

[Federal Register: July 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 145)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 42927-42949]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28jy06-7]                         


[[Page 42927]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



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



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


[[Page 42928]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 260, 261, and 271

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marilyn Goode, Office of Solid 
Waste, Mail Code 5304W, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308-8800, 
electronic mail: goode.marilyn@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this final rule are listed 
in the following outline:

Contents of the Final Rule

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

I. General Information

A. Does This Rule Apply to Me?

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

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

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

C. Acronyms Used in the Rule

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

II. Summary of This Rule and Clarification of Existing Policies

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

[[Page 42929]]

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

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

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

B. Reuse and Repair of Used CRTs

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

C. CRTs and CRT Glass Sent for Recycling

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

D. Exports of Used CRTs

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

E. Disposal of CRTs

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

[[Page 42930]]

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

F. Circuit Boards

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

G. Other Electronic Material

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

III. Background

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

[[Page 42931]]

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Rationale for This Rule and Response to Comments

A. Used, Intact CRTs Sent for Recycling

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

[[Page 42932]]

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

B. Used, Broken CRTs Sent for Recycling

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

[[Page 42933]]

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

[[Page 42934]]

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

C. Used CRT Processing

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

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

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

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

[[Page 42935]]

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

[[Page 42936]]

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

[[Page 42937]]

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

D. Exports and Imports

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

[[Page 42938]]

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

[[Page 42939]]

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

E. Universal Waste

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

[[Page 42940]]

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

[[Page 42941]]

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

F. Definitions

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

[[Page 42942]]

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

[[Page 42943]]

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

G. Disposal

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

H. Enforcement

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

V. State Authority

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States

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

[[Page 42944]]

B. Effect on State Authorization

    Today's rule will have a different effect on authorized state 
programs, depending on how the state is currently regulating CRTs. In 
the proposal to today's rule, EPA clarified its views on how the 
current RCRA regulations most appropriately applied to CRTs sent for 
recycling (see 67 FR 40508 at 40511, June 12, 2002), and we proposed to 
revise the regulations to clarify any confusion and to set a clear 
federal floor. In the case of used CRTs going for recycling, EPA at the 
time encouraged states to implement approaches consistent with the 
proposal. Today's final rule modifies the proposal in three principal 
respects: (1) Speculative accumulation requirements for used, intact 
CRTs; (2) one-time notification requirement for used CRTs exported for 
reuse; and (3) notice and consent requirements for CRTs exported for 
recycling. These requirements are more stringent than the approach that 
EPA, in the proposed preamble, recommended that states adopt under the 
current regulations. Therefore, states that adopted the approach 
recommended in the proposed rule must amend their programs so that they 
are no less stringent than the federal approach. States currently 
regulating CRTs as hazardous waste, including under the universal waste 
rule, would not have to amend their programs, since their programs are 
more stringent than the federal requirements.
    The limitations on speculative accumulation for intact CRTs are 
issued under RCRA authority, and therefore will not go into effect (in 
states not currently managing intact CRTs as hazardous waste) until 
states have adopted today's rule. The one-time notification for intact 
CRTs exported for reuse and notice and consent requirements for CRTs 
exported for recycling are implemented under HSWA authority (section 
3017 of RCRA, which governs notice and consent) and therefore go into 
effect six months after the publication date of this rule. The Agency 
is adding the rule to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which identifies the 
federal program requirements that are promulgated pursuant to the 
statutory authority that was added by HSWA.

C. Interstate Transport

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

[[Page 42945]]

