10776 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 

265, and 271

[FRL–7867–4] 

RIN 2050–AE21

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Modification of the Hazardous 

Waste Manifest System

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is establishing new 

requirements revising the Uniform 

Hazardous Waste Manifest regulations 

and the manifest and continuation sheet 

forms used to track hazardous waste 

from a generator’s site to the site of its 

disposition. The revisions announced 

today will standardize the content and 

appearance of the manifest form and 

continuation sheet (Forms 8700–22 and 

22a), make the forms available from a 

greater number of sources and adopt 

new procedures for tracking certain 

types of waste shipments with the 

manifest. The latter types of shipments 

include hazardous wastes that 

destination facilities reject, wastes 

consisting of residues from non-empty 

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, groce.bryan@epa.gov, or Richard 

LaShier, Office of Solid Waste, (703) 

308–8796, lashier.rich@epa.gov. Mail 

inquiries may be directed to the Office 

of Solid Waste, (5304W), 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Rule Apply to Me? 

This rule affects up to 139,000 entities 

in at least 45 industries (see table below) 

involved in shipping approximately 12 

million tons of RCRA hazardous wastes 

annually (non-wastewaters and 

wastewaters), using between 2.4 and 5.1 

million EPA Uniform Hazardous Waste 

Manifests (EPA Form 8700–22 and 

continuation sheets EPA Form 8700–

22A). These entities include but are not 

limited to: Hazardous waste generators; 

transporters; treatment, storage and 

disposal facilities (TSDFs); federal 

facilities; state governments; and 

governmental enforcement personnel 

dealing with hazardous waste 

transportation issues. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this rule to a particular entity, consult 

the people listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

LIST OF INDUSTRIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY REVISIONS TO THE RCRA MANIFEST FORM AND CONTINUATION SHEET

[EPA form 8700–22 & 22a] 

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

1 ............ 1794 23593 Construction excavation work ... 24 4512 48111 Air transportation. 

2 ............ 20 311 Food and kindred products 

manufacturing.

25 4613 48691 Refined petroleum pipelines. 

3 ............ 2295 31332 Coated fabrics manufacturing ... 26 4789 488999 Transportation services n.e.c. 

4 ............ 24 321 Lumber and wood products 

manufacturing.

27 4813 5133 Telephone communications. 

5 ............ 25 337 Furniture and fixtures manufacturing.28 49 2211 Electric, gas & sanitary services. 

6 ............ 26 322 Pulp and allied products manufacturing.29 4953 562211 Hazardous waste treatment & 

disposal. 

7 ............ 27 511 Printing and publishing ............. 30 4959 562910 Hazardous waste remediation 

services. 

8 ............ 28 325 Chemicals and allied products 

mfg.

31 50 421 Wholesale trade (durable 

goods). 

9 ............ 29 324 Petroleum and coal products 

mfg.

32 51 422 Wholesale trade (nondurable 

goods). 

10 .......... 30 326 Rubber & misc plastic products 

mfg.

33 5912 44 to 45 Drugstores & proprietary retail 

stores. 

11 .......... 32 327 Stone, clay and glass products 

mfg.

34 6552 23311 Real estate sub-dividers & developers. 

12 .......... 33 331 Primary metal manufacturing industries.35 7216 81232 Dry cleaning plants. 

13 .......... 34 332 Fabricated metal products manufacturing.36 73 541 Business services. 

14 .......... 35 333 Industrial machinery & equipment mfg.37 7532 811121 Top, body & upholstery repair & 

paint shops. 

15 .......... 36 335 Electronic & other electric 

equipment mfg.

38 7699 561 Repair shops & related services 

n.e.c. 

16 .......... 37 336 Transportation equipment manufacturing.39 8062 62211 General medical & surgical hospitals. 

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

LIST OF INDUSTRIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY REVISIONS TO THE RCRA MANIFEST FORM AND CONTINUATION SHEET—

Continued

[EPA form 8700–22 & 22a] 

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

17 .......... 38 334 Instruments & related products 

mfg.

40 8221 61131 Colleges & universities. 

18 .......... 39 339 Miscellaneous manufacturing 

industries.

41 87 541 Engineering & management 

services. 

19 .......... 4111 485 Local and suburban passenger 

transit.

42 8999 541 Services n.e.c. 

20 .......... 4173 48849 Terminal service facilities for 

vehicle transport.

43 95 924 to 925 Environmental quality & housing administration. 

21 .......... 42 484 Trucking and warehousing ........ 44 9661 92711 Space research & technology. 

22 .......... 4212 562112 Hazardous waste collection 

services.

45 9711 92811 National security (e.g. military 

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 §§ 264.72(d) and 265.72(d). 

4. Proposed §§ 264.72(e), (f) and 265.72(e), 

(f). 

5. Proposed §§ 264.72(g) and 265.72(g). 

6. Proposed Changes to § 263.21(b). 

7. Proposed Generator Regulations at 40 

CFR 262.34. 

B.1. Final Tracking Procedures for Rejected 

Waste and Residue Shipments. 

2. Comment Analysis and Final Provisions 

for Second Manifest. 

3. Comments Analysis and Final Generator 

Certification Block. 

4. Comments Analysis and Final Returned 

Shipments. 

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

5. Comment Analysis and Final Staging 

Waste at the Rejecting Facility. 

V. Final Unmanifested Waste Reporting 

Requirements 

VI. Administration and Enforcement of These 

Regulatory Changes in the States 

A. Uniform Applicability of Revised 

Manifest Requirements in All States. 

B. General Policy on RCRA Applicability of 

Federal Rules in Authorized States. 

C. Authorization of States for Today’s Final 

Rule. 

D. Consistency Requires Adoption of 

Revised Manifest in All States. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

With Tribal Governments. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children—Applicability of Executive 

Order 13045. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act. 

J. Congressional Review Act.

I. Background 

On May 22, 2001, EPA published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

to revise the hazardous waste manifest 

system (66 FR 28240). The revisions, 

proposed in May 2001, aimed to reduce 

the manifest system’s paperwork burden 

on users, while enhancing the 

effectiveness of the manifest as a tool to 

track hazardous waste shipments that 

are shipped from the site of generation 

to treatment, storage, or disposal 

facilities (TSDFs). The proposed rule 

would have accomplished this by 

adopting a standardized manifest form 

with fewer or no optional data fields, by 

adopting a new approach for 

distributing and acquiring the form, by 

standardizing further the data elements 

and procedures for tracking certain 

types of hazardous waste shipments, 

and by allowing the manifest to be 

completed, signed, transmitted and 

stored electronically. Thus, the 

proposed rule consisted of manifest 

system reforms of two distinct types: (1) 

Revisions to the manifest form itself and 

the procedures for using the form 

(hereafter, ‘‘form revisions’’); and (2) 

revisions aimed at replacing the paperbased manifest system with a nearly 

paperless, electronic approach to 

tracking hazardous waste shipments 

(hereafter, ‘‘e-manifest’’). 

EPA received 64 sets of public 

comments in response to the May 22, 

2001 proposed rule notice from 

hazardous waste generators, 

transporters, waste management firms, 

consultants, an information technology 

vendor and ten state hazardous waste 

agencies. Commenters generally 

supported our goals of further 

standardizing the manifest form 

elements and reducing variability 

among the manifests that authorized 

RCRA state agencies currently 

distribute. However, the commenters 

had differing views on many of the 

particulars of the proposed revisions to 

the manifest. Moreover, there were a 

substantial number of comments that 

took issue with EPA’s proposed 

approach to the e-manifest, particularly 

with respect to the technical rigor of the 

proposal, the assumptions relied upon 

by EPA in its projections of burden and 

cost reductions, the feasibility of the 

proposed electronic signature options, 

the highly detailed security 

requirements aimed at preventing fraud 

and data corruption, the reliance on 

regulated industry to develop private emanifest systems, and the NPRM’s 

suggestion that state programs may not 

be required to adopt the e-manifest 

requirements within their authorized 

RCRA state programs. 

We believe that the comments 

addressing the e-manifest proposal 

raised significant substantive issues that 

merit further analysis and stakeholder 

outreach prior to adopting a final 

approach. The comments received in 

response to the form revisions proposal, 

on the other hand, raised fewer difficult 

issues that would deter us from going 

forward at this time with a final rule. 

Therefore, EPA has decided to separate 

the e-manifest from the form revisions 

portion of the final rulemaking. Today’s 

notice announces our final rule 

approach only with respect to the 

manifest form revisions. Final action on 

the e-manifest will be based on the 

results of continuing analysis and 

outreach on several key rulemaking 

issues that are fundamental to the 

ultimate decision regarding whether 

EPA will adopt the e-manifest. 

The key e-manifest issues that must 

be resolved include: (1) Whether the emanifest should be decentralized as 

proposed and hosted by multiple 

private systems, centrally by EPA or by 

another party; (2) if a decentralized 

approach were to be adopted, how 

EPA’s standards should address 

interoperability of private systems; (3) 

whether the final e-manifest approach 

should be integrated with biennial 

reporting or other functions supported 

by EPA, the states 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 emanifest.

While today’s rule finalizes action 

only on the manifest form revisions, the 

e-manifest remains a high priority for 

the Agency. EPA conducted a 

stakeholder outreach meeting dedicated 

to the e-manifest during May 19–20, 

2004 in Washington, DC. We learned 

from these focused stakeholder 

discussions that there is strong support 

for the e-manifest among the various 

private and public sector interests 

involved with waste generation and 

management, as well as among the State 

agencies that collect manifest data and 

oversee compliance with the manifest 

system. In particular, we learned that 

there is strong support among 

stakeholders for a consistent, national emanifest system, although there are 

varying views on whether a national 

system should be privately or publicly 

hosted and funded, or, developed as a 

joint public/private venture. 

Significantly, the user community 

indicated at the May 2004 stakeholder 

meeting that it is willing to help fund 

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

reasonable user or transactional fees for 

e-manifest services. Given the strong 

interest expressed by stakeholders in a 

national e-manifest system, EPA is now 

exploring if there is a feasible means for 

EPA or another party to develop and 

implement a national e-manifest system, 

as well as exploring in more detail the 

design and performance requirements of 

any such system. The Agency expects to 

announce its decision on the future 

direction of the e-manifest by the end of 

Fiscal Year 2005. 

In Section II of this preamble, we 

discuss the elements of the final form 

revisions rule, including a summary of 

our May 2001 proposal, the significant 

comments raised in response to the 

proposal, our final rule determinations, 

and the rationale for those 

determinations. On balance, the final 

form revisions resemble the proposed 

rule’s contents very closely. We adopted 

relatively minor changes in response to 

public comments. For example, we 

accepted the great number of comments 

urging EPA not to retain any manifest 

data fields as ‘‘optional’’ fields. Thus, 

today’s final rule introduces changes 

from the proposal to the RCRA waste 

code fields and to the handling code 

fields, since these elements will be 

mandatory fields to be completed on all 

manifests. 

With respect to the Generator 

Identification field on the form, we 

accepted the comments asking us to 

expand this field to include the 

generator’s site address, if different from 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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 onepage format that collects the most 

essential waste shipment information. 

Thus, the addition of several new 

tracking fields to the form will of 

necessity require space to be freed up on 

the form for this new information, and 

require us to remove items that appear 

less essential for tracking waste 

shipment and management information. 

We received several comments 

endorsing the proposal to eliminate all 

nine of these ‘‘optional’’ fields as a way 

of reducing burden and variability in 

the manifest system. These commenters 

pointed out that the data involved 

consisted largely of state ID Numbers, 

facility phone numbers, or other static 

information that emergency responders 

or waste handlers could obtain 

elsewhere. These comments were 

balanced by other comments suggesting 

that most of the fields we proposed to 

remove provided some useful contact 

information that should be entered on 

the form for the benefit of emergency 

responders, state agency personnel, or 

in some instances, other waste handlers. 

However, we clearly could not retain all 

of these data elements and still 

accommodate any changes to the form 

that would add or delineate in more 

detail other waste tracking information 

that stakeholders urged us to adopt as 

part of the manifest revision effort, 

unless we were willing to expand the 

manifest to a two-page document. Given 

that the current one-page manifest 

already entails preparing and filing 

between four and eight copies, and the 

concerns that have been raised by users 

with Continuation Sheets that can be 

separated and misplaced during transit, 

we do not believe that a two-page format 

would be an acceptable outcome. We 

believe that it is essential to retain the 

manifest’s one-page format, and this 

choice necessitates that additions to the 

form be offset with deletions. Thus, in 

making final decisions on what fields to 

eliminate, the Agency relied heavily on 

the numerous comments on this subject, 

but had to exercise its judgment in 

determining which data elements were 

most essential to the transportation and 

tracking functions of the manifest, 

which data elements avoided 

duplication with data collected 

elsewhere, and which data elements 

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

seemed to provide the most benefit to 

the greatest number of stakeholders. We 

explain our final decisions for each of 

these nine data elements below. 

2. Proposed Removal of State 

Manifest Tracking Number. The State 

Manifest Tracking Number is not 

necessary, given the new manifest 

acquisition process discussed in Section 

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

manifest form becomes effective, a 

registered printer will assign each 

manifest a unique, pre-printed Manifest 

Tracking Number. Printers can obtain 

authority to print manifests by 

registering with EPA under the Registry 

process and adhering to the federal 

printing specification for the manifest. 

There no longer will be separate state 

versions of the manifest form, and 

authorized states will no longer control 

the assignment of State Manifest 

Numbers to the new form. Thus, the 

State Manifest Number’s role—assuring 

uniqueness of each manifest and 

facilitating the tracking of manifests in 

databases—is subsumed by the new 

mandatory 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 broaderin-scope programs), but is not a 

hazardous waste under the federal 

RCRA waste listings or characteristics. 

Similarly, the state may implement a 

broader-in-scope program that does not 

include as many of the federal 

exemptions from the definition of solid 

or hazardous wastes, or, the state may 

not recognize the status of conditionally 

exempt small quantity generators or 

other conditionally exempt wastes. In 

these cases, EPA would not issue such 

a generator an EPA Generator ID. 

However, the state would have a 

legitimate interest in assigning a State 

Generator ID Number to identify that 

generator on manifests or other 

submissions and in the state’s databases. 

We agree with these 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’ statelicensed status other than requiring 

generators to enter license information 

or vehicle registration numbers on each 

hazardous waste manifest. The 

Transporter ID field’s purpose was to 

identify each transporter company 

uniquely and indicate its eligibility 

under RCRA to handle and transport 

hazardous waste. While states may issue 

licenses to hazardous waste 

transporters, we do not believe that the 

Uniform Manifest should contain statespecific data requirements aimed at 

enforcing transporter licensing 

requirements that vary from state to 

state. We did not receive any comments 

suggesting that there were state 

regulated transporters that lacked an 

EPA ID number. Therefore, this final 

rule removes the State Transporter ID 

fields from the manifest form, and 

affirms that it is sufficient for the 

purposes of the revised manifest to enter 

only the transportation company’s EPA 

ID number. 

5. Proposed Removal of Transporter’s 

Phone Fields. Under the existing form, 

Items D and F are optional fields where 

users can record phone numbers for up 

to two transporters that may be 

identified in the mandatory transporter 

fields of the Uniform Manifest. The May 

2001 NPRM proposed to remove Items 

D and F because we believed it was 

unnecessary to record the transporter 

phone numbers along with the other 

mandatory phone numbers. Several 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 10781

1The 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.

greatly inconvenienced if they must at 

times resort to their internal contact lists 

rather than the Uniform Manifest to 

obtain a transporter’s current phone 

number. Therefore, today’s final rule 

removes the transporter phone number 

data elements from the revised manifest 

form. 

6. Proposed Removal of State 

Facility’s ID Field. Item G is an optional 

field on the existing Uniform Manifest, 

used to record a State Facility ID 

number. We proposed to remove this 

data element in May 2001 based on our 

belief that it produced duplicate 

information already provided by the 

EPA ID Number in Item 10 of the 

existing form. Designated facilities with 

EPA ID Numbers already are identified 

uniquely on the manifest and in RCRA 

databases (e.g., RCRAInfo). While 

commenters suggested it was 

convenient to use these numbers to 

ensure compliance with state licensing 

requirements, we did not receive 

comment that refuted our argument 

concerning redundancy. While 

permitted states may issue their own 

facility identification numbers, it is not 

necessary to burden waste handlers or 

the revised, standardized manifest form, 

with a requirement to enter duplicative 

facility identifiers. Therefore, this final 

rule removes the State Facility ID data 

element from the revised manifest form. 

7. Proposed Removal of Facility’s 

Phone Field. The existing manifest form 

designates Item H as an optional data 

element where users can record the 

designated facility’s phone number. The 

NPRM proposed to remove this data 

element from the revised form because 

we believed that users could obtain this 

contact information through means 

other than the manifest. However, we 

received a substantial number of 

comments from waste handlers and 

authorized states urging EPA to retain 

this data field. We learned from these 

commenters that generators, 

transporters and agency personnel use 

this information to address 

discrepancies, exceptions or other 

issues that arise from shipments of 

waste moving in commerce. Resolving 

discrepancies and exceptions are 

important waste tracking functions 

served by the manifest, and the 

comments persuaded us that the 

facility’s phone number facilitates the 

performance of these critical tracking 

functions. Therefore, the revised 

manifest form retains space for entering 

the facility’s phone number. The revised 

manifest will include this space in the 

Designated Facility’s Name and Site 

Address field as a mandatory data 

element. 

8. Proposed Consolidation of 

Additional Descriptions and Special 

Handling Fields. In the May 2001 

NPRM, we proposed to remove Item J 

(Additional Descriptions for Materials 

Listed Above) from the manifest and to 

consolidate this information with that of 

existing Item 15 (Special Handling 

Instructions and Additional 

Information). Today’s rule creates a 

combined data element, Special 

Handling Instructions and Additional 

Information, which appears as Item 14 

on the revised manifest form. We 

proposed to consolidate these two data 

elements to create space on the revised 

form to accommodate the new 

International Shipments field and 

expanded discrepancy space, and 

because stakeholders previously had 

petitioned EPA to combine these two 

information fields.1

Comments on this proposal reflected 

a variety of views. While commenters 

did not object per se to our proposal to 

consolidate these two data elements, we 

received several comments expressing 

concerns about the amount of space 

allotted to the field, as well as many 

comments concerning the type of 

information that individual states might 

require in this block. Comments from 

generators, waste industry members and 

states stressed the need for more space 

on the revised manifest for the Special 

Handling and Additional Information 

field than we originally proposed. 

Industry commenters expressed the 

concern that the field, as proposed, 

would leave waste handlers too little 

space to enter waste profile information, 

bar codes depicting waste information, 

or information already required in this 

space by existing federal and state 

programs. State commenters echoed this 

concern, and one state (New York) 

added that the proposed field would not 

allow the state to track parameters such 

as the specific gravity of wastes (used to 

convert waste volume units to units of 

mass) or the ultimate handling code for 

wastes processed by multiple TSDFs. 

Industry comments also voiced strongly 

and frequently the concern that the 

revised Special Handling and 

Additional Information field would 

become a ‘‘catch-all’’ for entering 

various types of information. These 

commenters worried that eliminating 

many of the current ‘‘state optional’’

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 

10782 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Description’’ field of the revised Item 14 

to enter chemical names, constituent 

percentages, physical state or specific 

gravity of wastes identified with volume 

units in Item 9b of the revised form. 

The federal regulatory uses of the 

Special Handling field of Item 14 are 

limited to: (1) Identification of the 

original manifest tracking number for 

rejected waste or residue shipments that 

are being forwarded to an alternate 

facility or returned to the generator 

under a second manifest; and (2) 

specification of PCB waste descriptions 

and PCB out-of-service dates under 40 

CFR 761.207. Waste handlers, however, 

cannot be required to enter information 

in this space to meet state regulatory 

requirements. 

We recognize that states have 

previously used the Additional 

Description field to record state-specific 

information such as ultimate process 

codes for treating wastes, information 

relating to eligibility for state-specific 

exemptions, and information indicating 

the eligibility of specific wastes for 

differential fees or assessments levied 

by some states based on how these 

wastes are managed. Since the revised 

form will no longer allow state-specific 

information of this type to be entered in 

Item 14, states will need to find other 

means to flag state-specific information 

of this type so that the standardized 

manifest does not become burdened 

with state-specific data requirements. 

To the extent that such state-specific 

information can be captured by waste 

code information, we urge the states to 

develop appropriate waste codes to 

convey this information, and require its 

entry among the waste codes to be 

recorded in Item 13 of the new form. In 

this way, all state-specific information 

requirements could be conveyed in Item 

13 rather than being dispersed across 

several data elements. EPA will support 

the dissemination of information to 

manifest users on state waste code 

requirements, and we urge states to 

address any needed waste code changes 

during the period before the delayed 

compliance date of this rule.

9. Continuation Sheet. In the NPRM, 

we explained that the manifest system 

includes both the Uniform Hazardous 

Waste Manifest (EPA Form 8700–22) 

and the Uniform Hazardous Waste 

Manifest Continuation Sheet (EPA Form 

8700–22A). We clarified that the 

continuation sheet includes many of the 

same data elements as the manifest form 

and merely adds additional fields to 

identify additional transporters or waste 

streams which do not fit on the 

manifest. In this regard, we explained 

our intent to implement the proposed 

revisions with respect to both the 

manifest and the corresponding data 

fields found on the continuation sheet. 

EPA requested that commenters 

consider both the manifest and 

continuation sheet in providing 

comments. The majority of commenters 

on the continuation sheet asked for 

clarification on its use and design. 

In response to commenters’ requests, 

we are clarifying today that the 

continuation sheet being published in 

the rule will continue to be used in the 

same way as the previous continuation 

sheet (e.g., when more than two 

transporters transport the waste). 

Moreover, the design of the new 

continuation sheet closely mirrors the 

previous continuation sheet, except that 

it has been revised to incorporate 

changes being made to the manifest 

form. Thus, the continuation sheet no 

longer includes fields for State 

Transporter ID numbers or phone 

numbers or the field on the previous 

continuation sheet denoted Item S, 

Additional Descriptions for Materials 

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 #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 

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

10784 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

to add International Shipments, Item 16, 

to the revised form. The proposed 

changes provide explicit spaces for 

entering currently required information. 

The 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 § 263.20(i), which 

required transporters who are 

transporting hazardous waste into the 

United States to leave an extra copy of 

the manifest with a U.S. Customs 

official at the point of entry into the 

United States. Instead, we have added a 

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

§§ 264.71 and 265.71. This new 

provision requires the receiving facility 

to mail a final, signed copy of the 

manifest to the following address within 

30 days of delivery: International 

Compliance Assurance Division, OFA/

OECA (2254A), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

We also have revised the proposed 

provision at § 262.60(e), which required 

the importer to provide the transporter 

with an additional copy of the manifest 

for delivery to the U.S. Customs official 

at the point the hazardous waste enters 

the United States in accordance with 

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

by removing the reference to 

§ 263.20(g)(4) and replacing that 

reference with references to new 

§§ 264.71(a)(3) and 265.71(a)(3). The 

resulting effect of these revisions to the 

proposed requirements would still be 

the same as that of the proposed 

requirements—i.e., copies of import 

manifests will be delivered to EPA for 

tracking purposes. However, the means 

for achieving this result have changed 

from a drop-off requirement for the 

transporter to a direct mailing 

requirement for the receiving facility. 

We believe this revised approach is 

more appropriate than the proposed 

approach, because it parallels existing 

manifest mailing requirements for 

receiving facilities. Specifically, 

§§ 264.71(a)(2)(iv) and 265.71(a)(2)(iv) 

in the proposed rule require receiving 

facilities to mail copies of manifests to 

generators within 30 days of delivery of 

hazardous waste shipments. (In 

addition, some states also require 

receiving facilities to mail them copies 

of manifests upon receipt of hazardous 

waste shipments.) EPA believes that 

TSDFs, as receiving facilities, are well 

situated to mail a copy of the final, 

signed copy of the manifest to EPA for 

tracking purposes since they are already 

required to, and are in the practice of, 

mailing a copy of the same document to 

generators and, in some cases, to states 

as well. EPA believes that TSDF mailing 

of a copy of the manifest to EPA is a 

more direct and efficient way for EPA to 

receive this document than the 

proposed approach of transporter dropoff 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. 

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

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

used for biennial reporting could 

eliminate or greatly reduce waste 

handlers’ and states’ current burden of 

separately gathering and reporting this 

waste management information. 

2. Content of the Handling Code 

Proposal. Based on broad stakeholder 

interest in this issue, EPA proposed in 

May 2001 to rename the Handling Code 

field ‘‘Item B,’’ since, at that time, this 

field would remain optional. In cases 

where the states required handling 

codes, we proposed that responsibility 

to enter the process code information 

would fall on TSDFs, who are most 

familiar with the waste management 

processes and the codes used to identify 

them. Additionally, consistent with 

stakeholders’ views, we proposed that 

the handling codes entered would be 

the process codes used in connection 

with the RCRA Biennial Report. At the 

time we developed the proposed rule, 

these codes were referred to as the 

Biennial Report System Type Codes. 

Recently, the biennial reporting system 

was revised and is now known as the 

Hazardous Waste Report. The process 

codes also have been revised somewhat 

and renamed the Hazardous Waste 

Report Management Method Codes. 

3. Standardization of Handling Codes.

EPA also requested comment on 

whether state, industry, and other 

stakeholders would prefer a new list of 

codes as an alternative to using the full 

list of Hazardous Waste Report 

Management Method Codes. There was 

some sense that a smaller code set could 

be more manageable to implement, and 

might still 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.

Code Hazardous waste report management method code group 

Corresponding codes 

from 1999 hazardous 

waste report* 

Reclamation and Recovery

H010 ............ Metals recovery including retorting, smelting, chemical, etc .................................................................... M011–M019 

H020 ............ Solvents recovery ..................................................................................................................................... M021–M029, M104 

H039 ............ Other recovery or reclamation for reuse including acid regeneration, organics recovery, etc ................ M031–M039 

H050 ............ Energy recovery at this site—use as fuel (includes on-site fuel blending) .............................................. M051–M059 

H061 ............ Fuel blending prior to energy recovery at another site ............................................................................ M061 

Destruction or Treatment Prior to Disposal at Another Site

H040 ............ Incineration—thermal destruction other than use as a fuel ..................................................................... M041–49 

H071 ............ Chemical reduction with or without precipitation ...................................................................................... M071 

H073 ............ Cyanide destruction with or without precipitation ..................................................................................... M073 

H075 ............ Chemical oxidation .................................................................................................................................... M075 

H076 ............ Wet air oxidation ....................................................................................................................................... M076, M084, M093 

H077 ............ Other chemical precipitation with or without pre-treatment ...................................................................... M072, M074, M077 

H081 ............ Biological treatment with or without precipitation ..................................................................................... M081, M091 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 10787

Code Hazardous waste report management method code group 

Corresponding codes 

from 1999 hazardous 

waste report* 

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 disposal at another site ........................................................... M111 

H112 ............ Macro–encapsulation prior to disposal at another site ............................................................................. M112, NEW 

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-site treatment and/or stabilization) .................................... M131 

H132 ............ Landfill or surface impoundment that will be closed as landfill (to include on-site treatment and/or stabilization).M132, M133 

H134 ............ Deepwell or underground injection (with or without treatment) ................................................................ M134 

H135 ............ Discharge to sewer/POTW or NPDES (with prior storage—with or without treatment) .......................... M135, M136 

Storage and Transfer

H141 ............ Storage, bulking, and/or transfer off site—no treatment/recovery (H010–H129), fuel blending (H061), 

or disposal (H131–H135) at this site.

M141 

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

5. Designation of Process Codes as 

Mandatory. While we proposed to retain 

the revised handling codes as an 

optional field for use by states, we also 

requested comment on whether to deem 

Hazardous Waste Report Management 

Method Codes a mandatory field. At 

that time, we were wary of imposing 

new reporting burdens on those waste 

handlers in states that did not require 

handling codes. On the other hand, we 

were aware that much of the manifest 

use burden arose not so much from 

completing individual data elements, 

but from determining what elements 

were required in individual states and 

by complying with state-specific 

information and instructions. The great 

majority of commenters expressed a 

strong desire to designate the handling 

codes mandatory for use in all states. 

Because most states which currently 

require the codes will continue to 

require them, the commenters did not 

see any reason to maintain the optional 

status. The commenters also believed 

that making one set of codes mandatory 

would reduce the burden associated 

with completing the manifest; rather 

than having the regulated community 

learn several different coding systems, 

one set of codes would be used in every 

state. This change would increase 

consistency in manifest requirements 

and likely reduce paperwork burdens. 

Therefore, today’s final rule mandates 

the entry of the Hazardous Waste Report 

Management Method Codes on the 

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

Management Method Code field as Item 

19 (rather than Block B) in the revised 

form and placed it in the bottom section 

of the form among the data elements 

that designated facilities must complete. 

6. Party Responsible for Completing 

Item 19. The majority of commenters 

supported our proposal to identify the 

designated TSDF as the party 

responsible for completing Item 19. 

TSDFs often determine waste 

management methods on a day-by-day 

basis, (e.g., TSDFs may use fuel 

blending on a waste stream on one day 

and solvent recovery the next). 

Consequently, many commenters argued 

that generators could not be expected to 

foresee the management method the 

TSDF 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 

10788 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

proposal to divide space between 

federal and state waste codes. State 

agency commenters strongly favored the 

proposed expansion that would allow 

the reporting of up to six waste codes in 

proposed Item A, although comments 

differed on how to allocate the 

expanded space between federal and 

state waste codes. Some state comments 

supported a side-by-side array of the 

federal and state codes, while others 

asked us not to differentiate between 

federal and state codes. Industry 

commenters provided additional detail 

on these points. While most industry 

commenters supported the proposal to 

provide space for three to six waste 

codes, two large TSDFs noted that in 

their vast experience with manifests, 

space for four federal codes ordinarily 

would be sufficient. As with the state 

comments, several industry commenters 

suggested that the rule allow users to 

allocate the space between federal and 

state codes as they saw fit, rather than 

limiting them to entering three federal 

codes and three state codes. These 

comments also criticized the proposed 

approach to divide the state waste code 

space between the generator state and 

the consignee state, as this would 

probably generate confusion.

State commenters generally supported 

requiring or allowing users to enter all 

applicable waste codes, entering any 

overflow from existing Block A in the 

‘‘Additional Descriptions’’ space. 

Several industry commenters also 

supported the idea of entering all 

applicable waste codes (utilizing the 

Additional Descriptions space). 

Believing that six codes were more than 

sufficient to characterize the properties 

of a hazardous waste, others suggested 

that the final rule should restrict waste 

code entries to no more than six codes 

per waste stream. 

Industry commenters raised 

additional concerns related to using the 

RCRA manifest to enter state waste 

codes. In an effort to further reduce the 

burden incurred by users in entering 

waste code data, several commenters 

suggested that EPA clarify in the final 

rule that state waste codes could be 

entered on the revised manifest form 

only to the extent that they were not 

redundant with federal waste codes 

established by EPA. These commenters 

argued that it makes little sense to use 

both a federal code and a distinct state 

waste code to describe the same 

material on the manifest, especially 

since paperwork burden reduction is a 

major objective of this rulemaking. 

However, the waste code issue that 

generated the greatest level of interest 

was the proposed hierarchical approach 

to entering federal waste codes in the 

Item A space. In the May 2001 NPRM, 

we proposed a waste code hierarchy 

intended to order federal waste codes 

according to their toxicity properties, 

alerting manifest users and emergency 

responders to their presence. The 

hierarchical approach would not have 

applied to state waste codes. The 

proposed hierarchy specified the 

following ordering of federal waste 

codes: 

I. All acutely hazardous wastes, 

including all P-listed wastes and all 

acutely hazardous F-listed wastes, 

II. U-listed wastes (toxic), 

III. K-listed wastes (specific sources), 

IV. Non-acute F-listed wastes (nonspecific sources), and 

V. D wastes (characteristic). 

The proposed rule also stipulated that 

in instances where states designated 

ignitable and reactive wastes as priority 

waste classes, these wastes would be 

entered first in Block A, ahead of the 

waste types that would otherwise 

appear first in the above hierarchy. 

While several commenters supported 

the hierarchy concept, EPA received 

many more comments critical of the 

hierarchy proposal. The supportive 

comments pointed out that a hierarchy 

would usefully limit the number of 

codes entered on the form, because one 

would only need to enter the first six 

codes identified under the hierarchy. 

Other commenters emphasized that the 

hierarchy would be useful for 

completing the manifest consistently 

across all jurisdictions. A few comments 

suggested that the 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 staterequired addition to a federal code 

serves to distinguish a waste that is 

regulated uniquely or differently in the 

state, or to distinguish wastes subject to 

differential fees or similar requirements 

based on the nature of the waste or how 

it is processed. 

EPA has made it a focus of this 

rulemaking to reduce the variability that 

appeared among the manifest forms that 

are currently distributed by authorized 

states. The elimination of optional 

fields, the standardization of handling 

codes, and the new registry and 

acquisition procedures are examples of 

significant manifest reforms we have 

adopted to address this issue. 

Nevertheless, all variability cannot be 

eliminated. However, we believe that 

the variability problem has been greatly 

improved by this rule, in that variability 

which may have been dispersed among 

11 optional fields on the old form has 

been reduced to variability limited to 

the reporting of state waste codes. States 

may develop additional waste codes in 

response to today’s rule in order to 

designate wastes which qualify for state 

specific exemptions, wastes which are 

subject to a differential waste 

management fee based on how a waste 

is managed, or wastes which are subject 

to other state-specific management 

conditions. While this may have the 

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

a preferred outcome to allowing varying 

information to populate other fields of 

the form. 

5. Final Rule Determination—Waste 

Code Hierarchy. Many commenters 

expressed 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 

10790 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TSDFs commented persuasively that 

they rely on the more detailed waste 

profile information that they develop to 

classify waste streams and the processes 

they use to manage wastes received 

under the manifest. Thus, we conclude 

that a risk-based ordering of waste codes 

is currently unnecessary as a risk 

communication tool for the revised 

manifest. 

Instead, we have found that manifest 

waste code data primarily inform state 

agencies of materials generated within 

or brought into an authorized state for 

management. States use this information 

to monitor trends in waste management, 

levy assessments based on waste 

generation or management in the state, 

or prepare the RCRA biennial report. 

For over 20 years, waste handlers have 

been entering waste codes without the 

benefit of a hierarchy rule, and we are 

not aware that waste handler judgment 

in assigning codes has resulted in 

serious problems for authorized states. 

Therefore, we are accepting the 

comments submitted by both industry 

members and state agencies that the 

choice to enter waste codes should be 

left to the judgment of the users 

completing the form. The users should 

ascertain the waste codes that are most 

representative of the waste, giving due 

regard to the degree of the hazardous 

properties presented (i.e., toxicity, 

reactivity, ignitability), the waste 

properties that are most material to the 

chosen management process, and the 

volume or relative quantity of the 

material associated with the waste code 

in question. We believe it is more 

practical to rely upon waste handler 

judgment, rather than develop a 

rigorous rule that presumes a precise 

toxicity-based ordering that is neither 

practical nor credible.

6. Final Rule Determination—Waste 

Codes are Mandatory Fields. In the May 

2001 NPRM, we proposed to maintain 

RCRA waste codes as one of only two 

optional fields on the revised manifest. 

While EPA did not propose or solicit 

specific comment on designating RCRA 

waste codes as a mandatory data field, 

comments were submitted in response 

to our request for comment on 

additional ways to better integrate the 

collection of manifest data with the 

biennial reporting process. Commenters 

provided very strong and nearly 

unanimous comments urging EPA to 

designate waste codes as mandatory 

rather than optional. Commenters 

argued that designating waste code as 

reporting mandatory would be a burden 

reduction measure, since it would 

obviate the need to determine from state 

to state whether the codes were 

required. We were further advised by 

the comments that the benefits of a 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 § 262.32) make 

reference to containers that are either 

greater than, less than, or equal to 110 

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

establishes criteria for determining if a 

hazardous waste container is ‘‘empty,’’

while § 262.32 requires a generator to 

mark containers of 110 gallons or less. 

In each case, the 110 gallon threshold 

was selected to conform to a 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 nonbulk containers at the 119 gallon 

threshold. 

We received only a few comments 

that addressed this issue, but they 

supported the proposal to conform the 

bulk container threshold in the 

hazardous waste regulations with the 

current DOT requirements. Therefore, 

today’s final rule amends 

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

and § 262.32 by substituting the 119 

gallon threshold for the 110 gallon 

threshold that appears in the existing 

regulations. 

3. Use of Fractions. In the May 2001 

NPRM, EPA proposed new language for 

the manifest form instructions to clarify 

the Agency’s position on including 

fractions or decimals in the waste 

quantities reported in Item 13 of the 

existing manifest. We proposed this 

language in response to reports from 

several states, which noted an increase 

in the number of manifests containing 

quantity descriptions with fractions. 

This can pose problems for state 

databases, which may not accommodate 

entries that include a fraction or a 

decimal. Therefore, several states urged 

EPA to adopt new regulatory language 

that more clearly would exclude 

fractions from the quantity descriptions 

reported on the form. 

EPA has provided guidance on this 

issue in past manifest rulemakings. As 

we explained in the proposed rule 

preamble (see 66 FR 28250), EPA has 

historically discouraged the use of 

fractions or decimals. We stated in the 

March, 1984 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. 

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

10792 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

prepare and sign the electronic manifest 

on behalf of the generator. The 

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 pretransportation activities described 

above. However, these activities and 

responsibilities were further clarified by 

DOT when the Department codified 

these policies in a recent final 

regulation dealing with the applicability 

of the HMRs to loading, unloading, and 

storage. See 68 FR 61906 (October 30, 

2003). In this rule, DOT codified a new 

regulatory definition of ‘‘pretransportation 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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 pretransportation functions may be an 

offeror with respect to the shipment. 

While a generator may certainly sign the 

generator certification statement in its 

capacity as the generator, today’s rule is 

intended to clarify that another person, 

such as a transporter making a waste 

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

certification statement on the manifest 

in their capacity as an offeror. This 

person may sign as an offeror if they 

have performed pre-transportation 

functions, and can certify that the 

shipment has been properly described, 

classified, packed, marked, and labeled, 

and is in all respects in proper 

condition for transportation under the 

applicable international or national 

regulations. The person preparing the 

shipment and making the certification is 

responsible for the proper discharge of 

the offeror functions they perform and 

the truth of the certification statement. 

The offeror is liable in its independent 

offeror capacity for discharging their 

offeror responsibilities, regardless of 

whether or not they may also be viewed 

as performing these activities ‘‘on behalf 

of’’ or the agent of the generator, as the 

generator’s independent service 

contractor, or pursuant to a course of 

dealing with the generator. 

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 

§ 260.10. Nor are we expanding or 

otherwise modifying the meaning of the 

language in the Item 16 manifest form 

instruction enabling one to include the 

words ‘‘on behalf of’’ in connection with 

a signature, although it will now apply 

both to generator and offeror signatures. 

A preparer who assists with pretransportation functions under the 

HMRs, and who can 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 pretransportation functions as an offeror, it 

does not thereby assume full generator 

responsibilities. Rather, it assumes only 

the more limited responsibilities (for the 

pre-transportation functions) and the 

distinct liability that attaches to the 

offeror status. Therefore, a TSDF that 

only is offering hazardous waste in 

transportation after rejecting and staging 

the waste temporarily at its facility 

would be subject to the offeror 

responsibilities for the new movement 

of the waste, but it would not be subject 

to the full range of generator 

requirements. This issue is explained 

further in section IV.B.3. of this 

preamble. 

H.1. Delayed Compliance Date for 

Revised Form—Introduction. When we 

proposed the manifest form revisions in 

May 2001, we were interested in 

according manifest users and authorized 

states adequate time to phase-in use of 

the new form. We realized that waste 

handlers and states would need some 

time to become familiar with the new 

requirements, entities with existing 

stocks of manifests would want to use 

up their supplies of the ‘‘old forms,’’

and new manifest printers would 

require time to register with EPA and 

prepare for printing and distributing the 

revised manifest. Likewise, state 

agencies would need sufficient time to 

amend their regulatory programs and 

adapt their databases to meet the new 

form requirements. 

Cognizant of these factors, we 

proposed a ‘‘delayed compliance date’’

to allow time to transition to the new 

form. Under the proposed approach, the 

final rule would become effective six 

months after publication in the Federal 

Register, as is typically the case with 

RCRA regulations. However, for the first 

two years 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 

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

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 10795

2Public data sources we reviewed in 2003 

indicate that 12 state governments (AR, CA, CT, DE, 

IL, LA, MD, MI, MO, NH, NJ, PA) may collect 

revenues from direct assessment 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.

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

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 statespecific requirements that would have 

significance to collecting such fees. 

Thus, if there are limited instances 

where a state is using revenues from 

selling blank manifests for other waste 

program purposes beyond offsetting 

form printing costs or processing costs, 

we believe that any reduction in such 

revenue tied to the proposed acquisition 

approach could be recouped by 

adjustments to the waste management 

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 

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

would result to the regulated 

community. They noted that the 

proposed approach would continue to 

require generators to contact all states in 

which they conducted business to 

obtain information on individual state 

requirements (e.g., information on 

requirements for generator form 

submission to generator state, waste 

codes, etc.). Finally, some state 

commenters argued that the proposed 

changes are in fact more confusing 

because they prohibit the inclusion of 

state-specific information and 

instructions on the form. One 

commenter stated that eliminating the 

state’s ability to print complete 

directions on the back of the manifest 

would increase burden on a large 

percentage of waste handlers who 

would need to maintain a separate filing 

system for state directions. 

3. Final Manifest Acquisition 

Provisions. The final rule substantively 

retains the proposed manifest 

acquisition and Registry regulations at 

§ 262.21. Under the final § 262.21 

manifest acquisition requirements, a 

waste generator, transporter or TSDF 

can register with EPA to print its own 

manifests, or it could obtain manifests 

from other registered sources such as 

states, commercial printers or other 

waste handlers. The final manifest 

acquisition requirements do not allow 

states to require generators to use their 

state form. 

The Agency recognizes that although 

today’s action standardizes the manifest 

acquisition provisions, generators must 

still be cognizant of state-specific 

information, such as state waste code 

and generator manifest copy submission 

instructions. Generators will be able to 

determine this state-specific information 

from a variety of sources, such as Web 

sites, state regulations and other 

published materials, or contacts with 

State agency staff. We, however, do not 

agree with commenters’ argument that 

waste handlers will need to maintain a 

separate filing system for state 

directions. The Agency notes that it had 

proposed to eliminate all but two 

optional fields (i.e., Waste Codes and 

Handling Codes, previously Items I and 

K, respectively) from the form and has 

since made these two blocks mandatory 

with today’s action. (See sections II.E.4 

and II.F.6 for further discussion on 

management method codes and waste 

codes, respectively.) 

Further, in response to commenters’

suggestions to provide additional 

support to industry under the revised 

manifest procedures, EPA is planning to 

design a Web site to: (1) Assist 

registrants to prepare their applications; 

(2) provide a means for both printers 

and the public to communicate with the 

Registry; and, (3) assist waste handlers 

in completing their manifests to 

accompany hazardous waste shipments. 

In addition, we would post the 

following guidance documents (once 

they are finalized) at the EPA Web site: 

• Registration instructions that will 

lay out the specific requirements/

components of the application package, 

along with examples of what EPA 

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

control procedures for tracking 

numbers, definition of terms, etc) and a 

Q&A document of frequently asked 

questions. 

• A guidance document that sets forth 

print specifications that registrants may 

use in preparing manifest samples for 

Registry evaluation. 

• An up-to-date list of all approved 

registrants, contact information, and 

approved numbering schemes. The list 

would allow: (i) Prospective registrants 

to develop and propose unique suffixes; 

(ii) states to learn which entities are 

printing manifests in their state; and, 

(iii) the public to contact registrants for 

forms; and

• Information and/or links to assist 

waste handlers in completing the 

manifest, including the manifest 

instructions, a description of the 

delayed compliance date, and related 

matters, applicable state requirements 

(e.g., state manifest copy submission 

requirements, contacts, waste codes), 

federal waste codes and Hazardous 

Waste Report Management Method 

codes. 

With regard to the state manifest 

programs’ potential loss of revenue, we 

understand these concerns, but as we 

explained above, after a more thorough 

consideration of this issue, we believe 

that the revenue losses that will result 

from the new acquisition approach will 

either be insignificant or can be avoided 

by the states as they plan for the 

implementation of the revised form. 

B.1. Proposed Manifest Registry and 

Printing Specifications—Introduction.

We proposed a Registry system that 

described procedural mechanisms and 

offered federal printing specifications to 

ensure that printers used unique 

tracking numbers on each manifest, and 

to reduce the possibility of printing 

many variations of manifest forms. The 

manifest tracking number would be a 

unique pre-printed 11-digit number (i.e., 

the applicant’s proposed unique threeletter prefix followed by eight numeric 

digits). EPA proposed to prohibit people 

from assigning manifest tracking 

numbers and distributing the form 

without submitting an application to 

EPA and receiving approval of their 

manifest tracking number system. In 

general, the proposed regulations 

required the following administrative 

procedures and printing specifications: 

• Applicants must register with EPA 

to obtain manifest tracking number 

system approval and to ensure that they 

adhere to federal printing specifications 

and procedures. Prospective registrants 

must submit their company’s profile 

information (e.g., company name, 

address, EPA Identification number, 

mailing address, etc.), their proposed, 

unique three-letter prefix and a detailed 

description of their numbering system 

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

alphanumeric manifest tracking 

numbers to manifests); 

• Applicants must submit a manifest 

proof; 

• Applicants must sign a certification 

to ensure tracking numbers will not be 

duplicated intentionally and, if 

applicable, will adhere to all printing 

specifications; 

• The form must be printed in the 

same format as EPA Form 8700–22 and 

22A, according to the federal printing 

specifications at 40 CFR 262.21(b); 

• Manifest tracking number must be 

assigned in accordance with a 

numbering system approved by EPA 

and must be pre-printed on the form; 

• Applicants cannot add additional 

boxes on the form; 

• Applicants cannot delete existing 

boxes on the form; 

• Applicants must print the form 

with manifest dimensions of 81⁄2 by 11 

inches; 

• Applicants must print the form in 

black ink so that it can be photocopied 

or faxed; 

• Applicants must print the 

standardized manifest instructions, 

provided in the appendix to Part 262, on 

the back of the manifest; and, 

• Applicants must print the form as a 

six-copy form and must indicate on the 

form that copies of the form are 

distributed as follows: 

Page 1 (top copy): ‘‘Designated facility 

to consignment state’’ (if required); 

Page 2: ‘‘Designated facility to 

generator state’’ (if required); 

Page 3: ‘‘Designated facility to 

generator’’; 

Page 4: ‘‘Designated facility copy’’; 

Page 5: ‘‘Transporter copy’’; and, 

Page 6 (bottom copy): ‘‘Generator’s 

initial copy.’’

In the proposal, we stated that 

generators should provide a photocopy 

of the manifest if their state requires it. 

The proposal also noted that a 

completed manifest may contain fewer 

pages if the state does not require 

submission of forms; however, printers 

are required to print six-copy forms. 

Under certain circumstances (e.g., 

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

§ 262.21(c) and (e). Section 262.21(a)(2) 

provides that the registrant is 

responsible for ensuring that the 

organizations identified in its 

application are in compliance with the 

approved application and the 

requirements of § 262.21. 

Because the § 262.21(a) provisions 

hold the registrant directly accountable 

for compliance, we fully expect the 

registrant to use whatever mechanisms 

are available to ensure that the 

organizations and companies in its 

application also comply with the 

requirements. This could include, for 

example, the use of organizational 

controls (e.g., clear lines of 

communication, accountability and 

oversight) and production-related 

controls (e.g., the use of quality 

management systems in the printing 

process). It also could include the use of 

contract terms and conditions that 

encourage strong performance by 

contracted firms. 

In addition, § 262.21(a)(2) provides 

that the registrant is the only entity that 

can assign manifest tracking numbers to 

its manifests, except that the registrant 

can delegate this activity. We believe 

this provision is needed to ensure tight 

control and accountability over its 

numbers. One of our highest priorities 

under the Registry is ensuring that each 

manifest used or distributed (e.g., sold 

to the public) has a unique manifest 

10798 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

tracking number. Because approved 

registrants will be able to assign and 

pre-print tracking numbers onto 

manifests without any direct Agency 

oversight, we believe it is critical that 

the registrant be held accountable for 

ensuring that each manifest has a 

unique tracking number. 

To become registered, a registrant 

must submit an initial application to the 

EPA under § 262.21(b). The application 

must provide basic information on the 

registrant’s organization (e.g., contact 

information). The application also must 

include a description of the 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 § 262.21(b)(6), the registrant 

must describe the qualifications of the 

company that will print its manifest. A 

registrant that intends to print the 

manifest in-house (i.e., using its own 

establishments) must describe the 

qualifications of these establishments to 

print the manifest. Registrants that 

intend to use a separate printing 

company must describe the 

qualifications of this company. The 

registrant may use readily available 

information to do so (e.g., corporate 

brochures, product samples, customer 

references, Web site address), so long as 

such information pertains to the 

establishments or company being 

proposed. 

The registrant also must propose a 

unique, three-letter suffix to be used in 

pre-printing a unique manifest tracking 

number on each manifest. EPA 

evaluated several different schemes 

before selecting a three-letter suffix. 

EPA decided to require a suffix because 

of its concern about duplicating 

manifest tracking numbers previously 

used by the states on their forms. States’

manifest tracking numbers normally 

begin with a two- or three-letter prefix, 

followed by six or seven digits. Under 

the tracking number scheme being 

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

digits followed by its unique suffix. As 

mentioned earlier, EPA is planning to 

design a Web site, and would include a 

table that identifies all suffixes that have 

been approved. A prospective registrant 

would need to consult the Web site to 

determine which suffixes have not been 

approved and are therefore available. 

The registrant can propose any available 

suffix. EPA expects that most approved 

registrants will burn their suffix directly 

onto a printing plate. Each manifest can 

then be numbered sequentially as it 

passes through the printing process. 

A duly authorized employee of the 

registrant must sign its application to 

certify that the organizations and 

companies in its application will 

comply with the procedures of the 

application and requirements of 

§ 262.21 and that it will notify EPA of 

any duplicated manifest tracking 

numbers on manifests that have been 

used or distributed as soon as this 

becomes known. EPA believes this 

certification is important to emphasize 

to the registrant the importance of 

ensuring that its printing operations 

produce consistently high quality 

manifests, that tracking numbers be 

tightly controlled, and that print 

violations be corrected promptly.

Under § 262.21(c), EPA will either 

approve the application or request 

additional information or modification 

before approval. Once it is approved, 

EPA will email the registrant an 

electronic file of the manifest, 

continuation sheet, and manifest 

instructions and ask it to submit three 

fully assembled manifests that meet all 

of the specifications at Section 262.21(f). 

The registrant also must describe its 

manifest’s paper type, paper weight, ink 

color of the manifest’s instructions, and 

binding method (See § 262.21(d)). If 

screening of the ink was used for the 

manifest’s instructions, the registrant 

must indicate the extent of the 

screening. The registrant need not 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 262.21(f) have 

been met (See § 262.21(e)). For example, 

we will evaluate them to determine 

whether they have acceptable copy-tocopy registration, imprints appear 

legibly on all copies, and the ink of the 

manifest’s instructions does not bleed 

through the front of the copies. 

If the manifests pass these tests, EPA 

will approve the registrant to print, 

distribute and use the manifest as 

desired. The registrant may not use or 

distribute its forms until EPA approves 

them. EPA anticipates the evaluation of 

the sample forms and their subsequent 

approval will take forty-five days. 

However, this process conceivably 

could extend beyond the default fortyfive day time frame if unforseen 

circumstances arise, or we determine 

that the registrant’s forms are 

unacceptable. If EPA finds the forms 

unacceptable, we will request additional 

information or modification before 

approving or denying them. An 

approved registrant must print its 

manifest and continuation sheet 

according to its application approved 

under § 262.21(c) and the print 

specifications at § 262.21(f). The forms 

also must be printed according to the 

paper type, paper weight, ink color of 

the instructions, and binding method of 

the approved form sample. 

For the registration process to be 

successful and attractive to registrants 

and printers, we understand that we 

must provide adequate support to 

maximize the likelihood that their 

manifests will pass EPA’s tests on the 

first try. EPA recognizes that most 

printers will run a small test batch of 

forms to produce the form samples for 

EPA review, and thus, they will incur 

some production costs. EPA is keenly 

interested in ensuring that registrants 

develop an approvable manifest on the 

first try so they do not incur any added 

expense of redesigning their forms 

based on EPA’s comments on the 

original samples. To this end, EPA will 

provide an electronic file of the 

manifest, continuation sheet, and 

manifest instructions to registrants, 

which will relieve them of the need to 

completely typeset their forms. Using 

EPA’s electronic file should ensure that 

their forms have exact registration to 

EPA’s forms and do not contain any 

typographical errors. 

In addition, EPA is planning to post 

manifest print guidance on its Web site. 

The guidance will set forth examples of 

manifest specifications that we have 

found to be acceptable under our tests 

(e.g., acceptable paper weights, ink 

colors for the instructions). Registrants 

need not follow these recommendations, 

as there are many other combinations of 

specifications that will be acceptable. 

However, the registrant might increase 

its likelihood of being approved if it 

considers the guidance in designing its 

forms. The guidance also will describe 

how we will perform our tests of the 

form samples under § 262.21(e) and will 

discuss the timeframe needed to review 

and approve registrants to print and 

distribute their manifest forms. While 

the registrant is not required to conduct 

such tests, they can increase its 

likelihood of approval by performing 

such tests on its forms before submitting 

them to the Registry. By setting forth 

print guidance and explaining our tests, 

we believe we are creating a transparent 

process in which the registrant fully 

understands how it is being evaluated 

and how it can develop an approvable 

manifest. 

Although many commercial printers 

agree with our requirement under 

§ 262.21(d) for registrants to submit 

form samples that meet the print 

specifications of § 262.21(f), we note 

that some commercial printers have 

expressed concern about it. They argue 

that three form samples will not provide 

us with much useful information on a 

registrant’s ability to consistently print 

forms to our satisfaction. This is because 

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

of the paper and the expertise of the 

print supervisor on shift can vary). 

Instead, some commercial printers have 

suggested that we require each registrant 

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

scratch in a computer program), submit 

a proof on bond paper that shows the 

format and appearance of the form, and 

indicate the paper type, binding 

method, and other specifications they 

intend to use. Because these 

commenters believe that printing the 

manifest is relatively straightforward, 

such a submittal should be all we need 

to approve the registrant and be 

confident that it will produce adequate 

forms. They indicate that this approach 

also will be less expensive than 

requiring form samples that meet the 

§ 262.21(f) specifications. 

We disagree with these printers in 

several respects. First, we acknowledge 

the several limitations of evaluating a 

multi-part form sample. However, we 

believe the requirement for form 

samples provides critical information on 

the registrant. Form samples 

demonstrate the competence of the 

registrant to print the form to our 

satisfaction under the § 262.21(f) 

specifications. For many commercial 

printers, this will be straightforward. 

States have relied on commercial 

printers for years to print their forms, 

and these printers have developed an 

institutional knowledge and methods 

for ensuring appropriate binding, ink 

color for the instructions, and other 

aspects. 

We expect, however, that certain 

prospective registrants will be 

completely new to multi-part forms 

printing and may not have the necessary 

knowledge and capabilities. For 

example, certain hazardous waste 

handlers may want to print their own 

forms, but lack prior experience in 

forms printing. If the Registry required 

only that the registrant typeset the form, 

print it on bond paper, indicate the type 

of paper and other specifications, and 

submit these materials with its 

application, anyone with a personal 

computer could register, including 

persons with no demonstrable 

capability to print the forms with 

consistent quality on a large scale. 

Although we do not want to 

discourage legitimate organizations from 

registering, we must ensure that each 

registrant is competent to print the form. 

Because the Registry will be open to 

everyone, we feel an obligation to the 

states and waste handlers—those who 

will use the forms—to separate 

legitimate registrants from the others. In 

effect, a registrant who submits form 

samples meeting the § 262.21(f) 

specifications will be demonstrating its 

competence under the Registry. 

In addition, we believe form samples 

will be necessary for us to determine if 

the registrant’s forms meet the 

§ 262.21(f) specifications. Although we 

plan to provide guidance on our Web 

site on acceptable or approved 

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

we fully expect that a number of 

registrants will submit forms samples 

whose specifications are unfamiliar to 

us. In such situations, we may not be 

certain that the proposed forms will be 

adequate. Even if the registrant also 

provides us with samples of the blank 

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

write on them to test legibility), we 

could not be sure that the forms would 

be fully compliant with the § 262.21(f) 

specifications. For example, we could 

not be sure of the extent to which the 

registrant’s proposed ink color of the 

instructions might bleed through the 

front of the copies when photocopied, 

scanned, or faxed. We also may not be 

certain whether a registrant’s proposed 

binding method will ensure that copies 

10800 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

do not become inadvertently detached 

during normal use of the form. There are 

different ways to bind copies together, 

some of which may not be effective. The 

only way for us to evaluate these aspects 

of the form confidently and fairly is for 

the registrant to submit form samples. 

Because of these reasons, the final rule 

includes the requirement for registrants 

to submit to the Registry three form 

samples that meet the § 262.21(f) 

specifications. 

Under Section § 262.21(g), a generator 

or other waste handler may obtain its 

manifests from any registered source 

(e.g., a state agency, commercial printer, 

or other waste handler). In completing 

its manifest, the generator also must 

determine whether the generator state or 

the consignment state for a shipment 

regulates any additional wastes (beyond 

those regulated Federally) as hazardous 

wastes under these states’ authorized 

programs. Generators also must 

determine whether the consignment 

state or generator state requires the 

generator to submit any copies of 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 statespecific information on its Web site 

regarding copy distribution and state 

waste codes. Although this information 

is meant to assist waste handlers in 

completing their forms, they should 

note that there may be other sources of 

this information, and that it is the 

responsibility of the waste handlers to 

determine what state-specific 

information is required on their 

manifests.

Subsequent to its approval to print the 

manifest, a registrant may want to 

update or change its application 

approved under § 262.21(c) or its 

manifest or continuation sheet approved 

under 262.21(e). To this end, § 262.21(h) 

establishes procedures for updating or 

changing the approved application and 

form. Section 262.21(h)(1) provides that 

an approved registrant may update the 

information in the application approved 

under § 262.21(c) by revising and 

submitting it to EPA, along with an 

indication or explanation of the change. 

EPA does not expect that registrants will 

often make changes to the substantive 

portions of its application (e.g., quality 

control procedures under 

§ 262.21(b)(5)). Rather, EPA expects 

registrants will simply update certain 

pieces of information as necessary (e.g., 

company name or phone number). EPA 

either will approve or deny any 

substantive revisions. If EPA denies a 

substantive revision, it will explain the 

reasons for the denial and request that 

the registrant modify its proposed 

substantive changes before EPA will 

consider issuing an approval. 

Under § 262.21(h)(2), a registrant may 

request a new manifest tracking number 

suffix (e.g., if it needs additional 

numbering capacity). The registrant 

must propose a new unique suffix, along 

with the reason for requesting it. EPA 

will either approve the suffix or deny 

the suffix and provide an explanation 

for the denial. EPA expects that a denial 

would be rare, since our Web site will 

identify suffixes that are already 

approved and therefore unavailable. 

Section 262.21(h)(3) addresses 

changes to an approved registrant’s 

manifest forms, continuation sheets, or 

manifest printing company. As provided 

in § 262.21(e), an approved registrant 

must print the manifest according to its 

application approved under § 262.21(c) 

and the manifest specifications in 

§ 262.21(f). It also must print the 

manifest according to the paper type, 

paper weight, ink color of manifest 

instructions and binding method of its 

approved form. Section 262.21(h)(3) 

provides that, if an approved registrant 

would like to change its approved 

manifest or continuation sheet in regard 

to paper type, paper weight, ink color of 

manifest instructions, or binding 

method, it must submit revised samples 

to the Agency for review and approval. 

The registrant cannot use or 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 § 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 § 262.21(i), if, 

subsequent to its approval under 

§ 262.21(e), a registrant typesets its 

manifest and continuation sheet instead 

of using the electronic file of the form 

provided by EPA, it must submit a 

sample of the manifest and continuation 

sheet to the Registry for approval. EPA 

recognizes that most registrants that get 

approved will print one or more batches 

of forms for use or sale. After the print 

jobs are done, the printer will destroy or 

recycle the printing plate and move on 

to the next print 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 262.21(d), so long as the same 

printer will be printing the manifest 

using the same paper type, paper 

weight, ink color of the instructions and 

binding method of the form samples 

approved for the first registrant. After 

the printer’s forms get approved the first 

time, the second registrant could submit 

the printer’s original form samples for 

evaluation under the Registry. Once 

approved under § 262.21(e), the second 

registrant must use that printer to print 

its forms according to the specifications 

at § 262.21(f), as well as the paper 

weight, paper 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 

§ 262.21(h)(3), the registrant must 

submit three form samples and get EPA 

approval. As discussed earlier, we 

believe the § 262.21(h)(3) requirement is 

important for evaluating whether a 

registrant’s revised manifest meets the 

specifications at § 262.21(f). However, 

there might be some exceptions to this. 

For example, we do not believe we need 

to evaluate a revised form sample if we 

are aware that the revised specifications 

have already been approved for another 

registrant. As we evaluate and approve 

form samples under §§ 262.21(e) and 

(h)(3), we may post approved form 

specifications (e.g., paper type, paper 

weight) on our Web site. If an approved 

registrant would like to change one or 

more of its form’s specifications to 

another approved specification on our 

Web site, the registrant may notify EPA 

that it intends to do so, in lieu of 

submitting revised form samples. EPA 

could then relieve the registrant of the 

requirement to submit revised form 

samples. 

Section 262.21(k) provides that an 

approved registrant must notify EPA by 

phone or e-mail as soon as it becomes 

aware that it has duplicated tracking 

numbers on any manifests that have 

been used or 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 § 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 § 262.21(e) to 

determine whether it satisfies the print 

specifications at § 262.21(f). In the vast 

majority of cases, we expect this 

evaluation to provide enough 

information for EPA to determine 

effectively whether the registrant’s form, 

as designed, will satisfactorily meet all 

of the print specifications when 

produced by the registrant. In rare cases, 

however, we believe it is possible that, 

subsequent to our approval under 

paragraph (e), we may become aware 

that forms produced by a registrant do 

not meet all specifications in a 

satisfactory manner. In particular, we 

are fully aware of the limitations 

inherent in evaluating samples of a 

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

forms may vary significantly from one 

batch to the next based on many 

factors). If we become aware that the 

forms produced and distributed by a 

registrant do not satisfactorily meet the 

specifications (e.g., based on complaints 

from states or waste handlers), we will 

contact the registrant to learn more 

about the problem and, if needed, 

request changes to the form or printing 

operation. 

Under § 262.21(m), EPA might 

suspend and, if necessary, revoke 

printing privileges if we find that the 

registrant (i) has used or distributed 

forms that deviate from its approved 

form samples in 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 

10802 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

print the manifest will itself be that 

printer’s customer. In this case, the 

printer has a similarly strong incentive 

to minimize and detect tracking number 

duplications.

Moreover, it is common industry 

practice for customers that enter into 

contractual arrangements with a printer 

to include terms and conditions 

controlling against the potential 

duplication of numbers (e.g., by using 

terms such as ‘‘no duplicated numbers’’) 

and requiring reports to the customer of 

missing numbers. In fact, a registrant 

may choose to incorporate relevant 

provisions of its application into its 

contract with the printer. 

3. Final Manifest Print Specifications.

EPA is publishing the final manifest 

print specifications at § 262.21(f). As 

intended, the print specifications are 

minimally prescriptive. They prescribe 

specifications only where needed to 

ensure a basic level of consistency 

across registrants’ manifests (e.g., 

prescribing that each manifest must 

include six copies). Beyond this, the 

rule sets forth performance-based 

requirements that all manifests must 

achieve (e.g., ‘‘handwritten and typed 

impressions on the form must be legible 

on all six copies’’) and allow each 

registrant to design its manifest 

accordingly. EPA has chosen this 

approach in recognition of commenters’

requests for flexibility under the 

Registry system. In addition, the Agency 

acknowledges that there are many 

different ways to design an acceptable 

manifest. It would have been 

unnecessarily arbitrary to prescribe a 

single specification for each aspect of 

the manifest. Under the approach being 

finalized today, each registrant has 

considerable flexibility to design its 

manifest according to its own printing 

capabilities, customer preferences, and 

available resources (e.g., existing 

inventory of paper). 

Applicants who print the manifest 

form must adhere to the following 

printing specifications: 

• The form must be printed with the 

exact format and appearance as EPA 

Forms 8700–22 and 8700–22A. We 

believe registrants will easily achieve 

this requirement, since we will provide 

them with an electronic file of the 

manifest, continuation sheet, and 

manifest instructions. They will convert 

the file into a suitable electronic image 

of the forms in their computer system 

and create a printing plate. EPA will 

provide the forms in a software program 

that will ensure that the manifest is 

consistently replicated across 

registrants’ systems. 

• A unique manifest tracking number 

assigned in accordance with a 

numbering system approved by EPA 

must be pre-printed in Item 4 of the 

form. The tracking number must consist 

of a three-letter suffix following nine 

digits. Each registrant will need to select 

a unique three-letter suffix. If approved 

to print the manifest, the registrant will 

use this suffix to generate its unique 

tracking numbers. EPA will post on our 

Web site a list of suffixes that have 

previously been approved. A 

prospective registrant will need to refer 

to the list to identify those that are 

already in use and thus unavailable to 

new registrants. Manifest tracking 

numbers can be added using one of at 

least two methods: crash numbering 

(i.e., imprinting the number on the first 

copy and letting the number impress on 

the other copies) or press numbering 

(i.e., imprinting the number on each 

copy and subsequently assembling the 

copies into the manifest). EPA is not 

requiring either method of numbering. 

However, we believe that crash 

numbering will generally result in fewer 

numbering errors. Under press 

numbering, miscollation of copies 

subsequent to the printing process can 

occur. This could result in a manifest 

that contains one or more copies whose 

tracking number is incorrect. This risk 

is not present with crash numbering. 

Because of this, EPA strongly 

encourages the use of crash numbering 

over press numbering. If a registrant 

proposes to use press numbering, its 

application should describe quality 

control measures to ensure proper 

collation of manifest copies. 

• The form must be printed on 81⁄2 x 

11-inch white paper, excluding common 

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

paper must be durable enough to 

withstand normal use. EPA is not 

specifying paper type or weight. 

Registrants must select the appropriate 

paper type and weight to ensure 

legibility on all six copies and paper 

durability. 

• 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. 

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

must be exact within 1⁄32nd of an inch. 

Handwritten and typed impressions on 

the form must be legible on all six 

copies. Copies must be bound together 

by one or more common stubs that 

reasonably ensure that they will not 

become detached inadvertently during 

normal use. 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. 

• If the form does not have very close 

copy-to-copy registration, this could 

result in impressions on the inner and 

bottom copies that do not fall within the 

appropriate blocks. This could limit 

states’ and waste handlers’ ability to 

interpret or scan the impression (e.g., if 

it falls on a black line of the form). To 

address this, we require copy-to-copy 

registration within 1⁄32nd of an inch. 

This is a standard specification within 

the printing industry. 

• The copies of each form must be 

bound together by one or more common 

stubs that reasonably ensure that they 

will not become detached inadvertently 

during normal use. 

• 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’’

• 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: 

• The ‘‘Instructions for Generators’’

on Copy 6; 

• The ‘‘Instructions for International 

Shipment Block’’ and ‘‘Instructions for 

Transporters’’ on Copy 5; and, 

• The ‘‘Instructions for Treatment, 

Storage and Disposal Facilities’’ on 

Copy 4.

Manifest Form 8700–22A: 

• The ‘‘Instructions for Generators’’

on Copy 6; 

• The ‘‘Instructions for Transporters’’

on Copy 5; and, 

• The ‘‘Instructions for Treatment, 

Storage and Disposal Facilities’’ on 

Copy 4. 

The purpose of the above requirement 

is to ensure that the manifest 

instructions are consistently displayed 

on the back of the manifest copies. In 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 262.21(f) leave 

a number of decisions to the 

registrants’s discretion that should be 

further clarified. These include the 

following: 

Paper type. Registrants may select the 

appropriate type of paper to use for their 

manifest. As provided at 

§ 262.21(d)(2)(i), EPA defines ‘‘paper 

type’’ to include the manufacturer of the 

paper and grade of paper. EPA has 

found that paper manufacturers 

generally provide a range of paper 

grades. These grades may be more or 

less appropriate for a six-part form. For 

example, the highest quality papers are 

generally the brightest (whitest), and 

hence, handwritten and typed imprints 

are generally most legible on them. In 

addition, the highest quality carbonless 

papers normally contain the highest 

amount of coating, which results in a 

more effective transmission of imprint 

from copy to copy. EPA believes it is 

important to hold registrants to their 

paper type selection, as provided under 

§ 262.21(e), so that they do not switch 

paper types subsequent to approval of 

their forms, unless they seek EPA 

approval of the changes under 

§ 262.21(h)(3). 

In addition, some papers may contain 

a range of recycled content. All 

commenters on the proposed rule 

believed EPA should take the lead on 

encouraging the use of recycled paper. 

In fact, one commenter recommended 

that EPA require registrants to use 

recycled paper for manifest forms. EPA 

has not taken this recommendation, 

which goes beyond the scope of today’s 

rulemaking. EPA notes, however, that it 

has developed guidelines for federal 

procurement of recycled-content paper 

under section 6002 of RCRA and section 

505 of Executive Order 13101. Under 

these guidelines, EPA requires 

procuring agencies to buy uncoated 

printing and writing grade papers, such 

as those used for manifest forms, 

containing 30% post-consumer fiber. 

The agency urges registrants to consider 

for the manifest recycled paper that 

meets the specifications at § 262.21(f). 

Paper weight. Paper weight has 

several implications for the manifest. 

Lighter paper is generally thinner, and 

therefore, it is easier to make 

impressions copy-to-copy. However, if 

paper is too light, it is prone to tearing 

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

automatic-feed copier or when 

detaching a copy from the manifest). 

Registrants must select a paper weight 

for each copy of the form that conveys 

handwritten and typed impressions 

onto all six copies, but that is also 

durable enough to withstand normal 

use. In evaluating existing manifest 

forms, EPA has found a number of forms 

with varying paper weights that 

transmit impressions effectively. Other 

forms consist of paper that is too heavy 

to produce legible bottom copies. We 

also have found forms with paper that 

is too fragile and tears easily. Because of 

the wide range of paper weights that 

result in legible bottom copies of the 

manifest, EPA has refrained from 

prescribing a paper weight and leaves 

this decision to the registrant. However, 

EPA believes it is important to hold 

registrants to their paper weight 

selection, as provided under § 262.21(e), 

so that they do not switch paper weights 

subsequent to approval of their forms, 

unless they seek EPA approval of the 

changes under § 262.21(h)(3). 

Ink color of the manifest instructions.

As described earlier, the instructions on 

the back of the manifest must be light 

enough so that they do not: (1) Show 

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

black ink in a light enough screen to 

appear as light gray so that photocopiers 

and scanners do not pick up the text); 

or, (2) interfere with the transmission of 

the image from copy to copy (e.g., from 

copy 4 to copy 5) when the manifest is 

filled out. The instructions also must be 

legible. 

EPA has not prescribed an ink color 

or ink darkness. We recognize that the 

appropriate ink color and darkness will 

depend on, at the least, the paper weight 

of each copy. Because we do not 

prescribe paper weight, we do not 

prescribe ink color or darkness. 

However, we hold registrants to their 

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

so that they do not switch ink colors 

subsequent to approval of their forms, 

unless they seek EPA approval of the 

changes under § 262.21(h)(3). 

Binding method of manifest copies.

Some manifest forms are currently 

printed on continuous forms with side 

perforations. Others are printed on 

individual forms (unit sets), which are 

typically bound on top. Continuous 

forms generally are intended for use 

with continuous feed printers (such as 

impact printers), whereas unit sets are 

appropriate for typewriters and manual 

completion. Because some users prefer 

one type of binding or the other, we 

believe it would be too constraining to 

require only one type. Therefore, we 

leave the binding of the form to 

registrant discretion. However, we are 

concerned that some registrants might 

choose to crimp the sheets together but 

not glue them, thereby increasing the 

likelihood of the pages inadvertently 

separating during normal use. In 

addition, some registrants might bind 

top bound forms without a stub by 

‘‘edge gluing.’’ The edge gluing method 

is typically used for forms that have few 

pages, but could conceivably be tried for 

a six-part form. Edge-glued forms are 

unacceptable for manifest purposes and 

are not allowed because the sheets 

become loose when one ply is removed. 

Therefore, the rule provides that ‘‘copies 

must be bound together by one or more 

common stubs that reasonably ensure 

that they will not become detached 

inadvertently during normal use.’’

Although we do not prescribe a binding 

method, we hold registrants to the 

binding method of their approved 

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

that they do not switch methods 

subsequent to EPA approval, unless 

they seek EPA approval of the changes 

under § 262.21(h)(3). 

IV. Rejected Load and Container 

Residue Shipments

A.1. Rejected Load and Container 

Residue Shipments—Introduction. In 

the May 2001 NPRM, we proposed to 

improve the tracking of certain 

problematic hazardous waste shipments 

known as ‘‘rejected loads’’ or ‘‘container 

residues’’ by adding data elements to 

the manifest form for identifying 

rejected wastes and residues and by 

clarifying the manifest requirements and 

procedures for tracking these wastes. In 

the proposal, we discussed container 

residue as ‘‘the hazardous waste that 

remains in containers such as drums 

and in vehicles used for transport (such 

as tanker cars or box cars) after most of 

the contents of the container have been 

removed.’’ These residues may be 

difficult to remove because the contents 

may have congealed and the receiving 

facility may not have the equipment to 

completely empty the container. As a 

result, the container may contain more 

waste than the regulatory threshold 

allows for meeting the RCRA definition 

of ‘‘empty,’’ that is, more than 3% of a 

hazardous waste in a container less than 

or equal to 119 gallons, or more than 

0.3% of a hazardous waste in a 

container greater than 119 gallons, and 

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

3As 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.

that must be managed as hazardous 

waste.3 The proposal also described a 

rejected load as a shipment of hazardous 

waste that a facility receives, but cannot 

accept, either because of restrictions in 

the facility’s permit or capacity 

limitations. A rejected load includes all 

shipments a facility rejects, in whole or 

in part, whether rejection occurs before 

or after the facility has signed the 

manifest.

The proposed rule addressed both the 

manifest procedures that would track 

rejected wastes and residues to 

alternative facilities, and the procedures 

that would deal with the rare occasions 

when a facility must return rejected 

wastes or container residues to the 

generator. In all such cases, the 

proposed regulations would require 

facilities to note information about the 

rejected waste or regulated residue on 

the original manifest, to sign the original 

manifest certification and to issue a new 

manifest to continue the shipment of the 

rejected load or residue to another offsite destination. Detailed discussions of 

the new tracking procedures for a 

rejected load and container residue 

shipment and the proposed 

modifications to the manifest 

discrepancy provisions follow. 

2. Proposed Added Fields to 

Discrepancy Item. As part of the new 

tracking procedures for rejected waste 

and container residues, we proposed to 

modify the Discrepancy field (i.e., Item 

19 on old manifest) by providing more 

explicit tracking specifications for 

regulated residues and rejected wastes. 

EPA also proposed to provide more 

space in the Discrepancy field for the 

designated facility to identify the 

material affected by the discrepancy and 

to explain the reason for the 

discrepancy. In addition, EPA provided 

additional space on the manifest form 

(titled ‘‘Manifest Tracking Number’’) for 

the rejecting facility to cross-reference 

the original manifest with the ‘‘new’’

Manifest Tracking Number associated 

with the new manifest form. On the new 

manifest, the facility also would 

reference the ‘‘old’’ manifest tracking 

number in the Special Handling field. 

The Discrepancy field and Facility 

Certification on the new manifest would 

be reserved for use by the next facility, 

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

rejected a second time). 

EPA also proposed codifying the 

proposed changes at 40 CFR 264.71 and 

264.72 (40 CFR 265.71 and 265.72 for 

interim status facilities), and 263.21(b) 

to provide more explicit requirements 

for tracking rejected wastes and 

regulated container residues. For 

instance, the proposal clarified in 

§ 264.71(a) that a facility must sign the 

facility Owner or Operator Certification 

field on the manifest for both waste 

receipts and waste rejections. We 

emphasized in the proposal that the 

facility certification attests to the receipt 

of the hazardous wastes described on 

the manifest, except as noted in the 

Discrepancy field. The proposal also 

clarified that residues and rejected 

wastes, including full or partial load 

rejections, are discrepancies to be 

reported on the Discrepancy field. So, 

facilities must sign the Owner or 

Operator Certification field on every 

manifest relating to shipments brought 

to a facility for delivery, either to 

acknowledge receipt of all the materials 

on the manifest, or to acknowledge that 

those materials identified in the 

discrepancy space (including rejected 

wastes and residues) were not received 

for management at the facility. 

The proposed modifications to the 

manifest regulations at 40 CFR 264.72 

(265.72 for interim status facilities) 

reflect the changes proposed to the 

discrepancy space of the manifest form. 

The form includes new data fields in the 

discrepancy space to track rejected 

waste and residue shipments. 

Specifically, the Agency 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 § 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 § 264.72(d), (e), (f), 

and (g) for permitted facilities, and in 

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

interim status facilities. The proposed 

tracking procedures for rejected waste 

shipment and container residues are 

detailed below. 

3. Proposed §§ 264.72(d) and 

265.72(d). The proposed requirements 

for 40 CFR 264.72(d) and 265.72(d) are 

as follows:

If you are . . . You must . . . And . . . However, 

A facility rejecting a waste or container residue that exceeds 

quantity limits for ‘‘empty’’ as defined in 40 CFR 261.7(b).

Contact the generator for instructions for forwarding the waste to 

an alternate facility.

Send the waste according to the 

generator’s instructions.

If it is impossible to locate, in a 

timely manner, an alternate facility that can promptly receive 

the waste, you may return it to 

the generator, with the generator’s consent. 

A facility forwarding rejected waste 

or container residue to an alternate facility.

Ensure that either the delivering 

transporter maintains custody of 

the waste or, if the transporter 

leaves the premises, provide for 

secure temporary custody of 

the waste.

Prepare a new manifest according 

to the relevant requirements 

(§ 264.72(e) or (f) for permitted 

facilities; § 265.72(e) or (f) for 

interim status facilities.

N/A. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 10805

4. Proposed §§ 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 wastes or container residues off-site to an alternate facility.Prepare a new manifest in accordance with 

§ 262.20(a).

Follow the relevant instructions in either 

§ 264.72(e)(1) through (e)(6), or 

§ 265.72(e)(1) through (e)(6). 

A facility returning rejected waste to its generator.Prepare a new manifest in accordance with 

§ 262.20(a).

Follow the relevant instructions in either 

§ 264.72(f)(1) through (f)(6), or 

§ 265.72(f)(1) through (f)(6). 

Because the rejecting facility was 

responsible for putting the reject waste 

back into transportation, we proposed to 

require them to sign the Generator’s 

Certification field to verify that they are 

shipping or offering the wastes in 

transportation and would be liable, in 

this capacity, for the truth of the 

‘‘shipper’s certification’’ language 

included in the generator’s certification 

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 §§ 264.72(g) and 

265.72(g). Paragraph (g), as proposed, 

would clarify manifest completion 

procedures for any designated facility 

that rejects a full or partial load or 

container residue shipment after it has 

signed and returned the original 

manifest to the generator. If, after 

signing and returning the original 

manifest, a facility rejects part or all of 

a shipment, or discovers regulated 

residues, it must send the generator and 

delivering transporter a revised copy of 

the original manifest, reflecting the 

rejected waste or residue information in 

the discrepancy space. The facility must 

also re-sign and date the manifest, 

certifying the facts as amended. 

6. Proposed Changes to § 263.21(b).

We proposed to amend 40 CFR 

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

Paragraph (b)(2) distinguishes between 

the transporter responsibilities for 

wastes characterized as ‘‘undeliverable’’

due to either emergency, rejection or 

container residues. We proposed to 

retain § 263.21(b)(1), the existing 

transporter requirements, that apply to 

shipments that cannot be delivered due 

to an emergency, such as a strike, fire or 

similar emergency event which closes 

the designated facility’s or next 

transporter’s operations or that 

otherwise precludes the transporter 

from delivering the waste. In such 

emergencies, the transporter that cannot 

deliver the waste shipment to the 

designated facility, alternate designated 

facility or next designated transporter 

must contact the generator for further 

directions and revise the manifest 

according to the generator’s 

instructions. We did not reconsider, 

reopen or request comment on these 

existing requirements. We merely 

recodified the existing provision at 

§ 263.21(b)(1). Our proposed changes to 

§ 263.21(b)(2) addressed transporters’

responsibilities with respect to rejected 

wastes. Transporters would need to 

obtain the facility owner’s or operator’s 

signed and dated certification 

identifying the rejection on the 

manifest. The transporter also would 

need to retain one copy of this manifest, 

and give any remaining copies of the 

manifest to the rejecting TSDF, who 

processes them in accordance with the 

new procedures at §§ 264.71 and 264.72. 

7. Proposed Generator Regulations at 

40 CFR 262.34. Furthermore, the 

proposal revised the hazardous waste 

generator accumulation provisions at 40 

CFR 262.34 by adding paragraph (j). 

Paragraph (j) requires hazardous waste 

generators to manage a rejected load and 

container residue shipment according to 

40 CFR 262.34(a) or 262.34(d) 

depending on whether the generator 

was subject to the 90-day or 180-day 

accumulation time provisions when the 

waste shipment was returned to the 

generator. Generators who are subject to 

the 90-day accumulation provisions 

have up to 90 days to send the rejected 

shipment or container residue to an 

alternate facility, as long as the 

generator received the shipment in 

accordance with the manifest 

discrepancy provisions at § 264.72 or 

265.72; however, generators who are 

subject to the 180-day accumulation 

provisions have up to180 days (or more 

than 270 days if the generator must 

transport this waste, or offer this waste 

for transportation, over a distance of 200 

miles or more) to send the rejected 

shipment or container residue to an 

alternate facility. In the preamble 

proposal, we incorrectly explained that 

the accumulation time for the returned 

shipment is based on the generator’s 

status at the time the original shipment 

was sent to the TSDF. We also 

explained that generators would not be 

required to obtain a RCRA permit while 

the returned waste is on-site as long as 

they complied with § 262.34(a) (for 

generators with 1000 kg or more on-site 

at the time the waste is sent) or 

§ 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 

§ 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 

10806 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

certification; (3) Allowing the original 

generator who receives a rejected load 

back from the rejecting facility to 

accumulate that waste for 90 or 180 

days before sending it off-site to an 

alternate TSDF; and, (4) Allowing the 

rejecting facility to stage the waste 

shipment before it forwards the 

shipment to an alternate facility or 

return the shipment back to the original 

generator. Detailed discussions on the 

final changes to the manifest 

discrepancy provisions are provided 

below.

2. Comment Analysis and Final 

Provisions for Second Manifest. Several 

commenters supported our proposed 

tracking procedures for rejected waste 

and container residue shipments. 

However, several commenters objected 

to the requirement that the designated 

facility prepare a second manifest in all 

rejected waste or residue scenarios 

because, in their view, preparing a 

second manifest imposes unnecessary 

burden and complexity to the system. 

Furthermore, commenters argued that 

preparing a second manifest will lead to 

double counting of hazardous waste; the 

original and new manifest cover the 

same quantity of waste (or a portion of 

it, in the case of residues). 

Consequently, states could potentially 

tax waste handlers again for the same 

shipment. These commenters argued 

that a second manifest is not necessary 

when a fully rejected load is returned to 

the generator or sent to an alternate 

facility. Many of these commenters 

suggested, as an alternative, that waste 

handlers note and sign the original 

manifest 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 §§ 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 reshipped also may require re-packaging, 

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

any case, we believe that these facts 

support the view that there is a new 

movement with respect to the partially 

rejected waste, and that the rejecting 

facility must complete a new manifest 

and sign the certification statement to 

indicate that the materials are properly 

described and are being offered in 

proper condition for transportation. 

Also, except in the most simple 

examples of partially rejected loads, it 

would be very difficult to correct the 

shipping descriptions for the items 

shipped under the original manifest by 

trying to delete items or otherwise 

trying to markup these descriptions to 

sort out what items and quantities were 

received, what items and quantities 

were rejected and were being reshipped, etc. Since we believe it is 

essential to present an accurate and 

unambiguous description of the wastes 

being re-shipped, and since we believe 

that it is appropriate that the facility 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 264.72(d)(1) and 

(e)(6), which would require the TSDF to 

explain to the original generator its 

reasons for rejecting the waste and to 

consult with the generator and 

determine where the rejected waste or 

container residue shipments should be 

sent. After doing so, the rejecting facility 

would then initiate the new manifest for 

the new movement of the shipment in 

transportation by signing the 

Generator’s Certification in the capacity 

as offeror of the shipment. 

Several commenters in the TSDF 

sector criticized this approach, arguing 

that the rejecting facility would appear 

to be assuming full generator liabilities 

for the waste by virtue of signing the 

Generator’s Certification. Other TSDF 

commenters also objected to the 

proposed approach because it seemed to 

suggest that the rejecting TSDF acting as 

‘‘offeror’’ could in fact be liable for the 

proper performance of all the pretransportation acts, including those 

already performed by the initial 

generator. In general, these commenters 

argued that under the ‘‘offeror’’

proposal, the responsibility for properly 

packaging and re-shipping the waste 

would now appear to fall on the TSDF, 

when the generator already may have 

selected and filled the container, and 

may be more aware than the rejecting 

TSDF of the exact nature of the material. 

Therefore, these commenters contend 

that the rejecting facility cannot really 

attest to the packaging and other pretransportation requirements performed 

by the generator, and so should not be 

held responsible for their performance 

when re-shipping rejected wastes. 

In general, those TSDF commenters 

that criticized the proposed approach 

tended to support the alternative 

approach requiring TSDFs to sign ‘‘on 

behalf of’’ the initial generator. One 

TSDF commenter, however, noted that a 

TSDF rejecting and re-shipping waste 

would be liable as offeror regardless of 

the ‘‘on behalf of’’ language, since the 

TSDF is initiating the new shipment. 

Another trade organization (the 

Environmental Technology 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 pretransportation acts that the rejecting 

facility might perform before signing the 

certification statement, so it would be 

unfair to have the generator become 

bound by the TSDF’s signing the form 

as the generator’s agent. 

In response, we are codifying in 

today’s final rule the manifest signature 

requirements at § 264.72(d)(1) and (e)(6). 

As explained in section II.G.4. above, 

we also are modifying the Generator’s 

Certification field by renaming it the 

‘‘Generator’s/Offeror’s Certification,’’ in 

order to clarify that either the generator 

or an offeror may sign the certification. 

The generator’s signature certifies to 

both the waste minimization and 

shipper’s certification statements, while 

a rejecting facility signing as an offeror 

of a shipment certifies only to the 

content of the shipper’s certification 

language, as it applies to information 

the offeror knows or has a reason to 

know. 

Today’s action also clarifies that any 

rejecting facility that prepares and signs 

a new manifest to re-ship a rejected 

waste will be subject to liability only for 

the limited ‘‘offeror’’ or pretransportation requirements. In such 

cases, the rejecting facility acting as 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 reshipments more appropriately. We agree 

with the generator comments to the 

effect that rejecting TSDFs should not be 

viewed as agents of the generators when 

they re-ship rejected wastes and sign the 

manifest to initiate a new movement of 

the rejected materials. If a shipment, for 

example, has been partially received 

and partially rejected by a TSDF, it is 

fitting that the TSDF rejecting a partial 

load be responsible for ensuring that the 

portion of the waste to be re-shipped is 

properly described on the new manifest, 

and that the packages are in good 

condition and properly marked and 

labeled at the time the rejected waste 

again moves in commerce. Also, if the 

facility has rejected a full load and 

staged it temporarily at its facility 

pending new arrangements for reshipment, it is appropriate that the 

rejecting facility, when it initiates the 

new movement of the shipment by 

signing the new manifest, verify that the 

shipment is properly described and in 

proper condition for transportation at 

the time the new movement begins. This 

is accomplished when the rejecting 

facility signs as offeror of the re-shipped 

10808 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

wastes, as the offeror is then certifying 

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

believe that this is the result 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 pretranportation functions with respect to a 

fully and immediately rejected waste 

shipment. 

Moreover, with respect to the TSDF 

comments that objected to the offeror 

approach because they would be 

responsible for pre-transportation acts 

(e.g., selecting, filling, marking 

containers) that already were performed 

by the original generator, we wish to 

provide additional clarification of their 

offeror liability under the final rule. In 

the October 30, 2003 final rule codifying 

the pre-transportation functions, DOT 

confronted similar issues from brokers, 

freight forwarders, and other 3rd party 

intermediaries who handle hazmat 

shipments. These intermediaries 

similarly questioned the fairness of 

subjecting them to full compliance with 

the pre-transportation functions, when 

the intermediaries might perform only 

limited pre-transportation functions of 

their own (e.g., issue a house bill of 

lading), while relying heavily on the 

information supplied and functions 

previously performed by shippers or 

underlying carriers. See 68 FR 61906 at 

61911. In responding to this comment, 

DOT stated that it agreed with the 

commenters that it would be unfair to 

hold the intermediaries liable for errors 

made by parties over which they have 

no operational control. Instead, DOT 

explained that intermediaries who 

prepare shipping papers and sign the 

shipper’s certification assume 

responsibility for compliance with the 

pre-transportation requirements ‘‘for all 

aspects of that shipment about which he 

knew or should have known.’’ Id. In its 

explanation of this issue, DOT stated 

that it was proper for the intermediary 

preparing a shipping paper to rely upon 

the information supplied by the original 

shipper, unless it conflicts with other 

information he obtains about the 

shipment. Id. 

Since hazardous waste handlers also 

are subject to these HMR provisions, we 

believe that this discussion from the 

October, 2003 DOT rule addresses fairly 

the concerns expressed by RCRA TSDFs 

who reject and re-ship wastes. The 

TSDF that signs a new manifest as 

offeror of a rejected waste shipment is 

responsible for performing properly any 

of the pre-transportation functions that 

it actually performs (e.g., repackaging 

and marking specific containers, 

completing the manifest), but the TSDF 

may reasonably rely upon the 

information supplied and pretransportation functions previously 

performed by the original generators or 

transporters. If the TSDF knows of an 

error, for example, in classifying or 

describing a specific waste, or if it 

should know that a container is leaking 

or is not properly labeled, it must 

correct these problems before 

reintroducing the rejected wastes into 

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

for errors made by previous waste 

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

such that it can be said that the TSDF 

neither knew, nor should have known, 

about the errors. We believe that this 

policy mitigates any concerns that 

TSDFs might have about the unfairness 

of their being asked to certify to the 

proper performance of the pretransportation functions. The TSDF will 

be able to rely upon what has been done 

already and supplied by previous 

handlers, as long as they do not have a 

reason to believe the information 

provided by previous handlers is false. 

The rejecting TSDF need not re-perform 

all of the offeror responsibilities; it need 

only re-perform those activities that it 

knows or should know are necessary to 

bring a shipment into compliance with 

the pre-transportation functions in the 

HMRs. 

4. Comments Analysis and Final 

Returned Shipments. In general, 

commenters supported our proposals to 

allow generators to receive 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 

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

§ 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 

§ § 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 

10810 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonHSWA, 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 § 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 § 262.27 is 

intended only for convenience, and is 

not intended as a substantive change to 

the manifest requirements. This final 

rule provision contains the same waste 

minimization certification language 

which is on the current manifest form, 

but which the revised form incorporates 

by reference to § 262.27. Generators are 

still required to certify to the same 

waste minimization statements they 

previously certified to each time a 

manifest is initiated, but much of the 

actual language now appears in the 

regulation rather than on the form. 

Because Congress established the 

waste minimization certification 

requirement in the 1984 HSWA statute, 

EPA must designate any regulatory 

changes that affect the waste 

minimization certification as a HSWAbased regulatory revision and identify it 

as such in Table 1 of 40 CFR 271.1(j). 

Therefore, since § 262.27 is the only 

component of today’s final rule that is 

based on HSWA authority, we are 

clarifying that only this provision will 

be implemented as a HSWA 

requirement. The impact of the HSWA 

designation is that the waste 

minimization requirements appearing in 

§ 262.27 will be effective immediately 

under Federal RCRA authority in all 

authorized States, before the states 

become authorized for their equivalent 

requirements under state law. Thus, 

when new manifest forms which do not 

contain the full waste minimization 

certification are distributed, the full 

requirements for the waste 

minimization certification will continue 

to be in effect under Federal law, even 

if a state is delayed in adopting these 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 271.10(h) 

to correspond with the changes to the 

revised manifest format and the 

procedures for its use. Key among these 

amendments are form revisions that 

would eliminate all optional fields and 

establish a new procedure for obtaining 

a standard manifest form from registered 

printers or distributors. The new, 

standard manifest format and the 

corresponding federal printing 

specification will not provide areas of 

potential variability for users and states. 

The final rule thus amends § 271.10(h) 

to eliminate provisions addressing 

States’ ability to supplement the form. 

The States will, however, retain the 

authority to require the entry of statespecific waste codes that are not 

redundant with federal codes, and the 

authority to require the submission of 

manifest copies to state offices for use 

in their data systems. 

Because the revised uniform manifest 

is (except for § 262.27 as explained 

above) being promulgated pursuant to 

non-HSWA authority, it will not become 

effective as a RCRA requirement in 

authorized States until those States 

revise their programs and receive 

authorization. 

EPA has involved the authorized 

States, as co-implementers of the RCRA 

program, in the development of today’s 

rule. We believe that there is general 

support among the States 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 

10812 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Eads, Office of Solid Waste, 24 

November 2004, 67 pages (available to 

the public from the EPA Docket at

http://www.epa.gov/edocket). 

We estimate that upwards of 139,000 

facilities in the United States generate, 

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

store, dispose) RCRA hazardous waste. 

About 12 million tons of hazardous 

waste (non-wastewaters and 

wastewaters) per year are manifested for 

shipment (i.e. transport by truck, rail or 

barge), involving 2.4 to 5.1 million 

hazardous waste shipment manifests for 

off-site management annually, requiring 

about 4.4 to 9.2 million waste handler 

labor hours, costing about $187 to $733 

million annually. In addition, twentythree state governments reportedly 

spend 199,000 to 416,000 labor hours 

costing $6.3 to $37 million annually to 

administer the current RCRA hazardous 

waste manifest program, which when 

added to waste handler burden, totals to 

4.6 to 9.7 million hours ($193 to $770 

million) per year in baseline national 

paperwork burden. 

Relative to this paperwork burden 

baseline, we estimate that today’s final 

rule revisions to the RCRA manifest 

form and acquisition, are expected to 

produce a national total of $12.7 to 

$20.6 million in average annual 

paperwork burden reduction benefits 

associated with a reduction of 249,000 

to 397,000 annual burden hours. This 

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 upperbound 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-forprofit 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 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 costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final 

rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

to the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year. Moreover, section 

205 allows Federal agencies to adopt an 

alternative other than the least costly, 

most cost-effective or least burdensome 

alternative if the Administrator 

publishes with the final rule an 

explanation why that alternative was 

not adopted. Before promulgating a rule 

for which a written statement is needed, 

section 205 of the UMRA requires 

Federal agencies to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Before a Federal agency 

establishes any regulatory requirements 

that may significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed, 

under section 203 of the UMRA, a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials to have meaningful and timely 

input in the development of regulatory 

proposals, and informing, educating and 

advising small governments on 

compliance with the regulatory 

requirements. 

This final rule does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more to 

State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, because the UMRA generally 

excludes from the definition of ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandate’’ duties that 

arise from participation in a voluntary 

federal program. States are not legally 

required to have or maintain a RCRA 

authorized program. Therefore, today’s 

final rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. Furthermore, public data 

sources we reviewed in 2003 indicate 

that 12 state governments (AR, CA, CT, 

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

collect revenues from direct assessment 

of fees during distribution of stateprinted RCRA manifests, totaling an 

estimated $1.16 to $2.44 million per 

year (see ‘‘Economics Background 

Document’’ for basis of this estimate). 

However, more recently as 2004, we 

estimate there may only be seven states 

collecting manifest printing and 

distribution fees. Today’s rule will 

override existing requirements for 

hazardous waste shippers to acquire 

state-printed RCRA manifests and thus 

reduce the existing direct fee assessment 

mechanism in these 7 to 12 states. In 

cases where states lose revenue as a 

result of this rule, they may reconfigure 

their hazardous waste manifest fee 

assessments to maintain these existing 

annual revenues such as by charging 

fees to process collected manifests, or by 

altering waste management fee 

mechanisms. In addition, this final 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). 

10814 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

With Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘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.

■ 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

■ 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

■ 2. Section 260.10 is amended by 

removing the definition of ‘‘Manifest 

document number,’’ by revising the 

definitions of ‘‘Designated facility’’ and 

‘‘Manifest,’’ and by adding the definition 

of ‘‘Manifest tracking number’’ in 

alphabetical order to read as follows:

§ 260.10 Definitions.

* * * * *

Designated facility means: 

(1) A hazardous waste treatment, 

storage, or disposal facility which: 

(i) Has received a permit (or interim 

status) in accordance with the 

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

§ 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 

§ 264.72(f) or § 265.72(f) of this chapter. 

(3) If a waste is destined to a facility 

in an authorized State which has not yet 

obtained authorization to regulate that 

particular waste as hazardous, then the 

designated facility must be a facility 

allowed by the receiving State to accept 

such waste.

* * * * *

Manifest means: The shipping 

document EPA Form 8700–22 

(including, if necessary, EPA Form 

8700–22A), originated and signed by the 

generator or offeror in accordance with 

the instructions in the appendix to 40 

CFR part 262 and the applicable 

requirements of 40 CFR parts 262 

through 265. 

Manifest tracking number means: The 

alphanumeric identification number 

(i.e., a unique three letter suffix 

preceded by nine numerical digits), 

which is pre-printed in Item 4 of the 

Manifest by a registered source.

* * * * *

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND 

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

■ 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

■ 4. Section 261.7 is amended by 

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

follows:

§ 261.7 Residues of hazardous waste in 

empty containers.

* * * * *

(b)(1) * * *

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

weight of the total capacity of the 

container remains in the container or 

inner liner if the container is less than 

or equal to 119 gallons in size; or 

(B) No more than 0.3 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

■ 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

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

as follows:

§ 262.20 General requirements. 

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

offers for transport a hazardous waste 

for offsite treatment, storage, or 

disposal, or a treatment, storage, and 

disposal facility who offers for transport 

a rejected hazardous waste load, must 

prepare a Manifest (OMB Control 

number 2050–0039) on EPA Form 8700–

22, and, if necessary, EPA Form 8700–

22A, according to the instructions 

included in the appendix to this part. 

(2) The revised Manifest form and 

procedures in 40 CFR 260.10, 261.7, 

262.20, 262.21, 262.27, 262.32, 262.33, 

262.34, 262.54, 262.60, and the 

appendix to part 262, shall not apply 

until September 5, 2006. The Manifest 

form and procedures in 40 CFR 260.10, 

261.7, 262.20, 262.21, 262.32, 262.33, 

262.34, 262.54, 262.60, and the 

appendix to part 262, contained in the 

40 CFR, parts 260 to 265, edition revised 

as of July 1, 2004, shall be applicable 

until September 5, 2006.

* * * * *

■ 7. Section 262.21 is revised (including 

the Section heading) to read as follows:

§ 262.21 Manifest tracking numbers, 

manifest printing, and obtaining manifests. 

(a)(1) A registrant may not print, or 

have printed, the manifest for use or 

distribution unless it has received 

approval from the EPA Director of the 

Office of Solid Waste to do so under 

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

(2) The approved registrant is 

responsible for ensuring that the 

organizations identified in its 

application are in compliance with the 

procedures of its approved application 

and the requirements of this section. 

The registrant is responsible for 

assigning manifest tracking numbers to 

its manifests. 

(b) A registrant must submit an initial 

application to the EPA Director of the 

Office of Solid Waste that contains the 

following information: 

(1) Name and mailing address of 

registrant; 

(2) Name, telephone number and 

email address of contact person; 

(3) Brief description of registrant’s 

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 preprinted 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). 

10816 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(6) A brief description of the 

qualifications of the company that will 

print the manifest. The registrant may 

use readily available information to do 

so (e.g., corporate brochures, product 

samples, customer references, 

documentation of ISO certification), so 

long as such information pertains to the 

establishments or company being 

proposed to print the manifest. 

(7) Proposed unique three-letter 

manifest tracking number suffix. If the 

registrant is approved to print the 

manifest, the registrant must use this 

suffix to pre-print a unique manifest 

tracking number on each manifest. 

(8) A signed certification by a duly 

authorized employee of the registrant 

that the organizations and companies in 

its application will comply with the 

procedures of its approved application 

and the requirements of this Section and 

that it will notify the EPA Director of 

the Office of Solid Waste of any 

duplicated manifest tracking numbers 

on manifests that have been used or 

distributed to other parties as soon as 

this becomes known.

(c) EPA will review the application 

submitted under paragraph (b) of this 

section and either approve it or request 

additional information or modification 

before approving it. 

(d)(1) Upon EPA approval of the 

application under paragraph (c) of this 

section, EPA will provide the registrant 

an electronic file of the manifest, 

continuation sheet, and manifest 

instructions and ask the registrant to 

submit three fully assembled manifests 

and continuation sheet samples, except 

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

section. The registrant’s samples must 

meet all of the specifications in 

paragraph (f) of this section and be 

printed by the company that will print 

the manifest as identified in the 

application approved under paragraph 

(c) of this section. 

(2) The registrant must submit a 

description of the manifest samples as 

follows: 

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

grade of the manifest paper); 

(ii) Paper weight of each copy; 

(iii) Ink color of the manifest’s 

instructions. If screening of the ink was 

used, the registrant must indicate the 

extent of the screening; and 

(iv) Method of binding the copies. 

(3) The registrant need not submit 

samples of the continuation sheet if it 

will print its continuation sheet using 

the same paper type, paper weight of 

each copy, ink color of the instructions, 

and binding method as its manifest form 

samples. 

(e) EPA will evaluate the forms and 

either approve the registrant to print 

them as proposed or request additional 

information or modification to them 

before approval. EPA will notify the 

registrant of its decision by mail. The 

registrant cannot use 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 preprinted on the manifest form. 

(2) A unique manifest tracking 

number assigned in accordance with a 

numbering system approved by EPA 

must be pre-printed in Item 4 of the 

manifest. The tracking number must 

consist of a unique three-letter suffix 

following nine digits. 

(3) The manifest and continuation 

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

white paper, excluding common stubs 

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

paper must be durable enough to 

withstand normal use. 

(4) The manifest and continuation 

sheet must be printed in black ink that 

can be legibly photocopied, scanned, 

and faxed, except that the marginal 

words indicating copy distribution must 

be in red ink. 

(5) The manifest and continuation 

sheet must be printed as six-copy forms. 

Copy-to-copy registration must be exact 

within 1⁄32nd of an inch. Handwritten 

and typed impressions on the form must 

be legible on all six copies. Copies must 

be bound together by one or more 

common stubs that reasonably ensure 

that they will not become detached 

inadvertently during normal use. 

(6) Each copy of the manifest and 

continuation sheet must indicate how 

the copy must be distributed, as follows: 

(i) Page 1 (top copy): ‘‘Designated 

facility to destination State (if 

required)’’. 

(ii) Page 2: ‘‘Designated facility to 

generator State (if required)’’. 

(iii) Page 3: ‘‘Designated facility to 

generator’’. 

(iv) Page 4: ‘‘Designated facility’s 

copy’’. 

(v) Page 5: ‘‘Transporter’s copy’’. 

(vi) Page 6 (bottom copy): 

‘‘Generator’s initial copy’’. 

(7) The instructions in the appendix 

to 40 CFR part 262 must appear legibly 

on the back of the copies of the manifest 

and continuation sheet as provided in 

this paragraph (f). The instructions must 

not be visible through the front of the 

copies when photocopied or faxed. 

(i) Manifest Form 8700–22. 

(A) The ‘‘Instructions for Generators’’

on Copy 6; 

(B) The ‘‘Instructions for International 

Shipment Block’’ and ‘‘Instructions for 

Transporters’’ on Copy 5; and 

(C) The ‘‘Instructions for Treatment, 

Storage, and Disposal Facilities’’ on 

Copy 4. 

(ii) Manifest Form 8700–22A.

(A) The ‘‘Instructions for Generators’’

on Copy 6; 

(B) The ‘‘Instructions for 

Transporters’’ on Copy 5; and 

(C) The ‘‘Instructions for Treatment, 

Storage, and Disposal Facilities’’ on 

Copy 4. 

(g)(1) A generator may use manifests 

printed by any source so long as the 

source of the printed form has received 

approval from EPA to print the manifest 

under paragraphs (c) and (e) of this 

section. A registered source may be a: 

(i) State agency; 

(ii) Commercial printer; 

(iii) Hazardous waste generator, 

transporter or TSDF; or 

(iv) Hazardous waste broker or other 

preparer who prepares or arranges 

shipments of hazardous waste for 

transportation. 

(2) A generator must determine 

whether the generator state or the 

consignment state for a shipment 

regulates any additional wastes (beyond 

those regulated Federally) as hazardous 

wastes under these states’ authorized 

programs. Generators also must 

determine whether the consignment 

state or generator state requires the 

generator to submit any copies of the 

manifest to these states. In cases where 

the generator must 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 

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

■ 8. Subpart B is amended by adding 

new § 262.27 to read as follows:

§ 262.27 Waste minimization certification. 

A generator who initiates a shipment 

of hazardous waste must certify to one 

of the following statements in Item 15 

of the uniform hazardous waste 

manifest: 

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

have a program in place to reduce the 

volume and toxicity of waste generated 

to the degree I have determined to be 

economically practicable and I have 

selected the practicable method of 

treatment, storage, or disposal currently 

available to me which minimizes the 

present and future threat to human 

health and the environment;’’ or 

(b) ‘‘I am a small quantity generator. 

I have made a good faith effort to 

minimize my waste generation and 

select the best waste management 

method that is available to me and that 

I can afford.’’

Subpart C—Pre-Transport 

Requirements

■ 9. Section 262.32 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 262.32 Marking.

* * * * *

(b) Before transporting hazardous 

waste or offering hazardous waste for 

transportation off-site, a generator must 

mark each container of 119 gallons or 

less used in such transportation with 

the following words and information in 

accordance with the requirements of 49 

CFR 172.304:

HAZARDOUS WASTE—Federal Law 

Prohibits Improper Disposal. If found, 

contact the nearest police or public safety 

authority or the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency.

Generator’s Name and Address lllll. 

Generator’s EPA Identification Number 

lllll. 

Manifest Tracking Number lllll.

■ 10. Section 262.33 is revised to read as 

follows:

§ 262.33 Placarding. 

Before transporting hazardous waste 

or offering hazardous waste for 

transportation off-site, a generator must 

placard or offer the initial transporter 

the appropriate placards according to 

Department of Transportation 

regulations for hazardous materials 

under 49 CFR part 172, subpart F. If 

placards are not required, a generator 

must mark each motor vehicle according 

to 49 CFR 171.3(b)(1).

■ 11. Section 262.34 is amended by 

adding new paragraph (m) to read as 

follows:

§ 262.34 Accumulation time.

* * * * *

(m) A generator who sends a 

shipment of hazardous waste to a 

designated facility with the 

understanding that the designated 

facility can accept and manage the 

waste and later receives that shipment 

back as a rejected load or residue in 

accordance with the manifest 

discrepancy provisions of § 264.72 or 

§ 265.72 of this chapter may accumulate 

the returned waste on-site in accordance 

with paragraphs (a) and (b) or (d), (e) 

and (f) of this section, depending on the 

amount of hazardous waste on-site in 

that calendar month. Upon receipt of 

the returned shipment, the generator 

must: 

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

the transporter returned the shipment 

using the original manifest; or 

(2) Sign Item 20 of the manifest, if the 

transporter returned the shipment using 

a new manifest.

10818 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart E—Exports of Hazardous 

Waste

■ 12. Section 262.54 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as 

follows:

§ 262.54 Special manifest requirements.

* * * * *

(c) In the International Shipments 

block, the primary exporter must check 

the export box and enter the point of 

exit (city and State) from the United 

States.

* * * * *

(e) The primary exporter may obtain 

the manifest from any source that is 

registered with the U.S. EPA as a 

supplier of manifests (e.g., states, waste 

handlers, and/or commercial forms 

printers).

* * * * *

Subpart F—Imports of Hazardous 

Waste

■ 13. Section 262.60 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) and by adding 

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

§ 262.60 Imports of hazardous waste.

* * * * *

(c) A person who imports hazardous 

waste may obtain the manifest form 

from any source that is registered with 

the U.S. EPA as a supplier of manifests 

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

commercial forms printers). 

(d) In the International Shipments 

block, the 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 § 264.71(a)(3) and 

§ 265.71(a)(3) of this chapter.

■ 14. The Appendix to Part 262 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Appendix to Part 262—Uniform 

Hazardous Waste Manifest and 

Instructions (EPA Forms 8700–22 and 

8700–22A and Their Instructions) 

U.S. EPA Form 8700–22

Read all instructions before completing 

this form. 

1. This form has been designed for use on 

a 12-pitch (elite) typewriter which is also 

compatible with standard computer printers; 

a firm point pen may also be used—press 

down hard. 

2. Federal regulations require generators 

and transporters of hazardous waste and 

owners or operators of hazardous waste 

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to 

complete this form (8700–22) and, if 

necessary, the continuation sheet (8700–22A) 

for both inter- and intrastate transportation of 

hazardous waste.

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 l

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 preprinted on the manifest by the forms printer. 

Item 5. Generator’s Mailing Address, Phone 

Number and Site Address 

Enter the name of the generator, the 

mailing address to which the completed 

manifest signed by the designated facility 

should be mailed, and the generator’s 

telephone number. Note, the telephone 

number (including area code) should be the 

number where the generator or his 

authorized agent may be reached to provide 

instructions in the event of an emergency or 

if the designated and/or alternate (if any) 

facility rejects some or all of the shipment. 

Also enter the physical site address from 

which the shipment 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.

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

10820 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

must submit to their Regional Administrator 

a letter with a copy of the Manifest at issue 

describing the discrepancy and attempts to 

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

4. Owners or operators of facilities located 

in authorized States (i.e., those States that 

have received authorization from the U.S. 

EPA to administer the hazardous waste 

management program) should contact their 

State agency for information on where to 

report discrepancies involving ‘‘significant 

differences’’ to state officials. 

Item 18b. Alternate Facility (or Generator) for 

Receipt of Full Load Rejections 

Enter the name, address, phone number, 

and EPA Identification Number of the 

Alternate Facility which the rejecting TSDF 

has designated, after consulting with the 

generator, to receive a fully rejected waste 

shipment. In the event that a fully rejected 

shipment is being returned to the generator, 

the rejecting TSDF may enter the generator’s 

site information in this space. This field is 

not to be used to forward partially rejected 

loads or residue waste shipments. 

Item 18c. Alternate Facility (or Generator) 

Signature 

The authorized representative of the 

alternate facility (or the generator in the 

event of a returned shipment) must sign and 

date this field of the form to acknowledge 

receipt of the fully rejected 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: 

• More than two transporters are to be 

used to transport the waste; or 

• More space is required for the U.S. DOT 

descriptions and related information in Item 

9 of U.S. EPA 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 l—

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

■ 15. The authority citation for part 263 

is revised to read as follows:

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

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

6925, 6937, and 6938.

■ 16. Section 263.20 is amended by 

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

follows:

§ 263.20 The manifest system. 

(a)(1) Manifest requirement. A 

transporter may not accept hazardous 

waste from a generator unless the 

transporter is also provided with a 

manifest signed in accordance with the 

requirements of § 262.23. 

(2) Exports. In the case of exports 

other than those subject to subpart H of 

40 CFR part 262, a transporter may not 

accept such waste from a primary 

exporter or other person if he knows the 

shipment does not conform to the EPA 

Acknowledgment of Consent; and 

unless, in addition to a manifest signed 

by the generator as provided in this 

section, the transporter shall also be 

provided with an EPA Acknowledgment 

of Consent which, except for shipments 

by rail, is attached to the manifest (or 

shipping paper for exports by water 

(bulk shipment)). For exports of 

hazardous waste subject to the 

requirements of subpart H of 40 CFR 

part 262, a transporter may not accept 

hazardous waste without a tracking 

document that includes all information 

required by 40 CFR 262.84. 

(3) Compliance Date for Form 

Revisions. The revised Manifest form 

and procedures in 40 CFR 260.10, 261.7, 

263.20, and 263.21, shall not apply until 

September 5, 2006. The Manifest form 

and procedures in 40 CFR 260.10, 261.7, 

263.20, and 263.21, contained in the 40 

CFR, parts 260 to 265, edition revised as 

of July 1, 2004, shall be applicable until 

September 5, 2006.

* * * * *

(g) Transporters who transport 

hazardous waste out of the United 

States must: 

(1) Sign and date the manifest in the 

International Shipments block to 

indicate the date that the shipment left 

the United States; 

(2) Retain one copy in accordance 

with § 263.22(d); 

(3) Return a signed copy of the 

manifest to the generator; and 

(4) Give a copy of the manifest to a 

U.S. Customs official at the point of 

departure from the United States.

* * * * *

■ 17. Section 263.21 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 263.21 Compliance with the manifest.

* * * * *

(b)(1) If the hazardous waste cannot 

be delivered in accordance with 

paragraph (a) of this section because of 

an emergency condition other than 

rejection of the waste by the designated 

facility, then the transporter must 

contact the generator for further 

directions and must revise the manifest 

according to the generator’s 

instructions. 

(2) If hazardous waste is rejected by 

the designated facility while the 

transporter is on the facility’s premises, 

then the transporter must obtain the 

following: 

(i) For a partial load rejection or for 

regulated quantities of container 

residues, a copy of the original manifest 

that includes the facility’s date and 

signature, and the Manifest Tracking 

Number of the new manifest that will 

accompany the shipment, and a 

description of the partial rejection or 

container residue in the discrepancy 

block of the original manifest. The 

transporter must retain a copy of this 

manifest in accordance with § 263.22, 

and give the remaining copies of the 

original manifest to the rejecting 

designated facility. If the transporter is 

forwarding the rejected part of the 

shipment or a regulated container 

residue to an alternate facility or 

returning it to the generator, the 

transporter must obtain a new manifest 

to accompany the shipment, and the 

new manifest must include all of the 

information required in 40 CFR 

264.72(e)(1) through (6) or (f)(1) through 

(6) or 40 CFR 265.72(e)(1) through (6) or 

(f)(1) through (6).

(ii) For a full load rejection that will 

be taken back by the transporter, a copy 

of the original manifest that includes the 

rejecting facility’s signature and date 

attesting to the rejection, the description 

of the rejection in the discrepancy block 

of the manifest, and the name, address, 

phone number, and Identification 

Number for the alternate facility or 

generator to whom the shipment must 

be delivered. The transporter must 

retain a copy of the manifest in 

accordance with § 263.22, and give a 

copy of the manifest containing this 

information to the rejecting designated 

facility. If the original manifest is not 

used, then the transporter must obtain a 

new manifest for the shipment and 

comply with 40 CFR 264.72(e)(1) 

through (6) or 40 CFR 265.72(e)(1) 

through (6).

PART 264—STANDARDS FOR 

OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF 

HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, 

STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL 

FACILITIES

■ 18. The authority citation for part 264 

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, 

and 6925.

Subpart E—Manifest System, 

Recordkeeping, and Reporting

■ 19. Section 264.70 is revised to read as 

follows:

§ 264.70 Applicability. 

(a) The regulations in this subpart 

apply to owners and operators of both 

on-site and off-site facilities, except as 

§ 264.1 provides otherwise. Sections 

264.71, 264.72, and 264.76 do not apply 

to owners and operators of on-site 

facilities that do not receive any 

hazardous waste from off-site sources, 

nor to owners and operators of off-site 

facilities with respect to waste military 

munitions exempted from manifest 

requirements under 40 CFR 266.203(a). 

Section 264.73(b) only applies to 

permittees who treat, store, or dispose of 

hazardous wastes on-site where such 

wastes were generated. 

(b) The revised Manifest form and 

procedures in 40 CFR 260.10, 261.7, 

264.70, 264.71. 264.72, and 264.76, shall 

not apply until September 5, 2006. The 

Manifest form and procedures in 40 CFR 

260.10, 261.7, 264.70, 264.71. 264.72, 

and 264.76, contained in the 40 CFR, 

parts 260 to 265, edition revised as of 

July 1, 2004, shall be applicable until 

September 5, 2006.

■ 20. Section 264.71 is amended by 

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

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 264.71 Use of manifest system. 

(a)(1) If a facility receives hazardous 

waste accompanied by a manifest, the 

owner, operator or his/her agent must 

sign and date the manifest as indicated 

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

certify that the hazardous waste covered 

by the manifest was received, that the 

hazardous waste was received except as 

noted in the discrepancy space of the 

manifest, or that the hazardous waste 

was rejected as noted in the manifest 

discrepancy space. 

(2) 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 § 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. 

10822 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 42 / Friday, March 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) If a facility receives hazardous 

waste imported from a foreign source, 

the receiving facility must mail a copy 

of the manifest to the following address 

within 30 days of delivery: International 

Compliance Assurance Division, OFA/

OECA (2254A), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

(b) * * *

(4) Within 30 days after the delivery, 

send a copy of the signed and dated 

manifest or a signed and dated copy of 

the shipping paper (if the manifest has 

not been received within 30 days after 

delivery) to the generator; and

* * * * *

(e) A facility must determine whether 

the consignment state for a shipment 

regulates any additional wastes (beyond 

those regulated Federally) as hazardous 

wastes under its state hazardous waste 

program. Facilities must also determine 

whether the consignment state or 

generator state requires the facility to 

submit any copies of the manifest to 

these states.

■ 21. Section 264.72 is revised to read as 

follows:

§ 264.72 Manifest discrepancies. 

(a) Manifest discrepancies are: 

(1) Significant differences (as defined 

by paragraph (b) of this section) between 

the quantity or type of hazardous waste 

designated on the manifest or shipping 

paper, and the quantity and type of 

hazardous waste a facility actually 

receives; 

(2) 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 § 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 § 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 

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

■ 22. Section 264.76 is revised to read as 

follows:

§ 264.76 Unmanifested waste report. 

(a) If a facility accepts for treatment, 

storage, or disposal any hazardous waste 

from an off-site source without an 

accompanying manifest, or without an 

accompanying shipping paper as 

described by § 263.20(e) of this chapter, 

and if the waste is not excluded from 

the manifest requirement by this 

chapter, then the owner or 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

■ 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

■ 24. Section 265.70 is revised to read as 

follows:

§ 265.70 Applicability. 

(a) The regulations in this subpart 

apply to owners and operators of both 

on-site and off-site facilities, except as 

§ 265.1 provides otherwise. Sections 

265.71, 265.72, and 265.76 do not apply 

to owners and operators of on-site 

facilities that do not receive any 

hazardous waste from off-site sources, 

nor to owners and operators of off-site 

facilities with respect to waste military 

munitions exempted from manifest 

requirements under 40 CFR 266.203(a). 

(b) The revised Manifest form and 

procedures in 40 CFR 260.10, 261.7, 

265.70, 265.71. 265.72, and 265.76, shall 

not apply until September 5, 2006. The 

Manifest form and procedures in 40 CFR 

260.10, 261.7, 265.70, 265.71. 265.72, 

and 265.76, contained in the 40 CFR, 

parts 260 to 265, edition revised as of 

July 1, 2004, shall be applicable until 

September 5, 2006.

■ 25. Section 265.71 is amended by 

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

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 265.71 Use of manifest system. 

(a)(1) If a facility receives hazardous 

waste accompanied by a manifest, the 

owner, operator or his/her agent must 

sign and date the manifest as indicated 

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

certify that the hazardous waste covered 

by the manifest was received, that the 

hazardous waste was received except as 

noted in the discrepancy space of the 

manifest, or that the hazardous waste 

was rejected as noted in the manifest 

discrepancy space. 

(2) If a facility receives a hazardous 

waste shipment accompanied by a 

manifest, the owner, operator or his/her 

agent must: 

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

of the manifest; 

(ii) Note any discrepancies (as defined 

in § 265.72(a)) on each copy of the 

manifest; 

(iii) Immediately give the transporter 

at least one copy of the manifest; 

(iv) Within 30 days of delivery, send 

a copy of the manifest to the generator; 

and 

(v) Retain at the facility a copy of each 

manifest for at least three years from the 

date of delivery. 

(3) If a facility receives hazardous 

waste imported from a foreign source, 

the receiving facility must mail a copy 

of the manifest to the following address 

within 30 days of delivery: International 

Compliance Assurance Division, OFA/

OECA (2254A), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

(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.

■ 26. Section 265.72 is revised to read as 

follows:

§ 265.72 Manifest discrepancies.

(a) Manifest discrepancies are: 

(1) Significant differences (as defined 

by paragraph (b) of this section) between 

the quantity or type of hazardous waste 

designated on the manifest or shipping 

paper, and the quantity and type of 

hazardous waste a facility actually 

receives; 

(2) Rejected wastes, which may be a 

full or partial shipment of hazardous 

waste that the TSDF cannot accept; or 

(3) Container residues, which are 

residues that exceed the quantity limits 

for ‘‘empty’’ containers set forth in 40 

CFR 261.7(b). 

(b) Significant differences in quantity 

are: For bulk waste, variations greater 

than 10 percent in weight; for batch 

waste, any variation in piece count, 

such as a discrepancy of one drum in a 

truckload. Significant differences in 

type are obvious differences which can 

be discovered by inspection or waste 

analysis, such as waste solvent 

substituted for waste acid, or toxic 

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

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 § 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 § 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.

■ 27. Section 265.76 is revised to read as 

follows:

§ 265.76 Unmanifested waste report. 

(a) If a facility accepts for treatment, 

storage, or disposal any hazardous waste 

from an off-site source without an 

accompanying manifest, or without an 

accompanying shipping paper as 

described by § 263.20(e) of this chapter, 

and if the waste is not excluded from 

the manifest requirement by this 

chapter, then the owner or operator 

must prepare and submit a letter to the 

Regional Administrator within fifteen 

days after receiving the waste. The 

unmanifested waste report must contain 

the following information: 

(1) The EPA identification number, 

name and address of the facility; 

(2) The date the facility received the 

waste; 

(3) The EPA identification number, 

name and address of the generator and 

the transporter, if available; 

(4) A description and the quantity of 

each unmanifested hazardous waste the 

facility received; 

(5) The method of treatment, storage, 

or disposal for each hazardous waste;

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

■ 28. The authority citation for part 271 

continues to read as follows:

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

6926.

■ 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:

§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984 

Promulgation date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date 

* * * * * * * 

Mar. 4, 2005 .......................................... Waste Minimization Certification in the 

Revised Manifest Rule.

[Insert FR page numbers] .................... Sept. 6, 2005. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 30. Section 271.10 is amended by 

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

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

(h)(2) to read as follows:

§ 271.10 Requirements for generators of 

hazardous wastes.

* * * * *

(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 § 262.20(a). No other 

manifest form, shipping document, or 

information, other than that required by 

federal law, may be required by the 

State to travel with the shipment. 

(2) Initiate the manifest and designate 

on the manifest the treatment, storage or 

disposal facility to which the waste is to 

be shipped. 

(3) Ensure that all wastes offered for 

transportation are accompanied by a 

manifest, except:

(i) Shipments subject to 40 CFR 

262.20(e) or (f); 

(ii) Shipments by rail or water, as 

specified in 40 CFR 262.23(c) and (d).

* * * * *

(h) The State must follow the Federal 

manifest format for the form and 

instructions (40 CFR 262.20 and the 

appendix to part 262). 

(1) A state may require the entry of 

waste codes associated with particular 

wastes that are regulated as hazardous 

wastes by the state, if the state codes are 

not redundant with a federally required 

code for the same waste. No state, 

however, may impose enforcement 

sanctions on a transporter during 

transportation of the shipment for 

failure of the form to include a staterequired waste code. 

(2) Either the State to which a 

shipment is manifested (consignment 

State) or the State in which the 

generator is located (generator State), or 

both, may require that copies of the 

manifest form be submitted to the State.

* * * * *

■ 31. Section 271.11 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 271.11 Requirements for transporters of 

hazardous waste.

* * * * *

(c)(1) The State must require 

transporters to carry the manifest during 

transport, except in the case of 

shipments by rail or water, transporters 

may carry a shipping paper, as specified 

in 40 CFR 263.20(e) and (f); 

(2) The State must require the 

transporter to deliver waste only to the 

facility designated on the 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.

* * * * *

■ 32. Section 271.12 is amended by 

revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:

§ 271.12 Requirements for hazardous 

waste management facilities.

* * * * *

(i) Compliance with the manifest 

system including the requirement that 

facility owners or operators return a 

signed copy of the manifest: 

(1) To the generator to certify delivery 

of the hazardous waste shipment or to 

identify discrepancies; and 

(2) To EPA’s International 

Compliance Assurance Division 

program, at the address referenced in 40 

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

indicate the receipt of a shipment of 

hazardous waste imported into the U.S. 

from a foreign source.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 05–1966 Filed 3–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P