[Federal Register: July 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 145)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42927-42949]
[DOCID:fr28jy06-7]

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

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 9, 260, 261, et al.

Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste
Program; Cathode Ray Tubes; Final Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 260, 261, and 271

[RCRA-2004-0010; FRL-8203-1]
RIN 2050-AE52

Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous
Waste Program; Cathode Ray Tubes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: A cathode ray tube (CRT) is the glass video display component
of an electronic device (usually a computer or television monitor). In
this rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending its
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to
streamline management requirements for recycling of used CRTs and glass
removed from CRTs. The amendments exclude these materials from the RCRA
definition of solid waste if certain conditions are met. This rule is
intended to encourage recycling and reuse of used CRTs and CRT glass.
EPA proposed this rule on June 12, 2002 (67 FR 40508).

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. RCRA-2004-0010. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information may not be publicly available, such as confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 566-
0270.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marilyn Goode, Office of Solid
Waste, Mail Code 5304W, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
electronic mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this final rule are listed
in the following outline:

Contents of the Final Rule

I. General Information
    A. Does This Rule Apply To Me?
    B. What Are the Statutory Authorities for This Final Rule?
    C. Acronyms Used in the Rule
II. Summary of This Rule and Clarification of Existing Policies
    A. CRTs From Households and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generators
    B. Reuse and Repair of Used CRTs
    C. CRTs and CRT Glass Sent for Recycling
    D. Export of Used CRTs
    E. Disposal of CRTs
    F. Circuit Boards
    G. Other Electronic Material
III. Background
IV. Rationale for This Rule and Response to Comments
    A. Used, Intact CRTs Sent for Recycling
    B. Used, Broken CRTs Sent for Recycling
    C. Used CRT Processing
    D. Exports and Imports
    E. Universal Waste
    F. Definitions
    G. Disposal
    H. Enforcement
V. State Authority
    A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
    B. Effect on State Authorization
    C. Interstate Transport
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
    J. Environmental Justice
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does This Rule Apply to Me?

    This rule potentially affects all persons who send used cathode ray
tubes (CRTs) and CRT glass for recycling, as well as all persons who
recycle these materials. The rule does not affect households or
conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs). If you have
any questions about the applicability of this rule, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Are the Statutory Authorities for This Final Rule?

    Today's rule is promulgated under the authority of Sections
2002(a), 3001, 3002, 3004, and 3006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of
1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(RCRA), and as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 3007, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924, 6926, 6927, and
6938.

C. Acronyms Used in the Rule

CES Computers and Electronics Subcommittee
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRT Cathode Ray Tube
CSI Common Sense Initiative
DOT Department of Transportation
FPD Flat Panel Display
HDTV High Definition Television
LCD Liquid Crystal Display
LDR Land Disposal Restrictions
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
TC Toxicity Characteristic
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TSDF Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility
TV Television
UWR Universal Waste Rule
WTE Waste-to-Energy

II. Summary of This Rule and Clarification of Existing Policies

    On June 12, 2002, EPA published a Federal Register notice seeking
comment on a proposed rule change that would streamline management
requirements for used CRTs and processed CRT glass (see 67 FR 40508 and
following pages). In the same notice, EPA proposed to add mercury-
containing equipment to the Federal list of universal wastes. This part
of the proposal was finalized on August 5, 2005 (70 FR 45507).
    The proposed requirements for used CRTs and processed CRT glass
would exclude these materials from the RCRA definition of solid waste
if they were sent for recycling under certain conditions. The purpose
of the proposed amendments was to encourage increased reuse, recycling,
and better management of this growing wastestream, while maintaining
necessary environmental protection. The conditions proposed were
intended to ensure that the materials were handled as commodities
rather than as wastes.
    The Agency received many comments in response to its June 12, 2002
notice. Numerous commenters supported the proposed rule, while other
commenters suggested changes to all or part of our proposal. After
considering all comments, we are finalizing the

proposal substantially as proposed, with two significant modifications.
The final rule, similarly to the proposed rule, contains an exclusion
from the definition of solid waste for used CRTs and processed glass
removed from CRTs (see 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)). The conditions for meeting
the exclusion are found in 40 CFR 261.39. The first change from the
proposal concerns exported CRTs. The Agency is promulgating notice and
consent requirements for all used CRTs (whether broken or intact) that
are exported for recycling (see 40 CFR 261.40 and 261.39(a)(5)). We are
also promulgating a one-time notification requirement for used CRTs
exported for reuse (see 40 CFR 261.41). The second change from the
proposal concerns speculative accumulation requirements, which the
final rule imposes on used, intact CRTs (see 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)(i)).
    EPA believes that today's rule will encourage recycling, protect
human health and the environment, and ensure that the subject materials
are handled as commodities rather than as wastes. Today's rule does not
limit or constrain the Agency in exercising its discretion to
promulgate additional rulemaking relating to the definition of solid
waste. Specifically, the Agency maintains the discretion to promulgate
additional regulations that aim to encourage legitimate recycling of
waste.
    Following is a brief summary of today's rule, along with some
clarifications of existing policies applicable to used CRTs.

A. CRTs From Households and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generators (CESQGs)

    Under previously existing regulations, CRTs from households are
exempt from Federal hazardous waste management requirements, even when
they are sent for recycling or disposal. Non-residential generators of
less than 100 kilograms (about 220 lbs) of hazardous waste in a
calendar month, including CRTs, are known as conditionally exempt small
quantity generators (CESQGs) and are not subject to most RCRA Subtitle
C management requirements. These provisions are not changed by today's
rule. For a more detailed description of requirements applicable to
these generators, see the discussion in the proposal at 67 FR 40511.

B. Reuse and Repair of Used CRTs

    In today's rule, we are reaffirming our long-standing policy that
any user sending a CRT to a collector or reseller for potential reuse
is not a RCRA generator. Materials used and taken out of service by one
person are not wastes if another person uses them in the same way. Many
businesses take usable CRTs out of service only because they are
upgrading their systems to take advantage of rapid advances in
electronic technology. These organizations do not have the technical
knowledge to decide whether a unit can be reused as a computer or
television.
    The Agency also confirms today that used CRTs undergoing repairs
(such as rewiring or replacing defective parts) before resale or
distribution are not being reclaimed, and are considered to be products
in use rather than solid wastes. These repairs do not constitute waste
management. For a fuller discussion of this issue, see the proposal at
67 FR 40511. However, under today's rule, CRTs exported abroad for
reuse are subject to a one-time notification requirement, which is
discussed later in this section.

C. CRTs and CRT Glass Sent for Recycling

    Many CRTs that cannot be reused are sent for recycling, which
consists of disassembly to recover valuable materials from the CRTs,
such as lead or glass. For a complete discussion of the different types
of recycling, see the proposal at 67 FR 40510. Following is a summary
of how CRTs and CRT glass sent for recycling within the United States
are regulated under today's rule.
Unused CRTs
    Today's rule clarifies that persons who send unused CRTs for
recycling are not subject to RCRA regulations. Sometimes manufacturers
of off-specification CRTs send them to glass processors, glass-to-glass
manufacturers, or smelters. Although these types of recycling may
constitute reclamation, EPA does not regulate unused commercial
chemical products that are reclaimed. For a more detailed discussion of
this issue, see the proposal at 67 FR 40511.
Used, Intact CRTs
    Today's rule provides that used, intact CRTs sent for recycling
(e.g., glass processing, glass manufacturing, or smelting) that occurs
within the United States are not solid wastes, unless they are
speculatively accumulated by a CRT collector or glass processor (see 40
CFR 261.4(a)(23)(i)).
Used, Broken CRTs
    Under today's rule, used, broken CRTs (those whose vacuum has been
released) are not solid wastes when sent for recycling that occurs
within the United States if they are packaged and labeled or if they
are stored in a building (see Sec. Sec.  261.4(a)(23)(iii) and
261.39(a)(1)-(3)). Like used, intact CRTs, they may not be
speculatively accumulated (see Sec.  261.39(a)(4)).
Requirements for CRT Processing
    Today's rule provides that to qualify for the exclusion from the
definition of solid waste, CRT glass processing as defined in 40 CFR
260.10 must take place in a building, and no activities may be
performed that use temperatures high enough to volatilize lead (see 40
CFR 261.39(b)).
Processed CRT Glass
    Under today's rule, processed CRT glass (glass removed from CRTs)
that is sent to a CRT glass manufacturer or a lead smelter is not a
solid waste, unless it is speculatively accumulated (see 40 CFR
261.39(c)). If it is sent to other types of recycling, it may be
excluded from the definition of solid waste if it meets the criteria of
40 CFR 261.2(e)(ii). All processed CRT glass legitimately used in a
manner constituting disposal must be packaged and labeled and must also
comply with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart C
(see 40 CFR 261.39(a)(1)-(4) and (d)). Subpart C applies to recycled
materials placed on the land.

D. Exports of Used CRTs

    Under today's rule, used, intact CRTs exported for recycling are
not solid wastes provided they are not speculatively accumulated and
provided the exporter notifies EPA of the export and receives a
subsequent written consent from the receiving country allowing the CRTs
to be imported for recycling (see 40 CFR 261.40 and 261.39(a)(5)).
Used, broken CRTs exported for recycling are not solid wastes provided
the exporters comply with the same notification and consent
requirements applicable to used, intact CRTs. They must also be
packaged and labeled, and they may not be speculatively accumulated
(see Sec.  261.39(a)(5) and (a)(1)-(4)).
    Today's rule also provides that used intact CRTs exported for reuse
are not solid wastes if the exporter sends a one-time notification to
the EPA Regional Administrator. The notification must contain a
statement that the notifier plans to export used, intact CRTs for
reuse, as well as contact information (see Sec.  261.41).

E. Disposal of CRTs

    Today's rule clarifies that if a person (other than a household)
decides to send used or unused CRTs directly to a landfill or
incinerator, that person

would be considered the generator of a solid waste. The person making
the decision must determine if the CRTs exhibit a hazardous waste
characteristic under 40 CFR part 261, subpart C, either testing the
CRTs or using process knowledge to make this determination. If the used
or unused CRTs are determined to be hazardous and if a decision is made
to dispose of them, the non-residential user, reseller, or manufacturer
must comply with all applicable hazardous waste generator requirements
of 40 CFR part 262. If hazardous waste CRTs are shipped to a hazardous
waste landfill, they must also comply with applicable land disposal
restrictions (LDRs). LDRs do not apply to CRTs generated by households
or CESQGs. For a more complete description of disposal requirements for
CRTs, see the proposal at 47 FR 40512.
    In addition, we note the possibility of conducting research and
development on CRT-related disposal and recycling technologies pursuant
to the treatability study exemption under 40 CFR 261.4(e) and (f). The
exemption allows researchers to store and use up to 1000 kg. of non-
acute hazardous waste without triggering most Subtitle C requirements.
In treatability studies, a hazardous waste is subjected to a treatment
process to determine whether the waste is amenable to a treatment
process, what pretreatment (if any is required), optimal process
conditions, treatment process efficiency, and characteristics and
volumes of residues (see 40 CFR 260.10). Examples of treatability
studies that could fall under this exemption include physical,
chemical, biological, or thermal treatment, solidification, volume or
toxicity reduction, and recycling feasibility (see 53 FR 27290, 27293,
July 19, 1988).

F. Circuit Boards

    In 1992, the Agency issued a memorandum to its EPA Regional Waste
Management Directors stating that used whole circuit boards are
considered to be scrap metal when sent for reclamation, and therefore
exempt from regulation under RCRA. The Agency also addressed circuit
boards in the Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV rulemaking (see 62 FR
25998, May 12, 1997). In that rulemaking, the Agency provided an
exclusion from the definition of solid waste at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(14) for
shredded circuit boards being reclaimed, provided they are stored in
containers sufficient to prevent a release to the environment prior to
recovery and provided they are free of mercury switches, mercury
relays, nickel-cadmium batteries and lithium batteries.
    Subsequently, on May 26, 1998 (63 FR 28556), the Agency clarified
that the scrap metal exemption applies to whole used circuit boards
that contain minor battery or mercury switch components and that are
sent for continued use, reuse, or recovery. In that notice, EPA stated
that it was not the Agency's intent to regulate under RCRA circuit
boards containing minimal quantities of mercury and batteries that are
protectively packaged to minimize dispersion of metal constituents.
However, once these materials are removed from the boards, they become
a newly generated waste subject to a hazardous waste determination. If
they meet the criteria to be classified as a hazardous waste, they must
be handled as hazardous waste; otherwise they must be managed as a
solid waste.

G. Other Electronic Material

    With respect to non-CRT electronic materials, the Agency uses the
same line of reasoning that is outlined above for CRTs to determine
that the materials are not solid wastes if they are reused or only
require repair and are not sent for processing or reclamation. That is,
if an original user sends electronic materials to a reseller because he
lacks the specialized knowledge needed to determine whether the units
can be reused as products, the original user is not a RCRA generator.
The materials are not considered solid wastes until a decision is made
to recycle them in other ways or dispose of them.

III. Background

    Under Subtitle C of RCRA, a solid waste is a hazardous waste if it
exhibits one or more of the characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C, or
if it is a listed hazardous waste in 40 CFR part 261, subpart D. The
RCRA regulations set forth requirements for hazardous waste generators,
transporters, and owners and operators of treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDFs). Generators are required to determine
whether their waste is hazardous, either by testing the waste or
applying their knowledge of the waste in light of the materials or
processes used (see 40 CFR 262.11). EPA regulations also contain
exclusions for certain materials from the definition of solid waste or
hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.4(a) and (b)). In addition, the Agency has
developed streamlined rules for particular wastes, including recyclable
wastes (40 CFR part 266) and universal wastes such as batteries,
pesticides, mercury-containing equipment, and lamps that are widely
generated by different industries (40 CFR part 273).
    CRTs are vacuum tubes, made primarily of glass, which constitute
the video display components of televisions, computer monitors, and
other electronic devices. Other types of CRTs include medical,
automotive, oscilloscope, appliance, and military and control tower
CRTs. A CRT is assembled into a monitor, which includes several other
parts, such as a plastic cabinet, electromagnetic shields, circuit
boards, connectors, and cabling. The preamble to the proposed rule
provides more detailed information on the nature of the industry (see
67 FR 40509).
    Manufacturers generally employ significant quantities of lead in
the glass used to make color CRTs. Televisions and color computer
monitors contain an average of four pounds of lead (the exact amount
depends on the size and make). Lead is a toxic metal that can cause
delayed neurological development in children and other adverse health
effects in adults, including increased blood pressure, nephritis, and
cerebro-vascular disease. It is reasonably anticipated to be a human
carcinogen. See, e.g., Iris Database Toxicity Profile No. 0277: Lead
and Compounds (Inorganic), EPA 2004 \1\ and 53 FR 31522, August 18,
1988. The amount of lead used by some manufacturers appears to be
decreasing. However, according to recent studies performed at the
University of Florida, most color CRTs leach lead in the TCLP test at
concentrations above the TC regulatory level of 5 milligrams per liter
(mg/l). In one study, Musson et al. (2000) found that 21 of 30 color
CRTs tested exceeded the TC value, with an average lead level of 22.2
mg/l in TCLP leachate.\2\ In a 2004 study,\3\ the average concentration
of lead in leach tests of color computer

monitors \4\ was 47.7 mg/l. These levels are considerably above the
toxicity characteristic regulatory level of 5 mg/l that is used to
classify lead-containing wastes as hazardous (40 CFR 261.24(b)). This
result is not surprising because CRT glass generally accounts for over
60 percent of the weight of the monitor. The 2000 Musson et al. study
also showed that for monochrome CRTs, the average lead leachate
concentration was 0.03 mg/l. These data appear to indicate that black
and white monitors do not generally fail the TC. Other hazardous
constituents sometimes present in CRT glass are mercury, cadmium, and
arsenic. However, these constituents are found in very low
concentrations that are unlikely to exceed the TC concentration limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0277.htm.

    \2\ Characterization of Lead Leachability from Cathode Ray Tubes
Using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, Stephen Musson
et al., Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University
of Florida, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 34, no. 20,
2000. The investigators in this study also believed that variability
in the subsampling technique used in the study (neck, funnel and
face glass were all tested separately) led to an underestimate of
lead leachability. Additional testing showed that the glass frit
used to seal the face to the funnel, and which has a very high total
lead concentration, was undersampled. The investigators concluded
that CRT subsampling that included a representative amount of the
frit would have resulted in all 30 of the color CRTs exceeding the
TC regulatory value of 5 mg/l in the TCLP.
    \3\ http://www. ees.ufl. edu/homepp/ townsend/Research/ Electronic

Leaching/default. asp.
    \4\ The data in this study were generated using a modified
version of EPA's TCLP. The authors used a modified TCLP because
standard TCLP particle size reduction and waste subsampling for
debris-like materials can pose difficulties. In the ``Large Scale
Leaching Procedure,'' the computer monitor or television was
disassembled and all the parts placed in a large leaching vessel
without particle size reduction. Other aspects of the standard TCLP
test design (e.g., the 20:1 liquid-solid ratio) were maintained.
Particle size reduction is intended to simulate the physical
breakdown of wastes over time, and also facilitate achieving
equilibrium in an 18-hour leaching period. Such reduction typically
increases the leaching of metals in the TCLP, because it increases
the surface area exposed to the leaching fluid. However, Townsend
showed earlier in this same paper that when the waste contains a
significant amount of iron, particle size reduction facilitates iron
oxidation and the formation of binding sites on the iron. These
oxidized iron binding sites adsorb metals from the leaching solution
and can result in lower leaching of metals in the TCLP. However, the
CRTs from computers and color televisions contained only small
amounts of iron (3% and 6% of the total, respectively) and the
authors concluded that the presence of the iron was not a
significant factor in the overall results. The Agency agrees with
these conclusions. We note that the regular, unmodified TCLP is
still the legal standard for classifying materials as hazardous
wastes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From 1994 through 1998, EPA's Common Sense Initiative (CSI)
explored the environmental regulation of six industry sectors and
looked for ways to make environmental regulation ``cleaner, cheaper,
and smarter''. The CSI Computers and Electronics Subcommittee (CES)
formed a workgroup to examine regulatory barriers to pollution
prevention and electronic waste recycling. The workgroup explored the
problems of managing mounting volumes of outdated computer and
electronics equipment.
    As a result of the finding of the CES Subcommittee, the CSI Council
issued a document titled Recommendation on Cathode Ray Tube (CRT)
Glass-to-Glass Recycling. In this document, the Council recommended
streamlined regulatory requirements for CRTs to encourage recycling and
better management. The recommendations included streamlined
requirements for packaging, labeling, and transportation; general
performance standards for glass processors; and export provisions. The
CSI Council also recommended an exclusion from the definition of solid
waste for processed glass that is used to make new CRT glass.
    Since the recommendations of the CRT Council, the recycling of CRTs
and CRT glass has evolved and various stakeholders have made occasional
suggestions to the Agency about how to address changing practices.

IV. Rationale for This Rule and Response to Comments

A. Used, Intact CRTs Sent for Recycling

    Used, intact CRTs are CRTs remaining within the monitor whose
vacuum has not been released. In its June 12, 2002 notice, the Agency
proposed to exclude these materials from the definition of solid waste,
unless they were disposed. These materials, when sent for recycling,
would not have been subject to regulation under RCRA Subtitle C,
including the speculative accumulation limits of 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)
(see also 40 CFR 261.2(c)(4)). Under the proposal, used, intact CRTs
could therefore have been held for long periods of time without being
considered abandoned and thereby becoming solid wastes.
    EPA determined that intact CRTs are highly unlikely to release lead
to the environment because the lead is contained in the plastic housing
and the glass matrix (see 67 FR 40513). Because of this low likelihood
of release, EPA proposed reduced requirements for used, intact CRTs by
excluding them from the definition of solid waste. Unused CRTs are
already considered commercial chemical products which are excluded from
the definition of solid waste when recycled, even if they are reclaimed
or speculatively accumulated (see 50 FR 14219, April 11, 1985). Used
and unused intact CRTs are identical in appearance. Consequently, it
would be difficult to distinguish between used and unused intact CRTs
destined for recycling, and there appeared to be no environmental basis
for such a distinction.
    The Agency continues to believe that lead contained in used, intact
CRTs is generally unlikely to be released to the environment. However,
views expressed by commenters have led the Agency to change the
proposed speculative accumulation requirements for these materials.
Today's rule provides that used, intact CRTs are subject to the
speculative accumulation requirements of 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8) if they are
accumulated by glass processors or collectors (see 40 CFR
261.4(a)(23)(i)). Today's rule also modifies requirements applicable to
used, intact CRTs that are exported. The export requirements are
discussed in a separate section below. Following are the significant
comments received, and our responses.
Response to Comments
    Commenters were divided about imposing speculative accumulation
requirements on used, intact CRTs. Some commenters supported our
proposal to impose no accumulation limits on intact CRTs. These
commenters claimed that intact CRTs being recycled were more commodity-
like than waste-like, and that there is virtually no possibility of
environmental releases from intact CRTs. One commenter said that intact
CRTs are likely to be stored in containers or buildings, at least while
they have resale value.
    Other commenters, particularly States, wanted to subject used,
intact CRTs to the speculative accumulation provisions because they
were concerned about the possibility of abandonment. However, one
commenter stated that this problem might be better addressed under
state solid waste authorities than under federal law.
    The Agency agrees with those commenters who expressed concern about
potential abandonment of used, intact CRTs, particularly by glass
processors and by persons who collect CRTs for recycling. Although
broken CRTs and processed CRT glass are likely to pose a greater
immediate risk of environmental releases, we believe that this
possibility also exists for intact CRTs that are stored for long
periods of time, particularly if a collector of such materials abandons
them instead of sending them for recycling. Such indefinite storage, in
the Agency's view, indicates that the materials are waste-like rather
than commodity-like in nature.
    EPA has also reconsidered its earlier statement that it is very
difficult to distinguish between unused and used intact CRTs. The two
types of materials are not normally stored together. Unused intact CRTs
are generally returned to the manufacturer by consumers or retailers,
after which they are sent directly to recyclers. Prolonged storage of
unused intact CRTs by consumers, retailers, or manufacturers is
unlikely.
    Nor do we agree with the commenter who stated that speculative
accumulation is better addressed by state solid waste authorities,
rather than

federal law. Some state definitions of solid waste are based on the
federal definition, and these States would find it more difficult to
use their authorities to require removal of abandoned CRTs.
    For these reasons, today's rule imposes the speculative
accumulation requirements of 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8) on collectors of CRTs
and glass processors (see 40 CFR 261.(a)(23)(i)). Speculative
accumulation requirements also apply to used CRTs that are exported for
recycling (see 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)(ii) and 261.40)).
    However, we are not imposing speculative accumulation requirements
on persons who use computers or televisions and then send the intact
CRTs to collectors and glass processors. Such persons are not likely to
accumulate CRTs in circumstances that will lead to environmental
releases, nor is there an economic incentive for them to store intact
CRTs indefinitely. Because of the new speculative accumulation
requirement, we have also added a definition of ``CRT collector'' to 40
CFR 260.10 (``a person who receives used, intact CRTs for recycling,
repair, resale, or donation'').

