RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: MODIFICATIONS OF THE 

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST SYSTEM; PROPOSED E-MANIFEST SYSTEM

PUBLISHED MAY 22, 2001

December 2, 2013

+

************FINAL DOCUMENT************
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 1

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT

Background

On May 22, 2001, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the hazardous waste 

manifest system (66 FR 28240). The proposed revisions aimed to reduce the manifest system's 

paperwork burden on users, while enhancing the effectiveness of the manifest as a tool to track 

hazardous waste shipments. The proposed rule would have accomplished this by adopting a 

standardized manifest form with fewer or no optional data fields; adopting a new approach for 

distributing and acquiring the form; standardizing the data elements and procedures for tracking 

certain types of hazardous waste shipments; and allowing the manifest to be completed, signed, 

transmitted, and stored electronically. Thus, the proposed rule consisted of manifest system 

reforms of two distinct types: (1) revisions to the manifest form and the procedures for using the 

form and (2) revisions aimed at replacing the paper-based manifest system with a nearly 

paperless, electronic approach to tracking hazardous waste shipments (referred to as the Aemanifest@ in this document).

EPA received 66 public comment letters in response to the May 22, 2001 proposed rule. 

Commenters generally supported our goals of further standardizing the manifest form elements 

and reducing variability among the manifests that authorized RCRA State agencies currently

distribute. However, the commenters had differing views on many of the particulars of the 

proposed revisions to the manifest. Moreover, there were a substantial number of comments that 

took issue with EPA's proposed approach to the e-manifest, particularly with respect to the 

technical rigor of the proposal, the assumptions relied upon by EPA in its projections of burden 

and cost reductions, the feasibility of the proposed electronic signature options, the highly 

detailed security requirements aimed at preventing fraud and data corruption, the reliance on 

regulated industry to develop private e-manifest systems, and the preamble’s suggestion that 

State programs may not be required to adopt the e-manifest requirements within their authorized 

RCRA State programs.

We believed that the comments addressing the e-manifest proposal raised significant substantive 

issues that merited further analysis and stakeholder outreach prior to adopting a final approach. 

The comments received in response to the form revisions proposal, on the other hand, raised 

fewer difficult issues that would deter us from going forward with a final rule. Therefore, EPA 

separated the e-manifest portion from the form revisions portion of the proposal for purposes of 

taking final action at that time. EPA published a final rule on the form revisions on March 4, 

2005 (70 FR 10776). EPA is now taking final action on the e-manifest portion. 

Purpose of Document

This document presents a summary of the public comments received in response to the emanifest provisions of the proposed rule. The public comments (e.g., suggestions, concerns, 

questions) are summarized according to specific issues related to the proposed rule and 

preamble. 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 2

In each summary, we indicate the number of organizations whose comments are reflected in it. 

We also identify the organizations. To do so, we assigned each organization a unique 

commenter number. We then prepared the summaries and inserted commenter numbers into 

each summary to identify the organizations whose comments are reflected in it. The appendix to 

this document includes a table identifying each organization that commented on the proposed 

rule and its commenter number.

This document also provides the Agency’s response to each comment. The responses explain

how the comments were considered in developing the final e-manifest rule. This document does 

not address comments that are outside the scope of the e-manifest. 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES ON E-MANIFEST

1.0 General Comments

1.1 General Support

Comment: We heard from 46 commenters that indicated their general support for the rule and/or 

efforts to automate the manifest in particular (Commenter Nos. 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 

19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 

53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, and 63). Thirteen of these commenters expressed their support of 

EPA's goals to streamline the manifest requirements and reduce burden on waste handlers 

(Commenter Nos. 12, 19, 21, 22, 23, 31, 42, 49, 53, 58, 60, 62, and 63). One of the commenters 

had participated in the e-manifest pilot program (Commenter No. 28). The commenter expressed 

support for automation, but encouraged EPA to work through any issues that were identified in 

the pilot before moving forward. 

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their support of the proposed rule and efforts to automate 

the manifest. EPA has modified its proposed e-manifest approach due in part to feedback from 

stakeholders. In addition to stakeholder comments on the proposed rule, we received input from 

stakeholders at 2 national meetings (May 2004 and November 2008) held since the publication of 

the 2001 proposed rule, and from webinars conducted after the 2008 public meeting. We also 

gained additional insights from additional e-Manifest pilot tests conducted during 2007 – 2008 

with the States of Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Further, we solicited 

additional comment on the e-Manifest program direction and specific policy issues in Federal 

Register notices we published in April 2006 and February 2008. Finally, the Hazardous Waste 

Electronic Manifest Establishment Act (e-Manifest Act) was enacted in October 2012. The final 

rule addresses key provisions of this legislation that authorizes the establishment of a national 

electronic manifest system by EPA, and that requires implementing regulations to authorize the 

use of electronic manifests and, among other things, to ensure consistent implementation in the 

states. Please refer to specific EPA responses to learn more about the changes that resulted after 

these outreach efforts with stakeholders. 

Comment: We heard from 17 commenters suggesting that the e-manifest requirements should be 

simple to understand and follow and not be too prescriptive to prevent future technologies and 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 3

improvements (Commenter Nos. 4, 12, 25, 28, 32, 33, 34, 43, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, and 

61). One of the commenters noted that technological advances will make it very difficult for EPA 

to select technologies and standards that may be appropriate years into the future (Commenter No. 

61). The commenter suggested that EPA establish a basic framework on how the e-manifest 

should work, and then implement the details in non-regulatory documents that can be quickly

modified as needed. In response to EPA’s question whether Extensible Mark-up Language 

(XML) is sufficiently stable to support the e-manifest approach, one commenter believes XML is 

the technology most likely to be able to support EPA's purposes in the foreseeable future 

(Commenter No. 33). Another commenter suggested that the rule should be technology neutral 

and allow for industry to use other technologies than specified in the rule (Commenter No. 60). 

Another commenter asked that the final rule include a complete process description from initial 

preparation by the generator through the final storage of the manifest (e.g., a process flow chart) 

(Commenter No. 51). Two commenters suggested that EPA add an option for a petitioner to 

demonstrate equivalency to the two proposed data formats in the rule (Commenter Nos. 57 and 

61).

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their suggestions on keeping the e-manifest approach 

flexible and easy to implement. In our May 2001 proposal, we set forth a standards-based 

approach for reporting and recordkeeping of the e-manifest. Users of the e-manifest would have 

had two options for transmitting the e-manifest, i.e., Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) and 

Extensible Mark-up Language (XML). Users also would have had to comply with electronic 

manifest systems and security requirements, such as requirements for independent system 

validation, limits on system access, full interoperability among users’ systems. Signing the emanifest would have been done using either a secure digitized signature or a digital signature 

based on private key/public key cryptography. 

As we discuss below in response to other comments, EPA received many comments critical of the 

proposed decentralized, standards-based approach. Several commenters suggested that a 

preferred approach would be for EPA or another entity to develop a consistent, national solution 

for the e-Manifest. We received strong additional comments supporting such a national system at 

a May 2004 public meeting in Washington, D.C. and in comments responding to the April 2006 

Federal Register notice soliciting comment on the preferred program direction. 

Since the 2001 proposal, EPA has made significant progress toward developing its Agency-wide 

electronic receiving system, called the Central Data Exchange (CDX). We have also, with our 

State environmental program partners, developed the National Environmental Information 

Exchange Network as a means to efficiently share environmental information with the States, 

through the nodes the States have developed on this network. The CDX has evolved from a 

prototype system to a fully operational electronic document receiving system and the building 

blocks supporting the CDX functions have changed substantially. These changes reflect EPA’s 

experience operating the CDX over these years, evolving trends in Internet technologies, and 

comments received from potential CDX users. The CDX now supports tens of thousands of 

registered users providing data to dozens of environmental reporting programs across the major 

EPA media offices. CDX registered users include representatives from state, tribe, and local 

agencies, industries, laboratories, and other federal agencies. 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 4

In addition, EPA finalized the Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) on October 

13, 2005 (70 FR 59847). CROMERR provides a uniform, technology-neutral framework that 

applies to electronic reporting across all EPA programs. For example, the new electronic 

reporting provisions modify current requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations to address 

obstacles to electronic reporting. They require validation of electronic signatures on reports 

submitted to EPA through the CDX (or another designated EPA system). They also ensure that 

valid electronic signatures have the same legal force as their wet-ink counterparts. 

Because of the emergence of the CDX as a viable option for the e-manifest, as well as 

stakeholders’ requests for a more flexible, simple, and technology-neutral approach, EPA has 

decided to develop a national, centralized Web-based information technology system that EPA 

will host on the CDX or an equivalent system. EPA’s final rule authorizes the use of electronic 

manifests that are created and transmitted through the use of this national e-manifest system. The 

final rule amends existing manifest regulations which now require manifests to be created only as 

paper forms, to be signed only with “by hand” signatures, and to be physically carried by waste 

handlers and retained at their sites as paper records. These regulatory changes are necessary to 

ensure that electronic manifests are as valid as the traditional paper manifests that are signed with 

ink and manually processed and transmitted. The use of EPA’s national e-manifest system to 

obtain and process valid electronic manifests is the key component of the final rule. The rule 

codifies key requirements of the 2012 e-Manifest Act, which requires EPA to implement a 

centralized approach and develop a national electronic manifest system. The final rule thus 

explains how electronic manifests obtained from and transmitted to the national system will be 

legally equivalent to paper manifests, and it clarifies the relevant policy issues (e.g., electronic 

signatures, CBI, paper manifest collections, program consistency) from the 2001 proposal, the 

subsequent 2006 and 2008 public notices, and the recent legislation.

EPA believes this approach will be much simpler and more flexible to implement than the 

proposed approach. This follows because the proposed approach was a standards-based approach 

under which EPA attempted to define in regulations the technical standards that it believed were 

necessary to bring about the development of consistent, reliable, and secure systems by numerous 

private entities. Under the new preferred approach, only one e-manifest system will be developed 

and hosted by EPA through the efforts of a contractor selected by EPA to develop the system in 

accordance with EPA’s performance requirements. This approach will obviate the need for EPA 

to promulgate the level of technical standards for the e-manifest as was done in the proposal. 

Rather, the CDX or equivalent system will be designed with the appropriate level of controls and 

procedures to ensure that the e-manifest is completed, transmitted, and archived in fulfillment of 

EPA’s performance objectives for system security, interoperability across systems, signature 

authentication, and other necessary controls.

Because the system and requirements will be implemented through EPA’s own receiving system 

or its equivalent, the Agency will be able to integrate improvements and updates quickly when 

necessary (e.g., in response to technology advancements), as commenters requested. The CDX 

has been designed by EPA expressly to be easy to use and place reasonable technology

requirements on users It offers user tools (e.g., prompts, error-flagging) to guide users and 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 5

technical assistance via telephone and email should users have questions or problems. In this 

regard, a CDX-hosted e-Manifest system will satisfy commenters’ requests for an easy-to-use 

solution for the e-manifest. In addition, the use of a single, national receiving system will provide 

stability and certainty for all users and enable a high level of interoperability among users’ legacy

and future system investments, as commenters have requested. 

In response to the commenters’ support of XML, EPA agrees that there are benefits to XML. The 

schemas and style sheets developed in XML will likely be the means by which EPA will 

implement the electronic exchange of e-manifest data. These XML documents will conform to 

the data elements of the hazardous waste manifest (EPA Form 8700-22) and continuation sheet 

(EPA Form 8700-22A) that EPA announced in the March 4, 2005, Form Revisions final rule. 

Please refer to Section 2.0 of this document for additional Agency responses in regard to the use 

of XML for the e-manifest.

Comment: We heard from 12 commenters requesting that EPA further coordinate with other 

RCRA paperwork requirements as needed in finalizing the e-manifest proposal, e.g., LDRs, 

Biennial Report, continuation page, exception reporting (Commenter Nos. 12, 16, 18, 21, 24, 35, 

38, 45, 46, 50, 57, and 60). One of these commenters also suggested that EPA extend the emanifest to non-RCRA requirements, such as PCB continuation sheets or NESHAP notification 

letters (Commenter No. 16).

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their request for coordinating the e-manifest with other 

paperwork requirements. The e-manifest system that will be developed initially will provide the 

core services necessary to manage the basic waste shipment tracking and waste data collection 

functions of the manifest process, including manifest creation, completion, signing, routing and 

communication services (i.e., services required to create, view, update, transmit, and close 

manifests) and the collection, distribution, and archiving of official manifest records. However, 

we are aware from discussions during both the 2004 and 2008 public meetings that state agency

and industry stakeholders regard Biennial Report integration as an important system objective. 

Therefore, once we have successfully automated the core manifest preparation and transmission 

services, we will endeavor to develop the data entry and reporting services to enable e-Manifest 

data to be refined and processed so that it may be used to develop waste receipt summary

information for the biennial report. The system would also be designed with scalability so that 

additional EPA reporting functions could possibly be added as future upgrades. At this time, 

however, we are focusing the initial phase of system development on the core, domestic manifest 

tracking requirements.

Commenters should note that the e-manifest system will be hosted on EPA’s CDX or equivalent 

system and will utilize the National Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN) 

architecture for sharing environmental information with state programs. In the coming years, 

EPA intends to increasingly automate its information collections through this architecture as an 

option to paper-based collections. As this happens, users will have a greater opportunity to 

coordinate their electronic reporting activities across EPA’s information collections, including the 

manifest.
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 6

1.2 Delayed Implementation Period for the e-Manifest Requirements

Comment: We heard from seven commenters who requested that EPA ensure a more 

coordinated phase-in period (Commenter Nos. 21, 23, 24, 27, 44, 48 and 49). These commenters 

were concerned that States be given enough time to make legislative and other changes. One 

commenter suggested that a meeting with all State manifesting managers and data system 

managers may be productive in determining the implementation timeframes (Commenter No. 48). 

Another commenter urged EPA to make guidance available, and if possible, sponsor training 

workshops for the regulated community on the e-manifest approach (Commenter No. 23).

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their suggestions and concerns. EPA has been persuaded 

by public comments on the proposed rule, as well as by suggestions from stakeholders at EPA’s

public meetings, that the e-manifest should be effective, recognized as valid, and implemented 

consistently in all states. The e-Manifest Act enacted in 2012 also requires this result. EPA 

agrees that development and use of the e-manifest would not be feasible unless it can be assured 

that the validity of electronic manifests is recognized consistently in all the states. The Agency

appreciates stakeholders’ concerns that optional state adoption could frustrate the successful 

development and implementation of e-manifest systems because investments in these systems 

could be perceived as too risky.

Therefore, EPA’s approach in this final rule requires that all state programs adopt and recognize 

the validity of electronic manifests through the provisions of 40 CFR 271.4(c), which addresses 

state program consistency and the hazardous waste manifest. This provision states that a state 

program shall be deemed inconsistent with the federal RCRA program if the state manifest 

system does not meet the requirements of Part 271. With the adoption of the electronic manifest 

in the final rule, EPA will deem it a matter of RCRA program consistency that all authorized state 

programs must allow for the use of the national e-manifest system as a valid means of preparing 

and using the hazardous waste manifest. 

In addition, the e-manifest will be effective in all states on the same delayed implementation date 

that will be identified subsequently by EPA in the e-Manifest User Fee (Fee Rule) rulemaking. 

The e-Manifest legislation enacted by the Congress provides that EPA shall implement and 

enforce the electronic manifest in all states on the program’s effective date. Federal 

implementation of e-Manifest would continue until such time as the states revise their authorized 

program with equivalent and consistent e-Manifest requirements and obtain authorization for 

these program revisions from EPA. Consistent with the statute, the e-Manifest final regulation 

states that EPA expects all states to adopt the e-Manifest requirements, and that the electronic 

manifest will be effective Federally in all States on the announced implementation date. 

For several reasons, EPA does not expect the states to have great difficulty making the transition 

to the e-manifest. EPA believes that because of the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule 

(CROMERR) (which lays out a framework for electronic reporting and receiving systems across 

EPA’s programs at the federal, state, and local levels) the states have already begun to consider 

necessary changes to their environmental programs to enable electronic reporting (e.g., statutory

and budgetary changes). In fact, EPA is aware that a number of states have implemented
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 7

electronic reporting under some of their environmental programs that meet CROMERR’s 

requirements.

In addition, EPA will establish a delayed implementation date that assures a smooth transition to 

the e-manifest by both industry and regulators. As a point of reference, we note that final rules 

under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) normally go into effect 

Federally in all states immediately after a six-month period following HSWA rule publication. 

The EPA Regions administer the HSWA rules until State RCRA programs get authorized for 

them. We believe the States have worked effectively in coordinating and transitioning their 

responsibilities under the HSWA rules, and that a similar Federal/State implementation approach 

for e-Manifest will be equally effective. 

Under the RCRA authorization regulations at 40 CFR § 271.21(e)(2), authorized states are 

typically provided 1- 2 years after promulgation of Federal regulatory changes to adopt the 

corresponding revisions to their authorized programs. Thus, these regulations govern when states 

would be expected to adopt their electronic manifest regulations under state law, so that 

authorized states may implement and enforce the electronic manifest requirements. We know that 

authorized states have resource issues and budgetary constraints that may preclude them from 

meeting the adoption milestones in our Part 271 regulations. As described above, regardless of 

states’ progress in adopting program revisions, the e-manifest will go into effect under Federal

law beginning on the implementation date to be announced by EPA in the Fee Rule. States will 

be expected to obtain authorization by that implementation date or within a reasonable period of 

time thereafter. This phased-in approach will give the states time to make necessary changes to 

their programs for the e-manifest. Because of these factors, and because states have generally

been strong proponents of e-Manifest, we expect a fairly smooth transition of e-manifest authority

from EPA to the authorized states. 

In response to the comment that EPA should provide guidance and/or training to the regulated 

community, EPA agrees that users must understand the final e-manifest approach in order to 

enable compliance. EPA expects that the final rule approach to be significantly easier to 

understand and implement than the proposed approach and that training will therefore not be 

complex. The final rule approach will be implemented through EPA’s CDX or equivalent system. 

The CDX includes easy-to-follow instructions and other user support tools (e.g., user prompts, 

technical support via telephone and email). Moreover, EPA expects to develop training modules 

for e-Manifest that should assist industry and state stakeholders to learn the system basics well 

enough to become proficient with the system.

Comment: We heard from eight commenters that EPA ensure implementation of the electronic 

manifest sooner than a two-year delayed compliance date (e.g., as soon as possible) (Commenter 

Nos. 1, 19, 22, 36, 45, 46, 49 and 60). One commenter indicated that a delayed compliance date 

is not necessary, as the software is already readily available (Commenter No. 36). The 

commenter believes that any further delay in the implementation of the new manifest system 

would be contradictory to the goals of reducing the paperwork and time burdens associated with 

the current manifest system. 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 8

Two commenters (state representatives) indicated that, since the implementation of the electronic 

manifest would be voluntary for the States, the State implementers will dictate the speed at which 

the electronic manifest is enacted and hence no compliance date is necessary (Commenter Nos. 54 

and 63).

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their suggestions about the delayed compliance date. 

The e-Manifest legislation requires EPA to announce its regulation implementing electronic 

manifesting within 1 year of enactment of the statute. The establishment of the system, however, 

is scheduled under the statute at a date 3 years from enactment of the statute, although the precise 

timing of system implementation will be highly dependent on funding for the system 

procurement. Thus, the uniform date on which access to the system will be available will not be 

announced in this final rule, but will instead be announced after the system has been developed 

and has been determined to be ready for production use. EPA currently plans to announce the 

delayed implementation date in the subsequent Fee Rule, which will be issued prior to the 

system’s implementation. However, EPA also emphasizes that e-Manifest rule adoption will be 

mandatory for all states. All authorized states must adopt fully consistent regulations that 

recognize the validity of the electronic manifests that will be obtained from and submitted to the 

national system. While states will have some latitude to adopt their state law e-Manifest 

requirements within a reasonable time after issuance of this final rule, the states will not 

determine the uniform Federal compliance date. EPA will determine the consistent 

implementation and compliance date for e-Manifest in the Fee Rule, and EPA will initially

implement e-Manifest beginning on this date and until the states are authorized.

Comment: We heard from eight commenters that EPA should establish a two-year or greater 

delayed compliance date for the electronic manifest (Commenter Nos. 17, 25, 29, 35, 51, 57, 59, 

and 61). One commenter does not believe that in-place technology at the majority of the affected 

stakeholders allows implementation of an electronic manifest system within six months of 

promulgation of the final rule (Commenter No. 25). Another commenter clarified that, so long as 

state adoption is mandatory, a two-year compliance date is appropriate for the electronic manifest 

(Commenter No. 51).

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their suggestions about the delayed compliance date. 

The e-Manifest legislation provides that EPA must publish its final regulation within one year of 

the statute’s enactment, and develop the system within 3 years of that date. (See response to 

previous comment). So, while the final rule may be “legally effective” six months after 

promulgation of the final rule under RCRA§ 3010(b), as a practical matter, compliance with the 

system’s requirements will not be possible until the system is developed and determined by EPA 

to be available for use. The 3 year deadline in the statute for establishing the system represents an 

ambitious milestone that EPA will endeavor to meet, but ultimately, the date of system 

development and implementation will depend on sufficient funding for the system procurement. 

Within the constraints of the statutory schedule and funding, EPA will make every effort to 

schedule the system’s delayed implementation date so that stakeholders wishing to use e-Manifest 

will have time to transition smoothly to e-Manifest. Clearly, there will be a delayed

compliance/implementation date, which EPA will announce in the Fee Rule, shortly before the 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 9

system is ready for use. We use the term delayed “implementation date” to distinguish the 

delayed date for compliance and implementation (to be announced in the Fee Rule) from the 

“effective date,” since RCRA § 3010(b) requires that RCRA regulations be legally effective 

within 6 months of their promulgation.

1.3 General Questions/Concerns Associated with Automated Systems

Comment: We heard from one commenter expressing concern that electronic systems may at 

times be just as unreliable as paper systems (Commenter No. 26). The commenter stated that 

hardware, software, and Internet infrastructure problems may cause problems in manifest 

transmission or outright loss of the manifest. The commenter asked that EPA clarify the 

consequences of such malfunctions for all participants in the management system.

We heard from one commenter on the susceptibility of electronic records to natural disasters 

(Commenter No. 24). The commenter recommended that EPA acknowledge and anticipate that 

there may be system failures or natural disasters that cause delays in the submission of the 

manifest forms. The commenter proposed that facilities should rely on electronic time stamps for 

the date of transmission of manifests, so that a problem with electronic sending does not become a 

compliance issue. 

We heard from two commenters on the susceptibility of electronically stored media to 

deterioration over time (Commenter Nos. 33 and 60). One commenter stated that digitally signed 

and electronically stored media are generally protected in storage from those elements that can 

corrupt the data on the media (Commenter No. 60). The commenter believes that, through the use 

of long-term storage of media in controlled environments, data will remain viable. Another 

commenter indicated that digitally signed and electronically stored media have significant 

advantages to paper media, most notably in terms of how much information can be compacted 

into a very small physical volume and how much cheaper the storage costs become (Commenter 

No. 33). The commenter added that, in terms of deterioration over time, they are in fact inferior 

to paper media, being far more susceptible to corruption/destruction by heat, electromagnetic 

fields, material degradation. The commenter suggested several ways to address these concerns 

(e.g., creation of multiple copies of whatever information is being stored, and the dispersal of 

those copies to multiple sites).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their observations about the potential risks and 

problems of an e-manifest that is implemented on the Internet. EPA agrees that different 

problems could and likely will occur in the e-manifest, such as loss/corruption of electronic data. 

EPA also agrees that problems inevitably occur in the paper-based system, such as loss or 

destruction of the paper manifest during shipment. EPA does not expect any approach to 

eliminate these problems entirely. Moreover, the paper manifest forms will remain available for 

instances in which the e-Manifest system is unavailable, and the DOT Hazmat requirement to 

carry one copy of the manifest on transport vehicles will provide a back-up means to track 

shipments even if the e-Manifest is corrupted or lost while the shipment is en route.
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 10

EPA has decided in this final rule to implement the e-Manifest through its CDX architecture or its

equivalent, as described above, which is designed to minimize problems commonly encountered 

in e-reporting. Over the years, EPA has gained considerable experience using the CDX in 

collecting, processing, and storing electronic media under other EPA collections. We believe the 

CDX is well-equipped to handle manifest transactions, and EPA will ensure that additional 

controls are added as appropriate for the e-manifest. The CDX, as currently designed, includes a 

range of controls that are intended to address the types of problems raised by commenters. For 

example, the CDX utilizes methods for error-checking that flag obvious errors in documents and 

document transactions, including duplicate documents and unauthorized submissions. In regard 

to the susceptibility of electronic media to damage and deterioration, the CDX archives to 

multiple formats: hard disk, tape, and optical media. This use of multiple formats is designed to 

ensure that degradation of one format would not jeopardize EPA's long-term storage capability for 

submitted data. The CDX archives will be written out to an online disk system when they are first 

created. They will be copied to an off-line disk system and also backed up to magnetic tape every

day, with full backups to tape on a weekly basis. 

In addition, the CDX provides other protections against data corruption and loss. For example, 

the CDX is designed to incorporate firewall security, in addition to the usual system security 

provisions to control physical access to the system and prohibit unauthorized internal access. As 

transmissions flow through the CDX firewall, they are automatically virus-scanned, and the 

system would not attempt to process a file that contains a suspected virus. The server will also be 

protected with intrusion detection software that alerts the system operators to suspected attempts 

to penetrate or hack the system. The system operators will use the logging capability of the 

firewall and the intrusion detection system to monitor the health and status of the system and 

respond to unauthorized efforts to use or modify the system. 

Comment: We heard from three commenters on procedures for returning the electronic manifest 

to the generator (Commenter Nos. 6, 16 and 54). They suggested that the timeframe for the TSD 

to return a manifest to the generator should be the same for both paper and electronic forms. One 

commenter noted that TSDs in its State normally submit paper manifests within seven days and 

that EPA should consider establishing a seven-day timeframe for the paper and electronic 

manifest instead of 30 days (Commenter No. 6). Another commenter also noted that the 

timeframe for returning a copy to the generator could be reduced (Commenter No. 16). 

Two commenters said the rule is not clear on how to address discrepancies on the electronic 

manifest, but they believe the procedures should be the same for both paper and electronic forms 

(Commenter Nos. 38 and 39). 

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on returning the electronic manifest to the 

generator. EPA agrees with comments that the timeframe for the TSD to return the manifest to 

the generator should be the same for both electronic and paper manifests. We do not believe there 

is a compelling reason to establish different timeframes for forms. Regardless of whether the 

manifest is paper or electronic, the TSD will need time to evaluate the shipment against the 

manifest and, if needed, resolve discrepancies. In addition, two timeframes would unnecessarily

clutter the regulations and complicate the procedures for TSDs. Under such a dual approach, the 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 11

TSD would need to establish two sets of procedures, one for returning paper manifests and the 

other for electronic ones. In developing the final rule, EPA sought to keep the regulations as 

simple as possible and avoid placing dual procedures on waste handlers whenever possible. 

Therefore, in the final rule, the existing 30-day timeframe at 40 CFR 264.71(a)(2) and 

265.71(a)(2) for delivering the manifest copy to the generator applies to both electronic and paper 

manifests. However, we expect that in practice, e-Manifest will automate the return of manifests 

from the TSDs to the generators, and that TSDs will normally be able to return electronic 

manifest copies to generators much quicker than the 30-day limit in the regulations. The eManifest should thus establish a higher standard of timeliness and accountability than is now 

possible with paper forms returned through the mail.

This same principle holds true for discrepancies. We agree with comments that there is no 

compelling reason to establish different procedures for handling discrepancies or exceptions. The 

final rule provides that the existing procedures for discrepancies and exceptions apply to both 

paper and electronic manifests. However, as with the 30-day deadline for returning manifests to 

generators, we expect that in practice, e-Manifest will be extremely helpful to users in flagging 

possible exceptions and discrepancies for users’ attention. So, the reporting of exceptions and 

discrepancies electronically in the e-Manifest system should be much more timely and efficient 

than is possible with the mailing of paper reports and letters.

1.4 Terms and Conditions Agreement 

Comment: We heard from one commenter in response to EPA's request for comment on whether 

a terms and conditions agreement should be required for e-manifesting (Commenter No. 19). The 

commenter supported in principle the promulgation of a rule that sets forth the key terms and 

conditions for electronic manifesting, as opposed to requiring generators to enter into private 

agreements with transporters and TSDFs. The commenter believes such a rule would ensure 

consistency among State programs, facilitate interstate commerce, and minimize the potential for 

incompatible waste handler automated systems.

Response: We thank the commenter for its views on the terms and condition agreement. We 

agree that it is not necessary for EPA to require waste handlers to enter into an agreement with 

EPA on the use of the electronic manifest. In the proposed rule, we raised the possibility that, 

under certain regulatory approaches, such an agreement could be warranted. However, we 

believe that the final rule approach obviates the need for such an agreement. First, the final rule 

sets forth regulations to which all users of the electronic manifest must satisfy in initiating, 

transmitting, and retaining the forms. In addition, users must use EPA’s Electronic Hazardous 

Waste Manifest system and transmit the manifest through the Agency’s Central Data Exchange 

(CDX) or equivalent system. The CDX involves its own set of requirements and procedures with 

which users much comply. Finally, 40 CFR Part 3 lays out procedures with which electronic 

manifest users must comply, such as identity proofing and creating valid electronic signatures. 

EPA believes this regulatory framework establishes an effective approach for holding all users of 

the electronic manifest to the specified standards; as such, EPA believes that no additional 

agreement with EPA is needed. 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 12

1.5 Alternatives to Traditional EDI

Comment: We heard from 15 commenters suggesting alternative approaches from traditional 

EDI for automating the manifest system (Commenter Nos. 12, 19, 24, 25, 31, 30, 33, 34, 40, 48, 

50, 51, 56, 60 and 61). A number of commenters suggested alternative web-based approaches, 

including a State-hosted central web site, an EPA-hosted central web site, or other approach using 

a simple web form or software program (Commenter Nos. 12, 19, 24, 30, 31, 34, and 48). One of 

these commenters suggested that the use of a centralized electronic manifest system based on the 

Internet and operated at the state level could satisfy the security and interoperability concerns that 

EPA identifies in the preamble and proposed regulations (Commenter No. 12). The commenter 

proposes that EPA adopt the Internet and XML, or plain HTML, as the means for writing and 

transmission for electronic manifests. It added that EPA should require the workflow 

(numbering, and routing) of electronic manifests, and the secure storage of manifest records, to be 

coordinated from a centralized state operated Internet accessible database. Another commenter 

recommends that EPA host a national Internet site to be used by all handlers (Commenter No. 

34). Another commenter stated that an approach using email and/or a File/Transfer Protocol 

(FTP) would be appealing to waste handlers since they are virtually free (Commenter No. 33). 

Another commenter suggested that EPA allow the use of images (e.g., images of signatures or 

other data elements) in the completion of manifests (Commenter No. 60). The commenter 

believes that the use of images (e.g., TIF compressed images) would enable automated systems to 

interface with manual systems. Another commenter said that EPA should allow any suitable 

process for data transfer, including those currently used in commerce (Commenter No. 51). 

Another commenter asked that the EPA examine the possibility of adding the electronic manifest 

to the RCRAInfo databases. The commenter believes that adding the electronic manifest to the 

RCRA Info would be more efficient than adding it to each individual state database (Commenter 

No. 40). Another commenter expressed concern, however, that an online reporting approach 

would deposit its facility data into an EPA mandated central database, which would limit its 

opportunity to store and manipulate data for reporting purposes (Commenter No. 50). One 

commenter recommended a locked Word document that cannot be changed, or an interactive PDF 

format (Commenter No. 56).

We heard from one commenter on the security of Internet EDI (Commenter No. 33). The 

commenter believes that ensuring security of Internet EDI comparable to traditional EDI would 

be fairly easy; however, ensuring comparable levels of auditability is less certain. The commenter

suspects that Internet EDI could meet the overall requirements for authentication and 

data-integrity.

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their many ideas for alternatives to traditional EDI. We 

acknowledge the many suggestions for a web-based e-manifest approach, as well as comments for 

a centralized (e.g., state or national) system. We agree with comments that a centralized, webbased system could be advantageous for users. Among other things, a web-based system will be 

cheaper and simpler to implement than other commercial options and is widely accessible, as 

many users already have Internet access and computer systems or portable devices that meet the 

minimum operating requirements needed to utilize EPA’s CDX. It is EPA’s final rule approach 

that the CDX or equivalent architecture would be established as the Agency’s central reporting 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 13

hub for receiving, processing, and routing the in-bound electronic manifests to waste management 

entities and to state governments. The CDX based system (or equivalent) will offer the necessary

applications and components to supply, complete, electronically sign, transmit, and retain 

electronic manifests. Users, however, will need to supply their own computer devices to access 

and use the national reporting system. Finally, EPA notes that the details of system design and 

the development of the precise electronic formats for the manifest are beyond the scope of this 

final rule, and will be address in the system planning and development process.

In regard to the comments in favor of XML, EPA agrees that XML offers advantages over other 

formats. Refer to Section 2.0 of this document for additional EPA responses in regard to the use 

of XML for the e-manifest.

1.6 Participation in Manifest Automation

Comment: We heard from six commenters that expressed support for the proposal to make the emanifest voluntary for waste handlers (Commenter Nos. 4, 8, 19, 22, 24, and 38). These 

commenters noted the substantial burden and time commitment needed for implementation and 

believe that smaller companies would have greater difficulty overcoming these challenges. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on voluntary participation by waste 

handlers. EPA agrees that the e-manifest should be optional for waste handlers. EPA recognizes, 

for example, that a number of waste handlers might not have the necessary equipment (e.g., a 

personal computer) to participate. In addition, other waste handlers may be content with the 

current paper-based system, or otherwise have made a significant investment in the paper-based 

system (e.g., investments in personnel training, filing systems), and opt not to participate. 

Moreover, the e-Manifest legislation enacted by the Congress provides that the use of electronic 

manifests shall be at the election of the users. EPA’s final regulation affirms this policy and holds 

that the use of electronic manifests will be voluntary for manifest users. The paper forms will 

remain available for those who wish to continue to complete and process the paper forms. 

However, in the final rule, EPA clarifies that it is our ultimate goal to promote the use of 

electronic manifests to the greatest extent possible. In this regard, the Agency may consider fee 

incentives or other means to promote this end.

Comment: We heard from 30 commenters who opposed EPA's proposal for States to voluntarily

adopt the e-manifest (Commenter Nos.1, 4, 5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 

35, 36, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, and 61). A number of commenters pointed out that 

less than full State adoption would compromise any intended burden savings to waste handlers, 

since they would have additional administrative activities, such as maintaining both an electronic 

and paper system and coping with a patchwork of State programs (Commenter Nos. 4, 5, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31, 32, 36, 45, 49, 51, 53, 57, and 60). Many of these 

commenters believe that, unless it is mandatory, waste handlers would not have an incentive to 

invest in automated technologies, since State non-participation could make electronic manifesting 

too burdensome (Commenter Nos. 4, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 32, 51, and 60). Another 

commenter believes that universal State adoption is in keeping with the Government Paperwork 

Elimination Act (Commenter No. 57). Four commenters pointed out that non-participation by 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 14

States could interfere with interstate commerce (Commenter Nos. 4, 16, 22, and 36). One of these 

commenters stated that RCRA section 3006 precludes the Administrator from giving 

authorization to a state program if such program is not consistent with the Federal or State 

programs applicable in other States (Commenter No. 4). The commenter also pointed to 40 CFR 

271.4, which provides that any aspect of the State program which unreasonably restricts or 

impedes the free movement across the State border of hazardous waste from or to other States for 

treatment, storage or disposal shall be deemed inconsistent. Another commenter suggested that 

EPA consider a provision in the State reauthorization program for the evaluation of a State's 

progress in implementing electronic manifests (Commenter No. 58).

Response: EPA appreciates the many commenters who are in favor of mandatory State adoption 

of the e-manifest. EPA is persuaded by these views, as well as by suggestions from stakeholders 

at EPA’s public meetings, that the e-manifest should be effective, recognized as valid, and 

implemented consistently in all states. EPA agrees, for example, that development and use of the 

e-manifest is not feasible unless it can be assured that the validity of electronic manifests is 

recognized in all the states. An IT vendor would not likely assume the risk of system 

development unless it believed that the electronic manifest would be recognized as valid in all 

jurisdictions. Also, a patchwork of state programs differing on whether electronic manifests were 

available or recognized would unduly complicate interstate transportation and be too burdensome 

for waste handlers were they forced to comply with both paper and electronic requirements when 

they crossed state lines. 

EPA’s final rule requires that all state programs adopt and recognize the validity of electronic 

manifests through the provisions of 40 CFR 271.4(c) that address state program consistency with 

the hazardous waste manifest. This provision states that a state program shall be deemed 

inconsistent with the federal RCRA program if the state manifest system does not meet the 

requirements of Part 271. Moreover, the federal electronic manifest requirements supersede any

less stringent or inconsistent requirements that may exist under state law. In the final rule, EPA

deems it a matter of RCRA program consistency that all authorized state programs must allow for 

the use of the national e-manifest system as a valid means of preparing and using the hazardous 

waste manifest. In addition, the e-Manifest legislation and this final rulemaking provide that EPA 

will implement the e-Manifest in all states on the same implementation date. EPA 

implementation and enforcement will continue until such time as each state revises its regulatory

program and obtains authorization for the e-Manifest program revisions from EPA.

Comment: We heard from eight commenters expressing that the e-manifest should be voluntary

for the States (Commenter Nos. 27, 33, 35, 40, 44, 54, 59, and 63). Two commenters believe that 

EPA should hold off on mandating it as the Agency resolves unanswered questions and allows 

industry and the States to progress on their own (Commenter Nos. 27 and 59). Another 

commenter suggested that EPA consider providing funding to States if the e-manifest is 

mandated, or as another alternative, to add the electronic manifest to the RCRAInfo database 

(Commenter No. 40). Another commenter stated that States should not be required to automate 

because some States have their own laws regarding automation (Commenter No. 35).
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 15

We heard from nine commenters specifically addressing the implications to State programs under 

the e-manifest (Commenter Nos. 24, 25, 30, 33, 34, 44, 48, 54, and 59). Four of the commenters 

indicated that the e-manifest would place a considerable burden on State programs for such 

activities as training, modifying existing hardware or software, or making new purchases 

(Commenter Nos. 30, 33, 48, 54). One of these commenters suggested that EPA include language 

in the rule allowing States to have control over this burden (Commenter No. 48). Another of 

these commenters asked EPA to clarify the regulatory implications of the e-manifest, given that 

some States might not adopt it (e.g., what are the regulatory implications if an electronic manifest 

is transported through a State that has not adopted the e-manifest?) (Commenter No. 54). The 

commenter stated that States do not have the personnel or resources to implement and monitor an 

electronic manifest system. Another commenter noted that the rule would limit States’ ability to 

collect additional information on the manifest; this limitation could prevent States from adopting 

the e-manifest (Commenter No. 34). Another commenter indicated its support for EPA allocating 

funds to the States to assist them in developing their electronic manifesting systems in a timely

fashion (Commenter No. 25).

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their suggestion that state adoption of the e-manifest

requirements should be optional. For several reasons, however, EPA does not agree with this 

view. As discussed in the response above, EPA believes that uniform state adoption of the 

electronic manifest requirements is essential for the e-manifest to be successful. Prospective 

users of the e-manifest will consider it too risky to undertake unless electronic manifests can be 

implemented and recognized as valid in all the states. A patchwork of different state programs 

would complicate interstate transportation and be too burdensome for waste handlers. As 

discussed above, EPA, in this final rule, deems it a matter of RCRA program consistency that all 

authorized state programs must allow for the use of the national e-manifest system as a valid 

means of preparing and using the hazardous waste manifest. The 2012 e-Manifest Act in fact 

mandates this result.

EPA disagrees that mandatory state adoption of the e-manifest will place undue burden on the 

states or industry. As an initial point, EPA’s national system approach will be much simpler for 

the states to implement and enforce than the proposed approach. The final rule approach will be 

implemented through EPA’s own electronic receiving system, the CDX (or equivalent) and user 

requirements. In this regard, the final rule approach shifts a substantial burden for developing and 

implementing the e-manifest from states and industry to EPA, in comparison with the proposed 

rule. For example, EPA will be responsible for ensuring that the CDX (or equivalent) is designed 

to provide the necessary tools, controls, and procedures for users to complete, sign, transmit, and 

keep records of the e-manifest in a secure environment. EPA also will be responsible for 

overseeing CDX operation and maintenance, and finalizing this rule and future regulations to 

enable e-Manifesting, announcing user fee schedules, and providing clarification to the states on 

consistent program adoption. Consistent with the e-Manifest legislation enacted by Congress, 

EPA will implement and enforce e-Manifest initially, and states will be allowed a reasonable time 

within which they will be expected to adopt their consistent and equivalent e-Manifest 

requirements and obtain authorization. Thus, states will have some latitude to determine when 

they will assume implementation and enforcement responsibilities for electronic manifests, and 

EPA will implement the program in the interim. EPA encourages prompt adoption of electronic 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 16

manifest regulations by the states, so that they might assume primary implementation and 

enforcement responsibilities by the system implementation date. If this is not possible, however, 

the states will have additional time to examine and revise their existing programs to accommodate 

the final e-manifest regulations, and EPA implementation will continue in the interim.

Beyond this, EPA notes the final CROMERR, published in October of 2005, set forth a 

framework for electronic reporting that EPA, states, and local governments must follow under 

EPA's programs. The rule resolves a number of technical and policy questions related to 

e-reporting. It also establishes the procedures and criteria for states to receive EPA authorization 

for their e-reporting initiatives. As such, EPA expects that states have already begun to consider 

changes to their programs to enable electronic reporting in response to CROMERR and that they

are therefore well-positioned to adopt the e-manifest. 

We also note that final rules under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) 

normally go into effect in all states immediately after a six-month period following rule 

publication. The EPA Regions administer HSWA rules until State RCRA programs get

authorized for them. We believe the States have worked effectively in coordinating and assuming 

their responsibilities under these HSWA rules. We are therefore confident that under the similar 

Federal/State implementation scheme included in the statute for e-Manifest, the states will be 

similarly effective in transitioning to the final rule’s e-manifest requirements.

Comment: We heard from two commenters supporting EPA’s position that the States should not 

be allowed to modify the electronic manifest form or procedures (Commenter Nos. 49 and 61). 

One of the commenters recommended that proposed 40 CFR 271.10(f) be strengthened as 

follows: “...No other electronic manifest format or information, other than that required by 

federal law, may be required by the State as a means to identify electronically the generator, 

transporter, destination facility, quantity, composition, discrepancies, origin, routing, destination 

of, or other information about a hazardous waste shipment during its transportation from the point 

of generation to the point of storage, treatment, or disposal” (Commenter No. 49). The other 

commenter agreed that State variations in the electronic manifest form or procedures could hinder 

interstate commerce (Commenter No. 61).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views. EPA agrees that participants in the emanifest should not be burdened by additional or inconsistent State requirements for completion, 

transmission and recordkeeping of the electronic manifest. To address this, the final rule, at 

section 271.10(f)(1), states that with respect to manifests, “no other manifest form, electronic 

manifest format, shipping paper, or information other than that required by federal requirements, 

may be required by the state to travel with the shipment, or to be transmitted electronically, as a 

means to track the transportation and delivery of hazardous waste shipments.” This consistency

requirement extends as well to the electronic signatures that may be executed in connection with 

electronic manifests. 

Section 271.3(b)(4) of the final rule further states that any requirement applicable to the content 

and use of electronic manifests, including electronic signature requirements, and imposed under 

the authority of the 2012 e-Manifest Act, “shall supersede any less stringent or inconsistent 

provision of a state program.” EPA believes that these final rule requirements should be effective 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 17

in preventing the states from placing additional requirements on e-manifest participants beyond 

what is required by the federal program. In addition to this, as described earlier in this document, 

EPA will be responsible for designing, developing, and operating the national e-manifest system. 

As such, EPA will have sole control over the content and appearance of the e-manifest that will 

be available on the national system, the information collected on it, and the procedures for its use. 

We also note that EPA and our state partners have already had more than 5 years of experience 

with implementing the standardized hazardous waste manifest format that was announced in the 

March 2005 Manifest Revisions Rule. Implementation of the new manifest form has proceeded 

smoothly for several years, and the States have accepted the uniformity of the manifest data 

elements. We do not anticipate a different experience with a standardized electronic manifest 

format.

Comment: We heard from five commenters asking for clarification on, or changes to, the 

proposed procedures for transporters that do not automate (Commenter Nos. 4, 12, 17, 54, and 

59). One of the commenters asked for additional guidance on how waste handlers could continue 

to use electronic manifesting in cases where the transporter does not participate (e.g., how should 

the electronic manifest record that the transporter's signature is provided on the hard copy 

manifest?) (Commenter No. 17). The commenter also asks for clarification whether waste 

handlers must retain the hard copy signature for compliance purposes. Two commenters noted 

that the following sentence should be corrected: “In such a case, the transporter could provide the 

generator with a hand-signed copy of manifest” (Commenter Nos. 54 and 59). They indicated 

that it should read as follows: “In such a case, the generator could provide the transporter with a 

hand-signed copy of the manifest.” Another commenter believes that proposed 40 CFR 

264.71(a)(4)(i) should be revised by adding the clause “which bears the manifest tracking 

number” after the words “or other shipping paper under 49 CFR part 172, subpart C” (Commenter 

No. 4). Another commenter noted that proposed 40 CFR 264.71(a)(4) and 265.71(a)(3)(v) seem 

to indicate that only the electronic copy of the manifest is required to be retained by the TSDF for 

three years, even though the signature of the transporter was manual and would not be recorded 

electronically (Commenter No. 12). The commenter asked for clarification on whether the TSDF 

has a requirement to retain a paper copy of the transporter's signature when the transporter has not 

electronically signed the manifest.

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their suggestions on the procedures for transporters that 

do not automate. We also appreciate commenters’ suggestions for improving the preamble text. 

After consideration of all the comments, and considering the complexity entailed by the proposed 

approach, EPA has made certain revisions for the final rule. For the final rule, all waste handlers 

shown on the manifest must be able to participate electronically, if they wish to complete and use 

the electronic manifest to track their waste shipment. Thus, the involvement of a nonparticipating transporter in a waste shipment would present a bar to using the electronic manifest. 

If any party to the manifest is not able or willing to prepare and transmit manifest information 

electronically, then the manifests for their hazardous waste transactions must be executed with the 

standard paper forms. However, generators may participate in e-Manifest using the portable 

computer or device provided by the transporter servicing a generator’s waste. Indeed, we expect 

that many electronic manifest transactions will be executed in this manner.
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 18

The proposed rule would have required copies of printed manifests to have been provided for 

non-participating transporters, and would have required attestations of receipt and other 

handwritten notations to have been entered to describe the circumstances of the other parties’ 

electronic signatures. Each non-participating transporter would have been required to retain a 

marked up hard copy in its files, and an additional hard copy with all the attestation and signature 

information would have been provided to the designated facility for forwarding to the e-Manifest 

system operator. EPA concluded that the burden of complying with these additional paperwork 

requirements would override any benefits from recording a part of the transaction electronically. 

Therefore, we are omitting the proposed special e-Manifest tracking requirements for nonparticipating transporters. While this result may preclude some transactions from being executed 

electronically, we believe that the burden and complexity associated with the procedures 

discussed in the proposed rule for involving non-participating transporters in e-Manifest were too 

great to retain in the final rule.

Comment: We heard from 13 commenters regarding the requirement for automated transporters 

to carry a paper shipping paper in transport (Commenter Nos. 15, 17, 21, 22, 26, 33, 34, 35, 37, 

48, 49, 52, and 54). One of the commenters expressed concern that the paper copy of the 

manifest might be confused with the electronic copy for purposes of RCRA recordkeeping 

purposes (Commenter No. 17). The commenter asked EPA to provide additional guidance on 

how a waste handler can use both a paper and electronic copy for various DOT and RCRA 

compliance purposes. Another commenter asked for EPA to state more clearly that a shipping 

paper would be required in lieu of a paper manifest when electronic manifests are being used 

(Commenter No. 33). Four commenters asked EPA and/or DOT to eliminate the option to satisfy

the DOT shipping paper requirement with any shipping document besides a hardcopy manifest 

(Commenter Nos. 15, 35, 49, and 54). Two of them point out that the manifest contains 

additional information designed to protect the environment (Commenter Nos. 35 and 54). One 

commenter indicated that its State program was designing an e-manifest system that would 

require submittal of a paper copy of the manifest to the State because it would include 

handwritten notes and signatures that were applied to the paper copy during transport 

(Commenter No. 48). The commenter expressed concern that EPA's approach would not provide 

for collection of this paper copy and, hence, States would not receive the actual signatures or 

additional notes that might not have been included in the electronic copy. Three other 

commenters expressed concern that the preparation of an electronic manifest and hardcopy 

shipping paper would jeopardize the goals of the proposal (e.g., burden reduction, streamlining 

the manifesting process) (Commenter Nos. 26, 34 and 37). A number of commenters urged EPA 

to continue coordinating the e-manifest approach with DOT on relevant issues (Commenter Nos. 

15, 17, 21, 22, 49 and 52).

Response: EPA thanks commenters on the requirement for transporters to carry a paper manifest. 

While it is the intent of EPA’s final e-Manifest rule to eliminate as far as possible the reliance on 

the preparation and retention of paper records in connection with tracking hazardous waste 

shipments, it is not possible at this time to eliminate all paper documents that are required in the 

course of transporting hazardous wastes. As we explained in the May 22, 2001 proposed rule (see 

66 FR 28268), it will still be necessary to carry a printed copy of the manifest on the transport 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 19

vehicle during the transportation of hazardous wastes that are subject to the hazardous materials 

regulations, since DOT requires that a hard copy of a shipping paper be carried on transport 

vehicles for shipments of hazardous materials, unless otherwise excepted. For shipments that 

involve state-regulated wastes subject to a manifest requirement rather than RCRA-regulated 

hazardous wastes, EPA is clarifying further that consistency in the use of the manifest under 

RCRA also requires that a print-out of the manifest must be carried on the transport vehicle 

during the transportation of these state-regulated waste shipments. The adoption of the electronic 

manifest option in the final rule does not alter or eliminate the existing DOT hazardous materials 

requirements and RCRA consistency provisions respecting shipping papers and the manifest. 

EPA has consulted extensively with DOT on this requirement, and we are aware that the 

Department is planning during 2013 a pilot program (HM Access) to explore the use of electronic 

shipping papers for hazard communications among its stakeholders. It is thus possible that DOT 

will revise the Hazmat regulations (HMR) in the not too distant future to support an entirely 

paperless shipping document. Therefore, to accommodate better these possible changes to the 

HMR, the final rule addresses this issue by clarifying that the paper copy of the electronic 

manifest must be carried on the transport vehicle: “to the extent the Hazardous Materials 

regulation on shipping papers requires shippers of hazardous materials to supply a paper 

document for compliance with 49 CFR § 177.817.” See 40 CFR § 262.24(d) and § 

263.20(a)(4)(iii). At such time as DOT permits an electronic shipping paper to meet its HMR 

requirement, our regulations will likewise authorize a fully paperless manifest without further 

amendment.

While the requirement to continue to supply a printed copy of the manifest for the transport 

vehicles may appear to frustrate somewhat the attainment of a totally paperless manifest system, 

we have strived in the rule to minimize as far as possible the requirements to carry and maintain

paper documents. Despite the continuing need to supply this printed copy of the manifest, we 

believe that there will still be substantial reductions in paperwork burdens and forms/data 

processing costs for manifest users and regulatory agencies as a result of this final action. 

Moreover, the supplying of one paper copy on the transport vehicle provides a convenient backup copy of the manifest data in the event the e-Manifest system becomes unavailable during 

transport or the electronic format becomes lost or corrupted. Finally, the implementation of the 

electronic signature approach for the initial e-Manifest system may be aided by the provision of 

one paper copy that could be simultaneously signed in ink while digitized handwritten (electronic) 

signatures are also collected. That issue is discussed below in another comment response.

Comment: We heard from two commenters expressing concern about the signature provisions 

for transporters that do not automate (Commenter Nos. 34 and 35). One commenter expressed 

concern that the transporter's signature would not be on the electronic manifest (Commenter No. 

35). The commenter said states require the transporter's signature to be on each manifest copy it 

receives. Another commenter expressed concern that a one-time manual signature could be used 

to represent several waste shipments (Commenter No. 34).

Response: EPA thanks commenters for expressing their concerns about the signature provisions 

for non-participating transporters. However, in the final rule, EPA requires all waste handlers 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 20

named on the manifest to be willing and able to execute the manifest electronically. Therefore, the 

concerns raised in these comments about non-participating transporters and their signatures not 

being recorded electronically are now moot. 

In regard to a transporter’s signature, EPA shares the commenter’s concern that a digitized 

handwritten signature could be copied onto multiple manifests. For this reason, the final rule 

requires the digitized signature to be implemented to capture only dynamic signatures and to 

prevent the replay of signature copies. Based on the methods used by document examiners to 

analyze such electronic signatures, a replay or exact copy of a previous signature would be easily 

detected on examination and thus identified as a forgery. Refer to 40 CFR 262.25(b)(1)(ii) of the 

final rule.

Comment: We heard from four commenters expressing concern about the proposed procedures 

for generators that do not automate (Commenter Nos. 34, 35, 54, and 59). Three commenters 

were concerned that the rule does not specify the transporter's timeframe for providing a generator 

with a signed paper copy in instances when the generator signs an electronic manifest using a 

portable device provided by the transporter (Commenter Nos. 35, 54, and 59). These commenters 

believe the transporter should provide a copy to the generator at the time of shipment/signature. It 

should not be allowed to transmit a signed copy after it has left the generator's site. One of the 

commenters also suggested that EPA should clarify that the TSDF must provide the generator 

with a signed paper copy of the manifest if the generator is not equipped to receive an electronic 

acknowledgment of receipt, comparable to the procedures for paper copies (Commenter No. 59). 

Another commenter expressed concern that the rule allows for too many electronic transaction 

scenarios, which could cause compliance difficulties (Commenter No. 34). In particular, the 

commenter disagrees that small waste handlers should have access to the e-manifest if they

cannot afford it. Rather, the commenter believes the proposal should be specifically designed for 

handlers involved with large numbers of shipments. The commenter also noted that the rule 

would allow an automated generator to hold a non-automated transporter's signature on file, 

whereas an automated transporter would be required to acquire a signature from a non-automated 

generator; the commenter asked for clarification on why these procedures are different. Another 

commenter asked EPA to clearly describe what would be required of generators, transporters, 

TSDFs, and States when one or more of them cannot automate (Commenter No. 54).

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their views on the need for generators to have immediate 

access to their electronic manifests. EPA agrees with their concerns. As described in greater 

detail elsewhere in this document, EPA plans to host the e-Manifest system on the Agency’s 

Central Data Exchange/Exchange Network architecture (or equivalent) which EPA established to 

support the electronic reporting of the various environmental reports and documents that are 

required for compliance with EPA’s environmental programs codified in Volume 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations. The CDX is an electronic gateway to which all electronic users of the 

manifest will have access. In regard to comments that the automated generators should have 

access to manifests that they sign in a transporter’s portable device, EPA is clarifying that all 

electronic manifests will reside in the CDX and be available to all waste handlers involved in its 

shipment in real time or near real time. There may be a brief period of time during which the 

manifest transaction data may be stored on the handheld device used to collect manifest data and 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 21

signatures in the field, and then uploaded later to the network and e-Manifest system. Each 

generator and other waste handler would have an account on the e-Manifest system, and the 

system would provide the generator’s electronic copy to the generator’s account at the time of 

delivery to the transporter, or very soon thereafter. Thus, we do not agree with the comment 

indicating that a generator must be provided with a paper copy at the time the hazardous waste is 

delivered to the transporter. Of course, if a generator indicates a preference for a paper copy, and 

the transporter is willing to provide such a copy as an accommodation for the generator, then the 

provision of the paper copy is permissible, but not required. 

EPA also is clarifying that a generator would not have a transporter’s signature “on file.” All 

automated users, including transporters, would have two options for signing an electronic 

manifest: a digitized handwritten signature or a witnessed PIN/password. The transporter would 

be required to witness the generator signature and obtain proof of identity from the generator in 

order to use a PIN or password signature, or, waste handlers could sign with a high quality

digitized signature product as discussed in the preamble of the final rule. EPA is confident that its 

regulations impose effective control over the authenticity of transporters’ signatures. 

EPA shares the commenter’s concern about multiple user scenarios under the e-Manifest. We 

agree that too many user scenarios could make the system unnecessarily complicated. At the 

same time, EPA heard from many stakeholders that the system should be flexible enough to 

accommodate the typical arrangements that exist among generators, transporters, and designated 

facilities in the manifesting cycle, which can vary. We believe we have struck an appropriate 

balance in the final rule. The rule clarifies that the manifest can be executed electronically only if 

all waste handlers can participate in the e-Manifest in accordance with the provisions of the final 

rule. However, we also address the common scenario under which a generator would not have its 

own computer equipment available, but would participate in e-Manifest by using portable devices 

supplied by the transporter or designated facility. These are the basic user scenarios contemplated 

by the final rule. 

In regard to the commenter’s concern that small businesses would be required to automate, the 

final rule provides that use of the e-Manifest is voluntary. In addition, the rule allows generators 

to execute their electronic manifests using the initial transporter’s portable devices. Small 

transporters may continue to use the paper manifest for their hazardous waste shipments, should 

these transporters conclude that the use of electronic manifests is not cost-effective for them. In 

this respect, EPA believes that sufficient flexibility exists to enable small generators and 

transporters to automate if they so desire or to keep manifesting their shipments with the 

traditional paper forms method.

Comment: We heard from four commenters on alternate methods of electronic storage than those 

proposed in the rule (Commenter Nos. 16, 26, 51, 57, and 59). One of the commenters noted that 

companies would prefer to have the authority to use imaging technology to store copies of 

manifests so they can reduce their warehousing costs (Commenter No. 59). Another commenter 

suggested a national repository (server) for electronic storage (Commenter No. 51). The 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 22

commenter suggested that waste handlers could place their electronic manifests onto the 

centralized repository for access by stakeholders. Another commenter asked EPA to enable the 

use of Access as a back-end database that will be supported by the Internet Forms and Action 

Works Metro (Commenter No. 26).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their suggestions on manifest storage. EPA believes 

it is important for all electronic manifests to be completed, transmitted, and retained within the 

national e-Manifest system. Therefore, the final rule provides that any requirement in the 

regulations for a generator to keep or retain a copy of each manifest is satisfied when the 

generator retains a copy of an electronic manifest in its e-Manifest account for the same retention 

period as required for paper manifest records, provided that specified provisions are met. Among 

other things, the rule provides that electronic manifest copies are retained by a generator when the 

generator can store, access, and retrieve all of the generator’s electronic manifest records from an 

account or record collection established for the generator on the EPA Electronic Hazardous Waste 

Manifest System. In addition, all paper and electronic manifests will be collected, held in a central 

repository and made available to stakeholders (e.g., regulators), as specified. EPA notes that the 

use of particular imaging technologies or database applications is beyond the scope of this final 

rule, and will be addressed in the system planning and procurement.

2.0 Standard Electronic Formats

2.1 Proposed EDI Format

Comment: We heard from four commenters who supported the use of Transaction Sets 856 and 

861 (Commenter Nos. 17, 19, 33, and 51). One of these commenters, however, encouraged EPA 

to explore more ways to collect the information on one transaction set (Commenter No. 19). 

Another commenter suggested that the sets should be tagged with unique labels so the data can be 

matched (Commenter No. 51). The commenter asked EPA to define the data tags as well as the 

electronic data transfer standards; this will allow for the development of software that will be 

compatible and have longterm viability. The commenter also suggested that EPA allow vendors 

to bundle their other service features such as profiling. Another commenter noted that having two 

transaction sets should not be complicated for waste handlers (Commenter No. 33). 

We heard from one commenter who asked for EPA to allow the use of EDI protocols currently

used by the rail industry to transport hazardous materials (Commenter No. 46). The commenter 

pointed out that the rail industry uses transaction sets in compliance with the American Institute 

(ANSI), Accredited Standards Committee (ASC) X12, and Transportation Data Coordinating 

Committee. These transactions sets consist of 404 (TDCC Bill of Ladings), 858 (ANSI Bill of 

Lading), 417 (TDCC Car Movement Waybill), 418 (TDCC Interchange Consist), 997 (TDCC 

Acknowledgments), 824 (ANSI Acknowledgments), and 998 (TDCC Cancellation). The 

commenter suggested that requiring the railroads to use new protocols could discourage them 

from transporting hazardous waste.

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their support and suggestions for the EDI approach for 

the manifest. For several reasons, however, EPA will likely offer XML, rather than EDI, as the
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 23

means for transmitting information over the national system. Over the past several years, CDX 

development has reflected a significant evolution in formatting standards to accommodate the 

Internet - away from EDI and toward the use of XML. XML consists of a set of predefined tags 

and message structures that, like EDI, allows machine-to-machine exchange of data in a mutually 

agreed upon format, enabling exchange of data across different systems. However, unlike EDI, 

XML is tailored to Internet-based communications and security protocols. Additionally, an XML 

formatted file in combination with a style sheet can be displayed in a web browser. Such features 

would allow the CDX to use the same standard formats both for exchanging data files and for 

designing web forms that would maintain the appearance of manifest forms. The structure of 

XML also addresses some of the challenges in archiving data received, because the XML tags 

that accompany the data in an XML file can be used to interpret the datas’ context without the aid 

of additional software. This could facilitate the recovery of data from archived files, and reduces 

the need to maintain the versions of the software originally used to generate the files. 

At the time of the issuance of this final rule in late 2013, XML remains the preferred language for 

data exchange via the Internet, and thus is likely to be the data exchange language EPA will 

employ in the first generation e-Manifest system. As data exchange languages and methods 

evolve, however, it is possible that e-Manifest might migrate to another data exchange language 

or method. This is a system development and implementation issue rather than an issue to be 

addressed by regulation.

EPA will, however, endeavor to support exchanges of data between e-Manifest and the rail 

system’s electronic waybill system, which relies on the EDI transaction sets described above for 

data exchanges within the rail system. 

Comment: We heard from one commenter who asked if the EDI database would be available to 

EPA on demand for inspection (Commenter No. 13). The commenter stated that, if so, it would 

need a proprietary system for outside the firewall.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its question. As discussed above, EPA’s currently

preferred system development approach does not involve EDI. Rather, it would involve the use 

of XML via EPA’s central receiving system, i.e., the CDX. In this regard, industry participants 

will not need to establish proprietary systems to maintain their e-manifests, since EPA and state 

inspectors will have direct access to them via the CDX. The final rule only provides that the 

electronic format supported by the national system is the standard electronic format required for 

electronic manifesting, and we do not specify by regulation a particular data exchange language 

or format.

Comment: We heard from one commenter in response to EPA’s request for comment on how 

signatures would be applied to manifest data inputted from a browser to a web site that translates 

the data into an EDI compliant format (Commenter No. 33). The commenter stated that the 

signature would be digitally applied, no matter what form the original “signature” took. The exact 

nature of how the user would sign the document, whether it is by digital signature or secure 

digitized signature, would depend on the system involved. The commenter believes that 

encryption would provide a reasonable level of security and authentication.
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 24

In response to EPA’s request for comment on whether it is the HTML document or the X12 

document that would be signed, the commenter stated that, on a technical level, it is the HTML

document that should be signed, since the signer never actually “sees” the X12 document. The 

commenter added, however, that the signature would have to accompany the X12 document in 

some fashion.

In response to EPA’s request for comment on whether the translation at the server would 

complicate the verifiability of any digital signatures, the commenter stated that this would be 

unlikely, given the current state of the technology and assuming that reasonable thought went into 

the type of digital signatures being used. The commenter stated that encryption algorithms exist 

which allow for a great degree of error correction. The commenter does not believe that it would 

be that complicated to routinely check transmissions received for translation errors.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its question. As discussed above and elsewhere in this 

document, EPA’s preferred system approach does not involve EDI. It would involve the use of 

XML through EPA’s electronic receiving system, i.e., the CDX or equivalent system. Likewise, 

our final rule will not initially require digital signatures as the method for signing electronic 

manifests, so the comment addressed to verifying digital signatures is moot. These comments 

raise technical issues that are beyond the scope of this final regulation.

2.2 Proposed Internet Forms Format

Comment: We heard from 10 commenters expressing support for the proposed use of XML in 

automating the manifest cycle (Commenter Nos. 12, 17, 19, 25, 30, 31, 33, 35, 48, and 51). A 

number of these commenters noted that XML is more cost-effective than EDI, which could 

encourage its use (Commenter Nos. 31, 33, 35, 48, and 51). One of the commenters pointed out 

that a web-based approach also will allow easy additions of features and upgrades (Commenter

No. 31). The commenter asked EPA to clarify how EPA proposes to store web-based forms.

We heard from one commenter who said that the rail industry currently uses EDI and that, due to 

security reasons, the railroads would be less likely to interchange records with customers over the 

Internet (Commenter No. 46). The commenter recommended limiting the proposal to EDI.

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their support of the web forms approach for the manifest. 

EPA agrees that there are a number of benefits to an approach relying on XML and web based 

data exchanges. As discussed above and elsewhere in this document, the CDX or equivalent 

national system will likely employ schemas and style sheets developed in XML for the electronic 

exchange of e-manifest data. EPA will also endeavor to develop an interface that will enable eManifest data to be exchanged with the rail system’s electronic waybill system. However, the 

specification of a particular data exchange language or particular schema/electronic format for the 

manifest is a system development issue that is beyond the scope of this final regulation.

Comment: We heard from four commenters suggesting clarifications or modifications to the 

proposed Document Type Definition (DTD) (Commenter Nos. 12, 30, 32, and 33). One 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 25

commenter suggested that the final rule should include a more up-to-date XML Schema, rather 

than the XML DTD as proposed, due to its richer format (Commenter No. 32). The commenter 

also suggested that EPA consider use of a name space to distinguish the DTD from other DTDs 

that may be developed in the future, as well as the addition of other data elements. Another 

commenter asked whether EPA would draft a DTD to be the equivalent of the ASC X12 861 data 

set (Commenter No. 30). Another commenter suggested that co-development of the XML 

schema between EPA and stakeholders will ensure the manifest is compliant with other XML

systems in development (e.g., systems being developed by the United Nations, the Department of 

Defense, and other government organizations) (Commenter No. 12). The commenter believes 

that use of a common XML framework will allow vendor neutral access to the information. 

Another commenter suggested that, if feasible, EPA should develop a Document Type Definition 

to set the standard for any XML usage with respect to the manifest (Commenter No. 33).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their many suggestions on the XML schema and 

stylesheets. As explained in previous comment responses, EPA currently prefers an XML 

schema and stylesheet as the electronic format for the electronic manifest, and will likely develop 

the first generation system with support for such a schema and stylesheet. 

Because there will be only one national e-Manifest system established under the final rule, it is 

not necessary to promulgate the electronic manifest XML schema and stylesheet as a part of this 

rule notice. Rather, the development of the schema and stylesheet will be included in the system 

design requirements for the IT contractor(s) selected to build and operate the e-Manifest system. 

This final rule does not stipulate the use of a specific schema or data exchange language for eManifest, but only states that the electronic format supplied by the national e-Manifest system 

will be the exclusive electronic format recognized by EPA for exchanging manifest data. Thus, 

the rule remains technology neutral with respect to the precise schema, data exchange language, 

or electronic format that will be used in the national system design.

Comment: We heard from one commenter who asked EPA to enable the use of Access as a 

back-end database that will be supported by the Internet Forms and Action Works Metro 

(Commenter No. 26). 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its suggestion. Obviously, it has been many years 

since EPA conducted the pilots that involved Internet Forms and Action Works software. Many

such applications are available as we consider the development of the national system in the 

coming years. As described above, EPA will task a vendor to develop the e-Manifest system in 

accordance with EPA’s technical requirements and stakeholder input. EPA conducted several 

requirements meetings with stakeholders in February – March 2013, and we will continue this 

outreach as we continue with the system planning and development efforts. These design issues 

are beyond the scope of this final regulation.

3.0 Electronic Record System Controls and Procedures

3.1 Validation of System Performance and Training
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 26

Comment: We heard from three commenters who expressed support for the proposal to require 

an independent audit of the electronic manifest system (Commenter Nos. 19, 30, and 33). One of 

the commenters supported an independent audit if the waste handler does not use off-the-shelf 

software, and suggested that EPA provide a list of approved, commercially available off-the-shelf 

packages that, if properly installed and used, would meet all of the validation requirements 

(Commenter No. 19). Another commenter supported the written assessment, but asked if there is 

guidance or checklist for the certification (Commenter No. 30). Another commenter believes the 

proposed approach is reasonable, provided it can be implemented in a reasonably efficient and 

cost-effective manner that does not impose any undue hardship on smaller handlers (Commenter 

No. 33). The commenter believes the off-the-shelf alternative approach could meet with some 

resistance from larger companies, which would not want to buy off-the-shelf software. They also 

might not want to use third-party vendors because they have in-house resources and expertise. 

The commenter believes that, in the case of off-the-shelf software and systems developed 

independently of waste handlers, third-party validation would probably still be necessary, if only 

to insure that the independent developers were doing their job correctly and that the waste handler 

was using the products correctly.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their many views on validation of system 

performance and training. In the May 22, 2001 proposed rule, EPA proposed specific types of 

computer system security controls. These security controls were proposed at section 262.26(c) of 

the proposed rule and were meant to ensure the authenticity and integrity of electronic manifest 

data, to avoid repudiation of manifests created on electronic systems, and to ensure the consistent 

and reliable processing of manifests by the various electronic systems that may have arisen under 

the proposed rule. The proposed rule assumed that private entities would develop various 

electronic manifest systems adhering to EPA’s standards, so it was necessary to require inspector 

access to both the manifest copies and the electronic manifest systems so that EPA could inspect 

the manifests and the private systems for compliance.

EPA acknowledges that these system security controls were quite detailed, and that if 

implemented, they would have had considerable impact on any private entities that might have 

developed electronic manifest systems under the proposed rule approach. EPA believed it was 

necessary to specify these controls, and to validate and certify through written assessments that 

they had been implemented successfully, to provide some floor level of consistency and security

in the design and operation of the “decentralized” electronic manifest systems anticipated by the 

proposed rule. At the time the proposed rule was developed, there was much concern that the 

decentralized approach might foster the development of numerous proprietary systems that would 

be incapable of communicating with each other, and that this approach might result in 

inconsistent and insecure systems with questionable ability to produce reliable and enforceable 

data. So, the proposed security and processing controls were intended to ameliorate this concern 

by addressing what we felt were a necessary floor set of controls to define a minimally acceptable 

level of consistency, data integrity, and system security for the various private systems that might 

have developed under the proposed rule.

Based on stakeholder input and further consideration, EPA has determined not to codify the 

proposed system security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 27

notice of data availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to 

signal to the public on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option had changed to the 

establishment of a national e-Manifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees 

that would be paid by the waste handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. After 

consideration of public comments and the requirements of the 2012 e-Manifest Act, EPA’s final 

rule decision is to establish such a national or centralized system.

Since EPA has decided to adopt a centralized system approach for the e-Manifest system, it is no 

longer necessary to promulgate regulatory security controls in order to assure a floor level of 

consistency and security among various private systems. Because there will be one national eManifest system developed to host the transmission of electronic manifests, the system security 

requirements for e-Manifest will instead be planned and addressed under the security planning 

requirements that apply to all Federal information systems. The Federal security planning 

requirements will produce a detailed set of requirements and controls appropriate to the security

impacts of e-Manifest, and these requirements and controls will be implemented when the 

Agency awards a contract to an IT vendor to build and operate e-Manifest. EPA believes it is far 

more sensible to develop the e-Manifest system security requirements and controls in this manner 

than to promulgate regulations that would codify the system security controls. The Federal 

information system security planning requirements and process are set out in several publications 

of the National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST). Taken together, these 

publications describe a well thought out and understood process for determining appropriate 

security controls, for monitoring the effectiveness of the controls and identifying vulnerabilities 

and needed corrective actions, and for periodically certifying and accrediting the security of an 

information system. 

Therefore, in lieu of codifying system security requirements for the electronic manifest in the 

final rule, EPA will instead follow the guidance presented in NIST Publications and other Federal 

information technology and systems security guidance. Over the period of operation of the eManifest system, the requirements and controls developed pursuant to this guidance will be 

monitored, adjusted as necessary, and certified. EPA believes that this approach will be a far 

more responsive and effective means to address the security of e-Manifest than the regulatory

requirements that we proposed in May, 2001. The criticisms and concerns that commenters 

identified with the proposed security standards are mooted by the approach we are following in 

this final rule. The particular security requirements for e-Manifest will be addressed as part of the 

system planning, development, and certification processes, and are not included in the scope of 

this final rule.

Comment: We heard from nine commenters who expressed opposition to the requirement for a 

third-party assessment (Commenter Nos. 5, 12, 13, 17, 22, 26, 46, 51, and 57). One of the 

commenters suggested that the entity developing the system should assume all liability for the 

operation of the system (Commenter No. 5). Another commenter believes that, rather than an 

independent assessment, EPA should simply establish standards that require accuracy, security, 

and reliability (Commenter No. 17). Three commenters expressed opposition to the requirement 

that the software be developed by an independent firm that is not a waste handler (Commenter 

Nos. 17, 22, and 26). One commenter strongly disagrees with the suggestion that the use of a 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 28

commercial electronic manifest software package should be a rule requirement (Commenter No. 

57). Several commenters believe that companies should be given the option to validate their own 

systems instead of a third-party assessment (Commenter No. 13, 22, and 51). Two of these 

commenters do not believe that there should be any credentials for persons who conduct the 

self-audit (Commenter Nos. 22 and 51). Several commenters noted that most commercial TSDFs 

already have controls in place for their paper-based manifesting and recordkeeping and that these 

controls would be used under the proposal; hence, EPA need not impose any additional controls 

on these facilities for electronic manifests (Commenter Nos. 12, 22, and 57). One commenter 

indicated that, if the requirement for a third-party assessment remains in the rule, EPA should also 

require regulatory agencies to become subject to similar system assessments and management 

protocols with evaluation by independent third parties. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on the proposed validation of system 

performance and training. However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed system 

security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice of data 

availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to signal to the public 

on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the establishment of a national eManifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees that would be paid by the waste 

handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 e-Manifest Act in fact mandates this 

approach. Comments on the proposed system controls are now moot. Please refer to the EPA 

response above for further information about the security requirements that will be implemented 

pursuant to Federal information technology standards and guidance.

Comment: We heard from ten commenters suggesting clarifications or modifications the 

proposed approach for an independent assessment of the electronic system or use of off-the-shelf 

software (Commenter Nos. 16, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 54, 57, 59, and 63). A number of commenters 

suggested that EPA clarify the criteria or standards by which the electronic system would be 

assessed and/or the qualifications that the third party must satisfy (Commenter Nos. 30, 32, 33, 

54, 57, 59, and 63). One of these commenters suggested that there needs to be a standard 

whereby only licensed systems professionals can perform the validation assessments, and that 

such licensing would require some training and certification (Commenter No. 33). One 

commenter suggested that the proposed electronic manifest form should be reviewed by a 

professional printer to ensure that design problems are eliminated, because computer designed 

forms often lack consistency in layout when printed (Commenter No. 16). Another commenter 

suggested that, like printers of paper manifests, software developers should be required to register 

to develop manifest software (Commenter No. 29). The commenter suggested that registration of 

software packages would ensure that they meet the standard content and data mapping required 

for Federal and State databases. Another commenter suggested that, if EPA finalizes the 

proposed approach, it should require regulatory agencies to become subject to similar system 

assessments and management protocols with evaluation by independent third parties (Commenter 

No. 57). Another commenter asked EPA to clarify the enforcement and liability issues associated 

with the proposed validation standards (Commenter No. 34).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on the proposed validation of system 

performance and training. However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed system 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 29

security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice of data 

availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to signal to the public 

on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the establishment of a national eManifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees that would be paid by the waste 

handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 e-Manifest in fact mandates this 

approach. Comments on the proposed private system security controls, including the comment 

about an independent assessment of private systems, are now moot. Please refer to the EPA 

response above for further information.

3.2 The Ability to Generate Accurate and Complete Records Available for 

Inspection

Comment: We heard from two commenters who indicated their general support for the proposed 

requirement for manifest systems to have the ability to generate accurate and complete records 

available for inspection (Commenter No. 22 and 46). One of the commenters suggested that 

EPA should consider requiring that all records be made available within a certain timeframe of 

their request (e.g., the next working day) (Commenter No. 22). The commenter believes this 

revision will help in those instances where a company's "knowledgeable person" is not 

immediately available (for whatever reason) or the computer system is temporarily offline. 

We heard from one commenter who did not express support or opposition to the proposed 

requirement, but suggested that EPA coordinate the requirement with DOT to ensure that the 

security issues can be resolved within both programs (Commenter No. 47).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their suggestions on the proposed controls for 

generating accurate and complete records available for inspection. However, EPA has determined 

not to codify the proposed system security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, 

EPA published a notice of data availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 

FR 19842), to signal to the public on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now 

the establishment of a national e-Manifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees 

that would be paid by the waste handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 eManifest Act in fact mandates this approach. EPA will develop the national system with security

controls appropriate under Federal information technology standards and guidance. Comments 

on the proposed system controls for private systems are now moot. Please refer to the EPA 

response in Section 3.1 of this document for further information.

Comment: We heard from seven commenters asking for clarification or modification of the 

proposed requirement for manifest systems to have the ability to generate accurate and complete 

records available for inspection (Commenter Nos. 13, 22, 26, 32, 46, 59, and 63). One 

commenter indicated that railroads do not generally provide access to their computer systems to 

outside parties; however, railroads are willing to work with EPA to provide the information 

requested within a reasonable timeframe, but not necessarily on an immediate basis (Commenter 

No. 46). The commenter also indicated that EPA should not expect to access railroad computer 

systems directly; rather, EPA should allow persons knowledgeable with the computer software to 

access and produce those records for them. Another commenter indicated that the proposed rule 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 30

mentions the need to provide an interface for a regulator to be able to access the system that 

supports digital manifesting (Commenter No. 32). The commenter suggested that the rule should 

clarify whether this interface is a required element of a conforming system, or simply a desired 

functionality. The commenter notes that, if a regulator interface is indeed required, far greater 

detail needs to be provided regarding how such an interface would work and what its components 

would need to include. Another commenter noted that the proposed rule would require a person 

on site who can assist a RCRA inspector with operation of the software (Commenter No. 26). 

The commenter suggests that this requirement should not be construed to require a person to be 

available at all times. Another commenter recommended that both the electronic on-screen view 

and the paper copy of the manifest printed by inspectors should be required to match the standard 

paper manifest form so inspectors can view manifest information in the same "format" at every

waste handler (i.e., the computer screen and any printed copies of the electronic manifest 

information should look just like the standard paper manifest form) (Commenter No. 59). 

Another commenter indicated that some utility companies with wide service territories may

choose to maintain their electronic records for each facility at a more central location as opposed 

to the facility itself (Commenter No. 22). The commenter suggested that EPA should consider 

requiring that all records be made available within a certain timeframe of their request (e.g., the 

next working day). One commenter noted that, if the EDI database would be available to EPA on 

demand for inspection, it would need a proprietary system for outside the firewall (Commenter 

No. 13). Another commenter asked that the final rule provide further clarification regarding the 

issue of inspections of electronic records (Commenter No. 63). The commenter believes EPA 

should include a requirement for waste handlers to print out a one or two line "summary report" 

of electronic manifest activity. The commenter believes this should be required on a weekly basis 

so that if a system is down, or if the contact person is not available, the inspecting entity would 

still have manifest information.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their suggestions on the proposed controls for 

generating accurate and complete records available for inspection. However, EPA has determined 

not to codify the proposed system security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, 

EPA published a notice of data availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 

FR 19842), to signal to the public on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now 

the establishment of a national e-Manifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees 

that would be paid by the waste handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 eManifest Act in fact mandates this approach. Information security controls will be developed in 

accordance with applicable Federal information technology standards and guidance. Comments 

on the proposed system controls for private systems are now moot. Please refer to the EPA 

response in Section 3.1 of this document for further information.

Comment: We heard from three commenters regarding the feasibility of long-term validation of 

digital signatures (Commenter Nos. 33, 59, and 60). One commenter opposed the requirement for 

long-term validation, since handwritten signatures on paper manifests are not subject to the same 

standard (Commenter No. 60). Another commenter noted that current technology is not 

generally available that will permit validation at the time of transmission and maintain the 

validation for three years (Commenter No. 59). For example, the commenter clarified that, if a 

valid certificate is later revoked, such as when an employee leaves the company, previous (valid) 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 31

manifests will be invalidated as well. Another commenter believes that longterm validation is 

feasible in regard to technical challenges; however, it is unclear if it is feasible in regard to 

administrative challenges and cost (Commenter No. 33). The commenter does not believe there 

are practical ways to ensure long-term enforcement capability and liability protection for 

companies using manifests without imposing the burden and costs of indefinite signature 

validation mechanisms. The commenter believes it is a question of how much risk EPA wants to 

live with and who will pay the costs of minimizing that risk. The commenter added that, if EPA 

wants to minimize such risk, then some effort must be made to insure the long-term validity of 

digital signatures. The commenter believes the central questions are who would implement and 

pay for such measures, and how many years such validation efforts should attempt to cover. The 

commenter believes EPA should handle the cost, particularly since leaving it to the waste 

handlers themselves is an uncertain proposition.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their suggestions on the proposed controls for 

generating accurate and complete records available for inspection. However, EPA has determined 

not to codify electronic signature requirements in this final regulation. Instead, this final rule 

requires “valid electronic signatures” that comply with the Agency’s CROMERR, and we 

recommend (but do not require) two signature methods that may be feasible under CROMERR. 

Our current recommendations focus on PIN/password and digitized handwritten signature 

methods for the first generation system. We are not currently recommending digital signatures 

involving public key/private key encryption methods (see discussion at § 4.2), so we consider this 

comment moot. 

3.3 The Ability to Protect Records

Comment: We heard from two commenters regarding the requirement for retaining prior versions

of software and hardware as necessary to access manifest records (Commenter Nos. 26 and 59). 

One commenter noted that the requirement may require TSDFs to retain records for at least 30 

years after facility closure and asked EPA if this was intended (Commenter No. 26). Another 

commenter noted that maintaining prior versions of software and hardware for the required 

retention period could be extremely costly (Commenter No. 59). The commenter noted that a 

State's laws may require it to retain records for much longer periods of time than the Federal 

program, making the requirement even more costly. The commenter also noted that many

companies update their data files for active accounts and archive inactive accounts. The 

companies may rely on paper documents rather than the archived data when information is needed 

at a later date. The commenter believes the proposed rule appears to prevent these practices by 

precluding the alteration of electronic documents once they are signed. The commenter asked 

EPA to consider the longterm consequences of prohibiting any alteration of an electronic 

document after it is signed.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their suggestions on the proposed data protection 

standards. However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed system security controls for 

private systems as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice of data 

availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to signal to the public 

on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the establishment of a national e-
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 32

Manifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees that would be paid by the waste 

handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 e-Manifest Act in fact mandates this 

approach. EPA will develop appropriate security controls pursuant to applicable Federal 

information technology standards and guidance. Comments on the proposed system controls are 

now moot. Please refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document for further 

information.

Comment: We heard from two commenters in regard to the ability of protecting electronic files 

over the long term (Commenter Nos. 13 and 33). One commenter indicated that backup storage 

of information is a concern since system crashes do occur (Commenter No. 13). The commenter 

asked for clarification on what constitutes "standard computer security" and the destruction of 

information in relation to system failure. Another commenter indicated that digitally signed and 

electronically stored media are inferior to paper copies in terms of being more susceptible to 

corruption/destruction by heat, magnetic fields, and degradation (Commenter No. 33). The 

commenter added that storage standards change over time, making it more difficult to comply

over the long term. The commenter suggested three ways to address these concerns: (1) creation 

of multiple copies of the stored information and dispersal of the copies to multiple sites; (2) 

periodic check-ups of the stored material and upgrades as needed; and (3) encoding of a piece of 

data within a much larger data-string with built-in error-correcting features, so that even if one 

part of the string becomes corrupted, it is still possible to decode the original piece of data 

correctly.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their suggestions on the proposed data protection 

standards. However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed private system security 

controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice of data availability

and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to signal to the public on the 

rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the establishment of a national e-Manifest 

system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees that would be paid by the waste handlers 

who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 e-Manifest Act in fact mandates this approach. 

EPA will develop appropriate security controls for this system pursuant to applicable Federal 

information technology standards and guidance. Comments on the proposed system controls are 

now moot. Please refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document for further 

information.

Comment: We heard from one commenter on the appropriateness and feasibility of a requirement 

that manifest records be periodically archived on a write-once, read-many medium (Commenter 

No. 33). The commenter indicated that it is feasible and advisable that manifest records be 

periodically archived on write-once read-many storage mediums. The commenter noted, 

however, that it is important to remember that any digital storage medium is corruptible. The 

commenter suggested that multiple copies be made and those copies be stored at multiple sites.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its views on the proposed data protection standards. 

However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed private system security controls as part 

of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice of data availability and request for 

comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to signal to the public on the rulemaking record 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 33

that EPA’s preferred option is now the establishment of a national e-Manifest system to be hosted 

by EPA and funded by service fees that would be paid by the waste handlers who choose to use 

electronic manifests. The 2012 e-Manifest Act in fact mandates this approach. EPA will develop 

appropriate system security controls pursuant to applicable Federal information technology

standards and guidance. Comments on the proposed system controls are now moot. Please refer 

to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document for further information.

3.4 The Ability to Limit System Access and Conduct Authority Checks

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating its support specifically for authority checks 

and audit trails (Commenter No. 30). We heard from another commenter who generally agreed 

with the proposed requirements to limit access and conduct authority checks, because the 

railroads already have such systems in place (Commenter No. 46). However, the commenter 

opposed the criteria to maintain auditable logs of logon attempts and logon failures and rejections 

for a three-year period (Commenter No. 46). The commenter indicated that, because of the huge 

number of transactions involving railroads, such a requirement would place a significant burden 

on the industry and force railroads to use a paper system.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their support of the proposed access controls and 

authority checks. However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed private system 

security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice of data 

availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to signal to the public 

on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the establishment of a national eManifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees that would be paid by the waste 

handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 e-Manifest Act in fact mandates this 

approach. EPA will develop appropriate system security controls pursuant to applicable Federal 

information technology standards and guidance. Comments on the proposed system controls are 

now moot. Please refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document for further 

information.

Comment: We heard from one commenter who expressed its opposition to the requirements to 

limit access and conduct authority checks (Commenter No. 57). The commenter indicated that 

electronic systems should not be subject to greater controls than those for paper manifests.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its views on the proposed access controls and 

authority checks. However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed private system 

security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice of data 

availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to signal to the public 

on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the establishment of a national eManifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees that would be paid by the waste 

handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 e-Manifest Act in fact mandates this 

approach. EPA will develop appropriate system security controls pursuant to applicable Federal 

information technology standards and guidance. Comments on the proposed system controls are 

now moot. Please refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document for further 

information.
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 34

Comment: We heard from three commenters who asked EPA to clarify the technical standards 

associated with limiting unauthorized access to systems and data (Commenter Nos. 26, 34, and 

59). One of these commenters also asked for clarification on the compliance and enforcement 

issues associated with these proposed requirements (Commenter No. 34). For example, the 

commenter asked what would happen if a system did not track failed log-ons but had all other 

assurances (e.g., would it be approvable?). One commenter asked for clarification on the 

circumstances under which the alteration of a record would be allowed (Commenter No. 59). 

The commenter believes that it appears that the alteration of a record would invalidate the 

electronic signature on the record and place the entire system at risk of repudiation.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on the proposed access controls and 

authority checks. However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed private system 

security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice of data 

availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to signal to the public 

on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the establishment of a national eManifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees that would be paid by the waste 

handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 e-Manifest Act in fact mandates this 

approach. EPA will develop appropriate system security controls pursuant to applicable Federal 

information technology standards and guidance. Comments on the proposed system controls are 

now moot. Please refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document for further 

information.

3.5 Use of Secure Audit Trails

Comment: We heard from one commenter who recommended that EPA acknowledge and 

anticipate that there may be system failures or natural disasters that cause delays in the 

submission of the manifest forms (Commenter No. 24). The commenter therefore proposed that 

facilities should be able to rely on electronic time stamps for the date of transmission of 

manifests, so that a problem with electronic sending does not become a compliance issue. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on the proposed standards for use of 

secure audit trails. However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed private system 

security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice of data 

availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to signal to the public 

on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the establishment of a national eManifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees that would be paid by the waste 

handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 e-Manifest Act in fact mandates this 

approach. EPA will develop appropriate system security controls pursuant to applicable Federal 

information technology standards and guidance. Comments on the proposed system controls are 

now moot. Please refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document for further 

information.
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 35

Comment: We heard from three commenters indicating their opposition to the requirement for 

the use of secure audit trails (Commenter Nos. 26, 46, and 57). One commenter indicated that 

creating a system to save all changes to manifest transactions would require programming 

changes by the railroad industry (Commenter No. 46). For these and other reasons, the rail 

industry would probably choose to stay with the current paper system because the cost would 

outweigh the benefit. Two commenters indicated that the electronic manifest system should not 

be subject to more burdensome controls than pen-and-ink completion of the paper manifest 

(Commenter Nos. 26 and 57). One of the commenters stated that there is no need to identify or 

audit every party that has viewed a manifest, only the ones that have changed its contents 

(Commenter No. 57).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on the proposed standards for use of 

secure audit trails. However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed private system 

security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice of data 

availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to signal to the public 

on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the establishment of a national eManifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees that would be paid by the waste 

handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 e-Manifest Act in fact mandates this 

approach. EPA will develop appropriate system security controls pursuant to applicable Federal 

information technology standards and guidance. Comments on the proposed system controls are 

now moot. Please refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document for further 

information.

Comment: We heard from one commenter who expressed support for the requirement to use 

secure audit trails (Commenter No. 30). 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its views on the proposed standards for use of secure 

audit trails. However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed private system security 

controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice of data availability

and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to signal to the public on the 

rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the establishment of a national e-Manifest 

system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees that would be paid by the waste handlers 

who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 e-Manifest Act in fact mandates this approach. 

EPA will develop appropriate system security controls pursuant to applicable Federal information 

technology standards and guidance. Comments on the proposed system controls are now moot. 

Please refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document for further information.

3.6 Software-based Work Flow Controls and Operational System Checks

Comment: We heard from two commenters requesting EPA clarification regarding making 

corrections to electronic manifest data once the manifest is signed (Commenter Nos. 57 and 59). 

One commenter indicated that, because TSDFs and transporters that prepare manifests have 

historically made basic errors (e.g., entering the wrong Generator USEPA ID number), the 

commenter believes the proposed regulations need to address the correction of mistakes identified 

after the electronic manifest is closed (Commenter No. 59). The other commenter noted that 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 36

paper manifests are often prepared by one party and subsequently edited by downstream handlers, 

e.g., by transporters and TSDFs (Commenter No. 57). The commenter is uncertain if this process 

would be preserved in the proposed system. The commenter believes that the proposed security

provisions essentially lock down portions of the manifest as they are signed and prohibit future 

modifications.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on the proposed standards for softwarebased work flow controls and operational system checks. However, EPA has determined not to 

codify the proposed private system security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, 

EPA published a notice of data availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 

FR 19842), to signal to the public on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now 

the establishment of a national e-Manifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees 

that would be paid by the waste handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 eManifest Act in fact mandates this approach. EPA’s national system will largely provide the 

critical work flow controls and operational system checks. Comments on the proposed private 

system controls are now moot. Please refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document 

for further information.

Comment: We heard from two commenters in response to EPA's request for comment on what 

the appropriate response should be when an invalid signature is detected (Commenter Nos. 33 and 

34). Both commenters believe the appropriate response should be to block further use or 

transmission of any manifest found to be invalid or for which the electronic signature cannot be 

verified. One commenter indicated that its State program does not keypunch data from manifest 

forms that are not signed (Commenter No. 34). The other commenter clarified that, although 

further use of such a manifest should be blocked in theory, it is likely, particularly as the system is 

being phased in, that unforeseen problems will occur where this approach could make things 

unworkable (Commenter No. 33). For that reason, the commenter believes it might be advisable 

to have the system alert the recipient to the requirement to obtain a valid manifest, but not itself 

block the use, thus giving some flexibility while the recipient works to resolve the validity

problem.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on the proposed standards for softwarebased work flow controls and operational system checks. However, EPA has determined not to 

codify the proposed system security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA 

published a notice of data availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 

19842), to signal to the public on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the 

establishment of a national e-Manifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees 

that would be paid by the waste handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. Comments on 

the proposed system controls are now moot. We agree that this comment raises a valid concern, 

and that there may be circumstances (e.g., an electronic signature collected off-line) where the 

data in an electronic manifest must be passed through the system before the signature can be 

validated. This is one reason that we recommended in the final rule preamble (contingent on peer 

reviewed studies of reliability) the use of the digitized handwritten signature method, as this 

would allow signature data, including forensic data, to be collected and stored for later 

examination by document examiners in the event there should be a question about the legitimacy 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 37

of the signature. This is how ink-signed signatures are authenticated, and there seems to be much 

merit to the digitized handwritten signatures because of the similarity with which they are 

executed and authenticated. PIN/password signatures, on the other hand, would either require 

validation against data stored locally on portable devices in the field, or would require later 

validation that might give rise to signature discrepancies that would need to be reconciled after 

manifests are transmitted. EPA will examine this issue further during system planning and 

development.

Comment: We heard from one commenter who opposed requirements for software-based work 

flow controls and operational system checks because such requirements would entail 

programming that would not be cost effective (Commenter No. 46). The commenter noted that 

EPA's regulations already recognize the unique aspect of railroads and their ability to transmit 

documents electronically and hence should not mandate additional requirements when the system 

is already working well. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its views on the proposed standards for softwarebased work flow controls and operational system checks. However, EPA has determined not to 

codify the proposed private system security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, 

EPA published a notice of data availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 

FR 19842), to signal to the public on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now 

the establishment of a national e-Manifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees 

that would be paid by the waste handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 eManifest Act in fact mandates this approach. EPA’s national system will largely provide the 

critical work flow controls and operational system checks that the proposed rule suggested for 

disparate private systems. The Agency does not intend to apply its e-Manifest system controls to 

the rail system’s electronic waybill system. Comments on the proposed system controls are now 

moot. Please refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document for further information.

3.7 Software-based Data Presentation Features and Signature Prompts

Comment: We heard from one commenter expressing full support for the proposed data 

presentation features (Commenter No. 59). The commenter believes the manifest systems should 

not only be able to, but be required to, display all of the manifest data in a readable format at the 

time the electronic manifest is signed. Two other commenters expressed support for EPA's 

proposal for a warning message for both digital and digitized signatures (Commenter Nos. 19 and 

33). One of the commenters also indicated that the signature warning should be displayed each 

time a signature is required (Commenter No. 33). With regard to the secure digitized signature 

approach, however, the commenter wondered if this approach would be feasible and/or practical 

for all types of digitizer pad devices to be used.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on the proposed standards for softwarebased data presentation features and signature prompts. However, EPA has determined not to 

codify the proposed private system security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, 

EPA published a notice of data availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 

FR 19842), to signal to the public on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 38

the establishment of a national e-Manifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees 

that would be paid by the waste handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 eManifest Act in fact mandates this approach. EPA will incorporate similar signature warnings 

and prompts into the national system’s work flow, and we plan to retain the requirement that 

electronic manifests be displayed in a readable format before signatures are applied. However, 

with the widespread use of tablets and portable devices with varying display sizes, there may be 

some adjustments necessary to this requirement (e. g., scrolling) to accommodate variations in 

display size among devices. Comments on the proposed system controls are now moot. Please 

refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document for further information.

Comment: We heard from two commenters expressing opposition to the warning prompt for 

invalid signatures (Commenter Nos. 34 and 46). One commenter indicated that the warning 

prompt is unnecessary because EDI is a well-established process, railroads have well-established 

relationships with other waste handlers, and the protocols are well-understood by all parties 

(Commenter No. 46). The commenter stated that additional controls above what is already 

required of railroads would discourage use of electronic manifesting. Another commenter 

indicated that a warning is not needed because it should be assumed that users understand the 

consequences and liability of signing their name (Commenter No. 34). 

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on the proposed standards for softwarebased data presentation features and signature prompts. However, EPA has determined not to 

codify the proposed system security controls as part of the final rule, and we do not intend to 

apply the signature warnings and prompts discussed in this rule to the rail system’s electronic 

waybill system. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice of data availability and request for 

comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to signal to the public on the rulemaking record 

that EPA’s preferred option is now the establishment of a national e-Manifest system to be hosted 

by EPA and funded by service fees that would be paid by the waste handlers who choose to use 

electronic manifests. The 2012 e-Manifest Act in fact mandates this approach. Any signature 

related warning prompts will be addressed during system development, and not as a requirement 

of this final rule. Comments on the proposed system controls are now moot. Please refer to the 

EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document for further information.

3.8 Full Interoperability of System Software

Comment: We heard from two commenters suggesting modifications to the proposed 

requirements for full interoperability of system software (Commenter Nos. 59 and 61). One 

commenter suggested that EPA could establish a requirement that the exchange of manifest data 

and the interoperability of electronic manifesting systems not be compromised by any new 

approved software (Commenter No. 61). The commenter believes this may limit the 

technological advances possible; however, it would ensure that any change approved will not 

have the impact of making obsolete the investments of others involved in electronic manifesting. 

Another commenter indicated that EPA could require electronic systems to be evaluated for a 

specified period of time by all parties that will use the system to ensure there are no 

interoperability problems (Commenter No. 59). The commenter added that paper manifests 

should also be used during the evaluation period in case there is a problem with the system.
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 39

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on the proposed standards for full 

interoperability of system software. However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed 

private system security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a 

notice of data availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to 

signal to the public on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the 

establishment of a national e-Manifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees 

that would be paid by the waste handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 eManifest Act in fact mandates this approach. The development of a national e-Manifest system 

moots the issue of interoperability among private systems, although manifest users will need to 

develop the appropriate interfaces to share and exchange data from e-Manifest with their legacy 

data systems. System interoperability concerns will be addressed during system planning and 

development efforts, and are not addressed in this final rule. Please refer to the EPA response in 

Section 3.1 of this document for further information.

Comment: We heard from four commenters expressing support for the one-time requirement for 

system sponsors to notify EPA that they have developed and would be using an e-manifest system 

(Commenter Nos. 17, 19, 30, and 59). These commenters believe it is important to notify the 

regulatory agency of a sponsor's use of the e-manifest (e.g., to make the regulator aware that 

electronic manifests will be submitted) and would not place an undue burden on waste handlers. 

One of the commenters cautioned that the notification would not be a disincentive unless it 

involves many requirements, and asked EPA to list what information is required in the 

notification (Commenter No. 30).

We heard from another commenter who did not believe the notification requirement, in and of 

itself, would be a disincentive to use of electronic manifesting (Commenter No. 33). However, it 

would be a disincentive if it would mean that the electronic system would be subject to the 

validation requirements of the proposal and that possible existing manifest-exchange relationships 

with other states would be threatened as a result.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on the proposed standards for full 

interoperability of system software. However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed 

private system security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a 

notice of data availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to 

signal to the public on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the 

establishment of a national e-Manifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees 

that would be paid by the waste handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 eManifest Act in fact mandates this approach. Thus, there will not be multiple private systems and 

no need for a notification requirement. Comments on the proposed system controls are now moot. 

Please refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document for further information.

Comment: We heard from one commenter who expressed opposition to the proposed notification 

requirement (Commenter No. 23). The commenter noted that system users would have to register 

with EPA to get an approved identification numbering system. The commenter believes the 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 40

registration process would serve to notify regulatory agencies of the use of electronic manifest 

systems; and thus, the one-time notification is not needed. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its views on the proposed standards for full 

interoperability of system software. However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed 

private system security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a 

notice of data availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to

signal to the public on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the 

establishment of a national e-Manifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees 

that would be paid by the waste handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 eManifest Act in fact mandates this approach. As there will not be private systems developed, 

there will be no need for the proposed notification. Comments on the proposed system controls 

are now moot. Please refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document for further 

information.

3.9 Controls over System Documentation

Comment: We heard from three commenters expressing opposition to the proposed controls over 

system documentation (Commenter Nos. 26, 33, and 57). These commenters expressed their 

belief that the proposed controls are too burdensome. Two of the commenters noted that the 

paper-based system does not impose similarly burdensome controls (Commenter Nos. 26 and 57). 

The other commenter noted that excessively burdensome controls and requirements will make it 

unlikely for waste handlers to develop or use the documentation (Commenter No. 33).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on the proposed controls over system 

documentation. However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed private system security 

controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice of data availability

and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to signal to the public on the 

rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the establishment of a national e-Manifest 

system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees that would be paid by the waste handlers 

who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 e-Manifest Act in fact mandates this approach. 

EPA will develop system documentation for the national e-Manifest system, but since there will 

not be private systems developed under the final rule, we will not require private entities to 

develop such documentation. Comments on the proposed system controls are now moot. Please 

refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document for further information.

Comment: We heard from one commenter who suggested that the rule should require that 

documentation be available during inspections (Commenter No. 35). The commenter noted that 

documentation requirements are missing for such items as the technical standards and computer 

security system controls.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its views on the proposed controls over system 

documentation. However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed system security

controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice of data availability

and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to signal to the public on the 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 41

rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the establishment of a national e-Manifest 

system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees that would be paid by the waste handlers 

who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 e-Manifest Act in fact mandates this approach. 

While EPA will develop system documentation for the e-Manifest system, we will not require 

private entities to develop such documentation or to make it available for inspections. Comments 

on the proposed system controls are now moot. Please refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of 

this document for further information.

3.10 Policies Holding Individuals Accountable

Comment: We heard from one commenter who expressed its opposition to the proposed 

requirement for written policies (Commenter No. 57). The commenter indicated that there is no 

equivalent requirement for paper-based manifests. Another commenter indicated that computer 

security is something of an illusion (Commenter No. 33). The commenter indicated that forgery 

of most manual signatures is detectable and provable; however, forgery of a digital signature is 

for all practical purposes undetectable and un-provable, should someone gain access to the 

individual's signature object. The commenter believes EPA's requirements could be circumvented 

by a sufficiently computer-literate individual intent on falsification. The commenter suggested 

the best controls would be procedures that could somehow confirm the validity of the data itself, 

rather then relying on the validity of the digital signature.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on the proposed standards for policies 

holding individuals accountable. However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed 

system security controls as part of the final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice of 

data availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to signal to the 

public on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the establishment of a 

national e-Manifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees that would be paid by

the waste handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 e-Manifest Act in fact 

mandates this approach. The national e-Manifest system will be developed and operated in 

accordance with EPA’s CROMERR Rule, and this rule announces the applicable policies under 

which EPA will hold manifest users accountable for their signatures and submissions. Comments 

on the proposed system controls are now moot. Please refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of 

this document for further information.

3.11 Other System Requirements

Comment: We heard from one commenter who asked for EPA clarification on whether electronic 

receipt of the manifest equates to acceptance of the waste (Commenter No. 26).

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its views on the proposed system requirements. 

However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed system security controls as part of the 

final rule. Comments on the proposed system controls are now moot. However, EPA notes that 

even with the paper manifest system, the mere receipt of delivery of waste materials is 

distinguished from acceptance of the waste. The substitution of an electronic manifest does not 

alter this result. Acceptance or rejection of waste may occur after a TSDF has signed a manifest 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 42

to indicate receipt of deliveries. Please refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document 

for further information.

Comment: We heard from eight commenters expressing opposition to the requirement for 

retransmission of the electronic manifest if an acknowledgment of receipt is not received within 

12 hours (Commenter Nos. 16, 18, 25, 30, 46, 54, 57, and 59). These commenters believe 12 

hours is not enough time for facilities to verify receipt or to resend the manifest, given evenings, 

holidays, weekends, and potential system failures. Two of these commenters suggested that EPA 

amend the timeframe to 12 working hours (Commenter Nos. 54 and 59). One of the commenters 

suggested at least five business days (Commenter No. 25), and another suggested at least 24 hours 

(Commenter No. 30).

In addition, two commenters expressed concern that, given the requirements for a 12-hour retransmittal of the electronic manifest, there may be situations where the hazardous waste haulers 

will arrive at the TSDF in advance of the electronic manifest (Commenter Nos. 16 and 18). One 

of the commenters suggested that EPA explain what actions should be taken under these types of 

logistical problems (Commenter No. 18). 

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on the proposed system requirements. 

However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed system security controls as part of the 

final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice of data availability and request for 

comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to signal to the public on the rulemaking record 

that EPA’s preferred option is now the establishment of a national e-Manifest system to be hosted 

by EPA and funded by service fees that would be paid by the waste handlers who choose to use 

electronic manifests. The 2012 e-Manifest Act in fact mandates this approach. Comments on the 

proposed system controls are now moot. Any requirements for acknowledgement of receipts of 

electronic manifests will be addressed as a system development issue, and not addressed in this 

final rule. Please refer to the EPA response in Section 3.1 of this document for further 

information.

Comment: Three commenters requested alternate methods of electronic storage than those 

proposed in the rule (Commenter Nos. 51, 57, and 59). One of the commenters noted that 

companies would prefer to have the authority to use imaging technology to store copies of

manifests so they can reduce their warehousing costs (Commenter No. 59). Another commenter 

suggested a national repository (server) for electronic storage (Commenter No. 51). The 

commenter suggested that waste handlers could place their electronic manifests onto the 

centralized repository for access by stakeholders. Another commenter urged EPA to continue 

considering other electronic forms of recordkeeping under the RCRA program (Commenter No. 

57).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on the proposed system requirements. 

However, EPA has determined not to codify the proposed system security controls as part of the 

final rule. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice of data availability and request for 

comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to signal to the public on the rulemaking record 

that EPA’s preferred option is now the establishment of a national e-Manifest system to be hosted 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 43

by EPA and funded by service fees that would be paid by the waste handlers who choose to use 

electronic manifests. The 2012 e-Manifest Act in fact mandates this approach. EPA will 

establish user accounts on e-Manifest for each waste handler that wishes to use the electronic 

manifest. Electronic copies of completed manifests will be stored electronically to the accounts 

of each user and will there be available for retrieval and inspection. With respect to paper 

manifests that continue in use after e-Manifest is implemented, the system will only collect the 

final paper copy (or an image file and data file) from designated facilities. The waste handler 

copies of paper manifests must still be maintained on site by waste handlers in accordance with 

existing recordkeeping requirements, although EPA has allowed image copy storage under certain 

conditions. Comments on the proposed system controls are now moot. Please refer to the EPA 

response in Section 3.1 of this document for further information.

4.0 EPA's Proposed Electronic Signature Standard

4.1 General Comments

Comment: We heard from five commenters in support of one or both of the proposed electronic 

signature methods (Commenter Nos. 17, 25, 33, 60, and 61). One of these commenters believes 

that it is likely that if both systems are allowed, a TSD facility in the chain on a manifest will be 

using a different system than that used by the generator (Commenter No. 61). The commenter 

believes this would require each generator/operator to have technology that supports both the 

digital signature and secure digitized signature methods. This could significantly increase the 

cost and complications to those using electronic manifests. The commenter believes that, if both 

systems are authorized, EPA must require that the systems be compatible with each other. The 

commenter suggested that EPA weigh the additional complications and costs that will exist if 

both systems are approved versus the advantages and disadvantages of a federally selected single 

system that EPA designates. The commenter suggested that EPA look to the Treasury

Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which are addressing the 

same security issues as part of their transition to electronic transfers of tax forms and 

home-closing documentation. 

We heard from one commenter who expressed opposition to both signature methods because they

introduced an entirely new system that would not be cost-effective (Commenter No. 46).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their suggestions on the electronic signature method. 

EPA has considered all of the comments received on this issue and agrees with comments 

expressing concern about the digital signature. For example, we received a number of comments 

from regulated industry suggesting that the digital signature method with its public key

infrastructure was too expensive and complex to be deployed in the electronic manifest context. 

However, we also received a fair number of comments from industry representatives who 

suggested that a digitized signature method could be implemented and used successfully for the 

electronic manifest. These commenters offered that digitized signatures provide a practical and 

cost-effective alternative to digital signatures, and that they have been used commercially and 

successfully for years. Several proponents of the digitized method added that the digitized 

method is preferred, because it will allow the capture of a real time signature through a process 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 44

that best mimics the current process for signing paper manifests. We received several industry

comments that echoed the view expressed in State agency comments that the electronic manifest 

context did not warrant elaborate electronic signature security, with one such commenter 

suggesting that any security burden imposed beyond that associated with the digitized signature 

method would act as a deterrent to users using the electronic system. Finally, we received a 

comment from an industry trade association suggesting that EPA must clarify in the final rule that 

one consistent signature method will be implemented in all states for electronic manifests, since 

manifests are interstate transactions that require consistency in implementation across all the 

states.

EPA notes that in the final regulation it is not codifying or requiring the use of a specific 

electronic signature technology. The final rule is instead technology neutral, and requires at 40 

CFR § 262.25(a), that signature methods for e-Manifest shall:

1. Be a legally valid and enforceable signature under applicable EPA and other Federal 

requirements pertaining to electronic signatures, and

2. Be a method that is designed and implemented in a manner that EPA considers to be as 

cost-effective and practical as possible for users of the manifest.

While the regulation is technology neutral, EPA makes recommendations in the preamble for the 

first generation system, based on the comments received during our comment period and further 

analysis. EPA agrees with the commenters who suggested that an electronic signature method 

based either on a PIN/password approach or on a digitized signature approach provides a 

preferred balance of identification strength, practicality, and cost. EPA’s own analyses support 

these views. For example, EPA conducted an economic analysis of the proposed authentication 

and signature technologies in May 2007. The economic analysis disclosed that the handwritten 

digitized signature method is a cost effective electronic signature method. PINs and passwords, 

when evaluated for helpdesk support costs (i.e., resetting lost passwords), identity proofing 

requirements, and the addition of a 2nd authentication factor to strengthen the signature, were 

found to present comparable implementation costs to the digitized signature method. On the other 

hand, the May 2007 analysis disclosed that the projected cost of implementing the proposed 

digital signature method with a public key infrastructure or PKI would likely be three to four 

times the projected costs of implementing either the PIN/password method or digitized signature 

method. 

Therefore, EPA is recommending both the PIN/password method and the digitized handwritten 

signature method in the final rule preamble, as the Agency believes that each of these methods 

can be adapted to the electronic manifest business process for two distinct communities of 

electronic manifest users with minimal cost burden. These recommendations are not binding, 

however, and the system developers and users are free to consider other signature methods that 

meet the rule’s selection criteria. 

We believe that the digitized signature method may be attractive to hazardous waste transporters 

and hazardous waste management firms who wish to implement the electronic manifest across 

their enterprise by bringing mobile computer equipment to the sites of their generator customers, 

and tracking waste pick-ups, transportation with company vehicles, and delivery of waste 

shipments to the company’s permitted facilities. For those who would engage in electronic 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 45

manifesting independently of the enterprise level implementation, the PIN/password signature 

method would be available as a means to electronically sign electronic manifests. While we 

appreciate the concern expressed by commenters that there should be only one signature method 

specified for consistency, we believe that there are advantages at this time to specifying 

alternative methods that have been evaluated for practicality, signature strength, and and 

CROMERR compliance. At such time as the system is in fact developed, the system could 

incorporate either or both of these methods, or another method that is CROMERR compliant and 

practical. As explained above, we believe there are distinct communities of users who will use 

the digitized signature method and the PIN/password signature method. Therefore, we believe 

there will be relatively few instances when one manifest will use both signature methods, and if 

such instances arise, the system will be able to process either signature as a valid signature. 

However, we will reevaluate this question as we work with the successful IT vendor to implement 

a system and to implement the electronic signature solution(s). Should we find as we approach 

implementation that there are greater efficiencies and advantages with the selection of one 

consistent signature method for all users, we can alter our current plans and develop the initial 

system around the one most advantageous signature method.

The final rule preamble also clarifies the identity proofing that will be required of signatories 

using each of these electronic signature methods. Identity proofing is the vetting process by

which an identity credential (e.g., driver’s license, passport, financial account) is verified, so that 

one can be confident that another person who claims a particular identity is the person they claim 

to be. Under EPA’s Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR), the Agency generally

requires electronic signatories of environmental reports to undergo a one-time identity proofing 

exercise before the signatory may sign and submit electronic reports to EPA. Identity proofing 

aids in establishing that an asserted identity can with legal certainty be uniquely linked with the 

electronic signature device used by the signatory to execute their electronic signature. While 

hazardous waste manifests are not included in the CROMERR priority reports list, we are to a 

great extent adapting the identity proofing requirements for CROMERR priority reports in this 

final rule for electronic manifests that would be signed with electronic signatures. 

However, with respect to digitized handwritten signatures, the final rule preamble explains that no 

distinct identity proofing is required per CROMERR, since these signatures that will be validated 

on the basis of biometric or forensic properties unique to the signer, as is the case with ink-signed 

handwritten signatures. Thus, it is no more necessary for a signer to establish their “ownership” 

of their unique, digitized handwritten signature than it is necessary to establish their ownership of 

their ink signatures. Moreover, in the case of the witnessed signature approach discussed below 

to implementing PIN/password signatures, those who sign e-Manifests with a PIN or password in 

the presence of a signature witness will be proofed by the witness at the time they execute their 

signature. Thus, those employing this signature method will simultaneously satisfy their 

signature and identity proofing requirements when they present their credential to the witness.

Comment: We heard from two commenters who expressed uncertainty about whether electronic 

signatures would hold up in court (Commenter Nos. 13 and 33). 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 46

We heard from one commenter who recommended that a digitized signature be required rather 

than another type of electronic signature (Commenter No. 51). The commenter stated that the 

digitized signature system has been used successfully commercially (credit card purchases) and 

provides an actual, real time signature, not a facsimile.

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their views on electronic signatures. We share the 

concern that electronic signatures must be enforceable in court cases. Subsequent to the 

publication of the 2001 proposed rule, the Agency published in October 2005 its CROMERR 

Rule that establishes the legal and policy framework for all electronic reporting to the Agency. 

See 70 FR 59848 (October 13, 2005). CROMERR includes definitions at 40 C.F.R. §3.3 for 

“valid electronic signature” and “electronic signature device” for the very purpose of ensuring the 

validity and enforceability of the electronic signatures that are executed for electronic documents 

that are submitted to EPA. For the e-Manifest final rule, the regulation specific to electronic 

signatures has been revised so that it is technology neutral and avoids codifying specific signature 

technologies that may become obsolete over time. Instead, the final regulation requires that 

electronic signature methods or technologies used with e-Manifest shall: (1) be consistent with 

EPA’s CROMERR requirements in 40 C.F.R. Part 3 for valid electronic signatures; and (2) be 

generally acceptable to the manifest user community so that the methods encourage broad 

participation in the e-Manifest. 

Our final rule preamble explains in more detail two electronic signature methods that were 

discussed in the proposed rule, and that we believe can be adapted to satisfy CROMERR 

requirements and be implemented in a manner that will be acceptable to the user community. We 

discuss these two methods in some detail in the proposed rule, because they were carefully vetted 

in advance for CROMERR compliance and for practicality in their implementation. Thus, we 

believe these two methods may be useful for the first generation of e-Manifest: (1) a high quality

handwritten digitized signature method; and (2) a PIN/password electronic signature 

strengthened with a 2nd authentication factor that is unique to the manifest business process. We 

have included special authentication provisions in the final rule preamble discussion of these 

methods to address CROMERR compliance and to strengthen these signature methods so that 

they will provide sufficient assurances of identity should authentication issues arise in 

enforcement actions. We believe these provisions, described further below, strengthen the 

signature approaches and provide sufficient assurances of identity in case of enforcement actions. 

Recommended digitized handwritten signature method. The Agency is recommending a digitized 

handwritten signature method as one of the two methods of electronic signature that were vetted 

by the Agency for inclusion in the first generation e-Manifest. As we discussed in the May, 2001 

proposed rule, the digitized signature must be captured as a dynamic signature (not a replay of a 

copy), and the signature must be bound to the manifest document content by a hash function to 

prevent unauthorized alterations to signed content. Like handwritten signatures executed with ink 

on paper, digitized signatures may be recognized for the characteristic or personal shape and form 

of the letters, loops, and other forensic signature attributes that are recorded by hardware and 

software during the handwritten signature act. Thus, a digitized signature has some biometric-like 

properties which may provide a high level of assurance that the signature is unique to the 

signatory and that it may be authenticated by trained document examiners. 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 47

Indeed, for the final rule, we are clarifying that before digitized handwritten signatures may be 

accepted as fully CROMERR compliant so that they can stand alone as “valid electronic

signatures” for e-Manifest, there must be peer reviewed studies completed to establish that the 

digitized signature hardware and software are forensically reliable. This foundation of reliability

is required in court cases before a document examiner could testify as an expert witness in a 

disputed case that a given digitized signature is or is not authentic. EPA may be able to complete 

these reliability studies prior to the implementation of e-Manifest, but if not, we expect to 

implement the digitized handwritten signature method on an interim basis with digitized pads 

and/or pens that enable an ink signature to be captured simultaneously with the digitized 

signature. We are aware of several existing products with this capability. Thus, one paper copy

would be executed with original ink signatures, while the digitized signatures would 

simultaneously be collected and associated with the electronic manifests that would be distributed 

and retained by the e-Manifest system. At the end of the waste shipment transaction, the 

designated facility or other designated custodian would retain the one paper copy with all the ink 

signatures and retain this copy securely and make it available for inspection and enforcement 

purposes by state or federal inspectors. The ink signatures on this stored copy would be 

authenticated by document examiners in the same manner that such ink signatures are currently 

authenticated in enforcement actions. Thus, during this interim period before forensic reliability 

studies are completed, the paper copy of the manifest with ink signatures would be the manifest 

copy of record for enforcement purposes, and the digitized handwritten signatures on the 

electronic manifests would effectively be exempt from CROMERR. 

While this interim solution might seem at odds with the goal of a fully paperless manifest, EPA 

emphasizes that after the implementation of e-Manifest, DOT’s hazardous materials regulations 

will continue to require hazardous waste transporters to carry a hazardous materials shipping 

paper (i.e., the manifest) on transport vehicles. So, e-Manifest users will still be required to 

produce one paper copy of the manifest in order to comply with these existing DOT shipping 

paper requirements. Since there will need to be a paper copy of the manifest on the vehicle in any 

case for DOT’s purposes, the use of this one paper copy to simultaneously record enforceable ink 

signatures under this interim solution will not result in additional paperwork being supplied. 

Moreover, most of the paperwork reduction, greater efficiency, and data quality enhancement 

benefits of the electronic manifest will still be realized even with the execution and retention of 

this one paper manifest copy. We anticipate that this interim signature method would be used

until such time as EPA is able to designate specific digitized signature products that have been 

tested and found through peer reviewed studies to meet the forensic reliability standard. 

At such time EPA is able to designate those signature products that have been found by testing to 

be forensically reliable, so that it is possible to reliably authenticate digitized handwritten 

signatures with the expert testimony of document examiners, then these digitized handwritten 

signatures will qualify as “valid electronic signatures” that are fully compliant with CROMERR 

and may stand on their own for enforcement purposes without any paper copy back-up. 

At such time as EPA designates certain digitized handwritten signature products as forensically

reliable, this final rule will also require that the generator, transporter, and facility personnel who 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 48

sign electronic manifests with these products must undergo identity proofing that complies with 

CROMERR identity proofing requirements in 40 CFR 3.2000(b)(5)(vii). This means that the 

generator, transporter and facility personnel who will sign manifests with these products must 

have an identity credential such as a driver’s license vetted by a disinterested third party or 

automated validation service, or, these signatories must submit electronic signature agreements 

containing ink signatures as an alternative means of identity proofing. Since this method is 

anticipated to be a company-wide implementation by the transporter or waste management 

company sponsoring the mobile computer equipment, EPA expects that this method will be a 

good candidate for submission of signature agreements to the sponsoring company’s local 

registration authority or LRA, who would certify to EPA that the agreements have been executed 

for all the signatories across the company and that the agreements are being stored locally with 

the company. 

Significantly, during the interim period that digitized signature products are collecting ink 

signatures and digitized signatures simultaneously, CROMERR identity proofing will not be 

required from the generator, transporter, or facility personnel signing manifests in this fashion. 

Since the one paper copy with ink signatures will serve as the copy of record for enforcement 

purposes, there is no issue of CROMERR compliance (including identity proofing requirements) 

while this interim signature method is being used.

Recommended PIN/password electronic signature method. In addition to the digitized signature 

method discussed above, the final rule also recommends for the first generation e-Manifest an 

additional electronic signature method that involves a PIN or password signature strengthened 

with a unique 2nd authentication factor. This method would be available for all electronic 

manifest signatories who are not signing electronic manifests with the digitized signature method 

discussed above. While there are a variety of possible means to implement a 2nd authentication 

factor (e.g., personal questions, token, biometric attribute), for the manifest business process, EPA 

anticipates that during the implementation of the first generation e-Manifest, the 2nd

authentication factor will be a witnessed signature certification.

Hazardous waste manifests are normally signed by waste handlers at the time custody of 

hazardous wastes is being transferred from one waste handler to another. So, there is typically a 

witness present to each manifest signature. For example, when a generator delivers its waste 

containers to the initial transporter, the generator executes the generator/offeror certification and 

the initial transporter signs to acknowledge receipt of the waste. In other words, the generator 

personnel and transporter personnel mutually sign the manifest in the presence of the other. 

Similarly, when a transporter delivers waste to the designated facility, the transporter obtains the 

signature of the facility personnel who signs for receipt of the waste shipment. Again, the facility 

representative signs in the presence of the transporter’s representative, and the transporter 

witnesses the signature of the designated facility’s representative. 

The witnessed signature method of executing PIN or password electronic signatures takes 

advantage of the fact that manifest signatures are normally witnessed by another party. So, when 

the generator signs with its PIN or password to execute the generator/offeror certification, he or 

she will also certify at that time that he or she witnessed the mutually executed signature of the 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 49

initial transporter. The witness certification will further attest that the generator was shown a 

driver’s license or other picture ID of the transporter, and that the picture ID shown is consistent 

with the identity claimed by the transporter. To ensure that this proofing exercise is in fact 

completed and is not a sham certification, the witness must record the last 4 digits of the signer’s 

driver’s license number as part of the witness’s certification. Likewise, as the transporter signs to 

acknowledge his or her receipt of the waste from the generator, the transporter representative will 

also certify to having witnessed the signature of the generator, and will examine the driver’s 

license of the generator and record the last 4 digits of that license number as part of the 

certification. A similar certification would be executed by the transporter when it delivers the 

waste to the designated facility and witnesses the signature being executed the facility’s 

representative. For the final rule, EPA has determined that the PIN or password electronic 

signatures that are executed in this fashion, with the requisite certification of a witness attesting to 

the signer’s signature act and proof of ID, are sufficiently strengthened by the witness 

certification, so that these signatures and certifications meet CROMERR’s requirement for a 2nd

authentication factor.

CROMERR compliant identity proofing will be required of all signatories using the PIN or 

password method of signature. CROMERR requires that a driver’s license, passport, or similar 

identity credential for the signatory must be vetted one time by a disinterested party or validation 

service supplied for this purpose (see 40 CFR §3.2000(b)(5)(vii)(A)) prior to the use of the 

electronic signature. Alternatively, one using a PIN or password electronic signature could also 

satisfy CROMERR identity proofing requirements by submitting an ink-signed signature 

agreement to EPA or to the company’s local registration authority (LRA) in accordance with 40 

CFR §3.2000(b)(5)(vii)(C). However, because each e-Manifest PIN or password signatory using 

the witnessed signature method discussed above undergoes identity proofing by the witness at the 

time of signature, there is no need to provide additional credentials or documentation to meet 

CROMERR identity proofing requirements with these signatures. The witnessed signature 

certification and underlying proofing of each signatory suffice to meet this CROMERR 

requirement. 

Comment: We heard from seven commenters who asked that the signature approach be flexible 

(Commenter Nos. 22, 33, 51, 59, 60, 61, and 63). Two commenters suggested that EPA should 

not specify the technology but allow industry to develop systems that meet desired outcomes 

(Commenter Nos. 51 and 60). Another commenter asked EPA to ensure that its signature 

standards are flexible enough to accommodate States' initiatives on electronic reporting 

(Commenter No. 59). Another commenter noted that, because of differences in cost, waste 

handlers within the same manifest cycle might use differing technologies (Commenter No. 61). 

As such, EPA should ensure that its final rule address compatibility among signature methods. 

Two commenters asked EPA to clarify standards and procedures to address situations in which 

the generator, transporter and/or TSDF operate different signature methods for the same shipment 

(Commenter Nos. 33 and 61). One of these commenters believes that, if EPA should adopt an 

even broader approach than the two signature approaches in the proposed rule, the criteria for 

additional signature methods should be to maximize ease of use, minimize cost, and provide a 

reasonable level of security (Commenter No. 33). The commenter added that, if numerous 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 50

signature methods were to be authorized, EPA should establish a national verification system that 

anyone can access to confirm (or interpret) the manifest signatures. The commenter also 

recommended that EPA ensure that multiple signatures are readable and verifiable by establishing 

a national verification system that anyone can access to confirm the signatures. Another 

commenter cautioned EPA to avoid overly broad or narrow approaches for digital signatures, 

since the rule will have far-reaching implications (Commenter No. 63).

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their request that the signature methods be flexible. We 

agree that the methods should accommodate the various preferences and constraints of the users 

of the electronic manifest. We agree with the comment that the regulation should not specify or 

codify technologies, and we have revised the final regulation so that it is in fact technology

neutral. For the final rule, therefore, the codified electronic signature requirements are that the 

signature methods satisfy CROMERR performance standards in 40 C.F.R. Part 3 and that the 

methods be generally acceptable to the user community. While the final rule does not codify

signature methods, we do recommend two methods in the preamble that we believe can be 

implemented in the first generation system in such a way as to meet the regulatory standards. 

These recommended solutions were discussed at length in our response to the previous comment.

In short, EPA’s intent is to set forth in the rule in general and flexible language what the 

regulatory requirements are for implementing an electronic manifest signature. As the various 

authentication technologies (e.g., biometrics, tokens) improve or become less costly over time, 

different signature solutions may become more feasible and appropriate for the e-Manifest 

system. EPA expects that the e-Manifest vendor and the Governing Body or Advisory Committee 

responsible for the oversight and change process for e-Manifest will settle on the specific 

authentication devices and approaches that will meet this rule’s requirements and will be 

supported by the system over time.

Comment: We heard from five commenters who suggested alternative approaches for the 

electronic signature (Commenter Nos. 22, 30, 33, 60, and 61). All of these commenters 

encouraged EPA to consider simple and least-cost signature approaches so long as they are 

comparable to the handwritten signature. Three commenters suggested use of a Personal 

Identification Number (PIN) or comparable approach (Commenter Nos. 30, 33, and 61). These 

commenters believe a PIN would provide a reasonable level of security in comparison with 

handwritten signatures. One commenter suggested EPA draw from DOT's experience and 

streamline its proposal to allow use of a signature mark produced by any means (Commenter No. 

22). Another commenter suggested that EPA allow itself the flexibility to approve new 

technologies, including biometrics (Commenter No. 61).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their suggestions for simple, low-cost signature 

methods. We agree with their concerns and believe the signature methods in the final rule address 

such concerns. EPA conducted a detailed economic analysis of the proposed authentication and 

signature technologies in May 2007, as we wanted to understand better how the hardware, 

software, and support services needed for each signature and identity proofing method would 

impact the implementation costs for the system and users, and how these costs might affect the 

per manifest user fee that would be imposed to recover the electronic signature costs. The May
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 51

2007 economic analysis disclosed that the handwritten digitized signature method is a cost 

effective electronic signature method ($.13 to $.39 cost per manifest), although this cost is likely

to increase when the cost of the higher quality pads and software that might satisfy requirements 

for forensic reliability are taken into account. However, we are generally impressed that the 

digitized signature method has intuitive appeal and appears to be quite cost effective for users, 

despite the fact that this method entails a more significant initial investment by users in the 

signature pads and software necessary to generate the digitized signatures. PINs and passwords, 

when evaluated for helpdesk support costs (i.e., resetting lost passwords), identity proofing 

requirements, and the addition of a 2nd authentication factor to strengthen the signature, were 

found to present implementation costs ($0.54 to $0.96 per manifest) comparable to the digitized 

signature method. Thus, our final rule language now reflects these commenters’ concerns that the 

recommended signature methods provide authentication strength comparable to handwritten 

signatures while ensuring cost-effectiveness. The final rule retains the flexibility requested by 

several commenters to consider and approve new technologies such as biometrics as they become 

more established, practical, and cost-effective. We cannot accept the commenter’s suggestion 

that a mark executed by any means be acceptable as an e-Manifest signature, since the signature 

method must be sufficiently strong and unique so that it will support criminal enforcement actions 

that require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all elements of a case, including the identity of 

signers.

4.2 Digital Signatures

Comment: We heard from four commenters who believe that manifest signatures do not require a 

level of security offered by the digital signature technology (Commenter Nos. 22, 33, 46 and 60). 

One commenter suggested that electronic signatures should be no more stringent than handwritten 

signatures (Commenter No. 22). Another commenter urged that EPA should not focus on field or 

file security, but on field and data authenticity (Commenter No. 60). The commenter explained 

that manifest users can capture the generator's valid signature/authenticity through any type of 

technology; the rule should not mandate the type of technology used, but should allow any means 

of electronically capturing a signature. Another commenter doubted that manifest signatures 

require the level of security offered by the digital signature and expressed uncertainty whether 

there currently is a level of falsification to warrant EPA's concern (Commenter No. 33).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views and agrees that the digital signature is not 

a preferred method for the electronic manifest at this time. The final rule does not require a 

specific electronic signature technology, but in response to comments and further analysis, we 

make recommendations in the final rule preamble about methods that we believe to be 

CROMERR compliant and practical for users. At this time, we are not recommending the digital 

signature method for the first generation system.

As discussed above, EPA has received significant input from industry that the digital signature 

method provides an unnecessary level of security, and its benefits cannot be justified in view of 

its costs. An economic analysis performed in 2007 helped to support this conclusion. The 

economic analysis disclosed that the handwritten digitized signature method is a cost effective 

electronic signature method. PINs and passwords, when evaluated for helpdesk support costs 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 52

(i.e., resetting lost passwords), identity proofing requirements, and the addition of a 2nd 

authentication factor to strengthen the signature, were found to present comparable 

implementation costs to the digitized signature method augmented with a 2nd authentication 

factor. On the other hand, the May 2007 analysis disclosed that the projected cost of 

implementing the proposed digital signature method with a public key infrastructure or PKI 

would likely be three to four times the projected costs of implementing either the PIN/password 

method or digitized signature method. Because of the far greater costs associated with the digital 

signature method, and the comments in the record that criticized the complexity and relative cost 

of this signature method, EPA has determined that it will not initially provide support for digital 

signatures and PKI in the implementation of the e-Manifest system. We believe that the 

comments and the additional analysis conducted in May 2007 provide ample support for the 

digitized signature and PIN/password methods of signature. 

Comment: We heard from one commenter who believes the proposed level of security for the 

digital signature is burdensome, but stated that it would be willing to participate nonetheless 

(Commenter No. 56). 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its views. Please refer to the Agency’s responses to 

the first comment in this section and in Section 4.1 of this document for information on EPA’s 

final decision to adopt technology neutral electronic signature regulatory language, and to 

recommend the handwritten digitized signature method and the PIN/password method 

strengthened with a second authentication factor as our currently recommended alternatives to the

digital signature method.

Comment: We heard from three commenters in response to EPA's question about whether it is 

practical to verify digital signatures on a document such as the manifest which will be signed 

sequentially by multiple waste handlers and whether multiple versions of each manifest document 

must be maintained electronically to preserve the complete history of the document (Commenter 

Nos. 22, 33, and 60). 

One commenter noted that the final electronic manifest should not be so cumbersome to deter 

regulated parties from using the system (Commenter No. 22). The commenter suggested that the 

software ultimately selected by EPA for the final rulemaking should be able to accommodate 

multiple generator or shipper signatures. This may be done through one document reflecting 

multiple signatures or through one file containing multiple "modified copies" of the manifest, 

each showing a different signature. Another commenter stated that, once a section of data in the 

electronic manifest (e.g., number of containers) has been added to the file or record, it should 

never be removed or modified (Commenter No. 60). The commenter stated that each system 

should be required to detect any unauthorized modification by validating each section of data. 

Incorrectly modified files would result in rejection of the manifest with procedures consistent 

with a physically incorrect manifest, and procedures to re-manifest the shipment should be 

documented. Another commenter stated that verification is practical when the completed 

manifest is received by the regulating entity; however, verification in the field is more 

problematic (Commenter No. 33). The commenter believes that a transaction history should exist 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 53

for all stages of the waste's transport. Otherwise, it becomes extremely difficult to track down 

where a discrepancy (or a falsification) occurred. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views. Please refer to the Agency’s responses 

to the first comment in this section and in Section 4.1 of this document for information on EPA’s 

final decision on electronic signature regulatory language and our recommendation to adopt the 

digitized handwritten signature method and PIN/password method strengthened with a 2nd

authentication factor as alternatives to the digital signature method.

Comment: We heard from three commenters regarding EPA's proposed algorithms for the 

electronic signature (Commenter Nos. 26, 46, and 59). Two commenters urged EPA to be 

flexible in authorizing algorithms because of technology advancements (Commenter Nos. 26 and 

59). One of the commenters suggested that EPA merely require the use of digital signature 

standards approved by the federal government or State, instead of listing specific standards 

(Commenter No. 59). Another commenter expressed concern that the proposed algorithms would 

introduce a new system for railroads and would not be cost effective (Commenter No. 46).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views. Please refer to the Agency’s responses 

to the first comments in this section and in Section 4.1 of this document for information on EPA’s 

final decision on electronic signature regulatory language and our recommendations for the first 

generation system to adopt the digitized handwritten signature method and the PIN/password 

method strengthened with a 2nd authentication factor as alternatives to the digital signature 

method.

Comment: We heard from three commenters regarding EPA's proposed requirements for 

maintaining the confidentiality of private keys (Commenter Nos. 33, 46, and 60). Two of the 

commenters opposed the requirements, believing they are too burdensome on waste handlers in 

comparison to the current manifest requirements and procedures (Commenter Nos. 46 and 60). 

The other commenter believes the requirements for individuals and sponsoring firms to maintain 

the confidentiality of their private keys and accept accountability would be too burdensome on 

smaller waste handlers with limited staff (Commenter No. 33). The commenter asked for EPA to 

find a balance between a reasonable level of security and affordable costs. The commenter does 

not oppose a requirement for registrants to enter into a signature agreement that contains 

certifications that the private key would be protected from disclosure, unauthorized use, or 

delegation. The commenter cautioned that these controls, however, would not provide any real 

guarantee of security.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views. Please refer to the Agency’s responses 

to the first comment in this section and in Section 4.1 of this document for information on EPA’s 

final electronic signature regulatory selection criteria and preamble recommendations for the first 

generation system. After considering the comments on this issue, we are not now recommending 

the adoption of the digital signature method.
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 54

Comment: We heard from one commenter who expressed opposition to the requirement for a 

trusted third party, since it would not be cost-effective for the railroad industry (Commenter No. 

46). 

Another commenter raised concerns about the creation of a system involving a trusted third party 

and related procedures, since this would create a new area of compliance liability for which 

TSDFs have limited expertise (Commenter No. 26). The commenter asked EPA to clarify

appropriate procedures in cases where a signature cannot be verified at delivery of the waste.

We heard from three commenters who asked EPA to provide a list of standards or requirements 

for digital signatures and/or a list of Certificate Authorities for acceptable digital signatures 

(Commenter Nos. 30, 54, and 63).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views. Please refer to the Agency’s responses 

to the first comment in this section and in Section 4.1 of this document for information on EPA’s 

final decision on the electronic signature regulatory selection criteria, and preamble 

recommendations on electronic signature methods for the first generation system. After 

considering the comments on this issue, we are not now recommending the adoption of the digital 

signature method.

Comment: We heard from three commenters regarding the requirements for periodic certification 

of signature agreements or for proof of identity in regard to issuing a digital certification for use 

in the manifest program (Commenter Nos. 22, 33, and 60). One commenter stated that no formal 

proof of identity should be required to receive a digital certificate, since no proof of identity is 

needed for the existing manifest system (Commenter No. 60). Another commenter believes that 

EPA should keep the requirements as simple as possible and require little more than proof of 

identification (Commenter No. 22). Another commenter supported the idea for registrants to 

certify annually that they have not violated their signature agreement and for signature 

agreements and annual certifications to be signed by hand (Commenter No. 33). The commenter 

also suggested that a valid photo identification, proof of employment with the handler, and the 

individual's social security card should provide necessary proof of identity. The commenter 

believes that applicants should be required, for the initial issuance at least, to present themselves 

in person. Subsequent renewals could be less stringent and not require a personal appearance.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views. Please refer to the Agency’s responses 

to the first comment in this section and in Section 4.1 of this document for information on EPA’s 

final decision on electronic signature regulatory selection criteria and preamble recommendations 

on methods for the first generation system. After considering the comments on this issue, we are 

not now recommending the adoption of the digital signature method.

Comment: We heard from four commenters in regard the cost and complexity of a PKI program 

and the willingness of waste handlers to participate (Commenter Nos. 22, 33, 46 and 60). These 

commenters believe that PKI would increase the burden and administrative activities required of 

waste handlers and would likely deter them from implementing the digital signature approach. 

One commenter expressed concern that the proposed approach would require manifest users to 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 55

ensure that employees with signature capability would be available at all times to electronically 

sign manifests (e.g., during all shifts, vacations, holidays) (Commenter No. 60). Another 

commenter clarified that smaller waste handlers, in particular, would be deterred from 

participation because of the burden (Commenter No. 33).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views. Please refer to the Agency’s responses 

to the first comment in this section and in Section 4.1 of this document for information on EPA’s 

final decision on electronic signature regulatory selection criteria and preamble recommendations 

on methods for the first generation system. After considering the comments on this issue, we are 

not now recommending the adoption of the digital signature method or the inclusion of PKI.

Comment: We heard from five commenters in regard to the three optional approaches for PKI 

implementation (Commenter Nos. 33, 46, 54, 61, and 63). One commenter supported the 

centralized approach because of greater clarity and the elimination of confusion by having a 

single, known standard (Commenter No. 33). Another commenter opposed any option for PKI, 

since it would introduce an entirely new system that would not be cost-effective for the rail 

industry (Commenter No. 46). Two commenters suggested that EPA allow States who become 

authorized for the electronic manifest portion to have the ability to generate the certificates 

instead of EPA (Commenter Nos. 54 and 63). Another commenter stated that, if EPA chooses to 

use the PKI program of the General Services Administration (GSA), the Agency should regularly 

evaluate private vendors as a possible option, as PKI private alternatives become more mature 

(Commenter No. 61). The commenter also believes that the option chosen must be implemented 

consistently throughout the States so interstate commerce is not impeded. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views. Please refer to the Agency’s responses 

to the first comment in this section and in Section 4.1 of this document for information on EPA’s 

final decision on electronic signature regulatory selection criteria and preamble recommendations 

on methods for the first generation system. After considering the comments on this issue, we are 

not now recommending the adoption of the digital signature method or the inclusion of PKI.

4.3 Secure Digitized Signature

Comment: We heard from four commenters in response to EPA's request for comment on the 

proposed security standards for digitized signatures (Commenter Nos. 17, 33, 46, and 60). Three 

commenters believe the security standards are too stringent and should require no more security 

than handwritten signatures (Commenter Nos. 17, 46, and 60). The other commenter stated that 

the security standards are adequate to prevent casual abuse, although the commenter 

acknowledges that "adequate security" depends on how the term "adequate" is defined 

(Commenter No. 33). The commenter does not believe the standards would protect against abuse 

from someone who is sufficiently literate in the technology. In regard to the use of algorithms to 

bind signatures to record data sufficiently strong to prevent misuse, the commenter believes that a 

sufficiently sophisticated algorithm could encode the digital signature in such a way that it would 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 56

only be valid to the document to which it was originally attached.1 However, the commenter 

noted that this would necessitate an equally sophisticated validation process.

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their views on the security issues related to the digitized 

signature method. We agree with comments that the security standards for the digitized signature 

method should not be too stringent. However, we continue to believe that minimum standards 

need to be in place to ensure authentication of a user’s digitized signature consistent with the 

CROMERR. For the final rule, we have replaced the codified standards that were proposed at 

§262.25(g) with a technology neutral standard that requires signature methods to be CROMERR 

compliant and to be generally cost-effective and practical for users. However, in the final rule 

preamble we offer recommendations on how a quality digitized signature product must perform 

and suggest that products meeting these recommended performance standards would be 

CROMERR compliant and acceptable for the first generation e-Manifest system. While the 

recommendations retain the proposed standard of employing a hash function to digitally bind the 

signature with the signed content, the other performance recommendations in the final rule are 

more focused on the quality of the digitized pads, pens, and software insofar as how they capture, 

process, and analyze signature and forensic data. Significantly, the final rule recommended 

standards for quality handwritten digitized signatures give greater emphasis to the overarching 

performance standard for these products – that they reliably capture and analyze the forensic 

signature data so that a professional document examiner could testify as an expert witness to the 

authenticity of the signatures. Thus, CROMERR compliant digitized handwritten signatures will 

be authenticated in a manner similar to ink signatures that are in dispute, that is, based on the 

testimony of professional document examiners about the unique forensic properties of the 

signature. The recommended standards in the final rule also explain that before these signature 

products may be determined to be CROMERR compliant, peer reviewed studies showing the 

forensic reliability of the signature products must be completed so that there is a proper 

evidentiary foundation (under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Daubert opinion) for the expert 

testimony of the document examiners. 

Under CROMERR, the Agency also generally requires electronic signatories of environmental 

reports to undergo a one-time identity proofing exercise before the signatory may sign and submit 

electronic reports to EPA. Identity proofing aids in establishing that an asserted identity can with 

legal certainty be uniquely linked with the electronic signature device used by the signatory to 

execute their electronic signature. However, as digitized handwritten signatures would be 

authenticated by examiners based on their unique biometric-like properties, it is not necessary for 

the signer to show “ownership” of their unique digitized handwritten signature any more than it is 

required that they show ownership of their ink-signed signatures. Therefore, there will be no 

specific CROMERR identity proofing required for these signatures in e-Manifest. 

Comment: We heard from one commenter in response to EPA's request for comment on whether 

EPA should require that digitized signatures be digitally signed (Commenter No. 33). The 

 

1 It appears that Commenter 33 intended to use the term “digitized signature” instead of “digital signature” in this 

comment.
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 57

commenter doubted that this approach would provide any additional security, since anyone who 

could falsify the digitized signature also could falsify digitally signing the digitized signature. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its views on the security issues related to the digitized 

signature method. We agree that EPA should not require that digitized handwritten signatures be 

digitally signed. Rather, the final rule sets forth alternative recommended performance standards 

for digitized handwritten signatures that we believe are sufficiently effective and that are focused 

more on accurately and securely capturing, processing, and analyzing forensic signature data so 

that the signatures may be reliably authenticated in the event of a dispute by expert document 

examiners.

Comment: We heard from four commenters regarding the cost implications of the proposed 

secure digitized signature approach (Commenter Nos. 22, 33, 46 and 60). One commenter 

expressed concern that, if EPA imposes a complex security system for its electronic signature 

process, it would not be as cost-effective as the current system (Commenter No. 22). The 

commenter believes that, on the other hand, if EPA keeps the electronic signature process simple, 

it could well be comparable to, or even more cost-effective than, the current handwritten system. 

Another commenter stated that the secure digitized method provide a more practical and cost 

effective alternative to the digital signature/PKI approach and hand signed documents 

(Commenter No. 60). Another commenter stated that, in consideration of the additional costs for 

hardware and software involved with the secure digitized method, the question of practicality and 

cost-effectiveness is directly dependent on the issue of whether the additional level of security is 

worth the additional cost and complexity (Commenter No. 33). 

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on the costs of the digitized signature 

method. We agree that we should attempt to minimize user costs while ensuring an effective, 

legally enforceable signature method, and we believe the final rule recommendations establish 

such a method. As discussed elsewhere in this document, EPA conducted a detailed economic 

analysis of the proposed authentication and signature technologies in May 2007 to understand 

better how the hardware, software, and support services needed for each signature and identity 

proofing method would impact the implementation costs for the system and users, and how these 

costs might affect the per manifest user fee that would be imposed to recover the electronic 

signature costs. The May 2007 economic analysis disclosed that the handwritten digitized 

signature method is a cost effective electronic signature method ($.13 to $.39 cost per manifest), 

despite the fact that this method entails a more significant initial investment by users in the 

signature pads and software necessary to generate the digitized signatures. While there may be 

some additional cost involved with purchasing the quality digitized signature products that will 

prove capable of meeting the forensic reliability standard in our recommendations, we believe that 

these products will likely be very cost-effective relative to other methods we analyzed. Further, 

the recommendations on forensic reliability and authentication by document examiners disclose 

that EPA intends that the signature process with digitized handwritten signatures be performed 

simply and very similarly to the current ink signature process. Thus, the digitized signature 

process will in fact be very comparable to the current signature process with ink signatures insofar 

as the signature ceremony used to collect the signatures and the reliance on forensic signature 

evidence to authenticate them. These signatures are particularly amenable to off-line capture, 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 58

since they will not be subjected to real time validation against the network, and will be 

authenticated in the event of a dispute by professional document examiners, using the stored 

forensic signature evidence. 

In addition, EPA also reminds commenters that many users of a digitized signature method will 

not need to purchase the signature apparatus and therefore will not incur such costs. Specifically, 

EPA is aware that many of the generators who would sign their electronic manifests with the 

digitized signature method are small generators who might ship wastes under electronic manifests 

very infrequently, perhaps two or three times per year. For these generators, purchase of the 

digitized signature apparatus may not make economic sense. Rather, we envision that 

transporters and TSDs may purchase portable signature devices for their customers’ use when 

they pick up a shipment for transportation. Under this scenario, a digitized signature pad or pen 

would be supplied for each transport vehicle, and this device could be used repeatedly by many

customers for thousands of signatures over a period of several years, before their expected failure 

or replacement.

Comment: We heard from three commenters regarding the implementability and feasibility of 

secure digitized signatures (Commenter Nos. 22, 33 and 60). These commenters believe that it 

would be unlikely for waste handlers to enter null or nonsense signatures on a digitizer pad in 

comparison with a handwritten signature (Commenter Nos. 33 and 60). In regard to advantages 

of digitized signatures over handwritten signatures, one of these commenters noted that the main 

advantage that manifest users would find attractive is that digitized signatures will allow them to 

file their required manifests electronically rather than manually (Commenter No. 33). The 

commenter believes this will prove convenient, be significantly less expensive, and have the 

potential to greatly speed any processing involved. In regard to whether the software 

implementing the proposed approach supports open standards, the commenter believes that some 

software implementing the approach supports open standards, whereas other software 

implementing the approach still utilizes proprietary algorithms and standards. The commenter 

believes that open standards are better, particularly for anything a waste handler will be dependent 

on for a long period of time.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on implementation of the digitized 

signature method. We agree with the comments that the digitized signature can be an attractive 

option for users that are accustomed to the current handwritten signature processes. That is a 

primary reason for our recommendation of this method in the final rule preamble. We thank the 

commenters for expressing their belief that it is unlikely for waste handlers to enter null or 

nonsense signatures on a digitizer pad in comparison with a handwritten signature. EPA will 

consider their comments when we develop the e-Manifest system.

Comment: We heard from two commenters regarding parameters for ensuring accuracy (e.g., 

visual feedback, dynamic signature parameters) in the secure digitized signature (Commenter 

Nos. 33 and 60). One commenter opposed visual feedback parameters because they add burden 

and do not enhance environmental protection (Commenter No. 60). The other commenter 

believes that dynamic signature parameters could be helpful in establishing the genuineness of a 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 59

signature; however, such parameters could cause confusion (e.g., if it rejects signatures that are in 

fact valid) and add burden on waste handlers (Commenter No. 33).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views about the parameters for the digitized 

signature. The issue with visual feedback and collection of signature dynamics parameters is not 

the furtherance of environmental protection, but rather, supplying a signature that is capable of 

being reliably authenticated by document examiners so that the system will be protected from 

attempts at fraud or repudiation. EPA acknowledges that a dynamic signature system that 

attempts to validate signatures immediately can be calibrated so that they report either too many

false positives or false negatives. However, EPA does not intend to implement the digitized 

handwritten signature so that signatures will be validated in this manner “on the fly.” Rather, 

EPA intends that the system will collect and retain the forensic signature evidence and then 

subject the forensic evidence to analysis by experts only in the event of a dispute involving a 

manifest signature. This is the manner in which ink signatures are authenticated when a dispute 

arises regarding their authenticity, and EPA expects that the forensic data from digitized 

handwritten signatures will be analyzed and authenticated in a similar fashion with e-Manifest. 

EPA will further consider these comments as we develop the e-Manifest system.

5.0 Preparer Signature Proposal

Comment: We heard from 13 commenters expressing concern or offering suggestions for the 

proposed procedures for preparers to sign and initiate the electronic manifest (Commenter Nos. 5, 

17, 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 46, 54, 57, 59, and 60). 

Two commenters expressed their concern for the high level of safeguards required for the 

preparer signature approach since EPA does not require any equivalent level of safeguards for 

handwritten signatures under the current manifest system (Commenter Nos. 46 and 57). Another 

commenter expressed its belief that EPA should not establish any requirements for preparer 

signatures beyond what is currently required for paper manifests and expressed opposition to 

EPA's suggestion for hand-signed generator authorization for the preparer (Commenter No. 60).

Three commenters believe that the proposed preparer signature feature could diminish the 

importance of the generator certification and the generator's involvement/responsibility to ensure 

correct, valid information on the manifest (Commenter Nos. 5, 34, and 59). One of these 

commenters expressed concern that EPA is making the electronic manifest available to small 

handlers (Commenter No. 34). The commenter believes that the e-manifest should be available 

only to waste handlers involved in large numbers of manifests. Another of these commenters 

believes the preparer signature could affect the cradle-to-grave responsibility as interpreted by the 

courts as well as other liability issues (Commenter No. 59).

One commenter believes the term "preparer" at proposed 40 CFR 262.24(b) should be changed to 

reflect the definition at proposed 40 CFR 260.10, i.e., the "preparer" is the person who conducts 

the administrative requirements of assembling the manifest, not the technical requirements of 

preparing the shipment for transportation (Commenter No. 57). The commenter also believes the 

proposal prohibits a preparer from originating the manifest, even though preparers can originate a 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 60

paper manifest under the current system. The commenter urged EPA to revise the regulatory

language to clarify that preparers can originate the electronic manifest

Two commenters suggested that the manifest should indicate the preparer's relationship to the 

generator (Commenter Nos. 54 and 59). One of these commenters further stated that EPA should 

require that the preparer's signature and company, as well as the generator's signature, appear on 

the electronic manifest (Commenter No. 54). The commenter also asked EPA to reiterate its 

existing policy allowing employees or other individuals to sign the manifest paper on behalf of 

the generator. 

Two commenters asked EPA to clarify the liability of generators and preparers under the 

proposed approach (Commenter Nos. 5 and 30). 

Two commenters asked EPA to clarify specifically how the generator authorizes the preparer to 

sign on his behalf, e.g., the specific language to be used (Commenter Nos. 30 and 59). Two 

commenters expressed their belief that the authorization should be in writing (Commenter Nos. 

33 and 59). One of these commenters suggested that the authorization should be in writing, 

contain an acknowledgment that the generator is responsible as the generator of the waste 

described in the manifests completed by the preparer, and be executed prior to the preparer 

completing any manifests on behalf of the generator (Commenter No. 59). The commenter 

believes the authorization should also clearly indicate to the generator that the same 

responsibilities and liabilities associated with a paper manifest are also associated with an 

electronic manifest, including the reconciliation of any rejections, discrepancies, or exceptions.

Another commenter asked EPA to clarify the procedures for a generator's employees to 

electronically sign an electronic manifest that is prepared by a vendor (e.g., discuss the ability of 

the employees to interface with the vendor's electronic manifest) (Commenter No. 25).

One commenter expressed support for allowing for preparer signatures, but noted that use of the 

secure digitized signature would minimize the need for preparers to sign on behalf of the 

generator (Commenter No. 17). Another commenter also expressed support for preparer 

signatures, but asked EPA for more clarification on when preparer signatures would be 

appropriate and how they might be integrated into technology platforms (Commenter No. 32).

Two commenters expressed their belief that EPA should not limit the preparer signature approach 

to digital signatures (Commenter Nos. 33 and 60). They believe the rule should be flexible 

enough for other approaches. 

Four commenters believe the regulations should be clarified to require that the preparer must 

provide the signed manifest to the generator at the time of signature/shipment (Commenter Nos. 

33, 35, 54, and 59). One of these commenters indicated its belief that there is no other effective 

alternative to the proposed approach of leaving a manifest with the generator (Commenter No. 

33). The commenter believes the generator would insist of this. 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 61

Another commenter expressed concern about the logistical difficulties associated with a preparer's 

leaving a signed paper manifest with the generator prior to shipment (Commenter No. 57). The 

commenter suggested that, as an alternative, the generator be provided with a shipping paper at, 

or in advance of, pick-up of the waste.

Two commenters expressed their belief that the generator should receive verification of receipt or 

notice of rejections or discrepancies (Commenter Nos. 33 and 60). Once of these commenters 

supported its view by indicating that a conflict of interest could arise if a generator allowed its 

preparer (e.g., TSD) to verify receipt of shipment (Commenter No. 33). The other commenter 

noted that there may be instances where electronic verifications are not possible (Commenter No. 

60). In these circumstances, the commenter believes that alternative means of verification should 

be acceptable and may include, but are limited to, a hard copy of the manifest or a summary of the 

relevant manifest data. The commenter also believes that the particular concern regarding a 

generator/preparers relationship when the preparer is employed by the same entity that operates 

the receiving facility is addressed by the formal business relationship of the two parties, e.g. 

indemnification or some other contractual relationship. The commenter offered regulatory text 

for EPA's consideration that would apply to preparers that also act as the transporter and 

designated TSDF.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their many views on the third-party storage of 

electronic manifests. In the May 22, 2001 proposed rule, EPA proposed the provisions for 

manifest preparation and signature by authorized preparers at section 262.24(b). The topic of 

manifest preparation and the related issue of when it is proper for a preparer of manifests to sign 

for the generator has been subsumed by the discussion of “offeror” responsibilities and offeror 

signatures in the March 4, 2005 final rule notice on Manifest Form Revisions. Because this area 

is now fully addressed in the general discussion of offeror responsibilities and offeror 

certifications that apply to all manifests, both paper and electronic, it is not necessary to codify in 

the final e-Manifest rule a distinct provision limited to electronic manifesting addressing manifest 

preparation and preparer signatures. The offeror responsibilities and options for signing manifests 

are no different for paper manifests or electronic manifests. Therefore, EPA is not taking further 

action on the preparer signature proposal in the final rule. Refer to the document, “Hazardous 

Waste Management System: Modifications of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System; Proposed 

Rule,” in the Federal docket for EPA’s responses to public comments on the proposed preparer 

signature provisions. The document is available at www.regulations.gov under EPA docket 

number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0032.

6.0 Proposed Conditions on Third-party Storage

Comment: We heard from eight commenters who either stated their support for third-party

storage of manifests, or expressed their lack of opposition to it (Commenter Nos. 12, 17, 22, 33, 

46, 54, 59, and 60). Two of these commenters believe the off-site storage provision would be an 

incentive for facilities to automate (Commenter Nos. 33 and 60). 

One of the commenters noted that it is unclear as to just how off-site vendors would assume the 

computer and record security controls in storing manifests (Commenter No. 33). The commenter 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 62

suggested that EPA could make it a requirement that, should a third-party storer decide to leave 

the business, they must provide EPA with copies of all manifest records in their possession; 

however, the commenter noted some drawbacks with this approach. The commenter also 

suggested that EPA could make it a requirement that, should a third-party storer decide to leave 

the business, they must give a reasonable amount of notice to their customers to allow the 

customers time to find an alternate storer and have their records transferred to that alternate storer. 

The commenter noted, however, that this would leave EPA largely dependent on the competence 

and diligence of the third-party storer.

One commenter stated its belief that it should be the responsibility of the TSDF to assure that 

adequate data security is maintained by these third-party storage providers (Commenter No. 17). 

The commenter does not believe that EPA needs to include any particular restrictions or controls 

on the use of these vendors.

One commenter clarified that, if railroads are allowed to use their current EDI systems to transmit 

and store the information, it is in favor of off-site storage (Commenter No. 46). 

Two of the commenters clarified that they do not oppose off-site storage so long as the rule fully 

addresses the issue of inspection of manifests that are electronic (Commenter Nos. 54 and 59). 

One commenter suggested that EPA should include a requirement that the manifest system have 

the capability and that the generator, and/or TSDF, and/or transporter print out a one (or two) line 

"summary report" of electronic manifest activity (Commenter No. 54). The commenter believes 

this should be required on a weekly basis so that if a system is down, or if the contact person is 

not available, the inspecting entity would still have manifest information. The other commenter 

stated that facilities should be required to recover their records or transfer them to another 

third-party storer if inspectors are not provided with adequate access, or if the business 

arrangements between the third-party storer and the generator are no longer in effect during the 

required retention time (Commenter No. 59).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their many views on the third-party storage of 

electronic manifests. In the May 22, 2001 proposed rule, EPA proposed to permit facilities to 

engage commercial record storage services or networks to provide for electronic storage of 

manifest copies. Based on stakeholder input and further consideration, EPA has determined not 

to pursue its proposed decentralized e-manifest approach. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a 

notice of data availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to 

signal to the public on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the 

establishment of a national e-Manifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees 

that would be paid by the waste handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. The 2012 eManifest Act in fact mandates this approach. Under this approach, users of the e-Manifest may be 

able to maintain their official copies of the electronic manifest on secure storage sites and their 

accounts on the national system, rather than on third-party systems. Because of the centralized 

approach, it is no longer necessary to address third-party storage in the final rule.

Comment: We heard from six commenters regarding liability and enforcement issues associated 

with the offsite storage of electronic manifests (Commenter Nos. 16, 18, 22, 33, 34, and 60). 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 63

Several commenters believe that EPA needs to clarify the liability and enforcement implications 

for facilities and their third-party storers under the proposed approach (Commenter Nos. 16, 18, 

and 34). These commenters asked EPA to clarify in particular the compliance and enforcement 

issues that would apply to a RCRA facility that uses a third party to store its manifests, in 

situations where the manifest cannot be immediately produced to inspectors (e.g., because of 

technical difficulties). 

Another commenter expressed its belief that the issue of vendor liability and vendee protection 

should be left to the contract between the two parties (Commenter No. 22). The commenter 

believes these issues should not be addressed through EPA's rule. 

Two commenters believe that the third-party storer should not incur any liability under RCRA 

(Commenter Nos. 33 and 60). One of the commenters believes the vendor would face 

service-provider liability rather than liability under RCRA per se (Commenter No. 33). The other 

commenter does not believe there would be any distinction between hard copy manifests and the 

manifest data stored electronically in regard to enforcement, and as such, EPA can use its existing 

enforcement authority for recordkeeping of electronic forms (Commenter No. 60). The 

commenter stated that the regulated entity is the owner of its electronically stored manifest data 

and it would be compelled to produce the data upon demand from EPA. In this regard, the 

commenter believes that the third party service provider should not incur any RCRA liability

from the simple storage of data. The commenter added that the third party service provider is 

responsible for the administration of the storage system and that the data remains under the 

control and ownership of the facility through their contractual agreements. The commenter 

believes that, if the data storage service should exit the business, the accounts would be 

transferred to an alternate third party service provider.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for expressing their concerns on the third-party storage of 

electronic manifests. Because the centralized national e-Manifest system being pursued by EPA 

under the e-Manifest Act and this final rule will address storage of manifests at users’ accounts on

the national system, it is no longer necessary to address third-party storage in the final rule. 

Please refer to the Agency response above for additional information.

7.0 Regulatory Analyses Supporting the Rule

Comment: We heard from 10 commenters on EPA's regulatory impact analysis of the proposed 

rule (Commenter Nos. 10, 21, 26, 33, 34, 44, 52, 54, 59, and 63). 

One commenter expressed its disagreement with EPA that the rule is not economically significant 

(Commenter No. 10). In regard to the Economics Background Document of the rule, the 

commenter stated that EPA has inadequately addressed the costs related to waste handlers' 

equipment purchases. The commenter disagreed with a basic assumption in the analysis that 

waste handlers have personal computers readily available for the e-manifest. The commenter 

believes that the analysis is too simplistic and that automated handlers would need to pay for 

computer equipment, such as computers, printers, signature devices on vehicles, as well as for 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 64

employee training on the e-manifest. The commenter expressed concern that the analysis does 

not account for situations in which transporter printer capabilities are needed, e.g., in editing a 

generator's manifest.

In addition, the commenter does not believe the study adequately addresses economic impacts on 

small businesses. The commenter is concerned that the study's underlying data are based on 

consultations with relatively large waste handlers, which has skewed the data. The commenter 

points out that the largest waste handlers likely have the greatest amounts of computer hardware 

and software in place, as well as greater resources for implementation. Even though the emanifest is optional, the commenter believes small waste handlers may be forced into adopting 

electronic manifesting, which could be financially crippling. 

In regard to the Hazardous Waste Manifest Cost Benefit Analysis, the commenter states that EPA 

has not accounted for the need of transport vehicles to have computer and printer capabilities 

(e.g., to process the manifest for the non-automated generator). Further, the commenter is 

concerned that the EPA's studies do not indicate the specific number of waste handlers that would 

enjoy the burden reduction under the e-manifest proposal. The commenter believes that the 

per-entity burden reduction likely would not offset the incremental burden from necessary 

expenditures such as computer hardware, software, and training. Given these observations, the 

commenter expressed doubt that waste handlers would see savings under the proposed approach. 

Finally, the commenter expressed its belief that States would be the primary beneficiaries under 

the e-manifest approach, not the waste handlers.

Another commenter disagreed with EPA's burden estimates for the e-manifest (Commenter No. 

52). The commenter believes that the burden to waste handlers would increase under the 

proposed approach, since a hard copy of the shipping paper would still be required during 

transportation. 

Another commenter agreed with EPA that automating the manifest system has potential to result 

in an overall net savings at some future time after the new system reaches steady state operation 

(Commenter No. 23). However, in the interim, the commenter foresees potentially high front-end 

costs for individual waste handlers to purchase and deploy new hardware and software to 

implement the system. The commenter also believes individual waste handlers would incur 

up-front and continuing costs for maintenance, backup systems, specialized training, and security.

Another commenter suggested that EPA's analyses should account for other regulatory paperwork 

that might accompany a shipment, increasing costs (e.g., LDR paperwork, DOT shipping paper) 

(Commenter No. 21).

Another commenter noted that the rule would require waste handlers to maintain an electronic 

activity log audit trail to track access to the electronic records (Commenter No. 26). The 

commenter believes this would potentially be labor-intensive and should be accounted for in 

EPA's cost studies. The commenter also cautioned EPA that a paper-based system might be less 

burdensome for some TSDFs that an automated system. In addition, the commenter pointed out 

that much of a TSDF's business is made up of one-time generators that will not likely have 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 65

automated capabilities. Therefore, EPA should not assume that all of a TSDF's forms will be 

automated, or that the entire manifest cycle will be automated.

A number of commenters believe EPA has underestimated States' capital start-up costs under the 

e-manifest (Commenter Nos. 33, 34, 44, 54, 59, and 63). Two of these commenters stated that 

EPA's cost estimates are missing the amount of time and resources needed to maintain the 

knowledge to keep the electronic system up-to-date, which may require at least one full-time 

equivalent at a very high pay grade (Commenter Nos. 54 and 63). Another commenter stated that 

EPA's cost estimate of $100,000 for State start-up costs is too low, taking into account signature 

authority certificates and keys and the States' need to accommodate both EDI and XML formats 

(Commenter No. 59). Another commenter believes that there would be no cost savings by 

implementing the proposed electronic submission system for years to come (Commenter No. 34). 

The commenter pointed out that, initially, States would have to design and implement the 

electronic data submission system at the same time as handling the existing hard copy system.

One commenter stated that EPA should consider the full cost of implementation of the e-manifest 

component, given possible effects of the rule on waste handler and States' behavior (Commenter 

No. 25). The commenter wondered if manifest preparers or third-party storers would begin to 

charge their waste handler customers to recoup the cost of the electronic systems. The 

commenter also wondered about the effects on waste handlers' costs if some States do not adopt 

electronic reporting and a patchwork of State programs arises, making the e-manifest complex.

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their many suggestions for improvements to the 

Agency’s economic analysis. In the May 22, 2001 proposed rule, EPA proposed a decentralized 

approach for electronic manifesting that was based on technical standards and controls for 

initiating, transmitting, and retaining the electronic manifest. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a 

notice of data availability and request for comment in the Federal Register (74 FR 19842), to 

signal to the public on the rulemaking record that EPA’s preferred option is now the 

establishment of a national e-Manifest system to be hosted by EPA and funded by service fees 

that would be paid by the waste handlers who choose to use electronic manifests. In this regard, 

many of the assumptions and estimates in the Agency’s economic analysis on the proposed rule 

are not relevant to the Agency’s current approach. Nonetheless, commenters have raised good 

suggestions for further EPA research and analysis. EPA will continue to examine issues raised by

commenters, such as costs to States, costs for hardware, costs for carrying a paper manifest during 

transportation, and costs to small entities. 

EPA has determined that the costs, benefits, and other impacts of e-Manifest will not occur until 

the system is implemented. This final rule codifies key requirements of the E-Manifest Act and 

authorizes the use of electronic manifests on the national system, but none of the costs or benefits 

will be realized until the national system is developed and implemented. Therefore, EPA has 

decided to defer the development of a detailed Regulatory Impact Analysis until we promulgate 

the Fee Rule. At that time, we will have more complete and detailed information on the system to 

be procured and its costs, as well as the user fee charges that will be assessed to pay for and 

sustain the system. Thus, EPA will address commenters’ input as appropriate when we prepare

the economic analysis for the Fee Rule.
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 66

Comment: We heard from two commenters on EPA’s analysis of small business impacts under 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Commenter Nos. 10 and 44). One commenter expressed concern 

that EPA concluded that the rule would have no significant adverse impact on a substantial 

number of small entities (Commenter No. 10). The commenter believes EPA's analysis is 

incomplete, since it does not fully examine impacts to small waste handlers, such as small 

transporter companies. The commenter notes that most hazardous waste transportation 

companies are small businesses; however, EPA's studies do not adequately analyze the potential 

economic impact on transporter companies and TSDFs that are small businesses. In addition, the 

commenter notes that small transportation and TSDF companies must compete with the larger 

companies, who have more resources to obtain e-manifest capabilities and to undercut prices of 

smaller competitors. The commenter suggests that these larger companies will use the e-manifest 

as a value added service to drive smaller firms out of business. The commenter also noted that 

large generators would likely expect their commercial transporters and TSDFs to automate. This 

could force small businesses to automate or lose customers. Finally, each automated 

transportation vehicle would need computer capabilities, and employees would need to be trained 

on the e-manifest. The commenter expressed concern that these issues are not addressed in the 

EPA's small business studies. The other commenter expressed general concern that EPA's 

analysis underestimates the costs to smaller generators (Commenter No. 44).

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their views on impacts to small businesses under the 

proposed rule. As described above, EPA’s proposed rule was based on a decentralized approach 

for electronic manifesting. Since then, EPA indicated in April 2006 that its preferred option had 

changed to the establishment of a national e-Manifest system to be hosted by EPA, and has 

decided on this approach in this final rule. As discussed in the previous comment response, EPA 

has decided to conduct its detailed evaluation of the economic impacts of the e-Manifest when it 

promulgates the Fee Rule prior to the system’s implementation. Nonetheless, commenters have 

raised good suggestions for further EPA research and analysis. At this time, EPA notes that the 

paper manifest form will still be available for use, so any small business that does not want to 

utilize the electronic manifest can still access the paper forms to comply with manifest 

requirements. While EPA concedes that the early adoption of e-Manifest by larger transporters 

and TSDFs could place competitive pressure on some smaller entities, we do not believe that 

there will be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, 

the early adopters will be the ones that encounter the early bugs and complications of e-Manifest 

implementation, and perhaps a greater share of the costs. Once the initial period of system 

implementation is completed by early adopters, there may be “turn-key” solutions available from 

third party vendors that will make the costs of entry to e-Manifest less substantial than perceived 

now by the commenters. Even the smaller transporters and TSDFs, who are after all in the 

business of hazardous waste transportation and management, should realize sufficient efficiencies 

from the electronic manifest to eventually warrant their investment and participation in the 

electronic system. 
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 67

APPENDIX: TABLE OF ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING ON PROPOSED RULE 

AND COMMENTER NUMBERS
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 68

Table of Organizations Commenting on Proposed Rule and Commenter Numbers

Commenter 

Number Name of Organization Commenting on the Proposed Rule

1 No Affiliation

2 Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials

3 University of Missouri - Colombia Environmental Health and Safety

4 International Metals Reclamation Company, Incorporated

5 No Affiliation

6 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

7 Battery Council International

8 The Graphic Arts Coalition

9 Hazardous Materials Advisory Council

10 Chemical Analytics, Incorporated

11 Phelps Dodge Corporation

12 Department of Defense

13 Department of the Navy, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard

14 International Precious Metals Institute

15 American Trucking Associations

16 American Petroleum Institute

17 Onyx Environmental Services

18 Equiva

19 Specialty Steel Industry of North America and the Steel Manufacturers 

Association

20 Solutia

21 Dupont

22 Utility Solid Waste Activities Group

23 Department of Energy

24 Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association, Incorporated

25 Eastman Chemical Company

26 Waste Management

27 State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection

28 Merck Manufacturing Division

29 BRG Environmental

30 Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

31 Purdue University

32 Analine Technologies

33 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

34 New York Department of Environmental Conservation

35 State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

36 National Paint and Coatings Association

37 William K. Taggart
December 2, 2013 FINAL DOCUMENT Page 69

Commenter 

Number Name of Organization Commenting on the Proposed Rule

38 Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration

39 Systech Environmental Corporation

40 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

41 Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition

42 Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP

43 American Chemistry Council

44 Northeast Waste Management Official's Association

45 Dow Chemical Company

46 Association of American Railroads

47 Dominion

48 California Environmental Protection Agency

49 Institute of Makers of Explosives

50 Marisol, Incorporated

51 PPG Industries

52 General Motors Corporation

53 Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition

54 Information Management Task Force of the Association of State and Territorial 

Solid Waste Management Officials

55 Giant Cement Holding, Incorporated

56 American Airlines Incorporated

57 Heritage Environmental Services

58 U.S. Liquids Incorporated

59 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

60 Safety Kleen

61 Environmental Technology Council

62 National Automobile Dealers Association

63 Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality

64 Phelps Dodge Corporation

65 Environmental Technology Council

66 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers