Wednesday
September 23, 1987
Part VI
** - • •
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 262 and 271
(Exception Reporting for Smafl Quantity
s of Hazardous Waste Final
Ruf*
-------
35894 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 184 / Wednesday. September 23. 1987 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 262 and 271
[SWH-FRL-3249-1]
Exception Reporting for Small
Quantity Generators of Hazardous
Waste
AGENCY: U.S. Enviro:nmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: On March 24.1988, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated final reflations for
generators of between 100 and 1000
kilograms of hazardous waste in a
calendar month (i.e., generators of 100-
1000 kg/mo) under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), as amended, by the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA). In the final regulations, the
Agency exempted these generators from
the requirement to file an exception
report in those instances where the
generator did not receive confirmation
of delivery of his hazardous waste
shipment to the designated facility. As a
result of this exemption, the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
challenged the final rule. Based on the
arguments raised by EDF, the Agency
proposed to reinstate the exception
reporting requirement in a modified form
on May 1,1987.
After considering public comments on
the proposal, EPA i> today promulgating
in final form the exception reporting
requirement as proposed.
DATE: This regulation applies to
hazardous waste shipments by
generators of between 100 and 1000 kg
of hazardous waste per calendar month
initiated after March 23.1988.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this
rulemaking is located in Room LG-100,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401M Street. SW.. Washington. DC
20460. The EPA RCRA Docket is open
from 3:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. To review docket materials.
the public must make an appointment by
calling (202) 475-9327'. The docket has
been assigned code number F-87-ESQP-
FFFFF. A maximum of 50 pages of
material may be copied from any
regulatory docket at no cost. Additional
copies cost S0.20/page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information, contact the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline, toll free at
(800) 424-9348 (in Washington. DC, call
382-3000), or the Small Business Hotline.
(800) 368-5888. For information on
specific aspects of today's notice,
contact Paul Mushovic. Office of Solid
Waste (WH-562B). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street SW.,
Washington. DC 20460, (202) 475-7736.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline
I. Background and Summary
II. Major Comments and EPA's Responses
A. The Need for Exception Reporting
1. General policy for developing standards
for small quantity generators • •:•-
2. Exception reporting as part of 4* ••': :-'
manifest system . _•
3. Usefulness of the exception report in- • . ••
enforcement cases
B. Burdens of Exception Reporting
1. Report preparation and submmiea
2. Recordkeeping
C. Regulatory Changes and Educatfaaal
Efforts
D. Requirement to Locate Lost Shipment*
III. State Authority
A. Applicability in Authorized States
B. Effect on State Authorization*
IV. Executive Order No. 12291
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
VII. Supporting Document
I. Background and Summary
On August 1,1985, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency {EPAf
proposed regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA}. as amended by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), that
would be applicable to generator* of
between 100 and 1000 kg of hazardous
waste in a calendar month ("180-4068
kg/mo generators"). The proposedn&M,
based in large measure on the existing
hazardous waste regulatory program.
represented the Agency's effoit»~tB •
balance the statutory mandate toprotecf-
human health and the environment with
the statutory directive to keep - • .
burdensome regulation of smafl'- -
businesses to a minimum. Ameag ofhae-r
things. EPA proposed to exempt
generators of between 100 and 1000 k§/
mo from the full hazardous waste
manifest system as well as the
requirement to file exception reports.
Under the proposed rules, there would
have been only a single copy of the
manifest; therefore, there would be no
manifest copies for return to the
generator, and, hence, no basis/ for
exception reporting.
In the final rule issued on March 24.
1986 (see 51FR10146). EPA determined
that the full, multiple-copy manifest
system was necessary to protect
health and the environment and
use would not impose a significant
burden on 100 to 1000 kg/mo generators.
See 51 FR 10155-10156. The Agency aba
concluded, however, that the
administrative burden associated with
the exception reporting requirement
outweighed the incremental
environmental benefits that may be
gained. See 51 FR 10159-160.
Subsequently, on June 6,1986, the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed
a petition in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (Environmental Defense Fund v.
Thorns, No. 86-1334) for review of
EPA's decision to exempt 100 to 1000
kf/mo generators from the exception
reporting requirement. On December 17,
1986, EPA and EDF agreed to defer the
litigation pending EPA's reconsideration
of the decision made in the final rule
and additional rulemaking on the
exception reporting exemption.
As a result of EPA's reconsideration
of this issue, the Agency proposed to
reinstate the exception reporting
requirement for generators of between
100 and 1000 kg of hazardous waste per
month, but in a modified form designed
to reduce any burden associated with
Ae full reporting requirement. (See 52
PR 16158; May 1,1987.) The Agency also
requested comment on a number of
alternative approaches to the existing
exception reporting requirement that
were not considered hi the March 24,
" t988, rulemaking. The comment period
on the May 1,1987, proposal closed on
June 1,1987.
EPA has reviewed the public
comments submitted in response to the
May t proposal and has decided to
promulgate the modified exception
reporting rule as proposed. The Agency
arrived at this decision based on our
conclusion that the modified exception
reporting requirement adequately
protects human health and the
environment without placing undue
burdens on small businesses.
. The remainder of this preamble
discusses the major comments received
• and the .Agency's response to those
comments, the applicability of the final
rule in authorized and nonauthorized
States, and EPA's consideration of
impacts, as required by Executive Order
No, 12291, the Paperwork Reduction Act.
and th« Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The reader should note that the
sections affected by today's rules (40
CFR 262.42 and 262.44) have been
modified slightly from the proposal to
clarify the requirements; these changes
are nonsubstantive. First, in the May 1
proposal, EPA limited the full exception
reporting requirements of § 262.42 (a)
iuui{bito generators of greater than
1000 kg/mo by adding a new paragraph
(ef&ff generators of between 100 and
1000leg/mo. In the final rule, we simply
condensed old paragraphs (a) and (b) in
-------
§ 262.42 into a new paragraph (a), and
placed the requirements for generators
o. between 100 and iOOO kg/mo in a new
paragraph {b) (i.e., now paragraph (a)
applies to generators of greater than
1000 kg/mo, and paragraph (b) to
generators of between 100 and 1000 kg/
mo). Second. EPA has added a "note" to
the end of § 262.42(b) to clarify that
when a generator of between 100 and
1000 kg of hazardous waste per aeatJi-
must notify EPA of a oaueturaed
manifest. Aena(ie0«u be
. enae0«u e 4»«u
a han&wittaa or typed «*ate«eS«B
copy of the subject manias* or an an
of the May 1,1987, proposal indicated
that this was EPA's intent (52 FR 1B15M.
but we now have concluded that a note
m the actual regulation will make
communication of the intent easier asd
prevent any confusion over what is
actually required. FinaUy, EPA has
amended § 268.44. Previously, this
section read that generators of between
180 and 1000 kg/mo are exeapt from
Part 262, SufapartO, "except for
paragraphs (a), (c) and {d) in $ 28249
and. . . §§282.42 and 262.43." The
"except for" language was somewhat
confusing, so § 262.44 now simply lists
requirements ia the subpart that apply
to generators of between MO and 1O»
kg/mo,
II. Major Comments and EPA's
Responses
This section of the preamble
addresses the major issues raised in
comments received on the May 1,1987.
proposal. Any comments not addressed
here are addressed in a response-to-
comment document available ia the
public docket.
As an overview, the proposal was
generally well =—' fry rmssauuhu..
Of the 11 coBBnents recttvni. iwam -
favorable, fa fact. 7 of the » •<: .<
commenters stated simply tkatttejr
agreed with the proposal t*. thaMh»
modified exception repartmg
requirement would be beneficial to
public health and the environment
without causing undaa burdens on small
businesses. Those commenting
favorably included firms representing
the chemical and petrolewn industries
as well as several trade associations
representing both large and some small
businesses; the other faroraWe comment
was from a State eoviroraneetai control
agency. OR the other haad. the National
Automotive Dealer's Association
(NAOAji—»'«-. TT« - .. _ . •
would impose additional burdens on
small business (see discuss-on below).
