Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System, 10776-10825 [05-1966]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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



[[Page 10775]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 260, 261, et al.



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

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

[[Page 10776]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, and 271

[FRL-7867-4]
RIN 2050-AE21


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is establishing new 
requirements revising the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest regulations 
and the manifest and continuation sheet forms used to track hazardous 
waste from a generator's site to the site of its disposition. The 
revisions announced today will standardize the content and appearance 
of the manifest form and continuation sheet (Forms 8700-22 and 22a), 
make the forms available from a greater number of sources and adopt new 
procedures for tracking certain types of waste shipments with the 
manifest. The latter types of shipments include hazardous wastes that 
destination facilities reject, wastes consisting of residues from non-
empty hazardous waste containers, and wastes entering or leaving the 
United States.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 6, 2005.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. RCRA-2001-0032. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
EDOCKET index at https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically in 
EDOCKET or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA/DC, EPA 
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA 
Docket Center is (202) 566-0270.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding 
specific aspects of this notice, contact Bryan Groce, Office of Solid 
Waste, (703) 308-8750, groce.bryan@epa.gov, or Richard LaShier, Office 
of Solid Waste, (703) 308-8796, lashier.rich@epa.gov. Mail inquiries 
may be directed to the Office of Solid Waste, (5304W), 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Rule Apply to Me?

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

      List of Industries Potentially Affected by Revisions to the RCRA Manifest Form and Continuation Sheet
                                            [EPA form 8700-22 & 22a]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Industry or sub-                                       Industry or sub-
     Item         SIC        NAICS       sector identity      Item       SIC        NAICS       sector identity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............       1794        23593  Construction               24       4512        48111  Air
                                        excavation work.                                       transportation.
2............         20          311  Food and kindred           25       4613        48691  Refined petroleum
                                        products                                               pipelines.
                                        manufacturing.
3............       2295        31332  Coated fabrics             26       4789       488999  Transportation
                                        manufacturing.                                         services n.e.c.
4............         24          321  Lumber and wood            27       4813         5133  Telephone
                                        products                                               communications.
                                        manufacturing.
5............         25          337  Furniture and              28         49         2211  Electric, gas &
                                        fixtures                                               sanitary
                                        manufacturing.                                         services.
6............         26          322  Pulp and allied            29       4953       562211  Hazardous waste
                                        products                                               treatment &
                                        manufacturing.                                         disposal.
7............         27          511  Printing and               30       4959       562910  Hazardous waste
                                        publishing.                                            remediation
                                                                                               services.
8............         28          325  Chemicals and              31         50          421  Wholesale trade
                                        allied products                                        (durable goods).
                                        mfg.
9............         29          324  Petroleum and coal         32         51          422  Wholesale trade
                                        products mfg.                                          (nondurable
                                                                                               goods).
10...........         30          326  Rubber & misc              33       5912     44 to 45  Drugstores &
                                        plastic products                                       proprietary
                                        mfg.                                                   retail stores.
11...........         32          327  Stone, clay and            34       6552        23311  Real estate sub-
                                        glass products                                         dividers &
                                        mfg.                                                   developers.
12...........         33          331  Primary metal              35       7216        81232  Dry cleaning
                                        manufacturing                                          plants.
                                        industries.
13...........         34          332  Fabricated metal           36         73          541  Business services.
                                        products
                                        manufacturing.
14...........         35          333  Industrial                 37       7532       811121  Top, body &
                                        machinery &                                            upholstery repair
                                        equipment mfg.                                         & paint shops.
15...........         36          335  Electronic & other         38       7699          561  Repair shops &
                                        electric                                               related services
                                        equipment mfg.                                         n.e.c.
16...........         37          336  Transportation             39       8062        62211  General medical &
                                        equipment                                              surgical
                                        manufacturing.                                         hospitals.

[[Page 10777]]

 
17...........         38          334  Instruments &              40       8221        61131  Colleges &
                                        related products                                       universities.
                                        mfg.
18...........         39          339  Miscellaneous              41         87          541  Engineering &
                                        manufacturing                                          management
                                        industries.                                            services.
19...........       4111          485  Local and suburban         42       8999          541  Services n.e.c.
                                        passenger transit.
20...........       4173        48849  Terminal service           43         95   924 to 925  Environmental
                                        facilities for                                         quality & housing
                                        vehicle transport.                                     administration.
21...........         42          484  Trucking and               44       9661        92711  Space research &
                                        warehousing.                                           technology.
22...........       4212       562112  Hazardous waste            45       9711        92811  National security
                                        collection                                             (e.g. military
                                        services.                                              bases).
23...........       4491         4883  Marine cargo
                                        handling..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under Docket number RCRA-2001-0032. The official public docket 
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any 
public comments received, and other information related to this action. 
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not 
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket 
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at 
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1742 
and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-0270.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. This Federal Register also 
may be accessed from EPA's main manifest web page at https://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/manifest/index.htm. An electronic 
version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic 
public docket and comment, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at 
https://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, access the index 
listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those 
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. 
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you 
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through 
the docket facility identified above. Once in the system, select 
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

Outline

I. Background
II. Detailed Discussion of the Final Rule
    A. Standardization of the Hazardous Waste Manifest.
    B.1. Elimination or Consolidation of Existing Data Elements--
Introduction.
    2. Proposed Removal of State Manifest Tracking Number.
    3. Proposed Removal of State Generator ID Field.
    4. Proposed Removal of State Transporter's ID Fields.
    5. Proposed Removal of Transporter's Phone Fields.
    6. Proposed Removal of State Facility's ID Field.
    7. Proposed Removal of Facility's Phone Field.
    8. Proposed Consolidation of Additional Descriptions and Special 
Handling Fields.
    9. Continuation Sheet.
    C.1. Addition of New Data Elements--Introduction.
    2. Addition of Generator Site Address Field.
    3. Addition of Emergency Response Phone Number Field.
    4. Addition of International Shipments Field.
    5. Proposed Addition of Third Transporter Field.
    D. Reduction or Elimination of ``Optional'' Field Designations.
    E.1. Proposed Standardization of Handling Codes--Introduction.
    2. Content of the Handling Code Proposal.
    3. Standardization of Handling Codes.
    4. Adoption of Hazardous Waste Report Management Method Codes.
    5. Designation of Process Codes as Mandatory.
    6. Party Responsible for Completing Item 19.
    F.1. Proposed Standardization of RCRA Waste Code Fields--
Introduction.
    2. Comment Analysis.
    3. Final Rule Determinations--Number and Allocation of Waste 
Codes.
    4. Final Rule Determinations--Entering State Waste Codes.
    5. Final Rule Determination--Waste Code Hierarchy.
    6. Final Rule Determination--Waste Codes are Mandatory Fields.
    G.1. Other Manifest Form Revisions--Introduction.
    2. Definition of Bulk Container.
    3. Use of Fractions.
    4. Offerors and the Preparation of Hazardous Waste Shipments and 
Manifests.
    H.1. Delayed Compliance Date for Revised Form--Introduction.
    2. Comment Analysis.
    3. Delayed Compliance Date--Final Rule Approach.
    4. Delayed Compliance Date--Interaction with DOT Authority.
III. Manifest Form Acquisition and Registry
    A.1. Manifest Form Acquisition--Introduction.
    2. Proposed Manifest Acquisition Provisions.
    3. Final Manifest Acquisition Provisions.
    B.1. Proposed Manifest Registry and Printing Specifications--
Introduction.
    2. Final Manifest Registry.
    3. Final Manifest Print Specifications.
IV. Rejected Load and Container Residue Shipments
    A.1. Rejected Load and Container Residue Shipments--
Introduction.
    2. Proposed Added Fields to Discrepancy Item.
    3. Proposed Sec. Sec.  264.72(d) and 265.72(d).
    4. Proposed Sec. Sec.  264.72(e), (f) and 265.72(e), (f).
    5. Proposed Sec. Sec.  264.72(g) and 265.72(g).
    6. Proposed Changes to Sec.  263.21(b).
    7. Proposed Generator Regulations at 40 CFR 262.34.
    B.1. Final Tracking Procedures for Rejected Waste and Residue 
Shipments.
    2. Comment Analysis and Final Provisions for Second Manifest.
    3. Comments Analysis and Final Generator Certification Block.
    4. Comments Analysis and Final Returned Shipments.

[[Page 10778]]

    5. Comment Analysis and Final Staging Waste at the Rejecting 
Facility.
V. Final Unmanifested Waste Reporting Requirements
VI. Administration and Enforcement of These Regulatory Changes in 
the States
    A. Uniform Applicability of Revised Manifest Requirements in All 
States.
    B. General Policy on RCRA Applicability of Federal Rules in 
Authorized States.
    C. Authorization of States for Today's Final Rule.
    D. Consistency Requires Adoption of Revised Manifest in All 
States.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review.
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act.
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism.
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation With Tribal Governments.
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children--Applicability 
of Executive Order 13045.
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act.
    J. Congressional Review Act.

I. Background

    On May 22, 2001, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) to revise the hazardous waste manifest system (66 FR 28240). The 
revisions, proposed in May 2001, aimed to reduce the manifest system's 
paperwork burden on users, while enhancing the effectiveness of the 
manifest as a tool to track hazardous waste shipments that are shipped 
from the site of generation to treatment, storage, or disposal 
facilities (TSDFs). The proposed rule would have accomplished this by 
adopting a standardized manifest form with fewer or no optional data 
fields, by adopting a new approach for distributing and acquiring the 
form, by standardizing further the data elements and procedures for 
tracking certain types of hazardous waste shipments, and by allowing 
the manifest to be completed, signed, transmitted and stored 
electronically. Thus, the proposed rule consisted of manifest system 
reforms of two distinct types: (1) Revisions to the manifest form 
itself and the procedures for using the form (hereafter, ``form 
revisions''); and (2) revisions aimed at replacing the paper-based 
manifest system with a nearly paperless, electronic approach to 
tracking hazardous waste shipments (hereafter, ``e-manifest'').
    EPA received 64 sets of public comments in response to the May 22, 
2001 proposed rule notice from hazardous waste generators, 
transporters, waste management firms, consultants, an information 
technology vendor and ten state hazardous waste agencies. Commenters 
generally supported our goals of further standardizing the manifest 
form elements and reducing variability among the manifests that 
authorized RCRA state agencies currently distribute. However, the 
commenters had differing views on many of the particulars of the 
proposed revisions to the manifest. Moreover, there were a substantial 
number of comments that took issue with EPA's proposed approach to the 
e-manifest, particularly with respect to the technical rigor of the 
proposal, the assumptions relied upon by EPA in its projections of 
burden and cost reductions, the feasibility of the proposed electronic 
signature options, the highly detailed security requirements aimed at 
preventing fraud and data corruption, the reliance on regulated 
industry to develop private e-manifest systems, and the NPRM's 
suggestion that state programs may not be required to adopt the e-
manifest requirements within their authorized RCRA state programs.
    We believe that the comments addressing the e-manifest proposal 
raised significant substantive issues that merit further analysis and 
stakeholder outreach prior to adopting a final approach. The comments 
received in response to the form revisions proposal, on the other hand, 
raised fewer difficult issues that would deter us from going forward at 
this time with a final rule. Therefore, EPA has decided to separate the 
e-manifest from the form revisions portion of the final rulemaking. 
Today's notice announces our final rule approach only with respect to 
the manifest form revisions. Final action on the e-manifest will be 
based on the results of continuing analysis and outreach on several key 
rulemaking issues that are fundamental to the ultimate decision 
regarding whether EPA will adopt the e-manifest.
    The key e-manifest issues that must be resolved include: (1) 
Whether the e-manifest should be decentralized as proposed and hosted 
by multiple private systems, centrally by EPA or by another party; (2) 
if a decentralized approach were to be adopted, how EPA's standards 
should address interoperability of private systems; (3) whether the 
final e-manifest approach should be integrated with biennial reporting 
or other functions supported by EPA, the states or other agencies; (4) 
what electronic signature methods should be included in the final rule; 
and, (5) the technical rigor and detail necessary in EPA's final 
standards to ensure a workable approach to the e-manifest.
    While today's rule finalizes action only on the manifest form 
revisions, the e-manifest remains a high priority for the Agency. EPA 
conducted a stakeholder outreach meeting dedicated to the e-manifest 
during May 19-20, 2004 in Washington, DC. We learned from these focused 
stakeholder discussions that there is strong support for the e-manifest 
among the various private and public sector interests involved with 
waste generation and management, as well as among the State agencies 
that collect manifest data and oversee compliance with the manifest 
system. In particular, we learned that there is strong support among 
stakeholders for a consistent, national e-manifest system, although 
there are varying views on whether a national system should be 
privately or publicly hosted and funded, or, developed as a joint 
public/private venture. Significantly, the user community indicated at 
the May 2004 stakeholder meeting that it is willing to help fund the 
establishment and operation of an e-manifest system through the payment 
of reasonable user or transactional fees for e-manifest services. Given 
the strong interest expressed by stakeholders in a national e-manifest 
system, EPA is now exploring if there is a feasible means for EPA or 
another party to develop and implement a national e-manifest system, as 
well as exploring in more detail the design and performance 
requirements of any such system. The Agency expects to announce its 
decision on the future direction of the e-manifest by the end of Fiscal 
Year 2005.
    In Section II of this preamble, we discuss the elements of the 
final form revisions rule, including a summary of our May 2001 
proposal, the significant comments raised in response to the proposal, 
our final rule determinations, and the rationale for those 
determinations. On balance, the final form revisions resemble the 
proposed rule's contents very closely. We adopted relatively minor 
changes in response to public comments. For example, we accepted the 
great number of comments urging EPA not to retain any manifest data 
fields as ``optional'' fields. Thus, today's final rule introduces 
changes from the proposal to the RCRA waste code fields and to the 
handling code fields, since these elements will be mandatory fields to 
be completed on all manifests.
    With respect to the Generator Identification field on the form, we 
accepted the comments asking us to expand this field to include the 
generator's site address, if different from

[[Page 10779]]

the mailing address already required on the form. We are also 
finalizing the proposed changes to the manifest form acquisition 
requirements, and providing more guidance and information on the 
particulars of the Registry process by which EPA will authorize 
entities adhering to the new federal printing specification to print 
and distribute manifests.
    In addition, with respect to the proposed rejected waste and 
residue fields and procedures, we accepted the numerous comments asking 
EPA to allow users to mark up the original manifest in some instances 
when they forward rejected waste shipments to alternate facilities or 
return shipments to generators, rather than always require treatment, 
storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) to initiate a new manifest. We 
also adjusted the rejected waste proposal to explain that the TSDFs 
that initiate new manifests for purposes of forwarding rejected waste 
or residue shipments bear the limited liability of an ``offeror'' with 
respect to the forwarded wastes, and not the more extensive liabilities 
of RCRA generators. We discuss these and other changes from the 
proposed rule in the following section.

II. Detailed Discussion of the Final Rule

    A. Standardization of the Hazardous Waste Manifest. As we explained 
in the May 22, 2001 proposed rule (see 66 FR 28240 at 28243), the 
adoption of the Uniform Manifest in 1984 did not entirely eliminate the 
problems with lack of consistency and uniformity that have existed 
since the inception of the manifest program. Many problems arise from 
states' varying use of available optional fields, users' different 
understandings about what information to enter in the current data 
fields, and different copy distribution systems and submission 
requirements among authorized state programs. All of these differences 
have forced waste handlers to expend considerable effort and incur 
significant paperwork burden in order to comply with the varying state 
manifest requirements. We received many strongly positive comments 
endorsing our proposal to further standardize the manifest format and 
procedures, effectively reducing the burden on waste handlers.
    Standardization of the manifest form involves three related 
measures that we included in the proposed rule. First, the proposed 
rule discussed eliminating or consolidating several of the existing 
data fields whose waste transportation or data tracking functions were 
neither essential nor appeared justified by the burden they caused to 
the manifest system. Second, the proposed rule discussed adding several 
new fields that EPA, states, or stakeholders believed were necessary to 
improve the effectiveness of the manifest for tracking waste. Third, 
the proposed rule addressed eliminating or reducing the number of 
optional fields for use by the states. The Uniform Manifest adopted in 
1984 included eleven such optional fields. The states varying 
implementation of these optional fields on state-specific formats 
resulted in generators, transporters and TSDFs having to stock a 
variety of states' manifest forms and remain cognizant of the 
differences in states' requirements. We will explain how the final rule 
addresses each of these three proposed measures.
    B.1. Elimination or Consolidation of Existing Data Elements--
Introduction. In the NPRM, we proposed to remove nine data elements 
from the Uniform Manifest form. All but one of these nine items appear 
in what is known as the ``state optional'' or upper right area of the 
current manifest, rather than being among the items that are designated 
as mandatory fields. The nine data elements that we proposed to remove 
or consolidate with other spaces on the manifest were:

VIII. Item A State Manifest Document Number,
IX. Item B State Generator's ID,
X. Item C State Transporter's ID,
XI. Item D Transporter's Phone,
XII. Item E State Transporter's ID,
XIII. Item F Transporter's Phone,
XIV. Item G State Facility's ID,
XV. Item H Facility's Phone, and
XVI. Item J Additional Descriptions for Materials.

    In short, the proposed rule would have removed all of the fields 
currently designated as ``state optional,'' except for current optional 
Item I, which is reserved for collecting RCRA waste code information, 
and current Item J, which collects data on handling codes. With regard 
to Item I, we proposed to retain, enlarge and make mandatory the 
optional data element for collecting waste codes. Section II.F.6 of 
this preamble includes a discussion of the final rule's treatment of 
waste code information. With respect to Item J, we proposed to 
standardize the information to be entered here around the hazardous 
waste management method codes entered for hazardous waste reporting 
purposes.
    The proposal to remove the other nine data elements was grounded on 
several factors: (1) A desire to reduce the time spent completing the 
manifest; (2) the recognition that several of the nine elements were 
redundant with each other; (3) the recognition that a few states were 
using several of the optional fields as tools for ``niche'' data 
reporting, sometimes in ways that were not contemplated by EPA or DOT 
in 1984 when we decided to include the optional fields on the manifest; 
and (4) the recognition that all shareholders prefer that the manifest 
remain a one-page format that collects the most essential waste 
shipment information. Thus, the addition of several new tracking fields 
to the form will of necessity require space to be freed up on the form 
for this new information, and require us to remove items that appear 
less essential for tracking waste shipment and management information.
    We received several comments endorsing the proposal to eliminate 
all nine of these ``optional'' fields as a way of reducing burden and 
variability in the manifest system. These commenters pointed out that 
the data involved consisted largely of state ID Numbers, facility phone 
numbers, or other static information that emergency responders or waste 
handlers could obtain elsewhere. These comments were balanced by other 
comments suggesting that most of the fields we proposed to remove 
provided some useful contact information that should be entered on the 
form for the benefit of emergency responders, state agency personnel, 
or in some instances, other waste handlers. However, we clearly could 
not retain all of these data elements and still accommodate any changes 
to the form that would add or delineate in more detail other waste 
tracking information that stakeholders urged us to adopt as part of the 
manifest revision effort, unless we were willing to expand the manifest 
to a two-page document. Given that the current one-page manifest 
already entails preparing and filing between four and eight copies, and 
the concerns that have been raised by users with Continuation Sheets 
that can be separated and misplaced during transit, we do not believe 
that a two-page format would be an acceptable outcome. We believe that 
it is essential to retain the manifest's one-page format, and this 
choice necessitates that additions to the form be offset with 
deletions. Thus, in making final decisions on what fields to eliminate, 
the Agency relied heavily on the numerous comments on this subject, but 
had to exercise its judgment in determining which data elements were 
most essential to the transportation and tracking functions of the 
manifest, which data elements avoided duplication with data collected 
elsewhere, and which data elements

[[Page 10780]]

seemed to provide the most benefit to the greatest number of 
stakeholders. We explain our final decisions for each of these nine 
data elements below.
    2. Proposed Removal of State Manifest Tracking Number. The State 
Manifest Tracking Number is not necessary, given the new manifest 
acquisition process discussed in Section III.A.3 of this preamble. When 
the new manifest form becomes effective, a registered printer will 
assign each manifest a unique, pre-printed Manifest Tracking Number. 
Printers can obtain authority to print manifests by registering with 
EPA under the Registry process and adhering to the federal printing 
specification for the manifest. There no longer will be separate state 
versions of the manifest form, and authorized states will no longer 
control the assignment of State Manifest Numbers to the new form. Thus, 
the State Manifest Number's role--assuring uniqueness of each manifest 
and facilitating the tracking of manifests in databases--is subsumed by 
the new mandatory requirement for Manifest Tracking Numbers to be pre-
printed on the forms.
    3. Proposed Removal of State Generator ID Field. We proposed in the 
May 2001 NPRM to remove this data element from the revised manifest 
form, but comments we received have persuaded us to retain a State's 
ability to require a State Generator ID number in certain instances. 
Several comments from state agencies pointed out that, in certain 
instances, states regulate generators as hazardous waste generators 
under their programs, but the generators do not have EPA ID numbers. 
For example, cases exist where a facility generates a waste regulated 
by the state as hazardous (states may have broader-in-scope programs), 
but is not a hazardous waste under the federal RCRA waste listings or 
characteristics. Similarly, the state may implement a broader-in-scope 
program that does not include as many of the federal exemptions from 
the definition of solid or hazardous wastes, or, the state may not 
recognize the status of conditionally exempt small quantity generators 
or other conditionally exempt wastes. In these cases, EPA would not 
issue such a generator an EPA Generator ID. However, the state would 
have a legitimate interest in assigning a State Generator ID Number to 
identify that generator on manifests or other submissions and in the 
state's databases. We agree with these commenters that there are valid 
reasons for retaining the State Generator ID field on the manifest and 
for providing the state authority to require such an ID when no 
corresponding EPA ID Number is assigned to that generator. Therefore, 
in this final rule, the manifest form will provide a common field for 
entering the generator's EPA or State ID Number. In this way, it is not 
necessary to retain the State Generator ID item as a separate data 
field. We emphasize that the State Generator ID Number should only be 
entered in this field when there is no available EPA ID Number for the 
generator.
    4. Proposed Removal of State Transporter's ID Fields. Under the 
existing Uniform Manifest, users record State Transporter's ID numbers 
in optional Items C and E. We proposed to remove these data elements in 
the May 2001 proposed rule, primarily because we believed that all 
hazardous waste transporters would have EPA ID numbers; there was no 
reason to retain data elements that would collect redundant 
information. In addition, we proposed to remove these data elements 
because we understood that states were using the Transporter ID field 
to collect certain types of information that were not authorized under 
the 1984 Uniform Manifest Rule that established the optional fields and 
set restrictions on their use. We intended the Transporter ID number 
field to record numbers established by EPA or states to identify a 
transportation company. Over the years, however, some states elected to 
use this field to collect identifying information on particular 
vehicles (e.g., registration numbers) or drivers (e.g., training 
certification numbers). EPA previously has issued guidance or 
interpretations stating that such uses are inconsistent with the 
federal program.
    Several commenters requested that the State Transporter ID field be 
retained in this rule. Several state agencies and a waste management 
facility commenter pointed out that some states, in fact, use this 
field to check whether waste transporters or their vehicles are 
properly licensed in the state. EPA does not agree with these 
commenters that the states' interest in licensing hazardous waste 
transporters or registering transportation vehicles or drivers is 
sufficient to warrant retaining the State Transporter ID Number fields 
on the revised manifest. In fact, these comments only confirm our 
belief that the use of this field over the years has extended to areas 
that were not contemplated or allowed when the Uniform Manifest Rule 
was issued in 1984. The federal regulations do not require states to 
issue licenses to hazardous waste transporters. There are ways to 
verify the transporters' state-licensed status other than requiring 
generators to enter license information or vehicle registration numbers 
on each hazardous waste manifest. The Transporter ID field's purpose 
was to identify each transporter company uniquely and indicate its 
eligibility under RCRA to handle and transport hazardous waste. While 
states may issue licenses to hazardous waste transporters, we do not 
believe that the Uniform Manifest should contain state-specific data 
requirements aimed at enforcing transporter licensing requirements that 
vary from state to state. We did not receive any comments suggesting 
that there were state regulated transporters that lacked an EPA ID 
number. Therefore, this final rule removes the State Transporter ID 
fields from the manifest form, and affirms that it is sufficient for 
the purposes of the revised manifest to enter only the transportation 
company's EPA ID number.
    5. Proposed Removal of Transporter's Phone Fields. Under the 
existing form, Items D and F are optional fields where users can record 
phone numbers for up to two transporters that may be identified in the 
mandatory transporter fields of the Uniform Manifest. The May 2001 NPRM 
proposed to remove Items D and F because we believed it was unnecessary 
to record the transporter phone numbers along with the other mandatory 
phone numbers. Several commenters asked us to retain the transporter 
phone fields because of the convenience accorded waste handlers who 
have grown accustomed to finding this contact information on the form.
    EPA does not agree with the commenters that convenience of the 
parties in this instance provides a sufficiently compelling argument 
for retaining the transporter phone number fields on the form. We 
believe that the argument for retaining transporter phone contact 
information would be compelling if there were information in the 
comments suggesting that this is vital information for emergency 
responders. However, the revised form now includes an Emergency 
Response Phone Number field (explained in Section II.C.3 of this 
preamble), which is consistent with DOT requirements for hazardous 
materials shipping papers. We believe that including this new data 
element--dedicated to Emergency Response purposes--effectuates the 
manifest's emergency response purpose more effectively than recording 
each transporter company's phone number on the form. Moreover, the 
revised manifest still requires phone numbers for the generator and the 
designated facility, who are directly responsible for reconciling 
discrepancy and exception events. Waste handlers should not be

[[Page 10781]]

greatly inconvenienced if they must at times resort to their internal 
contact lists rather than the Uniform Manifest to obtain a 
transporter's current phone number. Therefore, today's final rule 
removes the transporter phone number data elements from the revised 
manifest form.
    6. Proposed Removal of State Facility's ID Field. Item G is an 
optional field on the existing Uniform Manifest, used to record a State 
Facility ID number. We proposed to remove this data element in May 2001 
based on our belief that it produced duplicate information already 
provided by the EPA ID Number in Item 10 of the existing form. 
Designated facilities with EPA ID Numbers already are identified 
uniquely on the manifest and in RCRA databases (e.g., RCRAInfo). While 
commenters suggested it was convenient to use these numbers to ensure 
compliance with state licensing requirements, we did not receive 
comment that refuted our argument concerning redundancy. While 
permitted states may issue their own facility identification numbers, 
it is not necessary to burden waste handlers or the revised, 
standardized manifest form, with a requirement to enter duplicative 
facility identifiers. Therefore, this final rule removes the State 
Facility ID data element from the revised manifest form.
    7. Proposed Removal of Facility's Phone Field. The existing 
manifest form designates Item H as an optional data element where users 
can record the designated facility's phone number. The NPRM proposed to 
remove this data element from the revised form because we believed that 
users could obtain this contact information through means other than 
the manifest. However, we received a substantial number of comments 
from waste handlers and authorized states urging EPA to retain this 
data field. We learned from these commenters that generators, 
transporters and agency personnel use this information to address 
discrepancies, exceptions or other issues that arise from shipments of 
waste moving in commerce. Resolving discrepancies and exceptions are 
important waste tracking functions served by the manifest, and the 
comments persuaded us that the facility's phone number facilitates the 
performance of these critical tracking functions. Therefore, the 
revised manifest form retains space for entering the facility's phone 
number. The revised manifest will include this space in the Designated 
Facility's Name and Site Address field as a mandatory data element.
    8. Proposed Consolidation of Additional Descriptions and Special 
Handling Fields. In the May 2001 NPRM, we proposed to remove Item J 
(Additional Descriptions for Materials Listed Above) from the manifest 
and to consolidate this information with that of existing Item 15 
(Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information). Today's 
rule creates a combined data element, Special Handling Instructions and 
Additional Information, which appears as Item 14 on the revised 
manifest form. We proposed to consolidate these two data elements to 
create space on the revised form to accommodate the new International 
Shipments field and expanded discrepancy space, and because 
stakeholders previously had petitioned EPA to combine these two 
information fields.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The manifest reform effort began in 1990 with the filing of 
a rulemaking petition by the Association of State and Territory 
Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO). The petition requested, 
among other things, greater standardization of the manifest form, 
including the consolidation of these two elements. For further 
information about this petition, see RCRA Docket F-2000-UWMP-FFFFF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments on this proposal reflected a variety of views. While 
commenters did not object per se to our proposal to consolidate these 
two data elements, we received several comments expressing concerns 
about the amount of space allotted to the field, as well as many 
comments concerning the type of information that individual states 
might require in this block. Comments from generators, waste industry 
members and states stressed the need for more space on the revised 
manifest for the Special Handling and Additional Information field than 
we originally proposed. Industry commenters expressed the concern that 
the field, as proposed, would leave waste handlers too little space to 
enter waste profile information, bar codes depicting waste information, 
or information already required in this space by existing federal and 
state programs. State commenters echoed this concern, and one state 
(New York) added that the proposed field would not allow the state to 
track parameters such as the specific gravity of wastes (used to 
convert waste volume units to units of mass) or the ultimate handling 
code for wastes processed by multiple TSDFs. Industry comments also 
voiced strongly and frequently the concern that the revised Special 
Handling and Additional Information field would become a ``catch-all'' 
for entering various types of information. These commenters worried 
that eliminating many of the current ``state optional'' fields from the 
form would result in state programs requiring waste handlers to enter 
this information instead in Item 14 of the revised form. These 
commenters urged EPA to explicitly restrict the information that state 
agencies could require in this block, so that the anticipated paperwork 
burden reductions under the revised form would not be diminished.
    In response to these comments, today's revised manifest form 
includes Item 14 as proposed, but with minor modifications. Because we 
accepted comments suggesting that EPA not include a third Transporter 
block on the revised form, and accepted also the comment that the 
proposed form provided too much space for the new International 
Shipment field, we were able to create additional space for purposes of 
Item 14.
    More significantly, we are limiting the scope of information that 
users may enter in this field. Due to today's changes to other manifest 
form data elements, some of the previously required information in the 
``Special Handling'' field of the Uniform Manifest will no longer need 
to be entered in Item 14. For example, the revised form includes a new 
International Shipment field, which tracks imports and exports of 
hazardous waste. Thus, it will not be necessary to enter export 
shipments' port of exit information in the revised form's Special 
Handling and Additional Information Block, nor will it be necessary for 
transporters to sign and date the manifest here to indicate when a 
waste shipment has left the U.S. Moreover, the revised form has space 
to enter up to six RCRA waste codes for each waste stream identified in 
Item 9b of the new form. Today's rule also clarifies that no more than 
six waste codes may be entered for each waste stream (see Section 
II.F.3 of this preamble), which should eliminate the need to enter 
additional RCRA waste codes in this block.
    Under today's final rule, EPA is limiting the use of new Item 14 
primarily to waste handlers to record their site-specific or shipment-
specific information. This will allow waste handlers to supply 
information to facilitate the proper management or tracking of waste 
materials as required by their companies' business processes. With 
regard to the ``Special Handling'' aspect of this Item, we expect waste 
handlers to continue to use this field to enter waste profile numbers, 
container codes, Emergency Response Guide numbers, bar codes or other 
site-specific or company-specific tracking information. We anticipate 
that waste handlers may use the ``Additional

[[Page 10782]]

Description'' field of the revised Item 14 to enter chemical names, 
constituent percentages, physical state or specific gravity of wastes 
identified with volume units in Item 9b of the revised form.
    The federal regulatory uses of the Special Handling field of Item 
14 are limited to: (1) Identification of the original manifest tracking 
number for rejected waste or residue shipments that are being forwarded 
to an alternate facility or returned to the generator under a second 
manifest; and (2) specification of PCB waste descriptions and PCB out-
of-service dates under 40 CFR 761.207. Waste handlers, however, cannot 
be required to enter information in this space to meet state regulatory 
requirements.
    We recognize that states have previously used the Additional 
Description field to record state-specific information such as ultimate 
process codes for treating wastes, information relating to eligibility 
for state-specific exemptions, and information indicating the 
eligibility of specific wastes for differential fees or assessments 
levied by some states based on how these wastes are managed. Since the 
revised form will no longer allow state-specific information of this 
type to be entered in Item 14, states will need to find other means to 
flag state-specific information of this type so that the standardized 
manifest does not become burdened with state-specific data 
requirements. To the extent that such state-specific information can be 
captured by waste code information, we urge the states to develop 
appropriate waste codes to convey this information, and require its 
entry among the waste codes to be recorded in Item 13 of the new form. 
In this way, all state-specific information requirements could be 
conveyed in Item 13 rather than being dispersed across several data 
elements. EPA will support the dissemination of information to manifest 
users on state waste code requirements, and we urge states to address 
any needed waste code changes during the period before the delayed 
compliance date of this rule.
    9. Continuation Sheet. In the NPRM, we explained that the manifest 
system includes both the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (EPA Form 
8700-22) and the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Continuation Sheet 
(EPA Form 8700-22A). We clarified that the continuation sheet includes 
many of the same data elements as the manifest form and merely adds 
additional fields to identify additional transporters or waste streams 
which do not fit on the manifest. In this regard, we explained our 
intent to implement the proposed revisions with respect to both the 
manifest and the corresponding data fields found on the continuation 
sheet. EPA requested that commenters consider both the manifest and 
continuation sheet in providing comments. The majority of commenters on 
the continuation sheet asked for clarification on its use and design.
    In response to commenters' requests, we are clarifying today that 
the continuation sheet being published in the rule will continue to be 
used in the same way as the previous continuation sheet (e.g., when 
more than two transporters transport the waste). Moreover, the design 
of the new continuation sheet closely mirrors the previous continuation 
sheet, except that it has been revised to incorporate changes being 
made to the manifest form. Thus, the continuation sheet no longer 
includes fields for State Transporter ID numbers or phone numbers or 
the field on the previous continuation sheet denoted Item S, Additional 
Descriptions for Materials Listed Above. Eliminating these blocks freed 
up space on the continuation sheet which allowed us to add an 
additional row in the U.S. DOT Description block, increasing the number 
of rows from nine to ten. The continuation sheet no longer includes 
blocks for a Manifest Document Number or a State Manifest Document 
Number. These have been replaced by a block requiring a unique, pre-
printed Tracking Number that will serve essentially the same function 
as the Manifest Document Number and State Manifest Document Number. 
However, the new continuation sheet includes a single field for the 
generator's EPA or state ID Number. The continuation sheet also 
includes fields for federally required waste codes and Hazardous Waste 
Report Management Method Codes and includes a Discrepancy field if 
additional space is needed to describe a manifest discrepancy. Unlike 
the Discrepancy field on the manifest form, the continuation sheet's 
Discrepancy field does not include check boxes to indicate the type of 
discrepancy or a designated space to provide the manifest reference 
number. EPA believes the manifest form's Discrepancy field provides 
ample space for this information. Finally, whereas the previous 
continuation sheet included letters ``a'' through ``i'' in the nine 
rows of the U.S. DOT Description field, EPA has removed these letters 
from this field in the new continuation sheet and will now require the 
manifest preparer to number these rows. EPA reasons that the manifest 
preparer may need to complete multiple continuation sheets for a 
shipment and that the preparer should number these rows consecutively 
from one continuation sheet to the next, to reflect the total number of 
wastes being shipped. The numbering of the wastes on the first 
continuation sheet should start with Waste 5, and should 
continue from there forward until all wastes being shipped have been 
numbered and identified.
    C.1. Addition of New Data Elements--Introduction. The May 2001 NPRM 
suggested several new data elements that stakeholders argued were 
necessary or useful to improve the hazardous waste manifest as a tool 
for tracking waste shipments, for facilitating emergency responders' 
activities and recording waste management data. Specifically, the NPRM 
proposed and solicited comment on: (1) Adding a Generator Site Address 
field to the form; (2) adding an Emergency Response Telephone Number 
field; (3) adding an International Shipments field; and, (4) adding a 
third Transporter field to the transporter information area of the 
manifest.
    The NPRM also included several other new waste tracking elements 
that could be viewed as additions to the manifest form. Specifically, 
we proposed to expand the space on the form reserved for recording RCRA 
waste codes (current Block I). The current Uniform Manifest includes 
space for one RCRA code; the proposed rule would have enlarged this 
space to accommodate up to six federal or state waste codes. 
Furthermore, the proposed rule suggested expanding the Discrepancy 
field by adding check boxes and information fields to facilitate 
tracking rejected waste shipments and shipments involving non-empty 
container residues. We received many comments on our proposal to expand 
the waste codes, as well as the rejected waste and residue tracking 
requirements. Since these proposals involved more complex substantive 
issues than the other proposed additions summarized in this section, we 
discuss our final decisions on the waste code and discrepancy space 
proposals below in separate Sections II.F. and IV.A.2 of this preamble.
    2. Addition of Generator Site Address Field. While requesting 
comment on our proposed reductions in state optional fields (see 66 FR 
28240 at 28254), we also requested comment on a stakeholder suggestion 
to include a space on the form to record the generator's physical site 
address, either in lieu of or in addition to the current requirement 
for generators to provide their mailing address on the form. Although 
we did not include the

[[Page 10783]]

Generator Site Address field in the proposed rule form, we highlighted 
the issue and solicited comment on its merits. Originally, we refrained 
from including the Site Address field in the proposed rule form because 
we wanted to avoid introducing duplicative data elements to the 
manifest form. At that time, we thought that the manifest already 
included the site-specific Generator ID number, and we believed that 
this site-specific number, in tandem with the generator's mailing 
address, was sufficient to identify a generator site by location.
    Comments on this issue, however, persuaded us to include the 
Generator's Site Address field on the revised form. This issue was of 
great interest to the authorized states who identified the addition of 
the generator site address as a priority issue during the development 
of the proposed rule. Our state agency partners advised us that the 
mailing address for a company's corporate offices could be in a 
different state from the site address where waste shipments actually 
initiated. Thus, manifest copies could be routed erroneously to the 
state corresponding to the mailing address, rather than to the state 
responsible for overseeing the generation site. In addition, these 
states suggested that the EPA Generator ID number was not always a 
reliable site-specific identifier of generation, and that the 
Generator's Site Address on the manifest would be a more reliable 
indicator of the origin of a waste shipment in a manifest system that 
purports to track waste from ``cradle-to-grave.'' Furthermore, a site 
address is necessary in those instances where shipments must be 
returned to the generator. Although industry commenters tended to 
oppose the proposal to add a Generator's Site Address field to the 
form, some agreed it would be useful for returning shipments.
    After considering these comments, we have decided to include the 
Generator's Site Address field on the manifest. We retained the current 
requirement to enter a generator's mailing address, because we believe 
that the generators should be able to designate a corporate office 
where signed copies of the manifest are collected and managed. We do 
not believe that requiring generators to enter their site address 
overburdens them since they only have to do so when this location 
differs from their mailing address. To ensure that the new field's 
limited use is understood clearly by waste handlers, the field's 
caption contains distinct text explicitly stating that the site address 
should only be entered when it is different from the mailing address.
    3. Addition of Emergency Response Phone Number Field. Because the 
hazardous waste manifest is also a ``shipping paper'' under DOT's 
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs), it must include information 
specified in the HMRs for shipping papers. As we explained in the 
proposed rule, DOT currently requires an Emergency Response Phone 
Number on the shipping paper for most shipments of hazardous materials 
(See 49 CFR 172.604). Without discrete space provided for this 
regulatory requirement on the manifest, generators have complied by 
entering the emergency responder's phone number in either the margin of 
the form, the Generator's Phone Number field, the Special Handling 
field, or in the spaces designated for DOT shipping descriptions.
    The Emergency Response Phone Number field provides vital 
information for emergency responders to use in the event of an accident 
or other serious incident that occurs while a hazardous materials 
shipment is en route to its destination. The phone number must belong 
to the generator or other agency or organization that accepts 
responsibility for providing detailed information about the shipment. 
Additionally, the number must correspond to a phone that is monitored 
24 hours per day while the waste is in transportation. The person 
assigned to this phone must have either personal knowledge or immediate 
access to a person with knowledge of the material being shipped, as 
well as comprehensive emergency response, spill cleanup and incident 
mitigation information about the material. To communicate the 
importance of this information, EPA proposed in the NPRM to add a 
specific data element to record this information. Also, to ensure that 
there would be neither redundancy in the recording of phone numbers nor 
ambiguity about which phone was intended for emergency response 
purposes, we proposed to eliminate the two optional Transporter Phone 
Number fields. We are finalizing this approach in today's final rule. 
Therefore, under today's revised manifest form, the manifest will 
continue to require the phone numbers of the generator and the 
designated TSDF (so that exceptions and discrepancies can be resolved) 
to be entered, and it will now require as well the phone number 
designated for the vital emergency response functions. The revised 
manifest form will not provide space for entering additional 
transporter phone numbers.
    The use of the Emergency Response Phone Number field (Item 3) is 
appropriate for those cases in which the listed phone number applies to 
every item of waste material listed in Item 9b of the manifest. 
However, there may be instances (e.g., consolidated shipments) where 
more than one emergency response number may apply to the various waste 
items listed on the manifest, because specific listed items may be 
associated with different emergency response numbers. In these cases, 
DOT regulations specify that the applicable emergency response numbers 
should appear immediately following the shipping descriptions under 
Item 9b. See 49 CFR 172.604(a)(3). Therefore, in order to maintain 
consistency with the applicable DOT regulations, today's rule also 
clarifies that Item 3 is to be used for entering emergency response 
phone information only when there is one Emergency Response Phone 
Number that applies to all the waste materials described in Item 9b. 
Otherwise, the phone number associated with each specific material 
should be entered after the description of the material in Item 9b.
    4. Addition of International Shipments Field. In the May 22, 2001 
NPRM, we proposed to revise the manifest form by adding an explicit 
field for recording information on transboundary shipments of hazardous 
wastes. These shipments involve imports and exports of hazardous waste 
to and from the U.S. under bilateral agreements or other arrangements 
with foreign governments, waste importers and waste exporters. Current 
regulations require hazardous waste exporters to record the waste's 
port of exit on the form; transporters exporting waste must sign and 
date the manifest to indicate when the shipment left U.S. territory and 
leave a copy of the manifest with U.S. Customs officials.
    While these hazardous waste export requirements already apply to 
exporters and transporters, the current Uniform Manifest does not 
reserve any specific space for collecting this data. In order to comply 
with existing regulations, exporters enter the port of exit and 
transporters provide the date and signature for a shipment leaving the 
U.S. in the Special Handling and Additional Information field of the 
current form. In several cases, transporters found to be out of 
compliance with the current requirements have alleged that their 
violations resulted partly from a lack of clarity on the manifest form 
as to how and where they should enter the information.
    To alleviate this problem and reduce the complexity and burden of 
completing the manifest, we proposed

[[Page 10784]]

to add International Shipments, Item 16, to the revised form. The 
proposed changes provide explicit spaces for entering currently 
required information. The International Shipment field would provide 
the exporter with a check box to indicate an export and a space for 
entering the port of exit. Similarly, this data element would provide 
transporters with a discrete data element for indicating the date an 
export shipment leaves the U.S. and a signature line to attest to it.
    With respect to imports, the NPRM proposed to add new tracking 
requirements and corresponding data elements in the International 
Shipments field. The proposed import elements parallel those that 
already apply to exports of hazardous waste. Thus, the proposed 
International Shipments field would provide a check box for importers 
to indicate an import shipment and a space to identify the port of 
entry. We did not propose any requirements for transporters to sign off 
on import shipments in this new data field because import shipments 
will be closed out domestically by the signature of the receiving 
facility in the U.S. However, the NPRM proposed that transporters 
importing hazardous waste shipments leave a copy of the manifest with 
U.S. Customs. This copy aids EPA in collecting consistent information 
on hazardous waste imports, rather than relying on the piecemeal 
information that currently comes to the Agency under informal 
arrangements with border states and port authorities.
    Generally, commenters reacted positively to the proposed 
International Shipments field and the proposed requirement to submit a 
copy of the import manifest to U.S. Customs. Most generators, TSDFs and 
authorized states agreed that including an explicit field for 
transboundary waste movements was a good idea and would not pose any 
unreasonable compliance issues. However, many commenters contended that 
too much space seemed to be allocated for this purpose. Since nearly 
all available space on the proposed form has been utilized, one 
commenter suggested that the International Shipments field be removed 
from the domestic manifest and that a distinct new manifest form be 
developed to address international waste movements. Other commenters 
expressed the view that the rule should clarify that exporters rather 
than generators are responsible for entering the required export data, 
and that EPA should clarify the status of international shipments that 
are rejected by consignees and must be returned to the country of 
origin.
    In response to these comments, EPA is finalizing the rule with the 
International Shipments field retained on the revised form, as proposed 
but with some modificati