[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 6, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36466-36490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16930]



[[Page 36465]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 264, etc.



Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste 
Program; Hazardous Waste Lamps; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 6, 1999 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 36466]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 260, 261 264, 265, 268, 270 and 273

[FRL-6371-3]
RIN 2050-AD93


Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous 
Waste Program; Hazardous Waste Lamps

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today's final rule adds hazardous waste lamps to the federal 
list of universal wastes regulated under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA). Handlers of universal wastes are subject to less 
stringent standards for storing, transporting, and collecting these 
wastes. The Agency has concluded that regulating spent hazardous waste 
lamps as a universal waste under 40 CFR Part 273 will lead to better 
management of these lamps and will facilitate compliance with hazardous 
waste requirements. Today's final rule, which streamlines the Subtitle 
C management requirements for hazardous waste lamps, also supports 
energy conservation efforts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on January 6, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The official record for this rulemaking is identified as 
Docket F-99-FLEF-FFFFF and is in the EPA RCRA docket, located in the 
RCRA Information Center (RIC) at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. The RIC is open from 9 
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To 
review docket materials, it is recommended that the public make an 
appointment by calling (703) 603-9230. The public may copy a maximum of 
100 pages from the regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies 
cost $0.15/page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RCRA/Superfund/EPCRA/UST Hotline 
at (800) 424-9346 (toll free) or TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing impaired). 
In the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, call (703) 412-9810. For 
technical information about this rule, contact Marilyn Goode of the 
Office of Solid Waste (5304W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
401 M St. SW., Washington DC 20460, phone 703-308-8800, or E-mail 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Internet Availability

    This rule is available on the Internet. Using a World Wide Web 
(WWW) browser, type http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/hazwaste.htm#id.

Official Record

    The official record for this action is kept in a paper format. The 
official record is maintained at the address in the ADDRESSES section 
at the beginning of this document.

Outline of Today's Document

I. Background
    A. Current Regulations
    B. Proposed Rule
    C. The Toxicity Characteristic
    D. Universal Waste Rule
    E. Energy Efficient Lighting Programs
    F. Notice of Data Availability
II. Relationship to Other Agency Activities
    A. Report to Congress on Mercury
    B. Health Effects on Children
III. Rationale for Including Hazardous Waste Lamps in the Scope of 
the Universal Waste Rule
    A. Why Management Controls Are Necessary for Spent Mercury-
Containing Lamps
    B. Why the Universal Waste Approach is Preferable to a 
Conditional Exclusion for Spent Mercury-Containing Lamps
    C. Why Relief From Full Subtitle C Requirements is Warranted 
Both for Mercury-Containing Hazardous Waste Lamps and Other 
Hazardous Waste Lamps
IV. Summary of Final Rule
    A. Waste Covered by Today's Rule
    B. Summary of Management Requirements for Hazardous Waste Lamps
    1. Categories of Participants in the Universal Waste System
    2. Small and Large Quantity Handlers
    3. Universal Waste Transporters
    4. Universal Waste Destination Facilities
    C. Management Requirements for Small and Large Quantity Handlers 
of Hazardous Waste Lamps
    D. Effect of Today's Rule on Conditionally-Exempt Small Quantity 
Generators
    E. Requirements for Transporters of Hazardous Waste Lamps
    F. Requirements for Destination Facilities
    G. Import and Export Requirements
    H. Land Disposal Restriction Requirements
V. Discussion of Comments Received in Response to Proposed Rule 
Making and Agency's Response
    A. Universe of Lamps Covered Under the Final Rule
    1. Summary of Proposed Scope and Definition
    2. Summary of Comments Received
    3. Agency's Response to Comments and Summary of Promulgated 
Standards
    B. Requirements for Handlers of Hazardous Waste Lamps
    1. Prohibition on Treatment
    a. Summary of Proposed Provision
    b. Summary of Comments Received
    c. Agency's Response to Comments and Summary of Promulgated 
Standards
    2. Notification Requirement
    a. Summary of Proposed Provision
    b. Summary of Comments Received
    c. Agency's Response to Comments and Summary of Promulgated 
Standards
    3. Prevention of Releases/Packaging Requirements
    a. Summary of Proposed Provision
    b. Summary of Comments Received
    c. Agency's Response to Comments and Summary of Promulgated 
Standards
    4. Accumulation Time
    a. Summary of Proposed Provision
    b. Summary of Comments Received
    c. Agency's Response to Comments and summary of Promulgated S 
Standards
    5. Tracking of Shipments
    a. Summary of Proposed Provision
    b. Summary of Comments Received
    c. Agency's Response to Comments and Summary of Promulgated 
Standards
    C. Storage Time Limitations for Transporters of Universal Waste 
Lamps
    1. Summary of Proposed Provision
    2. Summary of Comments Received
    3. Agency's Response to Comments and Summary of Promulgated 
Standards
    D. Destination Facility Requirements/Lamp Recycling Facilities
    1. Summary of Proposed Provision
    2. Summary of Comments Received
    3. Agency's Response to Comments and Summary of Promulgated 
Standards
    E. Sunset Provision
    1. Summary of Proposed Provision
    2. Summary of Comments Received
    3. Agency's Response to Comments and Summary of Promulgated 
Standards
VI. State Authority
    A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
    B. Effect on State Authorization
    C. Interstate Transport
VII. Regulatory Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Economic Assessment
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    D. Environmental Justice
    E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    F. Executive Order 13045--Children's Health
    G. Regulatory Issues--Unfunded mandates
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. Executive Order 13084
    J. Executive Order 12875
VIII. Submission to Congress and General Accounting Office

I. Background

    Under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA) the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated 
regulations governing the nation's hazardous waste management program. 
These regulations are found at parts 260 through 279 of title 40 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations first define which 
materials are considered solid wastes and then identify wastes that are 
hazardous and thus subject to RCRA hazardous waste requirements. 
Requirements are then set forth for hazardous waste generators,

[[Page 36467]]

transporters, and owners and operators of treatment, storage, and 
disposal facilities (TSDs). On May 11, 1995, EPA finalized streamlined 
requirements for collecting certain widely dispersed hazardous wastes 
under the Universal Waste Rule, codified in 40 CFR part 273. Today's 
rule extends the scope of that rule by adding hazardous waste lamps.

A. Current Regulations

    Any person who generates a solid waste, as defined in 40 CFR 261.2, 
must determine whether or not the solid waste is a hazardous waste, 
either because the waste is listed as a hazardous waste in subpart D of 
40 CFR part 261 or because the waste exhibits one or more of the 
characteristics of hazardous waste, as provided in subpart C of 40 CFR 
part 261. Data available to EPA, including studies conducted by the 
Agency, indicate that many fluorescent and high intensity discharge 
(HID) lamps exhibit the toxicity characteristic (TC) for mercury 
because of the use of that compound in producing these lamps. Some HID 
and other types of lamps may also exhibit the toxicity characteristic 
for lead, principally because of the use of lead solder. Before today's 
rulemaking (except as explained in the next paragraph), generators of 
spent lamps that exhibited hazardous waste characteristics were subject 
to the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste management requirements. 
Generators were subject to all applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 
260 through 268, including the on-site management, pre-transport, and 
manifesting requirements of part 262.
    Spent hazardous waste lamps sent for reclamation are considered 
spent materials (rather than sludges or by-products) and are therefore 
solid wastes. A spent material is ``any material that has been used and 
as a result of contamination can no longer serve the purpose for which 
it was produced without processing'' (40 CFR 261.1(c)(1)). Generators 
of solid wastes (including spent lamps) are thus responsible for 
determining whether the wastes are hazardous (through testing or 
through their knowledge of the material).
    However, even though waste lamps are considered solid and hazardous 
wastes if they exhibit hazardous waste characteristics, not all 
generators of these spent lamps have had to manage the lamps as 
hazardous waste. Under RCRA Subtitle C, there are different 
requirements for generators of hazardous waste depending on the amount 
of hazardous waste generated in a calendar month. Conditionally-exempt 
small quantity generators (CESQGs) (i.e., generators of less than 100 
kilograms of hazardous waste in a calendar month) are not subject to 
RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste management standards and may choose to 
send their wastes to a municipal solid waste landfill or other facility 
approved by a state for the management of industrial or municipal non-
hazardous wastes (40 CFR 261.5). Generators of more than 100 kilograms 
and less than 1,000 kilograms in a calendar month are subject to the 
RCRA hazardous waste management standards, but are allowed to comply 
with certain reduced regulatory requirements (40 CFR 262.34). 
Generators of more than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a 
calendar month are required to comply fully with federal hazardous 
waste regulations. Household generators of waste lamps may be exempt 
from hazardous waste management requirements under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1). 
Also, several states already regulate waste lamps as universal wastes 
under their authorized state hazardous waste programs.

B. Proposed Rule

    On July 27, 1994 (59 FR 38288), EPA proposed two approaches for 
controlling the management of spent lamps, specifically mercury-
containing lamps. Mercury-containing lamps include fluorescent, high 
pressure sodium, mercury vapor, and metal halide lamps. In that notice, 
the Agency requested comment on whether either approach was appropriate 
for protecting human health and the environment from potential releases 
of mercury. The two management options proposed by EPA were less 
stringent than the existing federal regulations. Both regulatory 
alternatives provide streamlined requirements for certain waste 
management activities in lieu of regulating spent mercury-bearing lamps 
under the full RCRA Subtitle C management standards.
    The first regulatory alternative proposed by EPA was a conditional 
exclusion from hazardous waste regulation for waste mercury-containing 
lamps. Under the proposed conditional exclusion, waste mercury-
containing lamps could be disposed in a municipal landfill provided the 
landfill was permitted by a state with an EPA-approved municipal solid 
waste landfill permitting program or managed at a mercury reclamation 
facility permitted, licensed, or registered by a state. The second 
regulatory alternative included in the proposed rule was to add waste 
mercury-containing lamps to the universal waste program, which consists 
of streamlined regulations designed to address the management of 
certain widely generated hazardous wastes. EPA also solicited comment 
on whether to add other types of spent hazardous waste lamps (e.g., 
lamps that are hazardous waste because they fail the TC for other 
constituents, such as lead) to the universal waste program.

C. The Toxicity Characteristic

    Under section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA), EPA is charged with defining which solid wastes are hazardous 
by identifying characteristics that indicate hazardous waste and by 
listing particular solid wastes as hazardous wastes. On May 19, 1980, 
the Agency promulgated the Extraction Procedure Toxicity Characteristic 
(EPTC) to determine the toxicity of waste. The EPTC regulated eight 
metals, four insecticides, and two herbicides. On March 29, 1990, in 
response to section 3001(g) of RCRA, which was added by the Hazardous 
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, the Agency replaced the 
Extraction Procedure with the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching 
Procedure (TCLP). Like the EPTC, the TCLP is used to determine the 
toxicity of waste. Although regulatory levels for the metals (including 
mercury) remained the same as originally promulgated in 1980, the 
promulgation of the Toxicity Characteristic resulted in additional 
wastes becoming regulated as hazardous due to the new leaching 
procedure (the TCLP) and to the addition of regulatory levels for more 
waste constituents.
    In the 1994 proposal on spent lamps, the Agency did not propose, or 
request comment on, regulatory language that would modify or amend the 
current hazardous waste toxicity characteristic provisions published in 
40 CFR 261.24. However, EPA noted that the Agency was conducting long-
term studies on the fate and transport of TC metals in ground water, 
and that the TC regulatory levels for mercury may be changed when that 
work is completed. The proposed rule also requested submission of any 
municipal solid waste leachate or groundwater data to support this 
separate effort. Because of the extreme complexity of mercury chemistry 
in the environment and because scientific knowledge about the 
environmental fate and transport of mercury continues to evolve, this 
work is still ongoing.
    The most recent data available to the Agency demonstrate greater 
mobility than previously thought. These data include updated 
groundwater modeling, as well as field data collected by the Agency in 
reviewing the hazardous characteristics generally, the TCLP test,

[[Page 36468]]

and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) Records of Decision (RODs) from municipal solid 
waste landfills. As explained in more detail in responses to comments 
and elsewhere in the record, these data expand upon and corroborate 
data cited in the proposal that mercury can migrate from municipal 
solid waste landfills in harmful concentrations and reach human 
drinking water sources located over a mile from the landfill in 
significant concentrations, i.e., concentrations exceeding allowable 
mercury in drinking water. Thus, actual site data from recent and on-
going studies support the Agency's conclusion that mercury is present 
in significant concentrations in both leachate and groundwater at non-
hazardous waste landfill sites, including municipal solid waste 
landfills, and has migrated off-site to drinking water sources (in some 
instances in concentrations exceeding Federal drinking water 
standards). This conclusion is sufficient to warrant continued 
regulation of spent lamps containing mercury as hazardous waste.
    Even though EPA did not re-open issues related to the 
appropriateness of the TCLP for evaluating the toxicity of mercury-
bearing waste in this proposal, the Agency is clarifying that the 
recent opinion of the D.C. Circuit in Columbia Falls Aluminum Company 
v. EPA, 139 F.3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (``Columbia Falls''), does not 
affect the use of the TCLP to determine whether spent waste lamps 
exhibit the toxicity characteristic and, therefore, should be regulated 
as hazardous wastes under RCRA Subtitle C.
    Columbia Falls presented unique and limited circumstances which do 
not apply to the question of using the TCLP for determining whether 
spent lamps are hazardous wastes. In the context of Columbia Falls, EPA 
had established treatment standards for spent aluminum potliners 
(hazardous waste code K088), and the treatment standards used the TCLP 
to measure the performance of the treatment technology in mitigating 
the hazard presented by several hazardous constituents found in the 
waste, including arsenic and fluoride. In the case of Columbia Falls, 
all of the commercial treatment capacity for the waste (K088) was 
provided by a single facility, and all of the treatment residue from 
this single process was disposed at a single location in a dedicated 
monofill.1 Notwithstanding that the treatment process was 
able to achieve the treatment standards for arsenic and fluoride as 
measured by the TCLP (i.e., the treatment residue, when tested with the 
TCLP, never exceeded the regulatory levels), actual leachate from the 
single disposal site contained significantly higher levels of these two 
constituents. EPA had not offered any substantive explanation for 
continued use of the TCLP to measure performance of the treatment 
process for these constituents after the disparities between the 
predicted leaching using the TCLP and the actual performance in the 
field became known. Under these circumstances, the court held that it 
was arbitrary and capricious to continue to use the TCLP to establish 
treatment standards for spent potliner wastes because it bore no 
rational relationship to what was actually occurring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 1993 (Jan. 14, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    None of these circumstances applies to the question of using the 
TCLP to determine the toxicity of spent lamps and, therefore, whether 
such lamps are hazardous wastes in the first place. With respect to 
mercury, the TCLP has not been shown in this case to under predict 
mercury leachate concentrations for 100 percent of the wastes to which 
the test applies.
    First, there is no question that it is reasonable to model a 
disposal environment where lamps are disposed with municipal solid 
waste, since most lamps are disposed in municipal solid waste 
landfills, or would be if they were not hazardous wastes. The grinding 
feature of the TCLP protocol is likewise reasonable, since there is no 
dispute that lamps will be crushed after they are landfilled. The 
dilution/attenuation feature of the TCLP is likewise a reasonable 
approximation of fate and transport of mercury which escapes from the 
lamp matrix. There is no chemical reason why such mercury would be 
immobile. The mercury itself is primarily the divalent form which can 
form mobile salts or soluble mercury acetate upon exposure to acidic 
municipal solid waste (a phenomenon modeled by the pH and acid of the 
simulated leachate in the TCLP test (see Memorandum To the Docket from 
Gregory Helms entitled ``Solubility of Mercury Salts,'' dated June 18, 
1999).
    Second, as explained in more detail in responses to comments and 
other materials in the record, mercury has proven mobile in municipal 
solid waste landfill environments, migrating in leachate to contaminate 
ambient groundwater at concentrations exceeding the federal maximum 
contaminant levels (MCLs) used for drinking water (see EPA's ``Summary 
of Mercury Damage Incidents from CERCLA Records of Decisions (RODs),'' 
June 9, 1999, and chart entitled ``Maximum Mercury Concentration 
Observed in Leachate from Landfill Cells,'' June 11, 1999.) Mercury 
contamination from municipal solid waste leachate exceeding MCLs has 
actually been found in groundwater drinking wells over a mile from the 
landfill (well past the 500 feet used in the TC for fate and transport 
assumptions). These concentrations are within an order of magnitude, or 
within the same order of magnitude, as predicted in the TC. Id. Thus, 
the reasonableness of using the TC to evaluate the hazardousness of 
these wastes is firmly supported by empirical data.

D. Universal Waste Rule

    On February 11, 1993, EPA proposed streamlined hazardous waste 
management requirements for collecting and managing certain widely 
generated hazardous wastes (58 FR 8102). The Agency finalized the 
Universal Waste Rule on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25492). The final rule 
promulgated streamlined hazardous waste management regulations for 
hazardous waste batteries, certain hazardous waste pesticides, and 
mercury-containing thermostats. Handlers of universal wastes are 
subject to less stringent standards for storing, transporting, and 
collecting these wastes. These standards serve to encourage 
environmentally sound collection and proper management of these 
hazardous wastes.
    The universal waste regulations apply to handlers and transporters 
of universal wastes. Handlers include universal waste generators and 
collection facilities. The regulations distinguish between ``large 
quantity handlers of universal waste'' (those who handle more than 
5,000 kilograms of total universal waste at one time) and ``small 
quantity handlers of universal waste'' (those who handle 5,000 
kilograms or less of universal waste at one time). The 5,000 kilogram 
accumulation criterion applies to the quantity of all universal wastes 
accumulated.
    Universal waste handlers who generate or manage items designated as 
universal waste are exempt from certain requirements routinely applied 
to hazardous waste management and instead are subject to the management 
standards under part 273. These include streamlined standards for 
storing universal waste, labeling and marking waste or containers, 
preparing and sending shipments of universal wastes off-site, employee 
training, and response to releases. Large quantity handlers of 
universal waste (LQHUW) also must provide notification of universal 
waste management to the appropriate EPA Region (or state director in 
authorized

[[Page 36469]]

states), obtain an EPA identification number, and retain for three 
years records of off-site shipments of universal waste. Small quantity 
handlers of universal waste (SQHUW) are not required to manifest 
wastes, notify the EPA region, or keep records of universal waste 
shipments.
    Transporters of universal waste also are subject to less stringent 
requirements than the full Subtitle C hazardous waste transportation 
regulations. Universal waste transporters must comply with all 
applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations and ensure 
transportation of universal waste to a universal waste handler or a 
destination facility. Transporters may store universal waste at a 
transfer facility for ten days or less and must contain any releases of 
universal waste. Transporters of universal waste do not have to comply 
with RCRA hazardous waste manifest requirements.
    Destination facilities are those facilities that treat, dispose, or 
recycle universal wastes. Universal waste destination facilities are 
subject to all currently applicable requirements for hazardous waste 
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and must receive a RCRA 
permit for such activities. Hazardous waste recycling facilities that 
do not store hazardous wastes prior to recycling may be exempt from 
permitting under federal regulations (40 CFR 261.6(c)(2)).
    In the universal waste proposal, the Agency did not propose to 
include spent fluorescent lamps in the universal waste regulations 
because further investigation into the issue was necessary. However, 
EPA requested comment on several questions related to fluorescent lamps 
(58 FR 8110). First, EPA requested comment on the risks posed by these 
lamps in landfills or municipal waste combustors. Second, EPA requested 
information on the risks of current or developing mercury recovery 
technologies. The Agency received a number of comments in response to 
these questions. Some commenters supported including waste lamps in the 
Universal Waste Rule, and other commenters suggested other regulatory 
alternatives for managing these lamps. The comments addressing the 
management of waste mercury-containing lamps that were received in 
response to the universal waste proposed rule are addressed in the 
background documents for today's rulemaking.

E. Energy Efficient Lighting Programs

    Prior to publication of the proposed rule, the Agency initiated a 
review of the potential risks represented by waste mercury-containing 
lamps and began to analyze the contribution of such lamps to total 
mercury emissions to the environment. The Agency undertook this 
evaluation in part because of the importance of promoting energy 
efficiency. The use of energy-efficient lighting can reduce mercury 
emissions from coal-burning power plants as well as reduce emissions of 
carbon dioxide and sulfur oxide. Energy-efficient lighting in all U.S. 
commercial floor space currently illuminated by less efficient 
fluorescent lamps would save an estimated 35 to 40 billion kilowatt 
hours of electricity annually. This saving would result in reduced 
emissions of mercury, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 
dioxide, some of which are projected to cause greenhouse effects.
    Replacing energy inefficient lighting systems with energy efficient 
lighting systems requires the use and eventual disposal of spent 
mercury-containing lamps. It was suggested that requiring the 
management of spent lamps in accordance with the full Subtitle C 
hazardous waste management requirements could discourage participation 
in energy efficient lighting programs, since facilities might avoid or 
postpone replacement of lamps because of potential disposal costs. If 
this were true, streamlined management standards for spent mercury-
containing lamps could decrease the costs associated with managing the 
lamps and promote greater participation in energy-efficient lighting 
programs. However, as discussed below, the Agency has found that the 
cost of these programs appears to be largely independent of the 
regulatory options chosen by EPA.

F. Notice of Data Availability

    On July 11, 1997 (62 FR 37183), the Agency made available to the 
public additional data on mercury emissions from managing spent lamps. 
The information provided as part of the Notice of Data Availability 
(NODA) consisted of an electronic model and a report that assessed 
mercury emissions from the management of waste mercury-containing lamps 
under different regulatory approaches. The report, titled ``Mercury 
Emissions From the Disposal of Fluorescent Lamps,'' discusses the 
methodology, data and assumptions used in developing the Mercury 
Emissions Model. The report describes inputs used in the model for 
estimating potential mercury emissions during waste management and 
disposal activities (such as lamp properties, lamp disposal rates, and 
lamp mercury emissions rates from specific waste management practices). 
It also discusses inputs for estimating energy savings from using high-
efficiency T8 lamps, and the effects on mercury emissions from electric 
utilities. The report estimates mercury emissions under baseline 
conditions (i.e., management of mercury-containing lamps in compliance 
with full hazardous waste requirements) and under other regulatory 
options, including the conditional exclusion and universal waste 
approaches proposed. These estimates include annual and cumulative 
emissions from disposal of mercury-containing lamps, and net mercury 
emissions.
    The Agency received thirty-five public comments on this NODA, about 
twenty of which presented substantive information on the model. The 
Agency has reviewed these comments in great detail and revised the 
model and report, as appropriate. The Agency also has prepared a 
comprehensive response to comment document addressing each substantive 
issue. The revised model, report, and response to comment document are 
available in the RCRA docket established for this action. A brief 
summary of the major public comments and the Agency's responses is 
presented below.
    Many commenters raised concerns about the model's Subtitle D 
landfill emissions rates. Several commenters believed the Agency should 
not have rounded the high emissions rate of 0.8 percent to one percent. 
EPA believes this is a valid concern and has revised the model to 
include the original 0.8 percent emissions rate.
    Some commenters raised concerns that EPA had misinterpreted data 
from the State of Florida on its recycling emissions estimates. EPA has 
carefully reviewed available recycling emissions data and revised the 
model's central and low emissions factors for divalent mercury 
emissions. EPA revised the central estimate from three percent to 1.09 
percent and the low estimate from one percent to 0.07 percent.
    Various commenters believed that the model should clearly 
distinguish between CESQG and non-CESQG lamp mercury emissions. These 
commenters pointed out that CESQG lamp emissions are outside the scope 
of the rulemaking effort. The Agency agrees with this concern and has 
revised the model to segregate non-CESQG from CESQG lamp emissions.
    Some commenters believed that higher spent lamp management costs 
would discourage certain building owners from conducting lighting 
upgrades. These commenters were concerned with the model assumption

[[Page 36470]]

that upgrades are independent of policy options. In response to the 
comments, EPA revisited its assumptions and performed additional 
calculations on the impact of disposal costs on a lighting upgrade's 
internal rate of return (IRR). The Agency has found that, holding all 
other lamp operating costs constant, the cost of lamp disposal has 
minimal impacts on an upgrading project's IRR. At a $0.50/lamp 
transportation and recycling cost, the IRR for a typical project over 
ten years is 51 percent. At a $1.00/lamp transportation and recycling 
cost, the IRR was 50 percent--only a slight decrease in IRR despite a 
100 percent increase in waste management costs. For these reasons, EPA 
continues to believe that the decision to use T8 lamps is independent 
of the Agency's policy options.
    A number of commenters indicated that the model underestimated lamp 
recycling rates under the baseline and overestimated the rate of 
Subtitle C landfilling. Commenters suggested that the national lamp 
recycling rate is approximately ten percent and that Subtitle C 
landfilling of lamps is near three percent. EPA believes these 
estimates may be reasonable, and has revised the baseline's recycling 
rate to ten percent and reduced the Subtitle C disposal rate to about 
two percent.
    The Agency also conducted an internal review of the model and made 
additional revisions. First, the Agency revised the model assumptions 
regarding the effectiveness of pollution control equipment at municipal 
waste combustor (MWC) emissions from 80 to 95 percent. This revision 
has the effect of decreasing the MWC high emission factor for divalent 
mercury from 30 percent to 16 percent. Second, EPA revised the disposal 
trees under the baseline and options to account for the fact that some 
CESQGs voluntarily recycle their spent lamps.

II. Relationship to Other Agency Activities

A. Report to Congress on Mercury

    As required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, on 
December 19, 1997, the Agency issued the Mercury Study Report to 
Congress. The study estimates the quantity of mercury emissions to the 
air from a number of human activities, estimates the health and 
environmental impacts associated with these mercury emissions, and 
describes the technologies available to control mercury emissions from 
these sources.
    The report estimates that annual anthropogenic U.S. emissions of 
mercury in 1994-1995 were 158 tons. Approximately 87 percent of these 
mercury emissions came from combustion sources. Approximately 1 percent 
of mercury emissions are estimated to come from spent mercury-
containing lamps.
    The report found that anthropogenic emissions of mercury to the air 
rival or exceed natural inputs. Recent estimates place the annual 
amounts of mercury released into the air by human activities at between 
50 and 75 percent of the total yearly input to the atmosphere from all 
sources. Some of the air emissions are deposited on land and water 
within several hundred miles of the source. The remainder enters global 
circulation, from which it may be deposited on land or water at great 
distances from the source. Mercury deposited on land or water may be 
re-emitted and reenter the global circulation to be redeposited 
elsewhere. When mercury enters water bodies, either through direct 
deposition or through run-off of mercury deposited on land, a series of 
transformations occur resulting in conversion of some of the mercury 
into a methylated form which is more toxic and more conducive to 
bioaccumulation in fish.
    While the report does not quantify the risk from mercury exposure, 
it concludes that there is cause to seek further reductions in mercury 
releases and exposures to mercury. The report recommends that cost-
effective opportunities to deal with mercury during the product life 
cycle (rather than just at the point of disposal), should be pursued. 
The Agency believes that today's rule furthers that goal by including 
provisions related to management prior to disposal.
    In addition, on February 19, 1998, EPA and the Department of 
Agriculture issued the Clean Water Action Plan, which describes 
important actions EPA and other federal agencies will take to reduce 
exposure to toxic pollutants (especially mercury) in the nation's water 
and fish. Mercury is identified as a pollutant of concern in 60 percent 
of state-issued fish consumption advisories. The Clean Water Action 
Plan outlines several important Agency actions aimed at reducing the 
exposure of people and wildlife to mercury-contaminated fish.

B. Health Effects on Children

    In April 1997 President Clinton signed Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885), ``Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and 
Safety Risks,'' requiring each federal agency to assess risks that 
disproportionately affect children, including risks from mercury. 
Mercury is a toxic, bioaccumulative pollutant. The primary health 
effects are on the neurological development of children exposed through 
fish consumption and fetuses exposed through their mothers' consumption 
of fish. Given equivalent exposure, children absorb more mercury as a 
percentage of their body weight than do adults. Children are, 
therefore, more susceptible to the negative health effects of mercury 
emissions. The results of EPA's analyses (as presented in Modification 
of the Hazardous Waste Program: Hazardous Waste Lamps--Economic 
Assessment) indicate that it is likely that emissions from regulated 
mercury-containing lamps will decrease somewhat as a result of today's 
final rule. Therefore, it is likely that children may experience a 
marginal benefit from this action due to these decreased emissions.

III. Rationale for Including Hazardous Waste Lamps in the Scope of 
the Universal Waste Rule

A. Why Management Controls Are Necessary for Spent Mercury-Containing 
Lamps

    In today's rule, the Agency's primary objective is to promulgate 
regulations for management of hazardous waste lamps that both protect 
human health and the environment and are efficient and effective in 
doing so. EPA believes that management controls for spent mercury-
containing lamps are necessary to minimize releases of mercury to the 
environment during accumulation and transport, to ensure safe handling 
of such lamps, and to keep spent mercury-containing lamps out of 
municipal waste management facilities (both landfills and solid waste 
incinerators). Studies reveal that significant threats of mercury 
releases from managing spent lamps result from incineration and from 
breakage during storage and transport. In addition, data available to 
the Agency show that mercury can be found in municipal landfill 
leachate, and EPA remains concerned that landfill releases may pose 
threats over the long term. For these reasons, the Agency has concluded 
that some management controls are essential for these wastes.
    Mercury is easily volatilized; it can be dispersed widely through 
the air and transported thousands of miles. It undergoes complex 
chemical and physical changes as it cycles among air, land, and water. 
Humans, plants, and animals may be exposed to mercury and accumulate it 
during this cycle, potentially resulting in ecological and human health 
impacts. The primary health effects from mercury are on the 
neurological development of children

[[Page 36471]]

exposed through fish consumption and on fetuses exposed through their 
mother's consumption of fish.
    Because of its low boiling point, elemental mercury is largely 
vaporized during municipal waste combustion and, without the use of 
control technologies specific to mercury, passes out of the municipal 
waste combustor into the atmosphere with the flue gas. On December 19, 
1995, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) 
promulgated standards for new municipal waste combustors of a certain 
capacity (60 FR 65387). However, combustors at smaller plants would not 
be affected by the standards, nor do the standards address the problem 
of mercury emissions from lamp breakage.
    When spent mercury-containing lamps break, the elemental mercury 
inside becomes available for evaporation, adsorption, or reaction. For 
example, a study performed by Research Triangle Institute (RTI) 
estimated emissions from lamps after breakage to be about 6.8 percent 
of the total mercury content of the broken lamp. The National 
Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) estimated emissions from 
lamp breakage to be in the range of 1 percent of the mercury content of 
the broken lamp. The Electric Power Research Institute's (EPRI) 
measurements of mercury emissions from uncovered broken lamps totaled 
2.8 percent of the total mercury content of the lamp.
    Mercury may also be released to the environment as a result of lamp 
crushing operations. Available studies show that emission percentages 
from drum top crushing range from 10 to 100 percent of the total 
elemental mercury in the lamps, depending on the operating conditions 
and supplemental controls used.
    To address these concerns, today's rule moves spent hazardous waste 
lamps into the universal waste regulatory program. Comments from 
stakeholders and from other regulatory agencies (especially state solid 
and hazardous waste authorities) support EPA's conclusion that this 
approach offers the most effective way to ensure environmentally 
protective management of these wastes.