4 The Need for Exception Reporting
The National Automotive Dealer's
Association (NADA) and the U.S. Small
Business Administration (SBA)
questioned the need for exception
reporting. These commenters argue that
very few exception reports have been
tiled since the requirement waa imposed
for large quantity genaratort in 198%
ana* that when exception reports ars
filed the cause is usually * clerical wmr,
not an illegal or misdirected shipment
Conunenters further daim thai State
enforcement agencies rarefy fbJfew up
on reports that do receive, and that any
cases brought for illegal waste transport
are discovered not through the manifest
system, but through other means. NADA
and SBA also claim the EPA has not
demonstrated exception reporting is
necessary to protect human health and
environment. NADA further argues that
EPA has not met the statutory test of
RCRA Section 3001(d). and both NADA
and SBA argue that exception reporting
is simply an unnecessary bucdear
imposed by EPA on small business. EPA
will address the question of -burden in
Section Il.a The following is EPA's -
response to the claims'tha* exception-
reporting is unnecessary to protect
human health and the environment
1. General Policy for Developing
Standards for SmalT Quantity
Generators
representini small bosraem, commented
that the exception reporting
requirements were unneces
ary and
RCRA section 3001(dJ reads that
the Administrator shaH pcomidaote rtandai'A.
under sectiom 3002,.3083. amd 3804 fee -
hazardous waste gaaerated by a gewuatar ia
a total quantity of hazardous waste greater.
than OTO hundred kilograms but less man on*
'rtvr?* '"l°8*attw daring a calendar month.
™f™?standard*. . .mayvaryfrom-the
atanAuds appbcsfafo to hrtrrinttKil W«g>u •
generated by tegeryiaiUMf ^am.u»un. bar
sucfc otaadard* riuii be ralSae** pr»toct
human health and tbe«ovwoMuxit
EPA has interpreted section- 36Olfd) as '
requiring a balancing between the two
competing goals inherent in that
section—protecting human health and
the environment and avoiding
unreasonable burdens on the large
number of small businesses affected by
the standards. In assuring protection of
human health and the environment, the
Agency deemed it appropriate and
consistent to consider the relative risk
posed by the small aggregate amounts of
waste generated by the 1DQ atd 1000 kg/
nw generators. Given tfeiawer Miatftw
nsk «feat these genentoro pots •
compared to larger generators m ternw
of quantity of waste, it is poss&le mat
the standards applicable to large
quantity generators can be modified
while stil! meeting ths aist^or, aiUsi'iw.
that the small generator standards
protect human health and the
environment.
EPA has determined that retaining the
round trip manifest system for small
quantity generators is-necessary to
protect human health and the
environment See 51 FR X015&-56 {Maach
24,1988). It has also determined in
Py*?? "feihafonsa that exoeptfon-
f"P«'®'«Pn»1»*8s-attn1iportant fink in
tne traeSdng"rTOflionofmerotrrufrrrp
manifest system, and therefore, is
necessary to protect human health and
me environment. (See 45 FR 12731;
February 28,1580.)
EPA is not required by section 3001(d)
to reexamine whether each generator
standard is necessary to protect human
health and the environment; rather, it is
directed to vary lie standards to the
extentpoasihle to reduce unreasonable
burdens while still retaining their
protectiveness.
Even when viewing saa&generators-
waste as presenting a lower relative
risk, EPA is unable to determine that
eliminating the exception nooning for
these generators would stfllbe
protective of human health and the
enviMBiaeat. Although EPA made such
a finding in the March 24.1986, final
rote, it had failed to consider a number
of relevant factors. First it had failed to
consider that the relative risk associated
with the illegal disposal of any given
shipment of haaardoas waste may be
the same for large and small quantity
generators since transporters often
consolidate small quantity shipments for
transport to TSD's. Therefore, although
the small quantity shipped by a SQG
may pose a minimal ask. actual shipping
practices which -consolidate shipments
will increase the asks associated with a
lost or illegally disposed of truckload.