impacts for each combination of the two baselines and the post-
regulatory scenario. The first baseline and post-regulatory scenario is 
the pairing that we are using to meet our administrative requirements 
following this section.
2. Results
a. Volume
    We have estimated the affected volume of CRTs (including both 
previously regulated and diverted volumes of monitors) under the post-
regulatory scenario to be 54,000 tons. We believe that approximately 
10,000 tons of CRTs would be diverted from export or hazardous waste 
landfill to CRT glass manufacturing under the post-regulatory 
alternative.
b. Cost/Economic Impact
    We estimate that the rule will save CRT handlers $5.0 million per 
year compared to the scenario which assumed that all affected entities 
followed the standard Subtitle C regulations. This cost savings comes 
from reduced administrative, transportation and disposal/management 
cost.
    To estimate the economic impact of the rule on CRT handlers, the 
Agency evaluated the cost savings or incremental costs as a percentage 
of firm sales. In virtually all cases, economic impacts are cost 
savings of less than one percent of firm sales. Under the first 
scenario, the average savings for a previously regulated small quantity 
generator is $520 per year; for a previously regulated large quantity 
generator, the average savings is $1,091 per year.
c. Benefits
    EPA has evaluated the qualitative benefits and to a lesser extent, 
the quantitative benefits of the rule for CRTs. Some of the benefits 
resulting from today's rule include conservation of landfill capacity, 
increase in resource efficiency, growth of a recycling infrastructure 
for CRTs, and possible reduction of lead emissions to the environment 
from CRT recycling. EPA estimates that approximately 3,690 tons or 
545,000 cubic feet of CRTs per year would be redirected away from 
landfills towards recycling under today's rule. In addition, as 
mentioned above, the use of processed CRT glass benefits the 
manufacturer in several ways, such as improving heat transfer and 
melting characteristics in the furnaces, lowering energy consumption, 
and maintaining or improving the quality of the final product. This 
rule may facilitate the growth and development of the CRT glass 
processing industry by reducing regulatory barriers to the 
establishment of new glass processing firms. Finally, this rule will 
encourage reuse and recycling by diverting CRTs from municipal 
landfills and waste-to-energy facilities.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the 
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and 
has assigned OMB control number 2050-0053.
    The information requirements established for this action, and 
identified in the Information Collection Request (ICR) supporting 
today's rule, are largely self-implementing, except for the notice and 
consent requirements for CRTs exported for recycling. This process will 
ensure that: (i) Regulated entities managing CRTs are held accountable 
to the applicable requirements; (ii) state inspectors can verify 
compliance when needed; and (iii) CRTs exported for recycling or reuse 
are actually handled as commodities abroad.
    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 used CRTs are being 
managed in a manner protective of human health and the environment.
    For the requirements applicable to CRTs, the aggregate annual 
burden to respondents over the three-year period covered by this ICR is 
estimated at 5,400 hours, with a cost of approximately $269,100. 
Average annual burden hours per respondent are estimated to be between 
3.4 and 4.1 hours (the latter figure is for respondents who are 
exporters). There are an estimated 3,775 respondents. However, this 
represents a reduction in burden to respondents of approximately 17,306 
hours, or $878,034. The estimated operation and maintenance costs are 
$100 (including the cost of postage and envelopes). There are no start-
up costs and no costs for purchases of services. Administrative costs 
to the Agency are estimated to be 371 hours per year, or $11,173. 
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. In addition, EPA is amending 
the table in 40 CFR Part 9 of currently approved OMB control numbers 
for various regulations to list the regulatory citations for the 
information requirements contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, 
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is 
defined by the Small Business Administration by category of business 
using the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) and 
codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that 
is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, I hereby certify that this action will not have a significant 
adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities. In 
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a

[[Page 42946]]

substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule 
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive effect on all 
of the small entities subject to the rule.
    The small entity analysis conducted for today's rule indicates that 
streamlining requirements for CRTs would generally result in savings to 
affected entities compared to baseline requirements. Under the full 
compliance scenario, the rule is not expected to result in a net cost 
to any affected entity.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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. Before promulgating a rule for which a 
written statement is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA requires federal 
agencies 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.
    This final rule does not include a federal mandate that may result 
in expenditures of $100 million of more to state, local, or tribal 
governments in the aggregate, because the UMRA generally excludes from 
the definition of ``federal intergovernmental mandate'' duties that 
arise from participation in a voluntary federal program. States are not 
legally required to have or maintain a RCRA authorized program. 
Therefore, today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of 
Sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. In addition, this final rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments under Section 203 of UMRA. Therefore we have 
determined that today's rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202, 203, or 205 of UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national 
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This rule 
does not have federalism implications. It streamlines RCRA management 
requirements for CRTs and CRT glass being recycled, and will affect 
primarily those persons who are engaged in CRT recycling. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132.
    Although Section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 
rule, EPA consulted with representatives of the Association of State 
and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) in 
developing this rule prior to finalization.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It does not 
impose any new requirements on tribal officials nor does it impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on them. This rule does not create 
a mandate for tribal governments, nor does it impose any enforceable 
duties on these entities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risk

    ``Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that EPA 
determines (1) is ``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 why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potential effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not 
an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866 
and because it does not concern an environmental health or safety risk 
that the Agency has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children.

H. Executive Order 13211

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Today's 
rule streamlines hazardous waste management requirements for used 
cathode ray tubes. By encouraging reuse and recycling, the rule may 
save energy costs associated with manufacturing new materials.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    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

[[Page 42947]]

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.

J. Environmental Justice

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (February 
11, 1994) is designed to address the environmental and human health 
conditions of minority and low-income populations. EPA is committed to 
addressing environmental justice concerns and has assumed a leadership 
role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental 
quality for all citizens of the United States. The Agency's goals are 
to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, 
national origin, income, or net worth bears disproportionately high and 
adverse human health and environmental impacts as a result of EPA's 
policies, programs, and activities. In response to Executive Order 
12898, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) 
formed an Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of 
environmental justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop 
an overall strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER 
Directive No. 9200.3-17). To address this goal, EPA conducted a 
qualitative analysis of the environmental justice issues under this 
rule. Potential environmental justice impacts are identified consistent 
with the EPA's Environmental Justice Strategy and the OSWER 
Environmental Justice Action Agenda.
    Today's rule would streamline hazardous waste management 
requirements for used cathode ray tubes sent for recycling. Facilities 
that would be affected by today's rule include those generating 
hazardous waste computers and televisions sent for recycling. Also 
affected would be facilities which recycle these materials. Disposal 
facilities themselves would not be affected by today's rule.
    The wide distribution of affected facilities throughout the United 
States does not suggest any distributional pattern around communities 
of concern. Any building in any area could be affected by today's rule. 
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 used CRTs may be transported. Any such material broken during 
transport would be contained in the required packaging. Overall, no 
disproportional impacts to minority or low income communities are 
expected.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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 January 29, 2007.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 260

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 271

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, 
Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: July 19, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 9--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330, 
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.


0
2. In Sec.  9.1 the table is amended by adding new entries in numerical 
order under the indicated heading to read as follows:


Sec.  9.1  OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB control
                     40 CFR citation                            No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
              Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste

                                * * * * *
261.39..................................................       2050-0053
261.40..................................................       2050-0053
261.41..................................................       2050-0053

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 260--HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

0
3. 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

0
4. Section 260.10 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the 
definitions of ``Cathode ray tube,'' ``CRT collector,'' ``CRT glass 
manufacturer,'' and ``CRT processing'', to read as follows:


Sec.  260.10  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Cathode ray tube or CRT means a vacuum tube, composed primarily of 
glass, which is the visual or video display component of an electronic 
device. A used, intact CRT means a CRT whose vacuum has not been 
released. A used, broken CRT means glass removed from its housing or 
casing whose vacuum has been released.
* * * * *
    CRT collector means a person who receives used, intact CRTs for 
recycling, repair, resale, or donation.
    CRT glass manufacturer means an operation or part of an operation 
that uses a furnace to manufacture CRT glass.

[[Page 42948]]

    CRT processing means conducting all of the following activities:
    (1) Receiving broken or intact CRTs; and
    (2) Intentionally breaking intact CRTs or further breaking or 
separating broken CRTs; and
    (3) Sorting or otherwise managing glass removed from CRT monitors.
* * * * *

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
5. 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

0
6. Section 261.4 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(22), to read 
as follows:


Sec.  261.4  Exclusions.

    (a) * * *
    (22) Used cathode ray tubes (CRTs)
    (i) Used, intact CRTs as defined in Sec.  260.10 of this chapter 
are not solid wastes within the United States unless they are disposed, 
or unless they are speculatively accumulated as defined in Sec.  
261.1(c)(8) by CRT collectors or glass processors.
    (ii) Used, intact CRTs as defined in Sec.  260.10 of this chapter 
are not solid wastes when exported for recycling provided that they 
meet the requirements of Sec.  261.40.
    (iii) Used, broken CRTs as defined in Sec.  260.10 of this chapter 
are not solid wastes provided that they meet the requirements of Sec.  
261.39.
    (iv) Glass removed from CRTs is not a solid waste provided that it 
meets the requirements of Sec.  261.39(c).
* * * * *

0
7. Part 261 is amended by adding subpart E to read as follows:
Subpart E--Exclusions/Exemptions
Sec.
261.39 Conditional Exclusion for Used, Broken Cathode Ray Tubes 
(CRTs) and Processed CRT Glass Undergoing Recycling.
261.40 Conditional Exclusion for Used, Intact Cathode Ray Tubes 
(CRTs) Exported for Recycling.
261.41 Notification and Recordkeeping for Used, Intact Cathode Ray 
Tubes (CRTs) Exported for Reuse.

