DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

Solid and Hazardous Waste Commission
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division
6 CCR 1007-2

Statement of Basis and Purpose
 and Specific Statutory Authority for

Amendment to the Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Sites and Facilities (6 CCR 1007-2, Part 1) – Section 1.2 (Definitions), Section 1.7.6 (Waste Tire Fee), Sections 10.3.5, 10.5.6, 10.6.7, 10.7.7, 10.8.7, 10.9.5 (Annual Report), 10.5.1 (General Waste Tire Monofill Standards), Section 10.11 (Waste Tire Fee Administration), 
Section 10.12 (Waste Tire End Users Fund), and 10.13 (Standards for End Users and Landowners of Waste Tire Bales). 

(Adopted by the Solid and Hazardous Waste Commission on October 15, 2019)

Basis and Purpose
	
I.	Statutory Authority

Section 30-20-1401(2), C.R.S. gives the Solid and Hazardous Waste Commission (the Commission) the authority to promulgate waste tire regulations in order to implement and enforce Section 30, Article 20, Part 14, C.R.S. These regulations implement Senate Bill 19-198 (“SB 19-198” or “the Bill”) which modified Part 14. The Legislature passed SB 19-198 in 2019.  

II.	Senate Bill 19-198
	
	Section 1 of SB 19-198 includes definitions of several terms. 

Section 2 of the Bill amends Section 30-20-1403, C.R.S. to give the Commission the authority to set a Waste Tire Fee at an amount not to exceed two dollars on the sale of each new tire. The Waste Tire Fee will become effective on January 1, 2020, and continue through December 31, 2025. The Commission has the authority to adjust the Waste Tire Fee on an annual basis. Per SB 19-198, the Waste Tire Fee will be reduced automatically to $0.55 on January 1, 2024.

Section 3 of SB 19-198 includes new rules for the Waste Tire Administration, Enforcement, Market Development and Cleanup Fund. 

Section 4 of the Bill reestablishes the End Users Fund in Section 30-20-1405, C.R.S. The End Users Fund will provide quarterly rebates to in-state End Users, retailers that sell tire-derived products, and End Users who are also a Waste Tire Hauler and haul waste tires from rural counties. This section gives the Commission the authority to set the amount of the rebate annually on a per-ton basis. The rebates will be paid out based on the tiering system.

Section 5 of SB 19-198 limits the circumstances under which the Department can waive requirements in 30-20-1415 (1)(j) and (1)(k), C.R.S. for waste tire monofill operators and owners.  

Section 6 of the Bill includes an appropriation for the 2019-20 state fiscal year. 

Section 7 states that the Act is subject to a referendum petition. 

III.	Purpose of revised regulations:
	
Section 1.2 (Definitions) is being amended to add, modify, and delete some of the definitions to reflect new statutory definitions in Section 1 of SB 19-198 and to define terms that are necessary for effective implementation of the Bill.   
 
Section 1.7.6 (Waste Tire Fee) is being amended to increase the Waste Tire Fee amount from $0.55 to $1.25 on the sale of each new motor vehicle tire and new trailer tire. The Waste Tire Fee is not a new fee as House Bill 14-1352 automatically set the rate at $0.55 when the previous End Users Fund and Market Development Fund was repealed (effective January 1, 2018). Funds collected through the Waste Tire Fee will be split between the Waste Tire Administration, Enforcement, Market Development and Cleanup Fund and the End Users Fund.

Changes in sections 10.3.5 (Waste Tire Haulers), 10.5.6 (Waste Tire Monofills), 10.6.7 (Waste Tire Processors), 10.7.7 (Mobile Waste Tire Processors), 10.8.7 (Waste Tire Collection Facilities), and 10.9.5 (End Users) require Annual Reports to be submitted to the Department by March 1 of every year. 

Section 10.5.1(P) incorporates the limitation on waivers for owners and operators of Waste Tire Monofills of Section 5 of SB 19-198 into the regulations.  

Section 10.11 (Waste Tire Fee Administration) modifies documentation requirements for persons selling new motor vehicle or new tire trailers and requires, consistent with Section 2 of SB 19-198, disclosure of collection of the Waste Tire Fee on receipts for every new tire purchased.

Section 10.12 (Waste Tire End Users Fund) establishes the rules and procedures for the End Users Fund and End User rebates. 

Section 10.13 (Standards of End Users and Landowners of Waste Tire Bales) establishes rules for the safe and responsible usage of waste tire bales by End Users and/or landowners. 

Discussion of Regulatory Proposal

The passage of SB 19-198 requires the addition, revision and deletion of several definitions in Section 1.2 for the Solid Waste Regulations (6 CCR 1007-2, Part 1).

The following new definitions are being added to Section 1.2:
1.	Alternative Daily Cover
2.	ASTM Standard D6270
3.	Beneficial User (as applied in Section 10)
4.	Crumb Rubber
5.	Rubber Mulch
6.	Rural County
7.	Ultimate Customer

	The following existing definition is being modified in Section 1.2:
1.	Waste Tire Bale

	The following existing definition is being deleted from Section 1.2, as there are two definitions for the same term. 
1.	End User (removing first reference in Section 1.2)	

The amended Section 1.7.6 requires retailers of new motor vehicle tires and new trailer tires to collect a Waste Tire Fee in an amount of $1.25 on the sale of each new motor vehicle tire and new trailer tire and to remit the Waste Tire Fee to the Department by the 20th of each month. The Waste Tire Fee is set at $1.25 to cover funds needed for the administration for the Waste Tire Administration, Enforcement, Market Development and Cleanup Fund and the End Users Fund and to pay End User rebates. The Waste Tire Fee will be split and deposited into the funds effective January 1, 2020 as follows:

1.	Waste Tire Administration, Enforcement, Market Development and Cleanup Fund: $0.50
2.	End Users Fund: $0.75

Sections 10.3.5 (Waste Tire Haulers), 10.5.6 (Waste Tire Monofills), 10.6.7 (Waste Tire Processors), 10.7.7 (Mobile Waste Tire Processors), 10.8.7 (Waste Tire Collection Facilities), and 10.9.5 (End Users) were modified to move the required submittal date of the Annual Report to the Department from April 1 to March 1 each year. The Annual Report information is used to generate reporting to the legislature and predict end use rates. The Commission believes the current due date of April 1 does not give Department staff adequate time to prepare a legislative report or predict end use rebate rates. Every year there are entities who either fail to submit a required Annual Report or who fail to submit an accurate Annual Report by the due date. It takes the Department time to pursue enforcement actions against these entities, which may or may not result in the filing of an accurate annual report. Moving up the report date should provide sufficient time for the Department to determine whether the Commission needs to consider adjustments to the End User per ton rates. 

Section 10.5.1(P) adds provisions regarding the issuance of waivers to Waste Tire Monofills. The Department can waive requirements related to the storage and management of waste tires in a monofill, but Section 5 of SB 19-198 added a requirement that the Department seek public comment before doing so. Section 5 also limited the Department’s authority to issue a waiver. The Department cannot issue a waiver unless the owner or operator of the Waste Tire Monofill “has demonstrated that it has achieved a net reduction on an annual basis in the number of waste tires in the monofill or unless an emergency event of limited duration such as a fire or flood, as defined by the Commission, has occurred.” The Commission is adding those requirements to the regulations and defining “emergency event” to include tornadoes and other instances of an uncontrollable natural force or human caused disaster. Waste Tire Monofills can accept waste tires as a result of these types of events, even if they would be otherwise be prevented from doing so under the requirements in 30-20-1415(1)(j) and (1)(k), C.R.S.

Section 10.11.7 allows retailers to provide documentation other than receipts to demonstrate compliance with Section 10.11 and 30-20-1043(1)(a), C.R.S. It can be an unnecessary burden for each retailer of new motor vehicle/trailer tires to keep every new tire receipt. Other documentation, such as transaction records or invoices, can serve to provide information on new tire sales.

Section 10.11.8 adds the language in 30-20-1403(1)(a)(IV), C.R.S. requiring retailers to include a specific statement on every invoice for new tires. The statement discloses the Waste Tire Fee to consumers.  

Section 10.12 outlines the rules regarding the End Users Fund and the rebates. The previous subsection 10.12 was removed from Section 10 in 2018 when the End Users Fund was repealed in January 2018. The main sections to the subsection include:

1.	The general rules each applicant must follow to be eligible for a rebate.
2.	The general rules based on type of applicant applying (End User, Retailers of tire-derived products, and End Users applying for a Waste Tire Hauler rebate).
3.	An eligibility table (Table 10-12.01) to clarify eligibility for End Users and Retailers to participate in the End Users Fund. 
4.	Procedures for applicants to apply for rebates from the End Users Fund. 
5.	An explanation of the process the Department will use to review and approve or deny the submitted applications. 
6.	A discussion of the appeals process when applicants feel the Department erred in denying an applicant’s application. 
7.	A per ton rebate amount for the three tiers and for hauling of waste tires from rural counties (explanation below). 
8.	An explanation of how the Department will manage enforcement issues for applicants. 

The Commission determined the per ton rate for the three tiers and the Waste Tire Hauler rebate based on the following steps:

1.	Review of data submitted to the Department from the WT-4 (Colorado Commercial Waste Tire Hauler Annual Report) and WT-5 (Waste Tire Facility Annual Report) forms. These reports provide data on the end use of waste tires and tire-derived products on an annual basis. Each year the Department generates an annual report to the legislature regarding the reuse and recycling of waste tires in Colorado. 
2.	The “Colorado Office of the State Auditor Waste Tire Processor and End User Program Performance Audit, June 2014” report. This report recommends that the Department not set a per ton rate that exceeds the cost of any tire-derived product eligible for a rebate. 
3.	A report titled “Tire-Derived Products Representative Manufacturing Costs, November 2014” prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. and TAG Resource Recovery. This report provides manufacturing costs for several tire-derived products in Colorado.
4.	Discussions the Department had with the states of Utah, Oklahoma, and Louisiana pertaining to their rebate programs and the per ton rates they use for similar tire-derived products. 

The Commission used this information to determine per ton rates that would: (1) provide rebates to applicants and tire-derived products to be competitive with non-waste tire products; and (2) keep the Waste Tire Fee as low as possible for consumers.

Section 10.13 establishes standards for End Users and landowners of waste tire bales. These standards address several problems that are unique to waste tire bales and are appropriate and necessary in order to carry out the Commission’s duty to promulgate rules related to the implementation and enforcement of C.R.S. Section 30, Article 20, Part 14 (Strategies for Waste Tires). Part 14 establishes the policy of the State “to pursue proposals for recycling and other beneficial use of waste tires in lieu of storage or landfill disposal, and . . . to encourage the development of techniques for resource recovery, recycling, and reuse of waste tires and to provide for the management of waste tires.” 30-20-1401(1), C.R.S. The Commission thus believes that it is necessary to set standards to ensure that waste tire bales are being put to beneficial use.

This subsection requires End Users or landowners to maintain the integrity of waste tire bales. Broken waste tire bales pose a hazard to the environment and public health. Failure to address broken waste tire bales constitutes improper disposal of waste tires in violation of 30-20-1414, C.R.S. Broken waste tire bales must be repaired or removed from the property for disposal within 90 days of discovery. The Commission believes that 90 days is sufficient time for End Users and landowners to comply with Section 10 regulations when a waste tire bale fails.  

This subsection also requires that beneficial use of waste tire bales be approved by the Department prior to placement or, in the alternative, fall within the Department’s pre-approved beneficial uses for waste tire bales. The Department’s Pre-Approved Beneficial Uses Table 3 lists waste tire bales for use as containment, livestock sheds and windbreaks. The Commission’s assumption is that the pre-approved uses for the waste tire bales are used for agricultural land and livestock. The Department will consider adding additional pre-approved waste tire bale uses to Table 3 on a case by case basis. 

This subsection also states that End Users or landowners must remove any waste tire bales which are no longer serving a beneficial use within 120 calendar days. End Users must also cancel their End User registration within 90 days of the removal of all waste tire bales.

Section 10.13(D) states that the Department may notify local fire departments the location of waste tire bales in their jurisdiction. The Department has responded to waste tire bales that have caught fire and has witnessed the damage these fires cause to local communities. Waste tire bale fires cannot be extinguished easily and will release chemicals into the air, soil and ground water. Local fire departments may be able to respond more quickly and effectively to a waste tire bale fire if they know of the bales beforehand. 

Finally, Section 10.13(G) states that End Users or landowners who have received rebates are ineligible for waste tire cleanup funds. Once waste tire bales exceed their beneficial use function, the tires become a waste tire again and are subject to Section 10 regulations.  If the Department has paid End User rebates for the waste tire bales to be end used, the Commission believes that the citizens of Colorado should not pay for the clean-up and/or removal of discarded waste tire bales. In the instance of a change of ownership or an emergency situation, the Department will evaluate the situation on a case by case basis in order to determine whether using cleanup funds is appropriate.

	Description of Local Government Involvement in the Stakeholder Process 
	
	Executive Order D 2011-005 (EO-5), “Establishing a Policy to Enhance the Relationship between State and Local Government” requires state rulemaking agencies to consult with and engage local governments prior to the promulgation of any rules containing mandates.  The Department completed an EO-5 Internal Communication Form – Conception Phase that was transmitted to local governments. These regulations would impact any county or municipality that are a Waste Tire Hauler, Waste Tire Monofill, Waste Tire Processor, Mobile Waste Tire Processor, Waste Tire Collection Facility, and/or a Waste Tire End User.
	
Issues Encountered During Stakeholder Process: 

