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.