Second, the Agency failed to consider
ways to reduce any unreasonable
burdens imposed on snail quantity
generators by exception reporting while
retaining the bask requirement. Under
the balancing approach mentioned
above, if the requirement can be
modified to reduce burdens, there is no
authority under section 3001{d) to
elkainate a standard that has otherwise
beea found to be necessary to protect
haaaa haaUh and the «nvironment.
A« EPA harpraposed a means of
reducing tha^rdeovof exception
repartng-wniie retaining the necessary
Iwri of protKtiveats*
-------
35896
j-ederal Register / Vol. 52. No. 184 / Wednesday. September 23. 1987 / Rules and RpP..|aHnn«
directive. Thus. EPA disagrees with
NADA's and SBA's comments.
The remainder of (this section goes on
Jo explain in detail that exception
reporting is an important part of the
hazardous waste manifest system, and
discusses the issue of using exception
reports in RCRA enforcement cases.
2. Exception Reporting as Part of the
Manifest System
SBA argues that the RCRA multiple-
copy manifest itself, without exception
reporting, is an adequate means to
prevent improper transport and
disposal EPA does not agree. As
explained below, exception reporting is
an important part of (the manifest
system, and the system is not adequate
without some form of exception
reporting.
EPA discussed the need for a
hazardous waste mamfest system, and
Congress's intent than EPA institute such
a system, on February 26,1980 (45 FR
12748-12744). In large part, the reader
may ascertain Congress' intent from
RCRA section 3002(a)(5), in which EPA
is directed to:
. . . establish requirements respecting. . . (5)
use of a manifest system and any other
reasonable means necessary to assure that
all such hazardous waste generated is
designated for treatment, storage, or disposal
In. and arrives at. treatment, storage, or
disposal facilities. . . for which a permit has
. been Issued. . . (emphauis added).
That is, the purpose off the manifest is to
ensure that hazardous, waste is not only
designated for. but is actually delivered
to a properly permitted facility.
A basic principle supporting the
utilization of the hazardous waste
system is that the generator of a waste
is responsible for ensuring delivery of
his waste to a properly permitted
facility, and that the generator is the .
person in the best position to monitor
the tracking system to ensure his waste
is properly delivered. (Id. at 12728 and
12731.) The failure of a generator to
receive a signed and returned copy ef
the manifest is a signal or warning that
a shipment may have been misdelivered
or even illegally diverted to an
unauthorized facility. The requirement
to notify EPA of nonreceipt allows EPA
(or State enforcement officials) the
opportunity to begin an investigation to
determine whether a violation has been
committed. Additionally, the knowledge
that generators must notify EPA when a
manifest is not returned puts
transporters and facility owners and
operators on notice that manifests must
be relumed promptly, and so exception
reporting helps maintain the manifest as
a "self-policing" system. (Id. at 12731.)
3. Usefulness of the Exception Report in
Enforcement Cases
Both NADA and SBA argue that few,
if any, enforcement cases have been
brought via exception reporting for large
quantity generators, and therefore the
requirement is virtually useless. EPA
acknowledges that based on the
information we have available at this
time, it appears that very few
enforcement cases for illegal transport
or disposal have been initiated via the
exception report However, EPA does
not concur with commenters who argue
that because exception reporting has
apparently resulted in few enforcement
cases, EPA should therefore continue to
exempt 100 to 1000 kg/mo generators
from the requirement Commenters
presented two studies which supposedly
support their contentions. It should be
noted that the two studies provided by
commenters covered only 5 States, but
even in examining that limited universe,
one study (performed by the U.S.
General Accounting Office (GAO),
entitled "Illegal Waste Shipments:
Difficult to Detect and Deter," Feb.
1985), did identify one enforcement case
that was in fact brought as a result of
the generator's failure to file an
exception report. (See page 27 of the
GAO report, footnote 1.)
Further, EPA believes that exception
reporting has a deterrent value that is
hard to quantify or measure in any
study. The knowledge that generators
must report the nonreturn of manifest
copies acts as a self-policing check
between the parties involved.1 Also.
transporters or facility owners or
operators who wish to evade regulation
must either collude with generators or
go to greater lengths to cover their
tracks than if exception reporting is not
required (e.g., in the GAO report, cases
of transporters forging facility operator's
signatures were uncovered).
In summary, EPA believes exception
reporting is an important part of the
manifest system, is sometimes used in
enforcement cases, and is necessary for
protection of human health and the
environment
B. Burdens of Exception Reporting
As explained in the May 1.1987,
proposal, EPA considered ways in
which burdensome requirements could
1 SBA suggested in their comments (hal EPA
should obtain information from States which have
been regulating generators of less than 1000 kg/mo
previous to EPA's regulation. Presumably, a
comparison could lie made between States with and
without exception importing to see if there was more
illegal disposal in States without. Such a study is
impossible to conduct Due to its very nature, illegal
disposal is Impossible to accurately measure, so any
comparison* between States would be meaningless.
be reduced on 100 to 1000 kg/mo
generators while still retaining the
protective value provided by an
exception reporting mechanism. (52 FR
16159-16160.) The option proposed was
a modification of the requirement that
applies to large quantity generators. The
proposed option varied from the large
generator requirement in that when a
manifest is not returned, 100 to 1000 kg/
mo generators are not required to
attempt to locate lost shipments.
Further, in lieu of a.report to EPA, 100 to
1000 kg/mo generator could simply
submit a copy of the unreturned
manifest accompanied by a note (either
typed or hand written on the manifest
itself, or on an attached piece of paper)
stating that the return copy was not
received from the facility owner or
operator. Finally, a 100 to 1000 kg/mo
generator would be allowed 60 days
before a report is to be submitted to EPA
as compared to 45 days allowed for
large quantity generators. EPA is
adopting the proposed option in today's
final rule to reduce any burdens that
may be associated with exception
reporting.
Most commenters, including several
comments from associations
representing small quantity generators,
- agreed that EPA had given due
consideration to small business impacts
and that the proposed requirements
were reasonable. SBA and NADA
claimed, however, that the requirements
would still impose unreasonable
burdens. In response to these comments.
the following sections address each
aspect of the reporting and
recordkeeping burdens associated with
the proposal.
1. Report Preparation and Submission
EPA estimated thattm average a 100
to 1000 kg/mo generator would only
initiate between 2 and 4 manifests per
year. This is because under the rules
promulgated on March 24,1986, these
generators may store waste on-site for
up to 180 days (or in some cases 270
days) without a permit* (See 52 FR
16160; May 1,1987.) EPA further
estimated that given such infrequent
shipments, an exception report would
only be required, on average, once in 10
years. (Id.) EPA estimated the actual
cost of preparing and submitting an
exception report to be $19 (Id.) The
commenters have provided no data .to
indicate costs would be any higher than
2 Note that many generators who ship more
frequently than this, e.g» vehicle maintenance
facilities with spent solvents and spent lead acid
batteries, are eligible for an exemption from the
entire manifest system under 40 CFR 282.20(e) and
40 CFR Part 288. Subpart G. '
-------
Federal
these estimates, and given the relative
mfrequency of the reports and the
modified reporting format. EPA
concludes that such costs of reporting
do not impose significant burdens on
small businesses or on small quantity
generators in general.
2. Recordkeeping
SBA pointed out that 100 to MOO kg/
mo generators woosdhave toJceap
records to know if aaianifc*t had not
been returned within tfat all
-------
35898 Federal_Register / Vol. 52. No. 184 / Wednesday. September 23. 1987 / Rules and Regulations
so. White States must still adopt HSWA
provisions as State law to retain final
authorization, the HSWA requirements
apply in authorized States in the interim.
Today's final rule is promulgated
pursuant to section 3001(d) of RCRA, a
provision added by HSWA. Therefore, it
is being added to Table 1 in § 271.1Q),
which identifies the Federal program
requirements that are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA and that take effect
in all States, regardless of their
authorization status. States may apply
for either interim or final status for the
HSWA provisions identified in Table 1,
as discussed in the fallowing section of
this preamble.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
As noted above, EPA will implement
the standards in authorized States until
they revise their programs to adopt
these rules and the modification is
approved by EPA. Because the rule is
promulgated pursuant to HSWA, a State
submitting a program modification may
apply to receive either interim or final
authorization under section 3006(g)(2) or
3006(b). respectively, on the basis of
requirements that are substantially
equivalent to EPA's. The procedure? and
schedule for State program
modifications for either interim or final •
authorizaton are described in 40 CFR
271.21. It should be noted that all HSWA
interim authorizations will expire
January 1,1993. (See §i 271.24(c).)
40 CFR 271.2ire)(2) requires that
States that have final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect Federal
program changes, and must
subsequently submit the modification*
to EPA for approval. The deadline by
which a State must modify its program*
to adopt today's rule is July I. 1991 (or
July 1,1992 if a statutory change ia
needed.) These deadlines can be
extended in certain cases. (See 40 CFR.
271.2l(e)(3).) Once EPA approves the
modification, the State requirement*
become RCRA Subtitle C requirement*..
It should be noted that States with
authorized RCRA progprams may already
have requirements similar to those in
today's rule. These State regulations
have not been assessed against the
Federal regulations being promulgated
today to determine whether they meet
the tests for authorization. Thus, a State
is not authorized to implement these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
State program modification is approved.
Of course. States with existing
standards may continue to administer
and enforce them as a matter of State
law. In implementing the Federal
program, EPA will work with States
under cooperative agreements to
minimize duplication of efforts. In many
cases, EPA will be able to defer to
States in their efforts to implement their
programs rather than take separate
action under Federal authority.
States that submit their official
applications for final authorization less
than 12 months after the effective date
of these standards are not required to
include standards equivalent to these
standards in their application. However,
the State must modify it* program- by the
deadlines cat forth in f 271.21(e]. States
that submit official application* for final
authorization 12 months after the
effective date of thes* standards must
include standards equivalent to these in
their application. 40 CFR 271.3 sets forth
the requirements a State must meet
when submitting its final authorization
application,
IV. Executive Order No. 12291 .
Under Executive Order No. 12291,
EPA must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and, therefore, subject to the
requirement to perform a Regulatory
Impact Analysis. Today's rules would
require that 100 to 1000 kg/mo
generators report potentially lost
shipments- of hazardous waste to EPA or
the appropriate State authority.
However, because of the infrequent
need to file such a report and the very
low costs involved, I have determined
that the rule would not constitute a
major rule subject to the Regulatory
Impact Analysis requirements of
Executive Order No. 12291.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq,, EPA must prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for all
rule*, unless the Administrator certifies
that the nil* will not have a significant
impact on « substantial number of ""all
entities. Today's rule will affect a* many
as 1QCVOQO *™^n. hnftipesscB, but will not
resmlt in significantly increased
complianc* cost* for these businesses. .
This is because an exception report,
costing less than $19/reporU wifl moat
likely only be required, on average, once
every 10 years. Further, during a 10-year
period, generators would, on average,
only have-to track 20-40 manifests in
total
Therefore, I hereby certify, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 601(b). that this final rule will
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements contained in this rule have
been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMBJ under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,44
U.S.C. 3501 et .«eo.. and have been
assigned the OMB control number 2050-
0039 (Manifest Exception Reporting).