1.	A stakeholder asked whether the “Good Standing” letter generated by the Secretary of State’s office for a business or person in Colorado must be submitted with each application. The Commission feels a “Good Standing” certificate is not required for every application, but the Department will check the Secretary of State’s website to confirm that those businesses or persons who are required to be registered are listed and in good standing. 
2.	A stakeholder asked a question about Section 8.6.2 (E) and why is it referenced in the Section 10.12 regulations. This section refers to the criteria solid waste must meet to be used for a beneficial use in lieu of disposal. The Commission believes that any tire-derived products that are end used should meet this criteria in order to receive a rebate from the End Users Fund. Adding this language will link the beneficial use of waste tires and tire-derived products to the rebate program. 
3.	A stakeholder asked a question about how the Commission will be able to track those waste tires removed from an illegal waste tire site are not paid for twice, once by the Waste Tire Administration, Enforcement, Market Development, and Cleanup Fund and again for a rebate from the End Users Fund. The Commission understands that the Department tracks any waste tire removed from these sites to the final destination, normally a Waste Tire Processor, Waste Tire Collection Facility or a Waste Tire Monofill. The Department will modify the purchase order or contract with the Waste Tire Hauler to stipulate that those tires are not eligible for a rebate from the End Users Fund. 
4.	A stakeholder asked whether Section 10.12.1(B)(2) requires an End User to comply with all local environmental requirements or just the local requirements for the end use of the tire-derived product. This language refers to local requirements on end use. The Commission feels it is up to the End User to determine whether the anticipated end use of the tire-derived product is allowed in any jurisdiction it is being end used. Sections 10.12.3(B) and 10.12.6(D) speak to the issue of compliance with state or federal environmental laws and regulations. 
5.	Stakeholders asked why waste tires used in a waste tire bale need to be at least cut in half in order to qualify for a rebate. The Commission interprets the word “destroyed” to require destruction of waste tires such that they no longer have their original form or structure. Whole waste tires are typically used in the processing of a waste tire bale. The Commission believes cutting a waste tire at least in half meets SB 19-198 requirement that a waste tire be “destroyed” in order to be eligible for a rebate. Several stakeholders agreed with this interpretation. 
6.	A stakeholder asked if using the average weight of a waste tire would be sufficient means for the waste hauler rebate. Waste Tire Haulers typically do not weigh their trucks as they collect waste tires. Instead waste tires are tracked individually with manifests and other reporting. The Commission feels the use of weight tickets is the most accurate way to determine the per ton rate for purposes of the rebate. The regulations allow other verifiable forms of documentation instead of weight tickets, as long as it is approved by the Department’s internal audit unit and/or the Colorado Attorney General’s Office.  
7.	A stakeholder asked when a subcontractor would be considered an ultimate customer. A subcontractor would be the ultimate customer if they are end using the tire-derived product for its final intended use. The subcontractor would need to be registered as an End User to qualify for a rebate from the End Users Fund. 
8.	A stakeholder asked if power plants who end used fuel created through the process of pyrolysis would be eligible for a rebate from the End Users Fund. The Commission believes this would be a tire-derived fuel and would be eligible for a Tier I rebate. 
9.	Questions were asked about who is eligible when crumb rubber is used to make rubber mats to be sold in the retail market. The Commission believes the manufacturer of the mats (or other molded products) would be eligible for the rebate as long as they demonstrate those mats have been sold and moved offsite. 
10.	Several stakeholders asked why a minimum ton amount was being used in order for an applicant to be eligible for a rebate. The Commission believes a minimum is necessary due to concerns about the time and effort the Department expends in order to process applications and distribute funds. 
11.	Stakeholders asked why the Department included language on applicants not being eligible for hauling, retail sale or end use of tire-derived products when the Department is conducting a waste tire cleanup using funds from the Waste Tire Administration, Enforcement, Market Development, and Cleanup Fund. The Commission feels that any activity, whether a waste tire cleanup or other grants or projects, should not cause the Department to pay more than once on the hauling, retail sale, or end use of any waste tire or tire-derived product. 
12.	Stakeholders asked whether an applicant would only be ineligible for a rebate when an environmental compliance issue happens with the end use of a tire-derived product, or whether any environmental compliance issue, even if not directly related to the end use of the tire-derived product, would make an applicant ineligible. The Commission feels failure to comply with any federal or state environmental law, rule or regulation could subject the application to denial for that period or longer, depending on the infraction. 
13.	Many stakeholders had concerns about whether an application would be denied if a subsidiary or parent company was out of compliance with state or federal environmental laws, rules or regulations. The Commission understands that the Department previously had guidance on this issue and that the Department will revisit that guidance.  
14.	Stakeholders asked why there is not a cap on the per ton rate for Tier I rebates. The Bill does not institute a cap on any tier amount. 
15.	Stakeholders asked how rebates would be paid out if there is a shortage of funds to meet what has been approved. The Bill directs the Department to pay out proportional rebates when there are not enough funds to cover what was approved. This means all applicants would be reduced by the same percentage so everyone approved who receive an equal reduction in their approved rebate. 
16.	A stakeholder asked why an applicant cannot reapply for a rebate when there is a shortage in the End Users Fund and the Department does not pay out full rebates to all approved applicants. The Commission said due to fiscal rules, the Department cannot go back to previous periods and readjust rebate payments. The Commission feels once final rebates are paid, adjustments cannot be made unless a calculation or Department error occurred. 
17.	Stakeholders asked why the Commission chose the word "may" and not "must" in Section 10.13(D) when discussing contacting the local fire jurisdiction when waste tire bales are placed on any property for end use.  The Commission understands that most waste tire bales are used in agricultural settings for purposes of containing livestock and livestock feed.  Therefore, fire codes that would apply to densely populated areas might not be applicable or relevant to open fields.  Local fire districts may be notified when the number of waste tire bales being placed on a property warrants notification such that those agencies need to be aware of the presence and number of waste tire bales. The Commission feels that rather than requiring notification of local fire districts regarding the placement of waste tire bales in each instance, the rule should allow the Department to notify local fire departments of waste tire bale placement when circumstances or site conditions warrant notification.
18.	A stakeholder asked if the definition for “Alternative Daily Cover” could include language that sets a maximum amount that could be used as cover at a landfill. The stakeholder had concerns that landfills could take advantage of the program by applying more than necessary to apply for a larger rebate amount. The Commission feels the definition should remain as written in the regulations. The Department has regulatory authority over landfills and can limit alternative daily cover use in the landfill’s Engineered Design and Operation Plan. The Department can also inspect these facilities to ensure compliance with those limits.  
19.	A stakeholder asked why a waste tire had to be cut in half if used in a waste tire bale to be eligible for a rebate if the definition of a “Waste Tire Bale” does not indicate that. The reason the waste tires need to be cut at least in half is to comply with the requirement that tires for which a rebate is paid out are “destroyed,” as required by 30-20-1405 (5)(II)(e). If an End User wanted to use waste tires for a waste tire bale without cutting them at least in half they could, but that End User would not be eligible for a rebate from the End Users Fund. Cutting the waste tire in half could also help keep waste tires from broken or disassembled bales from being re-baled and getting another rebate from the End Users Fund.
20.	Several stakeholders asked to set the definition of “Crumb Rubber” to include up to less than one-fourth inch in size of the material. The Commission decided to define “Crumb Rubber” as sizes less than one-fourth inch to meet current industry and ASTM standards. 
21.	Stakeholders asked why the Department was asking for the maximum amount allowed by SB 19-198 ($.50) of the Waste Tire Fee in order to administer the Waste Tire Program. A rate of $.50 will ensure that the program can maintain current staffing, administer grant programs, manage the revived End Users Fund, and fund market development activities and programs. The Commission notes that per SB 19-198, the Department will see an automatic decrease in this portion of the fee from $.55 to $.50 on January 1, 2020. The Bill does have a mechanism to move funds from the Waste Tire Administration, Enforcement, Market Development and Cleanup Fund to the End Users Fund if the Department’s expenditures are below what is being collected into the Fund (30-20-1404). The Department will review whether the $.50 rate should be adjusted on an annual basis, based on projected future expenditures. 
22.	Stakeholders asked how a waiver for a Waste Tire Monofill would be viewed if the markets for the end use of waste tires were to fall significantly below what is being generated each year and waste tires inventories accordingly increased throughout the state. The stakeholder asked whether such an event could constitute an “emergency event of limited duration” pursuant to 30-20-1415. The Commission does not feel a drop in the end use of waste tires in the state would constitute an “emergency event of limited duration.”  
23.	A stakeholder asked whether a Waste Tire Monofill with an existing waiver that included a stipulation that a Waste Tire Monofill could receive more waste tires into the facility than was end used or processed, would be precluded from receiving another waiver in the future. The statute prevents the Department from issuing a waiver to a facility that has not at least achieved a “net reduction” in the number of waste tires in the monofill. A Waste Tire Monofill must meet the “net reduction” requirement on an annual basis in order to be eligible for a waiver in the following year, regardless if a waiver was in place or not.    
24.	A stakeholder asked whether a Waste Tire Monofill had to meet a net reduction on annual basis in order to receive a waiver, or whether the Department believe it would just be one of the factors considered when deciding if a waiver could be granted. The statute requires that a Waste Tire Monofill must show a net reduction (that is, at least one more tire end used or processed than what was received into the Waste Tire Monofill) in order to be considered for a new waiver. 
25.	A stakeholder asked about the term “annual basis” and questioned whether the Department would look back at one year of activity at a Waste Tire Monofill to determine whether there had been a “net reduction,” or will the Department will look at more than one year to determine if the “net reduction” goal has been met at the facility. The Commission interprets “annual basis” to mean that the Department should look one year back from the date the waiver is requested to determine whether there has been a net reduction. 