B. Used, Broken CRTs Sent for Recycling

Labeling and Storage
    Some users and collectors of CRTs separate the CRT from its housing
and release the vacuum. They then send the monitor with its broken
glass to a recycler (often a glass processor). This practice saves
shipping costs and enables the glass processor to pay more for the
broken CRTs received. At other times, the CRTs are first broken by the
processor or other recycler. CRTs whose glass has been broken by
releasing the vacuum are non-reusable and non-repairable and therefore
could potentially be solid wastes at the time such breakage occurs.
    In the proposal, EPA proposed to add a new section (40 CFR
261.39(a)) which provided that used, broken CRTs sent for recycling
would not be solid wastes if they were stored in a building with a
roof, floor, and walls, or if they were stored in a container (i.e., a
package or a vehicle) which was constructed, filled, and closed to
minimize identifiable releases of CRT glass (including fine solid
materials) to the environment. The containers were to be labeled or
marked clearly with one of the following phrases: ``Waste cathode ray
tube(s)--contains leaded glass,'' or ``Used cathode ray tube(s)--
contains leaded glass.'' The containers must also be labeled ``do not
mix with other glass materials.'' When transported, the broken CRTs
would have had to be in a container meeting the conditions described
above. Used, broken CRTs destined for recycling could not be
speculatively accumulated as defined in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8).
    The Agency stated that, if these materials are properly
containerized and labeled when stored or shipped prior to recycling,
they resemble articles in commerce or commodities more than wastes.
Breakage is a first step toward recycling the leaded glass components
of the CRT. Also, materials held in conditions that safeguard against
loss are more likely to be valuable commodities destined for legitimate
recycling. In addition, the proposed packaging requirements would
ensure that the possibility of releases to the environment from the
broken CRTs is very low. For these reasons, an exclusion from the
definition of solid waste was considered appropriate if the broken CRTs
were handled under the conditions proposed.
    The Agency has decided to promulgate the regulations applicable to
storage and labeling of used, broken CRTs substantially as proposed.
EPA has determined that used, broken CRTs are not solid wastes if they
are sent for recycling within the United States under the conditions
specified in 40 CFR 261.39(a)(1)-(4). However, the Agency has made
certain modifications to the proposed conditions in response to
comments received. These changes are described below. Today's rule also
modifies the proposed requirements applicable to used, broken CRTs that
are exported. The export requirements are discussed in a separate
section below, along with requirements for imports.
Response to Comments
    Several commenters suggested changes to our proposed labeling
requirements for used, broken CRTs being transported or stored. Some
commenters wanted requirements which they believed were more accurate
or specific than the ones proposed. For example, under our proposal,
processed glass going to certain types of recycling would have to be
packaged and labeled identically to used, broken CRTs (see proposed 40
CFR 261.39(d), 47 FR 40525). One commenter pointed out that processed
glass can no longer be considered a ``cathode ray tube.'' This
commenter therefore suggested that applicable labeling requirements for
processed glass be changed to ``processed cathode ray tube glass'' or
``glass removed from cathode ray tubes.'' Similarly, another commenter
stated that used broken CRTs may be in such small pieces that the
materials might not be recognizable as ``cathode ray tubes.'' This
commenter suggested that a useful alternative requirement (which could
be used in addition to our proposed language) would be to label
containers of broken CRTs with the phrase ``leaded glass'' and some
indication of the source of the glass--e.g., ``leaded glass from
televisions.'' Another commenter pointed out that one of our proposed
alternative labeling phrases (``waste cathode ray tubes--contains
leaded glass'') was not necessary, since the cathode ray tubes would
not be wastes if they were packaged and labeled in accordance with the
regulations.
    The Agency agrees that these suggestions are more accurate than our
proposed regulations, and has modified the final rule accordingly.
Section 261.39(a)(2) of today's rule specifies that each container in
which a used, broken CRT is contained must be labeled or marked clearly
with one of the following phrases: ``used cathode ray tubes--contains
leaded glass'' or ``leaded glass from televisions or computers.''
    One commenter urged complete flexibility in labeling requirements.
Another suggested that the Agency not specify the exact wording of
labels in the regulations, but instead should require that contents be
``marked with words that identify the contents of the containers.''
This latter commenter believed that labelers would then have more
discretion and would not be subject to enforcement actions for failing
to use the precise words specified in the regulations.
    The Agency does not agree with these comments. Requiring no
specified words or phrases for labeling in the regulations does not
provide sufficient legal notice to either regulators or the regulated
community, and could, if anything, lead to more enforcement actions
than a precisely worded requirement.
    Other commenters believed that several of our proposed requirements
were unnecessary. For example, some commenters objected to EPA's
proposed requirement that broken CRTs be stored either in a container
or a building. One commenter believed that these materials should not
be classified as solid wastes if they were stored on a concrete pad or
the equivalent, since this practice should be adequate for a coarse
solid material which is insoluble in water. Other commenters suggested
replacing our proposed requirements with a requirement that storage of
CRT glass must take place in ``environmentally contained areas (water
and particle containment)'' or must be ``stored in a manner that meets
other environmental

regulations that control or limit release to the environment.''
    EPA disagrees with these comments. In the first place, storing
broken CRTs outdoors prior to processing is inconsistent with the
premise that these materials are commodity-like, because they can
easily be damaged if exposed to excessive wind or moisture, unless they
are packaged. Language requiring storage in ``environmentally contained
areas'' is too vague to provide guidance to the regulated community on
the measures required to ensure appropriate handling of commodity-like
materials. Similarly, a requirement that materials be ``stored in a
manner that meets other environmental regulations'' would be redundant,
since they are required to comply with all applicable environmental
regulations in any event. Therefore, the final rule does not contain
these suggested requirements.
    One commenter pointed out that containers holding used, broken CRTs
may also hold other portions of electronic equipment such as the
plastic housing that contains the CRT. This commenter requested that
the Agency clarify that these other associated materials need not be
segregated from CRTs during storage. We agree with this commenter that
such segregation was not our intent and the rule does not require such
segregation.
Speculative Accumulation
    In our June 12, 2002 notice, we proposed to require that used,
broken CRTs and processed CRT glass be subject to the speculative
accumulation provisions of 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8). These provisions
generally specify that materials are speculatively accumulated, unless
75 percent of the materials (calculated by weight or by volume) are
recycled within a calendar year. We inquired whether a longer
accumulation period (such as two or more years) should be provided for
CRTs to allow recycling markets to grow, especially since there
appeared to be few environmental concerns with storage if these
materials are properly packaged and labeled. After evaluating comments
received on this issue, we have decided to finalize the speculative
accumulation requirements as proposed for used, broken CRTs and
processed CRT glass. The comments received, and our responses, are
described below.
Response to Comments
    Some commenters (principally states) supported the current
speculative accumulation provisions for broken CRTs (or, in some cases,
the one-year accumulation period of the universal waste rule). These
commenters were concerned about the possible environmental effects of a
longer accumulation time, and generally believed that the one-year time
frame allowed in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8) was enough to accumulate sufficient
quantities for recovery and find outlets for recycling.
    Other commenters (generally representing industry) supported
extending speculative accumulation requirements for broken CRTs. Some
supported extensions of two or more years, and a few wanted no limits
at all. These commenters argued that longer time limits would allow
persons handling used CRTs to accumulate the materials in larger
numbers, which would make shipping less expensive. They also believed
that extended speculative accumulation times would allow markets to
develop more fully, thus encouraging recycling.
    EPA agrees with those commenters who stated that markets are likely
to increase for CRT glass. Although some commenters were concerned
about lack of markets, these commenters did not submit quantitative
data that would be sufficient, in the Agency's view, to justify
treating these materials differently from other materials that are
excluded from the definition of solid waste on condition that they not
be speculatively accumulated. We note that markets for all of these
materials frequently fluctuate. For these reasons, we believe that used
broken CRTs and processed CRT glass should be subject to the usual
requirements that they not be speculatively accumulated.
    One commenter suggested extending the speculative accumulation
period for processed glass, stating that processed glass must sometimes
be stored at glass manufacturing facilities for long periods of time
due to the lack of current need for glass with the particular lead
content found in the stored glass. However, another commenter supported
the use of variances under 40 CFR 260.30(a) to extend accumulation
times when necessary for persons developing new glass technologies. We
agree with this commenter. Such variances are available on a case-by-
case basis if the applicant can demonstrate that sufficient amounts of
the material in question can be recycled or transferred for recycling
within the following year. The variances can be renewed annually by
filing a new application. We note that these variances are available
not only to glass processors and to persons developing new glass
technologies, but also to any person storing used CRTs who needs
additional storage time. Because they are site-specific and allow
individual circumstances to be taken into account, the variances are
more appropriate than an extension covering many different kinds of
facilities.
    One commenter stated that since most facilities will rarely
encounter broken CRTs, it would be burdensome to try to distinguish
them from intact CRTs; therefore, they should be subject to the same
speculative accumulation requirements. EPA does not agree with this
commenter. If CRTs are to be recycled, they must be broken at some
point in order to be disassembled. Nor is it difficult to determine
visually whether the vacuum tube on a CRT has been released. In any
event, we note that the importance of distinguishing between broken and
intact CRTs is not relevant for purposes of speculative accumulation,
since under today's rule both are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR
261.1(c)(8).
    Another commenter stated that the purpose of the original
speculative accumulation provisions was to alleviate concerns about
sham recycling and to provide a way to determine storage periods and
turnover rates for materials that did not have well-defined markets.
Since there are current markets for CRT glass, this commenter reasoned
that the speculative accumulation provisions should not apply to these
materials. We disagree with this commenter; the speculative
accumulation provisions have never been limited to materials with
particular types of markets. In any event, markets for most commodities
usually change over time.
    A few commenters suggested a period shorter than one year for
accumulation of used CRTs. Two commenters said that 180 days should be
sufficient to allow CRTs to be recycled, and that longer periods could
encourage sham operations. These commenters who suggested shorter
accumulation times, such as 180 days, did not submit data indicating
that CRTs could be effectively recycled in such a short time period.
Therefore, we are not adopting these suggestions.
    EPA notes that a few commenters may have been confused about the
relationship between the current speculative accumulation provisions
and the classification of CRTs as solid wastes. The speculative
accumulation provisions apply to materials that are not solid wastes at
the beginning of the accumulation period; if they are not recycled in
sufficient quantities within the specified period, they become solid
wastes (and, if they are hazardous waste, subject to all applicable
Subtitle C requirements). If used CRTs were classified as spent
materials as soon as they were taken out of service, they

would instead be subject to the shorter accumulation times (90 or 180-
270 days) allowed for generators of hazardous wastes pursuant to 40 CFR
262.34, rather than the one-year period allowed under 40 CFR
261.1(c)(8).
Use Constituting Disposal
    In our June 12, 2002 notice, we proposed a condition prohibiting
land placement of processed CRT glass, unless it met the use
constituting disposal requirements of Part 266, Subpart C. We solicited
comment on whether to impose the same prohibition on broken CRTs as
well. We asked for information about the current uses for broken CRTs
or processed CRT glass that involved use constituting disposal. We
received very little data on this issue, although a few commenters
mentioned the use of processed glass in road building materials.
Because we have no information about this practice that would justify
distinguishing it from use constituting disposal of processed CRT
glass, today's rule imposes the same prohibition on both kinds of
materials (see 40 CFR 261.39(a)(4) and (d)). We also note that for
materials to be used in a manner constituting disposal, such recycling
must be legitimate rather than a form of treatment. For guidance in
determining such legitimacy, see the Memorandum entitled ``F006
Recycling'' from Sylvia K. Lowrance to Hazardous Waste Division
Directors, April 26, 1989.