B. Why the Universal Waste Approach is Preferable to a Conditional 
Exclusion for Spent Mercury-Containing Lamps

    Although EPA has determined that spent mercury-containing lamps can 
safely be subject to management requirements that are less stringent 
than those of full Subtitle C (see discussion in Part III.C below), the 
Agency does not believe that its proposed conditional exclusion 
approach would sufficiently protect human health and the environment. 
It is clear to the Agency that mercury poses an environmental threat 
and that man-made sources of mercury emissions should be reduced or, 
where inevitable, managed properly. EPA therefore gave considerable 
weight to actions that would minimize mercury emissions to the 
environment while encouraging the collection and environmentally-sound 
management of spent lamps. The Agency is convinced that the universal 
waste approach is the best way to further these goals. EPA agrees with 
those commenters to the proposed rule who stated that the conditional 
exclusion approach would reduce the quantities of spent mercury-
containing lamps that would be recycled, increase disposal of the lamps 
in municipal landfills, and increase the amount of mercury released to 
the environment due to increased breakage of lamps during storage, 
transport, and landfilling. The Agency's analysis predicts that 
uncontrolled mercury emissions under the conditional exclusion approach 
are likely to be somewhat greater than under the universal waste 
approach promulgated in today's rule (see the Economic Assessment 
discussed in section VII.B of today's preamble).
    A principal reason for this conclusion is that some substantive and 
relatively detailed controls for managing spent mercury-containing 
lamps are necessary for protection of human health and the environment, 
although these controls can be structured in a much more simplified and 
streamlined way than the full Subtitle C management system. The Agency 
believes that such controls would be difficult to implement and to 
enforce using a conditional exclusion approach. Such an approach could 
be appropriate if the regulated universe was less numerous and varied, 
or more sophisticated about Subtitle C requirements. However, since 
handlers of spent mercury-containing lamps are widely varied, diffuse, 
and often not knowledgeable about RCRA regulations, it would be very 
difficult to monitor compliance and enforce controls such as those 
included in today's rule if these handlers were completely outside of 
the Subtitle C universe and the controls were implemented only as 
conditions for maintaining the exclusion. The Agency believes that the 
packaging standards and prohibition on treatment included in today's 
rule are important for preventing potential mercury emissions during 
storage and transport. Controls of this type can best be implemented 
through a universal waste-type approach where handlers are operating 
within a simple, streamlined management system with some limited 
oversight rather than completely outside of any regulatory structure.
    A further reason for selecting the universal waste approach was the 
Agency's desire to promote further reductions in the quantity of 
mercury in spent lamps, which will lead to a reduction in total 
emissions of mercury to the environment. The conditional exclusion 
approach would have provided less incentive to reduce or eliminate the 
presence of mercury in lamps, since under that approach spent mercury-
containing lamps would not have been classified as hazardous waste.
    With respect to mercury, the most significant source reduction 
achievement has been the reduction and elimination of mercury from 
alkaline batteries. Although these batteries are still a significant 
contributor of mercury to municipal solid waste, this contribution is 
dropping dramatically. Spent mercury-containing lamps are one of the 
next highest sources of mercury in the municipal solid waste stream, 
possibly accounting for as much as 3.8 percent of all mercury now going 
to municipal landfills. Opportunities exist to further reduce mercury 
content in both standard 4-foot fluorescent lamps and the increasingly 
popular compact fluorescent lamps.
    Commenters on the proposed rule stated that advances in lamp 
technology have resulted in a 14 percent reduction in lamp mercury 
content from 1985 to 1990. These commenters also pointed out that 
projections show an additional 35 percent decline in future mercury 
levels. Some manufacturers have made considerable progress in reducing 
levels of mercury in fluorescent lamps. Many commenters urged EPA to 
continue to encourage industry in these efforts.
    The Agency believes that today's final rule will encourage lamp 
manufacturers to continue reducing or eliminating the amount of mercury 
used to manufacture lamps. Because mercury-bearing lamps that fail the 
TCLP are still considered to be hazardous wastes under the universal 
waste rule, lamp producers will have an incentive to design lamps with 
a mercury content below the level that will cause the lamps to fail the 
TCLP. If lamp manufacturers aggressively pursue source reduction, the 
contribution of mercury to the environment from lamps will continue to 
decrease over time.
    EPA also notes that under the universal waste rule, handlers and 
destination facilities must comply with the substantive requirements of 
the

[[Page 36472]]

Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) provisions of the Hazardous and Solid 
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). These include (1) a prohibition on 
accumulating prohibited wastes directly on the land; (2) a requirement 
to treat waste to meet treatment standards before disposal; (3) a 
prohibition on dilution; and (4) a prohibition on accumulation except 
for purposes of accumulating quantities sufficient for proper recovery, 
treatment, or disposal. Since mercury can be found in municipal 
landfill leachate and releases remain a concern (especially for the 
long term), the Agency believes that compliance with the substantive 
requirements of the LDR program is still necessary to minimize risks 
from managing spent mercury-containing lamps (studies on the movement 
of mercury in a variety of land disposal settings are ongoing). Again, 
the Agency believes that controls of this type are best implemented 
through a simple, streamlined regulatory approach such as the universal 
waste rule rather than as a conditional exclusion.
    A further reason for today's rule finalizing the universal waste 
approach is that this approach will provide more consistency between 
federal and state regulations governing the management of spent 
hazardous waste lamps. Currently, several states have added mercury-
containing lamps to their universal waste programs and others have 
proposed to do so in the near future. By placing hazardous waste lamps 
within the federal universal waste rule, EPA hopes to encourage 
additional states to regulate spent lamps as universal waste and 
therefore promote greater consistency in regulatory approaches across 
state borders. This will improve waste management efficiency and reduce 
compliance costs for waste handlers engaged in interstate commerce.

C. Why Relief From Full Subtitle C Requirements is Warranted Both for 
Mercury-Containing Hazardous Waste Lamps and Other Hazardous Waste 
Lamps

    Although some controls for management of spent lamps are necessary 
for protection of human health and the environment, for several reasons 
the Agency believes that these controls can be successfully applied in 
a more simple, streamlined system than the full Subtitle C program, and 
that such an approach is appropriate both for mercury-containing 
hazardous waste lamps and any other spent lamps that are hazardous.
    The Agency believes that relief from full Subtitle C requirements 
for handlers of hazardous waste lamps is justified (whether the lamps 
are hazardous because they exhibit the toxicity characteristic for 
mercury or another constituent, such as lead). First, the principal 
reason for this belief is that the full Subtitle C regulatory structure 
is not appropriate for the universe of people handling these materials, 
and adequate protections can be applied in the more appropriate 
structure of the universal waste rule. Many handlers of hazardous waste 
lamps are office buildings, retail establishments, and other building 
managers, most of whom are not familiar with or equipped to comply with 
the full Subtitle C regulatory structure. This structure was initially 
developed with industrial hazardous wastes in mind, and is most 
appropriate for these materials and for the types of facilities that 
generate these wastes. The streamlined universal waste structure is 
more appropriate for the numerous, widely varied universe of spent lamp 
handlers who are not familiar with or easily able to comply with the 
full hazardous waste regulatory structure.
    In addition, the final universal waste rule included a number of 
factors to be used to evaluate whether candidate wastes are appropriate 
to be added to the universal waste regulations. The factors were 
designed to determine whether regulating a particular hazardous waste 
under the streamlined standards of the universal waste program would 
improve overall management of the waste. The factors, which are 
codified at 40 CFR 273.81, include: (a) The waste must be a hazardous 
waste generated by a wide variety of generators; (b) the waste, or 
category of waste, should not be exclusive to a particular industry or 
group of industries, but generated by a wide variety of establishments; 
(c) the waste should be generated by a large number of generators and 
generated frequently, but in relatively small quantities; (d) systems 
to be used for collecting the waste should ensure close stewardship of 
the waste; (e) the risks posed by the waste during accumulation and 
transport should be relatively low compared to the risks posed by other 
hazardous waste, and specific management standards would be protective 
of human health and the environment during accumulation and transport; 
(f) regulation of the waste, or category of wastes, under the universal 
waste rule should result in the diversion of the waste from management 
with non-hazardous waste streams (i.e., the municipal solid waste 
stream); (g) regulation of the waste as a universal waste should 
improve implementation of and compliance with the hazardous waste 
regulatory program and/or (h) other factors that may be appropriate.
    As the Agency noted in the preamble to the final universal waste 
rule (60 FR 25513), not every factor must be met for a waste to be 
appropriately regulated under the universal waste system. However, 
consideration of all the factors should result in a conclusion that 
regulating a particular hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 273 will 
improve waste management. After evaluating spent hazardous waste lamps 
in the context of the regulatory criteria for adding wastes to the 
universal waste rule, EPA has determined that on balance, these wastes 
are highly appropriate for inclusion in the regulatory scheme of 40 CFR 
part 273. The results of the Agency's evaluation of how these wastes 
meet the universal waste factors are described below.
    A. Spent lamps are often hazardous because they exhibit the 
characteristic of toxicity by exceeding the regulatory level for 
mercury or another constituent (most frequently lead).
    B. Spent hazardous waste lamps are generated by a wide variety of 
generators, including retail establishments, manufacturing 
establishments and office buildings.
    C. Spent hazardous waste lamps are generated frequently by a large 
number of generators; in fact, a large percentage of all office 
buildings, retail establishments, and manufacturing facilities generate 
such lamps. Spent lamps are often generated in relatively small 
quantities.
    D. The packaging standards included in today's rule and increased 
recycling will encourage close stewardship of the waste.
    E. The Agency is convinced that the requirements of the universal 
waste program can be highly effective in mitigating risks posed by 
breakage of hazardous waste lamps during storage and transport. The 
universal waste requirements for proper packaging and handling of the 
lamps to avoid breakage during accumulation and transport should 
prevent releases of mercury or lead to the environment before recycling 
or other management, which will make the risks posed during 
accumulation and transport extremely low.
    F. The Agency believes that managing hazardous waste lamps under 
the universal waste program will result in diversion of at least some 
of this waste from management in the municipal waste stream. EPA 
believes that the streamlined requirements of today's rule will 
encourage all handlers of spent lamps (whether hazardous or not) to

[[Page 36473]]

manage them under the requirements of part 273. Under the current RCRA 
regulatory scheme, the management of a waste differs based on the 
source of the waste. Wastes (including spent lamps) generated by 
consumers in their homes are not regulated under Subtitle C when 
discarded, because they are excluded from the definition of hazardous 
waste under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1). Similarly, many spent lamps are largely 
exempt from the hazardous waste regulations because they are generated 
by conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs). Spent lamps 
generated by households and CESQGs are not distinguishable from those 
generated by fully regulated generators. Because the waste looks the 
same, spent lamps that would be more protectively managed in the 
hazardous waste system are entering municipal solid waste landfills or 
combustors instead. The simplified regulations will provide an 
incentive for individuals and organizations to collect the unregulated 
portions of the waste stream and manage them using the same systems 
developed for the regulated portion, thereby removing spent mercury or 
lead-containing lamps from the municipal waste stream and minimizing 
the amount of hazardous constituents going to municipal landfills and 
combustors.
    G. Finally, managing hazardous waste lamps under the universal 
waste program will improve implementation of and compliance with the 
hazardous waste regulatory program. Generation of hazardous waste lamps 
by facilities which otherwise generate no hazardous waste is 
widespread. Currently, if a mercury or lead-containing lamp is a 
hazardous waste, it must be managed under Subtitle C regulation. If 
more than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste (including spent lamps) are 
generated in a calendar month, generators are subject to full Subtitle 
C requirements for storage, packaging, manifesting, and record keeping. 
Many facilities are therefore required to undergo significant technical 
and paperwork burdens largely or solely because they replace or upgrade 
used hazardous waste lamps. These generators may not be in compliance 
with RCRA regulations because they are unfamiliar with the 
requirements. EPA believes that the streamlined requirements of the 
universal waste program will give such ``episodic'' generators a more 
accessible starting point for good environmental management. If 
regulatory requirements are simpler, the compliance rate will improve, 
more hazardous waste lamps will be handled properly, and more spent 
lamps will be sent for recycling (or to other Subtitle C facilities) 
instead of going to solid waste landfills or to municipal waste 
combustors. Improved management will therefore lead to a reduction in 
the total amount of hazardous waste emissions to the environment.
    In summary, considering these factors, the Agency finds that the 
universal waste approach is highly appropriate for this waste stream, 
and that it is in fact exactly this type of waste that the universal 
waste system was designed for. The Agency believes that the universal 
waste approach promulgated in today's rule will improve management of 
hazardous waste lamps, will improve implementation of the hazardous 
waste regulatory program, and will adequately protect human health and 
the environment from the risks posed by management of this waste 
stream.

IV. Summary of Final Rule

A. Waste Covered by Today's Rule

    Today's rule adds hazardous waste lamps (waste lamps that are 
hazardous due to exhibiting one or more of the characteristics of 
hazardous waste) to the federal universal waste rule. In the proposed 
mercury-containing lamps rule, the Agency provided definitions for 
``electric lamp'' and ``mercury-containing lamp.'' In response to 
comments received on the proposed definitions, and to reduce potential 
confusion regarding the scope of the final rule, in today's final rule 
the Agency is finalizing a single definition of ``lamp'' or ``universal 
waste lamp.'' In addition, in the applicability section of today's 
rule, the Agency is clarifying that all hazardous waste lamps fall 
within the scope of the universal waste rule.

B. Summary of Management Requirements for Universal Waste Lamps

    Today's final rule for hazardous waste lamps ensures consistency 
with the universal waste rule. Today's rule adds subsections to 
Secs. 273.13 and 273.33 of the existing universal waste rule, 
specifically addressing requirements for hazardous waste lamps. New 
Sec. 273.13(d) includes lamp handling requirements for small quantity 
handlers of universal waste, and new Sec. 273.33(d) provides lamp 
handling requirements for large quantity handlers of universal waste 
lamps. Management standards for transporters of universal waste lamps 
are the same as those applicable to transporters of other types of 
universal waste. Destination facilities (e.g., recycling facilities and 
treatment and disposal facilities) remain subject to all applicable 
hazardous waste permitting and management requirements under RCRA.
    The universal waste management requirements for different 
participants handling hazardous waste lamps are summarized below. A 
discussion of the public comments that the Agency received in response 
to the management requirements for spent lamps contained in the 
proposed rule is found in Section V of this preamble, along with EPA's 
responses to comments received on the proposed requirements.
1. Categories of Participants in the Universal Waste System
    There are four categories of participants in the universal waste 
management system: small quantity handlers of universal waste (SQHUW), 
large quantity handlers of universal waste (LQHUW), transporters, and 
destination facilities. When the proposed spent lamps rule was 
published, the Agency chose to categorize the lamps in a manner that 
was consistent with the proposed universal waste rule. Both proposed 
rules classified regulated persons managing universal waste into one of 
four types: generators, consolidation points, transporters, or 
destination facilities. When the final universal waste rule was 
published, the Agency modified the four categories. The transporter and 
destination facility categories were retained essentially as proposed. 
However, the generator and consolidation point categories were merged 
to create two new categories of participants: small quantity handlers 
of universal waste (SQHUWs) and large quantity handlers of universal 
waste (LQHUWs). In today's final rule, the Agency is categorizing 
handlers of hazardous waste lamps in a manner consistent with the 
existing universal waste regulations.
2. Small and Large Quantity Handlers
    The term ``universal waste handler'' is defined under existing 40 
CFR 273.6 as a generator of universal waste or the owner or operator of 
a facility (including all contiguous property) that receives universal 
waste from other universal waste handlers, accumulates universal waste, 
and sends universal waste to another universal waste handler, to a 
destination facility, or to a foreign destination. The definition of 
``universal waste handler'' does not include: (1) A person who treats 
(except under the provision of Secs. 273.13(a) or (c), or 
Secs. 273.33(a) or (c)), disposes of, or recycles universal waste; or 
(2) a

[[Page 36474]]

person engaged in the off-site transportation of universal waste by 
air, rail, highway, or water, including a universal waste transfer 
facility. Persons who treat, recycle, or dispose of universal waste 
remain subject to all applicable hazardous waste regulations as 
discussed below in Section IV.F. Transporters of universal waste are 
regulated as discussed below in Section IV.E.
    There are two types of entities that are considered handlers of 
universal waste lamps. The first is a person who generates the lamps, 
i.e., the person who used the lamps, then determined that they are no 
longer usable and thus should be discarded. Contractors who remove 
universal waste lamps from service are considered handlers and co-
generators of the waste. The second type of handler is a person who 
receives universal waste lamps from generators or other handlers, 
consolidates the lamps, and then sends the lamps on to other universal 
waste handlers, recyclers, or treatment and disposal facilities. 
Facilities that accumulate universal waste lamps but do not treat, 
recycle, or dispose of them are handlers of the lamps. Each separate 
location, (e.g., generating location or collecting location) is 
considered a separate handler.
    Whether a universal waste handler is a SQHUW or LQHUW depends on 
the amount of universal waste being accumulated at any time. A small 
quantity handler of universal waste is defined under 40 CFR 273.6 as a 
universal waste handler who accumulates 5,000 kilograms or less of 
universal waste (i.e., batteries, pesticides, thermostats, or lamps, 
calculated collectively) at any time. A large quantity handler of 
universal waste is defined under 40 CFR 273.6 as a universal waste 
handler who accumulates 5,000 kilograms or more of total universal 
waste (i.e., batteries, pesticides, thermostats, or lamps, calculated 
collectively) at any time. The 5,000 kilogram accumulation cut-off 
level refers to the total quantity of all universal waste handled on-
site, regardless of the category of universal waste.
    On occasion, SQHUWs may accumulate greater than 5,000 kilograms of 
universal waste on-site at any one time, thus requiring them to comply 
with the LQHUW regulations. A large quantity handler of universal waste 
retains this designation for the remainder of the calendar year in 
which more than 5,000 kilograms of universal waste was accumulated at 
any given time. A handler may re-evaluate his status as a LQHUW in the 
following calendar year.
3. Universal Waste Transporters
    Under 40 CFR 273.6, the definition of a universal waste transporter 
is ``a person engaged in the off-site transportation of universal waste 
by air, rail, highway, or water.'' Persons meeting the definition of 
universal waste transporter include those persons who transport 
universal waste from one universal waste handler to another, to a 
destination facility, or to a foreign destination. These persons are 
subject to the universal waste transporter requirements of subpart D of 
part 273.
    The proposed regulations for transporters of hazardous waste lamps 
were designed to be consistent with the proposed universal waste rule. 
Since the proposed regulations for universal waste transporters were 
not modified significantly in the final rule, today's requirements for 
universal waste lamps are essentially identical.
4. Universal Waste Destination Facilities
    The definition of ``destination facility,'' found in 40 CFR 273.6, 
is ``a facility that treats, disposes of, or recycles a particular 
category of universal waste, except those management activities 
described in paragraphs (a) and (c) of Secs. 273.13 and 273.33 of this 
chapter (40 CFR part 273). A facility at which a particular category of 
universal waste is only accumulated is not a destination facility for 
purposes of managing that category of universal waste.'' Persons 
meeting the definition of destination facility are subject to the 
universal waste destination facility requirements of Subpart E of Part 
273.
    Like the regulations for transporters, the final regulations for 
destination facilities have changed very little from the proposed rule.