VII. Supporting Document
A background document in which
EPA responds to any comments not
addressed in this preamble, entitled
Summary and EPA Responses to Public
Comments on the May 1. 2987. Proposed
Rule Governing Exception Reporting for
100 to 1000 kg/mo Generators of
Hazardous Waste, dated September
1987, is available in the RCRA Docket at
EPA (LG-100), 401M Street SW.,
Washington. DC 20460. The docket
number for this rulemaking is F-8'7-
ESQP-FFFFF. The docket is open from
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except for Federal holidays. The
public must make an appointment to
review docket materials by calling (202)
475-9327. The public may copy a
maximum of 50 pages of material from
any one regulatory docket at no cost.
Additional copies cost $0.20 per page.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 262
Hazardous materials transportation.
Hazardous waste. Imports, Labeling,
Packaging and containers, Reporting
- and recordkeeping requirements, IfFaste
minimization.
40 CFR Part 271
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information. Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous waste, Indian
lands. Intergovernmental relations,
• Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Water pollution control.
Water supply.
Dated: September 17,1987.
Lae M. Tbtunaa,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 262—STANDARDS APPLICABLE
TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE
1. The authority citation for Part 262 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906,6912. 6922. 6923.
6924, 6925, and 6937.
2. Section 262.42 is revised to read as
follows:
§262.42 Exception reporting.
(a)(l) A generator of greater than 1000
kilograms of hazardous waste in a
calendar month who does not receive a
copy of the manifest with the
handwritten signature of the owner or
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 184 , WpHno^,, a __ ^
— ^
operator of the designated facility
within 35 days of the date the waste was
accepted by the initial transporter must
contact the transporter and/or the
owner or operator of the designated
facility to determine the status of the
hazardous waste.
(2) A generator of greater than 1000
Kilograms ofhazardous waste in a
calendar month must submit an
Exception Report to the EPA Regional
Administrator for the Region in which
the generator is located if he has not
received a copy of the manifest with the
handwritten signature of the owner or
operator of the designated facility
within 45 days of the date the waste was
accepted by the initial transporter.
The Exception Report must include:
(i) A legible copy of the manifest for
which the generator does not have
confirmation of delivery;
(ii) A cover letter signed by the
generator or his authorized
representative explaining the efforts
taken to locate the hazardous waste and
the results of those efforts.
(b) A generator of greater than 100
kilograms but less than 1000 kilograms
of hazardous waste in a calendar month
who does not receive a copy of the
manifest with the handwritten signature
of the owner or operator of the
designated facility within 60 days of the
1987 / Rules and Regulations 35899
date the waste was accepted by the
initial transporter must submit a legible
copy of the manifest, with some
indication that the generator has not
received confirmation of delivery, to the
EPA Regional Administrator for the
Region in which the generator is located.
Note.—The submission to EPA need only be
a handwritten or typed note on the manifest
itself, or on an attached sheet of paper
stating that the return copy was not received.
{The information requirements in this section
have been nnnmvoH K«/ mun .... i s •
control number 2050-0039]!
3. Section 282.44 is revised to read as
follows:
§262.44 Special requirements for
generator* of between 100 and 1000 kg/
mo.
A generator of greater than 100
kilograms but less than 1000 kilograms
of hazardous waste in a calendar month
is subject only to the following
requirements in this Subpart:
(a}§262.40(a},(c);and(d),
recordkeeping;
{b) § 262.42(b), exception reporting;
find
(c) 5 262.43, additional reporting.
(The information requirements in this section
have been approved by OMB and assigned
control number 2050-0039)
™ 271-*EQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
4. The authority citation for Part 271 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 8905. 6912(a). and 6926.
5. Section 27l.l(j) is amended by
adding the following entry to Table 1 in
chronological order by date of
publication:
8271.1 PurpoMandKop*.
* * • « *
GT* * *
TABLE I.-REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE
HAZARDOUS AND Souo WASTE AMEND-
MENTS OF 1984
item
Tide of
(•nutation
Effective
date
September Exception sa FH...
23.1987. Reporting far
Smis
Quantity
Generators of
Hazardoue
. March 23,
1988.
[FR DOG. 87-21940 Filed 9-22- 85^8:45 am]
«UWO CODE 6M04MI
-------
------- |