C. Used CRT Processing

Requirements for CRT Processors
    The Agency also proposed an exclusion from the definition of solid
waste for used CRTs undergoing glass processing, if certain conditions
were met (see proposed 40 CFR 261.39(b)). CRT glass processing was
defined in proposed 40 CFR 260.10 as the receiving of intact or broken
used CRTs, intentionally breaking them, sorting or otherwise managing
glass removed from CRT monitors, and cleaning coatings from the glass.
CRT users and collectors sometimes break CRTs before sending them to a
processor. Therefore, under the proposal, breaking used CRTs would not
by itself subject a facility to the CRT glass processing conditions. In
order to be classified as a CRT glass processor, the facility would
have to perform all of the enumerated activities.
    Under the proposal, used, broken CRTs undergoing glass processing
would not have been solid wastes if they were stored in a building with
a roof, floor, and walls. If they were not stored inside a building,
they would have to be packaged and labeled under conditions identical
to those proposed for used, broken CRTs prior to processing, including
the prohibition on speculative accumulation. All glass processing
activities would have to be conducted in a building with a roof, floor,
and walls. In addition, no activities could be performed during glass
processing that used temperatures high enough to volatilize lead from
CRTs.
    The CSI Council had recommended that glass processors install and
maintain systems sufficient to minimize releases of glass and glass
particulates via wind dispersal, runoff, and direct releases to soil.
We solicited comment in the proposal on whether to require additional
performance standards for glass processors. However, we did not propose
the general performance standard recommended by the CSI Council, citing
the Council's statement that storing broken CRTs and CRT glass in
buildings or closed containers (as we proposed) were examples of ways
to control wind dispersal, runoff, and direct releases to soil.
    We also did not propose the CSI Council recommendation that glass
processors implement a procedure for advising local communities of the
nature of their activities, including the potential for resident and
worker exposure to lead or chemical coatings. We stated our belief that
matters of local notice and public participation are generally best
decided at the state, county, or municipal level. However, we solicited
comment on whether to require such procedures under federal regulations
in the case of CRT recycling, and the reasons why these procedures
would be needed.
    EPA stated, at the time of proposal, that the conditions proposed
for used, broken CRTs being processed indicate that the materials in
question are more commodity-like than waste-like. Used, broken CRTs
that are not managed in accordance with these requirements would not be
valuable, product-like materials. The opportunity for loss or releases
of the materials would indicate that they are wastes. As specifically
recommended by the CSI Council, we also proposed that processors be
required to conduct their activities without using temperatures high
enough to volatilize lead from broken CRTs. Besides increasing the risk
of releases to the environment, such practices could be a sign of waste
management rather than production.
    EPA has determined that used, broken CRTs being processed under
these conditions resemble commodities more than wastes. For this
reason, we are finalizing these conditions substantially as proposed.
However, we have revised some of our proposed language in response to
comments received. Significant comments, our responses, and the changes
are discussed below.
Response to Comments
    Several commenters believed that our proposed temperature
requirement was unnecessary, noting that workers' exposure to lead was
already covered by OSHA requirements at 29 CFR part 1910, and that a
high temperature (or thermal processing) is not by itself an indication
that waste management is occurring. Several commenters stated that lead
volatilization and other lead releases would also be covered by
applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
Other commenters supported the proposed temperature requirements, in
part because they believed that use of high temperature requirements
are in fact an indication of waste management. Some commenters asked
EPA to specify a particular temperature, beyond which processing would
be prohibited.
    EPA agrees with those commenters who believed that CRT processing
conducted with high temperatures may indicate waste management, because
high temperatures are more likely to release lead and other
contaminants into the environment, thereby leading to possible loss of
materials. Such waste management could occur even if OSHA requirements
apply. We are therefore retaining our prohibition on using temperatures
high enough to volatilize lead, as proposed. However, we are not adding
a specific temperature to the prohibition because the relevant
scientific literature reveals differing temperatures for volatilization
of lead, possibly depending on various conditions (see, e.g.,
Volatilization Studies of a Lanthanide Lead Borosilicate Glass, WSRC-
MS-98-00240, R.F. Schumacher, D.S. McIntyre, D.K. Peeler, J.M.
Parteizs; \5\ and Effect of Heating on the Sintering Behavior and the
Piezoelectric Properties of Lead Zirconate Titnate Ceramics, Jungho
Ryu, Jong-Jin Choi, and Hyoun-EeKim, Journal of the American Ceramic
Society, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 902-904, April 2001). We therefore believe
that this requirement is more appropriately expressed as a performance
standard than as a numeric value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ http://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/ms9800240/ms9800240.html.

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

    Some commenters mistakenly thought that the proposed temperature
requirement would apply to ``end users'' of recycled CRT glass such as
glass furnaces or smelters. One commenter

asked EPA to impose a performance standard on both CRT processors and
glass manufacturers (and presumably smelters as well) that would ensure
that no temperatures would be employed that released toxic metals into
the work environment or the surrounding air. Another commenter
suggested requiring that CRT processors be required to monitor for
fugitive emissions of lead, silica, and mercury. The Agency does not
agree with those commenters who suggested additional requirements for
glass manufacturers and smelters, or emissions monitoring for CRT
processors. EPA did not solicit comment on any of these measures and
they are inappropriate for commodity-like materials. They could also be
duplicative of requirements that are already applicable under OSHA, the
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and RCRA.
    One commenter stated that EPA's proposed requirement that CRTs
undergoing processing be stored (unless packaged) in a building ``with
a roof, floor, and walls'' could lead to placing CRTs in locations with
inadequate containment. This commenter suggested replacing the Agency's
proposed requirement with a provision calling for ``storage within a
permanently constructed building consisting of at least a roof and
three walls permanently affixed to an impermeable floor placed on the
ground.''
    We remain unconvinced that such requirements are necessary for
buildings where CRTs are processed. For example, it is not clear that
CRT processing would pose environmental risks (or that CRTs would be
handled as wastes instead of commodities) if such processing work took
place in a temporary building, since no liquids are involved in the
processing. We also note that spills or releases would in any event be
considered solid wastes.
    One commenter disagreed with EPA's statement in our proposal that
persons who break CRTs before sending them to processors should not be
subject to our proposed conditions for CRT glass processing. Breaking
CRTs and separating components constitute reclamation and should
require a permit, according to this commenter.
    EPA disagrees that breaking CRTs and separating components should
require a permit. These actions may be performed by almost anyone
sending a CRT to a recycler. The requirements of 40 CFR 261.39(a)
concerning storage, transportation, labeling, and speculative
accumulation are adequate to ensure that broken CRTs are handled as
commodities; there is no need to impose other subtitle C requirements
required under 40 CFR parts 264 and 265. Nor is there a need to subject
persons who merely break CRTs to the provisions concerning high
temperature activities. The Agency does not necessarily disagree with
the commenter that breaking CRTs and separating the components
constitutes reclamation. Nevertheless, when a person receives broken
CRTs that are packaged and labeled in accordance with today's rule, the
materials are commodity-like and the person or facility in question
should not have to comply with the provisions of a hazardous waste
storage permit. Moreover, EPA generally does not regulate reclamation
processes themselves. States are of course free to impose more
stringent requirements if they believe such requirements are justified.
    Some commenters urged that EPA impose environmental management
standards, emissions and ventilation standards, notification
requirements, recordkeeping and tracking of wastes, employee training,
and worker health and safety protections. Some of these commenters
suggested that these requirements should also be applicable to persons
sending CRTs for recycling, as well as processors. Some suggestions
were substantially identical to certain practices required under the
universal waste rule, such as employee training, container standards,
notification, and tracking. Other commenters, however, suggested
requirements that were much more stringent than those applicable to
universal waste handlers. For example, a few commenters said that
additional worker health and safety provisions were needed under our
rule, and one commenter expressed concerns that the OSHA permissible
exposure limits (PELs) at 29 CFR part 1910 do not apply to handlers of
materials that are not solid wastes.
    We have responded elsewhere in this notice to those commenters who
argued that the Agency should impose the universal waste requirements
of notification, tracking, and employee training on CRT processors.
With respect to OSHA requirements, we disagree with the commenter who
said that the worker health and safety provisions of that statute do
not apply to people handling materials that are not solid wastes; the
permissible exposure limits (PELs) of section 1910 of the OSHA
regulations are not tied to EPA's RCRA definitions. Additional worker
health and safety requirements are not necessary.
    Some commenters, on the other hand, believed that several of our
proposed requirements were unnecessary. For example, some commenters
objected to EPA's proposed requirement that broken CRTs be stored
either in a container or a building. One commenter believed that these
materials should not be classified as solid wastes if they were stored
on a concrete pad or the equivalent, since this practice should be
adequate for a coarse solid material which is insoluble in water. We
continue to believe, however, that storing broken CRTs outdoors prior
to processing is inconsistent with the premise that they are commodity-
like, since they can easily be damaged by excessive moisture or wind
unless they are packaged. The same is true for processing CRTs
outdoors, even if the processing takes place on a concrete pad.
However, we note that under today's rule, intact CRTs may be stored on
concrete pads or on the ground without packaging and labeling (see 40
CFR 261.4(a)(23)). In the case of intact CRTs, packaging or storage in
a building is generally not necessary to minimize releases to the
environment, since the CRTs are contained in their housing. However, if
prolonged storage outdoors renders the CRTs unfit for recycling, they
would become solid wastes, subject to full Subtitle C regulation
provided they were also hazardous wastes. In addition, the exclusion in
today's rule does not affect the obligation to respond to and remediate
any releases of hazardous wastes that may occur.
    Other commenters suggested replacing our proposed requirements with
a requirement that processing and storage of CRT glass must take place
in ``environmentally contained areas (water and particle containment)''
or must be ``stored in a manner that meets other environmental
regulations that control or limit release to the environment.'' EPA
disagrees with this suggestion because requiring processing to be
conducted in ``environmentally contained areas'' is too vague to
provide guidance to the regulated community on the measures required to
ensure that they are handled in a commodity-like manner. Similarly, a
requirement that materials be ``stored in a manner that meets other
environmental regulations'' would be redundant, since they are required
to meet other applicable environmental regulations in any event.
    With respect to public notice requirements (which we did not
propose), many commenters argued that such notice for CRT processing
operations should be conducted pursuant to pre-existing state and local
requirements, and should not be imposed as a function of our proposed
conditional exclusion. Some commenters pointed out that local notice
and public meetings are governed

by various state or local requirements concerning siting, zoning, or
licensing. They believed that matters of local notice and public
participation are generally best decided at the state, county, or
municipal level. One commenter pointed out that additional
opportunities for public involvement are also afforded under existing
federal laws, such as the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act and, in the case of potential worker exposures, the
Occupational Safety and Health Act. This commenter feared that imposing
additional requirements for public notice could increase costs for CRT
processors, thereby undermining the goal of CRT recycling.
    Other commenters, however, supported the CSI Council recommendation
that glass processors be required to notify local communities of their
activities. They thought that a federal public notice requirement was
important for the health and well-being of communities that house CRT
glass processors. They also believed that workers at these facilities
should know of any health or safety risks involved with their daily
activities. One commenter stated that it was not sufficient to defer to
local authority to provide notice, and that such notice was a federal
responsibility that must be retained.
    In response to these comments, EPA continues to believe that
federal public notice requirements for CRT recycling are unnecessary.
In general, we have not mandated such requirements for hazardous waste
recycling facilities, unless they obtain RCRA permits for storage of
hazardous waste prior to recycling. Since glass processors are managing
materials that are commodity-like if handled pursuant to today's
conditions, it would be inappropriate to impose the same public notice
requirements that are imposed on facilities that store hazardous
wastes. In addition, the public may learn of these facilities through
other notices or filings at the state, county, or municipal level.
    Some commenters appeared to believe (incorrectly) that our proposal
would have required processed glass to be packaged or stored in a
building. However, we note that under the proposal (and under today's
final rule) processed CRT glass sent to a CRT glass manufacturer or to
a lead smelter would not have to be either packaged or stored in a
building (see 40 CFR 261.39(c)). Under today's final rule, processed
glass sent to other kinds of recycling need not be packaged or labeled
if it is legitimately reused as an effective substitute for a
commercial chemical product (this exclusion is explained further later
in today's notice).
    Even though we are not significantly modifying our proposed
requirements for glass processors, we believe that some of our proposed
language could benefit from clarification. We are therefore revising
some of this language. First, we note that the proposed storage
requirements for broken CRTs prior to processing (storage in a building
or in a properly labeled container) would also have applied under our
proposal to CRTs actually undergoing processing. This application was
not our intent because CRTs cannot physically remain in a container
while being processed. Therefore, we are revising proposed 40 CFR
261.39(b) to remove the reference to labeling and placement in a
container. Used broken CRTs undergoing processing need only be stored
in a building, and may not be speculatively accumulated.
    Second, we note that one of the activities encompassed in today's
definition of ``CRT processing'' at 40 CFR 260.10 (``receiving broken
or intact CRTs'') generally need not (and sometimes cannot) take place
in a building. We are therefore removing our proposed requirement that
all CRTs be ``processed within a building.'' Instead, today's rule
requires that ``all activities specified in paragraphs (2) and (3) of
the definition of ``CRT processing'' in 40 CFR 260.10 must take place
within a building.'' This means that only breaking or separating CRTs,
or sorting or otherwise managing glass removed from CRT monitors, must
be performed in a building. Actual receipt of the CRTs may occur
outside.
Exclusions for Processed CRT Glass
    Under the proposal, processed glass from used CRTs would be
excluded from the definition of solid waste if it were sent for
recycling to a CRT glass manufacturer or a lead smelter (40 CFR
261.39(c)). If it were sent to any other kind of recycling, it would be
excluded if it were stored, labeled, and transported similarly to used,
broken CRTs (40 CFR 261.39(d)). In neither case could the processed
glass be speculatively accumulated. If it were used in a manner
constituting disposal, all processed glass from used CRTs would have to
comply with the storage, labeling, and transportation requirements
applicable to used, broken CRTs and the applicable requirements of 40
CFR part 266, subpart C.
    In the proposal, we explained that processed glass from used CRTs
destined for a CRT glass manufacturer or a lead smelter meets the
regulatory criteria in 40 CFR 260.31(c) for a variance from the
definition of solid waste. Accordingly, the Agency decided that the
resulting material is commodity-like and should be excluded from the
definition of solid waste. In particular, the Agency tentatively found
that processed CRT glass sent to glass manufacturers or lead smelters
needs minimal further processing and has economic value and strong end
markets. We also found that processed CRT glass is similar to materials
that glass manufacturers and lead smelters use as feedstock, and that
it is handled to minimize loss. For a more complete discussion of these
criteria and the Agency's findings, see the proposal at 67 FR 40514. As
noted below, no comments on these findings have caused the Agency to
change them, so we are adopting them as final. We also believe that
recycling CRT glass at lead smelters appears to be just as legitimate
as glass-to-glass recycling, and that an exclusion for this material
could turn out to be useful if the growing use of flat screens
decreases the potential for glass-to-glass recycling.
    The Agency solicited comment on whether processed glass destined
for lead smelters should be eligible for the exclusion. Processed glass
is sent to lead smelters for reclamation of lead and also for use as a
flux agent (to promote fusing of metals or to prevent the formation of
oxides). The Agency also solicited comment on whether to exclude
processed glass from the definition of solid waste without packaging
and labeling requirements if it were sent to copper smelters for use as
a flux agent. In addition, we solicited comment on an identical
exclusion for processed glass sent for recycling into other glass
materials, such as optical beads, decorative objects, radiation
shielding materials, and acoustic barriers. We requested information
from commenters about whether processed CRT glass sent for these glass
uses or to copper smelters was commodity-like.
    After evaluating all comments received, the Agency is retaining our
exclusion for processed CRT glass sent to glass-to-glass manufacturers
and lead smelters as proposed. Processed glass sent to copper smelters
and other glass uses is not a solid waste if it is legitimately used or
reused without reclamation as an effective substitute for a commercial
product, or as an ingredient in an industrial process to make a product
pursuant to 40 CFR 261.2(e)(1)(i) or (ii)). Processed glass sent for
any of these types of recycling may not be speculatively accumulated.
If it is used in a manner constituting disposal, all processed glass
from used CRTs must comply with the storage,

labeling, and transportation requirements applicable to used, broken
CRTs and the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart C. In
order to be eligible for today's exclusion, importers of processed
glass from used CRTs must comply with these requirements as soon as
these materials enter the United States.
    The significant comments received on this issue and our response to
them are described below.
Response to Comments
    Commenters who addressed the issue of CRT glass sent to lead
smelters generally supported our proposed exclusion from the definition
of solid waste for processed glass sent to this destination (without
packaging and labeling requirements). These commenters thought that CRT
glass sent to lead smelters (for reclamation and use as a flux agent)
is commodity-like. Because the Agency agrees with these comments, and
for the reasons stated in the proposal (see 67 FR 40514), we find that
processed CRT glass is commodity-like and we are finalizing the
exclusion at 40 CFR 261.39(c) as proposed.
    One commenter believed that the Agency should allow processed glass
to be sent to glass manufacturers or lead smelters without any
conditions, including those for speculative accumulation. This
commenter noted that processed glass sent for these uses already fit
the criteria for a ``partially reclaimed'' variance from the definition
of solid waste under 40 CFR 260.31(c); hence, no conditions should be
required. The Agency disagrees with this commenter. Even if the
processed glass meets the criteria for the variance in question, the
speculative accumulation requirement is necessary to ensure that the
materials are actually recycled and not abandoned. We also note that
the conditions under which such variances are granted are site-specific
and vary according to circumstances. They frequently include conditions
relating to storage and land disposal.
    A few other commenters believed that our proposed exclusions for
processed CRT glass were unnecessary, since processed glass sent to a
lead smelter is used directly as an ingredient in a production process,
and would therefore qualify for the use/reuse exclusion at 40 CFR
261.2(e). Alternatively, they said that if reclamation is required, the
glass would be a characteristic by-product destined for reclamation,
which again would not be a waste, unless speculatively accumulated (see
40 CFR 261.2(c)(3) and (4)).
    Although the Agency has not specifically addressed the regulatory
status of processed CRT glass sent to smelters, we note that these
commenters' interpretations do not appear to be consistent with
previous regulatory interpretations or with regulatory definitions (see
the Response to Comment document in the rulemaking record for further
discussion of the regulatory interpretations and definitions). In any
event, the more specific regulatory exclusions promulgated today for
CRT glass provide greater clarity to the regulated community than the
more general provisions cited by the commenter.
    Some commenters, on the other hand, objected to allowing CRT glass
to go to smelters without additional controls. One commenter cited
financial and environmental problems caused by smelters located in the
commenter's state, and another believed that CRT glass should be
restricted from going to smelters because it could lead to an increase
in lead air emissions or lead content in the slag from these
facilities.
    EPA does not agree with the commenter who cited general concerns
about smelters as a rationale for restricting processed CRT glass sent
to these facilities. The commenter was concerned about financial and
environmental problems caused by smelters in one state and did not tie
these concerns to the use of processed CRT glass. EPA believes that
these concerns are outside the scope of this rulemaking, and that they
should be addressed, if necessary, in the context of rulemakings
applicable specifically to smelters.
    Many commenters supported allowing a similar exclusion for
processed glass sent to copper smelters. They pointed out that such
glass is used as a flux agent in a very similar manner at copper
smelters, and that it seems unjustified to impose different conditions
on materials destined for virtually identical uses. One commenter noted
that at least one copper smelter has product specifications for
recycled flux materials spelled out in its authority to operate issued
by the relevant government agency. The specification includes a minimum
flux value and maximum contaminant level. The commenter stated that CRT
glass met these criteria.
    Another commenter pointed out that virgin copper concentrate
already contains approximately 1% lead. Therefore, lead is a
constituent that is already present in the copper smelting process and
is already being managed in process residues. According to this
commenter, the use of processed CRT glass will not significantly
increase the amount of lead already resulting from the copper smelting
process and being managed in the slag or air pollution control sludge.
    Some commenters were also concerned about the capacity of CRT glass
manufacturers to absorb the large volume of CRT glass that is generated
in this country. They urged the Agency to take this concern into
account and encourage recycling by allowing similar exclusions for
processed CRT glass sent to glass manufacturing, lead smelting, or
copper smelting.
    The Agency agrees with those commenters who pointed out that the
degree of processing that is required for use in a copper smelter
appears to be the same as that required for use in a lead smelter. The
economics also may be similar for fluxes used in both kinds of
smelters. Processed glass is composed mainly of silica, which is useful
as a flux, although lead is not recovered when CRT glass is used as a
flux at a copper smelter. Nevertheless, the Agency has been unable to
confirm that CRT glass is accepted at actual copper smelters. For this
reason, we cannot currently make a finding that CRT glass sent to
copper smelters is commodity-like, and we are not finalizing our
proposed exclusion. However, we note that if the processed CRT glass
were legitimately used or reused without reclamation as an effective
substitute for a commercial product (i.e., as a flux agent), it could
be excluded as an effective substitute for a commercial product under
40 CFR 261.2(e)(ii) (see letter from Michael Shapiro to Christian
Richter of the American Foundrymen's Society, March 8, 1995).
    With respect to processed CRT glass sent for recycling into other
glass uses, commenters were divided. Some believed that these uses were
likely to be commodity-like; others disagreed. Commenters submitted
very little data about these uses. Since the Agency has at present very
little information about their status as commodities, we are not
finalizing our proposed exclusion. However, similarly to the case of
processed glass sent to copper smelters, if the glass is legitimately
used or reused as an effective substitute for a commercial chemical
product, or used as an ingredient in an industrial process to make a
product (provided the materials are not being reclaimed), it could be
excluded from the definition of solid waste under 40 CFR 261.2(e)(i) or
(ii).

D. Exports and Imports

    Under the June 12, 2002 proposal, exporters of used CRTs for reuse
or

recycling would not have been required to submit any notifications
prior to export. Processed glass imported into the United States would
be excluded if it complied with the proposed conditions. Because the
imported processed glass would not be a hazardous waste if it met the
conditions of the exclusion, it would not be subject to the hazardous
waste import requirements of subpart F of 40 CFR part 262. The CSI
Council had recommended that entities exporting CRT and CRT glass be
subject to various notice and consent provisions, depending on whether
the CRT glass was coated or uncoated and on the destination of the
materials (for a complete description of the CSI recommendations, see
the proposal at 67 FR 40516). For example, the CSI Council recommended
that CRTs and coated CRT glass should be subject to the same notice and
consent provisions as exporters of hazardous waste in subparts E or H
of 40 CFR part 262.
    In our proposal, the Agency stated its belief that we did not have
legal authority to require notification under 40 CFR part 262, subparts
E and H, or the authority to require additional notifications, for CRTs
or CRT glass that were not solid wastes because they were in compliance
with our proposed conditions. We noted that if used CRTs were added to
the universal waste program, we would have the authority to require
notification at least for exported broken CRTs. We solicited comment on
whether the need for export notification requirements recommended by
the CSI would warrant adding used CRTs to the universal waste program,
and whether these requirements would be unduly burdensome.
    EPA's proposal elicited many comments and some additional data on
the export of CRTs for recycling. These comments and data convinced us
that exported CRTs often are not handled as valuable commodities. For
this reason, we have reconsidered our earlier position about imposing
notification requirements on exports. Therefore, today's rule requires
exporters of CRTs for recycling to comply with the notice and consent
requirements that are similar to those found in 40 CFR part 262,
subparts E and H for exports of hazardous waste. The rule also requires
exporters of CRTs for reuse to submit a one-time notification to EPA.
In order to be eligible for today's exclusion, importers of used,
broken CRTs must comply with the packaging, labeling, and speculative
accumulation requirements of 40 CFR 261.39(a)(1)-(4) as soon as the
materials enter the United States.
    The new export requirements, significant comments received, and our
responses to the comments are described in more detail below.
Response to Comments
    Many commenters who addressed this question expressed concern about
exporting CRTs and other electronics for recycling, especially to
developing countries. These commenters argued that our proposed rule
would exacerbate the effects of market dynamics, lack of existing
regulatory controls, and the absence of a domestic recycling
infrastructure and would increase the amount of electronic waste that
is shipped abroad and managed inappropriately (see also the report
entitled Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia, prepared by
the Basel Action Network and the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition,
February 25, 2002). One commenter further argued that our proposal
would prevent the growth of a domestic electronics recycling industry
by making it easier to export electronics.
    To address such concerns, some commenters suggested that the Agency
adopt notice and consent procedures for exported CRTs similar to those
currently found at 40 CFR part 262, subparts E and H for exports of
hazardous waste. Some of these commenters said that EPA should impose
notification requirements on exported CRTs as an additional condition
of the exclusion from the definition of solid waste. They believed that
the Agency has adequate authority to impose such conditions without
adding these materials to the universal waste rule.
    After evaluating these comments, the Agency has decided to impose
notice and consent requirements as a condition of today's exclusion
from the definition of solid waste on CRTs exported for recycling. The
comments, and data submitted by the commenters, have convinced us that
unfettered export of CRTs for recycling could lead to environmental
harm. Information in the record shows that exported electronics may not
be handled as valuable commodities in foreign countries. In fact, there
is documentation that they are sometimes managed so carelessly that
they pose possible human health and environmental risks from such
practices as open burning, land disposal, and dumping into rivers.
Notice and consent requirements mean that the receiving country will be
informed of the proposed export, after which the country may consent or
not, based on its analysis of whether the receiving facility can
properly recycle the CRTs as commodities in an environmentally sound
manner. EPA has therefore decided to ensure that the importing
countries are able to consent (or withhold consent) when CRTs are
proposed to be recycled within their borders.
    EPA believes that sections 2002, 3002, 3007, and 3017 of RCRA
provide authority to impose this condition, because used CRTs sent
abroad are sufficiently waste-like to justify this requirement, and
because notice and consent help ensure that the CRTs are not discarded.
We have therefore reconsidered our earlier position (discussed in the
preamble of our proposed rule at 67 FR 40516) about imposing notice and
consent requirements on CRTs exported for recycling. EPA has the
authority to ensure that CRTs exported for recycling are handled in a
manner consistent with commodity-like status.
    EPA considered simply requiring exporters of CRTs for recycling to
comply with the current notice and consent requirements in 40 CFR part
262. These requirements, however, rely on the hazardous waste manifest
and other Subtitle C provisions that EPA is not imposing on used CRTs.
Consequently, we are promulgating separate (although very similar)
export requirements that will apply exclusively to conditionally exempt
CRTs exported for recycling. In addition, the notice and consent
requirements promulgated today do not apply to processed glass that is
exported, since there is no information available to us indicating that
this material is not handled as a commodity when exported.
    Under today's rule, used CRTs exported for recycling are not solid
wastes provided the exporter notifies EPA and obtains a subsequent
written consent forwarded by EPA from the receiving country. The
provisions that we are promulgating today in 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5)(i)-
(ix) and 40 CFR 261.40 require exporters of used CRTs destined for
recycling (whether broken or intact) to notify EPA of an intended
export 60 days before the initial shipment is intended to be shipped
off-site. The notification may cover export activities extending over a
12 month or shorter period. The notification must include contact
information about the exporter and the recycler, including any
alternate recycler. The notification must include a description of the
manner in which the CRTs will be recycled. It must also include the
frequency and rate at which CRTs will be exported, the period of time
over which they will be exported, the means of transport, the estimated
total quantity of CRTs, and information

about transit countries through which the CRTs will pass. Notifications
must be sent to EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
which will notify the receiving country and any transit countries. When
the receiving country consents in writing to the receipt of the CRTs,
EPA will forward the written consent to the exporter. The exporter may
proceed with shipment only after he has received a copy of the written
consent from EPA. If the receiving country does not consent to receipt
of the CRTs or withdraws a prior consent, EPA will notify the exporter
in writing. EPA will also notify the exporter of any responses from
transit countries. Exporters must keep copies of notifications and
consents for a period of three years following receipt of the consent.
    EPA has decided to require exporters of used, intact CRTs sent
abroad for recycling to meet the same requirements as those applicable
to exporters of used, broken CRTs. Although used, intact CRTs are more
commodity-like than used, broken CRTs, they are more likely to be
exported, and information in the record does not indicate that they are
less likely to be discarded or handled as low-value materials abroad.
We believe that used, intact CRTs are sufficiently waste-like when
exported for recycling to be subject to a condition requiring notice
and consent prior to export. Notice and consent help ensure that the
CRTs are not discarded.
    Some commenters urged EPA to forbid all exports of CRTs to
developing countries. EPA does not agree with this suggestion because
RCRA does not provide the authority to unconditionally ban exports of
solid and hazardous wastes if the exporter complies with the existing
regulatory requirements governing the export of these materials. We
also disagree with this suggestion for practical reasons. Such a ban
would prevent even the safe recycling of hazardous wastes abroad and
would discourage resource recovery and reuse.
    Some commenters believed that our proposed rule was inconsistent
with various international agreements involving the export of hazardous
waste. In particular, one commenter stated, the proposal is
inconsistent with legal obligations under the treaty law of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Basel
Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous
Wastes and their Disposal, and the Stockholm Declaration. As noted
above, the Agency is sympathetic to concerns about the potential risks
of exporting CRTs for recycling. Therefore, to ensure that CRTs
exported for recycling are handled in a manner consistent with
commodity-like status, we are requiring that these materials be subject
to the notice and consent requirements described in detail above. We
believe that these requirements address most of this commenter's
concerns. The Response to Comment document in the record to this
rulemaking addresses these concerns in more detail.
    Other commenters argued that notice and consent requirements,
besides being unnecessary, were likely to discourage the export of CRTs
for desirable recycling by making such export more burdensome. Another
commenter noted that glass recyclers need to sell recovered CRT glass
to developing countries, because the volume of obsolete CRT equipment
will increase just as the domestic demand for CRT glass parts will be
reduced because of new technology such as flat panel screens.
    We disagree with those commenters who said that an export
notification and consent requirement would be burdensome. The Agency
estimates that these requirements will impose a burden of approximately
four hours per year (on average) per respondent. We believe that this
burden is not excessive especially since it helps ensure that exported
CRTs are handled in ways consistent with an exclusion from the
definition of solid waste. We also do not believe that these
requirements will significantly affect the quantity of CRTs or CRT
glass exported for recycling, since the relative amount of such
materials recycled domestically and abroad depend principally on other
economic factors.
    One commenter suggested (in lieu of a notice and consent procedure)
that EPA require exporters to keep records, such as shipping papers,
that would allow tracking of CRT shipments or the amount paid by the
shipper for the material. The Agency has rejected this approach because
it would not give notice to the receiving country, nor would it give
the country the opportunity to refuse consent to a shipment. It is
therefore not sufficient to ensure that the material is treated as a
commodity. The receiving country should be notified to help ensure that
the CRTs will be recycled in an environmentally sound manner. Requiring
an exporter to show evidence of payment would not involve the receiving
country, and would thus not be a sufficient requirement.
    The Agency notes that intact CRTs exported for reuse are identical
in appearance to those exported for recycling. Consequently, to help
ensure that the intact CRTs are actually reused abroad, we are
requiring persons who export used, intact CRTs for reuse to submit a
one-time notification to the Regional Administrator with contact
information and a statement that the notifier plans to export used,
intact CRTs for reuse. These notifications will allow regulatory
authorities to contact the notifier, when appropriate, to ask for
verification that the CRTs are exported for reuse instead of recycling
or disposal. These persons must keep copies of normal business records
demonstrating that each shipment of exported CRTs will be reused, and
this documentation must be retained for three years from the date the
CRTs were exported. Examples of normal business records include those
that document the transfer of used equipment to the consignee for
reuse, including name and address of the consignee, description of the
shipment, and conformance with any product specifications, as well as
the amount paid (if any) for the exported material. We believe that our
right to require such basic notification is inherent in our authority
to regulate discarded materials, and in our RCRA section 3007 authority
to obtain information pertaining to materials that may become solid or
hazardous wastes. Because a one-time notification is adequate to give
the Regional Administrator notice about persons who are exporting for
reuse, additional notifications are not necessary each time CRTs are
exported for this purpose.

E. Universal Waste

    In our June 12, 2002 notice, the Agency proposed a conditional
exclusion from the definition of solid waste for used CRTs and CRT
glass being recycled. However, we also solicited comment on the
alternative approach of adding these materials to the universal waste
rule. In particular, we requested comment on whether various universal
waste requirements would be appropriate or burdensome for glass
processors, or collectors who send used CRTs or CRT glass to these
processors. The universal waste requirements in question were employee
training, notification of universal waste management activities, and
tracking of shipments sent and received. After evaluating all comments,
the Agency has decided to retain the proposed conditional exclusion
from the definition of solid waste for used CRTs and processed CRT
glass, instead of adding these materials to the universal waste rule.
Significant comments, our responses, and the rationale for the final
rule are explained below.

Response to Comments
    Some states and many industry commenters (such as those from the
electronics industry) supported the proposed conditional exclusion and
did not want EPA to add used CRTs to the universal waste rule. These
commenters agreed with the Agency that used CRTs, when managed under
the proposed conditions, resemble commodities more than wastes. They
argued that adding CRTs to the universal waste scheme would harm the
developing infrastructure for electronics recycling by imposing greater
burdens and reducing flexibility. According to these commenters,
classifying CRTs as hazardous waste would create a ``stigma'' that
would make retailers or collectors reluctant to participate in
recycling programs. One state said that adding used CRTs to the
universal waste rule would make virtually any business with computers
or televisions a potential hazardous waste generator, with negative
implications for program implementation and enforcement.
    They also believed that the universal waste requirements mentioned
above were unnecessary for used CRTs because these materials pose
minimal environmental risks. A few commenters feared that glass
processors could be classified as ``destination facilities'' which
could possibly need a RCRA storage permit, thereby frustrating CRT
recycling goals. Finally, they questioned whether processed glass met
the criteria for addition to the universal waste rule because it is not
``widely generated.''
    On the other hand, other commenters, including several states,
supported these requirements and suggested that EPA add used CRTs to
the universal waste rule. These commenters generally noted that CRTs
fit the regulatory criteria for universal waste at 40 CFR part 273, and
cited the familiarity of stakeholders with this rule. Some of these
commenters argued that keeping CRTs within the universe of hazardous
waste would ensure better oversight by regulatory authorities than
would a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste.
    One commenter pointed to the significant amounts of lead contained
in many CRTs, and disputed the Agency's assertion that leaded glass
from CRTs resembled a commodity more than a waste. This commenter
believed that the universal waste rule would ensure more responsible
management of such a potentially harmful substance. In particular, this
commenter urged imposing the requirements in the universal waste rule
for employee training, release response, packaging, labeling,
notification, and accumulation time limits. Some states were also
concerned about speculative accumulation, and supported the one-year
accumulation limit for universal waste. Others preferred the universal
waste requirements because 40 CFR 273.17 and 273.37 require universal
waste handlers to contain all releases.
    According to several commenters, the streamlined requirements of
the universal waste rule would also encourage recycling. One commenter
believed that adding CRTs to the universal waste rule would facilitate
improved voluntary management of CRTs from households or CESQGs, since
the universal waste rule specifically allows wastes from these sources
to be managed as universal wastes.
    After considering these comments, EPA has decided to finalize the
proposed conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for
CRTs and CRT glass being recycled. We agree with the commenters who
pointed out that intact or broken CRTs largely fit the regulatory
criteria for universal wastes (see 40 CFR 273.81). For example, they
are frequently generated in a wide variety of settings and are present
in significant volumes in the municipal wastestream. Commenters are
also correct that stakeholders are familiar with the universal waste
scheme, although they are also quite familiar with the concept of
conditional exclusions. However, we disagree with the commenter who
implied that the presence of lead in CRT glass prevents this material
from being commodity-like. As discussed elsewhere in this notice, there
are demonstrated markets for CRTs and CRT glass, and it is generally
the presence of lead that contributes to its value to glass
manufacturers and smelters. An exclusion is more suitable for materials
that resemble commodities more than wastes, especially if conditions
are promulgated to ensure that they will be stored and handled as
objects of value. In support of our decision, we note that many of the
provisions of the conditional exclusion are similar to the provisions
suggested by commenters, and recommended by the CSI for CRTs sent for
recycling. For example, the packaging and labeling requirements for
CRTs are nearly identical. In addition, we are also imposing notice and
consent requirements for CRTs exported for recycling, as would be
required under the universal waste rule.
    Although some commenters believed that regulating CRTs sent for
recycling under the universal waste program would ensure greater
regulatory oversight, materials destined for the types of recycling
addressed in today's rule do not need as much regulatory oversight as
other waste materials because, when handled consistently with the
specified conditions, they are commodity-like. Furthermore, the
requirements of the universal waste rule for employee training,
notification of waste management activities, and tracking of shipments
are not necessary as a matter of federal law for these materials, when
they are not being sent for disposal. The packaging and labeling
conditions for broken CRTs that are promulgated today will ensure that
the possibility of releases to the environment is very low. In
addition, intact CRTs sent for recycling also pose a minimal risk of
releases while being transported, since the glass is unlikely to be
released unless the vacuum is broken. Lead from CRTs is therefore not
readily available to the environment as long as the CRTs are intact.
Similarly, we note that under today's rule, the speculative
accumulation requirements of 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8) apply to used CRTs
(whether broken or intact) and processed CRT glass. These requirements
will be as effective in preventing extended accumulation periods as the
accumulation limits of 40 CFR 273.15 and 273.35. In addition, processed
CRT glass sent for many kinds of recycling is commodity-like. This
material fits the criteria for the variance from the definition of
solid waste for ``partially reclaimed'' materials under 40 CFR
260.30(c) and 261.31(c) (see the discussion of this issue in the
preamble to our proposal at 67 FR 40514). This variance is specifically
designed for commodity-like materials. We agree with the commenter who
noted that processed glass does not actually fit the regulatory
criteria for the universal waste rule (because it is not widely
generated by different types of facilities) and that glass processors
might technically be considered destination facilities under the
universal waste rule (because they are recyclers).
    Under the universal waste approach, CRTs destined for recycling
would still be classified as hazardous wastes, although subject to
reduced regulation. We agree with those commenters who argued that in
the case of CRTs, this classification could discourage recycling. We
are concerned that nonprofit organizations might refuse to help collect
used CRTs because of this hazardous waste classification. Without their
participation, CRT recycling would be greatly inhibited.
    A few commenters also believed that adding CRTs to the universal
waste rule

would alleviate the need for our proposed distinctions between used and
unused or intact and broken CRTs. The Agency does not agree with these
commenters. Adding used CRTs to the universal waste rule would not
eliminate the need for these distinctions. Unused, intact computers and
televisions are often returned to the manufacturer, or they may be sold
or donated for use. Long-standing rules define unused materials as
products rather than wastes, and products would not be subject to the
universal waste rule. Similarly, even if intact and broken CRTs were
added to the universal waste rule, the same universal waste
requirements would not be appropriate for both categories of materials,
since there is a greater possibility of releases from broken CRTs.
    It is true that 40 CFR 273.17 and 273.37 require universal waste
handlers to contain all releases. Under a conditional exclusion, on the
other hand, if a person failed to respond to a release, EPA or the
State could take action, including an enforcement action, which is a
reactive rather than preventive measure. However, in the case of CRTs
and CRT glass, the possibility of immediate environmental harm from a
release is expected to be sufficiently low to be outweighed by the
benefits from fostering increased recycling.
    Some commenters urged us to adopt the universal waste approach
because, unlike the conditional exclusion approach, it does not require
use of the hazardous waste manifest for materials sent to disposal.
Existing universal waste rules are intended to promote safer disposal
of waste generated by households and small quantity generators, who are
currently exempt from Subtitle C regulation. These commenters wanted
this benefit for CRTs sent to disposal; one commenter stated that
having similar requirements for recycling and disposal reduces
complications for enforcement authorities by eliminating the need to
discern the waste handler's intent. Other commenters, however, argued
that used CRTs should be fully regulated when sent for disposal, and
that such full regulation was necessary to protect human health and the
environment.
    Even though requiring no manifest for CRTs could simplify the
regulations applicable to CRTs, we believe that today's conditional
exclusion will foster the equally important goal of collecting CRTs,
conserving resources, and minimizing negative impacts on the
environment. We anticipate that it will lead to increased recycling and
less disposal of CRTs, including those from households and CESQGs,
because municipalities and other entities can consolidate CRTs from all
sources more easily than if some CRTs were classified as hazardous
wastes. In addition, as described earlier in this notice, the Agency
and many states are engaged in several efforts to increase the rate of
CRT and electronics recycling, including electronics from households
and CESQGs. We believe that these efforts, as well as many others at
the state and local level, will ultimately bring about a considerable
improvement in the rate of voluntary electronics recycling.
    With respect to disposal, materials sent to landfills or
incinerators under the universal waste rule need not be accompanied by
a hazardous waste manifest. Under our proposed conditional exclusion,
the manifest would have to accompany CRTs sent for disposal. A few
states said the universal waste rule was therefore less stringent (in
this respect) than a conditional exclusion. These states were therefore
concerned that if a state had already added CRTs to its universal waste
program, it would have to amend its rules and seek authorization from
EPA to remain equivalent to the federal program. This conclusion is
incorrect; the Agency has concluded that adding CRTs to a state
universal waste program is permissible under state authorization rules.
As commenters pointed out, the universal waste rule is in other
respects more stringent than today's conditional exclusion. In
addition, the Agency's longstanding position is that under a state
universal waste program, individual wastes and management standards are
not subject to the authorization revision provisions in 40 CFR 271.21,
since the state is already authorized for the universal waste
regulations and the regulation of hazardous wastes (see the preamble to
the universal waste rule at 60 FR 25537, May 11, 1995). Therefore,
states are free to add CRTs to their universal waste programs without
seeking authorization from EPA.

F. Definitions

    Several commenters suggested changes to some of EPA's proposed
definitions. The following is a summary of these suggested changes,
with our responses.
``Cathode Ray Tube''
    The Agency's proposed definition of ``cathode ray tube'' was a
``vacuum tube, composed primarily of glass, which is the video display
component of a television or computer monitor.'' Some commenters said
that our proposed definition did not make clear whether we intended to
include such devices as scanning equipment, multichannel analyzers,
medical, automotive, oscilloscope, military, aircraft, and appliance
CRTs. These commenters apparently believed that these types of CRTs did
not fall within the definition of a television or computer monitor. One
commenter said that the use of the term ``video display'' was
misleading, since that phrase is associated with television monitors.
This commenter suggested that ``video or visual display component''
would be a better definition. Another commenter suggested that EPA
confine the regulatory definition to color CRTs, since monochrome CRTs
generally do not exhibit the toxicity characteristic for lead.
    The Agency agrees with those commenters who desired a more general
definition that would encompass various types of CRTs; we believe that
such a definition would provide more clarity to the regulated community
and would better reflect the intent of our proposal (see 67 FR 40509).
We also agree with the commenter who said that ``video or visual
display component'' would be a more precise definition. For these
reasons, we are changing our proposed definition of ``cathode ray
tube'' in 40 CFR 260.10 to read as follows: ``cathode ray tube means a
vacuum tube, composed primarily of glass, which is the video or visual
display component of an electronic device''. This definition would
encompass all the different types of CRTs mentioned by the commenters.
    The Agency does not agree with the commenter who suggested that the
definition of ``cathode ray tube'' be limited to color CRTs, since we
are not certain that all color CRTs exhibit the toxicity characteristic
for lead, or that no monochrome CRTs exhibit this characteristic. For
this reason, we are not revising our proposed definition to include a
reference to color or monochrome CRTs. If CRTs do not exhibit the
toxicity characteristic for lead, they are not regulated under any of
the hazardous waste regulations, including the exclusion promulgated
today.
``Intact'' and ``Broken'' CRTs
    In our proposal, EPA had defined an ``intact'' CRT as one remaining
within the monitor whose vacuum has not been released. A ``broken''
CRT, on the other hand, was defined as ``glass removed from the monitor
after the vacuum has been released''. Some commenters pointed out that
our proposed

definitions did not take into account two categories of CRTs: those
removed from a monitor without release of the vacuum (i.e., ``bare''
CRTs) or CRTs remaining within the monitor after being inadvertently
broken. One commenter believed that intact CRTs removed from the
monitor were commodity-like, and should therefore be completely
excluded from the definition of solid waste, especially since they
presented very little potential for environmental releases. However,
another commenter suggested that intact CRTs removed from the monitor
should be treated the same as broken CRTs. Some commenters stated that
the proposed rule did not address broken CRTs remaining within a
monitor because of inadvertent breaking of the glass.
    Another commenter pointed out that his company considered CRTs with
released vacuum tubes to be intact because they have not been
mechanically altered so as to increase the potential release of heavy
metals.
    After reviewing the comments, the Agency agrees that its proposed
definitions did not adequately address at least one category of CRTs.
With respect to intact CRTs that are removed from the monitor with the
vacuum still unbroken, we understand that these materials must normally
be packaged before being shipped for repair or reuse. It would
therefore be unnecessary and redundant to subject these materials to
the same conditions as broken CRTs sent for recycling. They resemble
products more than wastes, and should not be considered solid wastes,
unless disposed. In today's rule, therefore, we are clarifying the
status of these materials by including them within the definition of
``intact CRT,'' and we are revising that definition to read: ``an
intact CRT means a CRT whose vacuum has not been released.''
    However, the Agency is not changing the definition of ``broken
CRT'' to specifically address inadvertently broken CRTs, since such
breakage is accidental and does not occur routinely. If some CRTs
within a shipment of intact CRTs are accidentally broken, such
occurrences are most appropriately addressed on a case-by-case basis by
the appropriate regulatory authorities.
    One commenter suggested that the definition of ``broken CRT''
should refer to glass removed from any ``housing'' or ``casing,''
rather than glass removed from a ``monitor.'' The Agency agrees that
the language suggested by the commenter is more descriptive. The same
commenter noted that our proposed definition assumed that CRT vacuums
are released before the CRT is removed from the monitor, whereas in
actuality the CRT is sometimes removed from the monitor, after which
the vacuum is released. EPA agrees with the commenter that our intent
was not to draw distinctions based on the timing of the vacuum release.
We have therefore revised our proposed definition of ``broken CRT'' to
read: ``glass removed from its housing or casing whose vacuum has been
released.''
    One commenter noted that EPA did not present data showing that a
CRT is not reusable as a product after the vacuum has been released and
the glass removed. A few commenters suggested that EPA revise its
definition of ``broken CRT'' to refer to CRTs that were no longer
reusable, or to specify that CRTs become wastes when they will no
longer be used for the purpose for which they were manufactured. In
response to these comments, we note that the Agency specifically
requested comment in the preamble to our proposed rule about whether it
was possible to repair and reuse a CRT after the vacuum was released.
No commenters submitted information or explanations about how this
phenomenon might occur. With respect to broken CRTs, a released vacuum
facilitates glass breakage and makes subsequent environmental releases
more likely, even if these materials have not been substantially
altered mechanically. We also believe that it would be much more
difficult to implement the definition if regulators or the regulated
community were required to ascertain whether a computer, television, or
other electronic device could be used again. Such a determination would
require considerably more technical expertise than merely examining a
CRT to see if the vacuum had been released. Therefore, under today's
rule, a CRT will still be considered broken if the vacuum is released.
    One commenter suggested that we should change the definitions of
``intact'' and ``broken'' CRTs in proposed 40 CFR 260.10 to read
``used, intact CRTs'' and ``used, broken CRTs'' (presumably to be
consistent with the language in our proposed exclusions). EPA agrees
and has added this language to the definitions in today's final rule.
    A few commenters objected to the Agency's regulatory distinctions
between ``unused'' and ``used'' or ``intact'' and ``broken'' CRTs.
These commenters believed that most CRTs in all of these categories
should be treated the same (presumably because the environmental risks
were similar).
    Although classifying all CRTs in the same regulatory category would
undoubtedly lead to simplified program implementation, EPA does not
believe that eliminating our proposed distinctions is desirable. Intact
CRTs present very little risk of releases, unless they are accumulated
for long periods of time; therefore, subjecting them to the same
conditions as broken CRTs is not appropriate.
``CRT Processing''
    EPA received several comments on the proposed definition of ``CRT
processing.'' Specifically, the proposed regulation stated that CRT
processing meant conducting all of the following activities: (1)
Receiving broken or intact CRTs; (2) intentionally breaking intact
CRTs, or further breaking or separating broken CRTs; (3) sorting or
otherwise managing glass removed from CRT monitors; and (4) cleaning
coatings off the glass removed from CRTs. Some commenters believed that
it was not necessary to perform all of these activities in order to be
considered a CRT processor. In particular, commenters pointed out that
some CRT recyclers do not clean coatings from CRT glass, and that there
is an increased market for glass with the coating still on it. These
commenters recommended that the definition of ``CRT processing'' be
revised to specify that performing the first three activities listed
above, or cleaning coatings from glass removed from CRTs, should be
sufficient to classify a person or facility as a CRT processor.
    EPA agrees with these commenters. As one commenter stated, coatings
do not have to be removed from CRT glass sent to a smelter. We are
therefore revising our proposed definition of ``CRT processing'' to
mean conducting all of the following activities: (1) Receiving broken
or intact CRTs; and (2) intentionally breaking intact CRTs or further
breaking or separating broken CRTs; and (3) sorting or otherwise
managing glass removed from CRT monitors. Since any CRT recycler
cleaning coatings from CRT glass would necessarily be performing the
first three activities, we believe it is unnecessary to refer to such
cleaning in the regulations. This revised definition will be more
consistent with the current activities of CRT recyclers.
``Processed CRT Glass''
    In our proposal, we did not include a definition of ``processed CRT
glass.'' One commenter noted that if EPA revised its definition of
``CRT processing'' to remove the reference to coating, the Agency
should then promulgate a definition of ``processed CRT glass'' that
would ensure that only CRT glass with the coatings removed

would be subject to the requirements of proposed 40 CFR 261.39(c)
(i.e., no packaging or labeling for the processed glass). This
commenter believed that only glass with the coating removed could
properly be considered commodity-like. EPA disagrees with this
suggestion, because we believe that whether CRT glass is coated or
uncoated has little to do with whether the glass resembles a commodity.
As stated above, CRT glass sent to smelters does not need to have
coatings removed, and we believe that such materials are commodity-
like. We believe that the destination of the glass is a more reliable
indicator of its nature as a commodity than its coated or uncoated
condition.
``CRT Glass Manufacturing''
    Finally, one commenter pointed out that our proposed definition of
``CRT glass manufacturing facility'' could cause confusion because 40
CFR 260.10 defines a ``facility'' as ``land, etc. used for treating,
storing, and disposing of hazardous waste,'' which is not true of CRT
glass manufacturers. The Agency agrees with this commenter that the use
of the word ``facility'' could be misinterpreted and has changed the
definition in today's rule to read: ``CRT glass manufacturer means an
operation or part of an operation that uses a furnace to manufacture
CRT glass.''

G. Disposal

    In the preamble to our proposed rule, EPA solicited comment on
whether to allow CRTs sent for disposal in hazardous waste facilities
(i.e., landfills or incinerators) to comply with streamlined packaging
and labeling requirements similar to the ones we proposed for broken
CRTs sent for recycling, rather than comply with the full Subtitle C
requirements, including use of the hazardous waste manifest.
    Some commenters said that disposal of CRTs should be subject to
streamlined requirements similar to those applicable to broken CRTs
sent for recycling. These commenters generally believed that CRTs
presented very low environmental risks, even in landfills. They cited
what they believed to be the benefits of simplified program
implementation (presumably including facilitation of inspections and
enforcement) if CRTs sent for recycling and disposal were subject to
the same regulatory requirements. Other commenters supported the
application of the full Subtitle C requirements to CRTs sent for
disposal. These commenters believed that CRTs sent for disposal
presented greater environmental risks; they also supported this
approach because they believed it would encourage recycling.
    After evaluating these comments, the Agency has concluded that the
arguments for streamlining requirements for CRTs sent for disposal do
not appear to be justified. As noted by some commenters, the volume of
these materials will increase in future years because of evolving
computer and television technology. We have not conducted a separate
analysis of disposal issues as part of this rulemaking. In addition, we
wish to encourage the environmentally sound recycling of this rapidly
growing wastestream to conserve resources and raw materials, and we do
not want to promulgate regulations that are inconsistent with this
policy. For this reason, we are not promulgating streamlined packaging
and labeling requirements for CRTs sent for disposal.

H. Enforcement

    Under today's rule, CRTs and CRT glass destined for recycling and
CRTs exported for reuse are excluded from RCRA Subtitle C regulation if
certain conditions are met. Persons that handle CRTs and CRT glass that
are subject to this exclusion will be responsible for maintaining the
exclusion by ensuring that all of the conditions are met. If the CRTs
are not managed as specified by these conditions, they are not
excluded. The CRTs would then be considered hazardous waste (if they
exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic) for Subtitle C purposes from
the time they were ``generated'', i.e., from the time the decision was
made to dispose of them or to release the vacuum for recycling, rather
than to send them to facilities where they may be reused.
    Persons taking advantage of the exclusion that fail to meet one or
more of its conditions may be subject to enforcement action and the
CRTs may be considered to be hazardous waste from the point of their
generation. EPA could choose to bring an enforcement action under RCRA
Section 3008(a) for all violations of the hazardous waste requirements
occurring from the time a decision was made to dispose of the CRTs or
to release the vacuum for recycling, through the time they are finally
disposed of or reclaimed.
    EPA believes that this approach, which treats CRTs exhibiting a
hazardous waste characteristic that do not conform to the conditions of
the exclusion as hazardous waste from their point of generation,
provides all handlers with an incentive to handle the CRTs consistent
with the conditions. It also encourages each person to take appropriate
steps to ensure that CRTs are safely handled and legitimately reused or
recycled by others in the management chain.
    Persons managing CRTs before they become wastes are not considered
generators and are not subject to RCRA requirements. For example,
charitable organizations, municipalities, retailers, or manufacturers
who collect intact CRTS are not generators when they send CRTs to
facilities that decide whether they will be reused, recycled, or
disposed.

V. State Authority

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States

    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize a qualified state to
administer and enforce a hazardous waste program within the state in
lieu of the federal program, and to issue and enforce permits in the
state. A state may receive authorization by following the approval
process described in 40 CFR 271.21 (see 40 CFR part 271 for the overall
standards and requirements for authorization). EPA continues to have
independent authority to bring enforcement actions under RCRA Sections
3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. An authorized state also continues to have
independent authority to bring enforcement actions under state law.
    After a state receives initial authorization, new federal
requirements promulgated under RCRA authority existing prior to the
1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in that
state until the state adopts and receives authorization for equivalent
state requirements. In contrast, under RCRA Section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C.
6926(g)), new federal requirements and prohibitions promulgated
pursuant to HSWA provisions take effect in authorized states at the
same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. As such, EPA
carries out HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized states,
including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements,
until EPA authorizes the state to do so.
    Authorized states are required to modify their programs only when
EPA enacts federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in
scope than existing federal requirements. RCRA Section 3009 allows the
states to impose standards more stringent than those in the federal
program (see also 40 CFR 271.1(i)). Therefore, authorized states are
not required to adopt federal regulations, both HSWA and non-HSWA, that
are considered less stringent than previous federal regulations.

B. Effect on State Authorization

    Today's rule will have a different effect on authorized state
programs, depending on how the state is currently regulating CRTs. In
the proposal to today's rule, EPA clarified its views on how the
current RCRA regulations most appropriately applied to CRTs sent for
recycling (see 67 FR 40508 at 40511, June 12, 2002), and we proposed to
revise the regulations to clarify any confusion and to set a clear
federal floor. In the case of used CRTs going for recycling, EPA at the
time encouraged states to implement approaches consistent with the
proposal. Today's final rule modifies the proposal in three principal
respects: (1) Speculative accumulation requirements for used, intact
CRTs; (2) one-time notification requirement for used CRTs exported for
reuse; and (3) notice and consent requirements for CRTs exported for
recycling. These requirements are more stringent than the approach that
EPA, in the proposed preamble, recommended that states adopt under the
current regulations. Therefore, states that adopted the approach
recommended in the proposed rule must amend their programs so that they
are no less stringent than the federal approach. States currently
regulating CRTs as hazardous waste, including under the universal waste
rule, would not have to amend their programs, since their programs are
more stringent than the federal requirements.
    The limitations on speculative accumulation for intact CRTs are
issued under RCRA authority, and therefore will not go into effect (in
states not currently managing intact CRTs as hazardous waste) until
states have adopted today's rule. The one-time notification for intact
CRTs exported for reuse and notice and consent requirements for CRTs
exported for recycling are implemented under HSWA authority (section
3017 of RCRA, which governs notice and consent) and therefore go into
effect six months after the publication date of this rule. The Agency
is adding 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.

C. Interstate Transport

    Because some states may choose to regulate CRTs or processed CRT
glass under the universal waste or other hazardous waste rules, there
will probably be cases when used CRTs or processed CRT glass will be
transported to and from states with different regulations governing
these wastes.
    First, a waste which is subject to an exclusion from the definition
of solid waste in the state where it is generated may be sent to a
state where it is subject to the hazardous waste regulations. In this
scenario, for the portion of the trip through the originating state,
and any other states where the waste is excluded, neither a hazardous
waste transporter with an EPA identification number per 40 CFR 263.11
nor a manifest would be required. However, for the portion of the trip
through the receiving state, and any other states that do not consider
the waste to be excluded, the transporter must have a manifest, except
as provided by the universal waste rules, and must move the waste in
compliance with 40 CFR Part 263. In order for the final transporter and
the receiving facility to fulfill the requirements concerning the
manifest (40 CFR 263.20, 263.21, 263.22; 264.71, 264.72, 264.76 or
265.71, 265.72, and 265.76), the initiating facility should complete a
manifest and forward it to the first transporter to travel in a state
where the waste is not excluded. The receiving facility must then sign
the manifest and send a copy to the initiating facility.
    Second, CRTs or processed CRT glass generated in a state which
regulates them as hazardous waste may be sent to a state where they are
excluded. In this scenario, the material must be moved by a hazardous
waste transporter, while the material is in the generator's state or
any other states where it is not excluded, except as provided by the
universal waste rules. The initiating facility would complete a
manifest and give copies to the transporter as required under 40 CFR
262.23(a). Transportation within the receiving state and any other
states that exclude the material would not require a manifest and need
not be transported by a hazardous waste transporter. However, it is the
initiating facility's responsibility to ensure that the manifest is
forwarded to the receiving facility by the transporter and sent back to
the initiating facility by the receiving facility (see 40 CFR 262.23
and 262.42).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), federal
agencies must determine whether this regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and to the requirements of the Executive
Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material
way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or
tribal governments or communities; (2) create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates,
the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the
Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, the Agency has
determined that today's rule is a significant regulatory action because
it contains novel policy issues. As such, this action was submitted to
OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations are documented in the docket to today's rule.
    To estimate the cost savings, incremental costs, economic impacts
and benefits from this rule to affected regulated entities, we
completed an economic analysis for the rulemaking. Copies of this
analysis have been placed in the RCRA docket for public review (see
``Economic Analysis of Cathode Ray Tube Management, Final Rulemaking,''
March 19, 2004).
1. Methodology
    To estimate the cost savings, incremental costs, economic impacts
and benefits of this rule, the Agency estimated both the affected
volume of cathode ray tubes (CRTs) and regulated entities. The Agency
has evaluated two baseline (pre-regulatory) scenarios: (1) A scenario
which models a distribution of affected monitors as if all affected
entities followed standard Subtitle C regulations, and (2) a scenario
which models a high percentage of CRTs being discarded untreated in
municipal solid waste landfills. This latter scenario is being analyzed
to evaluate the possible real-world effect of this rule on affected
entities.
    The Agency then modeled a post-regulatory scenario that simulates