C. Management Requirements for Small and Large Quantity Handlers of 
Universal Waste Lamps

    As mentioned above, the universal waste rule includes different 
requirements for small and large quantity handlers of universal wastes. 
Small quantity handlers are those who accumulate 5,000 kilograms or 
less of all universal waste categories combined at their location at 
any time. The requirements for small quantity handlers of universal 
waste are located in subpart B of part 273. Large quantity handlers are 
those who accumulate more than 5,000 kilograms of all universal waste 
categories combined at any time. The requirements for large quantity 
handlers of universal waste are located in subpart C of part 273.
    Both small and large quantity handlers must follow specified 
requirements when handling universal waste lamps. 40 CFR 273.13 
specifies packaging standards for waste lamps to prevent breakage of 
spent lamps during accumulation, storage, and transport of universal 
waste lamps. Handlers of universal waste lamps must label each 
universal waste lamp or container holding the lamps with the words 
``Universal Waste--Lamp(s)'' or ``Waste Lamp(s)'' or ``Used Lamp(s).''
    In addition, the final rule requires that spent lamps be managed in 
a way that prevents releases of mercury or other hazardous constituents 
to the environment during accumulation, storage, and transport. 
Handlers may accumulate universal waste lamps for one year. If the 
lamps are stored for longer than one year, the handler must be able to 
demonstrate that such accumulation is solely for the purpose of 
accumulating such quantities of universal waste as are necessary to 
facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or disposal. (Handlers are not 
required to notify EPA or the authorized state of storage for longer 
than one year.)
    The requirements for responding to releases applicable to small and 
large quantity handlers of universal wastes (including universal waste 
lamps) are found in Secs. 273.17 and 273.37. Today's rule does not 
amend these sections. All handlers of universal waste lamps must 
immediately contain any releases from the lamps and must handle the 
residues according to all applicable regulatory requirements. The 
Agency notes that any releases of universal waste not cleaned up could 
constitute illegal disposal and could incur enforcement action under 
RCRA. In addition, any releases of hazardous substances (universal 
wastes are hazardous wastes, and thus are hazardous substances) must be 
reported under CERCLA if they are above reportable quantity thresholds.
    The employee training requirements for small and large handlers of 
universal waste are found in Secs. 273.16 and 273.36. The Agency today 
is applying these standards to handlers of universal waste lamps. Large 
quantity handlers must ensure that all employees are thoroughly 
familiar with proper waste handling and emergency procedures related to 
their responsibilities during normal facility operations and 
emergencies. Small quantity handlers must inform all employees that 
handle or have responsibilities for managing universal waste lamps of 
proper handling and emergency procedures appropriate to such lamps. The 
Agency believes that basic employee training is

[[Page 36475]]

necessary to ensure that employees are specifically familiar with waste 
lamp handling procedures. Training that is required under other 
programs (such as OSHA or RCRA) will generally fulfill the part 273 
training requirements.
    Small quantity handlers are not required to notify EPA of their 
universal waste management activities and need not obtain an EPA 
identification number. However, large quantity handlers must notify EPA 
(or the authorized state) of their universal waste activities and they 
must obtain an EPA identification number, if they do not already have 
one.
    The Agency has decided to adopt the off-site shipment provisions 
included in the final universal waste rule for hazardous waste lamps in 
order to remain consistent with the current universal waste 
regulations. Handlers of universal waste are prohibited from sending 
universal waste to a place other than another universal waste handler, 
a destination facility, or a foreign destination. Handlers who 
transport universal waste off-site themselves are considered universal 
waste transporters and must comply with the universal waste transporter 
requirements. Universal wastes being offered for off-site 
transportation that meet the Department of Transportation (DOT) 
definition of hazardous material must comply with the applicable DOT 
requirements. Large quantity handlers must track waste lamp shipments 
by maintaining records documenting shipments received by and sent from 
the facility.
    Handlers of universal waste must also comply with requirements for 
rejected shipments of universal waste. To prevent or limit rejected 
shipments, facilities that offer universal waste for shipment off-site 
must ensure, before the shipment is sent, that the receiving facility 
(another universal waste handler or destination facility) will agree to 
receive the load. If the shipment is rejected, the handler must take 
the waste back or agree with the receiving facility on a destination 
facility to which the shipment will be sent. If a handler rejects a 
shipment or a portion of a shipment, the handler must contact the 
originating handler to discuss re-shipment of the load. The handler may 
send the shipment back to the originating handler or send the shipment 
to a destination facility agreed upon by both handlers. If a handler 
receives a shipment containing hazardous waste that is not universal 
waste, the handler must notify the EPA Regional office of the illegal 
shipment and receive instruction on further management of the waste. If 
the handler receives a shipment containing non-hazardous, non-universal 
waste, the handler may manage the waste according to applicable 
federal, state, or local solid waste regulations.

D. Effect of Today's Rule on Conditionally-Exempt Small Quantity 
Generators

    Under the universal waste system, conditionally-exempt small 
quantity generators (CESQGs) can choose to manage their universal waste 
lamps in accordance with either the CESQG regulations under 40 CFR 
261.5 or as universal waste under part 273 (40 CFR 273.8(a)(2)). In 
addition, handlers and destination facilities that mix universal waste 
lamps from CESQGs with other universal waste regulated under part 273 
are required to manage the combined waste as universal waste under part 
273 (40 CFR 273.8(b)).
    As discussed in the proposal, hazardous waste lamps that are 
managed as universal waste under 40 CFR part 273 do not have to be 
included in a facility's determination of hazardous waste generator 
status (40 CFR 261.5(c)(6)). Therefore, if a generator manages such 
lamps under the universal waste system and does not generate any other 
hazardous waste, that generator is not subject to other Subtitle C 
hazardous waste management regulations, such as the hazardous waste 
generator regulations in part 262. A generator that generates more than 
100 kilograms of hazardous waste in addition to universal waste lamps 
would be regulated as a small or large quantity hazardous waste 
generator and would be required to manage all hazardous wastes not 
included within the scope of the universal waste rule in accordance 
with all applicable Subtitle C hazardous waste management standards, 
depending on the amount of other hazardous waste generated.

E. Requirements for Transporters of Universal Waste Lamps

    Transporters of universal waste lamps are subject to the 
requirements of subpart D of part 273. Under the universal waste 
system, hazardous waste manifests need not accompany off-site shipments 
of universal waste. Transporters of universal wastes must, however, 
comply with any applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) 
requirements. The Agency notes that the Hazardous Materials Regulations 
(HMR, 49 CFR parts 171-180) define a hazardous waste as any material 
that is subject to the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Requirements of 
U.S. EPA, specified in 40 CFR part 262. Since shipments of universal 
waste are not required to be accompanied by a manifest, universal 
wastes are not considered ``hazardous wastes'' under DOT regulations. 
Therefore, for any universal waste shipments, transporters of universal 
waste must decide if the waste falls under any of the other DOT hazard 
classes to determine if compliance with the DOT requirements for 
``hazardous materials'' under 49 CFR parts 171 through 180 is required. 
If the waste material does not meet the definition in the HMR for 
hazardous waste or any other hazardous material, its shipping 
description on shipping papers will not include a hazard class or 
identification number shown in the HMR.
    Transporters may store universal waste lamps for up to ten days at 
a transfer facility during the course of transportation. A transporter 
storing universal waste lamps for more than ten days at one location 
must comply with the appropriate universal waste handler requirements 
in managing the wastes accumulated at the site, in addition to 
complying with the applicable universal waste transporter requirements. 
Universal waste transporters must transport a shipment of universal 
waste to a small quantity handler, large quantity handler, or a 
destination facility.
    Today's final rule adopts the release response requirements 
promulgated in the universal waste rule for transporters of universal 
waste lamps. These requirements are found in Sec. 273.54. The release 
response requirements have been adopted essentially as proposed and 
remain consistent with the current requirements for all universal waste 
transporters.

F. Requirements for Destination Facilities

    A destination facility is a facility that treats, disposes of, or 
recycles universal wastes. The requirements for destination facilities 
are found under subpart E of part 273. Under the universal waste rule, 
destination facilities are subject to all hazardous waste management 
requirements applicable to permitted or interim status hazardous waste 
treatment, storage and disposal facilities under parts 264 and 265, as 
well as applicable standards in parts 268 and 270. Facilities that 
recycle universal waste lamps without accumulating the lamps before 
they are recycled are subject to the recycling requirements of 
Sec. 261.6(c)(2).

G. Import and Export Requirements

    The proposed rule for spent lamps did not include provisions for 
the importation of lamps. Several

[[Page 36476]]

commenters on the universal waste proposal pointed out that the Agency 
did not address the issue of imports. The Agency's intent was that once 
universal waste entered the United States, it should be subject to the 
same standards as any other universal waste. The final universal waste 
regulations therefore included import requirements in Sec. 273.70. 
Under today's rule, the same requirements apply to universal waste 
lamps. Universal waste lamps that are imported from another country 
must be managed, upon entry into the country, in compliance with the 
appropriate universal waste requirements for transporters, handlers, or 
destination facilities, depending on the universal waste management 
activities conducted within the United States. To determine whether a 
handler importing universal waste is a small or large quantity handler, 
the universal waste imported from a foreign country is counted toward 
the quantity of waste accumulated as would any other universal waste. 
In addition, handlers managing universal waste that is imported from an 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) country 
are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 262 subpart H.
    The proposed provisions for exports of spent lamps were equivalent 
to the proposed provisions for exports of universal waste in the 
universal waste proposal. The requirements for handlers sending 
universal wastes (including spent hazardous waste lamps) to a foreign 
destination are found in Sec. 273.20 for small quantity handlers and 
Sec. 273.40 for large quantity handlers. Handlers exporting universal 
wastes are subject to the same provisions as generators of hazardous 
waste in subparts E and H of part 262. The exporting requirements for 
transporters of universal wastes to a foreign destination are found in 
Sec. 273.56. Transporters may only accept shipments of universal wastes 
bound for foreign destinations that conform to the EPA Acknowledgment 
of Consent. They must ensure delivery of the universal waste to the 
facility designated by the person initiating the shipment.
    The Agency notes that on April 12, 1996 (61 FR 16290), EPA revised 
the final universal waste regulations on importing and exporting of 
universal waste to reflect the Organization for Economic Cooperation 
and Development (OECD) Council Decision Concerning the Control of 
Transfrontier Movements of Wastes Destined for Recovery Operations 
(March 30, 1992). These revised regulations are today adopted for 
universal waste lamps.

H. Land Disposal Restriction Requirements

    The proposed spent lamps rule did not include specific provisions 
on land disposal restrictions (LDR) requirements. However, the proposed 
and final universal waste regulations included a provision that 
exempted generators, transporters, and facilities that consolidated 
universal waste from the notification requirements in 40 CFR 268.7 and 
the storage prohibition in Sec. 268.50. Destination facilities are 
subject to the full LDR program.
    Pursuant to the LDR provisions of the Hazardous and Solid Waste 
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), hazardous wastes listed or identified in 
accordance with RCRA section 3001 cannot be land disposed until they 
meet treatment standards (established by EPA), which are sufficient to 
minimize the short-and long-term threats potentially posed by land 
disposal. The regulations for the LDR program in 40 CFR part 268 apply 
to persons who generate or transport hazardous waste, as well as 
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, unless 
they are specifically excluded from regulation in parts 261 or 268. 
Universal waste, as hazardous waste, remains subject to the 
requirements of the LDR program.
    The applicability of the LDR requirements to universal waste lamps 
remains the same as the existing requirements for universal waste. 
Universal waste handlers and transporters must comply with the 
substantive requirements of the LDR program but are not required to 
comply with the administrative requirements (e.g., notification to all 
handlers of applicable treatment standards). The Agency believes that 
because of the unique nature of universal wastes (i.e., the wastes and 
treatment standards are easily identifiable), the substantive 
requirements would be sufficient to ensure that the goals of the LDR 
program are met for universal waste managed under part 273.
    Destination facilities are required to comply with all of the part 
268 LDR requirements for universal waste, including both the 
substantive and administrative requirements. Therefore, all universal 
waste must be treated or disposed of in compliance with LDR treatment 
standards, and the appropriate documentation regarding such compliance 
must be maintained by the destination facilities.

V. Discussion of Comments Received in Response to Proposed 
Rulemaking and Agency's Response

    The following section describes the principal comments the Agency 
received in response to the proposed rulemaking on mercury-containing 
lamps. Complete comments and the Agency's responses are located in the 
docket for this rulemaking.

A. Universe of Lamps Covered Under the Final Rule

1. Summary of Proposed Scope and Definition
    The Agency proposed to include within the scope of the universal 
waste rule those spent mercury-containing lamps that are hazardous 
because they exhibit the characteristic of toxicity. Common types of 
electric lamps that may contain sufficient concentrations of mercury 
(or other constituents) to cause them to be hazardous include, but are 
not limited to, incandescent, fluorescent, high intensity discharge, 
and neon lamps. In the proposed rule, the Agency also proposed 
definitions for ``electric lamp'' and ``mercury-containing lamp'' and 
requested comment on these definitions.
    In addition, the Agency requested comment on whether the universal 
waste approach should address all types of spent lamps that fail the 
toxicity characteristic. The Agency also requested comment on whether 
and how frequently other types of spent lamps (such as incandescent and 
neon lamps) fail the toxicity characteristic test or exhibit other 
characteristics.
2. Summary of Comments Received
    The Agency received a significant number of comments on the 
proposed definitions of ``electric lamp'' and ``mercury-containing 
lamp.'' Many commenters requested that EPA clarify which type of lamps 
would be included within the scope of the final rule. Other commenters 
provided suggestions on the types of lamps to include within the 
definition. Many commenters confirmed that mercury-containing lamps 
include, but are not limited to, fluorescent lamps, mercury vapor 
lamps, high pressure sodium vapor lamps, and metal halide lamps.
    Many commenters concurred with EPA's findings that mercury lamps 
consistently fail the toxicity characteristic test for mercury. A few 
commenters stated that many types of spent mercury-containing lamps 
(especially HID lamps and incandescent lamps ) also frequently exhibit 
the toxicity characteristic for lead, generally because of lead 
soldered bases and

[[Page 36477]]

leaded glass. These commenters generally supported adding all hazardous 
waste lamps to the universal waste scheme, because they all fit within 
the universal waste criteria and it would be more convenient to have 
the same management requirements for all spent lamps. However, a few 
other commenters opposed adding lamps other than mercury-containing 
lamps to the universal waste system, mainly because the Agency lacked 
data on the effects of other constituents. One commenter claimed to 
have tested incandescent bulbs at one of its facilities and determined 
that all the bulbs failed the test for lead, and many failed for 
cadmium as well.
    Some commenters believed that spent fluorescent lamps do not 
exhibit the toxicity characteristic for mercury under certain 
circumstances. One commenter, who conducted its own testing of 
fluorescent light bulbs, stated that test results were highly variable 
and concluded that the test results on lamps are inconclusive. Some 
commenters stated that the percentage of lamps that pass the test is 
rising and will continue to rise due to new technologies employed in 
lamp manufacturing.
    Many commenters said that spent mercury-containing lamps meet the 
established criteria to be classified as a universal waste, and that 
managing lamps under the universal waste system will encourage 
recycling and keep lamps out of the municipal solid waste combustors 
and landfills. Commenters also stated that the universal waste system 
for lamps will provide a more consistent national management approach, 
since many states regulate lamps under regulatory programs that are 
more stringent than the proposed conditional exclusion option. Many 
states are also currently adding lamps to the scope of their universal 
waste programs or have already done so.
3. Agency's Response to Comments and Summary of Promulgated Standards
    To simplify the proposed definitions, and in response to comments, 
the Agency is today finalizing a single definition of ``lamp'' or 
``universal waste lamp'' which is derived from the proposed definitions 
of ``electric lamp'' and ``mercury-containing lamp.''
    The Agency agrees with those commenters who believed that all 
hazardous waste lamps would be appropriately included in the universal 
waste program. These lamps appear to meet all of the criteria for 
inclusion in the universal waste rule (see Section III.C above), and 
EPA does not believe that the presence of other hazardous constituents 
(principally lead) in spent lamps should preclude such lamps from being 
managed as universal wastes. Hazardous waste batteries (including lead-
acid batteries) are already part of the universal waste scheme, in part 
because EPA determined that the environmental risks associated with 
collection and transportation of these materials was relatively low and 
can be successfully controlled with the universal waste standards. Lead 
in hazardous waste lamps is largely found in endcaps and in the glass. 
Lead is not volatile or widely dispersible in the case of lamp 
breakage, and EPA also notes that the packaging requirements in today's 
rule will minimize breakage. For these reasons, the Agency is including 
all waste lamps that exhibit a characteristic in today's rulemaking.
    With respect to incandescent lamps, we note that most of these 
lamps are generated by households or small facilities. Waste lamps that 
are household waste remain excluded from hazardous waste regulation 
under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1). Facilities that generate less than 100 
kilograms of hazardous waste in a calendar month, including any 
hazardous waste lamps that are not managed as universal waste, qualify 
as conditionally exempt small quantity generators subject to reduced 
regulation under 40 CFR 261.5. Spent lamps that do not exhibit any 
hazardous waste characteristic are not subject to Subtitle C 
regulation.
    EPA also notes that waste lamps must be solid waste (i.e., 
discarded) before they are considered hazardous wastes and thus subject 
to regulation under RCRA. Section 273.5(c) describes when lamps become 
wastes. A used lamp becomes a waste on the date that it is discarded. 
An unused lamp becomes a waste on the date a handler decides to discard 
it.

B. Requirements for Handlers of Universal Waste Lamps

1. Prohibition on Treatment
    a. Summary of Proposed Provision. The Agency requested comments on 
the same prohibitions for generators and consolidation points that were 
proposed in the February 11, 1993 universal waste proposal. The Agency 
had proposed that generators of hazardous waste lamps and consolidation 
points managing hazardous waste lamps be prohibited from diluting or 
disposing of the lamps and from treating them except in response to 
releases.
    The Agency requested comments on management practices for lamps, 
the risks posed by these practices, and appropriate technical controls 
to minimize these risks which would not inhibit collection and proper 
management. The Agency requested comment on whether requirements should 
be included in the final rule to minimize mercury emissions during 
storage and transport of the lamps.
    The definition of treatment under RCRA (40 CFR 260.10) includes any 
method, technique or process designed to change the physical, chemical, 
or biological character or composition of any hazardous waste so as to 
neutralize such waste, or so as to recover energy or material resources 
from, or render such waste non-hazardous or less hazardous, safer to 
transport, store or dispose of, amenable for recovery, or storage, or 
reduced in volume. The crushing of spent mercury-containing lamps 
clearly falls within this definition. The Agency therefore requested 
comment on whether generators or consolidation points should be allowed 
to crush lamps intentionally to minimize volume for storage or shipment 
and which, if any, standards should be imposed to protect against 
mercury releases during crushing or the subsequent management of 
crushed lamps.
    b. Summary of Comments Received. Several commenters stated that the 
Agency should maintain its proposed prohibition on waste treatment, 
including lamp crushing. These commenters said that lamp crushers are a 
significant source of mercury emissions and that many lamp recyclers 
prefer to receive whole lamps. Other commenters stated that generators 
should be allowed to separate, consolidate, and crush their own lamps. 
Many commenters supported allowing crushing if it were safely 
performed, and some commenters stated that crushing is necessary to 
reduce storage and transportation costs. Information submitted to the 
Agency on drum top crushing systems for lamps indicates that there is a 
wide range of air emissions of mercury from these units, depending on 
the type of controls, and that in some units emissions of mercury 
exceed the OSHA limit of 0.05 mg/m3.
    c. Agency's Response to Comments and Summary of Promulgated 
Standards. The Agency is adopting for universal waste lamps the 
prohibitions in the final universal waste rule promulgated on May 11, 
1995. In general, as explained in the preamble to the universal waste 
rule (60 FR 25519), the Agency does not believe that universal waste 
handlers, who are not required to comply with the full Subtitle C 
management standards, should treat universal wastes. Therefore, under 
today's rule, both small and large quantity handlers of universal waste

[[Page 36478]]

lamps are prohibited from diluting or treating universal waste lamps 
except by responding to releases as provided in Secs. 273.17 and 
273.37. Prohibitions for small quantity handlers are found in 
Sec. 273.11 and for large quantity handlers in Sec. 273.31. The 
prohibition against treatment includes a prohibition of crushing of 
lamps. EPA is particularly concerned that uncontrolled crushing of 
universal waste lamps in containers meeting only the general 
performance standards of the universal waste rule would not 
sufficiently protect human health and the environment. As stated 
earlier, the prevention of mercury emissions during collection and 
transport is one of the principal reasons that the Agency selected the 
universal waste approach. Allowing uncontrolled crushing would be 
inconsistent with this goal.
    The Agency is aware that a number of states have already added 
spent lamps to their universal waste programs. Available information 
indicates that some of these state programs prohibit crushing of spent 
lamps, but that at least some state programs may allow crushing under 
regulatory requirements designed to control emissions of hazardous 
constituents, particularly mercury. The Agency believes that some state 
programs may include standards for controlling emissions from mercury-
containing lamps during crushing that could be equivalent, per RCRA 
Section 3006, to the federal prohibition.
    Therefore, EPA will consider authorization of state programs that 
include provisions for controlling treatment or crushing of universal 
waste lamps, where the state program application includes a 
demonstration of equivalency to the federal prohibition. Factors the 
Agency would expect such an application to address include the 
effectiveness of technical requirements in controlling emissions of 
hazardous constituents, the level of interaction of regulated entities 
with the regulatory agency to ensure compliance with control 
requirements, and other factors demonstrating that the state regulatory 
program would be equivalent to the federal treatment prohibition.
2. Notification Requirement
    a. Summary of Proposed Provision. The Agency proposed a 
notification requirement for generators and consolidation points (i.e., 
handlers of universal waste lamps) storing more than 35,000 spent 
lamps. The Agency proposed a numerical rather than a weight limit 
because lamp packaging (the cardboard boxes in which new replacement 
lamps are shipped) may constitute a large proportion of the total 
weight of a shipment or stored quantity of lamps. In addition, industry 
practice is generally to count lamps by number rather than by weight, 
calculated by multiplying the number of boxes of lamps in storage or in 
a shipment by the number of lamps per box. Since a full truckload of 
fluorescent lamps consists of approximately 35,000 lamps, the Agency 
proposed that universal waste handlers storing 35,000 lamps or more at 
any time be required to send a written notification of universal waste 
lamp storage to the applicable EPA Regional Administrator (or 
authorized state director) and obtain an EPA Identification Number.
    b. Summary of Comments Received. The Agency received only a few 
comments on the proposed quantity limit for the notification 
requirement. One commenter suggested increasing the limit to 80,000 
lamps. About half the commenters supported the general notification 
requirement for generators and consolidation points. Other commenters 
stated that the notification requirement was unnecessary and burdensome 
since generators may already possess an EPA identification number.
    c. Agency's Response to Comments and Summary of Promulgated 
Standards. In the interest of consistency with the final universal 
waste rule, the Agency has decided that the 5,000 kilogram limit for 
the accumulation of all universal wastes will apply to all universal 
waste handlers (i.e., handlers of batteries, pesticides, mercury 
thermostats, and lamps). As explained in the preamble to that rule, the 
Agency believes that the total amount of universal waste at a handler's 
site is a better indicator of potential risk than the quantity of 
individual universal wastes being accumulated and handled at that site. 
EPA has determined that the 5,000 kilogram limit is appropriate for 
facilities handling universal waste lamps. The Agency believes that it 
is just as practical to set the notification requirement on the basis 
of a quantity (or weight) of waste accumulated as on the total number 
of items generated. Handlers can weigh the amount of waste as easily as 
they can count the total number of individual light bulbs accumulated, 
and can also subtract the weight of the packaging.
    In response to commenters who said that the notification 
requirement will be burdensome, the Agency points out that those 
generators who have already notified EPA of their hazardous waste 
management activities are not required by the universal waste rule or 
today's final rule to re-notify EPA or obtain a new identification 
number. Prior to today's rulemaking, many lamps that are hazardous 
waste were required to be managed in accordance with all applicable 
Subtitle C hazardous waste management standards, including the RCRA 
notification provisions. Therefore, the notification requirement in 
today's rule is a new requirement only for generators of universal 
waste lamps that have never generated more than 100 kg of hazardous 
waste in a calendar month, but now accumulate more than 5,000 kg of 
universal waste lamps.
3. Prevention of Releases/Packaging Requirements
    a. Summary of Proposed Provision. The Agency proposed that 
generators and consolidation points be required to manage hazardous 
waste lamps in a manner that minimizes lamp breakage. The proposal 
required that unbroken lamps be contained in packaging that will 
minimize breakage during normal handling conditions, and broken lamps 
be contained in packaging that will minimize releases of lamp fragments 
and residues.
    The Agency requested comment on appropriate management controls for 
handlers of spent mercury-containing lamps that would minimize 
potential releases of mercury during collection, accumulation, storage 
and transport. Approaches suggested by the Agency included requiring 
performance standards for packaging to minimize lamps breakage. EPA 
expected that the packaging in which new replacement lamps are shipped 
from the manufacturer would frequently be reused to store and transport 
removed, used lamps. The Agency also suggested that requirements could 
be imposed on storing and transporting spent lamps that are 
inadvertently broken to prevent further mercury emissions. For example, 
55-gallon steel drums or any enclosed container could be used to hold 
broken lamps for transportation to a recycling facility or a disposal 
site.
    b. Summary of Comments Received. A number of commenters, including 
both lamp manufacturers and mercury lamp recycling facilities, 
supported container or packaging standards to minimize lamp breakage 
during accumulation, storage, and transport. Lamp recycling facilities 
in particular voiced a preference for spent lamps to be stored and 
transported in packaging that protects the spent lamps from potential 
breakage. Commenters representing recycling facilities pointed out that 
proper packaging will prevent releases of mercury to the environment 
before the lamps arrive at recycling facilities. These commenters 
stated that lamp

[[Page 36479]]

recycling facilities prefer to receive intact, unbroken lamps so that 
the lamps can be crushed in a closed, controlled environment at the 
recycling facility to allow for the capture and recycling of the 
available mercury. In addition, commenters pointed out that broken 
lamps and potential releases of mercury can endanger the safety of 
employees at the recycling facility. Commenters representing both lamp 
manufacturers and lamp recyclers recommended that intact lamps be 
stored in original cartons or specially designed containers (e.g., 
fiber containers with closed lids) that will protect the spent lamps 
from breakage. Commenters pointed out that unintentionally broken lamps 
should be stored and transported in closed drums or other puncture-
proof containers that are sealed and properly labeled.
    Although many commenters supported the promulgation of packaging or 
container requirements to reduce lamp breakage and reduce mercury 
emissions during storage and transport, other commenters stated that 
mercury emissions from broken lamps do not pose a threat to human 
health and the environment and that therefore protective package may 
not be necessary.
    c. Agency's Response to Comments and Summary of Promulgated 
Standards. The Agency agrees with the commenters who stated that 
universal waste lamps should be stored and packaged in a way that 
minimizes lamp breakage. Recent studies (such as that performed by the 
Research Triangle Institute) show that significant releases of mercury 
during storage and transport can occur as a result of lamp breakage. 
EPA therefore disagrees with those commenters who stated that breakage 
presents no threat to human health and the environment. Today's final 
rule adds a subsection (d) for universal waste lamps to the universal 
waste management Secs. 273.13 and 273.33 for small quantity handlers 
and large quantity handlers respectively. The Agency believes that 
these standards generally satisfy the concerns of commenters for 
environmental protection. The packaging provisions generally resemble 
the universal waste packaging requirements for mercury-containing 
thermostats.
    The final rule requires universal waste handlers to manage 
universal waste lamps in a way that prevents releases of the lamps or 
the components of the lamps to the environment. Spent lamps must be 
packed to minimize breakage and packaging materials must be designed to 
contain potential releases due to breakage during transport. Universal 
waste lamps must be stored in containers or packages that remain 
closed, are structurally sound, adequate to prevent breakage, 
compatible with contents of lamps, and lack evidence of leakage, 
spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under reasonably 
foreseeable conditions. Examples of acceptable packaging could include 
placing the lamps evenly spaced in double or triple-ply cardboard 
containers with closed lids. Handlers also must contain any universal 
waste lamps that show evidence of breakage, leakage, or damage that 
could cause the release of mercury or other hazardous constituents to 
the environment. An example of such containment could include placing 
unintentionally broken lamps in closed wax fiberboard drums.
    The Agency points out that in addition to these container and 
packaging provisions, universal waste handlers, including handlers of 
universal waste lamps, must comply with the provisions of 40 CFR 273.17 
and 273.37 for responding to releases of universal waste. Handlers of 
universal waste must immediately contain all releases of universal 
waste and any residues from universal wastes. In addition, universal 
waste handlers must determine whether any material resulting from a 
release is a hazardous waste and, if so, must manage the hazardous 
waste in compliance with all applicable provisions of 40 CFR parts 260 
through 268, as well as all other applicable statutory provisions.
4. Accumulation Time
    a. Summary of Proposed Provision. In the proposed spent mercury-
containing lamps rule, the Agency proposed to limit the time period in 
which handlers may accumulate such lamps on-site to one year following 
the date that a lamp becomes a waste. In addition, the Agency proposed 
several alternative ways to demonstrate compliance with this provision, 
and solicited comment on the alternatives. The proposed regulations 
required that generators and consolidation points either mark the 
container, mark the individual lamps, maintain an inventory system, or 
place lamps in a specific storage area while identifying the earliest 
date a lamp was placed in that area.
    b. Summary of Comments Received. Generally, most commenters 
supported the proposed one-year storage time limitation and compliance 
demonstration requirements. A few commenters stated that each lamp 
should be dated as soon as it is removed from the lamp fixture to 
verify compliance with the one-year time limit. Some commenters stated 
that the one year storage limit was too long and increased the 
probability of broken lamps. These commenters suggested reducing the 
time limit to 180 days, 90 days, or 10 days. Other commenters stated 
that the one-year limit was too restrictive and did not allow for 
proper recovery, treatment, or disposal. One commenter suggested that a 
provision be included for case-by-case extensions to the storage time 
limit if necessary.
    c. Agency's Response to Comments and Summary of Promulgated 
Standards. In today's rule, the Agency has decided to adopt the 
accumulation time limit requirements in the universal waste rule 
(Secs. 273.15 and 273.35) for small and large quantity handlers of 
spent lamps. These requirements are similar to the provisions for the 
accumulation time limit in the proposed spent mercury-containing lamps 
rule. However, to remain consistent with the universal waste rule, 
handlers of universal waste lamps are allowed accumulation for more 
than one year if such accumulation is solely for accumulating such 
quantities of universal waste as are necessary to facilitate proper 
recovery, treatment, or disposal. For any accumulation longer than one 
year, the handler must be able to prove that such accumulation is 
solely for accumulating quantities necessary to facilitate proper 
recovery, treatment, or disposal (it is assumed that any accumulation 
up to one year is for this purpose). Notification to the EPA Regional 
Administrator of extended storage is not required; however, authorized 
states may have more stringent requirements.
    The final rule requires that handlers of universal waste lamps 
comply with one of the following measures to demonstrate compliance 
with the accumulation time limit: mark the container holding the lamp, 
mark the individual lamp, maintain an inventory system, place the lamps 
in a specific storage area marked with the earliest date a lamp is 
placed in the area identified, or use any other method which 
demonstrates the length of time that the lamp has been accumulated from 
the date the lamp becomes a waste or is received.
    In response to comments requesting a different accumulation time, 
the Agency believes that this issue was addressed in the final 
universal waste rule (60 FR 25526). In that rule, the Agency recognized 
that one year may not be sufficient for some handlers to accumulate 
enough universal waste to properly recover, treat, or dispose of the 
waste. By allowing accumulation for longer than one year, certain 
facilities will have the additional time they need

[[Page 36480]]

to facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or disposal. However, for any 
accumulation longer than one year, the burden of proof is on the 
handler to demonstrate that such accumulation is solely for 
accumulating quantities necessary to facilitate proper recovery, 
treatment, or disposal. Although the Agency agrees with commenters that 
it is possible to send spent lamps to a management facility in a 
shorter period of time, there does not appear to be a strong 
environmental justification for such a requirement.
    Also in response to comments received, the Agency is not modifying 
the proposed demonstration requirement to show compliance with the 
accumulation time limit (40 CFR 273.15 and 273.35). Labeling each 
individual tube with the date that it is removed from the fixture is an 
acceptable means of identifying the accumulation time. However, the 
Agency believes that the other measures for showing compliance with the 
accumulation time limit are adequate and impose a smaller burden, 
particularly upon small quantity handlers.
5. Tracking of Shipments
    a. Summary of Proposed Provision. The Agency requested comment on 
several ways to track off-site shipments of waste lamps. One suggested 
approach required the use of a hazardous waste manifest (and thus a 
hazardous waste transporter) for shipments from the last consolidation 
point to the destination facility. However, no manifests or other 
records (or hazardous waste transporters) would be required for 
shipments from generators to consolidation points or from generators to 
destination facilities. This approach is the same as that presented in 
the universal waste proposal. Another approach suggested by the Agency 
was to require that persons initiating and receiving shipments of spent 
lamps retain shipping papers documenting all shipments. The last 
approach suggested was requiring that persons claiming an exemption 
from the hazardous waste manifesting requirements must keep 
documentation to show that they qualified for such an exemption 
(specific shipment records need not be retained). In the proposed spent 
mercury-containing lamps rule, the Agency stated that because of the 
large volume of lamp shipments, such shipments are more likely than 
other universal wastes to be made directly from the generator to the 
destination facility. Records would be available for such shipments 
because destination facilities are already required under the hazardous 
waste regulations to maintain records, including the description and 
quantity of each hazardous waste received.
    b. Summary of Comments Received. Some commenters opposed any 
tracking and recordkeeping requirements for the shipment of spent 
lamps. Several commenters said that the use of manifests for generators 
and consolidation points is not necessary to track the transportation 
of spent lamps, and that this requirement would create an unnecessary 
cost burden. These commenters believed that the increased costs and 
administrative burden of using manifests and hazardous waste 
transporters would discourage the collection of universal waste and 
would inhibit removal of these wastes from solid waste landfills and 
incinerators. Commenters suggested that the documentation requirements 
for generators and consolidation points should be flexible. However, 
many commenters, including some of those who opposed manifests, 
supported some form of tracking requirement to document the transport 
of universal wastes. These commenters argued that a less burdensome 
tracking requirement would not inhibit participation in collection 
programs. Further benefits might include reduction of liability for 
persons managing universal waste, increased enforceability of the 
universal waste system, and decreased potential for abuse of the 
streamlined universal waste requirements. Some commenters supported 
stringent tracking requirements, and a few stated that all 
consolidation points should be required to accompany lamp shipments 
with a manifest to protect generators from potential liability. One 
commenter stated that receiving facilities should keep documentation of 
all shipments received until the facility closes.
    c. Agency's Response to Comments and Summary of Promulgated 
Standards. In the final universal waste rule, the Agency decided to 
require tracking only for large quantity handlers of universal waste. 
EPA believed that tracking was needed only in cases where facilities 
are handling larger quantities of universal waste, thus posing 
potentially greater environmental risk. The Agency decided not to 
impose these requirements on small quantity handlers of universal waste 
because it agreed with those commenters who said that the 
administrative burden of tracking would discourage retail 
establishments, service centers, and other ``front line'' collectors 
managing small quantities of waste from participating in collection 
programs, thus undermining the goal of the universal waste program. In 
addition, because these operations accumulate smaller quantities of 
universal wastes, they will generally pose less risk than facilities 
accumulating larger quantities.
    EPA believes that these arguments apply with equal force to 
handlers of universal waste lamps. In today's rule, the Agency is 
therefore adopting the universal waste tracking requirements in part 
273 for such lamps. The tracking provisions for small and large 
quantity handlers of universal waste are found in Secs. 273.19 and 
273.39, respectively. The universal waste rule includes a recordkeeping 
requirement to track waste shipments arriving at and leaving from large 
quantity handlers. Large quantity handlers are required to keep records 
of each shipment of universal waste lamps received and keep records of 
each shipment of lamps sent off-site. The record may take the form of a 
log, invoice, manifest, bill of lading, or other shipping document. The 
Agency believes that standard business records that are normally kept 
by businesses will fulfill this requirement. Records must be retained 
for at least three years from the date of receipt of a shipment of 
lamps or the date a shipment of lamps leaves the facility. Small 
quantity handlers are not required to keep records of shipments of 
universal waste lamps. The Agency believes that these requirements 
provide consistency with the current universal waste rule and 
adequately respond to concerns raised by commenters on the proposed 
rule, including those commenters requesting flexibility in 
recordkeeping requirements.

C. Storage Time Limitation for Transporters of Universal Waste Lamps

1. Summary of Proposed Provision
    The proposed regulations for transporters of mercury-containing 
lamps were designed to be consistent with the proposed universal waste 
rule. The Agency proposed to allow transporters of universal waste 
lamps to store spent lamps for up to ten days at a transfer facility 
during the course of transportation. A transporter storing spent lamps 
for more than ten days at one location would have to comply with the 
appropriate universal waste handler requirements in managing the wastes 
accumulated at the accumulation site, in addition to complying with the 
applicable universal waste transporter requirements.
2. Summary of Comments Received
    In response to the proposed universal waste rule, the Agency 
received

[[Page 36481]]

comments from two commenters who argued for a longer storage time limit 
for transporters. In addition, one commenter argued that the Agency 
should limit the total transportation time allowed for a waste to reach 
its destination, rather than impose a time limit for storing the waste 
during transport. The commenters, however, provided little information 
to justify a longer in-transit storage time limit. The Agency proposed 
the same accumulation time limit for transporters of universal waste 
lamps in the proposed rulemaking on mercury-containing lamps. The 
transporter accumulation time limit in the proposed universal waste 
rule was not significantly changed in the final universal waste rule, 
except to clarify that if the waste is stored for greater than 10 days, 
the transporter is subject to the standards for small or large quantity 
handlers.
3. Agency's Response to Comments and Summary of Promulgated Standards
    Today's final rule adopts the storage time limit standards for 
transporters of universal waste lamps as promulgated in the universal 
waste rule. Under 40 CFR 273.53 of the universal waste regulations, 
transporters can store universal waste at a transfer facility for ten 
days or less. If the ten day limit is exceeded, the transporter becomes 
a universal waste handler and must comply with the applicable small or 
large quantity handler requirements under subparts B or C of part 273 
while storing the universal waste. The Agency chose to retain the 
proposed 10-day accumulation limit for transporters of universal waste, 
consistent with the limit for transfer facilities handling other types 
of hazardous waste. In response to the commenter requesting that the 
Agency limit total transport time, rather than set a limit on the 
accumulation time at transfer facilities, EPA does not believe that a 
limit on total transportation time is practicable because of the 
extreme variation in the time needed to deliver shipments to different 
parts of the country. It is generally in the economic self-interest of 
transporters to make deliveries as quickly as possible. Delays in 
transport usually imply the likelihood of storage, so a limit on such 
storage seems the most efficient way to protect human health and the 
environment.

D. Destination Facility Requirements/Lamp Recycling Facilities

1. Summary of Proposed Provision
    Today's rule does not amend the existing standards for destination 
facilities receiving universal waste. Destination facilities remain 
subject to full subtitle C regulation, including all applicable 
requirements of parts 264, 265, 266, 268, 270, and 124. A recycling 
facility that does not store universal waste lamps before recycling 
them must comply with Sec. 261.6(c)(2).
    The existing requirements for destination facilities (i.e., 
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities, or 
recycling facilities that do not store hazardous waste before 
recycling) are found in subpart E of part 273. Subpart E requires that 
destination facilities remain subject to full subtitle C regulation. 
These provisions are the same as those proposed in the proposed spent 
mercury-containing lamps rule.
    The proposed spent mercury-containing lamps rule required that 
destination facilities recycling hazardous waste lamps prior storage 
must comply with 40 CFR 261.6(c)(2), which requires that facilities 
recycling universal waste obtain an EPA identification number. If a 
recycling facility stores hazardous waste lamps before recycling or 
performs treatment other than recycling, the facility is subject to 
full subtitle C hazardous waste management regulations, including the 
RCRA permitting requirements.
2. Summary of Comments Received
    The Agency received many comments addressing the regulation of 
mercury lamp recycling facilities. Some commenters stated that mercury 
lamp recyclers are a potential threat to the environment because these 
facilities lack substantive regulation. A number of commenters 
suggested that the Agency implement standards for recycling facilities, 
and suggested best management practices that would reduce releases of 
mercury into the environment from these facilities.
3. Agency's Response to Comments and Summary of Promulgated Standards
    Today's rule does not amend the existing standards for recycling 
facilities receiving universal waste. In general, destination 
facilities, including recycling facilities, remain subject to full 
hazardous waste regulation. A recycling facility that does not store 
universal waste lamps prior to recycling the lamps is subject only to 
40 CFR 261.6(c)(2).
    The Agency believes that changing requirements for destination 
facilities (including lamp recyclers) is beyond the scope of today's 
regulation, which addresses the generation and collection of universal 
waste lamps rather than final treatment, disposal, or recycling. EPA 
believes that with adequate state oversight, universal waste lamps can 
be safely recycled, allowing the mercury and other economically viable 
materials to be reclaimed. Safe recycling should ensure that residuals 
from recovery operations are managed in accordance with all applicable 
solid and hazardous waste management requirements. Residuals that 
exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste must be managed as 
hazardous waste.
    The Agency received no comments concerning the provisions for 
universal waste destination facilities, other than those addressing 
lamp recycling facilities. Therefore, today's rule does not amend the 
existing standards for treatment and disposal facilities receiving 
universal waste. Treatment and disposal facilities that receive 
universal waste lamps are subject to the same standards that apply to 
permitted or interim status hazardous waste treatment, storage, and 
disposal facilities. These standards include notification requirements, 
general facility standards, unit-specific management standards, and 
permitting requirements. The Agency notes that facilities that store 
universal waste lamps, but do not treat, dispose, or recycle them, are 
considered handlers and not destination facilities.

E. Sunset Provision

1. Summary of Proposed Provision
    In the proposed lamps rule, the Agency requested comments on 
whether to include a three to five-year sunset provision in the final 
rule. A sunset provision would require EPA to re-evaluate the 
effectiveness of the universal waste system in addressing the disposal 
of lamps after three to five years. At that time, the Agency could 
decide whether fewer controls or more controls were needed to maintain 
the safe management of lamps.
2. Summary of Comments Received
    More than half of the comments received generally supported a three 
to five year sunset provision. Commenters stated that a sunset 
provision would allow the Agency to examine any new information on lamp 
management and the fate and transport of mercury, and re-evaluate 
options as necessary.
    Other commenters did not support the proposed three to five year 
sunset provision. Commenters stated that a sunset provision or other 
deadline was not necessary and that the Agency already had the 
authority to re-evaluate the rule at any time.

[[Page 36482]]

3. Agency's Response to Comments and Summary of Promulgated Standards
    Today's final rule does not include a sunset provision. The Agency 
believes that the data and information provided to the Agency, along 
with the Agency's own studies and analyses (available in the docket for 
this rulemaking) provide adequate evidence of the behavior of mercury 
in the environment and potential releases of mercury to support today's 
final rule. The Agency notes, however, that if additional information 
about the behavior of mercury becomes available in the future, the 
Agency may re-evaluate the standards promulgated in today's final rule.

VI. State Authority

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States

    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to 
administer and enforce the RCRA hazardous waste program within the 
State. Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority under 
sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized States have 
primary enforcement responsibility. The standards and requirements for 
authorization are found at 40 CFR part 271.
    Prior to enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 
1984 (HSWA), a State with final RCRA authorization administered its 
hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of EPA administering the 
federal program in that State. The federal requirements no longer 
applied in the authorized State, and EPA could not issue permits for 
any facilities in that State, since only the State was authorized to 
issue RCRA permits. When new, more stringent federal requirements were 
promulgated or enacted, the State was obligated to enact equivalent 
authorities within specified time frames. However, the new federal 
requirements did not take effect in an authorized State until the State 
adopted the federal requirements as State law.
    In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), which 
was added by HSWA, new requirements and prohibitions imposed under HSWA 
authority take effect in authorized States at the same time that they 
take effect in unauthorized States. EPA is directed by the statute to 
implement these requirements and prohibitions in authorized States, 
including the issuance of permits, until the State is granted 
authorization to do so. While States must still adopt HSWA related 
provisions as State law to retain final authorization, EPA implements 
the HSWA provisions in authorized States until the States do so.
    Authorized States are required to modify their programs only when 
EPA promulgates 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 can, 
but do not have to, adopt federal regulations, both HSWA and non-HSWA, 
that are considered less stringent.

B. Effect on State Authorization

    Today's rule is not promulgated pursuant to HSWA. Therefore the 
rule is applicable on the effective date only in those States that do 
not have final RCRA authorization. Today's rule is also less stringent 
than the current federal program. Because States are not required to 
adopt less stringent regulations, they do not have to adopt the 
universal waste regulations for spent lamps. A number of States have 
added spent lamps to their universal waste programs or are in the 
process of doing so. While these actions are specifically allowed under 
the universal waste rule, if a State's standards for spent lamps are 
less stringent than those in today's rule, the State will need to amend 
its regulations to make them equivalent to today's standards and pursue 
authorization.
    As noted earlier, EPA recognizes that States have been proactive in 
adopting universal waste standards for spent lamps. Some of these 
standards allow crushing of lamps under certain conditions. Although 
today's rule does not provide for crushing, EPA believes that State 
programs could have standards for crushing which will be equivalent to 
the federal rules and thus appropriate for authorization. EPA also 
believes that this flexibility will allow for a minimal level of 
disruption to existing State programs. The Agency will determine at the 
time of authorization whether a State regulation that allows crushing 
is equivalent to the federal standard.

C. Interstate Transport

    Due to the fact that not all States will choose to seek 
authorization for today's rulemaking, there may be only a few 
destination facilities that will accept and manage universal waste 
lamps. The Agency believes that it is important to explain how the 
regulations will apply because interstate transportation will be 
necessary for these wastes.
    First, a waste which is subject to the universal waste regulations 
may be sent to a State, or through a State, where it is not a universal 
waste and where it would be subject to the full hazardous waste 
regulations. In this scenario, for the portion of the trip through the 
originating State, and any other States where the waste is a universal 
waste, neither a transporter with an EPA identification number per 40 
CFR 263.11 (hazardous waste transporter) 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 a 
universal waste, the transporter must have a manifest, and must move 
the waste in compliance with 40 CFR Part 263. In order for the final 
transporter and the receiving facility to fulfill their 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 a universal waste. The receiving 
facility must then sign the manifest and send a copy to the initiating 
facility. EPA recommends that the initiating facility note in block 15 
of the manifest (Special Handling Instructions and Additional 
Information) that the wastes are covered under the universal waste 
regulations in the initiating State but not in the receiving facility's 
State.
    Second, a hazardous waste generated in a State which does not 
regulate it as a universal waste may be sent to a State where it is a 
universal waste. In this scenario, the waste must be moved by a 
hazardous waste transporter while the waste is in the generator's State 
or any other States where it is not a universal waste. 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 regulate the waste as a universal waste 
would not require a manifest and need not be conducted 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 any non-hazardous waste transporter and sent back 
to the initiating facility by the receiving facility (see 40 CFR 262.23 
and 262.42). EPA recommends that the generator note in block 15 of the 
manifest (Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information) 
that the waste is covered under the universal waste regulations in the 
receiving facility's State but not in the generator's State.

[[Page 36483]]

    Third, a waste may be transported across a State in which it is 
subject to the full hazardous waste regulations although other portions 
of the trip may be from, through, and to States in which it is covered 
under universal waste regulations. Transport through the State must be 
conducted by a hazardous waste transporter and must be accompanied by a 
manifest. In order for the transporter to fulfill its requirements 
concerning the manifest (Subpart B of Part 263), the initiating 
facility must complete a manifest as required under the manifest 
procedures and forward it to the first transporter to travel in a State 
where the waste is not a universal waste. The transporter must deliver 
the manifest to, and obtain the signature of, either the next 
transporter or the receiving facility.
    As noted previously, States are not required to adopt today's rule. 
However, EPA strongly encourages them to do so. As more States add 
spent lamps in their universal waste program, not only will this assist 
in achieving the most benefits of the universal waste program, it will 
also reduce the complexity of interstate transport of these universal 
wastes.

VII. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Agency must 
determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to formal review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) and to the requirements of the Executive Order, which 
include assessing the costs and benefits anticipated as a result of the 
proposed regulatory action. 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 a 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 thereof; 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 final rule is a significant regulatory action 
because this final rule 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 public record. 
Although this rule is not ``economically significant'', the Agency has 
prepared the supporting analysis: Modification of the Hazardous Waste 
Program: Hazardous Waste Lamps--Final Economic Assessment (Economic 
Assessment). The findings from this analysis are presented below.

B. Economic Assessment

    The Economic Assessment conducted in support of today's final rule 
analyzed impacts associated with this final universal waste action, 
plus the primary alternative of promulgating a conditional exclusion 
for lamps. Although the final rule includes all hazardous waste lamps 
in the universal waste program, this Economic Assessment addresses only 
mercury-containing fluorescent lamps. The Agency estimates that non-
fluorescent lamps represent approximately 0.8 to 1.7 percent of the 
total universe of lamps addressed under today's rulemaking. The 
comparatively negligible proportion of other hazardous waste lamps is 
not expected to appreciably affect the impact estimates presented in 
this analysis.
    Fluorescent lamps contain a small amount of mercury that emits 
light when stimulated with electrical current. When a fluorescent lamp 
breaks, the mercury in the lamp is released into the environment and 
may cause health risks, primarily through consumption of fish. 
Neurotoxicity is the health effect of greatest concern for humans; 
death, reduced reproductive success, impaired growth and development, 
and behavioral abnormalities are effects of concern to fish, birds, and 
mammals. Lamp mismanagement scenarios indicate that, without government 
intervention, market failures will likely lead to disposal activities 
resulting in unnecessarily high releases of mercury to the environment.
    Prior to today's final action, spent lamps that failed the toxicity 
characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) test were automatically 
considered hazardous wastes under RCRA and subject to full Subtitle C 
management requirements, unless the lamps are generated by a household 
or a conditionally-exempt small quantity generated. EPA recognized the 
confusion and mismanagement patterns historically associated with 
maintaining spent hazardous waste lamps within the Subtitle C system. 
The Agency is taking today's final action of adding spent lamps to the 
scope of universal waste regulations in an effort to streamline the 
current regulations governing the management of such lamps, increase 
lamp management efficiency, and ultimately to cause a potential 
reduction in aggregate mercury emissions. The Agency's final action of 
adding spent lamps to the scope of the universal waste system, however, 
is not expected to completely determine how these lamps will be managed 
in individual states. States already have the option of including lamps 
within their universal waste programs. Furthermore, states that have 
not chosen to adopt universal waste programs, or have not included 
lamps within their universal waste programs, are not obligated to do so 
in response to EPA's decision.
    The universal waste regulations include requirements for the proper 
packaging of spent lamps, storage of spent lamps, EPA notification, and 
responses to releases. EPA selected this action over the other proposed 
option which would have been based on a conditional exclusion (CE). The 
CE would have excluded spent mercury-containing lamps from regulation 
as hazardous waste. The addition of spent lamps to the universal waste 
regulations is considered a deregulatory action and imposes fewer 
requirements on generators and transports of spent lamps than the 
hazardous waste management standards under RCRA Subtitle C. The 
proposed conditional exclusion would have been deregulatory as well.
    The Economic Assessment conducted in support of today's final rule 
analyzed impacts associated with the final universal waste action, plus 
the primary alternative of promulgating a conditional exclusion for 
lamps. Two different compliance scenarios are examined in the baseline, 
and under each option in an effort to incorporate alternative 
management practices. The first (high) compliance scenario assumes 100 
percent compliance under all regulatory schemes. The second (low) 
compliance scenario assumes 20 percent compliance under a scenario 
where handlers of spent mercury-containing lamps are subject to full 
Subtitle C, 80 percent compliance under the universal waste option, and 
90 percent compliance under the conditional exclusion option. The 
reader should refer to the report: Mercury Emissions From The Disposal 
of Fluorescent Lamps--Revised Model, Final Report, for a detailed 
discussion of estimated compliance rates. This report is available in 
the RCRA docket established for today's action.
    The total national annualized costs of compliance and disposal 
under the baseline are estimated at $80.01 million

[[Page 36484]]

and $54.37 million under the high and low compliance scenarios, 
respectively. Under the universal waste final action these costs are 
projected at $78.52 million under the high compliance scenario and 
$56.14 million for the low compliance scenario. In the high compliance 
scenario, the costs under full Subtitle C and universal waste are close 
because transportation and disposal costs, which account for 
approximately 76 percent of total costs, are virtually the same. Under 
the low compliance scenario, costs under the universal waste final 
action are higher than under the full Subtitle C baseline because of 
the higher compliance rate assumed under the universal waste scheme. 
While costs could increase for some non-exempt entities under the 
universal waste approach, this would be the result of non-compliance in 
the baseline. These costs would not appropriately be attributable to 
this rulemaking. Compliance and disposal costs under the conditional 
exclusion option also were examined. Aggregate annualized costs under 
the conditional exclusion option are estimated at $73.90 million and 
$52.60 million for the high and low compliance scenarios, respectively.
    The Economic Assessment also examined economic impacts on affected 
facilities. EPA's final universal waste action is projected to result 
in cost savings to affected generators under the high compliance 
scenario. Adverse impacts on generators, therefore, are not 
anticipated. However, actual costs to some generators may increase 
under the low compliance scenario. The magnitude of the potential cost 
increase under this scenario, however, would not result in meaningful 
impacts on affected generators. In addition to generators, the 
Assessment also examined potential economic impacts on consolidation 
and recycling facilities. The Agency found that few, if any, spent 
fluorescent lamp consolidation facilities exist at present or are 
likely to exist in the future as independent economic entities. Impacts 
on consolidated facilities dedicated to spent fluorescent lamps, 
therefore, were not examined. Recycling facilities may benefit 
indirectly due to today's final, which may result in additional 
revenues for firms owning or operating recycling facilities.
    The Economic Assessment projected changes in total nationwide 
mercury emissions resulting from the universal waste final action and 
the conditional exclusion option. Average annual emissions 
corresponding to the management of spent mercury-containing fluorescent 
lamps (four-foot equivalents) were projected over the 1998 through 2007 
period. Under the high compliance scenario, average annual baseline 
emissions were estimated at 790.4 kilograms. Emissions under the 
universal waste final action were projected at 790.5 kilograms, 
resulting in an incremental increase of 0.1 kilograms, or 0.013 percent 
above the baseline. Emissions under the conditional exclusion option 
are projected at 798.4 kilograms, or 1.012 percent beyond the baseline. 
Under the low compliance scenario, average annual baseline emissions 
are estimated at 822 kilograms. The universal waste final action is 
projected to result in average annual emissions of 819.2 kilograms. 
This is a reduction of 2.8 kilograms, or 0.341 percent. Emissions under 
the conditional exclusion option increase by 10.5 kilograms, or 1.277 
percent beyond the baseline.
    The examination of cost-effectiveness may help put the above 
emission increments into perspective. Cost-effectiveness allows for the 
direct comparison of costs, or cost savings on a per kilogram basis. 
Under the high compliance scenario, shifting from the baseline to the 
universal waste final action is projected to result in cost savings of 
$10.5 million per additional kilogram of mercury emitted. This implies 
that it would be very expensive, on a per kilogram basis, to keep 
emissions low by holding to a high compliance baseline. Under the low 
compliance scenario, shifting from the baseline to the universal waste 
final action is projected to result in a cost increase of $0.63 million 
per kilogram of mercury reduced. Furthermore, today's final action is 
projected to cut emissions by over thirteen kilograms per year compared 
to the conditional exclusion option, at a cost of approximately $0.27 
million per kilogram.
    For more information on the cost and emissions impacts associated 
with today's final rule see the EPA report: Modification of The 
Hazardous Waste Program: Hazardous Waste Lamps--Economic Assessment. 
This report is available from the RCRA docket established for this 
action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an Agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The following discussion explains EPA's determination.
    The small entity analysis conducted for today's final action 
indicates that the addition of spent lamps to the universal waste 
system would generally result in savings to affected entities relative 
to baseline requirements. Under the full compliance scenario, the rule 
is not expected to result in a net cost to any affected entity. Thus, 
adverse impacts are not anticipated. Costs could increase for entities 
that are not complying with current requirements, but even these costs 
(which are not properly attributable to the current rulemaking) would 
not be expected to result in significant impacts on a substantial 
number of small entities. Based on the foregoing discussion, I hereby 
certify that this rule will not have a significant adverse economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Consequently, the 
Agency has determined that preparation of a formal Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis is unnecessary.
    For more information on small entity impacts potentially associated 
with today's final rule see the EPA report: Modification of the 
Hazardous Waste Program: Hazardous Waste Lamps--Regulatory Flexibility 
Screening Analysis. This report is available from the RCRA docket 
established for this action.

D. Environmental Justice

    Under Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations,'' as well as through EPA's April 1995 ``Environmental 
Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Action Agenda 
Report'', and the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, EPA 
has undertaken to incorporate environmental justice into its policies 
and programs. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice 
concerns, and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice 
initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents of the 
United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the 
population,

[[Page 36485]]

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, bears 
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 
effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and 
all people live in clean and sustainable communities. To address this 
goal, EPA conducted a qualitative analysis of the environmental justice 
issues under this final rule. Potential environmental justice impacts 
are identified consistent with the EPA's Environmental Justice Strategy 
and the OSWER Environmental Justice Action Agenda. In addition, public 
comments received on the 1994 proposal that relate to environmental 
justice were reviewed for this analysis.
    As mentioned before, the primary concern regarding management of 
spent mercury-containing lamps is the air emissions as a result of 
crushing and accidental breakage during transport, lamp management, or 
disposal. Mercury air emissions can have human health effects through 
direct contact or indirect human contact by consuming fish and 
shellfish, or through contamination of drinking water (perhaps from 
inadequate disposal measures).
    From a direct exposure standpoint, the transient nature of mercury 
air emissions results in less concern to the location of minority and 
low-income populations than might be expected. Since atmospheric 
mercury can travel thousands of miles (and beyond U.S. borders), an 
environmental justice analysis does not require a detailed geographic 
analysis. However, populations immediately surrounding transportation, 
incineration, recycling, crushing, or disposal facilities may be 
exposed to a higher concentration of emissions than those populations 
living further away. If these types of facilities are located more 
often in communities characterized by low-income or minority 
populations, there may be disproportionate impacts to those populations 
from the promulgation of today's final rule. If the location of such 
facilities is random with respect to race or income, disproportionate 
impacts could be said not to exist. The low compliance scenario is 
examined for the environmental justice analysis.
    Of the indirect exposure pathways, the ingestion of mercury-
contaminated fish and shellfish has been shown to be of the highest 
concern due to mercury's propensity to bioaccumulate in the aquatic 
environment. This can present an environmental justice issue since the 
bulk of subsistence fisher populations consist of low-income people. 
These subsistence fisher populations rely on locally-caught fish as an 
inexpensive source of protein or due to cultural reasons. However, 
since today's rule is expected to improve compliance, and thus adequate 
management of mercury-containing lamps, it is expected that there will 
be a positive impact on these populations, with less mercury available 
to contaminate aquatic environments.
    No disproportional impacts for low-income or minority communities 
are expected as a result of the final action for the following reasons:
    (1) The environmental impact of the final universal waste action is 
small. The 10-year modeling period projects a net decrease in emissions 
(low compliance scenario) at approximately 30 kilograms under the 
universal waste final action. The conditional exclusion option would 
have shown an increase (approximately 105 kg) in mercury emissions over 
10 years. In either case, the wide distribution of mercury emissions is 
unlikely to create significant impacts on any particular community.
    (2) The distribution of the municipal waste combustors and 
recycling facilities throughout minority and/or low income counties in 
the United States does not suggest any distributional pattern around 
communities of concern. Lamps crushing, legal or illegal, is difficult 
to measure because any building in any area is a potential source. 
Specific impacts on low income or minority communities, therefore, are 
undetermined. The Agency believes that emissions during transportation 
would not be a major contributor to communities of concern through 
which lamps may be transported. Any lamps broken during transport would 
be contained in the packaging. The Agency recognizes, however, the 
potential for some increased risk to transportation workers. Overall, 
no disproportional impacts to minority and/or low income communities 
are expected.
    For more information on the environmental justice analysis 
conducted in support of today's final rule see the EPA report: 
Modification of the Hazardous Waste Program: Hazardous Waste Lamps--
Economic Assessment. This report is available from the RCRA docket 
established for this action.

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, though OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This 
rule does not establish technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not 
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

F. Executive Order 13045--Children's Health

    ``Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that EPA 
determines (1) ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive 
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk 
that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on 
children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency 
must: Evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children; and explain the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potential effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. We believe 
this final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997) because it is intended to be deregulatory. 
However, an analysis of the potential effects of this action on 
children's health in the spirit of the Executive Order and consistent 
with the Agency's ongoing concern with children's health, is included 
in section II of today's preamble.

G. Regulatory Issues--Unfunded Mandates

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for the proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' 
that may result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year.

[[Page 36486]]

    Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, 
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider 
a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    Before EPA established any regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enable officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The Agency's analysis of compliance with the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 found that today's final rule imposes no 
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal government or the 
private sector. This final rule contains no federal mandates (under the 
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, EPA has 
determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The Act 
generally excludes from the definition of ``federal intergovernmental 
mandate'' (in sections 202, 203, and 205) duties that arise from 
participation in a voluntary federal program. Adopting today's final 
action, because it is less stringent, is optional. The universal waste 
final action, therefore, could be interpreted as voluntary and not 
subject to the Unfunded Mandates Analysis requirement. Furthermore, 
today's final action is deregulatory and will not impose incremental 
costs in excess of $100 million to the private sector, or to state, 
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Information Collection Request (ICR) detailing the information 
collection requirements associated with today's rule will be submitted 
for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. A copy of the ICR 
document (ICR No. 1699.02) may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at 
OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (2137); 401 M St., SW.; Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may 
also be downloaded off the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov.icr. The information requirements are not effective 
until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements established for this action, and 
identified in the Information Collection Request (ICR) supporting 
today's final rulemaking, are largely a self-implementing process. This 
process will ensure that: (i) Handlers of lamp wastes are held 
accountable to the universal waste requirements; and (ii) state 
inspectors can verify compliance when needed. For example, the 
universal waste standards require LQHUWs and SQHUWs to demonstrate the 
length of time that the lamp waste has been accumulated from the date 
it was received or became a waste. The standards also require LQHUWs 
and destination sites to keep records of all shipments received and 
sent. Further, the standards require waste handlers to notify EPA when 
needed (e.g., notification of illegal shipment).
    EPA will use the collected information to ensure that lamp waste is 
being managed in a protective manner. These data aid the Agency in 
tracking lamp waste shipments and identifying improper management 
practices. In addition, information kept in facility records helps 
handlers and destination sites to ensure that they and other facilities 
are managing lamp wastes properly. Section 3007(b) of RCRA and 40 CFR 
part 2, subpart B, which define EPA's general policy on the public 
disclosure of information, contain provisions for confidentiality. 
However, no questions of a sensitive nature are included in any of the 
information collection requirements associated with today's action.
    EPA has carefully considered the burden imposed upon the regulated 
community by the regulations. EPA is confident that those activities 
required of respondents are necessary and, to the extent possible, has 
attempted to minimize the burden imposed. EPA believes strongly that if 
the minimum requirements specified under the regulations are not met, 
neither the facilities nor EPA can ensure that hazardous waste lamps 
are being managed in a manner protective of human health and the 
environment.
    The aggregate burden to respondents over the three-year period 
covered by this ICR is estimated at 385,461 hours, with a cost of 
approximately $15,247,245. The aggregate burden to the Agency is 
estimated at 5,583 hours, with a cost of $320,910. Burden means the 
total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to 
generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for 
a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; 
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the 
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, 
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing 
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously 
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to 
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete 
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise 
disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

I. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that

[[Page 36487]]

significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    EPA has determined that the requirements of Executive Order 13084 
do not apply to today's final rule because the rule does not 
significantly or uniquely affect Indian tribal governments or 
communities. Furthermore, the rule does not impose any enforceable 
duties on these entities, and is not likely to impose substantial 
direct compliance costs on tribal governments and their communities.

J. Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, any written communications 
from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local, or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

VIII. Submission to Congress and General Accounting Office

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A ``major rule'' 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective six months from the date of 
publication.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 260

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Hazardous materials, Recycling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping, Waste treatment or disposal.

40 CFR Parts 261

    Hazardous materials, Recycling, Waste treatment and disposal.

40 CFR Parts 264 and 265

    Hazardous materials, Packaging and containers, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds, Waste 
treatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 268

    Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 270

    Hazardous materials, Packaging and containers, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 273

    Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Packaging and 
containers.

    Dated: June 28, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, parts 260 261, 264, 265, 268, 270 and 273, 
are amended as follows:

PART 260--HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

    1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 
6937, 6938, 6939, and 6974.

Subpart B--Definitions

    2. Section 260.10 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the 
definition of ``Lamp'' and by revising the definition of ``Universal 
Waste'' to read as follows:


Sec. 260.10  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Lamp, also referred to as ``universal waste lamp'', is defined as 
the bulb or tube portion of an electric lighting device. A lamp is 
specifically designed to produce radiant energy, most often in the 
ultraviolet, visible, and infra-red regions of the electromagnetic 
spectrum. Examples of common universal waste electric lamps include, 
but are not limited to, fluorescent, high intensity discharge, neon, 
mercury vapor, high pressure sodium, and metal halide lamps.
* * * * *
    Universal Waste means any of the following hazardous wastes that 
are managed under the universal waste requirements of part Sec. 273 of 
this chapter:
    (1) Batteries as described in Sec. 273.2 of this chapter;
    (2) Pesticides as described in Sec. 273.3 of this chapter;
    (3) Thermostats as described in Sec. 273.4 of this chapter; and
    (4) Lamps as described in Sec. 273.5 of this chapter.
* * * * *

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    3. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y), and 
6938.

Subpart A--General

    4. Section 261.9 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c), and 
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec. 261.9  Requirements for universal waste.

* * * * *
    (b) Pesticides as described in Sec. 273.3 of this chapter;
    (c) Thermostats as described in Sec. 273.4 of this chapter; and
    (d) Lamps as described in Sec. 273.5 of this chapter.

PART 264--STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

    5. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and 6925.

Subpart A--General

    6. Section 264.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(11)(ii) and 
(g)(11)(iii) and adding a new paragraph (g)(11)(iv) to read as follows:


Sec. 264.1  Purpose, scope, and applicability.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (11) * * *

[[Page 36488]]

    (ii) Pesticides as described in Sec. 273.3 of this chapter;
    (iii) Thermostats as described in Sec. 273.4 of this chapter; and
    (iv) Lamps as described in Sec. 273.5 of this chapter.
* * * * *

PART 265--INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF 
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

    7. The authority citation for part 265 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6906, 6912, 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 
6935, 6936, and 6937.

Subpart A--General

    8. Section 265.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(14)(ii) and 
(c)(14)(iii) and adding a new paragraph (c)(14)(iv) to read as follows:


Sec. 265.1  Purpose, scope and applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (14) * * *
    (ii) Pesticides as described in Sec. 273.3 of this chapter;
    (iii) Thermostats as described in Sec. 273.4 of this chapter; and
    (iv) Lamps as described in Sec. 273.5 of this chapter.
* * * * *

PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS

    9. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, and 6924.

Subpart A--General

    10. Section 268.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(2) and 
(f)(3) and adding a new paragraph (f)(4) to read as follows:


Sec. 268.1  Purpose, scope, and applicability.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) Pesticides as described in Sec. 273.3 of this chapter;
    (3) Thermostats as described in Sec. 273.4 of this chapter; and
    (4) Lamps as described in 40 CFR 273.5.
* * * * *

PART 270--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE 
PERMIT PROGRAM

    11. The authority citation for part 270 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924, 6925, 6927, 6939, and 
6974.

Subpart A--General Information

    12. Section 270.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2)(viii)(B) 
and (c)(2)(viii)(C) and adding a new paragraph (c)(2)(viii)(D) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 270.1  Purpose and scope of these regulations.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (viii) * * *
    (B) Pesticides as described in Sec. 273.3 of this chapter;
    (C) Thermostats as described in Sec. 273.4 of this chapter; and
    (D) Lamps as described in Sec. 273.5 of this chapter.
* * * * *

PART 273--STANDARDS FOR UNIVERSAL WASTE MANAGEMENT

    13. The authority citation for part 273 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6930, and 6937.

Subpart A--General

    14. Section 273.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and 
(a)(3) and adding a new paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:


Sec. 273.1  Scope.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Pesticides as described in Sec. 273.3;
    (3) Thermostats as described in Sec. 273.4; and
    (4) Lamps as described in Sec. 273.5.
* * * * *
    15. Section 273.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(2), 
and (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec. 273.2  Applicability--batteries.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The requirements of this part apply to persons managing 
batteries, as described in Sec. 273.9, except those listed in paragraph 
(b) of this section.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Batteries, as described in Sec. 273.9, that are not yet wastes 
under part 261 of this chapter, including those that do not meet the 
criteria for waste generation in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (3) Batteries, as described in Sec. 273.9, that are not hazardous 
waste. A battery is a hazardous waste if it exhibits one or more of the 
characteristics identified in part 261, subpart C of this chapter.
* * * * *
    16. Section 273.3 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec. 273.3  Applicability--pesticides.

    (a) Pesticides covered under this part 273. The requirements of 
this part apply to persons managing pesticides, as described in 
Sec. 273.9, meeting the following conditions, except those listed in 
paragraph (b) of this section:
* * * * *
    17. Section 273.4 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 273.4  Applicability--mercury thermostats.

    (a) Thermostats covered under this part 273. The requirements of 
this part apply to persons managing thermostats, as described in 
Sec. 273.9, except those listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
    18. Section 273.5 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 273.5  Applicability--Lamps.

    (a) Lamps covered under this part 273. The requirements of this 
part apply to persons managing lamps as described in Sec. 273.9, except 
those listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Lamps not covered under this part 273. The requirements of this 
part do not apply to persons managing the following lamps:
    (1) Lamps that are not yet wastes under part 261 of this chapter as 
provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) Lamps that are not hazardous waste. A lamp is a hazardous waste 
if it exhibits one or more of the characteristics identified in part 
261, subpart C of this chapter.
    (c) Generation of waste lamps. (1) A used lamp becomes a waste on 
the date it is discarded.
    (2) An unused lamp becomes a waste on the date the handler decides 
to discard it.


Sec. 273.6  [Redesignated as Sec. 273.9]


Secs. 273.6 and 273.7  [Reserved]

    19. Section 273.6 is redesignated as Sec. 273.9 and Secs. 273.6 and 
273.7 are added and reserved.
    20. Section 273.8 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 273.8  Applicability--household and conditionally exempt small 
quantity generator waste.

    (a) Persons managing the wastes listed below may, at their option, 
manage them under the requirements of this part:
    (1) Household wastes that are exempt under Sec. 261.4(b)(1) of this 
chapter and

[[Page 36489]]

are also of the same type as the universal wastes defined at 
Sec. 273.9; and/or
    (2) Conditionally exempt small quantity generator wastes that are 
exempt under Sec. 261.5 of this chapter and are also of the same type 
as the universal wastes defined at Sec. 273.9.
    (b) Persons who commingle the wastes described in paragraphs (a)(1) 
and (a)(2) of this section together with universal waste regulated 
under this part must manage the commingled waste under the requirements 
of this part.
    21. Newly designated Sec. 273.9 is amended by adding, in 
alphabetical order, the definition of ``Lamp'' and revising the 
definitions of ``Large Quantity Handler of Universal Waste,'' ``Small 
Quantity Handler of Universal Waste'' and ``Universal Waste'' to read 
as follows:


Sec. 273.9  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Lamp, also referred to as ``universal waste lamp'' is defined as 
the bulb or tube portion of an electric lighting device. A lamp is 
specifically designed to produce radiant energy, most often in the 
ultraviolet, visible, and infra-red regions of the electromagnetic 
spectrum. Examples of common universal waste electric lamps include, 
but are not limited to, fluorescent, high intensity discharge, neon, 
mercury vapor, high pressure sodium, and metal halide lamps.
* * * * *
    Large Quantity Handler of Universal Waste means a universal waste 
handler (as defined in this section) who accumulates 5,000 kilograms or 
more total of universal waste (batteries, pesticides, thermostats, or 
lamps, calculated collectively) at any time. This designation as a 
large quantity handler of universal waste is retained through the end 
of the calendar year in which 5,000 kilograms or more total of 
universal waste is accumulated.
* * * * *
    Small Quantity Handler of Universal Waste means a universal waste 
handler (as defined in this section) who does not accumulate 5,000 
kilograms or more total of universal waste (batteries, pesticides, 
thermostats, or lamps, calculated collectively) at any time.
* * * * *
    Universal Waste means any of the following hazardous waste that are 
subject to the universal waste requirements of this part 273:
    (1) Batteries as described in Sec. 273.2
    (2) Pesticides as described in Sec. 273.3
    (3) Thermostats as described in Sec. 273.4; and
    (4) Lamps as described in Sec. 273.5.
* * * * *

Subpart B--Standards for Small Quantity Handlers of Universal Waste

    22. Section 273.10 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 273.10  Applicability.

    This subpart applies to small quantity handlers of universal waste 
(as defined in 40 CFR 273.9).
    23. Section 273.13 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 273.13  Waste Management.

* * * * *
    (d) Lamps. A small quantity handler of universal waste must manage 
lamps in a way that prevents releases of any universal waste or 
component of a universal waste to the environment, as follows:
    (1) A small quantity handler of universal waste must contain any 
lamp in containers or packages that are structurally sound, adequate to 
prevent breakage, and compatible with the contents of the lamps. Such 
containers and packages must remain closed and must lack evidence of 
leakage, spillage or damage that could cause leakage under reasonably 
foreseeable conditions.
    (2) A small quantity handler of universal waste must immediately 
clean up and place in a container any lamp that is broken and must 
place in a container any lamp that shows evidence of breakage, leakage, 
or damage that could cause the release of mercury or other hazardous 
constituents to the environment. Containers must be closed, 
structurally sound, compatible with the contents of the lamps and must 
lack evidence of leakage, spillage or damage that could cause leakage 
or releases of mercury or other hazardous constituents to the 
environment under reasonably foreseeable conditions.
    24. Section 273.14 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 273.14  Labeling/marking.

* * * * *
    (e) Each lamp or a container or package in which such lamps are 
contained must be labeled or marked clearly with one of the following 
phrases: ``Universal Waste--Lamp(s),'' or ``Waste Lamp(s),'' or ``Used 
Lamp(s).''

Subpart C--Standards for Large Quantity Handlers of Universal Waste

    25. Section 273.30 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 273.30  Applicability.

    This subpart applies to large quantity handlers of universal waste 
(as defined in Sec. 273.9).
    26. Section 273.32 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and 
(b)(5) as follows:


Sec. 273.32  Notification.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) A list of all the types of universal waste managed by the 
handler (e.g., batteries, pesticides, thermostats, lamps);
    (5) A statement indicating that the handler is accumulating more 
than 5,000 kg of universal waste at one time and the types of universal 
waste (e.g., batteries, pesticides, thermostats, and lamps) the handler 
is accumulating above this quantity.
    27. Section 273.33 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 273.33  Management.

* * * * *
    (d) Lamps. A large quantity handler of universal waste must manage 
lamps in a way that prevents releases of any universal waste or 
component of a universal waste to the environment, as follows:
    (1) A large quantity handler of universal waste must contain any 
lamp in containers or packages that are structurally sound, adequate to 
prevent breakage, and compatible with the contents of the lamps. Such 
containers and packages must remain closed and must lack evidence of 
leakage, spillage or damage that could cause leakage under reasonably 
foreseeable conditions.
    (2) A large quantity handler of universal waste must immediately 
clean up and place in a container any lamp that is broken and must 
place in a container any lamp that shows evidence of breakage, leakage, 
or damage that could cause the release of mercury or other hazardous 
constituents to the environment. Containers must be closed, 
structurally sound, compatible with the contents of the lamps and must 
lack evidence of leakage, spillage or damage that could cause leakage 
or releases of mercury or other hazardous constituents to the 
environment under reasonably foreseeable conditions.
    28. Section 273.34 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 273.34  Labeling/marking.

* * * * *
    (e) Each lamp or a container or package in which such lamps are

[[Page 36490]]

contained must be labeled or marked clearly with any one of the 
following phrases: ``Universal Waste--Lamp(s),'' or ``Waste Lamp(s),'' 
or ``Used Lamp(s).''

Subpart D--Standards for Universal Waste Transporters

    29. Section 273.50 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 273.50  Applicability.

    This subpart applies to universal waste transporters (as defined in 
Sec. 273.9).

Subpart E--Standards for Destination Facilities

    30. Section 273.60 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 273.60  Applicability.

    (a) The owner or operator of a destination facility (as defined in 
Sec. 273.9) is subject to all applicable requirements of parts 264, 
265, 266, 268, 270, and 124 of this chapter, and the notification 
requirement under section 3010 of RCRA.
* * * * *

Subpart G--Petitions to Include Other Wastes Under 40 CFR Part 273

    31. Section 273.81 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 273.81  Factors for petitions to include other wastes under this 
part 273.

    (a) The waste or category of waste, as generated by a wide variety 
of generators, is listed in subpart D of part 261 of this chapter, or 
(if not listed) a proportion of the waste stream exhibits one or more 
characteristics of hazardous waste identified in subpart C of part 261 
of this chapter. (When a characteristic waste is added to the universal 
waste regulations of this part 273 by using a generic name to identify 
the waste category (e.g., batteries), the definition of universal waste 
in Sec. 260.10 of this chapter and Sec. 273.9 will be amended to 
include only the hazardous waste portion of the waste category (e.g., 
hazardous waste batteries).) Thus, only the portion of the waste stream 
that does exhibit one or more characteristics (i.e., is hazardous 
waste) is subject to the universal waste regulations of this part 273;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-16930 Filed 7-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U