                                        closed as landfill (to include on-site
                                        treatment and/or stabilization).
H134.................................  Deepwell or underground injection (with or        M134
                                        without treatment).
H135.................................  Discharge to sewer/POTW or NPDES (with prior      M135, M136
                                        storage--with or without treatment).
--------------------------------------
                                              Storage and Transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H141.................................  Storage, bulking, and/or transfer off site--no    M141
                                        treatment/recovery (H010-H129), fuel blending
                                        (H061), 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 re-designated 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 would 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 redesignate 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

[[Page 10788]]

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 (non-specific 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 hierarchy 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 wastes 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 Determinations--Number 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. Commenters 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

[[Page 10789]]

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 Determinations--Entering State Waste Codes. In 
addition to commenting on the number of waste codes users may enter in 
Item 13 of the revised form, commenters 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 Sec.  271.10(h)(1) that state waste codes are to be 
included on the revised manifest form where they are not redundant 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 management 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 state-required 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 state-specific 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 views 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

[[Page 10790]]

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 truly uniform 
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 help 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 Revisions--Introduction. 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 an ``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 statement 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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 1982 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 non-bulk 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 Sec.  261.7(b)(1)(iii)(A), Sec.  
261.7(b)(1)(iii)(B) and Sec.  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 Uniform 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.

[[Page 10791]]

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 and TSDFs understood their mutual 
responsibilities with respect to generators entering quantities shipped 
and TSDFs verifying the quantities (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 do 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

[[Page 10792]]

prepare and sign the electronic manifest on behalf of the generator. 
The discussion in the NPRM of the proposed ``preparer'' definition 
referred to the instructions for Item 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 scope 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 involved 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 determining 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 
transportation 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 pre-transportation 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 a new 
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 time 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

[[Page 10793]]

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 
pre-transportation 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 pre-transportation 
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.
    Because we believe that the ``offeror'' approach and the 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 
Sec.  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 pre-transportation functions under the HMRs, 
and who can certify 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 pre-transportation 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 after 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

[[Page 10794]]

administrative systems. State and 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 which we proposed in 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 avoid any 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-month 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 Date--Interaction 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 1984 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 preempt 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

[[Page 10795]]

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 Acquisition--Introduction. 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 shipment 
will 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 required 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 registered 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 state-specific 
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 fees. 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 burden 
savings nor the decreased complexity that we claimed

[[Page 10796]]

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 Sec.  262.21. Under the final Sec.  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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> A guidance document that sets forth print specifications 
that registrants may use in preparing manifest samples for Registry 
evaluation.
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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 three-letter 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Applicants must submit a manifest proof;
    <bullet> Applicants must sign a certification to ensure tracking 
numbers will not be duplicated intentionally and, if applicable, will 
adhere to all printing specifications;
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Manifest tracking number must be assigned in accordance 
with a numbering system approved by EPA and must be pre-printed on the 
form;
    <bullet> Applicants cannot add additional boxes on the form;
    <bullet> Applicants cannot delete existing boxes on the form;
    <bullet> Applicants must print the form with manifest dimensions of 
8\1/2\ by 11 inches;
    <bullet> Applicants must print the form in black ink so that it can 
be photocopied or faxed;
    <bullet> Applicants must print the standardized manifest 
instructions, provided in the appendix to Part 262, on the back of the 
manifest; and,
    <bullet> 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.,

[[Page 10797]]

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 should 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 should be 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 Sec.  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 manifest, 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
262.21.
    Because the Sec.  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, Sec.  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 manifest

[[Page 10798]]

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 Sec.  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 scope 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 contract.
    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 printing 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 Sec.  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 pre-printed 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  262.21(d)). If screening of 
the ink was used for the manifest's instructions, the registrant must 
indicate the extent of the screening. The registrant need not

[[Page 10799]]

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 specifications of Sec.  262.21(f) have been met (See 
Sec.  262.21(e)). For example, we will evaluate them to determine 
whether they have acceptable copy-to-copy 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 forty-five 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 Sec.  262.21(c) and 
the print specifications at Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 
Sec.  262.21(d) for registrants to submit form samples that meet the 
print specifications of Sec.  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 Sec.  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 registrant to print the form to our satisfaction 
under the Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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

[[Page 10800]]

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 Registry three form samples that meet the 
Sec.  262.21(f) specifications.
    Under Section Sec.  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 the manifest 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 state-specific 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 Sec.  262.21(c) 
or its manifest or continuation sheet approved under 262.21(e). To this 
end, Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  262.21(e), an approved registrant must print the 
manifest according to its application approved under Sec.  262.21(c) 
and the manifest specifications in Sec.  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 distribute 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 nothing in the 
regulations to prevent a registrant from submitting multiple sets of 
samples under Sec.  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 companies that will print 
the manifest by reviewing its forms and print qualifications.
    As provided by Sec.  262.21(i), if, subsequent to its approval 
under Sec.  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 
job. 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

[[Page 10801]]

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 instructions. 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 approve 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  262.21(e), the second 
registrant must use that printer to print its forms according to the 
specifications at Sec.  262.21(f), as well as the paper weight, paper 
type, 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 Sec.  262.21(h)(3), 
the registrant must submit three form samples and get EPA approval. As 
discussed earlier, we believe the Sec.  262.21(h)(3) requirement is 
important for evaluating whether a registrant's revised manifest meets 
the specifications at Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 
distributed 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 Sec.  262.21(l), 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 
Sec.  262.21(e) to determine whether it satisfies the print 
specifications at Sec.  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 Sec.  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 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. 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

[[Page 10802]]

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 Sec.  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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> The form must be printed on 8\1/2\ 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.
    <bullet> The form, including manifest tracking number, 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.
    <bullet> The form must be printed as a six-copy form. Copy-to-copy 
registration must be exact within \1/32\nd 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. 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.
    <bullet> 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 \1/32\nd of an inch. This is a 
standard specification within the printing industry.
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> 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 required)''
    Page 3: ``Designated facility to generator''
    Page 4: ``Designated facility copy''
    Page 5: ``Transporter copy''
    Page 6 (bottom copy): ``Generator's initial copy''
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> The ``Instructions for Generators'' on Copy 6;
    <bullet> The ``Instructions for International Shipment Block'' and 
``Instructions for Transporters'' on Copy 5; and,
    <bullet> The ``Instructions for Treatment, Storage and Disposal 
Facilities'' on Copy 4.

    Manifest Form 8700-22A:
    <bullet> The ``Instructions for Generators'' on Copy 6;
    <bullet> The ``Instructions for Transporters'' on Copy 5; and,
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 10803]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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, we hold 
registrants to their ink color, as provided under Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  262.21(e), so that they do not 
switch methods subsequent to EPA approval, unless they seek EPA 
approval of the changes under Sec.  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

[[Page 10804]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As noted previously in the preamble to today's rule, the 
Agency is modifying the definition of bulk container from 110 
gallons to 119 gallons to be consistent with the DOT regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 off-site 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 provide more explicit requirements for tracking 
rejected wastes and regulated container residues. For instance, the 
proposal clarified in Sec.  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 proposed 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 Sec.  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 procedures for addressing rejected 
wastes or regulated container residues as manifest discrepancies at new 
Sec.  264.72(d), (e), (f), and (g) for permitted facilities, and in new 
Sec.  265.72(d), (e), (f), and (g) for interim status facilities. The 
proposed tracking procedures for rejected waste shipment and container 
residues are detailed below.
    3. Proposed Sec. Sec.  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        Contact the generator    Send the waste           If it is impossible to
 container residue that exceeds         for instructions for     according to the         locate, in a timely
 quantity limits for ``empty'' as       forwarding the waste     generator's              manner, an alternate
 defined in 40 CFR 261.7(b).            to an alternate          instructions.            facility that can
                                        facility.                                         promptly receive the
                                                                                          waste, you may return
                                                                                          it to the generator,
                                                                                          with the generator's
                                                                                          consent.
A facility forwarding rejected waste   Ensure that either the   Prepare a new manifest   N/A.
 or container residue to an alternate   delivering transporter   according to the
 facility.                              maintains custody of     relevant requirements
                                        the waste or, if the     (Sec.   264.72(e) or
                                        transporter leaves the   (f) for permitted
                                        premises, provide for    facilities; Sec.
                                        secure temporary         265.72(e) or (f) for
                                        custody of the waste.    interim status
                                                                 facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 10805]]

    4. Proposed Sec. Sec.  264.72(e),(f) and 265.72(e),(f). The 
proposed requirements for 40 CFR 264.72(e),(f) and 265.72(e),(f) are as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If you are . . .            You must . . .         And . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A facility forwarding rejected    Prepare a new       Follow the
 wastes or container residues      manifest in         relevant
 off-site to an alternate          accordance with     instructions in
 facility.                         Sec.   262.20(a).   either Sec.
                                                       264.72(e)(1)
                                                       through (e)(6),
                                                       or Sec.
                                                       265.72(e)(1)
                                                       through (e)(6).
A facility returning rejected     Prepare a new       Follow the
 waste to its generator.           manifest in         relevant
                                   accordance with     instructions in
                                   Sec.   262.20(a).   either Sec.
                                                       264.72(f)(1)
                                                       through (f)(6),
                                                       or Sec.
                                                       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 statement. 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 certification 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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  263.21(b)(1). Our proposed changes to Sec.  
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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
262.34(a) (for generators with 1000 kg or more on-site at the time the 
waste is sent) or Sec.  262.34(d) (for generators with less than 1000 
kg 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 (m) (New paragraph (k) and 
(l) were added to Sec.  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

[[Page 10806]]

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 
in such 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 Sec. Sec.  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 note 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 re-shipped 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 re-shipped, 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

[[Page 10807]]

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 rejected wastes 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 
Sec.  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 pre-transportation 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 pre-
transportation 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 Council) 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 pre-transportation 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 signing the 
form as the generator's agent.
    In response, we are codifying in today's final rule the manifest 
signature requirements at Sec.  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 pre-
transportation requirements. In such cases, the rejecting facility 
acting as an offeror 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 262.
    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 re-shipments 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 re-shipment, 
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

[[Page 10808]]

wastes, as the offeror is then certifying to the proper performance of 
the pre-transportation functions. Moreover, we believe that this is the 
result required 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 preamble, 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 current 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 completing 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 pre-tranportation 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 pre-
transportation 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 re-shipping such wastes is not 
responsible for errors made by previous waste handlers in their 
performance of pre-transportation 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 pre-transportation 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 
rejected shipments from the rejecting facility, and to allow them 
additional on-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

[[Page 10809]]

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 Sec.  
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 than 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 Sec.  Sec.  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 required 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 raised suggestions 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 ``unsubmitted'' using a manifest (e.g., using a check box). 
While we appreciate this suggestion, EPA does not believe that it is a 
workable option. One 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

[[Page 10810]]

the May, 2001 proposed rule, 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 revisions 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 for 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 may authorize 
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 adopts 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 do so.
    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 stringent 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 non-HSWA, that are considered less stringent. However, as we 
explain below, the hazardous waste manifest is not governed by this 
policy, but is instead 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 non-HSWA 
statutory authority. The section of today's rule that is promulgated 
under HSWA authority (specifically, RCRA Section 3002(b)) is Sec.  
262.27, which consists of the new regulatory provision that codifies 
the waste minimization certification language which previously was set 
out in full on 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 added by 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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 HSWA-
based regulatory revision and identify it as such in Table 1 of 40 CFR 
271.1(j). Therefore, since Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 10811]]

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 hamper 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 state-specific 
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 Sec.  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 for 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. 
However, 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.

VII. 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'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: 
``(1) Have an annual effect on the economy 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, local, 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 budgetary impact 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

[[Page 10812]]

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, twenty-three 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 represents a 
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 requirements 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 upper-bound estimate of annual manifests).
    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 to 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, unless 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 of 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-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and 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.

[[Page 10813]]

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 
cost-benefit 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 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, 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 rule 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 responsibilities 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 not apply 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).

[[Page 10814]]

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation With Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and 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.

J. 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.

0
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

0
1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 
6937, 6938, 6939, and 6974.

Subpart B--Definitions

0
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:


Sec.  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

[[Page 10815]]

requirements of parts 270 and 124 of this chapter;
    (ii) Has received a permit (or interim status) from a State 
authorized in accordance with part 271 of this chapter; or
    (iii) Is regulated under Sec.  261.6(c)(2) or subpart F of part 266 
of this chapter; and
    (iv) That has been designated on the manifest by the generator 
pursuant to Sec.  262.20.
    (2) Designated facility also means a generator site designated on 
the manifest to receive its waste as a return shipment from a facility 
that has rejected the waste in accordance with Sec.  264.72(f) or Sec.  
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

0
3. 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

0
4. Section 261.7 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1)(iii) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  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 percent 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

0
5. The authority citation for part 262 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922-6925, 6937, and 6938.

Subpart B--The Manifest

0
6. Section 262.20 (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 262.21 is revised (including the Section heading) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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 government or 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 
relationships), 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 each 
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 
pre-printed on each manifest. The application must describe 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 
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 indication 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).

[[Page 10816]]

    (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 or 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 printed with the 
exact format and appearance as EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A, 
respectively. However, information required to complete the manifest 
may be pre-printed 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 8\1/2\ 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 and continuation sheet must be printed as six-copy 
forms. Copy-to-copy registration must be exact within \1/32\nd 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 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.
    (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 the change 
occurs. The Agency either will approve or deny the

[[Page 10817]]

revision. If the Agency denies the revision, it will explain the 
reasons for the denial, and it will contact the registrant and request 
further 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, then 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 exemption 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.
    (l) 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]

0
8. Subpart B is amended by adding new Sec.  262.27 to read as follows:


Sec.  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

0
9. Section 262.32 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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, contact 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 ----------.


0
10. Section 262.33 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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).

0
11. Section 262.34 is amended by adding new paragraph (m) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  264.72 or Sec.  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.

[[Page 10818]]

Subpart E--Exports of Hazardous Waste

0
12. Section 262.54 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (e) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  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

0
13. Section 262.60 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and by adding 
paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 importer must check 
the import box 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 Sec.  264.71(a)(3) and Sec.  265.71(a)(3) of 
this chapter.

0
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.

Manifest 8700-22

    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 emergency 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 pre-printed 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 
originates only if this address is different than the mailing 
address.

Item 6. Transporter 1 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, enter 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.


[[Page 10819]]



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-offs).
CW = Wooden boxes, cartons, cases.
CY = Cylinders.
DF = Fiberboard or plastic drums, barrels, kegs.
DM = Metal drums, barrels, kegs.
DT = Dump truck.
DW = Wooden drums, barrels, kegs.
HG = Hopper or gondola cars.
TC = Tank cars.
TP = Portable tanks.
TT = 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 will 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 II.--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 connection 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 stream identified 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-service 
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. Generator'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 transportation, 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 may 
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 Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 10820]]

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 
wastes 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 continuation sheet to U.S. EPA Form 
8700-22 if:
    <bullet> More than two transporters are to be used to transport 
the waste; or
    <bullet> More space is required for the U.S. DOT descriptions 
and related information in Item 9 of U.S. EPA Form 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. Page ----

    Enter 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 Name--

    Enter the generator'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 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 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

0
15. The authority citation for part 263 is revised to read as follows:


[[Page 10821]]


    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922-6925, 6937, and 6938.


0
16. Section 263.20 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (g) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
17. Section 263.21 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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

0
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

0
19. Section 264.70 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  264.70  Applicability.

    (a) The regulations in this subpart apply to owners and operators 
of both on-site and off-site facilities, except as Sec.  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:


Sec.  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) If a 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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 10822]]

    (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:


Sec.  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) 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 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 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 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 Sec.  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 
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 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 accordance with 
Sec.  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

[[Page 10823]]

original manifest by completing Item 18a and 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 
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 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
22. Section 264.76 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 
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 brief explanation of why the waste was unmanifested, if 
known.
    (b) [Reserved]

PART 265--INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF 
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

0
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

0
24. Section 265.70 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  265.70  Applicability.

    (a) The regulations in this subpart apply to owners and operators 
of both on-site and off-site facilities, except as Sec.  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.

0
25. Section 265.71 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(4) and 
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 any discrepancies (as defined in Sec.  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.
    (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
26. Section 265.72 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  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

[[Page 10824]]

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 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 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 Sec.  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.
    (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 
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 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 accordance with 
Sec.  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 
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 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:


Sec.  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 
Sec.  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;

[[Page 10825]]

    (6) The certification signed by the owner or operator of the 
facility or his authorized representative; and
    (7) A brief explanation of why the waste was unmanifested, if 
known.
    (b) [Reserved]

PART 271--REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE 
PROGRAMS

0
28. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and 6926.

0
29. Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entries to 
Table 1 in chronological order by date of publication in the Federal 
Register, to read as follows:


Sec.  271.1  Purpose and scope.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *

               Table 1.--Regulations Implementing the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Federal Register
         Promulgation date           Title of regulation         reference                Effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Mar. 4, 2005......................  Waste Minimization     [Insert FR page        Sept. 6, 2005.
                                     Certification in the   numbers].
                                     Revised Manifest
                                     Rule.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
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:


Sec.  271.10  Requirements for generators of hazardous wastes.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (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 Sec.  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 state-required 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.
* * * * *

0
31. Section 271.11 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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 manifest, 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 to 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 to 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.
* * * * *

0
32. Section 271.12 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>