Subpart E--Exclusions/Exemptions


Sec.  261.39  Conditional Exclusion for Used, Broken Cathode Ray Tubes 
(CRTs) and Processed CRT Glass Undergoing Recycling.

    Used, broken CRTs are not solid wastes if they meet the following 
conditions:
    (a) Prior to processing: These materials are not solid wastes if 
they are destined for recycling and if they meet the following 
requirements:
    (1) Storage. The broken CRTs must be either:
    (i) Stored in a building with a roof, floor, and walls, or
    (ii) Placed in a container (i.e., a package or a vehicle) that is 
constructed, filled, and closed to minimize releases to the environment 
of CRT glass (including fine solid materials).
    (2) Labeling. Each container in which the used, broken CRT is 
contained must be labeled or marked clearly with one of the following 
phrases: ``Used cathode ray tube(s)-contains leaded glass '' or 
``Leaded glass from televisions or computers.'' It must also be 
labeled: ``Do not mix with other glass materials.''
    (3) Transportation. The used, broken CRTs must be transported in a 
container meeting the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (2) of 
this section.
    (4) Speculative accumulation and use constituting disposal. The 
used, broken CRTs are subject to the limitations on speculative 
accumulation as defined in paragraph (c)(8) of this section. If they 
are used in a manner constituting disposal, they must comply with the 
applicable requirements of part 266, subpart C instead of the 
requirements of this section.
    (5) Exports. In addition to the applicable conditions specified in 
paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) of this section, exporters of used, broken CRTs 
must comply with the following requirements:
    (i) Notify EPA of an intended export before the CRTs are scheduled 
to leave the United States. A complete notification should be submitted 
sixty (60) days before the initial shipment is intended to be shipped 
off-site. This notification may cover export activities extending over 
a twelve (12) month or lesser period. The notification must be in 
writing, signed by the exporter, and include the following information:
    (A) Name, mailing address, telephone number and EPA ID number (if 
applicable) of the exporter of the CRTs.
    (B) The estimated frequency or rate at which the CRTs are to be 
exported and the period of time over which they are to be exported.
    (C) The estimated total quantity of CRTs specified in kilograms.
    (D) All points of entry to and departure from each foreign country 
through which the CRTs will pass.
    (E) A description of the means by which each shipment of the CRTs 
will be transported (e.g., mode of transportation vehicle (air, 
highway, rail, water, etc.), type(s) of container (drums, boxes, tanks, 
etc.)).
    (F) The name and address of the recycler and any alternate 
recycler.
    (G) A description of the manner in which the CRTs will be recycled 
in the foreign country that will be receiving the CRTs.
    (H) The name of any transit country through which the CRTs will be 
sent and a description of the approximate length of time the CRTs will 
remain in such country and the nature of their handling while there.
    (ii) Notifications submitted by mail should be sent to the 
following mailing address: Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, Office of Federal Activities, International Compliance 
Assurance Division, (Mail Code 2254A), Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Hand-delivered 
notifications should be sent to: Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, Office of Federal Activities, International Compliance 
Assurance Division, (Mail Code 2254A), Environmental Protection Agency, 
Ariel Rios Bldg., Room 6144, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 
DC. In both cases, the following shall be prominently displayed on the 
front of the envelope: ``Attention: Notification of Intent to Export 
CRTs.''
    (iii) Upon request by EPA, the exporter shall furnish to EPA any 
additional information which a receiving country requests in order to 
respond to a notification.
    (iv) EPA will provide a complete notification to the receiving 
country and any transit countries. A notification is complete when EPA 
receives a notification which EPA determines satisfies the requirements 
of paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section. Where a claim of 
confidentiality is asserted with respect to any notification 
information required by paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section, EPA may 
find the notification not complete until any such claim is resolved in 
accordance with 40 CFR 260.2.
    (v) The export of CRTs is prohibited unless the receiving country 
consents to the intended export. When the receiving country consents in 
writing to the receipt of the CRTs, EPA will forward an Acknowledgment 
of Consent to Export CRTs to the exporter. Where the receiving country 
objects to receipt of

[[Page 42949]]

the CRTs or withdraws a prior consent, EPA will notify the exporter in 
writing. EPA will also notify the exporter of any responses from 
transit countries.
    (vi) When the conditions specified on the original notification 
change, the exporter must provide EPA with a written renotification of 
the change, except for changes to the telephone number in paragraph 
(a)(5)(i)(A) of this section and decreases in the quantity indicated 
pursuant to paragraph (a)(5)(i)(C) of this section. The shipment cannot 
take place until consent of the receiving country to the changes has 
been obtained (except for changes to information about points of entry 
and departure and transit countries pursuant to paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(D) 
and (a)(5)(i)(H) of this section) and the exporter of CRTs receives 
from EPA a copy of the Acknowledgment of Consent to Export CRTs 
reflecting the receiving country's consent to the changes.
    (vii) A copy of the Acknowledgment of Consent to Export CRTs must 
accompany the shipment of CRTs. The shipment must conform to the terms 
of the Acknowledgment.
    (viii) If a shipment of CRTs cannot be delivered for any reason to 
the recycler or the alternate recycler, the exporter of CRTs must 
renotify EPA of a change in the conditions of the original notification 
to allow shipment to a new recycler in accordance with paragraph 
(a)(5)(vi) of this section and obtain another Acknowledgment of Consent 
to Export CRTs.
    (ix) Exporters must keep copies of notifications and 
Acknowledgments of Consent to Export CRTs for a period of three years 
following receipt of the Acknowledgment.
    (b) Requirements for used CRT processing: Used, broken CRTs 
undergoing CRT processing as defined in Sec.  260.10 of this chapter 
are not solid wastes if they meet the following requirements:
    (1) Storage. Used, broken CRTs undergoing processing are subject to 
the requirement of paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
    (2) Processing.
    (i) All activities specified in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the 
definition of ``CRT processing'' in Sec.  260.10 of this chapter must 
be performed within a building with a roof, floor, and walls; and
    (ii) No activities may be performed that use temperatures high 
enough to volatilize lead from CRTs.
    (c) Processed CRT glass sent to CRT glass making or lead smelting: 
Glass from used CRTs that is destined for recycling at a CRT glass 
manufacturer or a lead smelter after processing is not a solid waste 
unless it is speculatively accumulated as defined in Sec.  261.1(c)(8).
    (d) Use constituting disposal: Glass from used CRTs that is used in 
a manner constituting disposal must comply with the requirements of 40 
CFR part 266, subpart C instead of the requirements of this section.


Sec.  261.40  Conditional Exclusion for Used, Intact Cathode Ray Tubes 
(CRTs) Exported for Recycling.

    Used, intact CRTs exported for recycling are not solid wastes if 
they meet the notice and consent conditions of Sec.  261.39(a)(5), and 
if they are not speculatively accumulated as defined in Sec.  
261.1(c)(8).


Sec.  261.41  Notification and Recordkeeping for Used, Intact Cathode 
Ray Tubes (CRTs) Exported for Reuse.

    (a) Persons who export used, intact CRTs for reuse must send a one-
time notification to the Regional Administrator. The notification must 
include a statement that the notifier plans to export used, intact CRTs 
for reuse, the notifier's name, address, and EPA ID number (if 
applicable) and the name and phone number of a contact person.
    (b) Persons who export used, intact CRTs for reuse must keep copies 
of normal business records, such as contracts, demonstrating that each 
shipment of exported CRTs will be reused. This documentation must be 
retained for a period of at least three years from the date the CRTs 
were exported.

0
8. Section 261.38 of subpart D is moved to subpart E.

PART 271--REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE 
PROGRAMS

0
9. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and 6926.


0
10. Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entries to 
Table 1 in chronological order by date of publication in the Federal 
Register, to read as follows:


Sec.  271.1  Purpose and scope.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *

               Table 1.--Regulations Implementing the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Promulgation date         Title of regulation       Federal Register reference          Effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
July 28, 2006................  Final Rule for         [Insert FR page numbers]..........  Jan. 29, 2007.
                                Cathode Ray Tubes.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. 06-6490 Filed 7-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