26.	A stakeholder asked whether an “Ultimate Customer” can also be an End User. The Commission considers the “Ultimate Customer” the person who is buying a tire-derived product from a retailer who intends to use the tire-derived product for its intended use. In this scenario, an “Ultimate Customer” is not eligible to receive a rebate from the End Users Fund, but the retailer would be. 
27.	A stakeholder asked whether the 10 ton minimum applied to the amount sold to an “Ultimate Customer,” or whether the minimum applies per application. The minimum of 10 tons applies per application. An application must have at least 10 tons per quarter period to be eligible for a rebate.  
28.	A stakeholder asked how the Commission determined the $1.25 Waste Tire Fee. The Commission considered the needs of the Department to administer the Waste Tire Program, which includes staffing, grant programs, enforcement activities, and other program needs. As previously discussed, the Commission believes that $.50 per tire is appropriate for these activities.  Based on the projected end use of tire-derived products, the projected number of replacement tires to be sold, the per ton rates set for each of the three tiers and the Waste Tire Hauler rebate, and an estimate of additional funds needed to help mitigate any funding issues and distribute full rebates, the Commission believes that $.75 is an appropriate amount to be allocated per tire to the End Users Fund. 
29.	A stakeholder asked what was considered when setting the per ton rates for the separate tiers. The Commission considered the costs to manufacture tire derived products, what other states with similar programs were providing in the form of rebates, findings in the Colorado Office of the State Auditor Performance Audit completed in 2014, and discussion with stakeholders on how the end use of tire-derived products will be impacted by reestablishment of the rebate program. The Commission feels the tier rates will both support the current needs of the tire-derived product markets and help incentivize more use of current tire-derived products, while assisting in the development of new tire-derived products in the state. 
30.	A stakeholder submitted a comment asking who is eligible to apply for a Waste Tire Hauler rebate. Per 30-20-1405(2)(b), only End Users who also are registered as a Waste Tire Hauler would be eligible to apply for the rebate. 
31.	A stakeholder submitted a comment asking why silage covers were excluded from the Tier III rebates. The statute (30-20-1405(5)(e)(III)) does not include silage covers in Tier III. 
32.	A stakeholder submitted a comment asking whether End Users of alternative daily cover and tire-derived aggregate be impacted should ASTM Standard D6270 be amended. The Commission feels that any End User would need to comply with the amended standard in order to be eligible for a rebate for the end use of those impacted tire-derived products. 
33.	A stakeholder asked if the Commission had reached out to individual stakeholders to ask them what their costs were to process or end use tire-derived products in order to determine the per ton rates. Individual processors and end users were not asked to provide this type of information since it is considered confidential. The Commission used the annual reports, the Colorado Office of the State Auditor Waste Tire Processor and End User Program Performance Audit, the Tire-Derived Products Representative Manufacturing Costs report, and discussion with other states who have similar rebate programs to determine the per ton rates.
34.	One stakeholder felt that section 10.13 “singled out” or discriminated against End Users of waste tire bales. The Commission notes that the processing of waste tires and the end use of all tire derived products are regulated at various levels, in order to ensure the successful processing and safe use of each product. For example, cement kilns are required to meet stringent permitting and air quality standards in order to burn whole and shredded waste tires as tire derived fuel. Landfills have to meet solid waste permitting and Engineering, Design and Operations Plan requirements in order to utilize tire shreds for alternative daily cover. All of these end uses (and others) are subject to inspection by the waste tire program, as well as other Department regulatory programs. The Commission notes that before this rule, there were no regulations specific to waste tire bales. 

The Commission feels minimum standards should be in place to protect human health and the environment since waste tire bales are unique in the sense that they are a temporary use of waste tires. Once waste tire bales break or are no longer beneficially used, they are considered waste tires, not a tire-derived product. Because rebates encourage the end use of waste tire bales, the Commission has a responsibility to prevent the improper disposal of waste tires upon breakage and reduce the risk that bales pose to human health and the environment.  
35.	A stakeholder expressed concern that waste tire bales were being “singled out” in section 10.13 when it came to potential fires and asked why other End Users weren’t called out in this section for burning waste tires for fuel. Other End Users who burn waste tires or tire derived fuel are highly regulated by other divisions within Department. Adding waste tire bale regulations to including the possibility of notifying local fire districts when waste tire bales are being end used protects the public health and environment by allowing local fire districts to prepare for a potential emergency.  
36.	Stakeholders submitted a comment asking whether greenhouse gas emissions could be a factor in determining the per ton rate for the three tiers. SB 19-198 did not give the Commission authority to consider greenhouse gas emissions in setting the per ton rates. 

Regulatory Alternatives

	No other regulatory alternatives were evaluated.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

A cost-benefit analysis will be performed if requested by the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies.