Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0032-0104
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-03-02T05:00Z

RESPONSE
TO
COMMENTS
DOCUMENT
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM:
MODIFICATIONS
OF
THE
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
MANIFEST
SYSTEM;
PROPOSED
RULE
PUBLISHED
MAY
22,
2001
December
10,
2004
+
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
BACKGROUND
AND
PURPOSE
OF
DOCUMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
Background
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
Purpose
of
Document
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
SUMMARY
OF
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
AND
AGENCY
RESPONSES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
1.0
General
Support
of
The
Proposed
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
2.0
Delayed
Compliance
Period
for
the
New
Manifest
and
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
3.0
The
Revised
Manifest
Form
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
3.1
General
Comments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
3.2
Proposed
Changes
to
the
Manifest
Acquisition
Procedures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
3.2.1
General
Comments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
3.2.2
Need
for
Generator
to
Contact
the
State
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
3.2.3
Need
for
Modifications
or
Clarifications
to
the
Registry
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
3.3
Suggested
Changes
to
the
Manifest
Form
Specifications
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
3.4
General
Burden
and
Variability
Implications
of
Manifest
Form
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
3.5
International
Shipments+
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
3.6
Bulk
Containers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
3.7
Use
of
Fractions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
3.8
Emergency
Response
Phone
Numbers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
3.9
Generator
Certification
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
3.10
Elimination
of
Certain
State
Optional
Boxes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
3.10.1
General
Comments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
3.10.2
Telephone
Numbers
for
Transporter
and/
or
TSDF
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
3.10.3
State
Identification
Numbers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
3.10.4
Modification
to
Items
15
and
J
of
the
Old
Form
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
3.10.5
Physical
Site
Address
of
Generators
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
3.10.6
Block
for
Management
Method
Codes
(
also
referred
to
as
Biennial
Report
codes)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
58
3.10.7
Block
for
Waste
Codes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
3.10.8
Mandatory
Codes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
72
4.0
Unmanifested
Waste
Reporting
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
74
5.0
Residues
And
Rejected
Loads
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
75
5.1
General
Comments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
75
5.2
TSDF
On­
Site
Custody
of
Rejected
Waste
and
Container
Residue
.
.
.
.
79
5.3
Responsible
Party
for
Deciding
Where
to
Send
the
Residue
or
Rejected
Load
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
81
5.4
Close­
out
of
Original
Manifest
and
Preparation
of
New
One
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
84
5.5
Request
for
Clarification
or
Modification
to
the
Tracking
Procedures
for
Rejected
Loads
and
Container
Residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
86
5.6
Rejecting
TSDF
Signature
in
the
Generator
Field
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
93
5.7
Comments
on
Newly
Generated
Waste
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
97
5.8
Conditions
Applicable
to
Wastes
Returned
to
Generator
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
99
6.0
Transportation
Vehicle
Marking
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
102
7.0
Regulatory
Analyses
Supporting
the
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
103
APPENDIX:
TABLE
OF
ORGANIZATIONS
COMMENTING
ON
PROPOSED
RULE
AND
COMMENTER
NUMBERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
107
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
1
BACKGROUND
AND
PURPOSE
OF
DOCUMENT
Background
On
May
22,
2001,
EPA
published
a
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
to
revise
the
hazardous
waste
manifest
system
(
66
FR
28240).
The
proposed
revisions
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.
The
proposed
rule
would
have
accomplished
this
by
adopting
a
standardized
manifest
form
with
fewer
or
no
optional
data
fields;
adopting
a
new
approach
for
distributing
and
acquiring
the
form;
standardizing
the
data
elements
and
procedures
for
tracking
certain
types
of
hazardous
waste
shipments;
and
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
and
the
procedures
for
using
the
form
and
(
2)
revisions
aimed
at
replacing
the
paper­
based
manifest
system
with
a
nearly
paperless,
electronic
approach
to
tracking
hazardous
waste
shipments
(
referred
to
as
the
"
e­
manifest"
in
this
document).

EPA
received
66
public
comment
letters
in
response
to
the
May
22,
2001,
proposed
rule.
Commenters
generally
supported
our
goals
of
further
standardizing
the
manifest
form
elements
and
reducing
variability
among
the
manifests
that
authorized
RCRA
State
agencies
currently
distribute.
However,
the
commenters
had
differing
views
on
many
of
the
particulars
of
the
proposed
revisions
to
the
manifest.
Moreover,
there
were
a
substantial
number
of
comments
that
took
issue
with
EPA's
proposed
approach
to
the
e­
manifest,
particularly
with
respect
to
the
technical
rigor
of
the
proposal,
the
assumptions
relied
upon
by
EPA
in
its
projections
of
burden
and
cost
reductions,
the
feasibility
of
the
proposed
electronic
signature
options,
the
highly
detailed
security
requirements
aimed
at
preventing
fraud
and
data
corruption,
the
reliance
on
regulated
industry
to
develop
private
e­
manifest
systems,
and
the
preamble'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.
EPA
is
presently
taking
final
action
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.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
2
Purpose
of
Document
This
document
presents
a
summary
of
the
public
comments
received
in
response
to
the
proposed
rule.
The
public
comments
(
e.
g.,
suggestions,
concerns,
questions)
are
summarized
according
to
specific
issues
related
to
the
proposed
rule
and
preamble.

In
each
summary,
we
indicate
the
number
of
organizations
whose
comments
are
reflected
in
it.
We
also
identify
the
organizations.
To
do
so,
we
assigned
each
organization
a
unique
commenter
number.
We
then
prepared
the
summaries
and
inserted
commenter
numbers
into
each
summary
to
identify
the
organizations
whose
comments
are
reflected
in
it.
The
appendix
to
this
document
includes
a
table
identifying
each
organization
that
commented
on
the
proposed
rule
and
its
commenter
number.

This
document
also
provides
the
Agency's
response
to
each
comment.
The
responses
clarify
how
the
comments
were
considered
in
finalizing
the
rule.

This
document
does
not
address
comments
that
are
outside
the
scope
of
the
present
rulemaking.
It
also
does
not
address
comments
on
the
e­
manifest,
because
we
are
not
finalizing
the
e­
manifest
at
this
time.
We
will
consider
and
respond
to
the
comments
on
the
e­
manifest
as
we
work
further
on
it.

The
public
can
view
the
comment
letters
in
their
entirety
at
the
EPA
docket.
The
docket
is
located
at
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
Public
Reading
Room,
Room
B102,
EPA
West
Building,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington
D.
C.
Information
on
the
comment
letters
is
also
available
on
the
EPA
website
(
www.
epa.
gov/
edockets).
The
docket
identification
number
is
RCRA­
2001­
0032.

SUMMARY
OF
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
AND
AGENCY
RESPONSES
1.0
General
Support
of
The
Proposed
Rule
Comment:
We
heard
from
27
commenters
that
indicated
their
general
support
for
the
rule
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
9,
12,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
21,
22,
23,
26,
31,
36,
37,
42,
45,
47,
49,
53,
56,
57,
58,
60,
62,
and
63).
Thirteen
of
these
commenters
expressed
their
support
of
EPA's
goals
to
streamline
the
manifest
requirements
and
reduce
burden
on
waste
handlers
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
19,
21,
22,
23,
31,
42,
49,
53,
58,
60,
62,
and
63).

Response:
EPA
appreciates
commenters'
support
for
the
proposed
revisions
to
the
manifest
system.
The
final
form
and
procedures
closely
mirror
the
proposed
form
and
procedures.
However,
we
have
refined
or
modified
them
to
address
commenter's
suggestions
and
concerns.
Please
refer
to
the
other
sections
of
this
document
for
a
summary
of
comments
and
Agency
responses
regarding
these
changes.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
3
2.0
Delayed
Compliance
Period
for
the
New
Manifest
and
Requirements
Comment:
We
heard
from
18
commenters
that
the
proposed
two­
year
compliance
period
for
the
revised
manifest
form
is
appropriate
(
Commenter
Nos.
1,
16,
17,
18,
19,
22,
25,
29,
30,
35,
36,
46,
49,
53,
60,
61,
62,
and
63).
These
commenters
indicated
that
two
years
is
an
adequate
phase­
in
period
to
provide
time
for
companies
to
use
up
their
old
manifests
and
come
into
compliance
with
the
new
standards.
One
of
the
commenters
cautioned
that,
even
though
two
years
is
the
minimum
amount
of
time
necessary
for
compliance,
EPA
should
not
extend
the
compliance
period
significantly
longer
than
two
years
(
e.
g.,
4
or
5
years)
(
Commenter
No.
19).
The
commenter
stated
that
a
significantly
longer
compliance
period
would
lead
to
confusion
and
exacerbate
the
problems
associated
with
the
current
manifest
form.

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
support
of
the
proposed
compliance
date.
When
we
proposed
the
manifest
form
revisions
in
May
2001,
we
were
interested
in
according
manifest
users
and
RCRA
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
the
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.

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
adequate
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
can
implement
the
new
form.
[
Please
refer
to
the
other
comment
summaries
in
Section
2.0
of
this
document
for
further
information
on
these
views.]
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
4
In
order
to
accommodate
these
key
interests,
the
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
six
months
after
publication
of
the
rule,
and
end
12
months
later.
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
18
months
after
rule
publication.

We
believe
that
this
approach
is
much
easier
to
implement
than
our
proposed
two­
year
transition
period.
Moreover,
it
responds
more
adequately
to
the
comment
that
implementation
of
the
new
form
should
not
be
delayed
longer
than
necessary,
since
full
implementation
under
the
final
rule
will
occur
after
18
months,
rather
than
within
the
24
month
period
that
was
proposed.
The
final
rule
approach
also
addresses
directly
the
concern
that
"
dual
compliance"
with
both
the
old
and
new
form
would
result
in
confusion,
since
under
the
final
rule,
there
will
be
no
period
of
dual
compliance
permitted.
Finally,
the
final
rule
approach
responds
to
the
comment
that
there
was
lack
of
clarity
in
the
proposed
rule
about
when
users
can
begin
to
use
the
new
form.
Under
the
final
rule
approach,
users
will
be
certain
that
they
can
use
only
the
old
form
during
the
18
moths
of
delayed
compliance,
and
only
the
new
form
after
the
18­
month
period
has
run.

Since
it
is
standard
practice
for
EPA
regulations
to
include
a
six­
month
delayed
effective
date
measured
from
the
date
of
publication,
the
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
the
date
18
months
after
rule
publication,
the
existing
manifest
form
and
requirements
will
continue
in
effect.
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.
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
the
date
18
months
after
rule
publication,
only
the
new
manifest
form
and
requirements
established
under
the
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
the
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.

Comment:
We
heard
from
three
commenters
that
EPA
should
clarify
the
two­
year
phase­
in
period
for
the
revised
manifest
form
(
Commenter
Nos.
16,
18,
and
33).
Two
commenters
indicated
that,
except
for
the
waste
minimization
certification
statement,
the
rule
is
not
being
promulgated
under
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
5
the
authority
of
the
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
of
1984
(
HSWA).
They
pointed
out
that
non­
HSWA
elements
would
not
go
into
effect
until
authorized
States
adopt
them
(
Commenter
Nos.
16
and
18).
The
commenters
further
observed
that
States
may
not
adopt
and
receive
final
authorization
within
the
two­
year
time
frame.
The
commenters
recommend
that
EPA
put
the
State
authorization
and
true
effective
date
requirements
into
table
form
in
order
to
clarify
when
and
where
the
form
will
be
available
and/
or
required.
Another
commenter
noted
that
the
preamble
suggests
that,
after
the
two­
year
phase­
in
period
for
the
revised
manifest,
Department
of
Transportation
(
DOT)
preemption
provisions
would
require
its
use
anyway
(
Commenter
No.
33).
The
commenter
asks
EPA
to
clarify
whether
the
revised
manifest
will
automatically
go
into
effect
after
two
years
regardless
of
whether
a
State
adopts
it.

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
request
for
additional
clarification
on
the
phasein
period.
In
response
to
commenters'
requests,
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
provides
a
full
discussion
of
the
rule's
phase­
in
period
for
the
form
and
requirements,
implications
for
State
authorization
under
RCRA,
and
interaction
with
DOT
authority
under
the
Hazmat
statutes
and
regulations.

Commenters
are
correct
that
rules
published
under
non­
HSWA
authority
do
not
go
into
effect
under
State
RCRA
programs
until
they
become
authorized
for
them.
It
is
also
true
that
except
for
one
provision
(
the
waste
minimization
certification
requirement),
the
requirements
of
this
final
rule
are
promulgated
under
the
non­
HSWA
authority
rather
than
HSWA
authority.
However,
the
usual
statements
about
non­
HSWA
based
regulations
not
being
effective
pending
action
by
authorized
States
do
not
apply
in
the
case
of
the
manifest.
As
we
explained
when
we
issued
the
Uniform
Manifest
Rule
in
March,
1984,
the
manifest
rule
is
based
on
joint
RCRA
and
Hazmat
authority.
Because
of
this
joint
authority,
this
rule
raises
unique
implementation
consequences.

Most
significantly,
the
revised
manifest
requirements
announced
in
the
rule
will
be
effective
in
all
States
18
months
after
the
date
of
rule
publication.
This
is
because
Hazmat
laws
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
effective
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
the
final
rule
will
become
effective
uniformly,
regardless
of
any
State's
authorization
status
under
RCRA.
This
means
that,
with
one
minor
exception
(
the
changes
to
the
waste
minimization
certification
requirements),
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
the
rule.
So,
from
the
standpoint
of
the
users
of
the
manifest,
the
significance
of
the
non­
HSWA
versus
HSWA
authority
and
its
effect
on
implementation
of
the
new
form
will
be
largely
moot,
since
the
new
form
will
be
effective
in
all
states
on
the
delayed
compliance
date
(
18
months
after
publication)
under
the
Hazmat
authority.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
6
However,
there
is
one
provision
of
the
final
rule
that
EPA
is
promulgating
under
HSWA
statutory
authority.
This
provision
consists
of
the
waste
minimization
certification
statement,
which
is
based
specifically
on
RCRA
3002(
b),
and
is
being
promulgated
at
40
CFR
262.27.
Therefore,
EPA
is
adding
this
section
of
the
rule
to
Table
1
in
40
CFR
271.1(
j),
which
identifies
the
Federal
program
requirements
that
are
promulgated
pursuant
to
the
statutory
authority
that
was
added
by
HSWA.
The
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
section
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
regulations
rather
than
on
the
form.
Therefore,
section
262.27
will
be
effective
in
authorized
States
under
Federal
RCRA
authority
as
a
HSWA­
based
requirement
immediately
upon
the
compliance
date,
i.
e.,
before
States
receive
authorization
for
the
revised
manifest
requirements.
This
does
have
significance
to
implementation
of
the
new
manifest,
as
there
is
no
counterpart
to
this
requirement
in
the
Hazmat
law,
and
its
immediate
implementation
on
the
delayed
compliance
date
for
the
final
rule
depends
solely
on
HSWA
authority.
Te
result
is
that
there
will
be
no
gap
in
the
waste
minimization
certification
requirements
when
the
new
form
goes
into
effect
in
all
states,
since
the
new
form
will
reference
the
certification
language
set
out
in
the
immediately
effective
Federal
regulation
at
40
CFR
262.27,
and
this
language
will
be
effective
under
HSWA
authority
until
the
States
become
authorized
for
their
state
law
counterparts
to
40
CFR
262.27.

Lastly,
we
emphasize
that
authorized
States
must
adopt
the
revised
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)
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
we
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.
Therefore,
in
1984,
we
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.
Based
on
nearly
20
years
of
experience
with
the
manifest,
we
have
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,
we
emphasize
that
program
consistency
considerations
under
RCRA
section
3006
and
40
CFR
271.4(
c)
demand
that
all
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
7
authorized
States
must
require
the
use
of
the
revised
manifest
form
and
requirements
as
set
out
in
the
final
rule.

Comment:
We
heard
from
three
commenters
that
the
compliance
date
for
the
revised
manifest
should
be
shortened
(
Commenter
Nos.
24,
45,
and
51).
Two
commenters
proposed
a
one­
year
time
frame
so
that
waste
handlers
could
experience
burden
savings
sooner
(
Commenter
Nos.
45
and
51).
Another
commenter
disagreed
with
EPA's
explanation
that
the
two­
year
compliance
period
is
required
for
the
completion
of
the
printing
registration
and
numbering
system
review
(
Commenter
No.
24).
The
commenter
suggested
that
if,
in
fact,
the
registration
and
review
process
is
projected
to
be
sufficiently
time­
consuming
to
warrant
a
two­
year
transition
period,
then
this
is
further
evidence
of
the
need
for
EPA
to
re­
evaluate
and
simplify
that
aspect
of
the
rule.
The
commenter
also
indicated
that
EPA
has
underestimated
the
burden
imposed
by
prolonging
the
compliance
period.
The
commenter
believes
EPA
has
not
fully
explored
ways
to
shorten
and
simplify
the
transition.
The
commenter
suggests
that
EPA
could
recommend
to
States
that
they
seek,
insofar
as
possible,
to
provide
a
uniform
effective
date
to
the
implementing
regulations
(
i.
e.,
January
1
of
the
appropriate
year
following
promulgation
of
the
final
rule)
to
better
coordinate
the
transition
from
old
to
new
manifest
in
as
many
States
as
possible.
The
commenter
believes
that
a
more
standardized
set
of
transition
dates
would
greatly
minimize
the
administrative
burden
on
small
companies
of
having
to
check
frequently
with
multiple
States
to
ascertain
transition
schedules.

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
suggestion
to
shorten
the
compliance
period.
As
described
in
the
previous
Agency
responses,
EPA
agrees
that
the
proposed
compliance
period
should
be
shortened.
The
final
rule
establishes
a
compliance
period
of
12
months
following
the
six­
month
effective
date,
as
compared
with
the
proposed
compliance
period,
i.
e.,
two
years
following
the
six­
month
effective
date.
We
agree
that
a
shortened
compliance
period
will
allow
industry
to
partake
of
the
benefits
of
the
rule
sooner.
We
also
believe
the
rule
sets
forth
a
streamlined
registration
process
for
manifest
printers.
We
intend
to
make
resources
available
to
assist
registrants
under
the
application
process
(
e.
g.,
website
with
application
instructions),
to
further
facilitate
the
process.
As
a
result,
registrants
should
be
able
to
get
EPA
approval
to
print
the
manifest
within
a
short
period
of
time.
Finally,
we
have
worked
with
our
State
agency
partners
to
ensure
that
the
new
compliance
period
will
give
States
enough
time
to
get
authorized
for
the
form
and
requirements.
Hence,
we
believe
the
12­
month
delayed
compliance
period
satisfies
their
needs
as
well.

Comment:
We
heard
from
five
commenters
that
suggested
that
the
two­
year
compliance
period
for
the
revised
manifest
should
be
extended
beyond
two
years
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
27,
48,
54,
and
59).
Several
commenters
indicated
that
State
programs
would
need
additional
time
to
amend
their
statutes
and
regulations
and
implement
the
proposed
changes
(
e.
g.,
distribute
the
manifest,
conduct
trainings,
make
computer
system
changes)
before
the
new
manifest
could
be
used
(
Commenter
Nos.
27,
48,
54,
and
59).
Another
commenter
requested
a
delayed
compliance
period
of
three
years
rather
than
the
two­
year
period
as
proposed
(
Commenter
No.
12).
The
commenter
indicated
that,
in
addition
to
allowing
States
to
make
necessary
program
changes,
the
additional
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
8
time
would
allow
better
coordination
between
EPA
and
DOT
requirements.
The
commenter
pointed
out
that,
although
EPA
requires
refresher
training
annually,
DOT
requires
hazardous
materials
transportation
refresher
training
every
3
years
per
49
CFR
Part172,
subpart
H.
The
commenter
suggested
that
a
three­
year
compliance
period
will
allow
the
new
manifesting
requirements
to
be
incorporated
into
the
DOT
hazmat
training
cycle.

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
suggestions
for
an
extended
compliance
period.
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
States
will
need
time
to
transition
to
the
new
form.
Waste
handlers
also
will
need
time
to
use
up
their
existing
inventory
of
forms
and
to
apply
to
the
Registry.
However,
we
have
also
heard
from
many
members
of
the
regulated
industry
who
are
concerned
that
a
two­
year
compliance
period,
as
proposed,
would
unduly
delay
them
from
experiencing
the
benefits
(
e.
g.,
burden
savings)
of
the
rule
changes.

In
developing
the
final
rule,
we
had
to
balance
the
needs
of
the
States
against
competing
factors,
such
as
industry's
desire
to
experience
the
rule's
benefits
sooner.
We
believe
the
final
rule
effectively
addresses
both
of
these
desires.
The
final
rule
establishes
a
12­
month
delayed
compliance
period.
The
delayed
compliance
period
will
begin
on
the
effective
date
of
the
rule,
which
is
six
months
after
publication
of
the
rule,
and
end
12
months
later.
Hence,
the
new
form
and
requirements
will
take
effect
18
months
after
rule
publication.
This
is
shorter
than
the
two­
year
delayed
compliance
date
as
proposed.

We
believe
the
final
rule's
18­
month
period
will
give
States
enough
time
to
transition
to
the
new
form
and
requirements.
As
a
point
of
comparison,
we
note
that
final
rules
under
HSWA
normally
go
into
effect
in
all
States
immediately
after
a
six­
month
period
following
rule
publication.
The
EPA
Regions
administer
HSWA
rules
until
State
RCRA
programs
get
authorized
for
them.
We
believe
the
States
have
worked
effectively
in
coordinating
and
transitioning
their
responsibilities
under
these
rules.
Because
of
this,
we
fully
expect
a
smooth
transition
to
occur
under
the
final
manifest
forms
rule.

Even
so,
the
final
manifest
rule
provides
a
12­
month
delayed
compliance
date
beyond
the
sixmonth
effective
date.
This
gives
States
and
waste
handlers
an
additional
12
months
to
revise
their
programs
and
get
authorized.
In
addition,
the
States
have
been
aware
of
our
efforts
to
revise
the
manifest
form
and
procedures
for
several
years
and
are
very
familiar
with
the
changes
we
are
finalizing.
The
final
manifest
form
and
requirements
closely
mirror
the
changes
proposed
in
2001.
Because
of
this,
we
expect
that
the
States
are
generally
informed
and
well­
positioned
to
seek
authorization
in
a
timely
manner.
Nevertheless,
we
also
emphasize
that
because
the
new
manifest
form
will
go
into
effect
under
Hazmat
authority
in
all
states
on
the
delayed
compliance
date,
users
will
not
be
adversely
affected
if
States
should
incur
delays
in
adopting
state
law
revisions
and
having
these
State
program
revisions
authorized
by
EPA.
Users
will
be
able
to
begin
using
the
new
form
on
the
delayed
compliance
date
regardless
of
the
States'
status
in
obtaining
authorization
for
the
new
manifest.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
9
Lastly,
we
have
involved
a
number
of
State
representatives,
as
co­
implementers
of
the
RCRA
program,
in
the
development
of
the
final
rule.
Based
on
their
involvement,
we
have
been
attuned
to
the
needs
of
the
States
in
revising
their
programs
and
believe
that
the
rule
will
allow
them
to
do
so
in
a
timely
manner.

Because
of
these
reasons,
we
believe
an
18­
month
period
is
enough
time
for
States
to
transition
to
the
new
form
and
requirements.

Comment:
We
heard
from
three
commenters
that
EPA
should
provide
greater
clarification
in
the
rule
that
waste
handlers
can
phase
in
usage
of
the
revised
manifest
form
based
on
their
own
capabilities
and
resources,
regardless
of
whether
their
State
is
authorized
for
the
revised
form
(
Commenter
Nos.
53,
60,
and
61).
One
of
the
commenters
indicated
that
it
often
takes
States
more
than
two
years
to
obtain
authorization
for
RCRA
rule
changes
(
Commenter
No.
61).
Hence,
the
commenter
believes
the
manifest
system
should
operate
at
the
Federal
level
during
the
time
that
States
may
be
adopting
legislation
and
rules
needed
to
implement
the
revised
manifest
at
the
State
level.
The
other
two
commenters
believe
the
definition
of
"
manifest
user"
should
be
clarified
to
mean
generators,
transporters
and
TSDFs,
rather
than
the
States
(
Commenter
Nos.
53
and
60).
These
commenters
believe
these
facilities
should
be
able
to
establish
their
own
schedule
for
implementation
consistent
with
the
individual
facility
capabilities.

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
suggestions.

The
proposed
rule
set
forth
a
two­
year
compliance
period,
during
which
waste
handlers
could
use
either
the
old
or
new
form.
After
the
two­
year
compliance
period,
only
the
new
form
and
requirements
would
be
followed.

We
agree
with
the
commenters
on
the
need
for
greater
certainty
in
the
use
of
the
form
during
the
two­
year
compliance
period.
The
final
preamble
and
rule
make
it
clear
that,
until
the
date
18
months
after
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register,
only
the
existing
manifest
form
and
procedures
must
be
followed.
Since
only
the
existing
forms
will
be
accepted
during
this
time,
there
will
be
no
confusion
about
which
form
to
use
during
the
18­
month
period,
nor
any
problems
arising
from
dual
implementation
of
the
old
and
new
forms.

After
the
date
18
months
after
rule
publication,
only
the
new
manifest
form
and
requirements
established
under
the
final
rule
will
be
valid
and
acceptable
for
use.
All
shipments
of
hazardous
waste
initiated
by
generators
or
offerors
after
the
18­
month
period
must
be
accompanied
by
the
new
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
the
rule.
By
the
end
of
the
18­
month
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.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
10
As
suggested
by
one
of
the
commenters,
the
new
form
and
requirements
will
go
into
effect
at
the
Federal
level,
primarily
under
Hazmat
laws
and
regulations.
During
this
time,
State
RCRA
programs
must
get
authorized
for
the
rule.
Hence,
there
will
not
be
any
unexpected
delay
in
implementation
of
the
final
rule,
nor
confusion
about
which
form
to
use.

When
we
proposed
the
two­
year
transition
period
in
May,
2001,
we
agreed
with
the
position
of
the
commenters
who
suggest
that
users
of
the
form
should
be
able
to
phase
in
their
use
of
the
new
form
at
any
time
during
the
two­
year
transition,
according
to
their
schedules
and
capabilities.
However,
after
considering
all
the
comments
raised
on
the
transition
approach,
we
were
persuaded
to
alter
this
position.
Thus,
the
final
rule
provides
that
users
must
wait
18­
months
(
the
total
of
the
delayed
effective
date
and
delayed
compliance
periods)
from
publication
before
they
can
begin
using
the
new
form.
We
were
persuaded
that
having
greater
certainty
on
when
users
could
use
the
new
form,
and
avoiding
dual
compliance
with
the
old
and
new
forms,
were
more
essential
considerations
than
accommodating
the
convenience
of
the
users
who
wish
to
begin
using
the
new
form
on
an
earlier
schedule.
All
users
will
therefore
be
on
the
same
schedule
for
compliance,
and
there
will
be
no
need
for
waste
handlers
to
establish
their
own
schedules
for
compliance.
However,
we
accept
these
commenters'
view
that
users
should
not
have
to
wait
additionally
for
states
to
have
obtained
authorization
from
EPA
for
the
new
form
requirements,
before
the
users
can
begin
using
the
new
form.
The
passage
of
the
delayed
compliance
period
is
the
only
condition
to
be
met
before
users
can
begin
using
the
new
form.

The
final
rule
does
not
define
"
manifest
user"
as
requested
by
the
commenters.
Many
organizations
and
companies
"
use"
the
manifest
(
e.
g.,
to
offer
a
shipment
into
transportation,
to
track
a
shipment,
to
keep
records
of
the
shipment),
including
State
regulators
and
industry.
We
do
not
see
any
value
to
defining
the
term
within
the
context
of
the
rule.
In
regard
to
the
compliance
period,
the
final
rule
establishes
a
clear
timeframe
and
expectations
for
the
transition.
The
respective
roles
of
States
and
waste
handlers
during
the
transition
period
are
clearly
outlined.
Therefore,
we
see
no
reason
to
define
"
manifest
user"
in
this
context.

3.0
The
Revised
Manifest
Form
3.1
General
Comments
Comment:
We
heard
from
27
commenters
indicating
their
general
support
of
the
EPA's
proposed
changes
to
the
manifest
form
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
8,
11,
15,
19,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
27,
28,
33,
36,
38,
43,
44,
46,
47,
51,
52,
55,
57,
58,
60,
62,
and
63).

Response:
EPA
appreciates
commenters'
support
of
the
proposed
revisions
to
the
manifest
form.
The
final
form
and
procedures
closely
mirror
the
proposed
form
and
procedures.
However,
we
have
refined
or
modified
them
to
address
commenter's
suggestions
and
concerns.
Please
refer
to
the
other
comments
and
Agency
responses
in
this
section
regarding
these
changes.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
11
3.2
Proposed
Changes
to
the
Manifest
Acquisition
Procedures
3.2.1
General
Comments
Comment:
We
heard
from
24
commenters
that
indicated
their
general
support
for
the
proposed
changes
to
the
manifest
acquisition
procedures
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
9,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
21,
22,
24,
28,
29,
30,
36,
38,
43,
46,
49,
53,
55,
57,
60,
61,
and
62).
Twelve
commenters
expressed
their
belief
that
the
proposed
procedures
would
result
in
burden
savings
and
efficiency
by
increasing
the
availability
of
the
manifest
(
Commenter
Nos.
15,
16,
18,
21,
22,
24,
43,
46,
49,
55,
60,
and
61).
Another
commenter
supported
the
approach,
but
noted
that
its
State
program
currently
provides
a
similar
program
for
its
waste
handlers,
but
few
take
advantage
of
it
(
Commenter
No.
30).
The
commenter
believes
that
getting
the
forms
from
EPA
or
electronic
methods
would
ease
the
burden
on
all
involved.

We
heard
from
nine
commenters
who
provided
explicit
support
for
the
EPA's
proposal
to
prohibit
States
from
using
their
own
versions
of
the
manifest
(
Commenter
Nos.
17,
22,
24,
25,
38,
49,
56,
58,
and
61).
Commenters
indicated
that
allowing
multiple
or
different
forms
would
be
a
constraint
on
interstate
commerce
and
add
burden
to
waste
handlers'
manifesting
practices.

We
heard
from
one
commenter
who
asked
if
a
generator
would
use
a
Federal
manifest
or
another
form
to
track
State
only
regulated
waste
(
Commenter
No.
13).

Response:
EPA
appreciates
the
commenters'
support
of
the
proposed
manifest
acquisition
procedures.
The
final
acquisition
procedures
closely
mirror
the
proposed
procedures;
however,
we
have
refined
or
modified
them
to
address
commenters'
suggestions
and
concerns.

EPA
agrees
that
the
new
procedures
will
ease
waste
handlers'
burden
in
obtaining
the
forms
by
making
them
universally
available.
EPA
has
conducted
consultations
with
waste
handlers
and
commercial
printers
who
are
interested
in
registering
with
EPA
to
print
and
distribute
the
forms.
Waste
handlers
indicate
that
being
able
to
print
the
manifest
will
give
them
greater
control
over
their
manifest­
related
activities.
They
will
be
able
to
print
as
many
forms
as
desired
and
whenever
needed.
They
will
avoid
the
costs
and
delays
associated
with
ordering
forms
from
the
States.
They
will
be
free
to
realize
economies
of
scale
by
printing
large
numbers
of
forms
and
recovering
the
costs
by
using
or
selling
them
to
the
public.
In
addition,
they
will
have
the
flexibility
to
determine
aspects
of
the
form
to
suit
their
preferences
and
capabilities,
including
the
paper
type
and
weight
they
will
use
in
printing
their
manifests,
and
whether
they
will
design
their
forms
to
be
top­
bound
or
side­
bound.
This
latter
aspect
is
important,
because
some
waste
handlers
use
impact
printers
to
fill
out
their
forms.
Impact
printers
require
side­
bound
forms.
Under
the
current
manifest
system,
waste
handlers
are
required
to
use
State­
supplied
forms,
and
hence,
they
do
not
always
have
the
ability
to
determine
whether
their
forms
are
side­
bound
or
top­
bound.
Under
the
final
rule
procedures,
waste
handlers
can
develop
the
forms
in
a
manner
that
is
most
suited
to
their
operations,
while
still
meeting
the
new
Federal
printing
specifications.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
12
Because
the
form
will
be
uniform
and
universally
accessible,
generators
will
rely
on
registered
sources
for
forms,
regardless
of
the
State
in
which
the
generator
or
source
is
located.
Generators
will
no
longer
need
to
contact
individual
States
for
forms.
This
will
reduce
their
administrative
burden.

EPA
appreciates
the
comment
that
the
Agency
should
be
the
sole
source
of
the
manifest.
However,
EPA
does
not
have
the
resources
to
do
so.
In
addition,
we
expect
that
a
number
of
waste
handlers
and
others
will
register
to
print
and
sell
forms,
making
it
unnecessary
for
EPA
to
get
involved
in
manifest
printing
or
distribution.

In
response
to
a
commenter's
question,
we
are
clarifying
that
the
revised
manifest
must
be
used
for
both
Federal
and
State­
only
hazardous
waste
subject
to
EPA's
or
authorized
State's
RCRA
hazardous
waste
program.
The
new
form
provides
additional
space
for
entering
Federal
and
State
RCRA
waste
codes,
and
the
final
rule
provides
additional
guidance
on
how
many
codes
and
which
codes
to
enter
to
describe
a
waste's
properties.

Comment:
We
heard
from
19
commenters
about
EPA's
alternative
option
to
retain
the
existing
State
acquisition
hierarchy,
that
is,
to
allow
States
to
continue
as
the
primary
source
of
the
new
standardized
form.
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
17,
19,
21,
23,
25,
33,
34,
35,
43,
44,
48,
51,
54,
55,
59,
60,
61,
and
63).

A
number
of
commenters
indicated
their
opposition
to
the
alternative
approach,
because
there
would
be
no
burden
reduction
and
could
limit
waste
handlers'
ability
to
transition
to
the
new
form
and
e­
manifest
option
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
17,
19,
21,
23,
25,
43,
51,
55,
60,
and
61).
Several
commenters
indicated
that
there
would
be
very
little
relief
from
this
alternate
proposal,
as
the
system
would
be
little
changed
from
the
current
one
(
i.
e.,
waste
handlers
would
still
be
required
to
obtain
manifests
from
multiple
sources,
maintain
inventories
of
forms
at
each
facility,
train
employees
in
a
complex
acquisition
hierarchy)
(
Commenter
Nos.
51
and
61).
Another
commenter
speculated
that
State
control
of
manifest
printing
could
hinder
waste
handlers'
ability
to
obtain
tracking
numbers
and
issue
electronic
manifests
(
Commenter
No.
23).

Seven
commenters
indicated
their
support
for
the
alternative
approach
(
Commenter
Nos.
33,
34,
35,
44,
54,
59,
and
63).
One
commenter
indicated
that
States
use
the
fees
from
the
sale
of
manifests
to
pay
for
the
processing
of
the
manifest
forms
(
Commenter
No.
54).
The
commenter
indicated
that,
unless
States
have
the
authority
to
collect
fees
from
the
sale
of
manifests,
they
will
lose
income
and
the
ability
to
track
and
compile
the
information.
Several
commenters
questioned
whether
delegating
printing
responsibility
to
industry
would
lead
to
a
hodgepodge
of
different
tracking
schemes
and
other
difficulties
(
Commenter
Nos.
33,
34,
and
59).

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
feedback
on
the
alternative
approach
of
allowing
States
to
require
the
use
of
only
their
forms.
EPA
agrees
with
comments
that
allowing
State
programs
to
continue
to
serve
as
the
primary
source
of
forms
would
potentially
result
in
greater
burden
being
imposed
on
waste
handlers
than
would
result
under
the
proposed
new
acquisition
and
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
13
registry
approach.
Waste
handlers
would
have
to
contact
potentially
multiple
States
to
request
their
forms,
even
though
the
form
supplied
by
one
State
would
be
substantially
the
same
as
the
form
supplied
by
other
States.
Waste
handlers
would
not
realize
the
benefit
of
printing
their
own
manifests
for
multi­
state
use,
nor
the
benefit
of
selecting
the
form
design
features
(
paper
type,
weight,
binding
type)
that
is
most
suited
to
their
companies'
operations.

Therefore,
we
have
rejected
this
alternative
approach
in
developing
the
final
rule.
The
final
rule
retains
the
proposed
approach
under
which
there
will
be
one
uniform,
universally
accessible
manifest.
Under
the
final
rule,
waste
handlers
would
need
to
contact
only
one
source
for
their
forms.
This
could
include
any
registered
source,
such
as
another
waste
handler,
a
commercial
printer,
or
a
State.
In
addition,
because
each
form
would
contain
identical
requirements,
waste
handlers
would
only
need
to
learn
and
follow
one
form
and
set
of
requirements.

We
acknowledge
the
comments
suggesting
that
some
States
will
lose
revenue
under
the
final
rule.
Based
on
discussions
with
most
of
the
States
that
collect
fees
for
selling
blank
forms,
EPA
has
learned
that
these
States
generally
use
the
revenues
from
selling
blank
manifests
only
to
recoup
their
printing
costs
and
not
to
fund
other
components
of
their
waste
programs.
Some
States
also
have
collected
fees
to
offset
the
costs
of
processing
collected
manifest
forms
(
e.
g.,
entering
data
into
tracking
databases),
and
in
a
few
cases,
the
revenues
collected
from
selling
blank
forms
have
been
used
to
offset
these
processing
costs
as
well
as
the
printing
costs.
However,
in
our
discussions
with
the
States
on
manifest
form
fees,
we
found
that
several
States
no
longer
collect
their
processing
fee
as
part
of
the
sale
price
of
the
blank
forms,
but
as
a
distinct
charge
divorced
from
the
sale
of
the
forms.
Other
States
which
collect
these
fees
and
consulted
with
us
on
the
development
of
this
rule
also
have
indicated
that
they
will
in
the
future
collect
their
processing
fees
by
a
means
not
tied
to
the
sale
of
blank
forms.
Since
most
States
only
are
recovering
their
printing
costs
when
they
sell
manifests,
and
the
States
charging
processing
fees
also
have
identified
other
means
not
tied
to
selling
forms
for
recovering
their
processing
costs,
we
do
not
believe
that
the
proposed
acquisition
approach
for
the
revised
manifest
would
impact
significantly
these
State
program
revenues.

The
States
with
manifest
tracking
programs
typically
use
their
manifest
data
to
assess
additional
waste
management
fees
tied
to
the
amount
of
waste
being
generated
or
managed
in
the
States.
The
proposed
acquisition
approach
would
not
impair
States'
ability
to
assess
and
collect
these
waste
management
fees,
and
we
are
encouraging
the
use
of
additional
State
waste
codes
as
a
means
to
flag
State­
specific
requirements
that
would
have
significance
to
collecting
such
fees.
Thus,
if
there
are
limited
instances
where
a
State
is
using
revenues
from
selling
blank
manifests
for
other
waste
program
purposes
beyond
offsetting
form
printing
costs
or
processing
costs,
we
believe
that
any
reduction
in
such
revenue
tied
to
the
proposed
acquisition
approach
could
be
recouped
by
adjustments
to
the
waste
management
fees.
After
considering
these
comments
and
the
information
we
learned
from
discussing
the
revenue
issue
with
additional
States,
we
do
not
believe
that
the
revenue
issue
raised
by
commenters
is
sufficient
enough
to
warrant
abandoning
or
altering
the
proposed
acquisition
approach.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
14
We
disagree
with
comments
that
the
delegation
of
printing
responsibilities
to
industry
would
result
in
a
hodgepodge
of
different
MTN
schemes
and
other
difficulties.
The
final
rule
requires
that
all
registered
form
printers
follow
a
uniform
MTN
scheme:
a
12­
character
alphanumeric
MTN.
Specifically,
each
registrant
must
print
a
unique
MTN
on
each
form
that
consists
of
its
unique
three­
letter
suffix
following
nine
numeric
digits.
This
will
create
greater
MTN
uniformity
than
the
current
system,
under
which
States
print
their
own
MTN
schemes.
There
is
considerable
variation
in
the
number
of
letters
and
numeric
digits
in
States'
current
MTN
schemes.

We
have
finalized
the
Registry
requirements
under
40
CFR
262.21.
We
developed
the
Registry
with
the
express
intent
of
addressing
problems
encountered
under
the
current
manifest
system.
Under
the
current
system,
there
are
no
Federal
requirements
governing
the
evaluation/
approval
of
form
printers;
performance­
based
requirements
that
ensure
manifest
quality;
or
uniform
procedures
for
printers
to
control
the
uniqueness
of
MTNs
on
their
forms.
As
a
result,
State
programs
have
exercised
varying
levels
of
oversight
and
control
over
printers
of
their
forms.
Certain
printers
currently
print
manifests
with
very
little
upfront
or
ongoing
State
involvement.
The
final
rule
establishes
a
nationally
uniform
set
of
standards
for
evaluating
prospective
registrants
and
ensuring
the
production
of
high­
quality
forms.

Briefly,
the
rule
requires
each
registrant
to:

°
Submit
an
initial
application
describing
its
processes
and
procedures
for
tightly
controlling
and
assigning
MTNs
on
each
form,
and
certifying
that
it
will
report
duplicated
numbers
as
soon
as
this
becomes
known.
The
application
also
must
describe
other
quality
procedures
for
printing
the
forms.
EPA
will
review
and
modify
the
application,
if
needed,
before
approving
it.
Approved
registrants
must
follow
the
approved
application
in
printing
their
forms.
This
will
ensure
that
MTNs
are
tightly
controlled
to
avoid
duplicated
numbers
and
that
registrants
follow
acceptable
quality
procedures
in
printing
the
forms.

°
Satisfy
the
rule's
print
specifications
and
performance­
based
requirements
in
designing
and
printing
the
manifest.
We
developed
these
requirements
with
the
aim
of
addressing
common
problems
under
the
current
system,
e.
g.,
illegible
manifest
copies;
copies
that
become
inadvertently
detached
or
torn
during
normal
use;
manifest
instructions
that
bleed
through
the
front
of
the
manifest
copies,
interfering
with
scanning
or
photocopying
of
the
forms.
As
part
of
the
application
process,
EPA
will
evaluate
samples
of
the
registrant's
forms
to
determine
if
they
meet
our
requirements
and
request
modifications,
if
needed,
before
approving
the
registrant
to
print
the
forms.
Through
the
requirements
and
approval
process,
the
manifests
produced
by
registrants
will
be
more
acceptable
to
States
and
waste
handlers
in
many
respects
than
the
forms
under
the
existing
system.

°
Report
to
EPA.
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.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
15
°
Comply
with
EPA's
suspension
and
revocation
procedures
as
appropriate.
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.
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.

3.2.2
Need
for
Generator
to
Contact
the
State
Comment:
We
heard
from
13
commenters
who
expressed
concern
that
the
revised
manifest
would
not
include
State­
specific
instructions
for
completing
the
manifest
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
13,
22,
27,
31,
33,
34,
35,
40,
44,
53,
54,
and
61).
Eleven
of
these
commenters
suggested
methods
for
informing
waste
handlers
of
State­
specific
requirements
in
completing
the
manifest
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
13,
22,
27,
31,
33,
35,
40,
44,
53,
and
54).
Seven
commenters
suggested
that
the
revised
manifest
should
include
a
list
of
States
that
collect
the
manifest
(
e.
g.,
on
the
back
of
the
form
or
in
the
margins)
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
27,
33,
35,
40,
44,
and
54).
One
commenter
indicated
that
clear
and
immediately
available
directions
have
a
direct
bearing
on
the
quality
of
the
data
supplied
on
a
manifest
(
Commenter
No.
35).
The
commenter
added
that,
to
eliminate
the
ability
to
print
complete
directions
on
the
back
of
the
manifest
would
cause
greater
burden
to
a
large
percentage
of
waste
handlers,
since
they
would
need
to
maintain
a
separate
filing
system
for
State
directions
instead
of
just
reading
them
on
the
back
of
the
manifest.
Five
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
host
a
website
that
provides
State­
specific
requirements,
such
as
procedures
for
distribution,
State
contact
information,
and
status
of
State
adoption
of
manifest
changes
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
27,
31,
44,
and
53).
Another
commenter
encouraged
EPA
to
require
that
States
clarify,
through
guidance
or
regulations,
which
manifest
blocks
they
require
so
the
regulated
community
can
easily
access
this
information
at
all
times
(
Commenter
No.
22).
Another
commenter
noted
that
there
may
be
a
number
of
difficulties
associated
with
the
hierarchical
manifest
acquisition
system
(
Commenter
No.
13).
The
commenter
believes
that
EPA's
approach
almost
assumes
that
State
manifest
requirements
that
are
currently
used
must
be
incorporated
into
the
new
system
as
an
accessible
database
before
implementation.

In
addition,
one
commenter
indicated
that
the
purported
benefit
of
form
simplification
seems
diminished
and
unrealized
by
requiring
handlers
to
continue
to
contact
all
States
where
they
do
business
(
Commenter
No.
34).
The
commenter
believes
the
existing
system
meets
more
of
the
individual
State
needs
and
is
not
more
burdensome.
Another
commenter
stated
that
the
proposed
rule
goes
into
detail
about
the
difficulty
sites
have
with
different
State­
only
blocks
of
information
and
the
need
to
contact
the
different
States
(
Commenter
No.
35).
However,
the
commenter
believes
this
problem
remains
by
continuing
to
include
State­
only
blocks.
Another
commenter
opposed
the
requirement
for
generators
to
contact
individual
States
for
direction,
since
the
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
16
generators'
burden
would
far
outweigh
the
utility
of
the
State­
optional
information
(
Commenter
No.
61).

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
suggestions
on
ways
to
provide
manifest
instructions
to
waste
handlers.

The
final
manifest
will
include
completion
instructions
on
the
back
of
the
form.
The
instructions
will
not
include
State­
specific
instructions
or
information
(
e.
g.,
State­
specific
requirements
or
contact
information).

We
appreciate
comments
to
include
State­
specific
information
on
the
back
of
the
manifest.
Because
of
the
need
to
include
for
all
users
the
detailed
information
on
completing
the
mandatory
Federally
required
data
elements,
and
the
need
to
explain
the
procedures
applicable
in
all
states
for
using
the
standardized
manifest,
there
is
simply
not
sufficient
space
on
the
back
of
the
form
to
supply
both
instructions
on
Federal
requirements
and
information
on
state­
specific
requirements.
However,
we
do
not
believe
this
is
a
great
drawback.
First,
the
manifest
form
has
been
revised
to
eliminate
optional
fields
and
minimize
the
amount
of
state­
specific
information
to
be
entered
on
the
form.
Second,
to
the
extent
that
state­
specific
information
is
still
necessary
to
aid
compliance
with
the
manifest
(
e.
g.,
state
waste
codes,
state
generator
ID
numbers,
copy
submission
requirements),
there
are
other
methods
available
for
effectively
conveying
state­
specific
information.

EPA
envisions
that
we
would
host
a
website
that
includes
information
on
or
links
to
State
manifest
programs
(
e.
g.,
manifest
contact
information);
links
or
other
information
on
Federal
and
State
waste
codes;
state
manifest
copy
submission
requirements;
and
a
list
of
Hazardous
Waste
Report
Management
Method
Codes.
The
website
would
respond
to
commenters'
requests
for
clear
and
immediate
directions
to
minimize
their
need
and
burden
in
contacting
the
States.

In
addition,
waste
handlers
will
have
a
number
of
other
readily
available
sources
for
learning
about
State­
specific
information.
They
can
consult
States'
regulations,
websites,
and/
or
guidances
directly;
speak
with
their
contracted
waste
handlers
(
e.
g.,
broker,
transporter
or
designated
TSDF);
or
call
the
State
agency
directly.
Because
of
these
factors,
we
do
not
believe
State
program
information
is
necessary
on
the
form
itself.

3.2.3
Need
for
Modifications
or
Clarifications
to
the
Registry
Comment:
We
heard
from
five
commenters
that
asked
EPA
to
provide
greater
clarification
of
the
registration
and
manifest
acquisition
process
in
the
final
preamble
and
rule
(
Commenter
Nos.
24,
34,
53,
60,
and
61).
One
of
these
commenters
indicated
that
page
28302
of
the
preamble
cites
"
section
262.21
(
b)
(
1)
(
ix)
(
F)"
(
Commenter
No.
34).
The
commenter
believes
this
line
is
meant
to
read:
"(
F)
Page
6
(
bottom
page):
"
generator"
copy."

We
heard
from
eight
commenters
with
suggestions
for
the
manifest
Registry
(
Commenter
Nos.
5,
6,
17,
29,
44,
51,
54,
and
61).
Two
commenters
recommend
that
registered
printers
be
posted
on
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
17
the
EPA
website
and
that
States
should
have
links
to
the
site
(
Commenter
Nos.
6
and
54).
One
of
these
commenters
suggested
that
the
web
site
indicate
which
printers
supply
continuation
sheets
(
Commenter
No.
54).
Several
commenters
recommended
that
the
registration
process
be
kept
simple
(
e.
g.,
EPA
should
assign
large
blocks
of
numbers
at
one
registration)
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
17,
and
54).
Another
commenter
recommended
that
an
application
form
for
registration,
containing
items
for
all
the
required
information,
be
developed
by
EPA
and
made
available
to
waste
handlers
and
States
(
Commenter
No.
61).
The
commenter
recommended
that
the
Registry
be
conducted
both
electronically
and
by
mail,
so
that
waste
handlers
and
States
can
register
and
obtain
unique
numbers
via
the
Internet.
The
commenter
also
suggested
that
EPA
should
set
up,
test,
and
complete
the
Registry
system
itself
before
the
final
rule
is
promulgated,
so
that
waste
handlers
can
begin
printing
their
own
forms
as
soon
as
possible.
Two
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
simply
codify
the
printing
specifications
and
allow
waste
handlers
to
print
the
forms
in
accordance
with
those
requirements,
without
any
additional
EPA
oversight
(
Commenter
Nos.
29
and
51).

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
request
for
additional
clarification
on
the
final
Registry
approach.
As
requested
by
commenters,
the
final
rule
and
preamble
provide
a
thorough
description
that
greatly
clarifies
the
Manifest
Registry
and
our
Federal
print
specifications.

EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
suggestions
on
the
Registry.
EPA
has
finalized
its
registration
procedures
at
40
CFR
262.21.
The
final
Registry
closely
mirrors
the
proposed
Registry,
but
has
been
expanded
keeping
commenters'
requests
in
mind.
EPA
has
tried
to
keep
the
registration
process
simple
and
streamlined.
EPA
consulted
with
printers,
States,
and
others
to
identify
an
approach
that
would
place
a
minimal
burden
on
registrants,
while
providing
enough
information
to
EPA
to
effectively
evaluate
their
ability
to
tightly
control
their
tracking
numbers
and
print
a
satisfactory
manifest.

We
disagree
with
comments
that
the
Registry
is
not
necessary.
After
thorough
consultation
with
waste
handlers,
commercial
printers,
and
States,
we
have
concluded
that
it
is
imperative
for
EPA
to
evaluate
the
printing
capabilities
and
form
samples
of
registrants.
Although
many
commercial
printers
have
developed
an
expertise
in
multi­
forms
printing,
we
expect
that
certain
prospective
registrants
will
not
have
such
expertise.
Printing
the
manifest
requires
some
degree
of
sophistication
and
expertise
in
order
to
consistently
satisfy
the
performance
requirements
at
section
262.21(
f).
For
example,
registrants
must
design
their
manifest
so
that
handwritten
and
typed
imprints
are
legible
on
all
six
copies,
the
manifest
instructions
do
not
bleed
through
the
front
of
the
copies,
and
the
binding
of
copies
is
reasonably
secure.
Although
we
intend
to
post
print
guidance
on
the
web,
significant
discretion
will
be
left
to
the
registrant
to
determine
the
appropriate
paper
type,
paper
weight,
ink
color
of
the
instructions,
and
binding
methods
that
will
satisfy
the
print
specifications.
In
addition,
EPA
has
reviewed
some
existing
manifest
forms
printed
by
the
States
that
would
not
satisfy
the
262.21(
f)
performance
requirements.
This
suggests
that
the
performance
requirements
will
require
even
experienced
printers
to
carefully
consider
how
to
design
an
approvable
form.
Because
of
these
reasons,
we
believe
it
is
essential
that
the
Registry
review
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
18
samples
of
their
forms
to
determine
if
they
comply
with
the
print
specifications,
e.
g.,
to
evaluate
the
samples
to
see
if
they
comply
with
the
performance
requirements.

In
addition,
we
and
the
States
are
keenly
interested
in
making
sure
that
manifest
tracking
numbers
pre­
printed
on
forms
are
tightly
controlled
and
remain
unique.
One
of
the
highest
priorities
of
the
Registry
is
ensuring
that
each
manifest
used
or
distributed
to
the
pubic
has
a
unique
tracking
number.
Because
EPA
will
allow
registrants
to
pre­
print
numbers
onto
their
manifests
without
any
ongoing
Agency
oversight,
we
believe
it
is
essential
that
the
Registry
evaluate
and
approve
the
registrant's
procedures
and
systems
for
controlling
their
tracking
numbers.

We
have
not
developed
a
Registry
application
form.
We
believe
that
discussions
given
in
the
final
preamble
detailing
the
application
process,
supplemented
by
posting
Registry
information
on
the
EPA
website,
are
prescriptive
enough
for
registrants
to
provide
sufficient
information.
We
also
do
not
anticipate
receiving
a
substantial
number
of
applications.
Because
of
these
factors,
we
do
not
believe
an
application
form
is
needed.

In
brief,
the
final
Registry
approach
requires
registrants
to
submit
two
application
components
to
the
EPA
Registry
for
review
and
approval.
Under
section
262.21(
b),
registrants
must
submit
an
initial
application
that
provides
basic
company
profile
data,
a
description
of
their
printing
operations,
a
proposed
tracking
number
suffix,
and
a
signed
certification.
If
EPA
approves
the
application,
it
will
send
the
registrant
an
electronic
file
of
the
manifest,
continuation
sheet,
and
instructions
and
ask
the
registrant
to
submit
several
samples
of
its
form
and
a
description
of
the
form's
paper
type,
paper
weight,
ink
color
of
instructions,
and
binding
method.

EPA
will
perform
a
series
of
simple
tests
of
the
forms
to
determine
if
they
are
sufficiently
durable
and
will
be
legible
under
real
world
conditions
of
use
(
e.
g.,
faxing,
copying).
If
EPA
finds
the
forms
acceptable,
it
will
approve
the
registrant
to
print
them
under
section
262.21(
e).
Approved
registrants
must
print
the
form
according
to
the
specifications
at
262.21(
f).
They
also
must
print
the
form
according
to
the
paper
type,
paper
weight,
ink
color
of
the
manifest
instructions,
and
binding
method
of
their
approved
samples.

An
approved
registrant
must
pre­
print
a
unique
MTN
onto
each
manifest.
The
MTN
must
consist
of
its
unique
three­
letter
suffix
following
nine
digits.
We
expect
most
registrants
to
burn
their
suffix
onto
their
printing
plate
and
number
the
forms
sequentially
as
they
pass
through
the
printing
process.
Following
EPA
approval
of
the
registrant
to
print
the
forms,
a
registrant's
numbering
is
self­
implementing
in
that
it
need
not
re­
contact
EPA,
unless
it
seeks
a
new
suffix.
This
will
be
rare,
however,
since
a
registrant
will
be
able
to
use
its
suffix
to
print
almost
1
billion
forms.
We
believe
this
approach
is
much
simpler
than
the
other
approaches
suggested
by
commenters
(
e.
g.,
for
EPA
to
assign
blocks
of
numbers
to
each
registrant).
The
approach
being
finalized
is
selfimplementing
in
that
it
does
not
require
ongoing
EPA
involvement
after
the
registrant
is
approved
to
print
the
form.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
19
As
requested
by
commenters,
we
intend
to
develop
a
website
to
support
the
Registry
process.
Among
other
things,
the
website
would
describe
the
application
process
and
provide
examples
of
the
types
of
information
requested.
It
would
include
a
table
identifying
approved
registrants,
their
approved
suffixes
for
their
manifest
tracking
numbers,
and
contact
information.
The
website
would
be
available
to
the
public
to
locate
registered
printers,
learn
tracking
number
suffixes,
and
obtain
other
information
about
registrants.

EPA
will
carefully
evaluate
the
extent
to
which
transactions
between
registrants
and
EPA
may
be
conducted
electronically.
EPA
will
require
the
use
of
postal
mail
when
we
need
a
signed
certification
or
hardcopies,
e.
g.,
for
evaluation
of
samples
of
the
registrant's
form.
For
other
transactions,
we
may
allow
electronic
submittals
(
e.
g.,
notification
updates
to
the
Agency).

We
appreciate
the
comment
for
EPA
to
conduct
a
dry
run
of
the
Registry
and
to
finalize
it
as
soon
as
possible.
As
mentioned
earlier,
we
consulted
with
commercial
printers,
States,
and
waste
handlers
in
developing
all
aspects
of
the
Registry
approach
at
40
CFR
262.21
and
believe
it
fairly
reflects
their
suggestions
and
expectations.
If
we
determine
that
additional
consultation
or
involvement
is
needed
to
iron
out
other
aspects
of
the
Registry,
we
will
do
so.
We
fully
expect
to
have
the
Registry
available
to
the
public
as
soon
as
possible
after
rule
publication.

We
thank
the
commenter
for
identifying
a
discrepancy
in
the
proposed
rule.

Comment:
We
heard
from
11
commenters
on
the
need
for
EPA
to
ensure
controls
are
in
place
to
avoid
duplicate
manifest
tracking
numbers
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
6,
12,
17,
19,
24,
27,
33,
44,
48,
and
61).
Two
commenters
expressed
concern
that
waste
handlers
would
be
able
to
generate
their
own
unique
manifest
numbering
scheme,
which
would
make
the
numbers
a
hodgepodge
and
unusable
as
a
tracking
tool
(
Commenter
Nos.
33
and
48).
Two
commenters
explicitly
asked
EPA
to
consider
simplifying
the
tracking
number
system
(
Commenter
Nos.
24
and
61).
Two
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
assign
blocks
of
numbers
to
entities,
ensuring
compliance,
and
relaying
this
information
to
the
States
(
Commenter
No.
27
and
44).
Another
commenter
asked
for
clarification
on
the
parameters
that
EPA
would
use
to
determine
what
is
considered
a
"
unique"
tracking
number
(
Commenter
No.
12).
Another
commenter
indicated
that
EPA
needs
to
ensure
that
its
numbering
scheme
does
not
duplicate
States'
current
numbering
conventions
(
Commenter
No.
17).
Two
commenters
expressed
their
belief
that
States
would
not
need
to
add
their
own
State
tracking
numbers
since
this
would
only
add
an
unnecessary
layer
of
regulation
(
Commenter
Nos.
4
and
19).

We
heard
from
one
commenter
who
asked
for
clarification
on
whether
the
Registry
would
apply
to
entities
that
have
the
in­
house
capability
to
manufacture
manifests
(
Commenter
No.
13).

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
raising
their
concerns
and
suggestions
about
manifest
tracking
numbers.
EPA
shares
commenters'
desire
that
MTNs
be
tightly
controlled
and
remain
unique.
As
discussed
in
the
preamble,
one
of
the
highest
priorities
of
the
Registry
is
ensuring
that
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
20
each
manifest
used
or
distributed
to
the
public
includes
a
unique,
pre­
printed
MTN.
We
believe
the
final
Registry
approach
at
40
CFR
262.21
achieves
this
goal.

40
CFR
262.21(
a)
provides
that
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
262.21(
c)
and
(
e).
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.

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
compliance
under
its
approved
registration,
including
the
printing
of
a
unique
MTN
on
each
form.

Each
registrant
must
submit
an
application
to
EPA
under
section
262.21(
b)
that
describes
how
it
will
ensure
that
a
unique
manifest
tracking
number
will
be
pre­
printed
on
each
manifest.
The
application
must
discuss,
among
other
things,
the
internal
control
procedures
to
be
followed
by
the
registrant's
organization
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
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
section
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.

EPA
will
review
the
application
and
either
approve
it
or
request
additional
information
or
modification
before
approving
it.
The
registrant
must
adhere
to
its
approved
application
in
printing
forms.

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.
If
EPA
learns
that
two
or
more
manifests
used
or
distributed
to
the
public
contain
the
same
MTN,
EPA
will
attempt
to
contact
the
party
in
possession
of
these
manifests
to
prevent
their
use.
If
this
is
not
possible,
EPA
will
notify
the
State
manifest
programs
that
the
forms
are
in
circulation.

EPA
believes
the
procedures
at
section
262.21,
as
described
above,
will
minimize
the
potential
for
duplicate
MTNs
on
manifests
that
are
used
or
distributed
to
the
public.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
21
We
disagree
with
comments
that
the
proposed
MTN
scheme
would
generate
a
hodgepodge
of
numbers.
In
the
proposal,
each
registrant
would
propose
a
unique,
three­
letter
prefix
to
be
used
in
pre­
printing
a
unique
manifest
tracking
number
on
each
manifest.
Each
MTN
printed
by
the
registrant
would
consist
of
its
three­
letter
prefix
followed
by
nine
digits.
Hence,
there
would
be
a
nationally
uniform
numbering
scheme
that
all
registrants
must
follow.

In
finalizing
the
rule,
we
decided
to
require
a
unique,
three­
letter
suffix,
instead
of
a
three­
letter
prefix.
Under
our
final
scheme,
the
approved
registrant
must
pre­
print
a
MTN
consisting
of
its
unique
three­
letter
suffix
following
nine
digits.

We
evaluated
several
different
MTN
schemes
before
selecting
a
three­
letter
suffix.
We
decided
to
require
a
suffix
because
of
our
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.
Because
the
final
MTN
scheme
consists
of
a
three­
letter
suffix
following
nine
digits,
this
eliminates
any
potential
duplication
with
States'
MTNs.

We
believe
the
rule's
MTN
approach
is
more
simple
and
effective
than
the
other
approaches
raised
by
commenters.
The
Agency's
approach
is
self­
implementing,
in
that
EPA
involvement
is
not
needed
after
the
registrant
is
approved
under
40
CFR
262.21(
e),
unless
the
registrant
seeks
a
new
suffix.
By
contrast,
the
commenters'
suggestion
to
provide
"
blocks
of
numbers"
to
registrants
poses
too
many
burdens
and
potential
problems.
It
requires
EPA
to
continually
provide
blocks
of
numbers
to
registrants.
This
requires
EPA
to
track
the
usage
of
numbers
by
all
registrants
and
determine
which
numbers
have
been
used
and
which
are
still
available.
We
believe
this
approach
would
involve
EPA
too
substantially
in
the
day­
to­
day
oversight
of
the
printing
operations.
The
mechanics
of
pre­
printing
unique
MTNs
on
each
manifest
is
not
so
complex
as
to
warrant
such
an
active
role
for
EPA
in
issuing
blocks
of
numbers.
This
problem
is
minimized
in
the
final
rule
approach,
which
allows
the
registrant
to
use
one,
unique
suffix
in
generating
tracking
numbers.
The
registrant
need
only
keep
track
of,
and
ensure
non­
duplication
of,
its
own
numbers
using
standard
industry
printing
practices.

We
appreciate
the
commenter's
request
for
clarification
on
whether
the
Registry
would
apply
to
entities
that
have
in­
house
capabilities
to
print
forms.
The
final
rule
is
clear
that
the
Registry
would
apply
to
all
registrants,
i.
e.,
organizations
that
have
in­
house
printing
capabilities
as
well
as
organizations
that
do
not.

Comment:
We
heard
from
seven
commenters
expressing
concern
about
the
proposed
approach
for
issuing
unique
manifest
tracking
numbers
and
suggesting
alternative
approaches
and
schemes
(
Commenter
Nos.
23,
24,
29,
51,
53,
60,
and
61).

Two
commenters
explicitly
asked
EPA
to
consider
simplifying
the
tracking
number
system
(
Commenter
Nos.
24
and
61).
One
of
these
commenters
asked
why
the
unique
number
must
be
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
22
"
pre­
printed,"
since
this
requirement
would
prevent
waste
handlers
from
putting
the
number
on
after
printing
(
Commenter
No.
24).

Two
commenters
noted
that
the
proposed
registration
approach
appears
to
duplicate
existing
RCRA
3010
notification
requirements
that
waste
handlers
must
comply
with
(
Commenter
Nos.
29
and
51).
They
recommended
that
the
unique
tracking
numbers
incorporate
sites'
unique
EPA
identification
(
ID)
numbers,
plus
some
reasonable
numbering
system
(
e.
g.,
sequential
or
chronological).
The
commenters
suggested
that
a
supplemental
Registry
could
be
set
up
for
non­
RCRA­
regulated
sites.

Two
commenters
suggested
that
each
company
interested
in
registering
for
authority
to
print
the
form
should
receive
a
two­
character
alpha
abbreviation
for
the
company,
followed
by
an
alpha
character
(
a­
z)
used
in
conjunction
with
a
nine
digit
number,
to
form
the
unique
12­
character
alphanumeric
manifest
number
(
Commenter
Nos.
53
and
60).
Another
commenter
suggested
that
each
entity
that
desires
to
print
the
manifest
form
be
assigned
a
two
or
three
alpha
character
code
that
is
unique
to
the
company
and
that
would
then
be
followed
by
numerical
digits
(
Commenter
No.
61).
The
commenter
stated
that
EPA
should
not
limit
the
number
of
digits;
manifest
users
should
be
free
to
use
any
number
of
digits
following
their
assigned
code.
The
commenter
also
stated
that
EPA
should
be
clear
in
the
final
rule
that
the
numbers
need
not
be
sequential,
as
this
only
causes
unnecessary
tracking
problems
and
record
keeping
burdens.

Another
commenter
believes
it
would
be
helpful
if
manifests
could
be
numbered
consecutively
to
allow
for
rapid
identification
of
record
gaps,
letter
codes
could
be
included
in
the
manifest
number
designating
contractors
and
subcontractors,
and
the
manifest
number
could
reflect
the
year
of
shipment
(
Commenter
No.
23).
To
accommodate
this,
the
commenter
requests
that
EPA
extend
the
tracking
numbers
to
at
least
15
alphanumeric
characters.

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
suggestions
on
alternative
MTN
schemes.
In
deciding
on
the
final
MTN
scheme,
EPA
evaluated
several
alternatives,
including
commenters'
suggestions.
EPA
agrees
with
commenters
who
favor
an
alphanumeric
MTN.
An
alphanumeric
scheme
allows
registrants
to
select
their
own
desired
combination
of
letters
(
e.
g.,
company
abbreviation),
burn
the
letters
onto
their
printing
plate,
and
number
their
forms
consecutively
as
they
pass
through
the
printing
operation.
Each
manifest
used
or
distributed
can
be
traced
back
to
the
registrant
based
on
its
unique
suffix.

EPA
disagrees
with
commenters
who
requested
that
we
should
not
limit
the
number
of
digits
in
the
MTN.
One
of
the
primary
goals
of
the
rule
is
ensuring
uniform
forms.
Allowing
registrants
to
determine
the
length
of
their
MTNs
would
create
a
hodgepodge
of
numbering
schemes.
This
could
create
confusion
among
the
States
and
waste
handlers
who
review
form
copies
and
track
them
in
data
management
systems
based
on
their
MTNs.
An
unstructured
MTN
could
create
havoc
for
State
and
industry
data
systems,
which
may
be
programmed
to
receive
an
MTN
of
only
a
prescribed
length.
In
addition,
there
is
limited
space
on
the
manifest
for
the
MTN,
and
MTNs
of
greater
than
12
characters
could
exceed
the
space
available
on
the
form.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
23
We
agree
with
the
comment
that
EPA
should
not
require
a
registrant
to
pre­
print
sequential
MTNs
on
their
forms.
We
believe
registrants
should
have
flexibility
to
pre­
print
numbers
as
they
desire,
so
long
as
they
are
unique
and
otherwise
compliant
with
the
rule.
It
is
common
practice
for
commercial
printers
to
skip
a
block
of
numbers
between
print
jobs.
For
example,
a
printer
might
print
a
job
of
2000
forms
using
the
numbers
000001000­
to
000003000­.
Before
it
prints
the
next
job,
it
might
skip
100
digits
and
begin
at
000003100­.
This
gap
helps
to
prevent
duplication
of
previously
used
numbers.

We
do
not
agree
with
the
comment
that
the
MTN
should
include
15
characters.
We
believe
15
characters
would
be
too
cumbersome
for
States
and
waste
handlers
who
use
these
numbers
to
track
their
forms.

We
appreciate
the
comments
for
EPA
to
require
a
MTN
that
includes
a
waste
handler's
RCRA
ID
number.
However,
this
approach
would
not
be
practical.
First,
a
RCRA
ID
number
includes
12
characters.
Under
such
a
numbering
scheme,
then,
a
registrant's
MTN
would
include
its
12­
character
ID
number
as
its
prefix
or
suffix,
plus
a
pre­
determined
number
of
digits
(
e.
g.,
5
digits)
to
identify
the
actual
document.
In
total,
such
a
MTN
would
include
17
characters.
Based
on
our
consultations
with
the
States,
such
a
MTN
would
be
too
cumbersome
and
prone
to
data
entry
errors.
It
also
would
be
too
unwieldy
for
rejecting
TSDFs
and
other
waste
handlers
who
have
to
reference
these
numbers
on
manifests
or
other
communications.
Second,
a
12­
character
ID
number
would
not
leave
much
room
on
the
manifest
to
add
digits
to
create
the
MTN.
For
example,
a
17­
character
MTN
would
require
a
relatively
large
space
on
the
form.
Despite
the
large
space,
such
a
MTN
would
include
only
five
digits,
and
hence,
allow
printing
of
only
99,999
forms.
We
expect
that
certain
registrants
will
be
large
waste
handlers
that
will
want
to
print
hundreds
of
thousands
of
forms
each
year;
therefore,
such
a
numbering
scheme
would
not
provide
sufficient
numbering
capacity.
Third,
the
RCRA
identification
numbers
for
most
waste
handlers
are
site­
specific,
and
it
was
our
intention
to
establish
a
prefix
or
suffix
that
would
identify
an
entire
company
rather
than
only
one
site.
Finally,
we
fully
expect
some
non­
regulated
organizations
to
register,
such
as
commercial
printers.
These
non­
regulated
organizations
would
lack
EPA
Identification
Numbers.
We
do
not
think
it
is
advisable
to
set
up
two
different
numbering
schemes
under
the
Registry,
i.
e.,
one
for
RCRA­
regulated
entities
and
another
for
non­
regulated
entities.
This
would
create
a
hodgepodge
of
MTN
schemes
and
more
confusion
than
necessary.

EPA
appreciates
the
request
for
clarification
on
EPA's
use
of
the
word
"
pre­
printed"
MTN.
EPA
and
the
States
are
very
interested
in
ensuring
that
each
MTN
on
a
manifest
used
or
distributed
to
the
public
is
unique.
To
help
ensure
this,
the
final
rule
requires
each
registrant
to
submit
an
application
to
EPA
that
describes
its
processes
for
tightly
controlling
numbers
and
ensuring
that
each
manifest
has
a
unique
MTN.
The
registrant
must
certify
in
its
application
that
it
will
notify
EPA
when
it
becomes
aware
of
any
duplicated
MTN
on
forms
that
have
been
used
or
distributed.
The
approved
registrant
must
follow
its
approved
application
in
operating
under
the
Registry.

In
this
way,
EPA
holds
the
registrant
directly
accountable
for
ensuring
tight
control
of
its
numbers
and
avoiding
duplicated
numbers
on
forms.
If
EPA
does
not
require
the
pre­
printing
of
MTNs
1
Note
that
other
sections
of
this
document
may
include
comments
and
Agency
responses
that
directly
or
indirectly
address
manifest
format
and
specifications.

December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
24
and,
instead,
allows
unregistered
persons
(
i.
e.,
the
general
public)
to
enter
numbers
onto
manifests,
EPA
could
not
hold
registrants
or
anyone
else
accountable
for
the
uniqueness
of
each
MTN
on
a
manifest.
Moreover,
if
the
MTN
field
were
left
blank
on
the
form
for
users
to
enter
during
use,
we
would
likely
encounter
many
handwritten
MTN
entries,
which
we
believe
would
increase
the
occurrence
of
illegible
or
erroneous
entries.
Therefore,
EPA
requires
the
registrant
to
"
pre­
print"
a
unique
MTN
on
each
manifest,
i.
e.,
to
print
a
MTN
on
each
form
before
it
is
made
available
to
anyone
for
use
or
distribution.
We
believe
this
is
a
reasonable
expectation.
Commercial
printers
number
their
manifests
as
part
of
the
normal
printing
process.
They
use
either
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).

Comment:
We
heard
from
one
commenter
who
noted
that
proposed
40
CFR
262.21(
c)(
2)
is
the
only
location
in
the
regulatory
text
where
the
term
"
consignment
State"
is
used
(
Commenter
No.
23).
The
commenter
observed
that,
while
the
existing
section
262.21
explains
the
meaning
of
the
term
"
consignment
State,"
proposed
262.21
does
not.
The
commenter
requested
that
the
term
"
consignment
State"
be
replaced
in
the
final
rule
by
the
term
"
destination
State,"
or
that
a
definition
for
"
consignment
State"
be
provided.
The
commenter
also
noted
that
proposed
40
CFR
262.21(
b)(
1)(
viii)
includes
a
reference
to
section
262.21(
c)(
3).
The
commenter
asked
for
confirmation
that
the
reference
to
section
262.21(
c)(
3)
is
correct
because
the
proposed
regulatory
text
does
not
include
a
section
262.21(
c)(
3).
The
commenter
indicated
that
this
also
applies
to
the
section
of
Appendix
1
to
Part
262
entitled
"
Copies
and
Copy
Distribution"
[
p.
28306,
col.
3,
9th
bullet].

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenter
for
its
suggestion
to
define
the
term
"
consignment
State"
in
the
rule.
However,
EPA
believes
the
term
is
self­
explanatory
within
the
context
of
the
paragraph.
The
paragraph
addresses
the
offsite
shipment
of
hazardous
waste.
We
expect
waste
handlers
will
understand
that
the
"
consignment
State"
is
the
State
to
which
the
shipment
is
being
sent.
Therefore,
the
rule
does
not
define
the
term.

EPA
appreciates
the
commenter
for
pointing
out
the
incorrect
reference
to
the
proposed
section
40
CFR
262.21(
c)(
3).
We
have
removed
the
referenced
from
40
CFR
262.21
and
from
the
Appendix
to
Part
262.
3.3
Suggested
Changes
to
the
Manifest
Form
Specifications
Comment:
We
heard
from
29
commenters
with
suggestions
on
the
revised
manifest
format
and
printing
specifications
(
Commenter
Nos.
5,
6,
10,
12,
16,
17,
21,
25,
26,
27,
30,
31,
32,
33,
34,
35,
44,
45,
47,
48,
51,
52,
53,
54,
57,
59,
60,
61,
and
63):
1
°
Include
more
room
at
the
top
of
the
form
(
Commenter
Nos.
35
and
54).
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
25
°
Use
red
or
blue
drop­
out
ink
or
other
non­
black
color
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
33,
54,
and
63).

°
Eliminate
shading
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
34,
61,
and
63).

°
Use
a
bold
border
to
designate
sections
of
the
manifest,
instead
of
shade
(
Commenter
No.
63).

°
Ensure
minimum
quality
of
paper
is
used
(
Commenter
No.
54).

°
Ensure
readability
of
instructions
on
back
of
manifest
(
Commenter
No.
34).

°
Include
the
use
of
combs
(
Commenter
No.
33).

°
Allow
for
use
of
bar
coding
(
Commenter
Nos.
33,
53,
60,
and
61).

°
Remove
hash
lines
and
otherwise
make
it
easier
to
print
the
forms
(
Commenter
Nos.
35,
53,
54,
60,
and
61).

°
Prohibit
the
use
of
corporate
logos,
advertising,
or
other
information
not
explicitly
allowed
in
the
rule
(
Commenter
No.
33).

°
Size
blocks
to
the
same
specifications
as
previous
form
(
Commenter
No.
60).

°
Use
standard
print
of
10
characters
per
inch
horizontally
and
8
lines
per
inch
vertically
(
Commenter
No.
60).

°
Require
printing
specifications
that
facilitate
optical
scanning
(
Commenter
No.
33).

°
Allow
printers
of
the
form
to
be
able
to
size
the
boxes
to
meet
the
requirements
of
current
printing
technology
(
Commenter
No.
60).

°
Enlarge
the
printable
space
by
at
least
10
percent
and
reduce
margin
size
to
use
as
much
of
the
form
as
possible
(
Commenter
No.
16).

°
Include
a
block
for
"
State
of
Origin"
and
"
Destination
State"
or
otherwise
make
it
easier
to
identify
the
Origin
and
Destination
States
on
the
manifest
(
Commenter
No.
12).

°
Include
instructions
on
manifest
for
proper
TSDF
distribution
of
manifest
for
rejected
loads
(
Commenter
No.
35).

°
Disallow
use
of
"
no
carbon
required"
paper
(
Commenter
No.
35).
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
26
°
Reference
manifest
block
numbers
in
the
regulations,
not
just
title
of
block
(
Commenter
No.
54).

°
Include
a
block
for
the
waste
profile
number
(
Commenter
Nos.
32
and
61).

°
Coordinate
revisions
to
ensure
compatibility
with
TSCA
provisions
(
Commenter
No.
21).

°
Include
a
check
box
for
generators
to
pre­
approve
of
transporters'
commingling
of
generators'
waste
(
Commenter
No.
34
and
35).

°
Reduce
size
of
emergency
phone
number
and/
or
move
away
from
top
of
form
(
Commenter
No.
27).

°
Include
an
Emergency
Response
Section
on
the
form
(
Commenter
No
52).

°
Put
emergency
phone
number
in
more
prominent
location
(
Commenter
No.
61).

°
Include
additional
emergency
phone
numbers,
e.
g.,
the
Federal
National
Response
Center
(
Commenter
Nos.
34
and
44).

°
Increase
the
number
of
transporter
lines
(
Commenter
No.
5).

°
Decrease
the
number
of
transporter
lines
(
Commenter
No.
31).

°
Require
transporter/
broker
to
state
in
Block
9
the
final
TSDF,
not
transfer
station,
and
to
state
the
storer
or
transfer
facility
in
Block
15
(
Commenter
No.
47).

°
Increase
the
number
of
lines
in
Block
10
(
Commenter
Nos.
5
and
57).

°
Expand
Block
10
(
Commenter
Nos.
16,
17,
34,
52,
60,
and
61).

°
Merge
TC
(
tank
cars)
and
HG
(
hopper
or
gondola
cars)
to
be
TC
train
cars
(
Commenter
Nos.
6
and
54).

°
Use
the
term
"
estimated"
for
the
quantity
in
Block
12
(
Commenter
No.
26).

°
Allow
the
reporting
of
waste
in
grams
(
Commenter
No.
21).

°
Disallow
quantification
in
cubic
yards
or
meters
(
Commenter
Nos.
6
and
54).

°
Require
waste
quantification
in
weight
units,
or
volume
units
with
a
weight
conversion
(
Commenter
No.
57).
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
27
°
Increase
the
space
for
Block
14
(
Commenter
Nos.
10,
12,
16,
21,
34,
48,
52,
53,
57,
61,
and
60).

°
Include
hatch
marks
in
Block
14
(
Commenter
No.
34).

°
Remove
waste
minimization
certification
from
form
and
use
alternate
mechanism
(
Commenter
Nos.
21
and
51).

°
Change
"
Generator"
to
"
Generator/
Offeror"
throughout
the
form
and
revise
the
instructions
accordingly
(
Commenter
No.
61).

°
Increase
space
for
signature
blocks
15
and
20
(
Commenter
Nos.
31
and
57).

°
Use
Block
15
for
rejected
loads
and
nonempty
containers
(
Commenter
No.
47).

°
Decrease
size
of
international
shipments
block
(
Commenter
Nos.
10,
25,
26,
27,
31,
33,
34,
44,
48,
57,
59,
and
61).

°
Use
2­
digit
code
to
describe
discrepancies
on
the
manifest
(
Commenter
No.
61).

°
Expand
discrepancy
block
(
Commenter
Nos.
17,
26,
57,
and
59).

°
Include
a
check
box
for
transshipments
(
Commenter
No.
35
and
59).

°
Include
room
for
TSDF
signature
and
date
for
shipments
rejected
after
the
manifest
has
been
sent
to
generator
(
Commenter
No.
60).

°
Include
additional
lines
to
enable
rejection
or
reshipment
of
non­
empty
containers
using
the
original
manifest,
such
as
signature
line
for
alternate
TSDF
(
Commenter
Nos.
21,
35,
45,
and
60).

°
Reduce
size
of
handling
code
block
(
Commenter
Nos.
30,
53,
57,
and
61).

°
Include
two
sets
of
handling
code
blocks
for
each
waste;
the
second
block
is
for
final
disposition,
if
needed
(
Commenter
No.
34).

°
Include
the
word
"
Designated"
with
the
"
Facility"
at
the
bottom
of
the
form
(
Commenter
No.
16).

°
Require
TSDFs
to
report
on
the
manifest
the
waste
quantities
received
for
shipments
in
bulk
containers
in
tons,
pounds,
or
kilograms
for
solids
and
in
tons,
pounds,
kilograms,
or
gallons
for
liquids
(
Commenter
Nos.
6
and
63).
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
28
°
Require
TSDFs
to
enter
in
the
manifest
the
total
amount
of
waste
received
in
Block
20
for
all
shipments,
not
just
for
discrepancies
(
Commenter
No.
59).

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
many
suggestions
on
changes
to
the
form.
We
spent
considerable
time
reviewing
and
evaluating
all
of
them
and
speaking
with
States
and
industry
to
learn
more
about
their
preferences.
We
believe
the
finalized
form
meets
the
expectations
and
needs
of
both
regulators
and
waste
handlers.

The
final
manifest
closely
reflects
the
proposed
form,
except
that
EPA
has
made
several
needed
changes.
The
public
comments
were
considered
and
addressed
in
one
of
three
ways,
as
follows:

(
1)
A
number
of
suggested
changes
in
the
comments
were
not
made
because
we
determined,
along
with
our
State
partners
and
others,
that
they
were
not
needed
or
desirable
and/
or
were
outside
the
scope
of
the
present
rulemaking.
For
example,
several
commenters
asked
for
drop­
out
ink
on
the
form,
as
this
could
help
States
in
using
optical
character
recognition
(
OCR)
software.
In
response
to
this
request,
we
spoke
at
length
with
several
States
that
have
used
OCR
or
similar
equipment
and
none
indicated
that
drop­
out
ink
is
necessary.
Therefore,
the
final
form
does
not
include
drop­
out
ink.
As
another
example,
we
do
not
find
it
is
desirable
to
allow
printers
to
"
size"
the
blocks
of
the
manifest
according
to
current
printing
technology,
as
a
commenter
suggested.
It
is
essential
that
all
forms
have
the
exact
format
and
appearance
as
the
forms
designed
by
EPA.
Many
waste
handlers
use
printers
and
typewriters
to
complete
the
form.
These
technologies
require
precise
spacing
of
the
blocks
on
the
form
to
accommodate
line
spacing
and
font
size.
States
using
scanning
equipment
require
uniform
block
sizes
to
facilitate
the
scanning
process.
We
have
designed
the
form
to
be
compatible
with
standard
typewriter
and
computer
printer
technologies
and
do
not
want
registered
printers
to
deviate
from
it.

(
2)
A
number
of
commenters
asked
for
new
data
elements
that
we
deemed
necessary
but
for
which
no
room
on
the
form
was
available.
Instead
of
revising
the
format
of
the
form,
we
found
other
ways
to
address
them.
For
example,
we
addressed
requests
for
space
for
waste
profile
numbers,
TSCA­
related
elements,
and
bar
codes
by
clarifying
that
they
can
be
included
in
Block
14
of
the
form,
"
Special
Handling
Instructions
and
Additional
Information."
[
Please
refer
to
Section
3.10.4
of
this
document
for
additional
information
on
this
block.]

(
3)
A
number
of
commenters
asked
for
changes
to
the
form
that
we
deemed
necessary
and
for
which
room
on
the
form
was
available.
We
also
identified
some
additional
improvements
based
on
our
own
research.
We
incorporated
these
changes
into
the
final
form.
The
following
paragraphs
discuss
the
primary
changes
we
made
to
the
final
manifest
in
comparison
with
the
proposed
version:
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
29
°
Rearranged
and/
or
reformatted
the
blocks
for
emergency
phone
number,
MTN,
transporter
company
information,
Management
Method
Codes,
and
TSDF
certification
of
receipt:
­
We
agree
with
comments
that
the
emergency
phone
number
should
be
in
a
more
prominent
location
on
the
form.
We
moved
it
to
the
top
of
the
manifest
(
Block
3)
where
it
can
be
easily
and
quickly
obtained.
­
We
moved
the
MTN
to
the
top
right
corner
of
the
form
(
Block
4)
to
make
it
as
visible
as
possible
and
ease
scanning
of
it.
­
We
reduced
the
number
of
blocks
for
transporter
companies
from
three
to
two,
to
make
room
for
other
data
elements
more
widely
needed
by
waste
handlers.
We
believe
the
continuation
sheet
can
be
easily
used
if
more
than
two
transporter
companies
are
used
for
a
shipment.
We
also
rearranged
the
transporter
blocks
so
that
Block
6
is
above
Block
7
(
i.
e.,
as
opposed
to
side­
by­
side),
in
order
to
provide
more
space
for
transporter
information.
­
We
switched
the
location
of
the
blocks
for
Management
Method
Codes
and
TSDF
certification
of
receipt,
so
that
the
TSDF
certification
is
the
last
block
of
the
form.
We
believe
this
is
appropriate
because
the
TSDF
certification
block
is
the
last
block
that
the
TSDF
completes
before
transmitting
it
to
the
transporter
and
back
to
the
generator.
Finally,
we
reformatted
the
Management
Method
Code
block
to
make
it
easier
to
enter
individual
codes.

°
Expanded
the
Generator's/
Offeror's
Certification.
We
included
additional
text
in
the
certification
to
address
several
manifesting
needs.
This
includes,
among
other
things,
the
inclusion
of
the
term
"
Offeror"
into
the
certification,
as
requested
by
many
commenters.
Changes
to
this
block
are
further
discussed
in
Sections
3.9
and
5.6
of
this
document.

°
Increased
the
size
of
block
for
Special
Handling
Instructions
and
Additional
Information.
We
agreed
with
commenters
that
more
space
might
be
needed
to
enter
information.
Changes
to
this
block
are
further
discussed
in
Section
3.10.4
of
this
document.

°
Expanded
the
Discrepancy
block
to
accommodate
the
final
procedures
for
rejected
loads
and
residues.
In
particular,
we
evaluated
using
two­
digit
codes
as
requested
by
a
commenter
but
decided
against
them
because
they
would
take
up
too
much
room
on
the
form
and
instructions.
We
also
believe
check
boxes
are
as
effective
and
easier
to
understand,
so
have
included
them
on
the
final
form.
Changes
to
this
block
are
further
discussed
in
Section
5.4
of
this
document.

°
Reduced
the
size
of
the
international
shipment
block
to
make
room
for
other
data
elements
needed
on
the
form.
Changes
to
this
block
are
further
discussed
in
Section
3.5
of
this
document.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
30
°
Eliminated
shading
from
the
form.
In
speaking
with
waste
handlers
and
States,
we
found
that
shading
can
interfere
with
the
legibility
of
handwritten
or
typed
impressions.

°
Eliminated
hash
marks
in
the
blocks
for
U.
S.
EPA
ID
Number,
waste
codes,
and
the
date
of
the
manifest's
completion.
We
believe
hash
marks
could
interfere
with
the
entry
of
letters
and
digits
in
the
blocks.

°
Enlarged
the
printable
space
on
the
form
to
provide
additional
space
for
data
entry,
and
sized
the
blocks
of
the
form
to
accommodate
12­
pitch
typewriters.

°
Expanded
the
words
on
the
margin
of
the
form
to
say
"
Designated
Facility."

In
addition
to
these
changes,
we
have
finalized
print
specifications
at
40
CFR
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.
We
have
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
final
Registry
approach,
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).

All
registrants
must
comply
with
these
specifications
in
printing
the
manifest
and
continuation
sheet:

°
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
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
31
post
on
our
website
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
8
½
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
six­
copy
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.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
32
°
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
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
section
262.21(
f)
leave
a
number
of
decisions
to
the
registrants's
discretion
that
should
be
further
clarified.
These
include
the
following:
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
33
Paper
type.
Registrants
may
select
the
appropriate
type
of
paper
to
use
for
their
manifest.
As
provided
at
section
262.21(
d)(
2)(
i),
EPA
uses
the
term
"
paper
type"
to
mean
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
section
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
section
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
the
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
encourages
registrants
to
consider
for
the
manifest
recycled
paper
that
meets
the
specifications
at
section
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
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
section
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
section
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.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
34
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
section
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
section
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
section
262.21(
e),
so
that
they
do
not
switch
methods
subsequent
to
EPA
approval,
unless
they
seek
EPA
approval
of
the
changes
under
section
262.21(
h)(
3).

Comment:
We
heard
from
10
commenters
asking
EPA
to
include
the
design
of
the
continuation
sheet,
along
with
the
instructions
for
completing
it,
in
the
final
rule
(
Commenter
Nos.
3,
5,
13,
17,
23,
49,
54,
57,
58,
and
60).
One
commenter
also
asked
EPA
to
mandate
that
States
allow
generators
to
use
the
continuation
sheet
(
Commenter
No.
17).
The
commenter
noted
that
some
States
prohibit
the
use
of
continuation
sheets;
however,
this
commonly
causes
generators
of
large
waste
shipments
to
create
an
unnecessarily
large
number
of
manifests
for
a
single
shipment
being
sent
to
a
single
TSDF.
Another
commenter
asked
for
confirmation
that
the
reference
to
Item
"
28"
is
correct
because
the
proposed
manifest
form
presented
in
Appendix
1
to
Part
262
[
p.
28307]
contains
no
Item
"
28"
(
Commenter
No.
23).
Another
commenter
expressed
concern
over
use
of
the
continuation
sheet
and
asked
EPA
to
eliminate
it
(
Commenter
No.
49).

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
request
for
clarification
on
the
continuation
sheet.
In
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule,
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,
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
35
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.

In
response
to
commenters'
requests,
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
clarifies
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).
The
preamble
describes
the
specific
changes
to
the
format
and
appearance
of
the
new
continuation
sheet.
The
final
rule
sets
forth
both
the
manifest
form
and
continuation
sheet,
as
well
as
instructions
for
completing
them.

We
appreciate
commenters'
requests
that
EPA
either
mandate
use
of
the
continuation
sheet
in
the
States
or
eliminate
it.
As
we
note
above,
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
clarifies
that
the
continuation
sheet
must
continue
to
be
used
as
under
the
current
system.
Beyond
this,
we
have
not
attempted
to
modify
or
reinforce
how
the
continuation
sheet
should
be
used.
This
was
not
a
goal
of
the
rule,
and
we
do
not
have
a
compelling
reason
to
take
any
further
action
on
the
continuation
sheet
at
this
time.

We
appreciate
the
commenter
for
pointing
out
a
discrepancy
in
the
proposed
rule.
The
reference
to
"
Item
28"
in
the
instructions
of
"
Item
9"
refers
to
"
Item
27"
of
the
continuation
sheet
in
the
final
rule.
We
have
renumbered
the
reference
to
"
Item
28"
as
"
Item
27"
in
the
final
rule.

Comment:
We
heard
from
18
commenters
on
the
proposed
distribution
and
number
of
copies
of
the
revised
manifest
(
Commenter
Nos.
3,
12,
21,
23,
27,
33,
34,
35,
36,
37,
40,
44,
48,
51,
53,
54,
60,
and
61).

Four
commenters
asked
EPA
to
standardize
copy
distribution
among
all
the
States
(
Commenter
Nos.
21,
48,
53,
and
60).
Six
commenters
expressed
concern
that
generators
would
photocopy
the
sixth
copy
and
submit
it
to
the
States
(
e.
g.,
because
the
copy
might
be
illegible)
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
34,
35,
48,
54,
and
60).
One
of
the
commenters
suggested
that,
when
a
State
requests
the
manifest,
the
State
should
receive
one
of
the
first
three
copies
(
Commenter
No.
54).
Four
of
the
commenters
requested
an
eight­
part
form,
instead
of
the
six­
part
form
as
proposed
(
Commenter
Nos.
27,
33,
40
and
44).
They
believe
the
eight­
part
form
will
enable
the
States
to
cross­
check
manifest
information
with
the
generator's
and
TSDF's
copy
and
verify
that
the
TSDF
has
submitted
the
copy.
The
eight
part
form
will
also
relieve
generators
of
the
need
to
photocopy.
One
commenter
expressed
doubt
that
six
copies
are
needed
in
most
cases
and
that
EPA
should
consider
reducing
the
number
of
copies
(
Commenter
No.
51).
The
commenter
recommended
a
three­
part
form
(
an
original
and
two
copies)
instead
of
the
six­
part
form
being
proposed;
waste
handlers
could
photocopy
the
form
if
additional
copies
are
needed.
Another
commenter
commended
EPA
for
reducing
the
number
of
copies
of
the
form,
since
waste
handlers
can
photocopy
forms
as
needed
(
Commenter
No.
36).
Another
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
either
add
a
seventh
copy
to
the
manifest
which
would
be
designated
for
generator
submittal
to
the
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
36
generator
state,
or
include
this
copy
as
Copy
#
2
of
the
form
(
Commenter
No.
48).
The
commenter
believes
both
alternatives
are
preferable
to
a
generator's
photocopying
of
Copy
#
6.

Four
of
these
commenters
asked
EPA
to
resolve
an
apparent
inconsistency
in
regard
to
proposed
40
CFR
262.21(
b)
and
the
proposed
instructions
for
the
paper
manifest
versus
the
preamble
(
Commenter
Nos.
3,
12,
23,
and
37).
These
commenters
point
out
that
66
FR
28248,
middle
column,
states
that
copy
#
6
of
the
paper
manifest
is
the
"
Generator's
initial
copy,"
and
that
"
If
the
generator
is
required
to
submit
a
copy
of
the
manifest
to
the
generator
State,
the
generator
should
make
a
photocopy
of
the
manifest
to
supply
this
additional
copy."
However,
proposed
regulatory
text
(
e.
g.,
at
section
262.21)
identifies
copy
#
6
as
"
Generator
to
generator
State."
This
leaves
no
"
initial"
copy
for
the
generator
to
keep.

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
suggestions
on
manifest
copy
distribution.
The
proposed
rule
set
forth
a
uniform
distribution
scheme
for
the
six­
part
manifest.
The
final
rule
codifies
this
scheme.

We
do
not
agree
with
comments
that
an
eight­
copy
form
is
preferable
to
a
six­
copy
form.
Discussions
with
commercial
printers
suggest
that
legible
impressions
are
often
unachievable
on
a
manifest's
seventh
and
eighth
copies.
Based
on
our
examination
of
existing
six­
part
forms
and
various
paper
types,
we
have
found
that
a
photocopy
of
the
sixth
copy
of
a
six­
part
form
is
comparable
in
legibility
to
the
seventh
or
eighth
copy
of
an
eight­
part
form.
Therefore,
we
believe
our
suggestion
to
generators
to
photocopy
or
fax
the
sixth
copy
of
the
six­
part
form
is
as
acceptable
as
the
submittal
of
the
seventh
or
eighth
copy
of
an
eight­
copy
form.

We
acknowledge
commenters'
concern
about
photocopying
or
faxing
the
sixth
copy
to
the
State
because
the
sixth
copy
is
normally
illegible.
EPA
is
finalizing
performance­
based
requirements
that
require
that
handwritten
and
typed
imprints
be
legible
on
all
six
copies
of
the
form.
They
require
that
the
manifest
and
continuation
sheet
be
printed
in
black
ink
that
can
be
legibly
photocopied,
scanned,
and
faxed.
They
require
that
the
manifest
instructions
on
the
back
of
the
manifest
copies
must
not
be
visible
through
the
front
of
the
copies
when
scanned,
photocopied
or
faxed.
These
requirements
will
help
to
ensure
that
the
sixth
copy
can
be
legibly
faxed
and
photocopied.

In
addition,
we
are
currently
developing
guidance
for
registrants
on
how
to
design
a
manifest
whose
sixth
copy
is
legible.
We
intend
to
post
this
guidance
on
our
website.
We
intend
to
recommend
in
this
guidance
paper
types
and
weights
that
will
effectively
convey
imprints
copy
to
copy.
We
also
intend
to
post
in
this
guidance
a
description
of
the
tests
we
will
perform
in
evaluating
registrants'
form
samples
under
section
262.21(
e)
(
e.
g.,
tests
for
legibility).
We
intend
to
recommend
registrants
apply
these
tests
to
their
samples
before
submitting
them
to
the
Registry,
to
ensure
they
are
approved.
We
intend
to
explain
in
this
guidance
that
once
we
receive
the
form
samples,
we
will
evaluate
them
using
these
tests.
These
recommended
activities
will
help
to
maximize
the
legibility
of
the
form's
sixth
copy
and
photocopies
of
it.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
37
We
do
not
agree
with
the
suggestion
for
a
three­
copy
form,
because
it
would
not
provide
enough
copies
for
the
designated
TSDF
to
return
a
copy
to
the
generator
or
for
waste
handlers
to
submit
copies
to
States.
We
estimate
that
more
than
20
States
collect
manifest
copies
from
generators
and/
or
TSDFs.
We
believe
this
is
enough
justification
to
require
the
manifest
to
include
two
copies
designated
for
State
distribution.
Finally,
we
note
that
most
commenters
on
this
issue
supported
the
designation
of
copies
for
State
distribution.

EPA
thanks
commenters
for
pointing
out
the
copy
distribution
discrepancies
in
the
proposed
rule
and
preamble.
We
have
clarified,
in
the
rule
and
preamble,
paper
manifest
copy
6
(
i.
e.,
page
6,
bottom
copy)
is
the
generator's
initial
copy.

3.4
General
Burden
and
Variability
Implications
of
Manifest
Form
Comment:
We
heard
from
nine
commenters
indicating
that
the
proposed
manifest
and
acquisition
procedures
would
reduce
waste
handlers'
burden
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
14,
17,
19,
23,
29,
51,
60,
and
61).
One
commenter
that
presently
utilizes
computer
software
programs
to
prepare
and
print
manifests
for
its
customers
indicated
that
a
truly
uniform
form
will
drastically
simplify
the
manifest
printing
process
(
Commenter
No.
17).
The
commenter
will
no
longer
need
to
maintain
stock
of
the
various
State
manifests
at
each
shipping
location,
and
the
complexity
of
the
computer
programs
for
manifest
preparation
will
be
reduced
as
the
variation
in
State
manifest
forms
is
eliminated.
Another
commenter
noted
the
economies
of
scale
associated
with
printing
the
manifests
internally,
instead
of
getting
them
from
the
States
(
Commenter
No.
60).

We
heard
from
one
commenter
who
indicated
that
the
proposed
approach
would
benefit
only
a
limited
number
of
commercial
TSDFs
(
Commenter
No.
63).

We
heard
from
four
commenters
indicating
that
the
proposed
manifest
and
acquisition
procedures
would
increase
the
burden
to
waste
handlers
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
33,
35,
and
59).
Two
of
the
commenters
noted
that
the
proposed
manifest
and
acquisition
procedures
would
cause
a
certain
amount
of
disruption
as
it
would
mean
the
complete
replacement
of
the
current
system
(
Commenter
Nos.
33
and
59).
One
of
the
commenters
believes
that
EPA
could
reduce
burden
by
eliminating
variability,
but
only
if
EPA
is
willing
to
set
specific
standards
regarding
interoperability
rather
than
have
the
States
work
them
out
for
themselves
(
Commenter
No.
33).
The
commenter
also
expressed
doubt
about
EPA's
claim
that
waste
handlers
experience
significant
burden
under
the
existing
acquisition
procedures.
Another
commenter
speculated
that,
if
the
large
waste
handlers
print
their
own
manifests
in­
house,
this
could
leave
so
few
waste
handlers
to
purchase
manifests
from
vendors
that
manifest
costs
could
be
driven
up
(
Commenter
No.
6).
The
commenter
believes
this
could
be
exacerbated
if
many
manifests
become
automated,
further
reducing
the
demand
for
paper
manifests.
The
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
allow
only
a
limited
number
of
printers
of
manifests.
Another
commenter
believes
that
the
majority
of
waste
handlers
manage
to
obtain
manifests
easily
and
with
little
burden
(
Commenter
No.
35).
The
commenter
believes
that
changing
the
system
for
acquiring
the
manifest
will
only
increase
their
confusion
and
burden.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
38
We
also
heard
from
three
commenters
that
the
proposed
acquisition
procedures
would
place
a
significant
burden
on
the
States
(
Commenter
Nos.
35,
59,
and
63).
Two
of
these
commenters
indicated
that
their
State
programs
would
lose
significant
amounts
of
revenue
because
of
the
proposed
procedures
(
e.
g.,
$
250,000
to
$
500,000
per
year
in
lost
revenue)
(
Commenter
Nos.
59
and
63).
Another
commenter
indicated
that,
under
the
proposed
approach,
a
State
would
have
to
invoice
a
site
for
processed
manifests
instead
of
the
site
purchasing
the
manifests
(
Commenter
No.
35).
The
commenter
believes
such
invoicing
would
be
a
significant
burden
on
both
the
State
and
waste
handlers.

We
heard
from
one
commenter
that
the
proposed
approach
would
not
unduly
disadvantage
the
States
(
Commenter
No.
51).
The
commenter
stated
that
States
would
have
other
means
of
obtaining
the
revenues
through
fees
and
taxes.

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
positions
on
burden
under
the
rule.
EPA
agrees
with
commenters
who
believe
there
would
be
burden
savings
under
the
rule.
EPA
refers
commenters
to
the
"
Economics
Background
Document:
Economic
Analysis
of
the
USEPA's
Final
Rule
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Form,"
(
available
to
the
public
from
the
EPA
Docket).
Relative
to
this
paperwork
burden
baseline,
the
EBD
estimates
that
the
final
rule
revisions
to
the
RCRA
manifest
form
and
acquisition
procedures
will
produce
millions
of
dollars
in
average
annual
paperwork
burden
reduction
benefits.

These
savings
will
be
realized
for
several
reasons.
The
new
acquisition
procedures
will
allow
any
organization
to
register
to
print
the
manifest.
We
expect
that
large
waste
handlers,
such
as
commercial
TSDFs,
and
commercial
printers
will
be
among
those
to
register.
These
organizations
will
be
able
to
print
large
numbers
of
manifests
for
their
own
business
operations
and
potentially
realize
an
economy
of
scale.
They
will
be
able
to
recover
their
production
costs
by
selling
the
forms
to
the
public
and
using
the
forms
for
their
own
operations.
They
also
will
see
a
savings
for
no
longer
ordering
forms
from
the
States.

Registrants
and
the
public
will
see
benefits
because
registrants
will
be
able
to
design
the
manifest
according
to
their
own
and
customers'
capabilities
and
preferences.
This
will
lead
to
greater
productivity.
For
example,
registrants
will
be
able
to
select
the
binding
method
for
their
forms.
Registrants
that
use
impact
printers
(
or
whose
customers
use
impact
printers)
will
be
able
to
produce
forms
with
side­
bound
stubs,
which
can
be
fed
through
printers.
Under
the
current
system,
waste
handlers
are
not
able
to
customize
their
forms
because
they
are
supplied
by
the
States.

In
addition,
members
of
the
public
will
no
longer
have
to
call
multiple
States
to
order
State­
specific
forms,
which
has
caused
inefficiency
under
the
current
acquisition
system.
They
must
also
read
and
understand
each
State's
manifest
instructions
before
completing
the
form
under
the
current
system.
Under
the
final
rule,
they
will
need
to
call
only
one
registered
source
for
all
of
their
manifests,
allowing
them
to
place
larger
orders
and
keep
an
inventory
of
forms
that
can
be
used
universally
across
the
country.
They
will
need
to
learn
only
one
form
and
set
of
instructions.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
39
Because
of
these
reasons,
we
expect
that
registrants
and
members
of
the
public
will
see
savings
and
streamlined
activities
under
the
rule.

We
do
not
agree
with
the
comment
that
the
rule
will
benefit
only
a
limited
number
of
commercial
TSDFs.
While
commercial
TSDFs
will
realize
much
benefit
from
the
rule,
because
they
tend
to
be
involved
most
significantly
in
the
waste
business
and
therefore
encounter
large
numbers
of
manifests,
the
benefits
of
the
rule
extend
broadly
to
other
waste
handlers.
Many
large
and
midsized
generators
will
benefit
from
being
able
to
satisfy
all
their
manifest
compliance
responsibilities
with
one
form
and
set
of
procedures.
They
can
rely
on
one
source
of
forms
rather
than
having
to
obtain
multiple
forms
from
a
variety
of
state
sources,
and
they
will
no
longer
need
to
concern
themselves
with
the
varying
requirements
among
the
states
for
completing
optional
fields.
In
addition,
many
small
and
mid­
sized
generators
obtain
their
manifests
from
the
commercial
TSDFs
with
which
they
contract
for
waste
services.
To
the
extent
the
commercial
TSDFs
realize
savings
from
the
final
rule,
these
savings
may
be
passed
on
to
their
generator
customers
as
well
in
reduced
charges
for
manifest
services.

We
do
not
agree
with
the
comment
that
manifest
prices
under
the
rule
will
be
driven
up
because
of
low
demand.
We
estimate
that
between
two
and
five
million
manifests
are
prepared
annually
for
hazardous
waste
shipments.
These
forms
are
prepared
by
or
on
behalf
of
more
than
a
hundred
thousand
generators
across
the
country.
The
vast
majority
of
them
will
not
see
an
economic
advantage
to
registering
to
print
the
forms
because
their
respective
needs
are
not
great
(
i.
e.,
the
costs
of
registering
and
printing
the
forms
outweigh
the
benefits
of
being
a
registered
printer).
Rather,
they
will
buy
forms
from
registered
sources.
In
this
regard,
there
will
always
be
a
great
demand
for
forms.
In
addition,
registered
sources
will
be
compelled
to
offer
competitive
prices
for
the
form,
or
else
these
generators
will
buy
the
form
from
other
sources
who
offer
lower
prices.

We
do
not
agree
with
commenters
that
the
rule
will
cause
disruption
among
waste
handlers
as
they
transition
to
the
new
acquisition
procedures.
We
acknowledge
that
registrants
will
incur
a
small
burden
in
applying
to
the
Registry
initially.
However,
they
will
quickly
recover
this
one­
time
cost
by
incurring
savings
by
no
longer
having
to
purchase
forms
from
States
and
by
selling
the
forms
to
the
public
if
desired.
In
addition,
the
new
form
and
procedures
will
not
go
into
effect
until
18
months
after
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
18­
month
period
includes
the
six­
month
period
that
is
normally
provided
following
rule
publication,
plus
a
12­
month
delayed
compliance
date
that
EPA
has
established.
The
purpose
of
the
delayed
compliance
date
is
to
allow
States
and
waste
handlers
to
gradually
transition
to
the
new
form
and
requirements
(
e.
g.,
use
up
their
existing
inventory
of
forms
and
apply
to
the
Registry).
In
effect,
this
18­
month
period
will
ensure
a
smooth
transition
and
minimize
disruptions.

We
do
not
see
the
need
to
limit
the
number
of
organizations
registering
to
print
the
form,
as
a
commenter
suggested.
We
do
not
expect
many
organizations
to
have
an
economic
incentive
to
register.
An
organization
will
have
an
economic
incentive
if
it
can
recover
its
upfront
registration
costs
and
ongoing
production
costs
by
selling
the
form
to
the
public
and/
or
using
the
form
for
its
own
operations.
This
could
involve
printing
a
large
enough
number
of
forms
to
realize
an
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
40
economy
of
scale
and
minimum
costs.
Based
on
our
consultations,
we
expect
that
approximately
20
to
40
organizations
(
e.
g.,
States,
commercial
printers,
and
large
waste
handlers)
will
register
to
print
the
form.
We
expect
that
the
vast
majority
of
waste
handlers
will
not
see
an
economic
advantage
of
registering
to
print
the
form.
Rather,
they
will
buy
forms
from
the
registered
sources.

We
do
not
agree
with
comments
that
the
rule
will
place
hardship
on
the
States
through
the
loss
of
manifest
revenue.
After
considering
the
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.
[
Refer
to
Section
3.2.1
of
this
document
for
further
discussion
of
public
comments
and
Agency
responses
on
this
issue.]

3.5
International
Shipments
Comment:
While
commenters
generally
expressed
support
for
EPA's
proposed
international
shipments
block
and
procedures,
we
heard
from
two
commenters
that
believe
that
the
international
shipments
block
should
be
removed
from
the
manifest
(
Commenter
Nos.
22
and
52).
One
commenter
does
not
support
the
block
because
the
generator
preparing
the
hazardous
waste
manifest
does
not
always
know
if
the
waste
will
be
exported
by
the
ultimate
downstream
handler
of
the
waste
(
Commenter
No.
22).
The
commenter
believes
the
manifest
preparer
may
not
be
able
to
adequately
provide
the
information
which
EPA
is
proposing
(
e.
g.,
the
port
of
exit
or
entry).
Another
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
consider
developing
a
separate
manifest
specifically
for
international
shipments
(
Commenter
No.
52).
The
commenter
believes
that
the
integrity
and
usefulness
of
the
proposed
hazardous
waste
manifest
form
may
be
compromised
in
order
to
accommodate
the
expanded
'
International
Shipment'
section.

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
suggestions
on
the
international
shipment
requirements.

EPA
has
finalized
the
rule
with
the
International
Shipments
field
retained
on
the
revised
form,
as
proposed
but
with
some
modifications.
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
section
264.71
and
section
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.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
41
We
also
have
revised
the
proposed
provision
at
262.60(
i),
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
sections
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
ultimately
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
better
than
the
proposed
approach,
because
it
parallels
existing
manifest
mailing
requirements
for
receiving
facilities.
Specifically,
sections
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
particularly
well
situated
to
mail
a
copy
of
the
final,
signed
copy
of
the
manifest
to
EPA
for
tracking
purposes
since
they
are
already
required
to,
and
are
in
the
practice
of,
mailing
a
copy
of
the
same
document
to
generators
and,
in
some
cases,
to
states
as
well.
EPA
believes
that
TSDF
mailing
of
a
copy
of
the
manifest
to
EPA
is
a
more
direct
and
efficient
way
for
EPA
to
receive
this
document
than
the
proposed
approach
of
transporter
drop­
off
of
a
copy
of
the
manifest
to
U.
S.
Customs
at
the
port
of
entry
into
the
U.
S.
In
addition,
this
new
approach
results
in
EPA's
receipt
of
a
copy
of
the
manifest
at
a
final
stage
of
the
transport
process
when
the
receiving
facility
has
actually
received
the
hazardous
waste,
rather
than
at
an
earlier
stage
of
the
process,
when
the
transporter
has
brought
the
hazardous
waste
into
the
U.
S.
port
of
entry.
It
makes
more
sense
for
EPA
to
receive
a
copy
of
the
manifest
from
the
receiving
facility
at
this
final
stage,
when
there
is
clear
closure
to
the
manifest
process.

In
regard
to
the
comment
that
the
generator
might
not
know
whether
its
shipment
will
be
exported
and
hence
cannot
complete
the
required
information
in
the
block,
EPA
notes
that
existing
40
CFR
262.51
and
262.54
require
any
person
who
initiates
an
export
shipment
to
comply
with
the
manifest
requirements
of
section
262.20
through
262.23,
except
as
otherwise
provided
in
section
262.54.
If
a
designated
TSDF
receives
a
shipment
from
the
generator
and
then
decides
to
ship
it
outside
the
country,
it
must
complete
the
manifest
as
the
primary
exporter
in
accordance
with
these
requirements.
As
the
primary
exporter,
the
facility
will
be
capable
of
completing
the
International
Shipment
block.
Hence,
EPA
does
not
see
a
need
to
modify
the
block
in
response
to
the
comment.

EPA
appreciates
the
comment
for
a
separate
manifest
for
international
shipments.
However,
the
great
majority
of
commenters
seem
to
agree
that
the
proposed
International
Shipments
block
should
appear
on
the
uniform
manifest.
While
we
understand
that
space
could
be
saved
on
the
domestic
manifest
form
if
the
International
Shipments
block
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.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
42
Comment:
We
heard
from
12
commenters
that
requested
clarification
or
changes
to
various
aspects
of
the
proposed
international
shipments
block
of
the
manifest
and
procedures
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
12,
17,
27,
44,
46,
51,
53,
54,
59,
60,
and
61).
One
commenter
stated
that
an
AOC
is
not
practical
for
railroads
and
there
is
nothing
to
be
gained
from
requiring
an
AOC
to
accompany
hazardous
waste
shipments
while
they
are
traveling
in
the
US.
If
AOCs
are
needed
at
border
points,
then
consignors
should
be
responsible
for
making
sure
the
broker
at
the
border
has
them
(
Commenter
No.
46).
Two
commenters
stated
that
the
proposed
manifest
form
should
be
modified
in
Box
16,
International
Shipments,
to
include
the
statement
"
and
conforms
to
the
terms
of
the
EPA
Acknowledgment
of
Consent
to
the
shipment"
in
connection
with
the
existing
check
box,
"
Export
from
the
U.
S."
(
Commenter
Nos.
17
and
61).
Another
commenter
suggested
that,
for
both
imports
and
exports,
EPA
should
address
the
issue
of
international
shipments
of
the
manifest
waste,
specifically
the
need
to
make
it
easier
and
clearer
to
find
the
data
and
have
all
of
the
necessary
data
on
the
manifest
(
Commenter
No.
54).
Another
commenter
suggested
that
the
manifest
form
should
identify
the
domestic
and
foreign
party
(
Commenter
No.
59).
The
commenter
also
believed
that
the
form's
port
of
entry
or
exit
space
is
not
essential
for
cradle
to
grave
tracking
and
that
Block
16
of
the
manifest
should
be
revised
to
include
only
a
check
box
for
international
shipments;
additional
information
could
be
included
on
a
continuation
sheet.
Another
commenter
expressed
concern
that
the
transporter
of
an
export
may
not
know
the
date
the
shipment
left
the
U.
S.
and
thus
may
not
be
able
to
complete
Block
16
(
Commenter
No.
4).
As
such,
Block
16
should
indicated
that
the
transporter
should
indicate
the
date
the
shipment
left
the
U.
S.
"
if
known."
Another
commenter
stated
that
EPA
should
clarify
the
requirement
that
a
copy
of
the
manifest
must
remain
with
U.
S.
Customs
for
both
imports
and
exports
transported
by
rail
(
Commenter
No.
60).
Two
commenters
stated
that
EPA
should
clarify
the
procedures
for
international
shipments
that
are
rejected,
since
these
procedures
are
not
addressed
(
Commenter
Nos.
53
and
61).
One
of
these
commenters
indicated
its
belief
that
a
rejected
import
should
not
be
seen
as
an
export
(
Commenter
No.
53).
Another
commenter
stated
that
the
"
Acknowledgment
of
Consent"
statement
for
rejected
wastes
that
were
imported
shipments
should
not
be
required,
since
it
is
not
an
exported
shipment
(
Commenter
No.
60).
The
commenter
also
believes
that
EPA
should
define
the
terms
primary
importer/
exporter.
Another
commenter
stated
that
EPA
should
issue
clarification
to
ensure
that
shipments
from
territories
and
possessions
subject
to
U.
S.
Customs
are
not
considered
imports
for
the
purposes
of
Block
16
of
the
manifest
since
these
territories
and
possessions
are
part
of
the
U.
S.
under
the
RCRA
definition
in
40
CFR
260.10
(
Commenter
No.
12).
Two
commenters
expressed
concern
that
the
transporter
would
be
required
to
sign
the
manifest
a
second
time
when
the
waste
crosses
the
border
(
Commenter
Nos.
27
and
44).

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
suggestions
and
concerns
regarding
the
international
shipments
block
and
requirements.
EPA
agrees
with
comments
on
the
need
to
include
an
international
shipments
block
to
provide
a
designated
space
for
import
and
export
data.
This
will
increase
visibility
of
the
information
and
make
it
easier
to
locate
on
the
form.
The
final
manifest
includes
an
international
shipments
block
(
Item
16)
in
which
import
and
export
information
must
be
provided.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
43
EPA
appreciates
the
comment
for
the
manifest
to
include
only
partial
information
on
the
international
shipment
and
for
continuation
sheets
to
include
any
supplemental
information
(
e.
g.,
port
of
entry/
exit).
However,
EPA
has
been
able
to
design
the
manifest
so
that
all
information
can
be
included.
In
general,
we
prefer
a
manifest
that
consolidates
related
information
in
one
location
if
possible,
minimizing
the
necessity
for
continuation
sheets.

EPA
agrees
with
comments
to
modify
the
Generator
Certification
block
to
address
the
Primary
Exporter
statement.
The
manifest
has
been
modified
to
include
this
statement.
This
will
relieve
exporters
of
the
need
to
mark
up
the
manifest
to
include
these
words.
[
Refer
to
Section
3.9
of
this
document
for
additional
information
on
this
modification
to
the
form.]

EPA
does
not
agree
it
is
necessary
for
the
rule
to
modify
the
manifest
procedures
for
identifying
the
foreign
party
involved
with
the
international
shipment.
EPA
believes
the
existing
regulations
are
adequate
regarding
this
issue.
Existing
40
CFR
262.53
requires
the
primary
exporter
to
submit
a
notification
to
EPA
60
days
before
shipment
that,
among
other
things,
identifies
the
name
and
site
address
of
the
consignee
and
any
alternate
consignee,
as
well
as
any
transit
countries
through
which
the
hazardous
waste
will
be
sent.
The
consignee
must
also
be
identified
on
the
manifest
under
existing
40
CFR
262.54.
Existing
40
CFR
262.60
requires
the
person
importing
hazardous
waste
to
indicate
the
name
of
the
foreign
generator
on
the
manifest.
Because
of
these
existing
requirements,
we
have
not
modified
the
manifest
requirements
in
response
to
the
request.

EPA
appreciates
the
comments
on
the
needs
of
railroads
in
regard
to
the
AOC
and
acknowledges
the
unique
circumstances
of
railroads
under
the
manifest
system.
EPA
has
already
recognized
some
of
the
special
needs
of
railroads
in
the
existing
RCRA
regulations
regarding
the
manifest
and
AOC
(
e.
g.,
see
40
CFR
263.20(
a)).
The
final
rule
does
not
modify
or
clarify
the
manifest
provisions
for
railroads
in
specific.
We
are
willing
to
consider
further
modifications
to
the
regulations
for
railroads
if
needed,
but
believe
such
modifications
are
outside
the
scope
of
our
present
rulemaking.

EPA
appreciates
the
comment
that
a
transporter
might
not
know
the
date
an
export
shipment
left
the
United
States.
However,
we
do
not
believe
the
words
"
if
known"
should
be
included
in
the
block.
As
a
first
point,
we
expect
transporters
to
make
a
good
faith
effort
to
ascertain
the
date,
and
therefore,
we
believe
the
words
"
if
known"
will
not
normally
apply.
Second,
there
is
not
enough
room
to
fit
the
words
on
the
form
without
making
it
too
cluttered
and
more
confusing.
If
a
transporter
has
further
questions
on
how
to
complete
the
information
in
the
block,
it
should
contact
EPA
or
refer
to
existing
guidance.

We
disagree
that
we
need
to
define
the
terms
"
primary
exporter"
and
"
primary
importer."
We
refer
commenters
to
the
existing
definition
of
primary
exporter
at
40
CFR
262.51.
EPA
also
has
issued
clarifications
on
the
definitions
of
a
primary
exporter
and
importer.
Commenters
should
refer
to
these
sources
(
e.
g.,
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
rcraonline/).
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
44
EPA
appreciates
the
comments
regarding
international
shipments
that
are
rejected.
However,
these
comments
involve
the
interpretation
of
waste
export
policies
and
bilateral
agreements
that
are
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
Therefore,
we
have
not
addressed
these
comments
in
the
final
rule.

EPA
appreciates
the
suggestion
to
issue
clarification
that
shipments
from
U.
S.
territories
are
not
considered
imports
for
the
purposes
of
Block
16
of
the
manifest.
EPA
does
not
see
a
compelling
reason,
however,
for
such
clarification.
Existing
40
CFR
260.10
defines
"
United
States"
to
include
the
States
and
territories.
We
fully
expect
waste
handlers
to
interpret
the
import
and
export
regulations
using
this
definition
unless
otherwise
specified
in
the
regulations.

We
note
commenters'
concern
that
the
exporting
transporter
would
be
required
to
sign
the
manifest
a
second
time
when
the
waste
crosses
the
border.
However,
we
do
not
agree
this
is
an
issue
of
concern.
As
a
first
point,
we
note
that
a
transporter
will
have
to
sign
the
form
twice
only
in
certain
situations
(
e.
g.,
if
it
receives
the
shipment
from
the
generator
and
also
exports
it).
In
other
situations,
it
will
not
have
to
sign
the
form
twice
(
e.
g.,
if
it
receives
the
shipment
in
transit
from
another
transporter
within
its
same
company
and
exports
it).
Therefore,
we
do
not
believe
the
requirement
will
always
require
two
signatures
by
the
exporting
transporter.
Second,
we
do
not
believe
a
second
signature
will
impose
a
meaningful
burden
on
a
transporter.
Finally,
the
present
rulemaking
does
not
reopen
the
question
of
whether
there
should
be
a
transporter
signature
on
the
manifest
for
exports.
Rather,
the
rule
seeks
to
provide
a
space
on
the
manifest
for
the
transporter
to
comply
with
existing
40
CFR
263.20(
g),
as
amended.
For
these
reasons,
we
have
retained
the
signature
space
as
proposed.
However,
we
will
continue
to
consider
suggested
improvements
to
the
manifest
system
after
this
action,
including
changes
to
the
manifest
procedures
for
international
shipments
if
needed.

3.6
Bulk
Containers
Comment:
We
heard
from
15
commenters
that
expressed
their
support
for
the
proposed
changes
to
the
bulk
packaging
requirements
(
Commenter
Nos.
9,
12,
15,
19,
21,
22,
24,
25,
43,
47,
49,
51,
53,
56,
and
61).

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
support
on
the
modifications
on
the
bulk
packaging
definition.
EPA
did
not
receive
any
opposition
to
the
proposed
change.
The
final
rule
codifies
the
definition
as
proposed.

3.7
Use
of
Fractions
Comment:
We
heard
from
five
commenters
that
expressed
general
support
for
the
proposed
procedures
for
reporting
fractions
on
the
manifest
(
Commenter
Nos
13,
19,
47,
60,
and
61).
Two
of
these
commenters
expressed
their
belief
that
use
of
whole
numbers
or
fractions
should
be
completely
optional
(
Commenter
Nos.
60
and
61).
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
45
Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
support
on
the
proposed
modifications
to
the
provisions
for
fractions.
The
proposal
sought
to
modify
the
manifest
instructions
to
require
only
whole
numbers
to
describe
non­
bulk
shipments,
but
allow
fractions
to
be
used
where
necessary
to
describe
bulk
shipments.
However,
based
on
comments
received
on
the
rule,
we
have
revised
the
final
rule
to
clarify
that
waste
quantities
on
the
manifest
are
to
be
reported
as
accurately
as
possible
without
the
use
of
fractions
or
decimals.
Refer
to
the
other
comment
summaries
and
responses
below
for
additional
information
on
the
final
provisions.

Comment:
We
heard
from
ten
commenters
that
expressed
concern
about
the
proposed
procedures
for
reporting
fractions
on
the
manifest
for
bulk
shipments
(
Commenter
Nos.
1,
6,
26,
29,
34,
35,
54,
57,
59,
and
63).
A
number
of
commenters
indicated
that
fractions
are
not
needed,
because
waste
handlers
need
only
report
their
waste
in
smaller
units
(
e.
g.,
pounds
instead
of
tons)
(
Commenter
Nos.
1,
6,
26,
29,
34,
35,
54,
59,
and
63).
One
of
the
commenters
indicated
that,
besides
solids
shipments
(
which
need
not
be
reported
in
fractions,
since
smaller
units
of
measure
can
be
used),
other
volumetric
or
weight
units
need
not
be
reported
in
fractions
at
all
(
e.
g.,
liquids
are
normally
reported
in
gallons,
which
do
not
require
fractions)
(
Commenter
No.
6).
Two
commenters
indicated
that
use
of
fractions
for
some
units
of
measure
and
not
for
others
will
cause
more
data
discrepancies
than
not
using
fractions
(
Commenter
Nos.
34
and
54).
One
commenter
indicated
that
decimals
are
sometimes
difficult
to
see
on
the
manifest
and
could
lead
to
data
interpretation
errors
(
Commenter
No.
35).
The
commenter
said
that
fractions
should
be
rounded
up
to
the
next
whole
number.
Another
commenter
expressed
concern
that
the
proposed
change
would
result
in
the
need
to
modify
its
manifest
data
systems
(
Commenter
No.
34).

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
concerns
about
the
use
of
fractions
and
decimals
for
bulk
shipments.
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
(
e.
g.,
see
the
preamble
to
the
1984
rule
on
the
UHWM)
remains
the
more
sound
guidance
for
the
manifest.
As
commenters
have
indicated,
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
precluding
fractions
and
decimals
when
they
designed
their
data
systems.
Moreover,
if
waste
quantities
routinely
included
fractional
or
decimal
entries,
we
agree
with
commenters
that
significant
numbers
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
the
final
rule
continue
to
state
that
waste
quantities
on
the
manifest
are
to
be
reported
as
accurately
as
possible
without
using
fractions
or
decimals.
This
direction
will
continue
to
apply
to
both
bulk
and
non­
bulk
waste
descriptions.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
46
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
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
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.

EPA
is
therefore
including
additional
language
in
the
manifest
instructions
emphasizing
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
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
47
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.

Comment:
We
heard
from
nine
commenters
that
EPA
should
allow
the
use
of
fractions
for
non­
bulk
shipments
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
19,
22,
24,
25,
33,
43,
53,
and
61).
One
commenter
urged
that
fractions
be
disallowed,
but
that
if
fractions
are
allowed
for
bulk
shipments,
they
should
be
allowed
for
non­
bulk
shipments
(
Commenter
No.
6).
The
commenter
believes
that,
in
general,
fractions
affect
the
accuracy
of
small
non­
bulk
shipments
more
than
bulk
shipments.
For
example,
the
commenter
indicated
that,
to
report
a
P­
list
waste
as
one
pound
instead
of
four
ounces
multiplies
the
waste
four­
fold.
Another
commenter
indicated
that
the
loss
of
fractions
can
be
problematic
when
converting
from
pounds
to
kilograms
for
small
quantities
of
waste
(
Commenter
No.
25).
Another
commenter
indicated
that
fractions
should
be
allowed
for
acute
waste
(
Commenter
No.
33).
The
commenter
indicated
that
less
than
half
a
pound
of
an
acute
waste
would
round
down
to
0
or
up
to
1
pound,
thus
leading
to
one
of
two
possible
mistaken
conclusions:
that
nothing
was
shipped
or
that
the
shipper
is
approximately
half
way
to
being
an
LQG.
Another
commenter
believes
that
prohibiting
the
use
of
fractions
for
non­
bulk
shipments
will
lead
to
inaccurate
reporting
and
overstated
numbers
(
Commenter
No.
24).

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
suggestions
to
extend
the
use
of
fractions
or
decimals
to
non­
bulk
shipments.
The
proposed
rule
did
not
allow
for
the
use
of
decimals
or
fractions
for
non­
bulk
shipments.
EPA
continues
to
believe
that
fractions
and
decimals
are
not
appropriate
for
reporting
non­
bulk
waste
quantities
on
the
manifest.
Moreover,
we
are
clarifying
in
the
final
rule
that
we
do
not
support
the
use
of
decimals
or
fractions
for
either
bulk
or
non­
bulk
shipments.
Thus,
we
are
modifying
the
position
we
proposed
to
the
extent
that
the
proposal
would
have
allowed
the
use
of
fractions
or
decimals
for
the
reporting
of
bulk
shipment
quantities.
Again,
we
were
persuaded
that
the
use
of
fractions
or
decimals
would
introduce
errors
more
than
it
would
promote
greater
precision.
In
addition,
we
remain
concerned
that
many
State
databases
are
not
set
up
to
receive
data
reported
as
fractions
or
decimals;
States
reasonably
may
have
relied
upon
EPA's
past
guidance
precluding
fractions
and
decimals
when
they
designed
their
data
systems.

We
appreciate
those
comments
that
expressed
a
concern
that
not
allowing
fractions
or
decimals
would
lead
to
inaccurate
and
overstated
quantities
and/
or
pose
unit
conversion
problems
when
reporting
waste
quantities
on
the
manifest.
However,
as
several
commenters
suggest,
we
believe
waste
handlers
can
avoid
many
of
these
problems
by
using
smaller
units
of
measure.
In
addition,
we
believe
that,
based
on
all
the
points
raised
by
commenters
on
this
issue,
there
are
greater
benefits
to
restricting
waste
quantity
reporting
to
whole
numbers.
We
believe
that
whole
numbers
are
far
more
legible
and
more
easily
interpreted
on
manifest
copies
than
decimals
and
fractions.
package.
The
use
of
fractions
and
decimals
seems
more
likely
to
results
in
data
interpretation
errors
that
will
actually
detract
from
our
objective
of
achieving
greater
accuracy
and
precision
in
reporting
waste
quantities
on
the
manifest.
Therefore,
the
manifest
instructions
included
in
the
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
48
final
rule
continue
to
state
that
waste
quantities
on
the
manifest
are
to
be
reported
as
accurately
as
possible
without
using
fractions
or
decimals.

3.8
Emergency
Response
Phone
Numbers
Comment:
We
heard
from
16
commenters
expressing
their
support
for
the
proposed
emergency
phone
number
on
the
manifest
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
16,
18,
21,
22,
23,
25,
27,
34,
44,
47,
51,
52,
53,
56,
and
61).
One
commenter
also
recommended
that
EPA
add
an
optional
line
in
this
block
to
list
emergency
response
guide
numbers,
where
appropriate
(
Commenter
No.
21).
Two
commenters
believe
that
emergency
response
phone
numbers,
including
the
Federal
National
Response
Center
phone
number
and/
or
State
environmental
department,
should
be
included
on
the
manifest
(
Commenter
Nos.
34
and
44).
Four
commenters
asked
EPA
to
resolve
an
apparent
error
in
the
Appendix
1
to
40
CFR
Part
262
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
16,
18
and
23).
The
commenters
indicated
that,
in
the
appendix
,
the
instructions
for
Item
4,
Generator's
Mailing
Address
and
Phone
Number,
should
end
after
the
first
sentence.
The
remaining
instructions
in
the
Item
4
section
beginning
with
"
Note,
the
telephone
number.
.
."
should
be
moved
to
Item
5,
directly
following
the
first
sentence.
One
commenter
Stated
that
the
emergency
phone
number
concept
appears
to
be
feasible,
but
that
it
is
not
realistic
to
believe
that
a
person
who
is
knowledgeable
about
a
waste
shipment
is
available
24
hours
a
day
at
the
moment
that
a
call
is
received
(
Commenter
No.
56).
One
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
clarify
that
the
emergency
response
phone
number
requirement
applies
to
problem
shipments
re­
manifested
by
TSDFs
and
that
TSDFs
must
coordinate
with
the
generator
on
the
appropriate
number
(
Commenter
No.
23).

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
support
on
our
proposal
to
add
a
block
to
the
manifest
for
an
emergency
response
phone
number.
We
did
not
receive
any
opposition
to
the
proposed
block.
The
final
manifest
requires
the
phone
number
to
be
entered
in
Block
3
(
in
cases
when
the
phone
number
applies
to
all
wastes
on
the
form).

In
providing
the
phone
number
in
Block
3,
the
generator
must
identify
the
generator,
agency
or
other
organization
that
accepts
responsibility
for
providing
detailed
information
about
the
shipment.
The
phone
number
must
reach
a
phone
that
is
monitored
24
hours
a
day
at
all
times
the
waste
is
in
transportation
(
including
transportation
related
storage).
The
phone
number
must
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.

EPA
has
not
created
blocks
specifically
for
the
National
Response
Center
(
NRC)
or
a
State
environmental
agency,
as
several
commenters
requested.
Generators
are
free
to
enter
the
phone
number
of
any
agency
or
other
organization
into
the
block
so
long
as
the
applicable
instructions
are
followed.
In
addition,
we
have
not
printed
a
phone
number
for
the
NRC
or
State
agency
on
the
form
for
several
reasons.
First,
the
form
is
intended
to
be
completely
uniform
and
universally
accessible.
Including
a
specific
State
agency's
phone
number
on
the
form
would
be
counter
to
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
49
these
goals
(
e.
g.,
the
phone
number
of
an
environmental
agency
in
New
York
State
would
not
apply
to
a
person
shipping
within
the
State
of
California).
Second,
we
believe
the
phone
numbers
of
the
NRC
and
State
environmental
agencies
are
readily
available
from
many
sources
(
e.
g.,
telephone
book,
telephone
directory
service,
Internet).
We
therefore
do
not
see
the
benefit
of
adding
this
information
to
the
form.

EPA
appreciates
the
suggestion
that
EPA
add
an
optional
line
on
the
form
to
list
emergency
response
guide
numbers,
where
appropriate.
We
agree
that
a
generator
may
need
to
list
emergency
response
guide
numbers.
The
final
rule
allows
generators
to
provide
guide
numbers
in
Block
14,
"
Special
Handling
Instructions
and
Additional
Information."

EPA
acknowledges
the
comment
that
it
is
unrealistic
to
expect
a
person
to
be
available
24
hours
per
day
at
the
moment
an
emergency
phone
call
is
made.
In
our
proposed
rule,
we
did
not
reopen
any
issue
regarding
the
emergency
response
number,
except
whether
to
create
a
space
for
it
on
the
manifest.
Hence,
the
commenter's
concern
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
present
rulemaking.
The
final
rule
provides
that
the
phone
number
must
"
reach
a
phone
that
is
monitored
24
hours
a
day
at
all
times
the
waste
is
in
transportation
(
including
transportation
related
storage)."
We
will
continue
to
work
with
DOT
to
consider
suggested
improvements
to
the
manifest
regulations
as
needed.

EPA
appreciates
the
comment
to
clarify
the
rules
for
providing
an
emergency
response
phone
number
for
shipments
re­
manifested
by
the
designated
TSDF.
The
regulations,
as
amended,
provide
clear
procedures
for
manifesting
a
shipment,
including
rejected
loads
and
container
residues.
If
a
TSDF
must
prepare
a
new
manifest
(
e.
g.,
for
a
rejected
waste
or
residue
shipment),
the
TSDF
is
responsible
as
offeror
for
following
all
of
the
applicable
instructions
for
completing
the
form
and
ascertaining
that
the
re­
shipment
is
in
proper
condition
for
transportation.
The
pretransportation
functions
that
such
an
offeror
is
responsible
for
certifying
to
when
completing
the
new
manifest
includes
the
provision
of
an
accurate
Emergency
Response
Phone
Number
for
the
reshipment
as
required
in
Block
3
of
the
form.
The
commenter
is
correct
in
suggesting
that
the
provision
of
an
accurate
Emergency
Response
Phone
Number
may
require
coordination
with
the
original
generator.
In
many
instances,
the
TSDF
completing
the
new
manifest
may
be
able
to
rely
upon
the
Emergency
Response
Number
on
the
original
manifest
and
simply
transfer
this
phone
number
to
the
new
manifest.
However,
if
the
TSDF
offering
the
reshipment
in
transportation
knows
or
should
know
that
the
previously
supplied
phone
number
is
no
longer
an
accurate
or
appropriate
phone
number
for
the
re­
shipment,
then
the
TSDF
is
responsible
for
supplying
an
appropriate
Emergency
Response
Phone
Number
on
the
new
manifest.
If
the
TSDF
has
any
question
about
the
appropriate
phone
number
to
use,
the
facility
can
raise
it
when
it
calls
the
generator
to
obtain
instructions
for
forwarding
the
shipment.

EPA
appreciates
comments
regarding
the
discrepancy
in
the
manifest
instructions
regarding
the
emergency
phone
number.
We
have
revised
the
instructions
in
Item
4
(
i.
e.,
the
Generator's
address
and
Phone
number)
by
removing
the
text
beginning
with
"
Note,
the
telephone
number..."
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
50
and
moving
it
to
the
instructions
for
the
Emergency
Phone
Number.
We
also
renumbered
the
proposed
Item
5
as
Item
3
in
the
final
rule.

3.9
Generator
Certification
In
our
proposal,
we
included
a
generator
certification
that
included
the
shipper's
certification
statement
required
by
DOT"
s
Hazmat
regulations.
It
also
included
a
statement
by
which
the
generator
certifies
to
the
waste
minimization
statement
at
40
CFR
262.27(
a)
or
(
b).
We
sought
comment
on
these
certifications.
We
also
sought
comment
on
the
proposed
rejected
load
provisions,
which
had
implications
for
the
generator
certification
statement.
Among
other
things,
we
sought
comment
on
whether
and
how
to
allow
a
rejecting
TSDF
to
sign
the
generator's
certification
statement
on
a
manifest
accompanying
the
re­
shipment
of
rejected
waste.

Comments:
We
heard
from
13
commenters
who
support
EPA's
proposed
changes
to
the
generator
and/
or
shipper
certification
statements
(
Commenter
Nos.
16,
18,
21,
22,
24,
33,
48,
49,
51,
53,
60,
61,
and
62).
One
commenter
supported
the
proposed
changes
in
principle,
but
expressed
discomfort
with
the
single
signature
making
both
certifications
(
Commenter
No.
51).
The
commenter
pointed
out
that,
while
one
company
might
be
responsible
for
preparing
the
shipment
for
transport,
another
company
might
be
solely
responsible
for
waste
minimization.
Therefore,
the
commenter
suggested
that
the
requirement
could
be
met
with
an
independent
certification
to
be
filed,
periodically
reviewed
with
the
waste
stream
characterization
data.

We
heard
from
one
commenter
who
opposed
the
proposed
changes
to
the
waste
minimization
certification
because
it
would
reduce
the
visibility
and
apparent
significance
of
the
waste
minimization
certification
(
Commenter
No.
48).
The
commenter
believes
it
is
likely
many
generators
would
simply
sign
the
manifest
without
referring
to
40
CFR
262.27.

We
heard
from
another
commenter
who
suggested
that,
to
free
up
room
on
the
manifest,
EPA
should
eliminate
the
generator
waste
minimization
certification
from
the
form
(
Commenter
No.
21).
The
commenter
noted
that
the
language
is
already
in
the
regulations
and
EPA
can
modify
the
language
to
clarify
that
generators
signing
the
manifest
are
certifying
compliance
with
the
certification
language.
In
addition,
the
commenter
urged
EPA
to
work
with
DOT
to
eliminate
the
requirement
that
the
certification
language
be
on
the
shipping
papers
themselves
(
e.
g.,
DOT
could
modify
its
regulations
to
clarify
that
a
person
signing
a
shipping
paper
is
certifying
compliance
with
DOT's
requirements).
Another
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
remove
the
waste
minimization
certification
statement
from
the
manifest
because
it
is
unnecessary
and
unenforceable
(
Commenter
No.
33).
The
commenter
suggested
that
the
certification
statement
could
be
moved
to
the
Biennial
Report
instead.

We
heard
from
two
commenters
who
indicated
that
the
references
to
"
Block
16"
in
the
regulatory
text
is
a
typographical
error
and
should
be
corrected
to
refer
to
"
Block
15"
(
Commenter
Nos.
16
and
23)
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
51
Commenters
on
the
proposal
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.
Supporters
encouraged
EPA
to
adopt
the
proposed
regulatory
language
at
40
CFR
264.72(
d)(
1)
and
(
e)(
6),
which
requires
the
TSDF
to
explain
to
the
original
generator
its
reasons
for
rejecting
the
waste
and
decide
where
the
rejected
waste
or
container
residue
shipments
should
be
sent.
After
doing
so,
it
signs
the
generator
certification.
Other
commenters
opposed
this
approach,
claiming
that
the
rejecting
facility
would
assume
generator
liability
for
waste
it
did
not
generate.
One
commenter
cautioned
that
the
proposed
approach
would
hold
TSDFs
liable
for
full
compliance
with
DOT
regulations
for
the
pre­
transportation
acts
performed
by
the
initial
generator
because
the
TSDF
will
be
considered
the
offeror
of
the
package
for
transportation.
In
general,
these
commenters
argued
that
the
responsibility
for
packaging
and
shipping
the
waste
would
fall
on
the
TSDF,
who
may
not
know
the
exact
nature
of
the
material.
Therefore,
the
rejecting
facility
cannot
attest
to
the
packaging
specifications
and
should
not
be
held
accountable
for
such;
this
responsibility
should
continue
to
rest
with
the
generator.

In
general,
commenters
who
criticized
the
proposed
approach
supported
the
alternative
approach
requiring
TSDFs
to
sign
"
on
behalf
of"
the
initial
generator.
However,
some
commenters
argued
that
the
alternative
approach
would
make
generators
liable
under
DOT
regulations
for
any
pre­
transportation
functions
performed
by
the
rejecting
facility.
They
argued
further
that
the
generator
could
not
supervise
from
a
distance
proper
execution
of
the
pre­
transportation
acts
that
the
rejecting
facility
must
perform
before
signing
the
certification
statement.

[
For
additional
information
on
comments
and
Agency
responses
regarding
the
use
of
the
generator
certification
block
for
rejected
loads
and
container
residues,
refer
to
Section
5.6
of
this
document.]

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
suggestions
on
the
generator
certification
statement.
In
response
to
these
comments,
we
have
codified
the
requirements
at
40
CFR
264.72(
d)(
1)
and
(
e)(
6)
and
265.72(
d)(
1)
and
(
e)(
6),
and
modified
the
Generator
Certification
field
by
renaming
it
the
"
Generator/
Offeror's
Certification,"
indicating
that
either
the
generator
or
an
offeror
must
sign
the
block.
The
generator's
signature
certifies
to
both
the
waste
minimization
and
shipper's
certification
statements,
while
the
rejecting
facility's
signature
certifies
as
an
offeror
only
to
the
shipper's
certification
statements.
The
final
rule
contains
additional
material
to
explain
the
distinction
between
RCRA
"
generators"
and
"
offerors,"
and
the
responsibility
under
Hazmat
authority
of
offerors
in
the
performance
of
pre­
transportation
functions
such
as
completing
and
signing
a
manifest.
The
offeror
issues
and
the
implications
for
changing
the
Generators
Certification
on
the
previous
manifest
to
the
Generator/
Offeror's
Certification
on
the
revised
manifest
are
much
broader
in
scope
than
the
issue
of
TSDF's
responsibilities
for
re­
shipments
of
rejected
wastes
and
residues.
An
"
offeror"
status
is
likely
to
be
encountered
as
well
when
waste
shipments
are
prepared
at
generator
sites,
such
as
when
a
transporter's
or
TSDF's
personnel
arrives
at
the
generator's
site
and
participates
in
the
pre­
transportation
functions
(
including
the
completion
of
the
manifest)
that
occur
when
a
waste
shipment
is
prepared
for
transportation.
We
emphasize
that
the
discussion
of
offerors
and
their
responsibilities
in
the
final
rule
extends
broadly
to
generators'
shipments
and
to
re­
shipments
of
wastes
initiated
by
rejecting
TSDFs.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
52
The
rule
clarifies
that
any
rejecting
facility
that
prepares
the
new
manifest
will
be
subject
to
applicable
"
offeror"
or
pre­
transportation
requirements
only,
unless
that
facility's
management
of
the
waste
causes
sufficient
changes
to
the
waste's
composition
or
state
such
that
the
facility
can
be
viewed
as
having
generated
a
different
waste.
This
could
occur
in
cases
where
the
facility
has
treated
the
waste
in
a
way
that
alters
its
composition
or
state,
or
in
cases
where
the
waste
itself
undergoes
changes
while
in
the
facility's
custody.
In
such
cases,
the
facility
is
the
generator
of
the
resulting
changed
waste,
if
it
is
found
that
the
waste
is
no
longer
described
accurately
by
the
shipping
description
on
the
original
manifest,
or
if
the
management
method
originally
designated
for
the
waste
no
longer
applies.
On
such
occasions,
the
rejecting
facility
would
be
subject
to
all
generator
requirements
(
see
40
CFR
Part
262)
for
that
newly
generated
hazardous
waste.

The
final
manifest
also
includes
the
following
statement
in
the
certification
block
for
primary
exporters:
"
If
export
shipment
and
I
am
the
Primary
Exporter,
I
certify
that
the
contents
of
this
consignment
conform
to
the
terms
of
the
attached
EPA
Acknowledgment
of
Consent."
The
regulated
community
has
raised
concerns
that
the
existing
manifest
does
not
include
such
a
statement,
and
hence,
they
must
mark
up
the
manifest
to
include
the
statement.
The
final
form
includes
this
statement
so
that
primary
exporters
no
longer
need
to
mark
it
up.

We
disagree
with
comments
that
our
approach
to
the
waste
minimization
certification
will
reduce
generators'
sense
of
responsibility
for
minimizing
their
waste.
To
the
contrary,
we
believe
we
are
making
the
waste
minimization
requirements
more
prominent
and
legitimate
by
including
them
in
the
regulations
and
referencing
them
on
the
manifest.

A
fundamental
expectation
of
the
RCRA
generator
program
is
that
generators
are
knowledgeable
of
the
standards
applicable
to
them.
This
is
because,
in
large
part,
the
generator
standards
are
self­
implementing,
in
that
EPA
and
the
States
provide
minimal
oversight
over
generators'
routine
activities.
We
rely
on
them
to
read,
understand,
and
comply
with
the
standards
and
to
contact
us
as
needed.
To
ensure
generator
knowledge,
we
require
annual
training
and
familiarization
of
the
standards.
Through
these
trainings,
we
can
be
confident
that
generators
will
become
fully
cognizant
of
the
applicable
standards,
including
the
codified
statement
on
waste
minimization.

We
acknowledge
the
comments
to
completely
eliminate
the
waste
minimization
certification
from
the
manifest.
However,
section
3002(
b)
of
RCRA
requires
that
the
manifest
include
a
generator's
waste
minimization
certification.
EPA
is
bound
by
this
provision
to
include
such
a
certification,
and
to
make
it
applicable
to
each
manifest
that
is
initiated
by
a
generator.
Our
final
rule
approach
­
which
continues
the
generator
waste
minimization
certification
but
in
a
short­
hand
format
that
incorporates
the
full
certification
language
by
reference
­
continues
the
legal
requirement
for
a
certification
on
the
manifest,
while
freeing
up
some
new
space
on
the
manifest
form
by
reducing
the
space
that
was
previously
occupied
by
the
full
certification.

EPA
thanks
the
commenters
who
suggested
changes
to
the
DOT
shipper
certification,
but
such
changes
are
outside
the
scope
of
the
present
rulemaking.
However,
we
will
continue
to
work
with
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
53
DOT
to
consider
suggestions
from
commenters
and
other
stakeholders
for
improvements
to
the
manifest
regulations
as
needed
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
identifying
the
typographical
errors
in
connection
with
describing
Block
15
of
the
proposed
regulatory
text.
These
incorrect
references
have
been
corrected
in
the
final
rule.

3.10
Elimination
of
Certain
State
Optional
Boxes
3.10.1
General
Comments
Comment:
We
heard
from
15
commenters
in
general
support
of
the
elimination
of
State­
optional
elements
from
the
manifest,
as
proposed
(
Commenter
Nos.
15,
16,
18,
19,
21,
22,
24,
38,
47,
49,
51,
53,
55,
56,
and
61).
One
commenter
indicated
that
the
unilateral
imposition
of
additional
shipping
paper
entry
requirements
that
are
not
substantively
the
same
as
those
required
by
Federal
law
places
a
tremendous
burden
on
shippers
and
transporters
(
Commenter
No.
15).
The
commenter
noted
that
such
requirements
are
specifically
preempted
under
the
Federal
Hazardous
Materials
Transportation
Law.
Two
commenters
advocated
elimination
of
State­
specific
requirements,
but
suggested
that
the
States
should
make
this
determination
(
Commenter
Nos.
16
and
18).

We
heard
from
five
commenters
who
expressed
support
for
the
elimination
of
all
State
optional
blocks
(
Commenter
Nos.
22,
49,
55,
56,
and
61).
One
commenter
indicated
that
the
burden
of
having
to
determine
each
State's
requirements,
and
then
ensure
compliance
with
each
State's
requirements
for
every
shipment
of
hazardous
waste,
far
outweighs
any
remaining
utility
of
State
optional
information
(
Commenter
No.
61).
The
commenter
urges
EPA
to
adopt
the
policy
position
in
the
final
rule
that
such
State­
by­
State
variations
in
the
manifest
are
preempted
under
the
Commerce
Clause
and
Supremacy
Clause
of
the
U.
S.
Constitution
and
are
in
conflict
with
the
consistency
requirement
of
RCRA.

We
heard
from
one
(
State)
commenter
that
indicated
that
the
removal
of
State
optional
boxes
would
create
burdens
on
their
State,
e.
g.,
the
inability
for
its
State
program
to
collect
physical
site
location,
ultimate
handling
code
and
specific
gravity
would
significantly
reduce
their
ability
to
properly
track
waste
shipments
and
run
other
State
programs
that
depend
on
that
information
(
Commenter
No.
34).
[
Note:
A
number
of
commenters
expressed
specific
concerns
about
the
removal
of
State­
specific
blocks.
Please
refer
to
the
other
comments
and
Agency
responses
in
Section
3.10
for
this
information.]

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
support
and
suggestions
on
the
removal
of
the
State­
optional
blocks
of
the
form.
The
proposal
to
remove
the
State­
optional
elements
was
grounded
on
several
factors:
(
1)
a
desire
to
reduce
the
time
spent
completing
the
manifest;
(
2)
the
recognition
that
several
of
the
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
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
54
in
ways
that
were
not
contemplated
by
EPA
or
DOT
in
1984
when
these
agencies
decided
to
include
the
optional
fields
on
the
manifest;
and
(
4)
the
recognition
that
all
shareholders
prefer
that
the
manifest
remain
a
one­
page
format
that
collects
the
most
essential
waste
shipment
information.

Thus,
the
addition
of
several
new
tracking
fields
to
the
form
required
EPA
to
remove
items
that
appeared
less
essential
for
tracking
waste
shipment
and
management
information.
EPA
acknowledges
comments
endorsing
the
proposal
to
eliminate
all
of
the
optional
fields
as
a
way
of
reducing
burden
and
variability
in
the
manifest
system.
These
comments
were
balanced
by
other
comments
suggesting
that
most
of
the
fields
EPA
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
(
refer
to
other
comments
and
Agency
responses
in
Section
3.10
for
this
information).
However,
EPA
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
the
Agency
to
adopt
as
part
of
the
manifest
revision
effort,
unless
EPA
was
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,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
a
two­
page
format
would
be
an
acceptable
outcome.
The
Agency
believes
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
seemed
to
provide
the
most
benefit
to
the
greatest
number
of
stakeholders.

In
the
end,
we
believe
we
have
created
a
manifest
that
effectively
balances
the
needs
of
both
the
States
and
waste
handlers
under
the
manifest
system.
In
particular,
we
note
that
many
of
the
examples
raised
by
the
State
commenter
regarding
its
data
concerns
are,
in
fact,
addressed
in
the
final
form.
For
example,
the
final
form
includes
a
designated
space
for
the
generator's
physical
location.
It
also
provides
space
for
the
generator
to
provide
specific
gravity.

3.10.2
Telephone
Numbers
for
Transporter
and/
or
TSDF
Comment:
We
heard
from
12
commenters
who
expressed
their
desire
to
retain
the
phone
numbers
for
the
generator,
transporter
and/
or
TSDF
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
13,
17,
19,
25,
29,
30,
34,
51,
52,
54,
and
59).
A
number
of
commenters
indicated
that
elimination
of
these
phone
numbers
would
make
it
more
difficult
and
increase
the
time
spent
trying
to
find
the
transporter
or
TSDF
phone
number
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
13,
17,
25,
29,
and
51).
One
commenter
indicated
that
the
TSDF
phone
number
would
be
useful
to
the
State
inspectors
who
may
need
to
contact
the
facility,
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
55
to
generators
who
want
to
know
why
they
have
not
received
a
manifest
back,
and
to
transporters
who
cannot
find
the
facility
(
Commenter
No.
54).
Another
commenter
indicated
that,
although
EPA
would
require
generators
to
provide
an
emergency
contact
number,
there
may
be
unforeseen
circumstances
in
which
the
generator
will
not
be
reachable
or
in
which
the
transporter
is
the
more
appropriate
person
to
call
(
Commenter
No.
19).
Another
commenter
indicated
that
the
transporter
may
have
a
better
understanding
of
the
waste
than
the
generator,
and
therefore
should
be
reachable
(
Commenter
No.
34).
Another
commenter
believes
that
the
transporter
phone
number
is
important
for
generators
in
tracking
their
shipments
(
Commenter
No.
59).

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
views
on
the
transporter
and
designated
facility
phone
numbers.
In
the
proposed
rule,
we
proposed
to
eliminate
the
two
blocks
for
the
transporter
company
phone
numbers.
We
also
proposed
to
eliminate
the
field
for
the
facility's
phone
number.

We
do
not
agree
with
the
comments
that
convenience
of
the
parties
is
a
basis
to
retain
the
transporter
phone
number
fields
on
the
form.
We
believe
that
transporter
phone
contact
information
would
be
compelling
if
it
were
useful
information
for
emergency
responders.
However,
the
revised
form
now
includes
an
Emergency
Response
Phone
Number
field,
which
is
consistent
with
DOT
requirements
for
hazardous
materials
shipping
papers.
We
believe
that
this
new
data
element
effectuates
the
manifest's
emergency
response
purpose
more
effectively
than
recording
additional
transporter
company
phone
numbers.
Moreover,
the
revised
manifest
still
requires
phone
numbers
for
the
generator
and
the
designated
facility.
Waste
handlers
should
not
be
greatly
inconvenienced
if
they
must
resort
to
their
internal
contact
lists
rather
than
the
Uniform
Manifest
to
obtain
a
transporter's
current
phone
number.
Therefore,
the
final
rule
removes
the
transporter
phone
number
data
elements
from
the
revised
manifest
form.

We
agree
with
the
comments
urging
us
to
retain
the
TSDF's
phone
number
field.
Commenters
have
advanced
a
compelling
argument
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
performing
these
functions.
Therefore,
the
revised
manifest
form
includes
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.

3.10.3
State
Identification
Numbers
Comment:
We
heard
from
one
commenter
expressing
its
support
for
one
unique
Federal
identification
number
for
each
waste
handler,
as
this
would
reduce
burden
and
confusion
among
the
regulated
community
(
Commenter
No.
52).

We
heard
from
eight
commenters
expressing
their
opposition
to
removing
the
State
identification
numbers
of
generators,
transporters,
and/
or
TSDFs
(
Commenter
Nos.
27,
30,
33,
34,
50,
54,
59,
and
63).
A
number
of
commenters
indicated
that
the
State
transporter
ID
number
may
be
used
by
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
56
States
and
waste
handlers
to
confirm
that
the
transportation
vehicles
are
in
compliance
with
applicable
State
and
Federal
regulations,
e.
g.,
transportation
rules
(
Commenter
Nos.
27,
33,
50,
and
59).
In
addition,
a
number
of
commenters
disagreed
that
States
can
always
obtain
information
equivalent
to
a
State
Generator's
ID
number
from
a
generator's
US
EPA
ID
number
(
Commenter
Nos.
30,
54,
59,
and
63).
These
commenters
indicated
that
many
States
regulate
categories
of
waste
that
are
not
regulated
under
RCRA
and
sites
generating
these
wastes
have
only
a
State
ID
number.
One
commenter
indicated
that
State
ID
numbers
are
often
used
by
States
to
designate
the
physical
location
of
a
site
(
Commenter
No.
34).
The
commenter
indicated
that
the
EPA
ID
number
may
be
associated
with
a
site's
mailing
address,
but
not
its
physical
address.
This
could
make
it
difficult
to
locate
the
site
using
the
EPA
ID
number.

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
the
suggestions
on
the
ID
number
blocks
of
the
form.
In
the
proposed
rule,
we
proposed
to
remove
the
State
Generator
ID
block
from
the
manifest
form.
However,
we
believe
commenters
have
made
a
strong
case
to
retain
the
ability
to
require
a
State
Generator
ID
number
in
certain
instances.
We
agree
that
there
are
certain
instances
when
generators
are
regulated
as
hazardous
waste
generators
under
an
authorized
program,
but
do
not
have
an
EPA
Generator
ID
number
(
e.
g.,
cases
exist
where
a
facility
generates
a
waste
regulated
by
the
State
as
hazardous,
but
is
not
a
hazardous
waste
under
the
Federal
RCRA
waste
listings
or
characteristics).
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
comments
that
there
are
valid
reasons
for
retaining
the
State
Generator
ID
field
on
the
manifest
when
no
corresponding
EPA
ID
Number
is
assigned
to
that
generator.
Therefore,
in
the
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.

We
also
proposed
to
remove
the
block
for
State
Transporter
ID
numbers.
Several
commenters
requested
that
the
State
Transporter
ID
field
be
retained
in
the
rule.
EPA
does
not
agree
with
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.
In
addition,
there
are
ways
to
verify
the
transporters'
State­
licensed
status
other
than
requiring
generators
to
enter
license
information
or
vehicle
registration
numbers
on
each
hazardous
waste
manifest.
Therefore,
the
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.

Finally,
we
proposed
to
remove
the
block
for
the
State
Facility's
ID
number.
While
commenters
suggest
that
it
is
convenient
to
use
these
numbers
to
ensure
compliance
with
State
licensing
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
57
requirements,
they
have
not
refuted
our
argument
that
the
State
ID
number
is
redundant
with
EPA's
ID
number.
While
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.

3.10.4
Modification
to
Items
15
and
J
of
the
Old
Form
Comment:
We
heard
from
15
commenters
that
expressed
concern
about
the
proposed
changes
to
Block
15
and
J
(
Commenter
Nos.
10,
12,
21,
22,
23,
26,
34,
35,
47,
52,
54,
59,
60,
61,
and
63).

A
number
of
commenters
requested
that
EPA
broaden
and
clarify
the
types
of
information
that
could
be
entered
in
Block
14,
since
EPA's
proposed
list
does
not
include
all
of
the
information
important
to
waste
handlers
(
Commenter
Nos.
10,
12,
21,
23,
26,
34,
35,
47,
59,
60,
and
63).
Many
of
these
commenters
asked
EPA
not
to
limit
the
information
that
could
be
included
by
waste
handlers,
and
expressed
concern
that
EPA
does
not
allow
such
information
as
waste
profile
numbers,
waste
codes,
specific
gravity,
Emergency
Response
Guide
references,
waste
approval
numbers,
or
PCB­
related
information
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
23,
26,
34,
35,
60,
and
63).
One
commenter
suggested
that
the
block
should
include
all
pertinent
information
related
to
rejected
loads,
including
the
date
the
TSDF
rejected
the
load
and
the
date
the
shipment
was
returned
to
the
generator
(
Commenter
No.
47).

A
number
of
commenters
expressed
a
desire
that
States
be
clearly
limited
in
the
types
of
information
they
could
request
in
Block
14
(
Commenter
Nos.
22,
26,
60,
and
61).
Two
other
commenters
requested
that
States
not
be
restricted
in
the
types
of
information
that
could
be
required
(
Commenter
Nos.
35
and
54).
One
commenter
indicated
that
many
States
use
Items
15
and
J
to
include
State­
specific
information
(
Commenter
No.
54).
The
commenter
indicated
that
any
limit
on
information
in
this
area
will
severely
limit
the
way
many
States
and
waste
handlers
operate.

Another
commenter
expressed
concern
that
Item
14
would
be
a
"
catch
all"
for
information
not
allocated
elsewhere
and
that
the
information
could
be
buried
(
Commenter
No.
52).

One
commenter
expressed
concern
that
States
will
have
tracking
difficulties
if
their
requested
data
must
be
put
into
Block
14
in
handwritten
format
(
Commenter
No.
34).
The
commenter
believes
the
data
will
be
in
non­
uniform
order,
making
it
hard
to
read.

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
suggestions
about
the
revisions
to
Block
15
and
J
of
the
old
form.
In
our
proposal,
we
proposed
to
remove
Block
J
"
Additional
Descriptions
for
Materials
Listed
Above"
from
the
manifest
and
to
consolidate
this
information
with
that
of
existing
Block
15
"
Special
Handling
Instructions
and
Additional
Information."
We
proposed
to
create
a
new
block
for
this
information,
i.
e.,
Block
14,
"
Special
Handling
Instructions
and
Additional
Information."
The
final
rule
codifies
this
change
to
the
form.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
58
We
agree
with
commenters
that
Block
14
of
the
proposed
form
did
not
provide
enough
space
to
enter
needed
data.
In
response
to
these
comments,
we
have
increased
the
size
of
Block
14.
This
was
made
possible
because
we
eliminated
the
third
transporter
block
from
the
form
and
reduced
the
size
of
the
international
shipments
block.
Given
the
increased
size
of
Block
14,
we
do
not
believe
that
States
or
waste
handlers
will
have
difficulty
reading
or
interpreting
the
data
provided
by
waste
handlers.

We
appreciate
commenters'
concerns
that
Block
14
could
become
a
"
catch­
all"
for
entering
various
types
of
information.
In
the
final
rule,
we
are
limiting
the
scope
of
information
that
users
may
enter
in
this
field.
Due
to
several
changes
we
have
made
to
other
form
data
elements,
some
of
the
previously
required
information
in
the
"
Special
Handling"
field
of
the
manifest
will
no
longer
need
to
be
entered
in
Block
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
Block
9b
of
the
new
form.
The
rule
also
clarifies
that
no
more
than
six
waste
codes
need
be
entered
for
each
waste
stream,
which
should
eliminate
the
need
to
enter
additional
RCRA
waste
codes
in
this
block.

Under
the
final
rule,
EPA
is
limiting
the
use
of
new
Block
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
under
the
companies'
own
business
processes.
With
regard
to
the
"
Special
Handling"
aspect
of
this
block,
we
anticipate
that
waste
handlers
will
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.
With
regard
to
the
"
Additional
Description"
field
of
the
revised
Block
14,
we
anticipate
that
waste
handlers
may
use
this
space
to
enter
chemical
names,
constituent
percentages,
physical
state
or
specific
gravity
of
wastes
identified
with
volume
units
in
Block
9b
of
the
revised
form.
In
this
way,
we
believe
that
new
Block
14
allows
waste
handlers
to
provide
the
types
of
information
they
desire.

The
Federal
regulatory
uses
of
the
Special
Handling
field
of
Block
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.

Authorized
State
programs
may
not
impose
additional
Special
Handling
or
other
information
requirements
for
Block
14
when
implementing
the
revised
manifest
form.
As
a
commenter
points
out,
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
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
59
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
Block
14,
we
expect
States
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
Block
13
of
the
new
form.
In
this
way,
all
State­
specific
information
requirements
could
be
conveyed
in
Block
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
encourage
States
to
address
any
needed
waste
code
changes
during
the
period
before
the
delayed
compliance
date
of
the
rule.

3.10.5
Physical
Site
Address
of
Generators
Comment:
We
heard
from
nine
commenters
that
oppose
the
addition
of
the
generator
site
address
to
the
manifest
(
Commenter
Nos.
1,
4,
12,
22,
29,
31,
55,
60,
and
61).
Two
commenters
pointed
out
that
only
the
mailing
address
is
needed
in
implementing
the
manifest
system
(
e.
g.,
for
the
TSDF
to
return
the
manifest)
(
Commenter
Nos.
55
and
60).
A
number
of
commenters
also
believe
the
site
address
is
redundant
with
the
site's
ID
number,
since
the
ID
number
can
be
used
to
identify
the
site's
physical
address
(
Commenter
Nos.
1,
29,
31,
and
61).
Two
commenters
also
pointed
out
that
the
inclusion
of
the
site
address
will
increase
burden
on
the
generator
(
e.
g.,
it
can
be
difficult
to
obtain
or
clarify,
as
in
rural
areas),
and
can
already
be
obtained
from
other
sources
(
e.
g.,
RCRA
Info)
(
Commenter
Nos.
22
and
55).
One
commenter
pointed
out
that
the
only
reason
to
add
the
site
address
is
to
assist
the
designated
TSDF
in
returning
a
rejected
load
(
Commenter
No.
4).
The
commenter
indicated,
however,
that
the
TSDF
must
contact
the
generator
in
any
case,
and
can
learn
the
site's
address
then.
One
commenter
opposed
the
site
address,
but
suggested
that
EPA
should
allow
the
optional
entry
of
an
email
address,
in
addition
to
the
mailing
address
(
Commenter
No.
12).

We
heard
from
12
commenters
that
support
the
addition
of
the
generator
site
address
to
the
manifest
as
a
required
element
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
17,
27,
30,
33,
34,
35,
40,
44,
54,
59,
and
63).
Eight
of
these
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
should
require
both
addresses,
unless
they
are
the
same
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
30,
33,
34,
35,
54,
59,
and
63).
Another
commenter
indicated
that,
as
an
alternative
approach,
the
site
address
could
be
mandatory
and
the
mailing
address
optional
(
Commenter
No.
6).
A
number
of
commenters
indicated
that,
as
a
threshold
issue,
it
is
important
for
the
manifest,
as
a
cradle­
to­
grave
document,
to
display
the
location
where
the
waste
was
generated
(
e.
g.,
certain
sites
­
bridges,
manholes,
cruise
ships/
unloading
ports
­
will
not
have
a
mailing
address
that
will
indicate
the
location
of
the
waste
generation)
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
33,
34,
and
63).
One
of
these
commenters
indicated
that
some
States
use
the
site
address
to
identify
SQGs,
satellite
accumulation
areas,
and
other
sites
that
are
not
required
to
obtain
an
EPA
ID
number
(
Commenter
No.
33).
In
this
regard,
the
commenter
speculated
that
eliminating
the
site
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
60
address
from
the
manifest
could
result
in
States
requiring
these
sites
to
obtain
an
EPA
ID
number
(
e.
g.,
sites
that
do
not
currently
have
an
ID
number,
such
as
cleanup
sites
or
satellite
accumulation
areas).
A
number
of
commenters
also
stated
that
the
site
address
is
important
for
State
compliance
tracking
and
enforcement
(
e.
g.,
to
make
sure
the
manifest
has
been
submitted
to
the
appropriate
Generator
State;
to
resolve
manifest
errors;
to
identify
the
location
of
a
site
to
inspect
regarding
a
suspicious
shipment;
to
identify
cruise
ships
that
generated
waste)
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
27,
33,
34,
35,
40,
44,
54,
and
63).
Another
commenter
indicated
that
the
site
address
is
needed
by
TSDFs
for
returned
shipments
(
Commenter
No.
30).
Two
commenters
indicated
that
the
site
address
can
assist
in
responding
to
releases
(
e.
g.,
in
cases
when
the
emergency
phone
number
is
not
helpful)
(
Commenter
Nos.
35
and
63).

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
suggestions
and
comments
regarding
the
generator
site
address.
In
our
proposed
rule,
we
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
addresses
on
the
form.

We
believe
commenters
have
set
forth
a
strong
justification
for
including
the
generator's
site
address
field
on
the
final
form.
Our
State
agency
partners
advised
us
that
the
mailing
address
for
a
company's
corporate
offices
could
be
in
a
different
State
than
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.

Because
of
this
input,
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.

3.10.6
Block
for
Management
Method
Codes
(
also
referred
to
as
Biennial
Report
codes)

Comment:
We
heard
from
20
commenters
who
expressed
support
for
EPA's
proposal
to
include
Biennial
Report
codes
on
the
revised
manifest
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
13,
16,
17,
21,
22,
23,
24,
27,
30,
43,
49,
51,
53,
54,
55,
59,
60,
61,
and
63).
One
of
these
commenters
indicated
that
additional
codes
would
be
needed
for
non­
RCRA
wastes
(
Commenter
No.
59).
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
61
Response:
We
thank
commenters
for
their
support
of
the
proposed
modification
to
the
block
for
Biennial
Report
codes.
In
our
proposal,
we
proposed
to
use
Biennial
Report
codes
for
the
completion
of
new
Block
B
on
the
form.
We
have
revised
the
form
subsequent
to
the
proposal.
The
final
form
now
includes
Block
19
for
the
TSDF
to
enter
these
codes.
The
block
is
now
entitled,
"
Hazardous
Waste
Report
Management
Method
Codes."
Please
refer
to
the
comments
and
Agency
responses
below
for
additional
information.

We
do
not
agree
with
the
comment
that
additional
codes
will
be
needed
for
non­
RCRA
wastes.
[
For
purposes
of
responding
to
this
comment,
we
believe
the
commenter
intended
to
refer
to
"
State­
only
wastes,"
i.
e.,
wastes
regulated
as
hazardous
by
a
State
program
but
not
by
EPA.
Wastes
that
are
not
subject
to
the
Federal
RCRA
hazardous
waste
program
or
applicable
State
RCRA
hazardous
waste
program
are
not
subject
to
the
manifest
requirements.]
The
Management
Method
codes
were
expressly
designed
to
be
as
comprehensive
as
possible
regarding
the
types
of
methods
used
by
industry
to
treat,
recycle,
or
dispose
of
hazardous
waste.
We
believe
they
will
adequately
address
the
methods
used
to
manage
State­
only
waste.

Comment:
We
heard
from
eight
commenters
that
noted
that
the
2001
Biennial
Report
has
replaced
System
Type
codes
with
Management
Method
codes
(
Commenter
Nos.
23,
27,
30,
35,
54,
57,
59,
and
63).
These
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
update
all
references
to
be
consistent
with
the
2001
Biennial
Report,
as
appropriate.
In
addition,
a
number
of
commenters
indicated
that
the
final
manifest
rule
should
simply
reference
the
Biennial
Report
rather
than
specifically
referring
to
or
listing
the
Management
Method
codes
in
the
rule
(
Commenter
Nos.
35,
54,
and
63).
This
way,
the
rule
will
always
remain
current
and
avoid
dissimilarities
with
the
Biennial
Report
list.

We
heard
from
one
commenter
who
stated
that
EPA
proposes
to
adopt
changes
to
biennial
report
codes
which
are
not
in
regulation,
but
are
in
instructions
and
forms
(
Commenter
No.
34).
The
commenter
asked
if
EPA
has
the
authority
to
adopt
regulations
prospectively.

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
suggestions
regarding
Management
Method
Codes
on
the
manifest.
EPA
agrees
that
the
final
rule
should
reference
the
Hazardous
Waste
Report's
Management
Method
Codes.
At
the
time
the
proposed
rule
was
developed,
these
codes
were
referred
to
as
System
Type
Codes.

EPA
agrees
with
commenters
that
the
Agency
should
refer
waste
handlers
to
the
most
recent
RCRA
Report
Forms
and
Instructions
for
information
on
the
current
list
of
Management
Method
Codes,
rather
than
publishing
a
table
of
Management
Method
codes
in
the
CFR.
This
will
ensure
that
the
requirements
will
remain
current,
and
will
free
EPA
of
the
necessity
of
frequently
updating
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
with
any
changes.
The
final
rule
language
does
not
set
forth
a
list
of
Management
Method
Codes,
but
references
the
RCRA
Report
Forms
and
Instructions.
The
preamble
to
the
final
rule
emphasizes
that
the
codes
are
subject
to
change
over
time
and
urges
manifest
users
to
refer
to
the
most
recent
Forms
and
Instructions
published
in
connection
with
the
RCRA
Report
for
the
most
current
and
accurate
set
of
codes
to
be
entered
on
the
form.
The
preamble
also
provides
a
link
to
a
website
where
an
up­
to­
date
list
can
be
found.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
62
In
response
to
the
commenter's
question
whether
EPA
can
adopt
the
Management
Method
Code
list
by
reference
in
our
final
rule,
EPA
clarifies
that
we
have
the
authority
to
require
and
incorporate
by
reference
the
use
of
the
current
Management
Method
Codes
on
the
manifest.
The
RCRA
statute
and
our
Subtitle
C
implementing
regulations
require
certain
waste
handlers
to
report
biennially
on
their
waste
generation
and/
or
waste
management
activities.
In
aid
of
the
biennial
reporting
requirements
under
the
Act,
EPA
publishes
every
two
years
the
set
of
forms,
instructions,
and
guidance
to
facilitate
the
current
cycle
of
biennial
reporting.
In
the
current
set
of
forms
and
instructions,
EPA
has
identified
the
process
codes
to
be
used
to
identify
waste
management
processes
in
biennial
reporting
as
the
RCRA
Report
Management
Method
Codes.
The
RCRA
Reporting
guidance
 
including
the
list
of
Management
Method
Codes
 
is
developed
to
aid
compliance
with
the
biennial
reporting
requirements
imposed
under
the
statute
and
referenced
in
the
CFR.
These
RCRA
Reporting
Forms
and
Instructions
are
printed,
updated,
and
disseminated
by
EPA
as
a
part
of
the
biennial
reporting
process.
Hence,
EPA
has
complete
control
over
the
content,
use
and
dissemination
of
the
Management
Method
codes
list,
and
the
reference
to
the
Management
Method
Codes
is
sufficiently
specific
to
leave
no
doubt
as
to
the
proper
codes
to
be
used
on
the
manifest
form.

Comment:
We
heard
from
26
commenters
that
the
designated
TSDF,
not
the
generator,
should
complete
the
handling
codes
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
10,
12,
13,
16,
17,
19,
22,
23,
24,
25,
26,
27,
28,
29,
30,
31,
33,
35,
51,
54,
55,
59,
61,
62,
and
63).
A
number
of
commenters
indicated
that
the
TSDF
should
complete
the
codes
because
they
are
more
familiar
than
generators
with
their
management
operations
(
Commenter
Nos.
10,
12,
13,
16,
17,
19,
22,
23,
24,
27,
28,
29,
35,
55,
59,
and
63).
A
number
of
commenters
also
believe
that
it
would
be
overly
burdensome
for
generators
to
fill
out
the
codes
(
e.
g.,
they
would
have
to
call
the
TSDF)
(
Commenter
Nos.
16,
23,
and
59).
One
commenter
indicated
that,
as
a
TSDF,
it
provides
handling
code
information
as
part
of
its
support
services
to
the
generator,
and
thus,
it
would
not
be
overly
burdened
under
the
proposed
approach
(
Commenter
No.
51).
One
commenter
noted
that
they
also
supported
EPA's
proposal
that
the
interim
TSDF
complete
the
handling
codes,
because
the
original
manifest
would
be
terminated
before
the
waste
is
shipped
to
the
next
TSDF
(
Commenter
No.
19).
Another
commenter
indicated
that
the
TSDF's
documentation
of
the
handling
codes
on
the
manifest
would
inform
the
generator
of
how
its
waste
was
ultimately
managed;
this
would
keep
the
generator
knowledgeable
and
in
control
of
its
waste
(
Commenter
No.
31).

We
heard
from
five
commenters
stating
that
generators
should
complete
the
handling
codes
alone,
or
in
conjunction
with
the
designated
TSDF
(
Commenter
Nos.
21,
34,
45,
53,
and
56).
These
commenters
indicated
that
the
generator
is
ultimately
responsible
for
ensuring
offsite
treatment
and
disposal
and
therefore
should
specify
on
the
manifest
what
is
desired,
e.
g.,
they
are
legally
liable
for
ensuring
cradle­
to­
grave
management
(
Commenter
Nos.
34,
45,
and
56).
One
commenter
indicated
that
there
should
be
flexibility
for
generators
and
TSDFs
to
determine
who
should
complete
the
codes
(
Commenter
No.
21).
The
commenter
pointed
out
that,
in
certain
cases,
the
generator
may
have
the
best
knowledge
to
designate
how
the
waste
should
be
handled;
however,
in
other
cases,
certain
characteristics
of
the
waste
may
have
changed
enough
prior
to
reaching
the
TSDF
to
warrant
the
TSDF's
changing
the
codes.
Two
commenters
expressed
their
belief
that
the
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
63
TSDF
should
be
able
to
change
the
handling
method
specified
by
the
generator
(
Commenter
Nos.
34
and
45)

We
heard
from
one
commenter
who
said
that
it
does
not
matter
whether
the
TSDF
or
generator
completes
the
handling
codes
(
Commenter
No.
4).
The
commenter
believes
that,
although
the
TSDF
is
in
the
better
position
to
know
the
actual
type
of
management
of
the
waste,
the
generator
also
should
know
this
information.
The
commenter
urged
EPA
that,
in
either
case,
the
regulations
should
clearly
indicate
whose
responsibility
it
is.

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
views
on
whether
the
generator
or
designated
TSDF
should
enter
handling
codes
on
the
manifest.
The
majority
of
commenters
support
our
proposal
to
identify
the
designated
TSDF
as
the
party
responsible
for
completing
the
codes.
As
the
commenters
point
out,
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.
We
find
these
arguments
persuasive.
The
final
rule
includes
the
requirement
for
TSDFs
to
complete
the
handling
codes
as
proposed.

We
do
not
share
some
commenters'
concern
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.
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.

We
also
do
not
agree
with
comments
that
EPA
should
allow
the
generator
and
TSDF
to
decide
who
should
enter
the
codes.
This
approach
would
fail
to
provide
clear
direction
to
waste
handlers,
creating
a
potentially
confusing
situation
where
each
party's
roles
are
not
clear
from
the
outset.
We
believe
the
final
rule
provides
clear
direction
and
accountability
for
completion
of
the
codes.

Comment:
We
heard
from
nine
commenters
requesting
clarification
or
changes
to
the
procedures
for
completing
handling
codes
(
Commenter
Nos.
10,
12,
17,
26,
34,
35,
48,
53,
and
54).
One
commenter
asked
for
clarification
on
how
the
block
should
be
completed
when
there
are
multiple
steps
in
the
treatment
process
(
Commenter
No.
12).
The
commenter
speculated
whether
this
data
will
be
meaningful
if
it
does
not
reflect
the
various
steps
in
the
treatment
process.
Another
commenter
requested
clarification
regarding
completion
of
the
system
codes
on
the
manifest
when
several
containers
listed
on
the
same
line
of
the
manifest
are
being
managed
by
the
TSDF
using
different
process
technologies
(
i.
e.
different
system
codes)
(
Commenter
No.
17).
Another
commenter
requested
clarification
on
how
the
handing
codes
would
be
corrected
after
submittal
to
the
State
or
generator
(
Commenter
No.
10).
The
commenter
also
asked
for
clarification
on
how
lab
packs
would
be
dealt
with,
since
a
lab
pack
may
contain
waste
with
the
same
DOT
hazard
class
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
64
but
all
the
items
in
a
lab
pack
may
not
be
managed
in
the
same
fashion
because
of
regulatory
considerations.
Another
commenter
asked
for
EPA
clarification
on
whether
waste
handlers
would
be
required
to
enter
one
handling
code
per
waste
stream,
or
whether
multiple
handling
codes
would
be
required
(
Commenter
No.
53).
The
commenter
also
indicated
that
the
preamble
discussion
on
how
to
complete
Block
B
needs
to
be
corrected
(
66
FR
28257,
paragraph
7
of
section
H).
The
commenter
indicated
that
the
preamble
gives
the
instructions
for
completing
the
block
and
states:
"
enter
system
type
code
for
first
waste
code
listed
in
Block
10A."
The
commenter
noted,
however,
that
no
waste
code
is
entered
in
Box
10A.
Several
commenters
indicated
that
the
handling
codes
should
be
the
final
disposition
or
management
that
occurs
to
that
waste
at
the
facility
completing
the
form
(
i.
e.,
as
opposed
to
the
final
disposition
of
the
waste
if
it
occurs
subsequently
at
an
offsite
location)
(
Commenter
Nos.
26,
53,
and
54).
Another
commenter
suggested
that
the
handling
codes
be
left
blank
if
the
waste
is
exported
from
the
U.
S.,
since
the
data
are
not
needed
nationally,
as
defined
in
the
WIN/
Informed
UID/
WAM
PAA
(
Commenter
No.
35).
Another
commenter
expressed
concern
that
its
State
currently
bases
its
fees
on
codes
other
than
Biennial
Report
codes
(
Commenter
No.
34).
The
commenter
indicated
that,
if
EPA's
changes
become
final
as
proposed,
its
State
program
would
have
to
reassess
its
entire
State
Superfund
Program
financing
strategy.
The
commenter
recommended
the
ability
to
enter
a
second
code
for
final
disposition,
if
different
from
the
Biennial
Report
code.
We
heard
from
one
commenter
who
suggested
that
EPA
reposition
the
handling
code
block
in
an
area
next
to
waste
codes
(
Commenter
No.
48).
The
commenter
believes
that
repositioning
handling
codes
would
allow
anyone
evaluating
the
manifest
to
immediately
associate
the
type
of
waste
with
how
it
was
or
would
be
managed.

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
questions
and
concerns
about
the
requirement
to
enter
handling
codes
on
the
manifest.
In
response
to
commenters'
requests
for
clarification
on
the
completion
of
handling
codes
on
the
manifest,
EPA
has
provided
directions
for
handling
code
completion
in
the
[
appendix
to
Part262]
of
the
final
rule.
The
preamble
to
the
final
rule
also
clarifies
completion
issues
raised
by
commenters.
The
rule
and
preamble
clarify
how
codes
should
be
completed
by
the
TSDF
when
there
are
multiple
steps
in
the
treatment
process
or
when
the
waste
will
be
managed
at
subsequent
facilities.
They
also
clarify
how
codes
should
be
entered
under
other
scenarios.
Commenters
should
read
the
final
preamble
and
rule
for
further
information.
If
they
still
have
questions,
they
should
consult
their
authorized
State
for
guidance.

In
the
final
analysis,
we
do
not
expect
TSDFs
to
have
much
difficulty
entering
the
codes.
The
instructions
for
completing
them
are
simple
and
straightforward.
In
addition,
they
allow
the
TSDF
to
use
its
best
professional
judgment
in
completing
the
codes.
That
is,
the
instructions
require
the
TSDF
to
enter
the
Management
Method
code
that
best
describes
the
way
in
which
the
waste
is
to
be
managed
when
received
by
the
TSDF.
In
this
respect,
TSDFs
have
some
flexibility
to
rely
on
their
own
best
judgment
in
determining
the
code
to
enter,
as
opposed
to
researching
or
consulting
with
an
independent
source.
Finally,
TSDFs
have
been
required
to
enter
handling
codes
onto
certain
States'
manifests
for
many
years.
They
also
have
been
required
to
enter
Management
Method
Codes
(
and
previously,
System
Type
Codes)
onto
their
Hazardous
Waste
Reports
for
years.
They
have
developed
expertise
in
selecting
codes
that
best
reflect
their
onsite
management
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
65
methods,
and
have
onsite
records
(
e.
g.,
past
manifests,
Hazardous
Waste
Reports,
databases)
that
indicate
the
most
appropriate
codes
for
these
methods.
We
expect
them
to
draw
on
this
information
as
needed
in
completing
the
codes.

We
appreciate
the
commenter's
concern
that
the
Management
Method
codes
may
not
be
meaningful
if
they
do
not
reflect
the
various
steps
in
the
treatment
process.
We
have
clarified
in
the
final
rule
that
the
TSDF
must
enter
the
Management
Method
code
that
best
describes
the
way
in
which
the
waste
is
to
be
managed
when
received
by
the
TSDF.
In
this
way,
each
Management
Method
code
on
the
form
will
adequately
reflect
the
management
process.

We
appreciate
commenters
who
state
that
the
handling
codes
should
reflect
the
disposition
or
management
that
occurs
to
that
waste
at
the
facility
completing
the
form,
as
opposed
to
the
final
disposition
of
the
waste
if
it
occurs
subsequently
at
an
offsite
location.
We
agree
with
this
suggestion,
and
it
is
reflected
in
the
final
instructions.
The
instructions
state
that
the
code
is
to
be
entered
by
the
TSDF
that
is
designated
on
the
manifest
to
receive
and
manage
the
waste.
The
code
must
describe
the
manner
in
which
the
waste
is
to
be
managed
when
received
by
that
facility,
and
not
at
a
facility
that
may
subsequently
receive
the
waste
under
another
manifest.
We
believe
it
would
be
confusing
and
inappropriate
to
expect
a
TSDF
to
enter
an
"
ultimate
disposition"
code
reflecting
how
the
waste
is
to
be
processed
at
another
facility
that
will
later
receive
the
waste.

We
appreciate
the
comment
that
the
handling
codes
be
left
blank
if
the
waste
is
exported
from
the
U.
S.
The
final
rule
requires
the
designated
TSDF
to
complete
the
codes.
Therefore,
a
manifest
accompanying
an
export
shipment
would
not
include
Management
Method
codes.
Rather,
the
receiving
facility
would
have
to
complete
them,
unless
such
facility
is
not
subject
to
the
manifest
requirements.

We
appreciate
the
commenter's
concern
that
its
State
Superfund
program
will
have
to
be
revised
to
accommodate
the
new
handling
code
requirements.
In
developing
the
final
requirements,
we
consulted
with
our
State
partners
and
concluded
that
the
States
will
find
ways
to
accommodate
the
new
requirements
featuring
the
use
in
all
states
of
the
Management
Method
Codes.
In
many
cases,
we
have
found
that
the
RCRA
Report's
Management
Method
codes
are
comparable
to
States'
handling
codes,
or,
they
can
be
translated
so
that
they
retain
the
relevance
in
a
particular
State's
tracking
or
fee
assessment
system.
Therefore,
we
do
not
believe
that
our
effort
to
standardize
handling
codes
by
requiring
the
use
of
the
RCRA
Report's
Management
Method
codes
will
necessarily
cause
significant
disruptions
to
State
programs.
In
addition,
we
note
that
several
States
and
State
organizations
were
among
the
strongest
advocates
for
standardizing
the
use
of
the
Management
Method
codes
as
the
means
to
identify
on
the
manifest
the
processes
used
to
manage
hazardous
wastes
at
facilities.
Therefore,
we
believe
the
impact
on
the
States
will
not
be
too
great.

We
appreciate
the
comment
regarding
the
discrepancy
in
the
proposed
rule.
The
proposed
instruction
for
Block
B
in
the
preamble
to
"
enter
system
type
code
for
first
waste
code
listed
in
Block
10a"
actually
refers
to
a
waste
(
not
waste
code)
that
is
identified
in
Item
10a.
The
proposed
instructions
require
one
to
enter
a
system
type
waste
code
for
each
waste
item
identified
in
line
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
66
items
10a,
10b,
10c,
and
10d).
We
have
revised
the
preamble
and
manifest
instructions
accordingly.
We
also
renumbered
Item
10
as
Item
9b
in
the
final
rule.
In
addition,
lines
a,
b,
c,
and
d
on
the
proposed
form
are
lines
1,
2,
3,
and
4
in
Item
9b
in
the
final
rule.

Comment:
In
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
requested
comment
on
whether
commenters
preferred
the
Biennial
Report's
Management
Method
codes,
a
new
set
of
codes,
or
the
codes
in
Table
2
of
Appendix
I
at
40
CFR
Part264.

We
heard
from
six
commenters
expressing
concern
or
opposition
to
the
proposed
alternative
for
a
streamlined
list
of
System
Type
Codes
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
21,
35,
57,
59,
and
61).
Two
commenters
indicated
that
EPA
has
already
streamlined
the
System
Type
Codes
from
65
to
28,
and
that
there
is
no
need
for
a
more
simplified
list
(
Commenter
Nos.
6
and
59).
A
number
of
commenters
indicated
that
EPA
already
has
various
lists
of
handling
codes
and
that
a
new
list
would
confuse
waste
handlers
(
Commenter
Nos.
35,
57,
and
61).
One
commenter
supported
the
full
list
of
Biennial
Report
codes,
but
indicated
that,
if
the
list
for
the
manifest
is
streamlined,
EPA
should
also
streamline
the
list
for
the
Biennial
Report
(
Commenter
No.
21).

We
heard
from
three
commenters
that
supported
the
proposed
alternative
for
a
streamlined
list
of
System
Type
codes
(
Commenter
Nos.
10,
19,
and
25).
Two
commenters
believe
that
the
current
BRS
list
is
too
detailed
and
that
a
simpler
list
would
suffice
(
Commenter
Nos.
10
and
19).
Another
commenter
indicated
that
it
could
support
category
codes,
but
only
if
they
are
Federal
codes
and
not
codes
developed
by
each
State
(
Commenter
No.
25).
The
commenter
urged
that
the
codes
must
be
consistent
across
States.

We
heard
from
three
commenters
that
were
supportive
of
the
handling
codes
at
40
CFR
Part
264
(
Commenter
Nos.
29,
31,
and
55).
One
commenter
noted
the
advantages
of
the
System
Type
Codes,
but
stated
that
use
of
a
different
table
(
e.
g.,
Table
2
of
Appendix
1,
Part
264)
would
not
likely
result
in
a
significant
difference
in
use
or
understanding,
provided
the
new
code
system
is
standardized
for
all
States
(
Commenter
No.
55).
Another
commenter
indicated
that
use
of
the
list
in
Part
264
would
be
useful
only
if
all
three
types
of
codes
(
i.
e.,
new
Block
B,
BRS
and
Table
2)
were
unified
into
one
cohesive
standard
(
Commenter
No.
29).

We
heard
from
four
commenters
that
expressed
concern
about
the
handling
codes
at
40
CFR
Part
264
(
Commenter
Nos.
10,
12,
25,
and
35).
One
commenter
believes
the
handling
codes
at
Part
264
are
too
detailed
and
prefers
a
simpler
table
(
Commenter
No.
10).
Another
commenter
expressed
concern
that
the
EPA's
manifest
rule
is
not
the
correct
forum
for
standardizing
handling
codes,
since
this
was
already
done
as
part
of
the
Waste
Information
Needs
(
WIN)
Initiative
involving
EPA
and
the
States
(
Commenter
No.
35).
Another
commenter
stated
that
two
handling
code
tables
are
redundant
and
urged
EPA
to
remove
the
handling
codes
at
Part
264
and
replace
them
with
the
System
Type
Codes
of
the
Biennial
Report
(
Commenter
No.
12).
The
commenter
believes
this
would
improve
consistency
between
the
Biennial
Report
and
facility
permits.
Another
commenter
indicated
that
generators
do
not
need
the
handling
codes
in
Part
264,
since
they
complete
the
Biennial
Report
using
System
Type
Codes
(
Commenter
No.
25).
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
67
Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
feedback
on
their
preferences
for
type
of
handling
code.
In
reviewing
all
of
the
comments
received,
we
note
that
the
majority
of
commenters
support
the
use
of
the
Biennial
Report's
Management
Method
codes
over
the
alternative
lists
of
codes.
[
Refer
to
the
comments
and
Agency
responses
presented
earlier
in
this
section
for
additional
information
on
these
views.]
They
indicate
that
use
of
these
codes
on
the
manifest
will
facilitate
completion
of
the
Biennial
Report
and
manifest,
and
improve
data
quality
on
both
forms.

By
contrast,
commenter
feedback
on
the
alternative
handling
code
lists
was
mixed.
Some
commenters
support
a
streamlined
list
of
codes,
but
others
observe
that
a
streamlined
list
would
result
in
two
set
of
codes
 
one
for
the
Biennial
Report
and
the
other
for
the
manifest.
This
could
be
confusing.
Some
commenters
support
use
of
the
handling
codes
at
Part
264,
but
others
believe
the
table
is
too
complex
or
would
be
redundant
with
the
Biennial
Report's
codes.

In
the
end,
we
found
the
arguments
in
favor
of
the
Management
Method
Codes
used
in
biennial
reporting
most
compelling
and
have
finalized
the
rule
to
require
these
codes.

We
do
not
agree
with
comments
that
the
Management
Method
Codes
used
for
biennial
reporting
are
too
detailed
and
confusing.
As
several
commenters
point
out,
EPA
recently
streamlined
and
simplified
them.

Comment:
We
heard
from
one
commenter
who
noted
that,
in
the
preamble,
EPA
states
that
EPA
Regions
compare
biennial
report
data
to
manifests
to
identify,
among
other
things,
LQGs
or
TSDFs
that
need
assistance
in
improving
their
facility
plan"
(
66
FR
28255)
(
Commenter
No.
37).
The
commenter
asked
EPA
to
clarify
what
is
meant
by
"
facility
plan."
In
addition,
the
commenter
asked
for
clarification
on
how
the
comparing
of
biennial
report
data
to
manifest
data
will
identify
the
facilities
that
need
assistance.

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenter
for
its
question
on
our
use
of
the
term
"
facility
plan"
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule.
The
preamble
explained
common
EPA
uses
of
handling
codes.
Among
other
things,
the
preamble
indicated
that
the
EPA
Regions
compare
the
handling
codes
on
the
manifests
and
Biennial
Reports
to
identify
LQGs
and
TSDFs
that
need
assistance
in
improving
their
facility
plan.
We
used
the
term
"
facility
plan"
to
refer
generally
to
how
the
facility
is
designed
and
operated.
By
comparing
codes
on
the
manifest
and
Biennial
Report,
EPA
can
often
get
a
fuller
understanding
of
wastes
being
generated
and
managed
at
the
facility,
since
some
waste
handlers
mistakenly
omit
codes
on
one
document
or
the
other.
Comparing
these
documents
can
often
identify
such
omissions.
Having
a
fuller
understanding
of
handling
codes
can
be
useful
in
determining
if
a
facility
is
using
appropriate
hazardous
waste
management
units
and
emergency
equipment,
complying
with
appropriate
technical
requirements
(
e.
g.,
facility
inspections),
and
submitting
appropriate
paperwork
to
regulators.
This
helps
to
identify
facilities
that
may
need
compliance
assistance.

Comment:
We
heard
from
one
commenter
who
has
a
directory
of
a
large
majority
of
waste
management
facilities
in
the
U.
S.
(
Commenter
No.
6).
The
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
post
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
68
the
directory
on
the
Agency's
web
site
so
that
waste
handlers
could
verify
their
Management
Method
codes
and
generators
could
find
waste
management
services.

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenter
for
its
offer
to
provide
a
database
of
facilities.
However,
EPA
believes
that
resources
are
readily
available
to
waste
handlers
to
locate
appropriate
management
and
disposal
capacity.

3.10.7
Block
for
Waste
Codes
Comment:
In
our
proposal,
we
sought
to:
(
1)
redesignate
the
block
for
entering
RCRA
waste
numbers
as
Block
A
and
to
title
this
block
"
Waste
Codes;"
(
2)
expand
the
space
provided
for
entering
waste
codes
to
accommodate
up
to
six
codes
for
each
material
identified
with
a
distinct
DOT
description;
(
3)
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)
establish
a
toxicity­
based
hierarchical
approach
for
determining
the
ordering
of
waste
codes
on
the
new
Waste
Codes
field.

We
heard
from
10
commenters
that
expressed
general
support
for
proposed
Block
A
(
Commenter
Nos.
16,
27,
29,
44,
47,
51,
56,
59,
61,
and
62).
One
of
these
commenters
urged
EPA
to
encourage
States
to
incorporate
the
requirement
for
completion
of
Block
A
into
their
own
regulations
(
Commenter
No.
47).
The
commenter
also
believes
TSDFs
should
be
required
to
inform
their
generator
customers
of
the
destination
of
their
shipment
so
the
generator
can
determinate
the
appropriate
requirements.

Three
of
these
commenters
indicated
that
the
Block
A
procedures
would
not
result
in
any
significant
burden
to
waste
handlers
(
Commenter
Nos.
16,
29,
and
51).
One
of
these
commenters
stated
that
Block
A
would
reduce
the
burden
under
the
Biennial
Report,
especially
when
used
in
conjunction
with
electronic
manifesting
(
Commenter
No.
29).

We
heard
from
17
commenters
with
the
following
suggestions,
questions,
or
concerns
on
the
format
of
Block
A
or
the
general
procedures
for
completing
it
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
6,
12,
15,
17,
22,
29,
31,
35,
48,
51,
53,
54,
57,
60,
61,
and
63):

°
Reduce
the
size
of
Block
A
by
reducing
the
number
of
waste
codes
from
six
to
four
(
Commenter
Nos.
17
and
57).

°
Use
side­
by­
side
Federal
and
State
waste
codes
with
no
partitions
or
wording
in
the
blocks
(
Commenter
No.
6).

°
Require
entering
only
the
three
most
applicable
Federal
codes
and
three
State
waste
codes
and
labels
to
describe
the
waste
(
Commenter
No.
60).

°
Enable
entering
up
to
six
Federal
waste
codes
in
Block
A
(
Commenter
Nos.
6
and
63).
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
69
°
Enable
entering
up
to
eight
waste
codes
in
Block
A
(
Commenter
Nos.
35
and
63).

°
Limit
the
number
of
waste
codes
on
the
manifest
to
six
(
Commenter
No.
31).

°
Add
a
fourth
block
for
Federal
waste
code
and
leave
the
remaining
two
for
generating
State/
destination
State
codes
(
Commenter
No.
57).

°
Require
the
entry
of
only
up
to
six
waste
codes
on
the
manifest
and
allow
for
referencing
the
LDR
notification
form
for
any
remaining
waste
codes,
since
the
LDR
paperwork
should
include
all
applicable
waste
codes
(
Commenter
No.
53).

°
Require
the
completion
of
only
Federal
waste
codes
on
the
manifest
and
work
with
States
to
harmonize
their
waste
code
lists
with
the
Federal
list
(
Commenter
No.
51).

°
Work
with
the
States
and
ASTSWMO
to
develop
a
single
consistent
list
of
State
codes
(
Commenter
No.
53).

°
Do
not
differentiate
between
space
for
Federal
and
State
waste
codes
on
the
manifest
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
54,
and
63).

°
Establish
16
digits
on
each
line
of
Block
A:
four
four­
digit
codes
on
top
line
and
16
digits
on
the
second
line
(
Commenter
Nos.
54
and
63).

°
On
the
electronic
manifest,
provide
space
for
more
than
six
codes
(
Commenter
Nos.
12
and
29).

°
Clarify
that
Federal
waste
codes
are
required
for
all
Federal
hazardous
wastes
and
that
State
codes
are
required
where
mandated
by
the
State;
provide
an
exemption
from
full
listing
requirements
for
lab
packs
(
Commenter
No.
12).

°
Clarify
whether
six
Federal
waste
codes
can
be
entered
if
the
States
do
not
have
their
own
codes
(
Commenter
No.
53).

°
Do
not
require
State
waste
codes
for
Federally
regulated
hazardous
waste
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
15,
and
61).

°
Do
not
design
the
manifest
for
completion
of
State­
only
hazardous
waste
(
Commenter
No.
4).

°
Require
completion
of
State
codes
for
non­
RCRA
wastes
only
if
required
by
the
destination
State,
not
the
Generator
State
(
Commenter
No.
51).
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
70
°
Provide
a
way
to
distinguish
between
Generator
State
versus
Destination
State
waste
codes
in
Block
A
(
Commenter
No.
48).

°
Require
each
State
to
clarify
through
regulations
or
guidance
those
State
or
Federal
waste
codes
that
the
State
will
require
on
the
manifest
(
Commenter
Nos.
12
and
22).

°
Continue
efforts
to
make
Block
A
more
uniform
and
streamlined
to
relieve
waste
handlers
of
burden,
since
many
States
require
the
use
of
their
own
waste
codes
(
Commenter
No.
60).

°
Continue
simplifying
Block
A,
as
it
is
confusing
to
complete,
which
could
lead
to
quality
problems
(
Commenter
No.
31).

We
heard
from
three
commenters
expressing
concern
about
the
proposed
use
of
Block
10
(
i.
e.,
the
block
for
US
DOT
shipping
descriptions
on
the
"
old"
form)
and/
or
14
in
regard
to
waste
codes
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
30,
and
63).
Two
commenters
noted
that
the
DOT
hierarchy
(
lowest
reportable
quantity)
bears
no
relation
to
the
proposed
toxicity
hierarchy
for
waste
codes;
and
therefore,
Block
10
should
not
be
used
(
Commenter
Nos.
6
and
63).
Another
commenter
believes
that
the
proposed
use
of
Box
14
is
confusing
and
could
prompt
generators
to
simply
lump
all
of
the
waste
into
the
three
waste
codes
in
Block
A
(
Commenter
No.
30).

We
heard
from
three
commenters
expressing
support
for
the
proposed
use
of
Block
14
in
regard
to
waste
codes
(
Commenter
Nos.
26,
29,
and
54).
One
commenter
expressed
support
for
use
of
Box
14
for
waste
codes,
but
suggested
that
the
electronic
manifest
system
should
allow
for
more
than
3
Federal
and
3
State
waste
codes
for
a
specific
line
item
(
Commenter
No.
29).
The
commenter
suggested
that,
when
more
than
3
are
utilized,
they
should
be
printed
in
Block
14
but
stored
in
the
new
Block
A.
The
other
two
commenters
supported
use
of
Block
14
for
any
additional
waste
codes
(
Commenter
Nos.
26
and
54).

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
many
suggestions
on
the
formatting
and
use
of
the
waste
code
block.

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.
We
acknowledge
the
several
comments
from
commenters
(
including
two
large
TSDFs
with
vast
experience
in
waste
manifesting)
who
indicated
that
four
Federal
codes
ordinarily
would
be
sufficient.
A
number
of
other
commenters
also
support
up
to
six
waste
codes.
Because
of
this,
the
final
rule
states
that
up
to
six
waste
codes
should
be
included
in
the
waste
code
blocks
of
the
final
form,
i.
e.,
Block
13.

In
addition,
waste
codes
must
continue
to
be
included
in
the
Block
9b
"
U.
S.
DOT
Descriptions"
where
a
RCRA
waste
code
is
required
to
complete
a
shipping
description
for
a
hazardous
waste
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
71
with
the
DOT
"
not
otherwise
specified"
or
"
n.
o.
s"
notation.
However,
it
is
not
necessary
to
list
any
additional
waste
codes
in
Block
14
that
might
be
applicable
to
a
waste
stream.
We
are
persuaded
that
the
provision
of
space
for
six
codes
in
Block
13,
augmented
by
any
other
codes
required
to
be
included
in
Block
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
or
the
representativeness
of
the
codes
supplied.

We
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.
As
commenters
pointed
out,
this
approach
could
be
confusing
and
does
not
add
significant
value.
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.
However,
as
we
indicate
below
in
discussing
the
entry
of
State
codes,
users
must
enter
any
non­
redundant
State
codes
among
the
6
codes
to
be
entered
in
Block
13,
since
these
non­
redundant
codes
typically
have
special
significance
to
states'
tracking
and
fee
assessment
systems.

We
are
finalizing
the
waste
code
block
on
the
revised
form
without
any
hash
marks
between
individual
digits
or
characters,
since
commenters
indicated
that
the
inclusion
of
partitions
actually
could
frustrate
reporting
these
data
legibly.
We
also
revised
the
block
to
provide
space
for
six
waste
codes
for
each
waste
listed
in
Block
9.
Because
the
final
rule
requires
only
six
waste
codes
or
fewer
per
waste
listed
in
Block
9,
we
have
not
increased
the
size
of
the
waste
code
block
in
comparison
with
the
proposed
waste
code
block.

We
do
not
agree
with
comments
that
only
Federal
waste
codes
be
included
on
the
form.
We
note
that
State
RCRA
programs
may
be
larger
in
scope
and/
or
more
stringent
than
the
Federal
program.
A
number
of
States
currently
regulate
wastes
that
are
considered
hazardous
by
the
State
program
but
not
the
Federal
program.
These
"
State
only"
wastes
have
State­
specific
waste
codes.
Because
EPA
prefers
that
manifest
users
use
one
manifest
for
all
hazardous
waste
shipments,
the
final
rule
allows
for
the
completion
of
Federal
and
State
codes
on
the
form.
The
final
rule
contains
guidance
identifying
when
a
State
waste
code
is
not
redundant
with
a
Federal
code.
For
example,
...

We
do
not
see
a
compelling
reason
for
the
States
to
harmonize
their
waste
codes
with
the
Federal
codes
or
for
EPA
or
the
States
to
provide
additional
assistance
to
waste
handlers
on
waste
codes,
as
some
commenters
requested.
The
manifest
instructions
require
generators
to
enter
a
State
waste
code
when
it
is
not
redundant
with
a
Federal
code.
Therefore,
generators
will
enter
State
codes
only
in
thosesituations
where
a
State's
waste
code
is
not
redundant
with
an
existing
Federal
waste
code
for
the
same
waste.
In
addition,
because
generators
have
to
make
a
hazardous
waste
determination
for
their
wastes
and
in
effect
identify
the
waste
code
when
they
make
their
determinations
for
both
Federally
regulated
and
State
regulated
hazardous
wastes,,
we
do
not
believe
it
will
be
onerous
for
the
generator
to
enter
the
State
codes
for
State­
only
wastes.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
72
Comment:
We
heard
from
four
commenters
who
expressed
their
general
support
for
the
proposed
hierarchy
(
Commenter
Nos.
17,
31,
33,
and
61).
One
commenter
expressed
its
general
support,
but
urged
EPA
not
to
give
States
the
option
to
prioritize
ignitable
and
reactive
wastes
in
the
hierarchy
as
proposed
(
Commenter
No.
61).
The
commenter
believes
that
State­
by­
State
variations
would
complicate
matters
for
emergency
responders
and
others.
The
commenter
also
urged
EPA
to
give
waste
handlers
clear
discretion
to
use
the
waste
codes
that
most
accurately
apply
to
the
waste,
considering
that
some
waste
codes
attach
to
a
waste
even
though
they
no
longer
accurately
describe
the
waste
(
e.
g.,
for
derived­
from
waste).
The
commenter
also
asked
for
clarification
on
how
a
manifest
user
should
ascertain
the
correct
codes
for
the
hierarchy
in
view
of
the
mixture
and
derived­
from
rules.
Another
commenter
expressed
its
support
for
the
hierarchy,
but
recommended
that
EPA
give
priority
to
the
characteristics
for
ignitability
and
reactivity,
followed
by
P­
listed
wastes,
and
not
focus
exclusively
on
toxicity
wastes
(
Commenter
No.
33).

We
heard
from
one
commenter
who
indicated
its
support
for
an
option
to
identify
ignitable
and
reactive
hazard
codes
in
preference
to
the
typical
hierarchical
structure
(
Commenter
No.
57).

We
heard
from
26
commenters
that
raised
concerns,
questions,
or
opposition
to
the
proposed
toxicity
hierarchy
for
waste
codes
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
13,
16,
17,
18,
21,
23,
24,
25,
26,
28,
29,
34,
35,
37,
43,
45,
50,
51,
53,
54,
57,
59,
60,
61,
and
63).

Six
commenters
suggested
that
DOT's
hierarchy
(
e.
g.,
hazard
class,
packing
group)
is
already
in
place
for
determining
the
hazard
of
wastes
shipped
and
that
the
proposed
hierarchy
is
not
needed
(
Commenter
Nos.
25,
26,
45,
51,
60,
and
63).
One
of
the
commenters
pointed
out
that
waste
handlers
are
already
familiar
with
the
DOT
process,
and
using
the
DOT
approach
would
harmonize
the
manifest
with
the
DOT
regulations,
potentially
reducing
non­
compliance
(
Commenter
No.
51).

Another
commenter
expressed
a
preference
for
a
hierarchy
based
on
the
highest
percentage
of
waste
in
the
shipment
based
on
weight
or
volume
(
Commenter
No.
50).
The
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
refer
to
the
State
of
New
Jersey's
hierarchy
for
waste
codes,
since
New
Jersey's
regulations
follow
this
approach.
Two
other
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
EPA
hierarchy
is
not
needed
because
emergency
response
personnel
use
the
DOT
description
in
emergencies
(
Commenter
Nos.
25
and
63).
Three
commenters
pointed
out
that
waste
codes
have
little
bearing
on
the
toxicity
or
hazard
of
a
waste,
especially
mixture
and
derived­
from
wastes
(
Commenter
Nos.
21,
37
and
43).
One
of
these
commenters
disagreed
with
EPA's
statements
that
(
1)
the
manifest
describes
the
waste
in
terms
of
its
toxicity,
which
will
be
useful
to
emergency
responders;
(
2)
Federal
and
State
waste
codes
are
important
to
States
and
waste
handlers
in
describing
the
waste;
and
(
3)
waste
codes
generically
indicate
the
toxicity
of
the
waste
(
Commenter
No.
37).
The
commenter
believes
that
the
manifest
does
not
identify
the
waste
in
terms
of
toxicity,
since
waste
codes
do
not
generically
indicate
toxicity
of
a
waste
or
waste
compatibility.
The
commenter
also
stated
that
waste
codes
do
not
provide
useful
information
on
a
waste's
physical
or
chemical
properties
or
characteristics.
Another
commenter
stated
that
EPA
should
not
require
a
hierarchy
since
all
waste
codes
are
important
and
may
be
used
to
supplement
or
substitute
for
the
Biennial
Report
information
and
for
the
designated
TSDF
to
determine
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
73
acceptability
of
the
waste
(
Commenter
No.
54).
A
number
of
commenters
indicated
that
many
waste
handlers
already
have
a
knowledge
and
systems
in
place
to
track
their
hazardous
waste
and
that
the
proposed
hierarchy
would
unnecessarily
complicate
matters
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
24,
25,
28,
43,
and
45).
Another
commenter
pointed
out
that
most
wastes
have
four
or
fewer
waste
codes
and
thus
the
hierarchy
is
not
needed
(
Commenter
No.
59).
Two
commenters
pointed
out
that,
under
certain
conditions,
the
hierarchy
might
not
lead
to
listing
the
most
dangerous
wastes
first
(
Commenter
Nos.
24
and
37).
One
of
these
commenters
disagreed,
for
example,
that
all
P­
listed
wastes
are
generically
more
toxic
or
a
higher
hazard
than
all
U­
listed
wastes
(
Commenter
No.
37).
One
commenter
indicated
that
incorporation
of
the
hierarchy
into
its
existing
system
could
be
difficult
but
could
be
done
(
Commenter
No.
13).

Another
commenter
expressed
concern
about
the
requirement
that,
if
the
manifest
has
more
than
one
waste
code
within
a
particular
grouping
(
e.
g.,
multiple
F
codes),
the
hierarchy
is
to
be
listed
on
what
is
believed
to
be
most
representative
(
Commenter
No.
53).
The
commenter
believes
this
requirement
could
be
burdensome,
since
a
waste
may
include
an
exceedingly
high
number
of
waste
codes
that
could
be
difficult
for
the
shipper
to
evaluate.
The
commenter
also
pointed
out
that
certain
States
do
not
require
waste
codes.
Therefore,
the
commenter
believes
it
would
not
be
meaningful
to
follow
the
hierarchy.

Four
commenters
asked
EPA
to
provide
additional
clarification
on
the
procedures
for
completing
the
hierarchy
for
ignitable
and
reactive
wastes
(
Commenter
Nos.
16,
18,
34,
and
61).

Another
commenter
urged
EPA
not
to
address
ignitable
waste
in
the
hierarchy
since
the
hazards
of
ignitable
wastes
are
already
addressed
by
DOT
information
(
Commenter
No.
17).
Two
commenters
asked
EPA
not
to
reshuffle
the
hierarchy
for
ignitable
or
reactive
wastes
(
Commenter
Nos.
35
and
63).
One
commenter
asked
for
EPA
to
place
poisonous
wastes
at
the
top
of
the
hierarchy
(
Commenter
No.
29).

Another
commenter
indicated
its
support
for
an
option
that
allows
identification
of
the
chemical(
s)
that
are
present
at
the
highest
concentration/
toxicity
in
lieu
of
the
current
structure
(
Commenter
No.
57).

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
many
views
on
the
proposed
waste
code
hierarchy.
We
are
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.
Because
the
final
form
includes
space
for
six
codes,
it
is
not
critical
to
order
them
with
a
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
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
74
facilities.
Rather,
we
found
the
comments
persuasive
that
emergency
responders
rely
far
more
heavily
on
the
DOT
hazard
classification
system
and
nomenclature
when
identifying
appropriate
response
actions
in
emergencies.
Likewise,
the
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
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.

Comment:
We
heard
from
11
commenters
with
suggested
approaches
for
dealing
with
waste
codes
for
lab
packs,
spent
carbon,
and
incinerator
ash
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
16,
18,
21,
23,
25,
26,
28,
33,
43,
and
59).

Five
commenters
opposed
the
use
of
generic
waste
codes
for
lab
packs,
spent
carbon,
and
incinerator
ash
(
Commenter
Nos.
21,
23,
25,
28,
and
43).
Several
commenters
indicated
that
DOT
requires
a
listing
of
each
item
in
a
lab
pack
and
hence
waste
handlers
would
not
see
any
benefit
from
a
generic
code
for
the
manifest
(
Commenter
Nos.
21,
25,
28).
One
of
these
commenters
expressed
a
similar
belief
for
carbon
wastes
(
Commenter
No.
28).
The
commenter
also
pointed
out
that,
as
another
complication,
a
generic
code
meant
for
incinerator
ash
potentially
derived
from
any
hazardous
waste
would
not
be
suited
for
all
incinerator
ash,
and
could
pose
additional
burdens
to
waste
handlers
(
e.
g.,
potentially
innocuous
ash
derived
from
combustion
of
non­
toxic,
non­
metals
bearing
wastes
could
be
misrepresented
by
a
code
that
is
meant
to
apply
to
all
hazardous
wastes).
However,
the
commenter
does
support
changes
to
how
EPA
regulates
combustion
residues
under
RCRA
(
i.
e.,
hazardous
waste
should
be
coded
based
on
specific
characteristics
that
represent
potential
hazards
to
human
health
and
the
environment,
not
according
to
the
process
or
equipment
from
which
it
is
derived).
Another
commenter
added
that
the
use
of
the
actual
waste
codes
is
needed
to
identify
LDR
treatment
standards,
and
thus,
the
generic
code
could
be
disruptive
to
waste
management
and
increase
costs
(
Commenter
No.
21).
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
75
Another
commenter
stated
that
it
can
be
confusing
to
comply
with
RCRA
reporting
requirements
when
an
incinerator
handles
multiple
listed
hazardous
wastes;
however,
the
commenter
questions
whether
these
requirements
are
so
burdensome
as
to
justify
creation
of
a
new
hazardous
waste
code
for
incinerator
ash
(
Commenter
No.
23).
The
commenter
questions
whether
reliance
on
the
"
derived­
from"
rule
is
an
appropriate
basis
for
creating
a
new
incinerator
ash
waste
code
listing
(
i.
e.,
the
commenter
believes
that
the
production
of
incinerator
ash
can
be
seen
as
a
new
point
of
generation;
and
hence,
the
subsequent
management
that
would
be
environmentally
warranted
for
the
ash
could
be
significantly
different
from
those
for
the
original
waste
(
unlike
the
case
for
multi­
source
leachate)).
The
commenter
also
believes
that
creating
a
new
incinerator
ash
waste
code
would
deviate
from
the
Agency's
May
1999
policy
regarding
LDR
treatment
requirements.

Six
commenters
supported
the
use
of
generic
waste
codes
for
lab
packs,
spent
carbon,
and/
or
incinerator
ash
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
16,
18,
26,
33,
and
59).
Two
commenters
pointed
out
that,
since
these
waste
streams
typically
have
a
multitude
of
applicable
codes,
a
universal
code
used
to
identify
these
wastes
would
greatly
reduce
the
time
spent
on
the
hazardous
waste
classification
process,
and
would
reduce
the
reporting
burden
and
save
valuable
space
on
the
manifest
form
(
Commenter
Nos.
16
and
18).
Another
commenter
indicated
that
most
generators
would
prefer,
and
it
would
be
less
confusing,
to
have
a
new
code
or
an
explanation
of
how
to
best
describe
the
wastes
rather
than
impose
a
hierarchy
(
Commenter
No.
59).
Another
commenter
believes
a
new
F­
code
would
be
helpful
for
incinerator
ash
in
situations
involving
waste
remaining
in
the
bottom
of
a
delivering
truck
after
unloading
(
Commenter
No.
26).
Two
commenters
asked
for
a
special
waste
code
designation
for
lab
packs
(
Commenter
Nos.
12
and
33).
One
of
these
commenters
indicated
that,
as
an
alternative
to
a
special
waste
code,
EPA
could
exempt
lab
packs
from
the
requirement
to
list
all
waste
codes
on
the
manifest
(
Commenter
No.
12).

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
feedback
on
our
question
regarding
generic
waste
codes.
In
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule,
we
clarified
that
we
were
not
proposing
to
establish
generic
waste
codes
for
lab
packs,
spent
carbon,
or
incinerator
ash,
but
that
we
might
pursue
this
in
the
future
as
resources
permit
and
welcomed
comments
on
codification
of
the
codes.

We
were
impressed
that
commenters
were
evenly
divided
in
regard
to
generic
codes.
We
agree
that
a
number
of
complications
arise
when
applying
generic
codes
to
a
site­
specific
waste.
We
found
the
commenter's
argument
compelling
that
a
generic
code
meant
for
incinerator
ash
potentially
derived
from
any
hazardous
waste
would
not
be
suited
for
all
incinerator
ash
and
could
pose
additional
burdens
to
waste
handlers
(
e.
g.,
potentially
innocuous
ash
derived
from
combustion
of
non­
toxic,
non­
metals
bearing
wastes
could
be
misrepresented
by
a
code
that
is
meant
to
apply
to
all
hazardous
wastes).
We
also
appreciated
the
comment
that
the
use
of
waste
codes
is
needed
to
identify
LDR
treatment
standards,
and
thus,
a
generic
code
could
be
disruptive
to
waste
management
and
increase
costs.

We
were
also
impressed
by
the
comments
received
in
favor
of
the
generic
codes.
For
example,
we
appreciated
comments
that
a
generic
code
would
reduce
the
time
spent
on
the
hazardous
waste
classification
process
and
reporting.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
76
As
indicated
in
our
proposed
rule,
we
will
continue
to
evaluate
the
need
for
generic
codes
and
consider
the
many
issues
raised
by
the
commenters
and
other
stakeholders.
We
may
undertake
a
regulatory
action
if
a
need
is
identified
and
resources
are
available.

3.10.8
Mandatory
Codes
Comment:
We
heard
from
26
commenters
expressing
their
support
for
mandatory
waste
codes
and/
or
handling
codes
(
Commenter
Nos.
1,
4,
6,
12,
16,
17,
19,
21,
22,
23,
24,
26,
27,
29,
31,
33,
34,
35,
40,
51,
53,
54,
59,
60,
61,
and
63).
A
number
of
commenters
believe
that
mandatory
completion
would
eliminate
State­
by­
State
variability
and
improve
manifest
data
quality
(
Commenter
Nos.
16,
17,
22,
24,
29,
33,
35,
51,
60,
61,
and
63).
In
addition
to
making
the
codes
mandatory,
one
commenter
encouraged
EPA
to
standardize
the
data
elements
among
States;
if
EPA
requires
mandatory
completion
without
standardizing
the
data
elements,
waste
handlers'
burden
will
remain
high
(
Commenter
No.
60).
A
number
of
comments
supported
mandatory
completion
of
the
codes
because
it
would
make
the
manifest
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
the
Biennial
Report
and
help
in
completion
of
these
reports
(
Commenter
Nos.
1,
6,
12,
16,
17,
19,
21,
22,
23,
27,
28,
29,
31,
33,
35,
51,
53,
54,
59,
60,
61,
and
63).

One
commenter
believes
mandatory
codes
would
be
useful
in
the
emergency
response
to
releases
(
Commenter
No.
35).
Another
commenter
indicated
that
mandatory
completion
of
waste
codes
could
be
a
burden
for
lab
packs
and
that
an
exception
or
special
designation
for
lab
packs
might
be
justified
(
Commenter
No.
12).
Another
commenter
indicated
that,
if
EPA
plans
to
collect
manifest­
level
data
in
lieu
of
the
Hazardous
Waste
Report,
this
would
be
further
reason
to
mandate
completion
of
the
codes
(
Commenter
No.
59).
A
number
of
commenters
indicated
that
the
mandatory
codes
would
assist
States
in
compliance
tracking
and
enforcement
and
program
implementation
(
e.
g.,
collection
of
fees)
(
Commenter
Nos.
29,
33,
35,
and
40).

We
heard
from
six
commenters
expressing
their
opposition
to
mandatory
waste
codes
and/
or
handling
codes
(
Commenter
Nos.
10,
11,
25,
28,
55,
and
57).
Four
commenters
expressed
doubt
that
mandatory
codes
would
decrease
burden
under
the
manifest
or
Biennial
Reporting
system,
and
suggested
that
mandatory
codes
could
increase
burden
(
Commenter
Nos.
10,
11,
25,
and
55).
One
of
these
commenters
indicated
that
its
company
already
uses
a
system
from
which
data
are
extracted
for
the
Biennial
Report
and
that
mandatory
codes
would
not
reduce
its
Biennial
Reporting
burden
(
Commenter
No.
25).
Two
commenters
indicated
that
EPA
should
not
collect
information
via
the
manifest
that
is
already
collected
via
the
Biennial
Report
(
Commenter
Nos.
10
and
57).
One
of
these
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
manifest
should
function
primarily
as
a
transportation
rather
than
an
information­
gathering
document
(
Commenter
No.
57).
The
commenter
indicated
that
the
Biennial
Report
already
captures
waste
codes
and
handling
codes.
The
commenter
believes
that
if
EPA
mandates
them
on
the
manifest,
this
would
be
redundant,
with
no
relevance
to
the
shipping
activity
and
provide
little
benefit
to
States.

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
views
on
whether
handling
codes
and
waste
codes
should
be
mandatory
on
the
manifest.
We
strongly
believe
that
handling
codes
and
waste
codes
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
77
support
the
goals
of
RCRA's
cradle­
to­
grave
waste
management
system.
Waste
codes
can
help
inform
the
States
of
wastes
being
shipping
into
and
out
of
their
boundaries,
assisting
in
their
compliance
tracking
and
enforcement.
Handling
codes
can
help
the
generator
learn
how
its
waste
is
being
managed
by
the
designated
TSDF.

In
the
proposed
rule,
we
proposed
to
retain
the
revised
handling
codes
and
waste
codes
as
State­
optional
fields,
but
requested
comment
on
whether
to
deem
them
mandatory
fields.
The
great
majority
of
commenters
have
expressed
a
strong
desire
to
designate
the
handling
codes
and
waste
codes
as
mandatory
for
use
in
all
States.
We
agree
with
these
commenters
in
the
benefits
of
eliminating
State­
by­
State
variability
by
making
them
mandatory.
This
will
improve
manifest
data
quality
and
reduce
waste
handlers'
confusion
and
burden
in
completing
the
form.
Because
the
final
rule
requires
the
entry
of
up
to
six
waste
codes
per
waste,
and
up
to
four
handling
codes
on
the
manifest,
we
do
not
believe
waste
handlers
would
be
unduly
burdened
by
entering
them.

We
agree
that
mandatory
completion
of
the
codes
will
make
the
manifest
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
the
Biennial
Report.
Rather
than
making
the
completion
of
these
forms
redundant,
we
believe
the
manifest
requirement
for
waste
codes
will
facilitate
completion
of
both
forms.

Because
of
these
reasons,
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
for
waste
codes
and
handling
codes
to
be
required
on
the
form.
The
final
rule
mandates
the
entry
of
waste
codes
and
handling
codes.

We
appreciate
the
comment
to
standardize
waste
codes
among
the
States.
As
described
earlier,
the
final
rule
requires
the
entry
of
the
Federal
waste
codes,
unless
a
waste
listed
on
the
form
does
not
have
a
Federal
code,
or
a
State
code
is
not
redundant
with
a
Federal
code.
In
such
cases,
a
State­
specific
code
must
be
entered.
Hence,
we
do
not
see
a
compelling
need
to
ask
States
to
standardize
their
waste
codes,
since
they
will
be
entered
only
for
non­
redundant
codes,
and
these
State
codes
typically
have
relevance
to
a
specific
State's
tracking
or
fee
assessment
systems.

4.0
Unmanifested
Waste
Reporting
Comment:
We
heard
from
12
commenters
on
the
proposed
procedures
for
unmanifested
waste
reports
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
21,
23,
27,
29,
48,
49,
51,
54,
59,
61,
and
63).

Five
commenters
supported
EPA's
proposed
approach
for
reporting
unmanifested
waste
shipments
(
Commenter
Nos.
21,
27,
49,
51,
and
61).

Eight
commenters
expressed
concern
or
raised
suggestions
on
the
proposed
procedures
for
unmanifested
waste
reports
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
6,
23,
29,
48,
54,
59
and
63).
A
number
of
commenters
suggested
that
the
manifest
be
revised
so
that
an
unmanifested
waste
report
could
be
submitted
using
a
manifest
(
e.
g.,
using
a
check
box)
(
Commenter
Nos.
6,
54,
59,
and
63).
One
commenter
expressed
concern
that
the
proposed
procedures
did
not
offer
a
standard
reporting
approach;
this
could
lead
to
data
quality
problems
(
Commenter
No.
48).
Rather,
the
commenter
believes
TSDFs
should
provide
a
report
using
company
letterhead
and
signed
by
a
company
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
78
official,
or
signed
with
an
electronic
signature
and
sent
to
a
State
reporting
clearinghouse.
Another
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
reinstate
EPA
forms
1300
A/
B
to
ensure
standardization
(
Commenter
No.
29).

One
commenter
noted
that
the
preamble
to
the
rule
states
that
TSDFs
may
submit
a
"
typed,
handwritten,
or
electronic
note"
(
Commenter
No.
23).
The
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
should
use
the
same
language
in
the
rule
text,
instead
of
referring
to
a
"
letter."
The
commenter
also
requested
that
EPA
clarify
the
exact
text
of
the
certification
to
which
40
CFR
264.76(
a)(
6)
refers
either
by
including
such
text
in
the
language
of
sections
264.76(
a)(
6)
and
265.76(
a)(
6),
or
by
referencing
its
location
in
another
section
of
the
regulations.

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
views
on
the
proposed
procedures
for
unmanifested
waste
reporting.
After
reviewing
the
comments,
we
are
in
favor
of
the
proposed
procedures
and
are
finalizing
them
at
40
CFR
264.76
and
265.76.

We
appreciate
the
suggestion
that
EPA
establish
procedures
and
a
check
box
for
TSDFs
so
that
a
manifest
could
be
filled
out
and
submitted
to
report
an
unmanifested
shipment.
However,
we
do
not
agree
that
such
an
approach
is
feasible.
As
laid
out
in
the
final
rule,
we
are
requesting
specific
data
from
the
TSDF
that
received
the
unmanifested
shipment,
and
we
do
not
believe
the
final
manifest
form
could
easily
accommodate
this
information.
For
example,
we
request
that
the
TSDF
provide
a
brief
explanation
of
why
the
waste
was
unmanifested
if
known.
The
final
manifest
does
not
include
space
where
the
explanation
would
reasonably
fit.
We
are
also
concerned
that,
should
a
State
receive
a
manifest
filled
out
for
an
unmanifested
waste
shipment,
the
State
could
confuse
it
with
a
form
that
had
accompanied
a
shipment
and
misfile
it.
Finally,
it
is
our
belief
that
unmanifested
shipments
are
highly
infrequent.
We
do
not
see
the
benefit
of
devoting
space
on
the
form
for
information
that
will
rarely
be
provided.

We
do
not
agree
with
the
comment
that
the
proposed
approach
would
lead
to
data
quality
problems.
We
believe
the
information
requested
is
relatively
straightforward.
Imposing
any
further
standardization
or
formality
to
it
would
be
unnecessary
given
the
simplicity
of
the
data
requested.

We
do
not
see
the
benefit
of
using
the
words
"
typed,
handwritten,
or
electronic
note"
in
the
requirement,
as
a
commenter
requested.
Information
collection
requirements
in
RCRA
do
not
normally
specify
that
a
submittal
must
be
typed,
handwritten,
or
electronic,
and
there
does
not
seem
to
be
any
resultant
confusion
or
concern
about
this.
Therefore,
we
have
not
followed
the
commenter's
suggestion.

In
response
to
the
commenter's
question,
EPA
clarifies
that
the
"
certification"
that
EPA
requires
in
40
CFR
§
262.76(
a)(
6)
is
simply
the
signature
of
the
TSDF
on
the
letter.
Thus,
the
commenter's
suggestion
that
we
specify
the
exact
text
of
the
necessary
certification
is
moot.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
79
5.0
Residues
And
Rejected
Loads
5.1
General
Comments
Comment:
We
heard
from
17
commenters
expressing
general
support
for
the
Agency's
effort
on
rejected
loads
and
non­
empty
containers
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
14,
17,
19,
20,
21,
22,
24,
27,
45,
47,
49,
54,
55,
59,
60
and
61).

Response:
We
thank
commenters
for
their
support
on
the
proposed
rule.
In
finalizing
the
rule,
we
have
modified
aspects
of
the
proposal
to
incorporate
commenters'
suggestions.
[
Please
refer
to
the
other
comment
summaries
and
Agency
responses
in
Section
5.0
of
this
document
for
additional
information
on
these
changes.]

Comment:
We
heard
from
two
commenters
asking
for
greater
definition
of
terms
regarding
rejected
loads
and
non­
empty
containers
(
Commenter
Nos.
17
and
48).
One
commenter
noted
that
the
proposed
language
uses
"
regulated
container
wastes,"
"
regulated
container
residues,"
"
residuals,"
"
residue,"
and
"
regulated
residues"
interchangeably
(
Commenter
No.
48).
The
commenter
recommended
that
a
convention
for
residual
wastes
versus
non­
residual
rejected
waste
be
adopted
and
used
throughout
the
regulations.
In
addition,
the
commenter
recommended
that
the
terms
"
receive"
and
"
accept"
be
fully
defined.
The
other
commenter
requested
that
the
proposed
definition
of
a
"
rejected
load"
be
expanded
to
include
those
situations
where
the
generator
specifically
requests
that
the
TSDF
return
their
waste
(
Commenter
No.
17).

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
suggestions
regarding
the
definition
of
container
residues
and
rejected
loads.
We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
the
rule
should
use
clear
and
consistent
terminology
when
referring
to
container
residues.
We
believe
the
final
rule
provides
a
simple,
unambiguous
definition
of
container
residues.
It
states
that
"
container
residues
are
residues
that
exceed
the
quantity
limits
for
`
empty'
containers
set
forth
in
40
CFR
261.7(
b)."
(
See
40
CFR
264.72(
a)(
3)
and
265.72(
a)(
3).)
The
rule
uses
the
terms
"
container
residues"
or,
for
brevity,
"
residues"
consistently
to
describe
these
shipments.

We
also
believe
the
final
rule
clearly
distinguishes
between
container
residues
versus
rejected
loads.
As
indicated
above,
the
rule
provides
that
a
container
residue
is
a
residue
that
exceeds
the
quantity
limits
for
"
empty"
containers
set
forth
in
40
CFR
261.7(
b).
The
rule
provides
that
a
rejected
load
is
a
full
or
partial
shipment
of
hazardous
waste
that
the
TSDF
cannot
accept.

Given
these
definitions,
we
find
the
regulatory
language
clear
enough
for
TSDFs
to
determine
whether
they
are
initiating
a
rejected
load
or
container
residue.
A
rejected
load
is
a
shipment
received
by
the
TSDF
that
it
cannot
accept
in
full
or
in
part
(
e.
g.,
because
it
does
not
have
adequate
capacity
or
its
permit
does
not
allow
it
to
accept
the
waste).
In
many
cases,
the
rejected
load
will
remain
in
its
original
shipping
package
until
reshipment.
A
container
residue,
on
the
other
hand,
is
waste
that
remains
in
the
container
after
an
effort
is
made
to
empty
it
and
that
exceeds
the
quantity
limits
for
"
empty"
containers
set
forth
in
40
CFR
261.7(
b).
In
most
cases,
a
container
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
80
residue
will
occur
when
a
TSDF
accepts
a
waste
shipment
and
subsequently
generates
a
container
residue
during
the
emptying
process.

In
any
case,
the
tracking
procedures
for
partially
rejected
loads
and
container
residues
at
40
CFR
264.72
and
265.72
are
basically
the
same.
Therefore,
there
should
not
be
any
serious
consequence
from
a
TSDF's
mistaking
one
type
of
shipment
for
the
other.
However,
the
procedures
for
tracking
full
load
rejections
can
be
quite
different
from
the
procedures
for
tracking
residues,
since
residue
re­
shipments
will
always
require
the
completion
of
a
new
manifest
by
the
TSDF,
whereas
a
full
load
rejection
can
be
tracked
on
the
original
manifest
in
certain
instances.

We
appreciate
the
commenters'
request
for
clarification
of
the
terms
"
receive"
and
"
accept."
We
believe
the
final
rule
is
clear
in
regard
to
the
meaning
of
these
terms.
The
final
rule
requires
a
designated
TSDF
that
receives
a
shipment
to
sign
the
manifest
indicating
receipt
of
the
shipment,
except
as
noted
in
the
discrepancy
space
on
the
manifest
(
e.
g.,
for
discrepancies).
The
final
rule
provides
that,
where
the
transporter
attempts
delivery
of
a
waste,
and
the
TSDF
cannot
accept
the
waste,
then
the
TSDF
must
follow
the
new
procedures
for
rejecting
the
waste
(
e.
g.,
see
40
CFR
264.71(
a)
and
264.72(
a)).

However,
a
TSDF's
initial
signature
acknowledging
receipt
of
a
shipment
does
not
constitute
an
acceptance
of
the
waste.
Acceptance
can
only
be
inferred
if
there
is
not
a
rejection
within
a
reasonable
period
of
time
after
the
delivery.
Rejection
can
occur
(
if
the
grounds
are
obvious)
upon
the
tender
of
delivery
by
the
transporter,
in
which
case,
there
is
no
receipt
of
the
waste.
Alternatively,
a
rejection
can
occur
after
delivery
and
receipt
of
a
waste,
where
closer
inspection
of
the
waste
materials
reveals
the
grounds
for
rejection.
Thus,
signing
a
manifest
to
indicate
receipt
of
wastes
tendered
for
delivery
at
a
TSDF
does
not
preclude
a
later
rejection
of
the
same
materials.

We
believe
this
language
is
clear
that,
in
all
cases,
the
designated
TSDF
must
either
sign
for
the
receipt
of
a
shipment
delivered
to
it,
or
it
must
sign
to
indicate
rejection
of
some
or
all
of
the
shipment.
We
believe
it
is
also
clear
that
a
designated
TSDF
that
has
received
a
shipment
but
cannot
accept
it
(
e.
g.,
because
of
permit
conditions)
must
follow
the
rejected
load
provisions.
As
such,
we
have
not
explicitly
defined
the
terms
"
receive"
and
"
accept"
in
the
regulations
because
we
believe
their
meaning
is
sufficiently
clear.
The
preamble
to
the
final
rule
provides
additional
clarification.
In
addition,
we
believe
that
the
terms
a
commonly
used
within
the
industry
and
will
not
be
unfamiliar
to
waste
handlers.

We
appreciate
the
comment
that
the
proposed
definition
of
a
"
rejected
load"
be
expanded
to
include
situations
where
the
generator
specifically
requests
that
the
TSDF
return
its
waste.
We
believe
that
the
final
rejected
load
provisions
could
address
this
type
of
situation.
If
a
TSDF
cannot
accept
a
shipment
based
on
the
generator's
phone
call,
it
would
reject
the
shipment
under
the
new
tracking
procedures.

Comment:
We
heard
from
one
commenter
indicating
that
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
refers
to
the
RCRA
empty
container
threshold
of
119
gallons
(
above
which
empty
is
defined
as
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
81
0.3
percent
of
volume
and
below
which
empty
is
defined
as
3
percent
of
volume)
(
Commenter
No.
33).
However,
the
commenter
indicated
that,
in
40
CFR
261.7(
b)(
1)(
ii),
the
threshold
is
"
110
gallons,"
not
"
119
gallons".
The
commenter
continued
that,
in
the
same
paragraph,
no
reference
is
made
to
the
one­
inch
criteria
for
"
empty,"
even
though
it
is
one
of
the
optional
criteria
for
defining
"
empty
container."
The
commenter
requested
clarification
as
to
whether
these
two
references
are
stated
correctly.

Response:
We
thank
the
commenter
for
its
question
regarding
the
definition
of
"
non­
empty
container."
In
response
to
the
question,
we
clarify
that
the
existing
regulations
at
40
CFR
261.7(
b)
define
a
"
non­
empty
container."
Notably,
paragraphs
261.7(
b)(
1)(
iii)(
A)
and
(
B)
are
the
only
paragraphs
in
the
section
that
make
reference
to
the
110
gallon
threshold.
The
commenter
is
incorrect
that
section
261.7(
b)(
1)(
ii)
refers
to
110
gallons.

The
proposed
rule
sought
to
change
the
threshold
of
a
non­
empty
container
from
110
to
119
gallons.
Therefore,
we
proposed
to
amend
all
mention
of
the
"
110
gallon"
threshold
in
the
regulations,
including
at
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)(
iii)(
A)
and
(
B),
by
substituting
the
119
gallon
threshold
for
the
110
gallon
threshold.
The
final
rule
codifies
this
change.
The
final
rule
leaves
the
rest
of
section
261.7
unchanged,
including
the
one­
inch
criteria,
among
other
things.

Comment:
We
heard
from
a
commenter
stating
that
the
distinction
between
undeliverable
waste
and
rejected
load
waste
is
unclear
(
Commenter
No.
33).
The
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
clarify
this
distinction,
since
the
proposed
handling
procedures
are
different
for
undeliverable
wastes
and
rejected
loads.

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenter
for
its
suggestion.
We
agree
that
the
rule
should
make
a
clear
distinction
between
undeliverable
waste
and
rejected
load
waste,
since
the
manifest
procedures
for
undeliverable
wastes
at
40
CFR
263.21
are
different
from
the
procedures
for
rejected
loads
at
264.72
and
265.72.
Accordingly,
the
final
rule
clearly
describes
both
types
of
shipments.
40
CFR
263.21(
b)(
1)
states
that,
if
a
hazardous
waste
cannot
be
delivered
to
the
designated
TSDF
(
or
other
party
designated
on
the
manifest)
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.
In
the
case
of
the
undeliverable
waste
scenario,
the
emergency
or
other
serious
condition
at
the
TSDF
prevents
the
transporter
from
attempting
or
tendering
delivery.
Significantly,
section
263.21(
b)(
1)
explicitly
excludes
rejected
loads
from
the
undeliverable
waste
category.
Rather,
this
section
is
intended
to
cover
such
situations
as
a
weather
emergency,
labor
strike,
or
a
fire
that
prevents
the
TSDF
from
conducting
its
normal
operations
and
taking
delivery
of
materials.
On
the
other
hand,
the
rejected
load
procedures
apply
to
those
shipments
where
the
TSDF
is
conducting
normal
operations,
and
the
transporter
is
able
to
tender
delivery
of
the
waste
to
the
facility.
The
rejection
can
occur
either
immediately
upon
tender
of
delivery
(
no
receipt
occurs)
or,
after
the
facility
has
signed
for
receipt
of
the
wastes
and
closer
examination
reveals
the
grounds
for
rejection.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
82
Comment:
We
heard
from
3
commenters
disagreeing
with
EPA
that
rejected
shipments
returned
to
the
generator
are
rare
(
Commenter
Nos.
28,
42
and
61).
They
believe
returned
shipments
are
frequent
and
that
this
should
be
reflected
in
the
final
rule.
One
commenter
does
not
believe
that
EPA
has
made
a
strong
case
that
the
existing
procedures
for
rejecting
shipments
have
resulted
in
the
mismanagement
of
hazardous
waste
(
Commenter
No.
28).

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
view
that
rejected
shipments
returned
to
the
generator
are
frequent
and
that
this
should
be
reflected
in
the
rule.
Despite
these
comments,
we
continue
to
believe
that,
in
comparison
with
the
millions
of
shipments
of
hazardous
waste
initiated
in
the
U.
S.
each
year,
the
percentage
of
shipments
returned
to
the
generator
is
relatively
small.
In
addition,
the
comments
on
this
issue
suggested
that
there
may
be
a
greater
concentration
of
return
shipments
within
the
fuel
blending
sector
of
hazardous
waste
management,
rather
than
among
all
the
waste
management
sectors.

Nonetheless,
we
believe
that
problem
shipments,
including
returned
loads,
pose
enough
of
a
concern
to
warrant
special
procedures.
We
have
codified
tracking
procedures
in
40
CFR
parts
262,
263,
264,
and
265
specifically
for
returned
shipments.
We
also
amended
40
CFR
260.10
to
expand
the
definition
of
"
designated
facility"
to
include
generators
that
receive
a
returned
shipment.
Therefore,
we
believe
we
have
given
returned
shipments
adequate
attention
in
the
rule.

We
acknowledge
the
comment
that
we
have
not
made
a
strong
case
that
the
existing
procedures
for
rejecting
shipments
have
resulted
in
the
mismanagement
of
hazardous
waste.
As
an
initial
point,
however,
we
stress
that
there
are
no
existing
rejected
load
or
container
residue
tracking
procedures
under
the
Federal
RCRA
program.
This
is
a
serious
gap
in
the
regulations.
Our
interest
in
announcing
consistent
Federal
procedures
in
this
area
was
not
premised
so
much
on
the
claim
that
there
was
mismanagement
of
these
materials;
rather,
our
purpose
was
to
reduce
confusion
and
burden
within
the
regulated
community
because
of
the
varying
policies
that
had
developed
over
the
years
in
the
absence
of
a
clear
and
consistent
Federal
policy.

In
this
regard,
the
new
tracking
procedures
for
rejected
loads
and
residues
are
needed
to
fully
satisfy
Congress's
mandate
that
the
manifest
track
effectively
all
off­
site
hazardous
waste
shipments.
As
we
explained
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule,
the
current
regulations
do
not
clearly
define
the
appropriate
manifest
procedures
for
residues
and
rejected
loads.
Over
the
years,
our
stakeholders
expressed
concern
that
it
is
unclear
whether
the
TSDF
should
contact
the
generator
or
whether
the
original
manifest
or
a
new
manifest
is
required
to
accompany
the
reshipment.
This
leads
to
potentially
inconsistent
or
inadequate
tracking
practices
in
which
the
rejected
waste
may
not
be
tracked
fully
during
all
segments
of
shipment
and
re­
shipment.
The
new
tracking
procedures
will
provide
clearer
documentation
of
these
rejected
load
and
residue
shipments,
and
increase
the
accountability
of
all
waste
handlers
in
the
manifest
cycle
for
their
transportation
and
management.

We
believe
the
rulemaking
docket
for
this
action
provides
ample
support
for
our
decision
to
establish
tracking
procedures
for
rejected
loads
and
container
residues
under
the
final
rule.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
83
5.2
TSDF
On­
Site
Custody
of
Rejected
Waste
and
Container
Residue
Comment:
We
heard
from
17
commenters
expressing
positions
on
TSDFs'
responsibilities
in
regard
to
on
site
management
of
rejected
loads
(
Commenter
Nos.
21,
23,
28,
29,
33,
35,
36,
38,
39,
46,
48,
49,
53,
54,
56,
60
and
63).

A
number
of
commenters
indicated
that
the
final
rule
should
resolve
any
potential
permit
violations
for
a
rejecting
TSDF
that
is
required
to
temporarily
hold
waste
onsite
before
reshipment,
in
cases
where
such
waste
storage
is
not
authorized
in
the
TSDF's
permit
(
Commenter
Nos.
21,
48,
53
and
60).
A
number
of
commenters
stated
that
the
rule
should
establish
standards
and
a
time
frame
for
TSDFs
to
properly
manage
the
waste
while
being
held
in
temporary
storage
(
Commenter
Nos.
21,
23,
29,
33,
35,
36,
38,
39,
48,
49,
53,
54,
56
and
60).
A
number
of
commenters
believe
a
90­
day
holding
period
is
appropriate
(
Commenter
Nos.
21,
53,
56
and
60).
Two
commenters
warned
against
requiring
TSDFs
to
build
new
capacity
for
rejected
waste,
as
this
would
be
unfair
and
unduly
burdensome
(
Commenter
Nos.
38
and
39).
Another
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
define
the
term
"
timely,"
and
recommended
a
quantitative
time
limit
(
e.
g.,
10
days)
(
Commenter
No.
48).
The
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
evaluate
situations
when
a
TSDF
rejects
a
waste
because
of
over­
capacity,
as
this
could
be
a
permit
violation
while
it
is
in
custody.
EPA
could
potentially
avoid
such
problems
by
clarifying
that
rejected
wastes
held
in
custody
are
"
in
transit."
In
this
way,
the
TSDF
could
set
the
rejected
waste
aside
in
an
unpermitted
transfer
facility
until
reshipment,
and
the
waste
would
not
be
subject
to
the
permit.
One
commenter
indicated
that
management
responsibility
be
left
up
to
the
contract
between
the
generator
and
TSDF,
except
as
otherwise
provided
in
the
TSDF's
permit
(
Commenter
No.
23).

Two
commenters
indicated
that
EPA
should
clarify
custody
questions
regarding
a
TSDF's
rejection
of
waste,
since
it
is
unclear
if
the
TSDF
or
transporter
is
responsible
for
the
waste
under
the
proposal
(
Commenter
Nos.
35
and
54).
The
two
commenters
indicated
that
the
rule's
"
temporary
custody
provisions"
appear
to
shift
responsibility
over
the
waste
from
the
transporter
onto
the
TSDF.
The
commenters
indicated
that
such
TSDF
custody
is
appropriate
for
non­
empty
containers,
but
not
shipments
that
are
still
in
transportation,
e.
g.,
shipments
rejected
at
receipt
(
Commenter
No.
54).
One
commenter
indicated
that
the
rule's
time
frame
for
rejection
is
impractical
because
TSDFs
would
have
15
days
to
process
their
manifest
paperwork
for
discrepancies;
however,
this
may
not
be
enough
time,
since
TSDFs
may
hold
the
waste
for
consolidation
or
treatment
(
Commenter
No.
28).

Response:
We
thank
commenters
for
their
views
on
TSDF's
secure
custody
of
rejected
loads
and
container
residues.

We
acknowledge
commenters'
request
for
greater
clarity
in
the
timeframe
for
TSDF's
custody
of
these
shipments.
Although
several
commenters
support
a
90­
day
timeframe,
we
believe
60
days
is
sufficient
for
the
rejecting
TSDF
to
reconcile
the
rejected
shipment
or
container
residue
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
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
84
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,
we
are
imposing
very
few
management
controls
on
temporary
staging
of
rejected
wastes
by
TSDFs,
as
opposed
to
the
more
explicit
and
detailed
requirements
that
apply
to
generator
accumulation
under
40
CFR
262.34(
a).
Since
there
are
few
requirements
imposed
on
TSDF
staging,
we
believe
that
this
circumstance
calls
for
a
shorter
time
period
for
temporary
staging
of
rejected
wastes,
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.
We
believe
that
in
most
cases,
TSDFs
staging
wastes
will
be
able
to
make
arrangements
for
forwarding
or
returning
waste
within
30
days
of
rejection,
and
that
providing
an
additional
30
days
(
60
days
total
for
the
staging
limit)
will
provide
a
more
than
adequate
margin
of
time
for
the
more
complex
or
difficult
arrangements
to
be
made
by
the
TSDFs.
Finally,
the
rejecting
TSDF
can
always
resort
to
returning
the
staged
waste
to
the
generator,
if
it
is
not
able
to
find
promptly
an
alternate
facility.
However,
we
recognize
that
some
States
currently
allow
TSDFs
to
stage
rejected
waste
shipments
at
their
facility
but
restrict
their
permits
to
require
staging
times
significantly
less
than
60
days.

Therefore,
we
have
revised
sections
264.72(
d)(
1)
and
265.72(
d)(
1)
so
that
rejecting
TSDFs
are
given
a
default
time
of
60
days
to
stage
a
rejected
waste
shipment,
unless
otherwise
specified
within
their
permits
or
a
more
stringent
state
regulation.

A
couple
of
commenters
expressed
concern
that
the
qualitative
term
"
timely
manner"
 
which
EPA
described
in
the
proposal
as
"
the
period
of
time
the
rejecting
facility
had
to
locate
an
alternate
facility
before
it
returned
the
rejected
waste
or
shipment
back
to
the
original
generator
 
has
too
broad
a
range
of
interpretation,
since
the
term
is
not
clearly
defined.
EPA
agrees
with
commenters
and
has
revised
the
final
rule
to
reflect
the
default
timeframe
of
60
days
or
some
other
timeframe
specified
in
a
permit
or
more
stringent
state
regulation.
Under
the
final
rule,
if
a
rejecting
facility
cannot
locate
an
alternate
facility
that
can
receive
the
waste
within
60
days
or
within
the
timeframe
specified
in
a
permit
or
more
stringent
state
regulation,
then
the
rejecting
facility
may
return
the
rejected
waste
or
container
residue
to
the
original
generator.
Further,
a
generator
cannot
withhold
consent
to
the
return
of
its
waste
by
a
rejecting
TSDF.

We
believe
these
procedures
place
an
appropriate
level
of
responsibility
on
the
TSDF
to
ensure
appropriate
custody
of
the
shipment.
The
rule
provides
that,
while
the
facility
is
making
arrangements
for
forwarding
rejected
wastes
or
residues
to
another
facility,
it
must
ensure
that
either
the
delivering
transporter
retains
custody
of
the
waste,
or,
the
facility
must
take
secure
custody
of
the
waste.
Because
the
TSDF
has
in
fact
signed
the
manifest
to
certify
receipt,
we
believe
the
TSDF,
more
so
than
the
transporter,
should
be
held
responsible
to
ensure
that
secure
custody
is
provided.
In
many
cases,
the
transporter
will
have
left
the
premises
by
the
time
the
TSDF
makes
a
decision
to
reject
the
waste.
However,
if
the
transporter
has
not
left
the
premises,
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
85
the
final
rule
gives
the
TSDF
flexibility
to
work
with
the
transporter
to
determine
which
party
should
retain
custody
of
the
waste.

We
received
mixed
feedback
from
commenters
on
whether
to
establish
additional
technical
controls
over
the
TSDF's
custody
of
the
shipments.
Some
commenters
asked
for
greater
technical
requirements,
while
others
asked
that
TSDFs
not
be
required
to
build
additional
capacity.
We
agree
with
commenters
that
the
rule
should
not
lay
out
prescriptive
requirements
for
TSDFs
to
follow,
since
each
facility's
situation
will
be
different
(
e.
g.,
timeframe
for
reshipment
and
quantity
of
waste
rejected
will
vary).
In
addition,
the
final
rule
imposes
a
60­
day
default
timeframe
for
reshipment
of
the
waste.
This
short
timeframe
will
minimize
the
risks
associated
with
custody
of
the
waste,
reducing
the
need
for
prescriptive
requirements.

Because
of
this,
the
final
rule
does
not
prescribe
technical
requirements,
but
requires
the
TSDF
or
transporter
to
provide
"
secure
custody,"
i.
e.,
to
hold
the
waste
in
a
protective
manner
until
reshipment
(
e.
g.,
prevent
unauthorized
access,
watch
for
and
address
spills
or
other
releases).
We
believe
this
approach
gives
the
TSDF
reasonable
flexibility
to
determine
how
best
to
provide
secure
custody,
given
its
own
specific
situation.
If
the
TSDF
has
any
questions
on
how
best
to
hold
the
waste
in
a
protective
manner
(
e.
g.,
if
it
is
unfamiliar
with
the
chemical
properties),
it
can
ask
the
generator
when
it
makes
the
phone
call
required
under
section
264.72(
d)(
1),
or
the
transporter
if
it
is
still
onsite.

We
acknowledge
the
comment
that
the
proposed
rule's
time
frame
for
rejection
is
impractical
because
TSDFs
would
have
15
days
to
process
their
manifest
paperwork
for
discrepancies.
The
commenter
believes
15
days
may
not
be
enough
time
to
reject
a
waste,
since
TSDFs
may
hold
the
waste
for
consolidation
or
treatment.
In
response,
we
are
clarifying
that,
under
the
final
rule,
the
TSDF
does
not
need
to
report
to
EPA
or
the
State
discrepancies
involving
rejected
loads
or
container
residues.
It
need
only
report
discrepancies
in
type
or
quantity.
In
addition,
if
a
TSDF
submits
a
discrepancy
report
within
15
days,
it
need
not
amend
this
report
if
it
subsequently
initiates
a
rejected
load
or
container
residue.
Rather,
a
TSDF
that
rejects
a
shipment
after
manifest
close­
out
must,
among
other
things,
amend
the
original
manifest,
retain
a
copy,
and
send
a
copy
to
the
generator
and
delivering
transporter,
as
provided
at
40
CFR
264.72(
g)
and
265.72(
g).

We
reject
the
comment
suggesting
that
wastes
rejected
by
TSDFs
should
be
considered
to
be
"
in
transit"
so
that
their
temporary
storage
at
the
rejecting
TSDF
could
be
viewed
as
unpermitted
storage
at
a
RCRA
transfer
facility.
Wastes
eligible
for
staging
at
a
TSDF
are
those
that
have
been
received
by
the
TSDF
but
cannot
be
accepted
for
management.
Under
hazardous
materials
law,
the
transportation
of
these
materials
ends
when
they
are
received
at
the
facility
and
the
transporter
leaves
the
premises.
Since
transportation
has
ended,
the
storage
at
the
facility
cannot
be
viewed
as
having
occurred
while
the
materials
are
"
in
transportation,"
and
thus
the
facility
cannot
be
viewed
as
a
RCRA
transfer
facility.
We
also
question
whether
the
transfer
facility
outcome
would
be
that
helpful
to
facilities
conducting
staging
of
rejected
wastes,
since
transfer
facilities
are
only
allowed
10
days
of
non­
permitted
storage.
We
believe
that
facilities
would,
in
many
cases,
need
more
than
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
86
10
days
to
contact
other
facilities
and
make
the
contractual
and
logistical
arrangements
needed
for
the
subsequent
transport
and
management
of
the
staged
wastes.

5.3
Responsible
Party
for
Deciding
Where
to
Send
the
Residue
or
Rejected
Load
Comment:
We
heard
from
24
commenters
regarding
the
proposed
procedures
for
the
designated
TSDF
to
contact
the
generator
to
determine
reshipment
of
the
rejected
waste
or
non­
empty
container
(
Commenter
Nos.
16,
18,
19,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
33,
36,
38,
39,
43,
45,
46,
48,
49,
53,
54,
55,
56,
59,
60,
and
64).

Eighteen
commenters
expressed
general
support
for
the
proposed
procedures
for
the
TSDF
to
contact
the
generator
before
reshipment
(
Commenter
Nos.
16,
18,
19,
21,
22,
23,
25,
33,
36,
38,
39,
43,
45,
46,
49,
53,
56
and
60).
A
number
of
these
commenters
stated
that
the
generator
should
be
given
the
opportunity
to
ensure
that
the
wastes
are
managed
by
handlers
approved
by
the
generator
(
Commenter
Nos.
16,
18,
21,
23
and
49).
One
commenter
indicated
that
the
TSDF
should
be
required
to
document
its
efforts
to
find
an
alternate
TSDF
before
sending
the
waste
back
to
the
generator
(
Commenter
No.
33).
The
commenter
indicated
that
returning
the
waste
to
the
generator
should
be
the
last
resort.
Two
commenters
urged
that
the
generator
should
have
the
sole
responsibility
for
determining
where
to
reship
the
waste
(
Commenter
Nos.
53
and
60).

One
commenter
indicated
that
a
TSDF
should
be
allowed
to
reship
the
waste
without
the
generator's
input
if
the
TSDF
determines
the
residues
are
the
result
of
gradual
accretion
in
the
bottom
of
the
container
and
not
associated
with
any
single
generator
(
Commenter
No.
55)

Two
commenters
indicated
that,
if
the
shipment
is
still
in
transit
(
i.
e.,
the
manifest
has
not
been
signed),
the
transporter
should
contact
the
generator
(
Commenter
Nos.
54
and
59).
The
commenters
added
that,
if
it
has
been
signed,
the
TSDF
should
contact
the
generator.

One
commenter
asked
for
clarification
on
situations
when
the
TSDF
and
generator
cannot
agree
on
an
alternate
facility
(
Commenter
No.
48).
The
commenter
added
that
the
issue
of
whether
a
transporter
or
TSDF
is
best
suited
to
contact
the
generator
is
best
resolved
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
(
e.
g.,
based
on
how
the
waste
is
transported
or
held
in
storage
at
the
TSDF).

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
views
on
the
proposed
procedures
for
the
TSDF
to
contact
the
generator
before
reshipment.
EPA
agrees
with
the
vast
majority
of
commenters
who
support
the
proposed
procedures.
We
agree
that
the
generator
should
be
given
the
opportunity
to
ensure
that
its
waste
is
managed
by
handlers
that
it
approves
of.
Because
the
generator
has
knowledge
about
its
waste
and
is
ultimately
responsible
for
decisions
about
the
disposition
of
it,
we
believe
the
designated
facility
must
contact
the
generator
for
his
or
her
decision
about
the
next
destination
for
a
rejected
load
or
residue.
This
approach
is
consistent
with
the
current
manifest
system,
which
places
the
primary
burden
on
generators
to
ensure
that
their
hazardous
waste
shipments
arrive
at
their
proper
destination.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
87
We
also
agree
that,
if
the
generator
cannot
find
an
alternate
facility
in
a
timely
manner,
the
TSDF
should
have
the
right
to
return
the
waste
to
the
generator;
however,
this
should
be
the
last
resort.
We
have
codified
these
procedures
at
40
CFR
264.72(
d)(
1)
and
265.72(
d)(
1),
which
provide
that,
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
contact
the
generator
to
obtain
the
generator's
instructions
for
forwarding
the
waste
to
another
facility
that
can
manage
the
waste.
The
facility
must
send
the
waste
according
to
the
generator's
instructions.
If
it
is
impossible
to
locate
an
alternative
facility
that
can
promptly
receive
the
waste
within
60
days
from
the
rejection
(
unless
specified
otherwise
in
their
permit
or
more
stringent
state
regulation),
the
facility
may
return
the
rejected
waste
or
residue
to
the
generator.
Under
these
circumstances,
the
TSDF
need
not
have
the
consent
of
the
generator
to
return
rejected
waste
to
the
generator.

We
do
not
agree
that
the
TSDF
should
be
required
to
document
its
efforts
to
find
an
alternate
TSDF
before
sending
the
waste
back
to
the
generator.
The
final
rule
requires
the
TSDF
to
contact
the
generator
for
instructions
and
to
return
the
waste
only
as
a
last
resort.
This
is
sufficient
direction
for
the
TSDF
to
make
a
good
faith
effort
to
find
an
alternate
facility.
In
addition,
we
expect
that
generators
will
use
other
methods
to
ensure
that
the
shipment
is
sent
to
an
appropriate
alternate
facility,
such
as
contractual
arrangements
or
other
instructions
for
the
TSDF
to
follow.
We
also
do
not
believe
such
documentation
would
be
used
often
by
EPA
or
State
staff
in
enforcement
actions,
given
their
current
workload
on
more
pressing
areas.
We
are
committed
to
streamlining
the
RCRA
regulations
and
avoiding
paperwork
that
will
rarely
be
used.

We
appreciate
the
commenter
who
raises
the
potential
difficulty
facing
a
TSDF
initiating
a
container
residue
when
it
determines
that
the
residues
are
the
result
of
gradual
accretion
in
the
bottom
of
the
container
and
not
associated
with
any
single
generator.
In
such
cases,
we
are
confident
that
TSDFs
will
find
ways
to
facilitate
compliance.
For
example,
a
TSDF
could
make
contingency
arrangements
with
its
customers
in
advance
of
their
shipment
(
e.
g.,
they
could
agree
on
the
alternate
TSDF
as
part
of
their
contract).
This
would
facilitate
compliance
under
the
tracking
procedures,
should
a
rejection
or
container
residue
arise.
As
with
any
RCRA
requirement,
a
TSDF
should
contact
its
authorized
State
to
determine
how
best
to
comply,
if
there
are
questions.

We
agree
with
the
comments
that,
if
the
shipment
is
still
in
transit
and
cannot
be
delivered
to
the
TSDF
(
i.
e.,
the
manifest
has
not
been
signed
by
the
TSDF
because
the
shipment
cannot
be
delivered
to
the
TSDF),
the
transporter
should
contact
the
generator.
If
it
has
been
signed,
the
TSDF
should
contact
the
generator.
We
have
codified
these
procedures
at
40
CFR
parts
263,
264
and
265.
Specifically,
40
CFR
263.21(
b)(
1)
provides
that,
if
the
hazardous
waste
cannot
be
delivered
to
the
next
transporter
or
designated
TSDF
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.
In
this
case,
the
shipment
is
still
in
transit
and
the
transporter
is
responsible
for
contacting
the
generator.
In
parts
264
and
265,
a
TSDF
that
receives
a
manifested
shipment
must
respond
to
the
manifest
(
i.
e.,
sign
it)
,
even
if
it
intends
to
reject
some
or
all
of
the
shipment.
If
the
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
88
TSDF
decides
to
initiate
a
rejected
load
or
container
residue,
it
must
contact
the
generator
and
carry
out
the
other
procedures
at
section
264.72
and
265.72.

Comment:
We
heard
from
10
commenters
expressing
their
support
for
EPA
to
require
TSDFs
to
obtain
and
document
the
generator's
authorization
prior
to
redirecting
a
rejected
shipment
or
nonempty
container
(
Commenter
Nos.
16,
18,
19,
23,
25,
29,
35,
48,
54
and
63).
Three
commenters
asked
EPA
to
require
documentation
of
the
generator's
authorization
on
the
manifest
(
Commenter
Nos.
35,
54
and
63).
Another
commenter
suggested
that
such
documentation
could
include
requiring
the
TSDF
to
note
the
call
in
the
operating
record
or
note
it
on
the
manifest
(
Commenter
No.
48).
Another
commenter
suggested
that
management
responsibility
for
rejected
waste
should
be
left
up
to
the
contract
between
the
generator
and
the
TSDF,
except
as
otherwise
provided
in
the
TSDF's
permit
(
Commenter
No.
23).

Response:
We
thank
commenters
for
their
support
for
EPA's
proposal
to
require
TSDFs
to
contact
the
generator
before
redirecting
a
rejected
shipment
or
container
residue.
However,
we
do
not
agree
that
the
TSDF
needs
to
document
the
generator's
authorization
prior
to
redirecting
a
rejected
shipment
or
nonempty
container.
The
final
rule
requires
the
rejecting
TSDF
to
contact
the
generator
to
obtain
the
generator's
instructions
for
forwarding
the
waste
to
another
facility
that
can
manage
the
waste.
Given
these
requirements,
we
do
not
believe
a
notation
on
the
manifest
or
in
the
facility's
operating
record
indicating
the
generator's
authorization
would
have
any
meaningful
purpose.
In
addition,
such
a
notation
would
make
the
manifest
form
more
cluttered
and
add
to
the
TSDF's
burden
in
completing
the
form.
Finally,
we
reiterate
that
in
cases
where
an
alternative
facility
cannot
be
located
or
agreed
to
by
the
generator
and
the
rejecting
facility,
or
the
facility
cannot
complete
arrangements
for
forwarding
the
rejected
waste
within
60
days
from
the
date
of
rejection,
the
facility
may
return
the
waste
to
the
generator
without
the
generator's
authorization
for
the
return.

5.4
Close­
out
of
Original
Manifest
and
Preparation
of
New
One
Comment:
We
heard
from
16
commenters
that
expressed
general
or
partial
support
for
the
proposed
procedures
for
closing
out
the
original
manifest
and
preparing
a
new
one
for
rejected
loads
and
non­
empty
containers
(
Commenter
Nos.
5,
17,
19,
22,
23,
24,
25,
29,
33,
35,
48,
51,
53,
55,
59
and
62).
Three
commenters
stated
that
the
use
of
the
original
manifest
is
appropriate
when
the
load
is
rejected
prior
to
acceptance,
but
a
new
manifest
is
appropriate
if
the
waste
has
been
accepted
(
Commenter
Nos.
35,
55
and
59).
A
number
of
commenters
stated
that
the
new
manifest
will
enhance
the
paper
trail
and
accountability
over
the
problem
waste
shipments
(
Commenter
Nos.
19,
24
and
51).
A
number
of
commenters
stated
that
the
proposal
sets
forth
one
consistent
approach
for
dealing
with
the
problem
shipments,
which
should
minimize
variations
and
misinterpretations
among
regulators
and
waste
handlers
(
Commenter
Nos.
23
and
48).
One
commenter
agreed
with
the
proposed
approach,
but
suggested
that,
as
an
alternative,
EPA
could
require
TSDFs
to
mark
up
the
original
manifest,
including
clear
documentation
that
the
facility
has
revised
the
manifest
(
e.
g.,
including
TSDF
operator's
initials
and
date
of
rejection)
(
Commenter
No.
5).
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
89
We
heard
from
18
commenters
who
expressed
partial
or
full
opposition
to
the
proposed
procedures
for
initiating
a
new
manifest
for
rejected
loads
and
container
residues
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
21,
25,
26,
34,
35,
38,
39,
42,
45,
52,
53,
55,
58,
59,
60,
63,
and
64).
A
number
of
commenters
stated
that
the
requirement
for
a
new
manifest
will
be
unduly
burdensome,
cause
difficulties
(
e.
g.,
causes
double­
counting
of
wastes
by
State
programs
and
creates
a
break
in
the
cradle­
to­
grave
chain),
and
is
unnecessary
(
Commenter
Nos.
21,
34,
35,
38,
39,
42,
52,
53,
60,
and
64).
One
of
these
commenters
estimated
that,
under
the
proposed
approach,
the
burden
to
its
member
facilities
would
increase
by
approximately
84
percent
if
all
rejected
loads
and
residues
required
a
new
manifest
(
Commenter
No.
53).
The
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
allow
the
use
of
the
original
manifest
if
the
shipment
is
being
returned
to
a
generator
who
is
also
a
TSDF.

Three
commenters
stated
that
the
use
of
the
original
manifest
is
appropriate
when
the
load
is
rejected
prior
to
acceptance,
but
a
new
manifest
is
appropriate
if
the
waste
has
been
accepted
(
Commenter
Nos.
35,
55
and
59).
One
commenter
stated
that
the
original
manifest,
or
a
new
one,
can
be
used
for
fully
rejected
loads,
depending
on
the
generator's
instructions
(
Commenter
No.
35).
The
commenter
added
that
partial
rejections
or
residues
can
also
be
manifested
using
the
original
manifest.
The
commenter
also
clarified
that,
if
the
shipment
is
still
in
transit,
the
liability
for
the
shipment
should
remain
with
the
transporter.
Another
commenter
stated
that
the
original
manifest
should
be
used
for
all
rejected
loads
and
non­
empty
containers,
except
for
partially
rejected
loads.
The
commenter
believes
partially
rejected
loads
require
a
new
manifest
(
Commenter
No.
60).
Another
commenter
supported
the
use
of
a
new
manifest
for
shipments
to
an
alternate
TSDF,
but
believes
that
the
original
manifest
should
be
used
for
a
rejected
heel
returned
to
the
generator
(
Commenter
No.
26).
The
commenter
indicated
that
tanker
trucks
routinely
have
a
heel
after
unloading,
and
triple
rinsing
the
tank
would
cause
operational
problems.
Hence,
a
new
manifest
would
be
required
for
each
tanker
truck
after
delivery,
which
would
be
unduly
burdensome.

Several
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
consider
making
further
modifications
to
the
new
manifest
to
facilitate
the
TSDF's
reshipment
using
the
manifest
originally
received
with
the
shipment
(
e.
g.,
create
extra
space
for
the
alternate
TSDF
signature)
(
Commenter
Nos.
21,
25,
35,
45,
60,
and
64).

One
commenter
suggested
that
the
original
manifest
should
accompany
the
shipment
back
to
the
generator
even
if
it
is
re­
manifested
(
Commenter
No.
56).

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
support,
concerns,
and
suggestions
regarding
the
proposed
requirement
for
a
new
manifest
when
re­
shipping
a
rejected
load
or
container
residue.

We
note
that
several
commenters
objected
to
preparing
a
second
manifest
in
all
rejected
waste
or
residue
scenarios
because
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
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
90
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.
A
number
of
these
commenters
suggested,
as
an
alternative,
that
we
revise
the
manifest
to
allow
waste
handlers
to
note
and
sign
the
original
manifest
in
such
conditions.

In
response
to
commenters'
suggestions
to
note
and
sign
the
original
manifest
for
full
load
rejections,
we
have
modified
sections
264.72(
e)
and
265.72(
e)
and
the
discrepancy
space
of
the
new
form.
Under
these
procedures,
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
not
take
receipt
of
any
part
of
the
shipment;
and,
2)
The
delivering
transporter
must
remain
present
at
the
facility
at
the
time
the
rejection
occurs
so
that
the
transporter
may
retain
custody
of
the
rejected
wastes
and
continue
them
in
transportation
to
the
alternate
facility.
Thus,
the
final
rule
requires
the
TSDF
to
complete
a
second
manifest
if
the
TSDF
rejects
a
partial
load
or
a
container
residue
shipment,
or
if
it
rejects
a
full
shipment
after
initially
signing
the
manifest
to
indicate
receipt,
so
that
the
transporter
has
already
left
the
facility's
premises.
Paragraph
(
e)(
7)
describes
the
manifest
signature
and
processing
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.

In
the
final
rule's
form,
we
have
also
modified
the
proposed
Discrepancy
field
on
the
manifest
form
by
adding
two
new
items
to
aid
the
tracking
of
full
load
rejections
under
the
original
manifest.
First,
to
address
the
comments
urging
EPA
to
adapt
the
original
manifest
for
tracking
full
load
rejections,
we
added
Item
18b.
to
the
Discrepancy
Space,
so
that
the
rejecting
facility
can
identify
the
alternate
facility
(
or
generator)
that
will
receive
the
shipment
when
it
is
forwarded
from
the
rejecting
facility's
site.
Second,
we
added
a
new
signature
field
(
Item
18c.)
for
use
by
the
alternate
facility
or
generator
that
receives
the
full
shipment
of
rejected
waste.
The
alternate
facility
or
generator
will
then
sign
the
new
Item
18c
to
close
out
the
original
manifest
once
they
receive
the
hazardous
waste
shipment
from
the
rejecting
facility.

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
the
aforementioned
immediate,
full
rejection
scenario,
recognizing
that
designated
facilities
often
reject
shipments
after
they
have
acknowledged
receipt
of
a
waste
shipment
and
closed
out
the
original
manifest.
Further,
current
regulations
allow
the
facility
to
sign
for
the
receipt
of
the
waste
and
test
the
waste
at
a
later
time
and
reject
it,
if
necessary.
Thus,
a
facility
could
not
use
the
original
manifest
to
forward
the
rejected
shipment
to
an
alternate
facility
or
to
return
it
to
the
generator,
since
the
rejecting
facility
would
have
already
acknowledged
receipt
of
the
rejected
shipment
and
closed
out
the
original
manifest
by
signing
it.

We
also
considered
using
the
original
manifest
for
other
rejection
scenarios
such
as
partial
rejections,
but
decided
against
this.
We
rejected
the
comments
asking
us
to
use
the
original
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
91
manifest
more
broadly
for
partial
load
rejections
because
the
new
form
cannot
accommodate
additional
fields
for
itemizing
the
waste
quantities
and
containers
that
have
been
rejected
versus
accepted
by
the
designated
facility.
Moreover,
for
delayed
rejection
scenarios
(
i.
e.,
situations
where
rejection
occurs
after
the
facility
has
received
the
waste
and
the
transporter
has
left
the
premises),
we
would
need
additional
spaces
on
the
manifest
to
identify
the
transporter(
s)
responsible
for
transportation
of
the
re­
shipment,
and
signature
spaces
for
this
transporter(
s)
to
acknowledge
receipt
of
the
waste.
We
found
that
there
was
no
practical
way
to
reconfigure
the
original
form
to
provide
the
tracking
elements
that
would
be
needed
to
account
accurately
for
partial
shipment
rejections
or
for
subsequent
transporter
information.
Therefore,
the
final
rule
reflects
our
decision
to
utilize
the
original
manifest
for
forwarding
only
certain
full
load
rejections,
but
not
for
other
rejection
scenarios.

5.5
Request
for
Clarification
or
Modification
to
the
Tracking
Procedures
for
Rejected
Loads
and
Container
Residues
Comment:
We
heard
from
26
commenters
requesting
clarifications
or
additions
to
the
proposed
procedures
for
rejected
loads
and
non­
empty
containers
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
11,
13,
17,
22,
23,
25,
26,
29,
30,
32,
33,
34,
35,
38,
42,
48,
51,
54,
55,
56,
57,
58,
59,
60
and
63).

Four
commenters
requested
that
EPA
fully
describe
the
process
that
must
be
followed
for
rejected
loads
and
non­
empty
containers
(
Commenter
Nos.
26,
48,
54
and
57).
Three
of
these
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
fully
describe
the
liability
implications
for
generators
and
TSDFs
under
the
proposed
approach
for
rejected
loads
and
non­
empty
containers
(
Commenter
Nos.
26,
48
and
57).
One
of
the
commenters
also
suggested
that
TSDFs
should
be
required
to
notify
the
regulatory
agency
of
their
rejections,
so
that
the
agency
can
monitor
these
activities
(
Commenter
No.
48).

A
commenter
suggested
that,
for
a
TSDF
rejecting
multiple
"
incoming"
manifests
from
the
same
generator,
EPA
clarify
that
these
wastes
can
be
rejected
on
a
single
manifest
since
they
are
being
shipped
to
the
same
destination
(
Commenter
No.
17).

Two
commenters
asked
for
clarification
on
how
the
generator
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
would
apply
to
a
TSDF
when
acting
as
a
generator
for
shipping
rejected
loads
(
e.
g.,
LDR
paperwork)
(
Commenter
Nos.
13
and
17).

Two
commenters
noted
that,
in
regard
to
residues
and
rejections
occurring
after
the
TSDF
returns
the
signed
manifest,
the
TSDF
must
send
the
transporter
and
generator
an
amended
copy
noting
the
rejection
and
showing
new
signature
and
date
(
Commenter
Nos.
17
and
60).
The
commenters
asked
for
clarification
on
where
the
signature
and
date
would
be
entered
on
the
manifest.

Three
commenters
suggested
several
editorial
changes
(
e.
g.,
to
resolve
typographical
errors)
to
the
preamble
and
proposed
regulatory
text
regarding
rejected
loads
and
residues
(
Commenter
Nos.
23,
33
and
60).
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
92
One
commenter
noted
that
EPA
has
set
forth
procedures
for
rejected
loads
and
non­
empty
containers,
but
noted
that
it
is
unclear
how
these
procedures
apply
to
the
numerous
TSDFs
that
ship
their
waste
on
to
other
TSDFs
as
a
matter
of
course,
rather
than
as
an
exception
(
Commenter
No.
32).

One
commenter
believes
the
TSDF
should
have
to
explain
why
a
waste
is
rejected
and
what
re­
resting
was
done
to
verify
nonconformity
of
a
waste
(
Commenter
No.
56).

Another
commenter
asked
for
clarification
whether
shipments
may
be
re­
manifested
to
a
broker
instead
of
the
generator
(
Commenter
No.
26).

Two
commenters
asked
for
EPA
to
clarify
how
a
TSDF
should
handle
a
manifest
for
a
rejected
load
after
the
15­
day
period
specified
at
40
CFR
264.72
and
265.72
(
Commenter
No.
35
and
63).
One
of
these
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
clarify
that,
after
the
15­
day
period,
the
TSDF
takes
a
shared
responsibility
for
the
generated
waste
(
Commenter
No.
35).

Several
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
clarify
that
the
transporter
information
be
included
on
the
new
manifest
accompanying
the
re­
manifested
shipment,
since
this
is
not
discussed
in
the
proposal
(
Commenter
Nos.
35
and
54).

A
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
require
the
TSDF
to
enter
an
emergency
phone
number
on
the
manifest
in
all
cases
when
re­
initiating
a
rejected
load
or
non­
empty
container
(
Commenter
No.
23).

Another
commenter
stated
that
the
generator
and
originally
designated
TSDF
need
not
report
the
original
manifest
to
the
regulatory
agency,
only
the
second
one
(
Commenter
No.
30).

Another
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
has
not
considered
scenarios
in
which
the
transporter
commingles
wastes
from
multiple
generators
and
then
delivers
the
commingled
waste
to
the
TSDF
(
Commenter
No.
34).
If
the
TSDF
rejects
the
shipment,
the
commenter
believes
there
would
be
many
unanswered
questions
(
e.
g.,
which
generator
should
be
contact
for
further
directions
on
reshipment?).

A
number
of
commenters
stated
that
the
proposed
procedures
would
require
the
TSDF
to
list
itself
as
the
generator
of
the
waste,
which
would
be
misleading
and
counter
to
the
manifest
system's
objectives
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
26,
33,
38,
42,
58
and
60).
Two
commenters
expressed
concern
that
the
TSDF
would
receive
a
copy
of
the
manifest
returned
from
the
generator
for
certain
loads,
which
places
undue
burden
on
the
TSDF
and
is
counter
to
the
manifest
system
(
Commenter
No.
38
and
60).
One
of
the
commenters
believes
the
TSDF
should
be
responsible
for
completing
and
distributing
the
manifest,
and
provide
a
copy
from
the
alternate
TSDF
to
the
original
generator
(
Commenter
No.
33).
The
commenter
added
that,
if
the
TSDF
lists
the
original
generator
of
residues
on
the
manifest
as
the
generator
and
then
signs
the
manifest
certifying
to
the
pretransport
requirements,
the
generator
block
should
allow
the
TSDF
to
indicate
the
title
and
affiliation
of
the
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
93
TSDF
employee
who
signed
the
manifest;
otherwise,
it
could
look
like
an
employee
of
the
generator
is
signing.

Response:
EPA
thanks
commenters
for
their
many
views
on
the
tracking
procedures
for
rejected
loads
and
container
residues.

We
appreciate
the
comments
for
EPA
to
provide
further
clarification
in
the
rule
and
preamble
regarding
how
to
reship
rejected
loads
and
container
residues.
We
have
included
further
clarification
in
the
final
rule
and
preamble
on
the
appropriate
procedures
for
completing
and
transmitting
the
manifest
for
these
problem
loads,
as
well
as
liability
considerations
under
RCRA
and
DOT
(
e.
g.,
regarding
the
generator
certification).

We
believe
the
final
procedures
satisfactorily
address
questions
received
in
response
to
the
proposed
rule.
Following
are
some
examples
of
the
clarifications
provided
in
the
final
rule
and
preamble:

°
As
requested
by
commenters,
the
rule
explains
how
to
mark
up
a
manifest
whose
shipment
is
rejected
after
the
manifest
has
been
closed
out
(
i.
e.,
signed
and
returned
to
the
original
generator).
Commenters
should
refer
to
40
CFR
264.72(
g)
and
265.72(
g)
for
this
information.

°
A
commenter
asked
EPA
to
explain
how
its
procedures
apply
to
the
numerous
TSDFs
that
ship
their
waste
on
to
other
TSDFs
as
a
matter
of
course,
rather
than
as
an
exception.
We
believe
that,
upon
reading
the
final
rule,
the
commenter
will
find
clarification
to
its
question.
The
rule
narrowly
defines
the
types
of
shipments
that
are
subject
to
the
new
tracking
procedures.
These
include
(
i)
rejected
wastes,
which
may
be
a
full
or
partial
shipment
of
hazardous
waste
that
the
TSDF
cannot
accept
and
(
ii)
container
residues,
which
are
residues
that
exceed
the
quantity
limits
for
"
empty"
containers
set
forth
in
40
CFR
261.7(
b).
Commenters
should
refer
to
40
CFR
264.72(
a)
and
265.72(
a)
for
this
language.
We
believe
these
narrow
descriptions
clearly
distinguish
the
types
of
shipments
subject
to
the
new
tracking
procedures.
The
tracking
procedures
do
not
apply
to
hazardous
waste
shipments
that
TSDFs
accept
and
reship
as
a
matter
of
course.

°
Several
commenters
asked
that
EPA
clarify
that
the
transporter
information
be
included
on
the
new
manifest
accompanying
the
re­
manifested
shipment,
since
this
is
not
discussed
in
the
proposal.
In
the
final
rule,
EPA
requires
that
generators
initiating
a
new
manifest
for
a
rejected
load
or
container
residue
must
prepare
it
in
accordance
with
the
existing
requirements
at
section
262.20(
a)
and
section
264.72(
e)
or
265.72(
e).
This
language
clearly
indicates
that
the
transporter
information
must
be
included
on
the
new
manifest
because
it
is
required
in
Block
6
and
7
of
the
form.
The
re­
shipment
manifest
must
be
completed
in
every
respect
like
any
other
manifest
that
accompanies
hazardous
waste
shipments.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
94
In
summary,
we
believe
the
final
rule
sets
forth
clear
and
streamlined
procedures
for
rejected
loads
and
container
residues.
As
under
any
RCRA
rule,
waste
handlers
should
consult
their
authorized
State
for
additional
compliance
assistance
if
needed.

We
appreciate
commenter's
request
for
clarification
on
how
the
generator
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
would
apply
to
a
TSDF
when
acting
as
a
generator
for
shipping
rejected
loads
(
e.
g.,
LDR
paperwork).
As
an
initial
point,
we
clarify
that,
in
the
majority
of
cases,
we
expect
that
the
rejecting
TSDF
will
not
qualify
as
the
"
generator"
under
RCRA.
Our
final
rule
clarifies
that
a
TSDF
preparing
a
new
manifest
will
be
subject
to
applicable
"
offeror"
or
pre­
transportation
requirements
only,
unless
the
TSDF's
management
of
the
waste
causes
sufficient
changes
to
the
waste's
composition
or
state
such
that
the
facility
can
be
viewed
as
having
generated
a
different
waste.
This
could
occur
in
cases
where
the
facility
has
treated
the
waste
in
a
way
that
alters
its
composition
or
state,
or
in
cases
where
the
waste
itself
undergoes
changes
while
in
the
facility's
custody.
In
such
cases,
the
facility
is
the
generator
of
the
resulting
changed
waste,
if
it
is
found
that
the
waste
is
no
longer
described
accurately
by
the
shipping
description
on
the
original
manifest,
or
if
the
management
method
originally
designated
for
the
waste
no
longer
applies.
On
such
occasions,
the
rejecting
facility
would
be
subject
to
applicable
generator
requirements
for
that
newly
generated
hazardous
waste.

We
appreciate
the
commenter's
suggestion
that,
for
a
TSDF
rejecting
multiple
"
incoming"
manifests
from
the
same
generator,
EPA
clarify
that
these
wastes
can
be
rejected
on
a
single
manifest
if
they
are
being
reshipped
to
the
same
destination.
We
generally
agree
with
this
commenter's
reasoning,
although
we
believe
the
commenter's
terminology
is
not
entirely
accurate.
Where
there
are
multiple
incoming
manifests
from
the
same
generator,
it
is
not
possible
to
reject
these
shipments
on
a
single
manifest,
as
the
TSDF
would
need
to
sign
and
note
the
reason
for
rejection
on
each
of
the
incoming
manifests.
However,
if
each
of
the
rejected
shipments
is
to
be
forwarded
to
the
same
alternate
facility
(
or
returned
to
the
generator),
it
is
possible
to
consolidate
all
of
the
rejected
waste
into
one
shipment
for
forwarding,
and
to
document
the
re­
shipment
on
a
single
manifest.
We
believe
this
is
the
result
the
commenter
desired
in
framing
this
comment.
In
such
cases,
the
TSDF
must
ensure
that
it
completes
the
manifest
in
compliance
with
the
procedures
at
40
CFR
264.72
or
265.72.
Each
incoming
manifest
that
is
signed
and
noted
as
rejected
should
contain
the
manifest
tracking
number
of
the
manifest
used
for
the
consolidated
reshipment
in
Item
18a.
TSDFs
should
consult
with
their
authorized
State
should
questions
arise.

We
agree
with
the
comment
that
TSDFs
should
document
the
reason
for
their
rejection;
however,
we
do
not
agree
that
the
TSDF
should
submit
a
separate
notification
to
the
State
explaining
the
rejection.
Under
the
final
rule,
the
TSDF
is
required
to
explain
on
the
manifest
why
it
rejected
the
waste.
The
TSDF,
original
generator,
and
transporter
must
keep
a
copy
of
this
manifest
for
three
years.
These
copies
will
be
available
for
onsite
EPA
and
State
inspectors.
In
addition,
a
number
of
States
collect
manifest
copies
in
the
mail
from
the
designated
TSDF
and/
or
generator.
These
States
will
learn
the
reasons
for
the
rejection.
Because
of
these
factors,
we
do
not
believe
it
would
be
cost­
effective
to
require
TSDFs
to
prepare
a
separate
report
notifying
regulators
of
their
rejections.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
95
We
agree
with
the
comment
that
EPA
should
require
the
TSDF
to
enter
an
emergency
phone
number
on
the
manifest
in
all
cases
when
re­
initiating
a
rejected
load
or
non­
empty
container.
Under
the
final
rule,
the
TSDF
must
prepare
the
manifest
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
262.20(
a).
Hence,
the
TSDF
must
include
an
emergency
response
phone
number
as
required
in
Item
3
of
the
form.
In
many
cases,
the
TSDF
may
re­
enter
the
emergency
response
number
supplied
on
the
original
manifest
by
the
generator.
However,
if
the
TSDF
knows
or
should
know
that
the
emergency
response
number
from
the
original
manifest
is
no
longer
accurate
or
appropriate
for
the
re­
shipment,
then
the
TSDF
must
supply
a
new
emergency
response
number.

We
appreciate
the
comment
that
the
generator
and
originally
designated
TSDF
need
not
report
the
original
manifest
to
the
regulatory
agency,
only
the
second
one.
As
described
earlier,
EPA
modified
the
proposed
tracking
procedures
such
that,
under
the
final
rule,
a
TSDF
can
use
the
original
manifest
in
specified
situations
to
reship
a
rejected
load
or
container
residue.
Specifically,
the
rejecting
TSDF
can
use
the
original
manifest
to
forward
a
rejected
shipment
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
must
be
at
the
facility
while
the
rejection
occurred.
Thus,
the
final
rule
requires
the
TSDF
to
complete
a
second
manifest
only
if
it
rejects
a
partial
load
or
identifies
a
container
residue
shipment,
or
rejects
a
full
load
provided
the
transporter
left
the
facility's
premises
before
it
rendered
its
rejection
decision.
In
comparison
with
the
proposed
rule,
we
believe
these
final
procedures
will
reduce
the
occurrence
of
two
manifests
being
prepared
for
rejected
loads
and
submitted
to
regulatory
agencies.
Beyond
this,
the
rule
does
not
affect
the
ability
of
States
to
collect
manifests
from
waste
handlers.
Waste
handlers
must
consult
States'
rules
for
the
collection
of
manifests.

We
appreciate
the
comment
that
a
TSDF's
listing
the
generator
on
the
manifest
accompanying
the
shipment
to
the
alternate
TSDF
would
undermine
the
manifest
system
and
the
States'
ability
to
hold
TSDFs
accountable
for
their
shipments.
In
response,
we
emphasize
that
it
is
our
longstanding
position
that
the
generator
retains
ultimate
responsibility
over
the
proper
disposition
of
its
waste.
We
believe
that
a
rejecting
TSDF
that
prepares
the
new
manifest
should
be
subject
to
applicable
"
offeror"
or
pre­
transportation
requirements
only,
unless
that
facility's
management
of
the
waste
causes
sufficient
changes
to
the
waste's
composition
or
state
such
that
the
facility
can
be
viewed
as
having
generated
a
different
waste.
In
such
cases,
the
facility
is
the
generator
of
the
resulting
changed
waste,
if
it
is
found
that
the
waste
is
no
longer
described
accurately
by
the
shipping
description
on
the
original
manifest,
or
if
the
management
method
originally
designated
for
the
waste
no
longer
applies.
However,
in
the
more
typical
case
where
the
TSDF
is
only
rejecting
a
shipment
and
not
altering
the
waste,
the
final
rule
will
in
fact
enable
States
to
hold
facilities
accountable
for
their
shipments;
the
facilities
will
be
liable
as
offerors
for
the
pretransportation
acts
they
perform
with
respect
to
the
re­
shipments.

The
final
rule
requires
the
rejecting
TSDF
to
list
the
original
generator
in
the
generator
field
of
the
new
manifest
and
to
sign
the
offeror
certification
in
Block
15,
before
forwarding
the
shipment
to
the
alternate
facility.
This
will
preserve
the
identity
of
the
initial
generator
whose
act
or
process
produced
the
hazardous
waste
in
the
first
instance,
and
ultimately
underscore
that
the
generator
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
96
remains
responsible
for
the
shipment,
notwithstanding
the
rejection
by
the
intended
TSDF.
It
also
will
ensure
that
the
generator
receives
confirmation
from
the
alternate
TSDF
of
receipt
of
the
shipment,
which
we
believe
is
the
appropriate
outcome
for
accountability
and
tracking
purposes.

We
appreciate
the
comment
to
revise
the
generator
block
to
allow
the
rejecting
TSDF
to
indicate
the
title
and
affiliation
of
its
employee
who
signed
the
manifest,
so
that
it
is
clear
the
initial
generator
did
not
sign
it.
We
agree
that
the
manifest
should
clearly
indicate
the
persons
involved
in
the
waste's
chain
of
custody.
We
have
taken
a
different
approach,
however,
to
address
the
commenter's
concern.
We
do
not
believe
that
it
is
justifiable
to
further
complicate
the
rejected
load
provisions
by
requiring
the
employee
of
a
rejecting
TSDF
to
indicate
his
or
her
affiliation,
as
the
commenter
requested.
There
also
is
not
enough
room
on
the
form
for
this
information.

Rather,
the
final
rule
requires
the
TSDF
to
prepare
a
new
manifest
that,
among
other
things,
references
the
MTN
found
in
Item
4
of
the
old
manifest
and
indicates
that
the
shipment
is
a
residue
or
rejected
waste
from
the
previous
shipment.
The
TSDF
must
also
copy
the
MTN
found
in
Item
4
of
the
new
manifest
to
the
manifest
reference
number
line
in
the
Discrepancy
Block
of
the
old
manifest.
In
this
way,
the
rejected
load
information
on
the
newly
prepared
manifest
will
make
clear
that
the
shipment
had
been
rejected
and,
hence,
that
the
generator
block
was
signed
by
the
rejecting
TSDF
as
the
offeror.
If
a
State
agency
subsequently
wanted
to
identify
the
rejecting
TSDF,
it
could
refer
to
a
copy
of
the
old
manifest,
whose
MTN
has
been
referenced
on
the
newly
prepared
manifest.

We
appreciate
commenters'
concern
that,
in
regard
to
loads
returned
to
the
generator,
the
rejecting
TSDF
would
receive
a
copy
of
the
manifest
returned
from
the
generator.
However,
the
final
rule
does
not
require
the
generator
to
return
a
copy
to
the
rejecting
TSDF.
We
have
amended
40
CFR
262.34
to
require
the
generator
only
to
sign
the
manifest.
It
need
not
return
a
copy
to
the
rejecting
facility.

We
appreciate
the
comment
that
the
requirements
for
a
new
manifest
for
rejected
loads
be
applied
to
wastes
that
are
transshiped
or
commingled
by
the
designated
TSDF.
However,
this
suggestion
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
present
rulemaking.
[
is
this
the
correct
outcome?]

Comment:
We
heard
from
nine
commenters
expressing
concern
specifically
regarding
the
rule's
implications
for
non­
empty
containers
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
25,
28,
34,
35,
51,
54,
63,
and
64).
Two
commenters
noted
that
their
State
programs
require
the
TSDF
to
either
remove
the
waste
from
the
transport
vehicle
or
follow
the
rejected
load
procedures
(
Commenter
Nos.
35
and
63).
One
commenter
expressed
its
general
opposition
to
the
proposed
procedures
and
indicated
that,
if
EPA
finalizes
the
proposed
approach,
the
Agency
should
require
the
TSDF
to
certify
that
it
is
using
every
possible
means
to
empty
the
container
(
Commenter
No.
28).
Five
commenters
believe
the
TSDF
should
be
held
responsible
for
containers
that
it
cannot
empty
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
28,
51,
54,
and
64).
Another
commenter
expressed
its
concern
that
TSDFs
would
be
free
to
send
the
non­
empty
containers
to
alternate
facilities
or
generator
sites
that
do
not
have
the
requisite
equipment
to
remove
the
waste
(
Commenter
No.
25).
The
commenter
believes
this
outcome
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
97
would
not
be
protective
of
human
health
or
the
environment.
The
commenter
recommended
that,
through
certification,
the
TSDF
should
have
to
indicate
that
all
means
available
had
been
used
to
empty
the
container;
that
the
generator
had
been
contacted
and
approved
an
alternate
TSDF;
and
that
the
TSDF
is
initiating
a
new
manifest.

Two
commenters
expressed
concern
that
the
initial
generator
could
be
listed
on
the
manifest
as
the
generator
when
the
residue
is
reinitiated
by
the
TSDF
(
Commenter
Nos.
12
and
64).
The
commenter
pointed
out
that
many
types
of
shipments
are
received
by
the
TSDF
and
later
reshipped,
without
notification
to
the
original
generator
(
e.
g.,
commingled
loads,
forwarded
loads).
The
commenter
believes
container
residues
should
be
handled
in
the
same
fashion,
i.
e.,
the
TSDF
should
always
be
responsible.

Another
commenter
expressed
concern
that
EPA
views
non­
empty
containers
as
a
discrepancy,
as
this
could
cause
confusion
(
Commenter
No.
34).
The
commenter
indicated
that
its
State
views
a
non­
empty
container
as
a
waste
that
requires
a
manifest.
However,
the
commenter
does
not
believe
that
a
new
manifest
should
be
required
for
the
non­
empty
container
because
this
will
cause
confusion.
Rather,
EPA
should
require
TSDFs
to
follow
the
existing
procedures
for
rejected
loads
(
i.
e.,
use
of
the
original
manifest).

Response:
We
thank
the
commenters
for
their
suggestions
for
minimizing
the
occurrence
of
container
residues
being
shipped
under
the
tracking
requirements.
We
agree
with
comments
that
designated
TSDFs
should
either
empty
their
containers
or
follow
special
tracking
procedures.
Such
an
approach
is
codified
in
the
rule.
See
40
CFR
264.72
and
265.72.

We
agree
with
comments
that
it
is
generally
preferable
for
the
TSDF
to
remove
the
entire
contents
of
the
containers
rather
than
sending
container
residues
to
alternate
TSDFs
or
back
to
the
generator.
We
do
not
believe,
however,
that
it
is
justifiable
to
require
a
TSDF
to
certify
that
it
has
tried
to
empty
the
container.
Under
the
final
rule,
the
designated
TSDF
must
describe
the
container
residue
and
reason
for
its
inability
to
remove
it.
This
is
sufficient
to
document
the
problem
and
the
facility's
efforts
to
remove
it.
Any
further
paperwork
requirement
(
e.
g.,
a
certification
statement)
would
not
likely
be
helpful
or
necessary.
We
are
committed
to
streamlining
the
RCRA
regulations
and
avoiding
necessary
paperwork;
therefore,
we
have
not
accepted
the
commenters'
request.

We
do
not
agree
with
comments
that
the
TSDF
alone
should
be
held
responsible
for
containers
that
it
cannot
empty.
We
believe
that
both
the
generator
and
TSDF
share
responsibility
for
containers
whose
contents
cannot
be
emptied.
As
an
initial
point,
the
generator
is
ultimately
responsible
for
the
proper
management
of
its
waste,
and
therefore,
it
must
be
held
accountable
for
contracting
with
a
TSDF
capable
of
effectively
managing
the
waste.
The
TSDF
also
should
be
held
responsible
for
effectively
conducting
its
management
operations.
The
final
rule
holds
both
parties
accountable,
in
that
the
TSDF
must
contact
the
generator
to
make
shipping
arrangements
for
the
residue.
If
an
alternate
TSDF
cannot
be
secured,
the
TSDF
may
send
the
waste
back
to
the
generator.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
98
We
do
not
share
commenters'
concern
that
TSDFs
would
be
free
to
send
the
non­
empty
containers
to
alternate
facilities
or
generator
sites
that
do
not
have
the
requisite
equipment
to
remove
the
waste.
The
final
rule
(
40
CFR
264.72(
d)(
1)
and
265.72(
d)(
1))
provides
that,
upon
identifying
a
container
residue,
the
facility
must
contact
the
generator
to
obtain
the
generator's
instructions
for
forwarding
the
waste
to
another
facility
that
can
manage
the
waste.
We
doubt
a
generator
would
intentionally
send
its
shipment
to
a
TSDF
that
is
not
capable
of
managing
its
waste,
since
the
generator
is
ultimately
responsible
for
the
proper
disposition
of
it.
As
it
stands,
the
current
regulations
do
not
place
any
requirement
or
criteria
on
generators
in
selecting
an
appropriate
designated
TSDF
for
their
shipments.
It
is
assumed
generators
and
TSDFs
will
make
appropriate
arrangements.
We
see
no
reason
to
regulate
rejected
loads
or
container
residues
differently
than
other
shipments.

We
do
not
share
commenters'
concern
that
the
initial
generator
would
be
listed
on
the
manifest
as
the
generator
when
the
residue
is
re­
shipped
by
the
designated
TSDF
to
an
alternate
TSDF.
The
generator
of
a
waste
that
results
in
a
container
residue
remains
the
"
generator"
under
the
RCRA
regulations,
unless
the
designated
TSDF's
management
of
the
waste
causes
sufficient
changes
to
the
waste's
composition
or
state
such
that
the
facility
can
be
viewed
as
having
generated
a
different
waste.
Hence,
it
is
appropriate
for
the
generator
to
be
identified
in
the
generator
field
of
the
manifest.
This
is
consistent
with
the
current
RCRA
regulations.

We
do
not
agree
with
the
comment
that
referring
to
a
container
residue
as
a
discrepancy
could
cause
confusion.
The
States
have
developed
different
approaches
for
dealing
with
shipments
of
container
residues,
resulting
in
a
patchwork
of
State
requirements
and
definitions.
These
shipments
have
caused
significant
uncertainty
and
burdens
on
facilities
in
consulting
with
State
regulators
to
sort
out
appropriate
tracking
procedures.
In
codifying
the
new
definition
of
"
discrepancy"
at
40
CFR
264.72(
a)
and
265.72(
a),
the
final
rule
creates
a
nationally
uniform
understanding
of
container
residues
and
appropriate
procedures.

5.6
Rejecting
TSDF
Signature
in
the
Generator
Field
Comment:
We
heard
from
8
commenters
expressing
general
support
for
EPA's
proposal
to
require
the
rejecting
TSDF
to
sign
the
generator
certification
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
17,
19,
22,
29,
33,
52
and
63).
Two
commenters
stated
that
the
TSDF
is
in
the
best
position
to
sign
the
manifest,
since
it
would
have
firsthand
knowledge
of
the
shipment
(
Commenter
Nos.
12
and
19).

We
heard
from
17
commenters
expressing
concern
about
the
proposed
procedures
for
TSDFs
to
sign
the
manifest
accompanying
a
rejected
load
or
non­
empty
container
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
22,
23,
26,
33,
34,
38,
39,
42,
48,
51,
53,
54,
57,
58,
60
and
61).

A
number
of
commenters
indicated
that,
in
signing
the
manifest,
the
TSDF
would
become
liable
as
the
generator
under
many
different
laws
and
regulations,
such
as
DOT's
HMR,
CERCLA,
and
RCRA
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
22,
23,
26,
38,
39,
42,
53,
54,
57,
58,
60
and
61).
A
number
of
these
commenters
stated
situations
in
which
the
TSDF
should
not
be
held
responsible
for
the
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
99
pretransportation
requirements
of
a
rejected
shipment,
if
the
requirements
were
performed
by
the
generator
(
Commenter
Nos.
23,
38,
39,
53,
54,
57,
60
and
61).
One
commenter
stated
that
the
generator,
not
the
TSDF,
is
in
a
better
position
to
test
the
waste
and
comply
with
the
DOT
requirements
(
Commenter
No.
38).
Another
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
modify
the
procedures
to
clearly
provide
that
the
TSDF
is
only
the
"
offeror"
of
the
reinitiated
shipment
and
is
relying
on
the
information
provided
by
the
generator
(
Commenter
No.
61).
The
commenter
also
asked
EPA
to
clearly
spell
out
the
requirements
applicable
to
the
TSDF.
Another
commenter
expressed
concern
that
the
TSDF
would
be
obligated
to
correct
the
manifest
accompanying
the
rejected
load
(
Commenter
No.
48).
The
commenter
is
concerned
that
this
would
place
undue
administrative
burden
on
the
TSDF.
Another
commenter
clarified
that
the
pretransportation
requirements
should
not
apply
to
the
TSDF
if
the
waste
is
rejected
at
the
time
of
receipt
(
Commenter
No.
54).
Another
commenter
urged
EPA
to
make
it
more
explicit
in
the
regulations
that
the
waste
minimization
certification
does
not
apply
to
the
TSDF
when
reinitiating
a
problem
shipment
(
Commenter
No.
4).
One
commenter
asked
EPA
to
clarify
the
legal
basis
under
which
the
Agency
can
require
TSDFs
to
sign
as
the
generator
(
Commenter
No.
58).

Another
commenter
strongly
opposed
any
requirement
for
the
TSDF
to
sign
as
the
generator
when
the
rejected
waste
has
not
been
treated
or
altered
(
Commenter
No.
61).
The
commenter
suggested
that
the
TSDF
should
sign
the
manifest
as
the
"
offeror,"
with
a
clear
understanding
that
the
TSDF
is
relying
on
the
information
provided
by
the
generator.
The
commenter
also
suggested
that
EPA
should
clearly
describe
the
responsibilities
of
the
TSDF
in
preparing
the
new
manifest,
ensuring
that
the
pretransportation
requirements
are
met,
and
signing
the
manifest.
Another
commenter
agreed,
requesting
for
EPA
to
clarify
that
the
interim
TSDF
is
only
the
"
shipper"
and
that
the
generator
remains
responsible
for
the
shipment's
regulatory
compliance
(
Commenter
No.
22).
Another
commenter
indicated
that
its
State's
statute
does
not
allow
the
generator
to
delegate
its
signature
(
Commenter
No.
34).
As
such,
the
commenter
does
not
believe
the
TSDF
could
sign
as
the
generator
of
a
rejected
waste.

Two
commenters
stated
that
the
generator
should
not
be
held
accountable
for
the
waste's
compliance
with
the
shipping
regulations
if
the
transporter
or
TSDF
has
the
ability
to
reship
the
waste
without
the
generator's
involvement
(
Commenter
Nos.
38
and
39).

Response:
EPA
appreciates
comments
on
the
generator's
and
TSDF's
liability
under
the
tracking
procedures
for
rejected
loads
and
container
residues.
We
found
the
commenters
to
be
divided
on
our
proposal
to
require
the
rejecting
facility
offering
the
waste
in
transportation
to
sign
the
shipper's
certification
statement
as
the
party
offering
the
wastes
in
transportation.
In
general,
commenters
who
criticized
the
proposed
approach
supported
the
alternative
approach
requiring
TSDFs
to
sign
"
on
behalf
of"
the
initial
generator.
However,
some
commenters
argued
that
the
alternative
approach
would
make
generators
liable
under
DOT
regulations
for
any
pre­
transportation
functions
performed
by
the
rejecting
facility.
They
argued
further
that
the
generator
could
not
supervise
from
a
distance
proper
execution
of
the
pre­
transportation
acts
that
the
rejecting
facility
must
perform
before
signing
the
certification
statement.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
100
We
found
the
arguments
against
the
alternative
proposal
to
be
more
persuasive.
In
response,
we
codified
the
manifest
signature
requirements
at
40
CFR
264.72(
d)(
1)
and
(
e)(
6),
and
modified
the
Generator
Certification
field
by
renaming
it
the
"
Generator/
Offeror's
Certification,"
indicating
that
either
the
generator
or
an
offeror
must
sign
the
block.
The
generator
signature
certifies
both
the
waste
minimization
and
shipper's
certifications,
while
the
rejecting
facility's
signature
certifies
as
an
offeror
to
the
shipper's
certification
statement
only.
The
rule
also
clarifies
that
any
rejecting
facility
that
prepares
the
new
manifest
will
be
subject
to
applicable
"
offeror"
or
pre­
transportation
requirements
only,
unless
that
facility's
management
of
the
waste
causes
sufficient
changes
to
the
waste's
composition
or
state
such
that
the
facility
can
be
viewed
as
having
generated
a
different
waste.
This
could
occur
in
cases
where
the
facility
has
treated
the
waste
in
a
way
that
alters
its
composition
or
state,
or
in
cases
where
the
waste
itself
undergoes
changes
while
in
the
facility's
custody.
In
such
cases,
the
facility
is
the
generator
of
the
resulting
changed
waste,
if
it
is
found
that
the
waste
is
no
longer
described
accurately
by
the
shipping
description
on
the
original
manifest,
or
if
the
management
method
originally
designated
for
the
waste
no
longer
applies.
On
such
occasions,
the
rejecting
facility
would
be
subject
to
all
generator
requirements
for
that
newly
generated
hazardous
waste.
We
believe
such
clarification,
along
with
existing
EPA
regulations
and
guidance,
is
sufficient
for
TSDFs
to
determine
if
they
qualify
as
the
generator
of
the
rejected
shipment
or
container
residue.

We
are
finalizing
the
proposed
approach
concerning
rejecting
facilities
signing
new
manifests
because
we
believe
that
this
approach
is
the
outcome
required
under
the
Hazardous
Materials
Regulations
(
HMRs),
and
because
we
believe
that
it
addresses
the
rejecting
facility's
responsibilities
for
re­
shipments
more
appropriately.
We
agree
with
the
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
the
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
wastes,
as
the
offeror
is
then
certifying
to
the
proper
performance
of
the
pre­
transportation
functions.
Moreover,
we
believe
that
this
is
the
result
required
under
the
applicable
requirements
of
the
HMRs
as
implemented
by
DOT
for
the
transportation
of
hazardous
materials
in
commerce.
These
hazardous
waste
shipments
are
subject
to
the
HMRs.
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
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
101
loads
that
have
been
staged
for
a
time
and
then
reintroduced
in
transportation)
to
assume
the
offeror
responsibilities
for
the
re­
shipments,
since
the
re­
shipment
of
the
waste
is
a
new
movement.
In
each
case,
there
is
a
new
movement
of
the
hazardous
waste,
and
the
shipper's
certifications
must
be
current
at
the
time
the
new
movement
of
the
rejected
wastes
begins.
On
the
other
hand,
when
a
facility
rejects
immediately
a
full
waste
shipment,
and
directs
the
transporter
to
forward
the
rejected
waste
to
an
alternate
facility
(
or
back
to
the
generator)
by
completing
the
Alternate
Facility
item
on
the
revised
form,
there
is
not
a
new
movement
of
the
waste.
Rather,
the
waste
shipment
in
such
a
case
remains
in
transportation,
and
the
rejecting
facility
does
not
need
to
sign
the
Generator's/
Offeror's
Certification,
as
it
has
not
engaged
in
any
pre­
tranportation
functions
with
respect
to
a
fully
and
immediately
rejected
waste
shipment.

Moreover,
with
respect
to
the
comments
that
objected
to
the
offeror
approach
because
the
TSDFs
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
pretransportation
functions,
DOT
confronted
similar
issues
from
brokers,
freight
forwarders,
and
other
third­
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."
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.

Since
hazardous
waste
handlers
also
are
subject
to
these
HMR
provisions,
we
believe
that
this
discussion
from
the
October,
2003
DOT
rule
addresses
fairly
the
concerns
expressed
by
RCRA
TSDFs
who
reject
and
re­
ship
wastes.
The
TSDF
that
signs
a
new
manifest
as
offeror
of
a
rejected
waste
shipment
is
responsible
for
performing
properly
any
of
the
pre­
transportation
functions
that
it
actually
performs
(
e.
g.,
repackaging
and
marking
specific
containers,
completing
the
manifest),
but
the
TSDF
may
reasonably
rely
upon
the
information
supplied
and
pre­
transportation
functions
previously
performed
by
the
original
generators
or
transporters.
If
the
TSDF
knows
of
an
error,
for
example,
in
classifying
or
describing
a
specific
waste,
or
if
it
should
know
that
a
container
is
leaking
or
is
not
properly
labeled,
it
must
correct
these
problems
before
reintroducing
the
rejected
wastes
into
transportation.
However,
the
TSDF
re­
shipping
such
wastes
is
not
responsible
for
errors
made
by
previous
waste
handlers
in
their
performance
of
pre­
transportation
functions,
if
the
errors
are
such
that
it
can
be
said
that
the
TSDF
neither
knew,
nor
should
have
known,
about
the
errors.
We
believe
that
this
policy
mitigates
any
concerns
that
TSDFs
might
have
about
the
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
102
unfairness
of
their
being
asked
to
certify
to
the
proper
performance
of
the
pre­
transportation
functions.
The
TSDF
will
be
able
to
rely
upon
what
has
been
done
already
and
supplied
by
previous
handlers,
as
long
as
they
do
not
have
a
reason
to
believe
the
information
provided
by
previous
handlers
is
false.
The
rejecting
TSDF
need
not
re­
perform
all
of
the
offeror
responsibilities;
it
need
only
re­
perform
those
activities
that
it
knows
or
should
know
are
necessary
to
bring
a
shipment
into
compliance
with
the
pre­
transportation
functions
in
the
HMRs.

Comment:
We
heard
from
12
commenters
on
EPA's
proposed
alternative
for
TSDFs
to
sign
the
manifest
"
on
behalf
of"
the
generator
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
17,
19,
22,
23,
25,
33,
35,
53,
55,
60
and
61).

Four
commenters
expressed
their
support
for
the
"
on
behalf
of"
alternative,
since
it
would
appropriately
hold
the
generator
responsible
for
compliance
over
the
shipment
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
25,
55
and
60).
These
commenters
believe
that
the
TSDF
is
not
in
a
position
to
certify
compliance
for
the
shipment,
since
the
generator
prepared
it;
rather,
the
generator
is
in
a
better
position
of
know
the
underlying
actions
reflected
in
both
the
waste
minimization
certification
and
shipper's
certification.

Eight
commenters
expressed
their
opposition
or
concern
about
the
"
on
behalf
of"
alternative
(
Commenter
Nos.
17,
19,
22,
23,
33,
35,
53
and
61).
One
commenter
stated
its
belief
that,
from
a
DOT
perspective,
the
alternative
would
not
shift
responsibility
over
the
shipment
back
to
the
generator,
as
EPA
intended
(
Commenter
No.
17).
Another
commenter
expressed
its
opposition,
stating
that
the
TSDF
should
be
held
responsible
for
the
shipment
when
it
signs
the
manifest
(
Commenter
No.
35).
Three
commenters
expressed
concern
that
the
generator
would
have
no
control
over
what
the
TSDF
was
doing
and
thus
would
not
want
the
TSDF
to
sign
on
its
behalf
(
Commenter
Nos.
19,
22
and
23).
Another
commenter
expressed
its
doubt
that
the
alternative
would
create
a
lawful
agency
relationship
between
the
generator
and
the
TSDF
(
Commenter
No.
61).
Another
commenter
suggested
that
the
TSDF
should
sign
the
manifest
as
the
generator
when
re­
initiating
a
rejected
load
or
nonempty
container;
as
such,
the
"
on
behalf
of"
alternative
would
not
be
needed
(
Commenter
No.
33).

Response:
We
thank
commenters
for
their
views
on
the
alternative
approach
of
writing
"
on
behalf
of"
in
the
generator
certification
block.
For
the
reasons
stated
in
the
response
above,
we
have
decided
against
this
alternative
approach.
We
believe
that
the
offeror
concept
 
which
holds
TSDFs
responsible
for
their
pre­
transportation
activities
when
they
re­
ship
wastes
 
provides
a
more
sensible
allocation
of
responsibilities
between
the
parties
than
would
result
under
the
alternative
approach,
which
would
have
created
an
agency
relationship
between
the
generator
and
the
rejecting
TSDF.

5.7
Comments
on
Newly
Generated
Waste
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
103
Comment:
We
heard
from
10
commenters
on
EPA's
proposed
clarifications
on
newly
generated
waste
and
the
manifest
requirements
that
apply
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
17,
22,
34,
35,
51,
54,
57,
61
and
63).

A
number
of
commenters
stated
that
EPA
needs
to
clarify
what
constitutes
a
newly
generated
waste
for
purposes
of
determining
responsibility
over
a
rejected
load
or
non­
empty
container
(
Commenter
Nos.
12,
17,
22,
34,
35,
51,
54,
61
and
63).
Two
of
these
commenters
also
suggested
that
EPA
clarify
circumstances
in
which
a
transporter
or
TSDF
would
become
a
generator
from
commingling
of
wastes
(
Commenter
Nos.
35
and
54).
Another
commenter
believes
EPA's
use
of
the
words
"
or
otherwise
manage
the
waste
in
such
a
way
as
to
change
its
form"
is
too
broad,
since
residues
are
often
congealed
heals
in
the
bottom
of
containers
or
tank
trucks
that
are
a
different
form
than
the
original
liquid
or
sludge
(
Commenter
No.
61).
A
number
of
commenters
believe
the
TSDF
qualifies
as
the
generator
in
re­
initiating
a
non­
empty
container
(
Commenter
Nos.
12
and
22)

One
commenter
disagrees
with
EPA's
statement
that
any
party
who
mixes
wastes
with
different
DOT
descriptions
is
not
a
generator
(
Commenter
No.
57).
The
commenter
belies
such
mixing
qualifies
as
treatment
and
could
lead
to
a
waste
that
cannot
be
segregated
from
the
original
waste.

Response:
EPA
appreciates
commenters'
request
for
additional
clarification
on
newly
generated
waste.
In
response,
we
clarify
that
the
goals
of
our
rule
are
to
standardize
and
streamline
the
manifest
form
and
requirements
and
to
establish
procedures
for
tracking
rejected
loads
and
container
residues.
Our
rulemaking
does
not
seek
to
address
(
e.
g.,
expand
on
or
modify)
the
existing
regulations
for
making
a
waste
determination.
Such
an
effort
would
require
a
significantly
broader
consideration
of
issues
than
we
have
taken
in
developing
tracking
procedures
for
problem
shipments.

Rather,
we
seek
to
establish
tracking
procedures
for
these
problem
shipments
within
the
existing
regulatory
framework
for
waste
determinations.
We
believe
our
final
rule
does
so.
As
we
point
out
in
the
preamble,
a
rejecting
facility
that
prepares
the
new
manifest
will
be
subject
to
applicable
"
offeror"
or
pre­
transportation
requirements
only,
unless
that
facility's
management
of
the
waste
causes
sufficient
changes
to
the
waste's
composition
or
state
such
that
the
facility
can
be
viewed
as
having
generated
a
different
waste.
This
could
occur
in
cases
where
the
facility
has
treated
the
waste
in
a
way
that
alters
its
composition
or
state,
or
in
cases
where
the
waste
itself
undergoes
changes
while
in
the
facility's
custody.

In
such
cases,
the
facility
is
the
generator
of
the
resulting
changed
waste,
if
it
is
found
that
the
waste
is
no
longer
described
accurately
by
the
shipping
description
on
the
original
manifest,
or
if
the
management
method
originally
designated
for
the
waste
no
longer
applies.
On
such
occasions,
the
rejecting
facility
would
be
subject
to
all
generator
requirements
for
that
newly
generated
hazardous
waste.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
104
Commenters
who
still
have
questions
on
what
constitutes
newly
generated
waste
should
refer
to
existing
EPA
regulations
and
guidances.

5.8
Conditions
Applicable
to
Wastes
Returned
to
Generator
Comment:
We
heard
from
23
commenters
supporting
the
proposal
to
restart
the
clock
on
wastes
returned
to
the
generator
from
the
TSDF
(
Commenter
Nos.
11,
16,
17,
18,
19,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
33,
36,
38,
39,
43,
45,
51,
53,
57,
59,
60,
61,
and
64).
Many
of
these
commenters
indicated
that
generators
may
need
additional
time,
beyond
the
original
90
or
180
days,
to
re­
examine
the
waste,
secure
an
alternate
TSDF,
and
other
activities
needed
to
ensure
protective
waste
management
(
Commenter
Nos.
11,
16,
17,
18,
19,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
36,
38,
39,
43,
45,
51,
57,
59,
60,
and
64).
Two
commenters
also
indicated
that
generators
are
already
fully
aware
of
the
existing
requirements
at
40
CFR
262.34,
and
hence,
there
would
be
less
likelihood
for
misunderstanding
or
confusion
in
compliance
(
Commenter
Nos.
24
and
45).

We
heard
from
5
commenters
suggesting
an
alternative
time
frame
for
generator
accumulation
of
wastes
returned
from
the
TSDF
(
Commenter
Nos.
29,
35,
48,
54
and
63).
These
commenters
believe
that
a
shorter
time
frame
is
needed
to
discourage
the
generator
from
initiating
problem
loads
in
the
first
place.
Two
commenters
suggested
an
additional
30
days
(
Commenter
Nos.
29
and
35).
One
commenter
suggested
an
additional
45
days
(
Commenter
No.
54).
Another
commenter
suggested
that
the
generator
holding
time
should
be
contingent
on
the
duration
of
acquiring
further
analytical
data
needed
for
proper
profiling
and
manifesting
(
Commenter
No.
48).
The
commenter
recommended
a
10
or
15
day
limit.

Finally,
we
heard
from
16
commenters
who
expressed
concern
or
otherwise
asked
for
clarification
on
the
procedures
for
generators
to
receive
returned
loads
from
the
TSDF
(
Commenter
Nos.
4,
16,
17,
18,
20,
24,
25,
26,
29,
34,
37,
42,
48,
57,
58
and
63).

Four
commenters
stated
that
the
rule
needs
to
be
more
clear
on
the
procedures
for
manifesting
waste
to
the
generator
and
the
procedures
generators
must
follow
(
Commenter
Nos.
16,
18,
26
and
48).
One
of
these
commenters
stated
that
the
generators
should
be
allowed
to
receive
nonempty
containers
provided
that
they
produce
the
waste
on
a
regular
basis
and
can
reuse
the
containers
(
Commenter
No.
48).
Another
commenter
disagreed,
stating
that
generators
should
not
be
allowed
to
add
wastes
to
the
nonempty
container,
since
the
original
waste
may
have
changed
characteristics
and
the
addition
of
wastes
may
negate
the
DOT
approval
of
the
containers
(
Commenter
No.
29).

Four
commenters
stated
that
EPA's
proposal
for
TSDFs
to
return
loads
to
the
generator
does
not
appear
to
be
consistent
with
EPA
policy
on
the
role
of
generators
under
RCRA,
asked
for
clarification
of
such
authority
(
Commenter
Nos.
34,
42,
48
and
58).

Three
commenters
believe
that
EPA
should
redefine
the
term
designated
facility
so
that
it
includes
generators
receiving
a
returned
load
(
Commenter
Nos.
16,
24
and
63).
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
105
One
commenter
suggested
that
generators
are
not
accustomed
to
acting
as
the
designated
facility
and
may
have
difficulty
in
this
role
(
Commenter
No.
17).
The
commenter
also
opposes
generators
returning
manifest
copy
to
the
TSDF.
As
an
alternative,
the
commenter
suggested
that
the
TSDF
could
call
the
generator
and
document
confirmation
of
receipt.

Another
commenter
suggested
that
generators
should
be
allowed
to
hold
their
returned
waste
in
an
area
other
than
their
normal
90­
day
accumulation
area
since
there
may
no
longer
be
enough
physical
space
to
accommodate
the
shipment
if
there
has
been
additional
waste
production
(
Commenter
No.
57).

Another
commenter
disagreed
with
EPA's
description
of
the
generator
status
requirements
at
40
CFR
262.34
(
Commenter
No.
37).
The
commenter
pointed
out
that
generator
status
determinations
should
be
based
on
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
per
month,
not
the
amount
accumulated
on
site.

Another
commenter
suggested
that,
in
regard
to
nonempty
containers
that
are
returned,
EPA
should
give
the
generator
flexibility
to
not
empty
the
container,
but
reload
the
container
with
the
same
waste
and
reship
it
for
disposal
(
Commenter
No.
20).

Another
commenter
asked
for
clarification
on
how
the
generator
would
count
its
returned
waste
in
determining
its
generator
status
(
Commenter
No.
25).

Response:
EPA
appreciates
the
many
views
expressed
by
commenters
on
the
proposed
procedures
for
returning
a
rejected
waste
or
container
residue
to
the
generator.

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.

A
number
of
commenters
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
commenters
questioned
EPA's
authority
for
allowing
generators
to
receive
offsite
shipments.
Several
commenters
suggested
that
the
rule
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
the
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.

We
recognize
that
a
number
of
commenters
raised
concerns
about
our
proposal
to
grant
the
generator
another
90
or
180
day
accumulation
period.
However,
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
106
grant
generators
the
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,
the
rule
grants
generators
an
additional
90/
180
days
to
send
the
waste
shipment
to
an
alternate
facility.

We
do
not
share
commenters'
concern
over
generators'
receipt
and
management
of
returned
shipments
from
the
TSDF.
We
also
do
not
agree
that
we
should
create
additional
management
controls
for
generators
who
receive
returned
shipments.
We
expect
that
generators
will
receive
returned
waste
very
infrequently,
because
the
final
rule
requires
TSDFs
to
work
with
generators
to
find
an
appropriate
alternate
facility.
The
TSDF
would
return
the
waste
only
when
an
alternate
facility
cannot
be
located.

In
these
limited
cases,
we
believe
the
existing
RCRA
generator
standards
provide
satisfactory
procedures
and
controls
over
generator
accumulation
of
the
waste.
The
generator
standards
require
generators
to
accumulate
their
hazardous
wastes
in
a
protective
manner,
following
specified
technical
controls.
We
have
no
reason
to
believe
that
generators
receiving
their
own
wastes
from
the
rejecting
TSDF
would
be
incapable
of
re­
accumulating
these
wastes
protectively,
so
long
as
they
follow
the
existing
generator
controls.
Because
of
this,
the
final
rule
provides
that
generators
receiving
returned
shipments
must
accumulate
the
returned
waste
on­
site
in
accordance
with
existing
40
CFR
262.34(
a)
and
(
b)
or
(
d),
(
e)
and
(
f),
depending
on
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
on­
site
in
that
calendar
month.

We
agree
with
commenter
requests
to
clarify
the
manifesting
requirements
for
generators
who
receive
returned
shipments
from
the
rejecting
TSDF.
In
the
final
rule,
we
have
amended
40
CFR
262.34(
j)
to
provide
that,
upon
receipt
of
the
returned
shipment,
the
generator
must
(
i)
sign
Item
18c
of
the
manifest,
if
the
transporter
returned
the
shipment
using
the
original
manifest
or
(
ii)
sign
Item
20
of
the
manifest,
if
the
transporter
returned
the
shipment
using
a
new
manifest.

We
appreciate
the
commenter's
clarification
that
the
generator's
status
should
be
determined
by
the
amount
of
hazardous
waste
generated
on
site
during
the
month,
not
the
amount
being
accumulated
during
the
month.
The
commenter
is
correct,
and
this
is
reflected
in
the
final
rule
and
preamble.

We
appreciate
the
comment
that,
in
regard
to
nonempty
containers
that
are
returned,
EPA
should
give
the
generator
flexibility
to
not
empty
the
container,
but
reload
the
container
with
the
same
waste
and
reship
it
for
disposal.
In
response,
we
are
clarifying
in
the
final
rule
that
generators
must
comply
with
the
existing
waste
accumulation
requirements
at
40
CFR
262.34.
The
final
rule
does
not
place
any
added
technical
controls
on
generators
regarding
management
of
their
rejected
loads
or
residues.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
107
We
appreciate
the
commenter's
request
for
clarification
on
how
the
generator
would
count
its
returned
waste
in
determining
its
generator
status.
We
are
clarifying
that
the
final
rule
does
not
amend
the
existing
regulations
at
40
CFR
261.5
for
generator
waste
counting.
Generators
should
continue
to
count
their
wastes
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
at
section
261.5.

6.0
Transportation
Vehicle
Marking
Comment:
We
heard
from
three
commenters
in
regard
to
EPA's
proposed
standards
for
marking
the
transportation
vehicle
(
Commenter
Nos.
16,
18,
and
37).
All
of
the
commenters
noted
that
EPA
did
not
discuss
the
proposed
marking
requirement
in
the
rule,
and
hence,
it
is
unclear
whether
EPA
was
raising
the
marking
requirement
to
clarify
the
existing
regulations
as
applicable
to
transporters,
or
to
establish
it
as
a
new
requirement
for
generators.
These
commenters
expressed
concern
regarding
the
possibility
that
EPA
would
require
generators
to
comply
with
the
marking
procedures.
They
suggested
that
EPA
move
the
marking
requirement
to
40
CFR
Part
263
so
that
it
clearly
applies
to
transporters,
not
generators.
Finally,
two
of
the
commenters
noted
that
the
proposed
marking
requirement
involves
a
cross­
reference
to
49
CFR
Part
1058;
however,
Part
1058
does
not
exist
anymore
(
Commenter
Nos.
16
and
37).

Response:
We
thank
commenters
for
their
views
on
the
proposed
marking
requirements.
Our
proposed
amendments
to
the
marking
provisions
at
40
CFR
262.33
were
intended
to
make
them
more
consistent
with
the
DOT
requirements
at
49
CFR
171.3(
b)(
1).

49
CFR
171.3(
b)(
1)
provides
that
no
person
may
accept
for
transportation,
transport,
or
deliver
a
hazardous
waste
for
which
a
manifest
is
required
unless
that
person
has
marked
each
motor
vehicle
used
to
transport
hazardous
waste
in
accordance
with
49
CFR
390.21
or
1058.2
even
though
placards
may
not
be
required.

Therefore,
under
40
CFR
262.33
as
amended,
a
generator
must
placard
or
offer
placards
in
accordance
with
49
CFR
Part172,
subpart
F.
If
placards
are
not
required,
the
generator
must
mark
each
motor
vehicle
according
to
49
CFR
171.3(
b)(
1).

We
acknowledge
commenters'
concern
that
section
171.3(
b)(
1)
references
section
1058.2,
which
no
longer
exists.
In
response,
we
clarify
that
section
171.3(
b)(
1)
references
49
CFR
390.21
and
1058.2.
Although
section
1058.2
no
longer
exists,
section
390.21
does
exist
and
is
relevant.
We
believe
it
is
important
to
reference
section
171.3
so
that
waste
handlers
are
aware
of
the
requirements
at
sections
171.3
and
390.21.
In
addition,
because
our
rule
references
section
171.3,
any
action
by
DOT
to
amend
this
section
(
e.
g.,
to
address
section
1058.2)
in
the
future
will
be
incorporated
by
reference
into
our
regulations.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
108
7.0
Regulatory
Analyses
Supporting
the
Rule
Comment:
We
heard
from
eight
commenters
on
EPA's
regulatory
impact
analysis
of
the
proposed
rule
(
Commenter
Nos.
10,
21,
26,
44,
52,
54,
59,
and
65).

One
commenter
expressed
its
disagreement
with
EPA
that
the
rule
is
not
economically
significant
(
Commenter
No.
10).
In
regard
to
the
Economics
Background
Document
supporting
the
rule,
the
commenter
stated
that
EPA
has
inadequately
addressed
the
costs
related
to
waste
handlers'
equipment
purchases.
The
commenter
disagreed
with
a
basic
assumption
in
the
analysis
that
automated
handlers
have
personal
computers
readily
available
for
the
e­
manifest.
The
commenter
believes
automated
handlers
would
need
to
pay
for
computer
equipment,
such
as
computers,
printers,
signature
devices
on
vehicles,
as
well
as
for
employee
training
on
the
e­
manifest.
The
commenter
expressed
concern
that
the
analysis
does
not
account
for
situations
in
which
transporter
printer
capabilities
are
needed,
e.
g.,
in
editing
a
generator's
manifest.

In
addition,
the
commenter
does
not
believe
the
study
adequately
addresses
economic
impacts
on
small
businesses.
The
commenter
is
concerned
that
the
study's
underlying
data
are
based
on
consultations
with
relatively
large
waste
handlers,
which
has
skewed
the
data.
The
commenter
points
out
that
the
largest
waste
handlers
likely
have
the
greatest
amounts
of
computer
hardware
and
software
in
place,
as
well
as
greater
resources
for
implementation.
Even
though
the
e­
manifest
is
optional,
the
commenter
believes
small
waste
handlers
may
be
forced
into
adopting
electronic
manifesting,
which
could
be
financially
crippling.

In
regard
to
the
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Cost
Benefit
Analysis,
the
commenter
states
that
EPA
has
not
accounted
for
the
need
of
transport
vehicles
to
have
computer
and
printer
capabilities
(
e.
g.,
to
process
the
manifest
for
the
non­
automated
generator).
Further,
the
commenter
is
concerned
that
the
EPA's
studies
do
not
indicate
the
specific
number
of
waste
handlers
that
would
enjoy
the
burden
reduction
under
the
e­
manifest
proposal.
The
commenter
believes
that
the
per­
entity
burden
reduction
likely
would
not
offset
the
incremental
burden
from
necessary
expenditures
such
as
computer
hardware,
software,
and
training.
Given
these
observations,
the
commenter
expressed
doubt
that
waste
handlers
would
see
savings
under
the
proposed
approach.
Finally,
the
commenter
expressed
its
belief
that
States
would
be
the
primary
beneficiaries
under
the
e­
manifest
approach,
not
the
waste
handlers.

Another
commenter
disagreed
with
EPA's
burden
estimates
for
the
e­
manifest
(
Commenter
No.
52).
The
commenter
believes
that
the
burden
to
waste
handlers
would
increase
under
the
proposed
approach,
since
a
hard
copy
of
the
shipping
paper
would
still
be
required
during
transportation.

Another
commenter
suggested
that
EPA's
analyses
should
account
for
other
regulatory
paperwork
that
might
accompany
an
e­
manifest,
increasing
costs
(
e.
g.,
LDR
paperwork,
DOT
shipping
paper)
(
Commenter
No.
21).
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
109
Another
commenter
noted
that
the
rule
would
require
waste
handlers
to
maintain
an
electronic
activity
log
audit
trail
to
track
access
to
the
electronic
records
(
Commenter
No.
26).
The
commenter
believes
this
would
potentially
be
labor­
intensive
and
should
be
accounted
for
in
EPA's
cost
studies.

Several
commenters
believe
EPA
has
underestimated
States'
capital
start­
up
costs
under
the
emanifest
(
Commenter
Nos.
44,
54
and
59).
One
of
these
commenters
stated
that
EPA's
cost
estimates
are
missing
the
amount
of
time
and
resources
needed
to
maintain
the
knowledge
to
keep
the
electronic
system
up­
to­
date,
which
may
require
at
least
one
full­
time
equivalent
at
a
very
high
pay
grade
(
Commenter
No.
54).
Another
commenter
stated
that
EPA's
cost
estimate
of
$
100,000
for
State
start­
up
costs
is
too
low,
taking
into
account
signature
authority
certificates
and
keys
and
the
States'
need
to
accommodate
both
EDI
and
XML
formats
(
Commenter
No.
59).

Another
commenter
raised
concerns
about
our
estimate
of
the
number
of
manifests
prepared
annually.
Based
on
its
own
survey
of
large
waste
handler
firms,
it
estimated
that
approximately
5.09
million
manifests
are
prepared
annually
(
Commenter
No.
65).
The
commenter
also
raised
concerns
about
our
analysis
of
waste
handlers'
burden
in
preparing
the
manifest
and
training
employees.
The
commenter
believes
our
analysis
did
not
account
for
all
of
the
savings
to
waste
handlers
for
no
longer
tracking
or
training
for
States'
requirements.

We
heard
from
two
commenters
on
EPA's
analysis
of
small
business
impacts
under
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
Commenter
Nos.
10
and
44).
One
commenter
expressed
concern
that
EPA
concluded
that
the
rule
would
have
no
significant
adverse
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
(
Commenter
No.
10).
The
commenter
believes
EPA's
analysis
is
incomplete,
since
it
does
not
fully
examine
impacts
to
small
waste
handlers,
such
as
small
transporter
companies.
The
commenter
notes
that
most
hazardous
waste
transportation
companies
are
small
businesses;
however,
this
is
not
recognized
in
the
studies.
In
addition,
the
commenter
notes
that
small
commercial
transportation
and
TSDF
companies
must
compete
with
the
larger
companies,
who
have
more
resources
to
obtain
automation
capabilities.
The
commenter
suggests
that
these
larger
companies
will
use
automation
as
a
value
added
service
to
drive
smaller
firms
out
of
business.
The
commenter
also
noted
that
large
generators
would
likely
expect
their
commercial
transporters
and
TSDFs
to
automate.
This
could
force
small
businesses
to
automate
or
lose
customers.
Finally,
each
automated
transportation
vehicle
would
need
computer
capabilities,
and
employees
would
need
to
be
trained
on
automation.
The
commenter
expressed
concern
that
these
issues
are
not
addressed
in
the
EPA's
small
business
studies.
Another
commenter
expressed
general
concern
that
EPA's
analysis
underestimates
the
costs
to
smaller
generators
(
Commenter
No.
44).

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
their
suggestions
and
concerns
about
the
Agency's
supporting
analyses.
EPA
agrees
that
the
analyses
supporting
the
proposed
rule
were
relatively
simple
and
had
limitations,
particularly
in
relation
to
the
e­
manifest.
As
described
earlier
in
this
document,
EPA
will
continue
to
work
on
the
e­
manifest
and
further
evaluate
the
economic
consequences
of
such
a
rulemaking.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
110
In
regard
the
final
rule
on
the
manifest
form
changes,
EPA
has
further
examined
its
economic
impacts
and
made
improvements
since
the
analysis
supporting
the
proposed
rule.
In
particular,
we
appreciate
the
commenter's
concern
that
our
analysis
underestimates
the
annual
number
of
manifests
prepared
annually.
We
acknowledge
the
difficulty
in
estimating
this
figure.
First,
there
is
no
database
that
tracks
the
number
of
manifests
prepared
or
transmitted
nationally.
Second,
we
are
limited
in
the
number
of
States
and
waste
handlers
we
can
contact
to
obtain
their
estimates.
Under
the
1995
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
we
can
contact
up
to
nine
organizations
to
request
their
estimates.

In
developing
the
analysis
of
the
proposed
rule,
we
contacted
nine
States
to
get
their
feedback
on
the
number
of
manifests
prepared
and
transmitted
by
their
waste
handlers.
These
States
were
the
largest
in
the
U.
S.
in
terms
of
annual
hazardous
waste
quantity
generated
annually.
Therefore,
we
believed
we
had
obtained
estimates
from
relatively
representative
sources.
From
this
effort,
we
estimated
that
2.4
million
forms
are
prepared
annually.

However,
a
commenter
raised
concerns
about
our
estimate.
Based
on
its
own
survey
of
large
waste
handler
firms,
it
estimated
that
approximately
5.09
million
manifests
are
prepared
annually.
We
thank
the
commenter
for
supplying
its
data.

In
response
to
the
commenter's
suggestion,
we
have
estimated
costs
under
the
final
rule
assuming
a
low
and
high
estimate
of
the
number
of
manifests
prepared
annually.
The
low
estimate
is
based
on
our
best
estimate
of
2.4
million
forms,
and
the
high
estimate
is
based
on
the
commenter's
estimate
of
5.09
million
forms.
This
resulted
in
a
low
and
high
estimate
of
the
total
annual
cost
savings
under
the
rule.

The
commenter
also
raised
concerns
about
our
analysis
of
waste
handlers'
burden
in
preparing
the
manifest
and
training
employees.
The
commenter
believes
our
analysis
did
not
account
for
all
of
the
savings
to
waste
handlers
for
no
longer
tracking
or
training
of
States'
requirements.

We
agree
that
waste
handlers
will
see
significant
burden
savings
associated
with
the
elimination
of
State
requirements,
and
have
attempted
to
capture
these
savings
in
the
analysis
supporting
the
final
rule.
Our
analysis
assumes
that,
relative
to
the
existing
manifest
system,
waste
handlers
will
see
a
savings
under
the
final
rule
for
manifest
preparation
and
employee
training,
among
other
activities.
We
believe
our
estimated
savings
are
reasonable
in
light
of
the
information
available
to
us
and
consistent
with
the
commenter's
suggestion.
For
additional
information
on
these
savings,
please
refer
to
the
"
Economics
Background
Document:
Economic
Analysis
of
the
USEPA's
Final
Rule
Revisions
to
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest
Form,"
which
is
available
to
the
public
from
the
EPA
Docket.

In
addition,
we
have
further
examined
impacts
on
small
businesses
under
the
final
rule.
Based
on
this
examination,
we
do
not
expect
the
rule
to
have
an
adverse
impact
on
small
business
populations,
and
therefore
no
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
is
necessitated.
The
rule
includes
both
regulatory
and
deregulatory
features.
However,
the
net
effect
of
these
changes
should
reduce,
not
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
111
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.
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
112
APPENDIX:
TABLE
OF
ORGANIZATIONS
COMMENTING
ON
PROPOSED
RULE
AND
COMMENTER
NUMBERS
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
113
Table
of
Organizations
Commenting
on
Proposed
Rule
and
Commenter
Numbers
Commenter
Number
Name
of
Organization
Commenting
on
the
Proposed
Rule
1
No
Affiliation
2
Association
of
State
and
Territorial
Solid
Waste
Management
Officials
3
University
of
Missouri
­
Colombia
Environmental
Health
and
Safety
4
International
Metals
Reclamation
Company,
Incorporated
5
No
Affiliation
6
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
7
Battery
Council
International
8
The
Graphic
Arts
Coalition
9
Hazardous
Materials
Advisory
Council
10
Chemical
Analytics,
Incorporated
11
Phelps
Dodge
Corporation
12
Department
of
Defense
13
Department
of
the
Navy,
Puget
Sound
Naval
Shipyard
14
International
Precious
Metals
Institute
15
American
Trucking
Associations
16
American
Petroleum
Institute
17
Onyx
Environmental
Services
18
Equiva
19
Specialty
Steel
Industry
of
North
America
and
the
Steel
Manufacturers
Association
20
Solutia
21
Dupont
22
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
23
Department
of
Energy
24
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association,
Incorporated
25
Eastman
Chemical
Company
26
Waste
Management
27
State
of
Maine
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
28
Merck
Manufacturing
Division
29
BRG
Environmental
30
Texas
Natural
Resource
Conservation
Commission
31
Purdue
University
32
Analine
Technologies
33
Massachusetts
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
34
New
York
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
35
State
of
Michigan
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
36
National
Paint
and
Coatings
Association
37
William
K.
Taggart
38
Coalition
for
Responsible
Waste
Incineration
39
Systech
Environmental
Corporation
40
New
Hampshire
Department
of
Environmental
Services
41
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
42
Paul,
Hastings,
Janofsky
&
Walker
LLP
Commenter
Number
Name
of
Organization
Commenting
on
the
Proposed
Rule
December
10,
2004
FINAL
DOCUMENT
Page
114
43
American
Chemistry
Council
44
Northeast
Waste
Management
Official's
Association
45
Dow
Chemical
Company
46
Association
of
American
Railroads
47
Dominion
48
California
Environmental
Protection
Agency
49
Institute
of
Makers
of
Explosives
50
Marisol,
Incorporated
51
PPG
Industries
52
General
Motors
Corporation
53
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
54
Information
Management
Task
Force
of
the
Association
of
State
and
Territorial
Solid
Waste
Management
Officials
55
Giant
Cement
Holding,
Incorporated
56
American
Airlines
Incorporated
57
Heritage
Environmental
Services
58
U.
S.
Liquids
Incorporated
59
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
60
Safety
Kleen
61
Environmental
Technology
Council
62
National
Automobile
Dealers
Association
63
Arkansas
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
64
Phelps
Dodge
Corporation
65
Environmental
Technology
Council
66
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers