RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: MODIFICATIONS OF THE 

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST SYSTEM; NOTICE OF DATA 

AVAILABILITY AND REQUEST FOR COMMENT

Published on April 18, 2006

November 12, 2013
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT ...................................................... 1

Background............................................................................................................. 1

Purpose of Document.............................................................................................. 2

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES ON EMANIFEST NOTICE......................................................................................................... 2

1.0 General........................................................................................................ 2

1.1 Support............................................................................................ 2

1.2 EPA Collaboration With Stakeholders ........................................... 3

1.3 State Adoption and Roles................................................................ 6

1.4 Effects of Dual Paper and Electronic Manifest Systems.............. 10

1.5 Estimated Costs and Benefits........................................................ 11

1.6 Authorizing Legislation and Funding ........................................... 14

2.0 Final Rule.................................................................................................. 18

2.1 General.......................................................................................... 18

2.2 Voluntary or Mandatory Use of e-Manifest.................................. 21

3.0 Conceptual Design of E-Manifest............................................................. 23

3.1 Extensible Markup Language (XML)........................................... 23

3.2 Technical Standards - General...................................................... 23

3.3 Access Controls/Protections over Data......................................... 25

3.4 System Compatibility.................................................................... 31

3.5 System Security ............................................................................ 31

3.6 System Failure .............................................................................. 32

3.7 Central Repository ........................................................................ 33

3.8 Gradual Roll-out/Scalability......................................................... 34

3.9 Integration of e-Manifest into Existing Regulatory Program ....... 36

Table of Organizations Commenting on the Notice and Commenter Numbers... 40
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 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 “e-Manifest” in this document). The 2001 proposed rule, 

however, included a decentralized approach to electronic manifesting. With this 

approach, EPA would issue detailed standards governing electronic manifest systems, 

and the private sector could develop perhaps multiple systems and approaches adhering 

to EPA's standards.

Public comments on the proposed rule 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. 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. In particular, the comments raised several strong objections to the 

decentralized electronic manifest approach proposed in May 2001, and suggested that a 

consistent, national system could be a preferable 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 eManifest from the form revisions portion of the proposal for purposes of taking final 

action. EPA published a final rule on the form revisions on March 4, 2005 (70 FR 

10776).

Since the 2001 proposal, EPA continued work on the e-Manifest. In particular, EPA 

held a two-day public meeting in May 2004 to discuss and obtain public input on a 

national e-Manifest system. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss with stakeholders 

our rulemaking progress and to solicit their input and preferences on the development and 

implementation of the e-Manifest project. EPA also presented material on alternative 

information technology (IT) approaches to the e-Manifest, including a centralized 

approach under which EPA or another entity would host a web-based national system. 

As a result of these stakeholder discussions and subsequent analysis of possible system 

options, EPA concluded that a centralized, national e-Manifest system is the preferred 

approach in proceeding with the rulemaking authorizing the use of electronic manifests.
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	2

On April 18, 2006, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability and Request for

Comment (71 FR 19842). The notice described the Agency’s general approach to an eManifest system, including a conceptual design of the e-Manifest, and it explained our 

changed program direction favoring a centralized, national e-Manifest approach. It also 

indicated EPA’s intent to consider the data obtained from the public meeting and any new 

data from public comments received on the notice in making a final decision on whether 

to develop a national e-Manifest system. In total, EPA received 31 public comment 

letters in response to the notice.

Purpose of Document

This document presents a summary of the public comments received in response to the 

April 2006 notice. The public comments (e.g., suggestions, concerns, questions) are 

summarized according to specific issues related to the proposed rule and preamble. 

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. A table at the end of this document provides the name of each organization that 

commented on the notice and its commenter number.

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

clarify how the comments were considered in developing the final e-Manifest approach. 

This document does not address comments that are outside the scope of the e-Manifest. 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES ON EMANIFEST NOTICE

1.0 General

1.1 Support

Comment: We heard from 25 commenters that indicated their general support for the 

general national, centralized system approach laid out in the 2006 notice (Commenter 

Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 

and 30). In expressing their general support, a number of these commenters stated that 

the support is contingent upon EPA’s revising its approach based on their 

recommendations. Refer to the remainder of this document for these recommendations. 

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their support of the general approach and efforts 

to automate the manifest. EPA has modified its proposed e-Manifest approach based on 

stakeholder feedback, on continued Agency research and analysis, and on the 

requirements of the Electronic Hazardous Waste Establishment Act (e-Manifest Act) that 

was enacted in October 2012. Please refer to specific EPA responses to learn more about 

these changes.
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	3

1.2 EPA Collaboration With Stakeholders

Comment: We heard from 11 commenters that encouraged EPA to continue to 

coordinate its efforts with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) (Commenter 

Nos. 1, 11, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27). One commenter stated its belief that, 

without DOT’s participation and emergency worker access to the system, trucks should 

be required to have paper copies of the manifest onboard (Commenter No. 1). One 

commenter suggested that EPA allow, under certain circumstances, the e-Manifest to 

replace DOT requirements for shipping papers (Commenter No. 11). The commenter 

believes this should be a limited allowance, but if a transporter meets certain 

requirements, the electronic manifest should satisfy DOT requirements for a shipping 

paper accompanying the load. Another commenter stated that, in light of the information 

included on a DOT shipping paper, any electronic system should enable regulatory

agencies to directly obtain additional information from treatment, storage, and disposal 

facilities (TSDFs) and generators, thereby obviating the need for a separate hazardous 

waste manifest to accompany the transportation of hazardous wastes (Commenter No. 

16). The commenter believes that, instead, the electronic manifest system should include 

the functionality to allow generators to print a shipping paper that complies with the DOT 

requirements at 49 CFR Part 172. Another commenter stated that, for manifests that are 

filed electronically, EPA should address the issue of what documentation needs to be in 

the possession of the truck driver (Commenter No. 23). The commenter pointed out that 

transporters must currently be in possession of a copy of the paper manifest and that 

documentation provides the necessary identifying information about the type of waste 

and serves other purposes. Two of the commenters stated that EPA should coordinate 

with DOT to use the e-Manifest system instead of them requiring a hard copy in the 

transport vehicle (Commenter No. 24, 25). One commenter stated that EPA should 

require a hardcopy manifest be carried by the transporter even if the manifest is 

automated (Commenter No. 26). The commenter stated that the disposer’s hardcopy 

manifest is often the one on which negotiations and markups are made, which may

therefore be different from the generator’s copy. The commenter would like for the 

hardcopy manifest, with markups, to be submitted to the central repository or directly to 

states.

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their suggestions to continue our efforts to 

coordinate with DOT. 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 electronic manifest on the transport 

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

materials regulations, since DOT hazardous materials regulations (HMR) require 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 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	4

clarifying further that consistency in the use of the manifest under RCRA also requires 

that a print-out of the electronic 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 section 2003 consistency provisions 

respecting shipping papers and the manifest. In response to these comments, and after 

consulting with DOT, the Final Rule retains the requirement that to the extent the HMR 

applicable to the carriage of hazardous materials by public highway requires shippers of 

hazardous materials to supply a paper document for compliance with 49 CFR section 

177.817, a generator originating an electronic manifest must also provide the initial 

transporter with one printed copy of the electronic manifest. The Final Rule also requires 

the transporter(s) to carry this printed copy on the transport vehicle in accordance with 

the HMR. 

The requirement for the transporter to carry a printed manifest is found at 40 CFR 

263.20(a)(4)(iii) of the final rule. 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 for carrying and maintaining paper documents. 

Despite the continuing need to supply this printed copy of the electronic 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.

Finally, EPA notes that DOT was recently directed by statute to conduct a pilot program 

addressing electronic shipping papers, but at this time, it is not clear whether and when 

this program (HM-ACCESS) will be implemented as a paperless requirement. EPA is 

consulting with DOT on its progress with the possible transition to electronic shipping 

papers. At such time as DOT implements an electronic shipping paper, an entirely

paperless shipping and tracking document will be possible for hazardous waste 

shipments.

Comment: We heard from five commenters recommending continued stakeholder input 

or collaboration to assist EPA in developing the e-Manifest approach (Commenter Nos. 

6, 12, 18, 21, and 27). One commenter indicated that its company has developed tracking 

software for producing manifests (Commenter No. 6). It indicated its desire to speak 

with EPA about its products, abilities and experiences. Another commenter expressed its 

concern that EPA is delaying its decision of which third party will implement the 

program, thereby making it impossible for the regulated community and others impacted 

by the rule to assess issues that are critical to compliance (Commenter No. 12). The 

commenter suggested that EPA make its selection of a third party available for public 

comment. Another commenter encouraged EPA to include the Department of Defense 

manifest users and other stakeholders in discussions leading to the final e-Manifest 

approach (Commenter No. 18). Another commenter suggested that EPA promptly

convene a logistics workshop and advisory group including hazardous waste generators, 

transporters and treatment, storage and disposal facility owners to identify and resolve 

system issues, and to be available for advice and technical assistance when 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	5

implementation issues arise as the system is initiated and first used on a widespread basis 

(Commenter No. 21).

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their suggestions for continued stakeholder 

involvement and offers for assistance. EPA agrees with the need for on-going 

stakeholder involvement, and this has been a motivating factor behind the many outreach 

efforts EPA has taken to involve the public in our decision-making on the e-Manifest 

approach. This has included, for example, the proposed rule in 2001, public notices that 

requested comment and made information available, a two-day public meeting in 2004, a 

public meeting in November 2008 with a subsequent series of stakeholder webinars, three 

System Requirements meetings with stakeholders in February - March 2013, and other 

outreach (e.g., EPA presentations at conferences, EPA web site that is kept up-to-date on 

the Agency’s activities and decisions). From these efforts, we believe we have 

communicated a great amount of information and gathered significant feedback on the 

needs and desires of the regulated community, regulators, and the public generally. We 

believe we have given the public ample opportunity to provide comment on our preferred 

regulatory and systems approach to date, and we will continue to do so.

In addition, we will involve stakeholders closely in the development and implementation 

of the preferred approach. The Electronic Manifest Establishment Act directs EPA to 

establish within three years of enactment of the Act, an Advisory Board under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) consisting of an EPA Chair and several others with IT 

expertise who are either manifest users from the regulated industry or state agency

officials who collect and process manifest data. The Act requires the Board to meet 

annually to advise EPA on the effectiveness of the e-Manifest system and to make any 

recommendations to EPA about the system. Moreover, as required under the Electronic 

Manifest Establishment Act, EPA will periodically prepare financial statements, 

accounting reports, and audit reports for the Board, the Agency's Office of Inspector 

General, and for the appropriate Congressional committees. . 

This regular oversight will serve to inform EPA of the needs and desires of users and 

regulators of the system. It will keep stakeholders apprised of technical and other issues 

as they arise, and given them an opportunity to provide input on Agency decisions. It 

also will assure users that the collected service fees are being applied appropriately, that 

fees collected are sufficient (and not excessive) to cover costs incurred, and that the 

program is providing value to the users and the regulatory agencies. 

When sufficient funding for the system is appropriated, EPA will initiate a federal 

procurement that will lead to the award of an information technology (IT) contract to 

develop and operate the e-Manifest system. This procurement will follow normal federal 

procurement processes and will not involve notice and comment rulemaking.

Comment: We heard from two commenters that noted the length of time EPA needs to 

finalize its preferred approach and suggested that it enable railroads to use Electronic 

Data Interchange (EDI) immediately (Commenter Nos. 19 and 31). One of the 

commenters stated that, in the longer term, it would like to see a system which will allow 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	6

hazardous waste to be handled by railroads in the same manner as all other hazardous 

materials, except that all information that is required to be on the manifest will be 

included in the electronic bill of lading (Commenter No. 19). The commenter suggested 

that the new hazardous waste manifest system needs to be designed to generate an EDI 

bill of lading to the railroads as a manifest alone is insufficient and will create rework for 

the railroads and generators. The commenter also emphasized its lengthy experience 

using EDI and offered a demonstration of its EDI capabilities to EPA.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their suggestions on the development of an 

EDI solution with railroads. We recognize the existing systems that railroads have in 

place to conduct their electronic transactions. We also agree on the need to move 

forward expeditiously in the development of the preferred approach. In this regard, EPA 

does not expect any considerable delay in the development of the e-Manifest system now 

that the authorizing legislation has been enacted, and this final regulation authorizing 

electronic manifests is being issued. The most significant constraint is the appropriation 

of sufficient funds to develop the system. We are as eager to develop and implement an 

approach as are prospective users, and hope to have a workable system in place within 

the next few years. We also are not convinced in the need for a short-term EDI solution 

because the preferred option will be implemented within the coming years. Rather, we 

look forward to working with the railroad industry and others as we establish a single, 

national e-Manifest system that will be available to all potential users. In this regard, we 

intend to task the e-Manifest system IT vendor to conduct the necessary technical support 

effort with the rail industry to ensure that the electronic manifest XML schema may

interoperate with the EDI-based electronic waybill system now in place for rail 

shipments.

1.3 State Adoption and Roles

Comment: We heard from three commenters that suggested mandatory state adoption of 

the e-Manifest system (Commenter Nos. 11, 22, 29). One of the commenters 

recommended that any legislative change provide the Agency with preemption authority

to implement the e-Manifest (Commenter No. 11). Without the preemption authority, the 

commenter believes some states could decide not to adopt the approach. Another 

commenter stated that there must be uniform implementation in all states, to avoid a 

patchwork in which some states make use of the system mandatory and others make it 

optional (Commenter No. 22). One of the commenters stated that, if one or more states 

refuse to adopt the e-Manifests, it would severely reduce the use of the electronic 

manifest on a national level, make the regulation confusing for industry, and not provide 

the anticipated cost savings from uniform national use of the e-Manifest (Commenter No. 

29).

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 and the 2006 notice, that the e-Manifest should be 

effective, recognized as valid, and implemented consistently in all states. EPA agrees 

that development and use of the e-Manifest would not be feasible unless it can be assured 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	7

that the validity of electronic manifests is recognized 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.

The issue of consistency of e-Manifest implementation among the states was significant 

enough during the development of this regulation that the Congress included express 

terms in the e-Manifest Act providing for consistent implementation in all states on the 

same effective date determined by EPA, and providing for implementation of the 

program by EPA until the states are authorized to carry out their consistent provisions of 

state law. Specifically, section 2(g)(2) of the e-Manifest Act provides that EPA’s final 

regulations carrying out the legislation shall take effect in each state on the effective date 

specified in EPA’s regulation and that EPA shall carry out the electronic manifest final 

regulations unless and until the authorized state program is fully authorized to carry out 

the electronic manifest regulations in lieu of the EPA. Therefore, our final rule 

addresses both the public comments on this issue, and codifies the requirements of the eManifest Act.

EPA’s final regulation 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 and recognize the 

validity of the electronic manifests obtained from the national e-Manifest system, as 

required under 40 CFR § 271.4(c). 

In addition, the e-Manifest will be effective in all states on the same effective date that 

will be identified in the final electronic manifest rulemaking. EPA explained in the 

March 4, 2005, Manifest Revisions Rule that the new manifest form and data elements 

would be effective in all states on the same compliance date of September 5, 2006. This 

policy of setting a uniform implementation date is just as important for the electronic 

manifest as it is for the paper manifest. The terms of the e-Manifest Act further require a 

consistent implementation of e-Manifest in all the states, and § 271.3(b)(4)(i) of the final 

rule codifies this requirement by providing that all electronic manifest requirements 

imposed under the e-Manifest Act shall take effect in all authorized states on the same 

date that these requirements take effect in other states. The uniform implementation date 

will be specified by EPA when it issues its e-Manifest Fee Rule prior to the 

implementation of the e-Manifest system.

Consistent with the e-Manifest Act's provisions on program consistency, the final rule 

further codifies in § 271.3(b)(4)(iii) that the electronic manifest requirements 

implemented under the e-Manifest Act shall be carried out by the Administrator in the 

states until authorized states have received final authorization from EPA to carry out the 

electronic manifest requirements.
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	8

Further, as additional emphasis on the need for full consistency in the implementation of 

the electronic manifest program, section 271.3(b)(4)(ii) clarifies that all electronic 

manifest requirements implemented under the authority of the e-Manifest Act shall 

supersede any less stringent or inconsistent provision of a State program. There must be 

full consistency among the states' programs in carrying out the electronic manifest 

program.

When the e-Manifest final rule establishes the validity of electronic manifests created and 

transmitted through a national e-Manifest system, the electronic manifest will simply be 

an optional means for manifest users to obtain and transmit the hazardous waste manifest. 

Whether a user completes and carries only a paper manifest (which by itself meets 

requirements of the Hazardous Materials Regulations of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation), or completes an e-Manifest and carries an additional paper copy to meet 

the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) requirements for a shipping document, the 

user will be in compliance with federal manifest and shipping document requirements 

that will be effective on the final rule's effective date in all states. Once the states receive 

EPA authorization for their RCRA state program electronic manifest modifications, the eManifest will also become effective and enforceable as a matter of state law. However 

the e-Manifest will be effective as a matter of federal law in all states on the delayed 

implementation date that will be designated in the e-Manifest User Fee Rule. The Fee 

Rule will be issued by EPA shortly before the e-Manifest system is available to users. 

The Fee Rule will announce the schedule of user fees for electronic manifesting 

activities, and announce the consistent implementation date for the system and these 

regulations. . 

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

transition to the e-Manifest. EPA believes that because of EPA’s Cross-Media 

Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) rule (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 begun implementing 

electronic reporting under some of their environmental programs in advance of 

CROMERR’s publication. Also, many states have developed their nodes for receiving 

electronic information though the Environmental Information Exchange Network, which 

will be the means by which e-Manifest will deliver electronic manifest data to the states.

In addition, EPA will establish a compliance 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 issued under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) went 

into effect in all states immediately after a six-month period following rule publication. 

The EPA Regions administered HSWA rules until state RCRA programs got authorized 

for them. Thus, there is precedent in the HSWA rule adoption process for a similar type 

of coordinating and transitioning EPA and state responsibilities under these rules. 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	9

Similarly, states will not be required to obtain authorization of the e-Manifest by the 

delayed compliance date to be announced by EPA in the Fee Rule. As described above, 

the e-Manifest will go into effect under federal law beginning on this date. States will be 

expected to obtain authorization within a reasonable period of time thereafter, in 

accordance with revision adoption milestones spelled our in 40 CFR § 271.21(e) 

regulations. 

On the other hand, states will be encouraged to adopt electronic manifest program 

revisions as soon as they are able after the effective date of this regulation, so that there 

will not be an extended period of Federal implementation by EPA in lieu of the states. 

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

programs for the e-Manifest. Because of these factors, we fully expect a smooth 

transition under the e-Manifest approach. 

Comment: We heard from a commenter that asked if states would be required to comply

with the e-Manifest by a given deadline (Commenter No. 18).

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for the question and refers the commenter to our 

response above.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that stated that the 2006 notice does not 

clarify the role of the states under the approach (Commenter No. 22).

Response: EPA thanks the commenter’s input on the role of the states. Under the final 

rule, states will perform the same implementation and enforcement and manifest tracking 

roles that they are currently performing with paper manifests. The key difference is that 

manifests will be distributed to the states via the e-Manifest system hub and Exchange 

Network, rather than through direct mailing of manifest copies to the states by regulated 

entities. The e-Manifest will enhance states' ability to access manifest data in a timely

and convenient fashion. 

Comment: We heard from one commenter that stated that any federal e-Manifest system 

which establishes new or additional requirements for states must include federal funding 

sufficient to pay for those requirements (Commenter No. 23). The commenter stated that, 

without some form of assistance to help defray these costs, states may not be in a position 

to participate in the centralized e-Manifest system.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for expressing its concerns about the need for

additional funding for the states. As discussed in the responses above, EPA has 

considerable experience working with the states to develop and coordinate electronic 

collections under the CDX or equivalent system and Exchange Network. We are aware 

of the states’ budgetary constraints as well as the need for ensuring interoperability with 

states’ existing data systems. In designing and operating the e-Manifest system, EPA

will strive to minimize the cost impacts on states and industry. In addition, EPA 

anticipates that the national operator of e-Manifest will be responsible for coordinating 

with the states in the collection, review and correction of manifests. This could
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	10

potentially offset some of the manifest processing costs currently being borne by states. 

EPA expects that these factors should help to minimize cost impacts on the states and the 

need for incremental funding. Application interfaces between e-Manifest and state 

tracking systems will need to be developed by the states. EPA will explore the 

availability of grants or other funding sources to assist states in developing their system 

interfaces with e-Manifest.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that expressed concern about the impact of eManifesting and the new centralized system on its state hazardous waste tracking system 

(Commenter No. 26). The commenter stated that its state system annually collects and 

stores one million manifest documents and makes the data and images available to state,

federal, and local regulators. The commenter stated that the national system could cost 

the state a significant investment for a partial or complete redesign. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its concerns about the impacts of the national 

system on its state system. EPA shares the commenter’s concerns about effects on 

existing state systems. EPA will conduct outreach with the states as we plan and develop 

the e-Manifest system so that any adverse impacts on existing state tracking systems can 

be minimized. EPA is developing the e-Manifest system to serve as a conduit to these 

existing state systems, and not as a replacement for these systems.

1.4 Effects of Dual Paper and Electronic Manifest Systems

Comment: We heard from one commenter that stated that the need for its state to 

maintain a separate manifest system is dependent upon whether EPA will process paper 

manifests as part of the centralized e-Manifest system (Commenter No. 4). The 

commenter strongly encourages EPA to incorporate the processing of paper manifests as 

part of the national e-Manifest system.

Response: We thank commenters for their views of the potential for dual systems under 

the e-Manifest approach. We agree that this would be an undesirable outcome. We also 

agree with the commenter about the processing of the paper manifest. During the 

development of this regulation, the Congress also took up the necessity of avoiding dual 

systems on account of paper manifests continuing to be used. As a result, the e-Manifest 

Act provides that EPA can by regulation require the submission to the system (for a fee) 

of any paper manifests that continue in use after electronic manifests are available. This 

final regulation codifies the statutory requirement. Upon the implementation of the eManifest system, EPA will require TSDFs to submit the top copy of paper manifests 

received and signed by the facility to the national system.. The paper manifest copies 

will be processed centrally and the data from these forms will be entered into the eManifest data repository by the system operator. Thus, a complete set of designated 

facility data on waste receipts can be obtained in this manner from electronic and paper 

manifests without mandating a transition to the use of electronic manifests. The interests 

of the states in obtaining a complete set of electronic data will be realized, without 

imposing significant new burdens on those users who wish to continue to use the paper 

manifest forms. 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	11

Another way EPA attempts to minimize the need for dual systems is by making the 

system flexible enough to accommodate manifests accompanying both federal RCRA 

wastes and state-only wastes. The paper manifests are currently used in this fashion, and 

it should be no different with electronic manifests. Section 2(a) of the e-Manifest Act 

requires this result by including in the statutory definition of "user" language stating that 

a user means any "person that is required to use a manifest to comply with any Federal or 

State requirement to track the shipment, transportation, or receipt of hazardous waste or 

other material" that is shipped off-site for management. 

The final rule codifies the statutory requirement and enables the electronic manifesting of 

state-only wastes. The final rule includes a definition of "user of the electronic manifest 

system" in 40 CFR § 260.10 which provides that such a user includes any person that is 

required to use a manifest to comply with any federal or state requirement to track the 

shipment, transportation, or receipt of hazardous waste or other waste material that is 

shipped from the site of generation to an off-site designated facility for treatment, 

storage, recycling, or disposal. We will design the e-Manifest system to enable this 

capability.

Comment: We heard from three commenters expressing concerns about the potential 

need for multiple systems to accommodate both electronic and paper manifests 

(Commenter No. 5, 15, 25). One of the commenters encouraged EPA to make the eManifest mandatory for users, to alleviate its concerns (Commenter No. 5).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their suggestions. Please refer to EPA’s 

response above in regard to the need for multiple systems and the regulatory provisions 

we are adopting to avoid dual paper and electronic systems. Please refer to EPA’s 

response in Section 2.2 on whether the system should be mandatory for all users.

1.5 Estimated Costs and Benefits

Comment: We heard from seven commenters that agreed that the e-Manifest would 

result in savings to users (Commenter Nos. 11, 13, 17, 20, 25, 26, and 28). One 

commenter suggested that EPA’s cost-benefit analysis should address the need of 

automated transporters to carry a hardcopy shipping paper (Commenter No. 13).

Response: We thank commenters for their views. We agree with the comments that the 

rule has the potential to result in dollar and time savings to users. In addition, we agree 

that the cost-benefit analysis should account for both incremental costs and cost savings. 

For example, although EPA will procure the applications and IT services to support 

electronic manifesting on the CDX or equivalent system and Exchange Network 

architecture, a number of manifest users will still need to make initial investments – to 

provide or acquire the computers or portable front-end devices and network access for 

entering data to the e-Manifest system, to integrate the e-Manifest system with their 

existing data systems, etc. – before they can leverage the savings that will arise from 

electronic manifesting. Large volume users of manifests will likely realize the greatest 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	12

net savings and therefore possess the greatest incentives to participate in the e-Manifest 

system. Moreover, we anticipate that the larger transporters and waste management 

facilities would be the entities most likely to participate in the initial phases of e-Manifest 

system implementation, and that these larger entities will likely bring the portable 

technology to many of the small businesses and generator sites that they service as their 

customers. 

Comment: We heard from one commenter that expressed its belief that the costs and 

staff time of the e-Manifest outweigh the benefits to small businesses (Commenter No. 

7). The commenter expressed its support for an approach that enables the transporter to 

automate the manifest on the generator’s behalf. 

Response: We agree that a number of generators, particularly smaller ones, may not 

initially find the e-Manifest particularly cost-beneficial. Generators that initiate only a 

handful of manifests per year, for example, may not be willing to invest the time to 

integrate new processes into their business operations. The final rule recognizes these 

differences among generators. It provides that electronic manifest is optional and that 

generators may continue to use the traditional paper method. The rule also clarifies that a 

generator may automate the manifest by using the initial transporter’s portable device, in 

lieu of investing in its own computer equipment. We believe that the electronic manifest 

will most likely be implemented in the field in this fashion, that is, by the efforts of 

transporters who bring mobile devices accessing the e-Manifest system to their generator 

customers' sites. This outcome could make e-Manifesting more attractive and available 

to smaller generators. The final rule implements this approach by stating at 40 CFR 

262.24(b), that generators may participate in e-Manifest on the devices provided by

transporters.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that expressed its belief that the preferred 

approach could have unintended consequences, resulting in increased burden to users 

(Commenter No. 9). The commenter stated, for example, that the system could crash, 

requiring users to find alternative ways to complete and transmit the manifest. The 

commenter also believes EPA has not accounted for costs associated with the DOT 

requirement to carry a manifest on the truck. The commenter believes EPA should 

conduct a full cost-benefit analysis.

Response: EPA agrees that there will be unintended consequences of any new system

such as the e-Manifest system. In any new program endeavor of this magnitude that 

could affect potentially tens of thousands of waste handlers, there will be unintended 

consequences. To help address this concern, EPA has sought, and will continue to seek, 

ongoing stakeholder input into the planning, system requirements, and operation of the eManifest system. In particular, EPA will establish an Advisory Board consisting of 

industry and regulator representatives, who will work with EPA to oversee the operation 

of the e-Manifest system. Through their continued involvement, we expect to learn about 

and address such consequences at the earliest practicable time.
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	13

We thank the commenter for its suggestion that EPA conduct a full cost-benefit analysis. 

We fully agree with this comment and will ensure that our Regulatory Impact Analysis 

for e-Manifest addresses the major burdens, costs, and benefits associated with the 

system. However, as the detailed evaluation of system costs and benefits will not be 

possible until more is known about the system costs that result from the system 

procurement and the fees that are imposed under the Fee Rule, EPA is deferring the 

development of the detailed RIA until the issuance of the e-Manifest User Fee Rule. This 

rule will be issued by EPA shortly before the implementation of the system.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that stated its belief that the cost to start up 

and to maintain the e-Manifest system may be underestimated (Commenter No. 14). It 

believes that a $6 million estimate for an industry-wide standardized information 

technology system may be low.

Response: We thank the commenter for its views on the costs of the system. We will 

continue to evaluate our system alternatives and their cost assumptions as we continue 

with the system planning, including the Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) 

process by which we will inform OMB and Congressional appropriators of our funding 

requirements for the e-Manifest system build. These updated costs and assumptions will 

be discussed in the RIA that we issue with the User Fee Rule.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that its biggest concern is the cost burden to 

the state (Commenter No. 22). It stated that the Federal Register’s cost estimates apply

only to states with manifest programs. However, the commenter believes that all states 

may need to have access to the system, including states without manifest programs, 

because of several factors (e.g., interstate transportation of waste). The commenter 

believes that the use of fees to recover these costs could be problematic for the industry, 

some of whom do not currently pay state annual fees. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its suggestions. As stated in the above 

responses, EPA will work with its IT contractor to develop and operate an e-Manifest 

system that minimizes cost impacts on the states. EPA agrees that all states should have 

access to the e-Manifest’s data, including states that do not currently collect forms. 

However, the final rule does not require states that currently lack manifest tracking 

programs to develop systems to access e-Manifest. EPA envisions that such access 

should be relatively straight-forward. EPA intends for the system to allow various users 

to request standard and customized reports. Therefore, states without existing manifest 

collection processes should still be able to access the system’s data.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that expressed its concern about the initial 

and recurring annual costs of the e-Manifest system (Commenter No. 24). The 

commenter stated that, until the system encompasses all parts of the waste shipping and 

disposal process, there will not be a significant paperwork reduction for the regulated 

community and there will be an increase in the time and effort it takes to complete the 

shipping process.
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	14

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its concerns about initial and recurring annual 

costs. EPA envisions that the first generation e-Manifest will provide core functionality

for manifesting of shipments, including methods and tools to streamline the manifesting 

process (e.g., drop-down menus, pre-populated forms, automated notifications and 

reporting). As time goes on, EPA intends to integrate additional elements into the 

system, such as Biennial Reporting, LDR notifications, and other paperwork activities. 

Industry users have informed EPA of the potentially significant burden savings 

associated with these aspects of the system.

1.6 Authorizing Legislation and Funding

Comment: We heard from a commenter that recommended that any new authority

provided to the Agency for contracting the e-Manifest system development and operation 

allow this process to be open to any interested parties, not limited to a select few 

companies (Commenter No. 11). 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its request for an open contracting process for 

developing the e-Manifest system. We agree with the commenter’s request for broad 

stakeholder and contractor involvement. 

Section 2(e) of the e-Manifest Act enacted in 2012 authorizes EPA to enter into a 

performance based contract with a term of up to 10 years for the provisions of system 

related services. In order to effectuate this authority, EPA has already issued notices to 

prospective IT vendors in FedBizOpps about the e-Manifest contract opportunity. We 

have conducted an Industry Day with prospective vendors, and we have initiated 

Requests for Information to the contractor community to begin the process of market 

research. Now that this final rule authorizing electronic manifests is being issued, EPA 

will soon initiate procurement for the e-Manifest system build, once sufficient funding is 

appropriated.

Comment: We heard from a commenter that took issue with the 2006 notice’s 

suggestion that, if necessary legislation is not forthcoming, the Agency could still go 

forward with a final rule based on the original decentralized proposal (Commenter No. 

20). The commenter believes that, even if necessary legislation does not pass, a 

centralized system is still the only viable template.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its views on EPA’s taking action in the 

absence of legislation. This comment is moot, however, as the necessary enabling 

legislation for e-Manifest was enacted in October 2012. The e-Manifest Act authorizes 

the establishment of a national, centralized e-Manifest system. Therefore, this is the 

approach that EPA intends to implement with this final rule and the later system 

development. 

Comment: We heard from four commenters stating that EPA needs to clarify and/or 

pursue funding options for the e-Manifest (Commenter Nos. 1, 12, 14, and 27). One 

commenter stated that funding options for the transition to an e-Manifesting system must 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	15

be more aggressively pursued before the proposal is finalized (Commenter No. 1). The 

commenter does not believe that states should have to use state taxpayer money to fund a 

change requested by companies to save industry money. The commenter stated that 

funding will be of even greater importance if the e-Manifest system eventually becomes 

part of the Biennial Report or transboundary waste reporting. Another commenter stated 

its concern that EPA does not have adequate funding for its proposed e-Manifest system 

(Commenter No. 12). The commenter believes that, because of the significant 

compliance and implementation issues with the e-Manifest system, it would be in the best 

interest of EPA, the public and the regulated community for the Agency to resolve 

funding, contractor, and technical issues and make these issues available for public 

comment. Another commenter stated that EPA should further evaluate the project 

funding fees (Commenter No. 14). Another commenter expressed uncertainty whether 

EPA or the states would take on the purchase, development, and long-term maintenance 

costs of the e-Manifest (Commenter No. 27). The commenter requested more 

information on the fee structure plan.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views of funding options. We agree 

with commenters in the central importance of project funding. We are clarifying that the 

Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest Establishment Act authorizes EPA to take action to 

address funding of the system. Specifically, the legislation, among other things, 

authorizes EPA to impose and collect reasonable service fees necessary to pay the costs 

of implementing the e-Manifest system, and to deposit these fees into a special revolving 

Fund in the U.S. Treasury earmarked for the receipt of these fees. The Act also authorizes

the Secretary of the Treasury, upon request by the Administrator of EPA, to transfer to 

EPA such amounts from the Fund, subject to appropriations, that EPA determines are 

necessary to pay costs incurred in developing, operating, maintaining, and upgrading the 

e-Manifest system. Finally, the Act establishes that fees collected by EPA and deposited 

in the Fund shall be available to EPA for its use in paying e-Manifest system costs 

without fiscal year limitation.

The key funding constraint at the time of final rule issuance is the uncertainty about 

sufficient funding being appropriated for the system build. Once the system is 

developed, EPA can require user fees from system users both to offset system 

development costs and to defray operation and maintenance costs. Thus, the e-Manifest 

system will eventually be subject to a sustainable source of funding though user fee 

collections, but under the Act, the system build must be funded with appropriations. 

While earlier drafts of e-Manifest legislation considered by the Congress included Sharein-Savings or Share-in-Revenue provisions authorizing the IT contractor to initially fund 

the system development costs, this authority was not included in the bill that was finally 

enacted in October 2012. 

EPA is engaging with OMB and appropriators on our projected needs for system funding, 

and the system development schedule and completion date will be heavily reliant on the 

provision of sufficient funds by the Congress. However, we do not agree with the 

comment that EPA should defer finalizing this rule until the funding situation is more 

certain. The rule is being finalized with a delayed implementation date, so there will not 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	16

be compliance responsibilities in relation to this rule until the funding situation is 

resolved and the system is developed.

 

Comment: We heard from one commenter that stated that the Share-in-Savings approach 

is a better contracting method for the e-Manifest system than the usual federal

procurement (Commenter No. 20). The commenter believes that a contactor who invests 

in the software development to set up the e-Manifest system and then gets paid back by

the users if they are satisfied places the risk and reward with the contractor. The 

commenter believes the likelihood of success of such a system is infinitely higher than 

one where EPA would set contracting specifications and then pay a contractor to meet 

those specifications.

Response: We thank the commenter for its views of the Share-in-Savings (or Share-inRevenue) approach. We agree that a fee-funded approach with IT contractor funding of 

the initial investment cost is a novel approach to IT contracting, and that it could l 

incentivize the contractor to accelerate the development of the system, and to develop a 

system with features that will sufficiently attractive to users to warrant their participation 

in the e-Manifest system and their payment of service fees. However, the e-Manifest Act 

enacted in October 2012 did not authorize this type of contract, and under the Act, the 

system build must be funded with appropriations. Therefore, EPA is not able to accept 

this comment.

Comment: We heard from four commenters expressing support for user fees to operate 

the system (Commenter No. 5, 15, 16, and 17). One of the commenters expressed its 

desire for state programs to be able to continue to charge state fees under state statutes 

and rules (Commenter No. 15). Another commenter expressed its agreement with EPA 

that the costs of the system should be shared by entities that will benefit from it 

(Commenter No. 16). The commenter believes that, since transporters are unlikely to 

play a role in accessing the system, they should not be subject to the cost sharing 

provisions. One commenter expressed its support for cost-effective funding through 

user-fees (Commenter No. 17). The commenter believes that the imposition of new user 

fees to fund a national system likely will be offset by a reduction in or the elimination of 

state fees 

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their support of the user fees. Statements 

offered by manifest users affirmed that the current paper manifest system gives rise to 

substantial paperwork burdens, particularly for the heaviest users. The users suggested 

that they would be willing to pay reasonable service fees as the means to fund the eManifest system, if they could also be assured that the collected fees would be earmarked 

only to the payment of e-Manifest system costs, and not diverted to other program 

accounts. These users also stated that they expected that any service fee arrangements, 

including the collection of fees and the reporting of expenditures, would be handled in a 

very transparent manner so that it may be demonstrated to the stakeholders that they are 

receiving value for the fees they contribute to fund the system. EPA will develop the Fee 

Rule subsequently to the issuance of this final regulation. During the development of the 

Fee Rule, we will examine how and from whom user fees can be most efficiently and 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	17

equitably collected, and we will examine any impact the collection of e-Manifest user 

fees by EPA will have on existing state fees.

Comment: We heard from four commenters expressing concerns about the imposition of 

a user fee (Commenter Nos. 9, 11, 20, 25). The commenters urged that there be 

restrictions for the user fees to be used solely to fund reasonable costs for the design, 

construction and operation of the e-Manifest system. One commenter expressed its 

concern that the user fee could be utilized to raise revenue for other programs and cannot 

support the approach unless proper safeguards are put in place to prevent unnecessary, 

excessive or unrelated fees (Commenter No. 11). EPA will publish a notice subsequent 

to the rule’s effective date to announce the user fee schedule for manifest related 

activities.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on user fees. We agree that the 

user fees should be devoted to payment for the e-Manifest system costs, and the 2012 eManifest Act includes language providing that EPA “shall carry out all necessary

measures to ensure that the amounts [of user fees] in the Fund are used only to carry out 

the goals” related to developing, operating, and supporting the e-Manifest system (see 

section 2(d)(2)(C) of the Act). In establishing the fee, EPA will ensure transparency

about how the fee levels are established and how the proceeds are being spent. As we 

stated in the 2006 notice, we recognize that users of the system would be willing to pay

reasonable service fees as the means to fund the e-Manifest system, if they could also be 

assured that the collected fees would be earmarked only to the payment of e-Manifest 

system costs, and not diverted to other program accounts. EPA intends to provide 

periodic auditing, accounting, and reporting of the finances of the e-Manifest system, 

including financial statements and an accounting describing fees paid to the Fund and 

expenditures paid from the Fund for each period of reporting. This information will be 

made available to the Advisory Board that will be established to oversee the e-Manifest 

system, and provided to the EPA Office of Inspector General and to appropriate 

Congressional committees as required by specific audit and financial reporting 

requirements included in the e-Manifest Act (see section 2(d)(3)(B) of the Act). This 

oversight will serve to assure the affected users that the collected service fees are being 

applied appropriately, that fees collected are sufficient (and not excessive) to cover costs 

incurred, and that the program is providing value to the users and the regulatory agencies. 

Finally, EPA will publish a regulation subsequent to the issuance of this final rule to 

announce the user fee schedule for manifest related activities. The rule will discuss 

incentives and safeguards to ensure the formulation of reasonable fees.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that user fees should be a reasonable service 

fee as opposed to a tax (Commenter No. 18).

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its views and agrees that reasonable service 

fees would be appropriate. The statute authorizing EPA to develop and build the eManifest directs the Agency to impose and collect reasonable service fees necessary to 

pay the costs of implementing the e-Manifest system. EPA will publish a regulation (the 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	18

Fee Rule) subsequent to the issuance of this final rule to announce the user fee 

methodology and fee schedule for manifest related activities. 

Comment: We heard from one commenter that the 2006 notice describes that the system 

would be funded by stakeholder service fees; however, the commenter is uncertain 

whether state regulatory access would be subsidized by manifesting businesses, or if the 

states and local governments would also be charged user fees to access the data or reports 

(Commenter No. 26). The commenter stated that EPA should make the system available 

to the states at a low or no fee.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for expressing its concerns about the funding 

need for the states. EPA envisions that services fees will be imposed primarily on the 

“users of the electronic manifest system” (i.e., waste handlers) as defined in § 260.10 of 

the final rule, and that such fees would be used to pay for the system’s operating costs. 

As discussed in the responses above, EPA has considerable experience working with the 

states to develop and coordinate electronic collections under the CDX or equivalent 

system. We are aware of the states’ budgetary constraints as well as the need for 

ensuring interoperability with states’ existing data systems. In designing and operating 

the e-Manifest system, EPA will attempt to minimize the cost impacts on state regulators. 

2.0 Final Rule

2.1 General

Comment: We heard from one commenter that expressed its support for the 

simplification of the final rule, leaving the more detailed technical system design and 

performance requirements for the contracting process (Commenter No. 4).

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its suggestion. We agree that the final rule 

should be relatively straightforward. We believe the final rule achieves this goal. It is 

intended solely to enable electronic manifesting from a regulatory standpoint (e.g., by 

clarifying the validity of electronic manifests obtained from and submitted to the system 

and describing recommended electronic signature methods). We agree with comments 

that the regulations should be technology-neutral, so that it will remain relevant as 

technology advances. This is the approach that was adopted in the final regulation.

EPA will procure an IT contractor to develop the e-Manifest, which will be hosted on 

EPA’s CDX or equivalent system. Technical issues associated with the e-Manifest will 

be resolved during system planning and development. 

Comment: We heard from one commenter that expressed concern that EPA has not 

addressed issues in the existing manifest regulations that are contrary or inconsistent with 

the e-Manifest, such as handwritten signatures (Commenter No. 12). The commenter 

expressed a general concern that EPA will address important issues without further public 

comment.
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	19

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its concerns about resolving existing 

inconsistencies in the regulations relative to the e-Manifest approach. The purpose of the 

final e-Manifest rule is to resolve these inconsistencies and enable electronic manifesting 

from a regulatory standpoint (e.g., by clarifying the validity of electronic manifests 

obtained from and submitted to the system and describing recommended electronic 

signature methods). 

EPA also appreciates the commenter’s desire for public comment on the Agency’s 

preferred approach. The regulatory policies included in this final regulation are based on 

the e-Manifest Act enacted in 2012, and on the record developed over the three notices 

published for comment in 2001, 2006, and 2008. Other aspects of the Agency’s 

electronic reporting policy were established previously in the CROMERR regulation that 

was issued by EPA after notice-and-comment in October 2005.

We emphasize that stakeholders will continue to be involved in the development of the eManifest IT system. As an initial point, we note that we involved stakeholders in 

national meetings and webinars conducted in 2008 – 2009, and in additional system 

requirements gathering meetings in February – March 2013. We will continue to provide 

information to stakeholders on our website and by other means as we proceed to initiate a 

system procurement Beyond system development, EPA intends to establish an Advisory

Board consisting of industry and state representatives, as required under the e-Manifest 

Act, , to offer recommendations to EPA on system performance (see section 2(f) of the 

Act).

Comment: We heard from a commenter that stated its belief that the final rule should 

discuss emergency response as one of the technical issues that EPA will address in 

implementing electronic manifesting (Commenter No. 18).

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its views on emergency response. We agree 

that e-Manifest could be a very helpful tool to emergency responders in the case of an 

accident involving materials during their transportation, and perhaps for incidents at 

facilities where wastes have been delivered for management. In developing our eManifest approach, we have kept this in mind. However, the Agency with primary

responsibility for hazard communication to emergency responders is the DOT, which 

implements that hazardous materials regulations or HMR. DOT is currently looking into 

a pilot program (HM-Access) aimed at demonstrating if electronic means for hazard 

communication can be substituted for the current shipping paper required by the HMR. 

EPA will coordinate with DOT and monitor the Department’s progress in identifying and 

implementing such an approach. In our consultations with DOT on e-Manifest, DOT has 

urged us to leave in place the requirement that one paper copy of the manifest (shipping 

paper) be carried on transport vehicles until such time as an electronic shipping paper 

substitute is identified. We have accepted this request from DOT in this final rule, as it is 

not our purpose with e-Manifest to develop an electronic means for hazard 

communication with emergency responders that might be inconsistent with DOT’s HMR 

program. Thus, while there may be incidental benefits for emergency responders 

accessing e-Manifest in the interim, EPA is not developing the first generation e-Manifest 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	20

system with this purpose in the forefront. For the first generation system, therefore, we 

believe that the requirement for the transporter to carry a paper manifest with the 

shipment will continue to serve an important function for emergency responders. 

Nevertheless, the e-Manifest’s central repository will be available for access by state 

regulators and emergency responders during and after a shipment. In this regard, we 

believe the central repository could enhance emergency responders’ awareness of the 

types of hazardous waste shipments that are being conveyed on transport vehicles, as well 

as information on what hazardous wastes have been recently delivered to hazardous 

waste consignee facilities This could help them prepare for and respond to specific 

emergency situations, while we await the development of a more comprehensive 

electronic hazard communications approach under the HMR.

Comment: We heard from a commenter that encouraged EPA to develop the simplest of 

rules that allows electronic as well as paper manifests (Commenter No. 20). The 

commenter noted the rapid pace at which technology changes. The commenter does not 

believe that EPA, the IT contractor, and industry can wait for rule changes that are 

needed for technology innovation and development when regulatory amendments take 

two to three years to complete.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its suggestions on the e-Manifest final rule and 

agrees with the need for simple, flexible requirements. To this end, the final rule does 

not prescribe technologies or include rigid requirements. Rather, it establishes a general 

legal and policy framework that authorizes the use of electronic manifests as a means to 

track off-site shipments of hazardous waste from a generator’s site to the site of the 

receipt and disposition of the hazardous waste. The rule clarifies that electronic manifest 

documents obtained from the Agency’s national e-Manifest system and completed and 

signed in accordance with the rule’s provisions, are the legal equivalent of the paper 

manifest forms that are currently authorized for use in tracking hazardous waste 

shipments. See the final rule for additional information.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that it must be mandatory that any

designated facility, which includes TSDFs, submit data for any waste received on-site by

specified time frames (Commenter No. 15). The commenter stated that, without this 

designation, its state program would still require the submittal of the paper manifest to 

the state to be assured that all data was collected.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its suggestion. The regulatory workgroup and 

the Congress became aware of this concern, with the result that the e-Manifest Act 

authorized EPA to require by regulation that any paper manifests in use after the 

implementation of e-Manifest also be submitted to the system for data processing 

purposes. The Act further authorized EPA to assess a reasonable user fee for the 

processing of any such paper manifests. The e-Manifest final rule codifies this 

requirement of the Act and provides that the designated facility must send to the eManifest system the top copy of the paper manifest form within 30 days of delivery of the 

hazardous waste shipment. The copy could be mailed to the e-Manifest system, or EPA 

may authorize the designated facility to transmit an image file to the EPA system so that 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	21

the system personnel could key-in the data from the image files to the data system. 

Alternatively, the designated facility may be able to submit both the image file and a file 

presenting the manifest data to the system in image file and data file formats acceptable 

to the e-Manifest system operator and supported by EPA’s electronic reporting 

requirements. In any case, the final rule assures that there will be a complete set of 

manifest data in the e-Manifest system, so it will not be necessary or permissible for 

states to require their own paper manifest submittals. 

2.2 Voluntary or Mandatory Use of e-Manifest

Comment: We heard from 21 commenters expressing their belief that the e-Manifest 

system must be voluntary for users (Commenter Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 

18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, and 30). Two commenters stated that many small 

businesses do not have access to the Internet or computer technology available for 

manifesting (Commenter Nos. 2, 8). One commenter stated that, if the e-Manifest is 

mandatory, EPA should re-open the issue of user fees because fees could be difficult for 

small entities to pay (Commenter No. 7). Four of the commenters stated that use of the eManifest be voluntary, at least at the outset (e.g., until specific metrics are met or bugs 

are worked out) (Commenter No. 11, 20, 21, 22 ). One commenter stated its support for a 

voluntary system and that, if the system were mandatory, EPA would need to design the 

system to connect with users’ legacy and future IT systems with minimal start-up costs 

(Commenter No. 14). One commenter stated that the railroad industry has been using 

EDI for many years and requested that any changes required to accommodate the new 

electronic system allow adequate time to implement (Commenter No. 19). The 

commenter expressed its desire for at least two years to implement any required changes 

to EDI; however, this would not be an issue as long as EPA makes electronic submission 

an option. One of the commenters urged that significant efforts should be made to reach 

out to small businesses and work with them to develop the capabilities and secure the 

resources necessary to make a smooth transition from a paper to an E-manifest system 

(Commenter No. 25). The commenter suggested creation and implementation of an Emanifest partnership program. One commenter agreed that the e-Manifest should be 

voluntary; however, the commenter encouraged EPA to provide incentives to encourage 

its use, which could eventually lead to a mandatory e-Manifest requirement (Commenter 

No. 29). This commenter suggested that one possible solution to capturing the manifest 

data electronically for non-automated generators would be to require the destination 

hazardous waste management facility to enter the manifest information into the electronic 

manifest system at the time it receives the hazardous waste.

Response: We thank commenters for their views on whether the e-Manifest should be 

voluntary or mandatory. We are persuaded by the points raised by commenters who 

supported the position that the use of the e-Manifest system should be voluntary rather 

than mandatory. These arguments were also persuasive to Congress, which enacted the 

e-Manifest Act with a “user” definition that acknowledged that the use of electronic 

manifests would be at the election of the users (see section 2(a)(5) of the Act). We agree 

with the commenters who suggested that there may be many businesses, particularly 

small businesses that will not have the willingness nor economic incentive to participate 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	22

in the e-Manifest system, at least initially While many small businesses may be able to 

participate in the e-Manifest system through the efforts of the transporters or designated 

facilities with whom they contract for transportation or disposal services, we agree that 

this outcome should be influenced by market factors rather than mandated. We agree that 

there are many such businesses that interact with the manifest infrequently for tracking 

small quantities of waste materials. These persons should have the option to continue to 

use the paper manifest form with which they are familiar and comfortable. In addition, 

while we agree that a complete set of electronic waste receipt data from designated 

facilities would be advantageous, we also believe that this objective can be attained 

through other means than mandating use of the electronic manifest format. The 

proportion of manifests completed electronically should increase over time without a 

mandate, so that the amount of effort expended collecting and processing paper manifests 

should become less significant and more manageable. Therefore, consistent with the eManifest Act, the final rule adopts in the rule’s § 260.10 definition of “user of the 

electronic manifest system,” the policy of implementing the electronic manifest as an 

optional tracking document for the manifest users in the RCRA regulated community. 

Users may "opt out" of the electronic manifest, although no particular type of notice is 

required to exercise such an opt out. The continued use of paper manifests is sufficient 

expression of intent to opt out. However, EPA wants to maximize over time the use of 

electronic manifests, and the Agency will monitor the levels of use and take input on fee 

incentives and other means to promote the greater use of electronic manifests. We will 

discuss such incentives as we develop the Fee Rule.

Comment: We heard from three commenters expressing their belief that the e-Manifest 

system must be mandatory for users (Commenter Nos. 5, 16, 24). A commenter stated 

that, if the system were voluntary, its state program would be forced to maintain separate 

systems for paper and electronic manifests, increasing its costs (Commenter No. 5). The 

commenter also expressed concern that, if the e-Manifest were voluntary, the centralized 

CDX or equivalent system database would not contain complete manifest data. Another 

commenter stated that the presence of two separate systems could result in an 

unnecessarily complicated approach (Commenter No. 16).

Response: We thank commenters for their views on whether the e-Manifest should be 

voluntary or mandatory. Please refer to the EPA response above for EPA’s rationale why 

the system will be optional for users, and why it will not be necessary to mandate the use 

of electronic manifests in order to develop a complete set of manifest data.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that suggested a mixed approach: require the 

e-Manifest for large quantity generators and other targeted audiences; allow for 

exceptions from the e-Manifest for large quantity generators (LQGs) that have a 

legitimate reason for not participating; and allow voluntary participation for all others 

(Commenter No. 27). The commenter stated that its state has used such an approach.

Response: We thank commenter for its views on whether the e-Manifest should be 

voluntary or mandatory. Please refer to the EPA response above for EPA’s rationale why 

the system will be optional for users. While we appreciate the suggestion about an 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	23

exception system based on generator class, we are not convinced that the size of the 

generators’ waste generation rates will be rationally related to e-Manifest use, as it may

well be the participation of transporters that is the more critical factor in promoting 

electronic manifest use by many generators. We also are concerned that the 

administrative process needed to consider and grant such exceptions may be inefficient 

for EPA to administer. Thus, the final rule adopts an “opt out” policy that is not 

conditioned on any user’s request or on a formal exception process.

3.0 Conceptual Design of E-Manifest

3.1 Extensible Markup Language (XML)

Comment: We heard from one commenter that indicated that its organization is involved 

with the railroad industry to develop new XML schemas for the industry (Commenter 

No. 19). It offered to collaborate with EPA in designing a schema for the e-Manifest in 

an approved X12 format.

Response: We appreciate the commenter’s feedback on the railroad industry’s efforts to 

develop new XML schemas. We agree with the comment to coordinate with the industry

in designing the XML schema for the e-Manifest system. EPA will task the e-Manifest 

system IT vendor to conduct the necessary technical support effort with the rail industry

to ensure that the electronic manifest XML schema may interoperate with the EDI-based 

electronic waybill system now in place for rail shipments.

3.2 Technical Standards - General

Comment: We heard from eight commenters generally on the establishment of technical 

standards for the e-Manifest (Commenter Nos. 10, 12, 15, 21, 22, 24, 26, and 27). One 

commenter suggested capabilities for identifying non-compliances with the existing 

hazardous waste regulations, such as when a conditionally exempt small quantity

generator ships more waste than its generator status allows it to generate or accumulate 

(Commenter No. 10). Two commenters expressed the need for EPA to address many of 

the technical requirements for the system, such as how errors and inaccurate data can be 

corrected (Commenter No. 12, 24). One of the commenters also expressed concern that 

EPA has not addressed the need for a standard maintenance “window,” during which the 

system needs to be in operation continuously (Commenter No. 12). One commenter 

expressed its support for the e-Manifest system and controls for rigorous performance 

standards, such as edit checks, error checks, automated tracking of data elements, and 

maintenance of an electronic image (Commenter No. 15). One commenter expressed its 

opposition to any e-Manifest that is generated as a duplicate but not a copy of the original 

(Commenter No. 15). The commenter stated that, since the generator is required pursuant 

to 40 CFR 262.21(a)(1) to obtain a manifest from an approved printer, any e-Manifest

data and image that is submitted to the centralized system must stem from that paper 

manifest. One commenter identified several technical issues that need clarification (e.g., 

accessing, tracking, storing and auditing manifest information where one or more of the 

waste handlers are not using electronic manifesting) (Commenter No. 21). The 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	24

commenter also stated its concern about the possibility of uneven use of the electronic 

system, in which some entities use the e-Manifest and other do not for the same 

shipment. The commenter noted the possibility that mark-ups could be made on one 

entity’s manifest that does not show up on the others. The commenter urged EPA to 

resolve this issue before beginning design of the electronic system. One commenter 

offered to work with EPA to develop the e-Manifest system, based on the commenter’s 

experience developing and operating its state tracking system (Commenter No. 26). The 

commenter emphasized the need for quality controls, retention of electronic images of the 

manifest with signatures, and compatibility with existing state systems. One commenter 

cited a number of technical issues that need to be clarified for users in its state, including 

procedures for user sign-up, as well as procedures for system usage, technical 

support/problem resolution, data retrieval, compatibility with in-house systems, chain-ofcustody, and data corrections (Commenter No. 27). The commenter also expressed an 

interest in the technical aspects of the initial release of the e-Manifest system (e.g., 

discrepancy reporting capabilities, data access by regulators).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their many suggestions for technical 

requirements for the e-Manifest. As discussed in the 2006 notice, EPA’s preferred 

approach is 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. As the final rule explains, one of the great advantages over the 

national system approach relative to our decentralized approach proposed in May 2001 is 

that the final regulation no longer needs to concern itself with detailed technical 

standards. Instead, the final rule provides a fairly simple legal and policy framework for 

e-Manifest, clarifying that electronic manifests that are obtained from, signed, completed, 

and submitted to the system as required by the final rule’s conditions, are the legal 

equivalent of paper manifests. The final rule aims to be technology neutral by avoiding 

the codification of detailed security or other technical requirements. Thus, the final rule 

renders moot most of these comments asking EPA to resolve many technical issues in 

this regulation. Instead, EPA will consider and resolve the system’s many technical 

issues in the system planning, procurement, and development phases of the project.

As regards information security, the system security requirements for the e-Manifest will 

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 eManifest, and these requirements and controls will be implemented when the Agency

awards a contract to an IT vendor to build and operate e-Manifest. 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. 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	25

Having said this, EPA agrees with commenters’ suggestions for controls and user support 

to ensure manifest quality and minimize noncompliances. We agree that the user 

procedures (e.g., for registering for and using the e-Manifest system) need to be clearly 

stated so there is no confusion. We agree with the comment that EPA needs to minimize 

disruptions and downtime in the e-Manifest system so that users and others (e.g., 

regulators) can rely on it. These comments will be addressed through the system 

planning and development process described above. 

We appreciate the comment that the existing regulations do not support use of the 

electronic manifest. EPA’s final rule on the e-Manifest addresses these regulatory gaps 

and inconsistencies in the existing regulations by prescribing the legal and policy

framework for the use of valid electronic manifests. For example, it states the procedures 

under which an electronic manifest can be initiated and clarifies such issues as electronic 

signatures. It also establishes the legal equivalence of the electronic manifest to the 

current paper forms. It states, for example, that electronic manifests that are obtained, 

prepared, and transmitted in accordance with applicable requirements, and used as 

specified in lieu of EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A shall be considered the legal 

equivalent of paper manifest forms bearing handwritten signatures, and shall satisfy for 

all RCRA purposes any requirement in the regulations to obtain, complete, sign, carry, 

provide, use, or retain a manifest. The HMR requirement to carry a paper copy of the 

manifest (shipping paper) on the transport vehicle continues in place in the interim, 

pending DOT's evaluation of electronic means for hazard communication involving 

hazardous materials shipments.

We appreciate the comment about the uneven use of the electronic manifest if some 

handlers in the shipment use the electronic manifest and others do not. The final rule 

addresses this comment. It clarifies, for example, that a generator may prepare an 

electronic manifest for the tracking of waste shipments involving any RCRA hazardous 

waste, if it is known that all the handlers named on the manifest can participate in the 

electronic manifest. Therefore, the rule establishes the minimum expectation that the 

initiator of the manifest, the final recipient of it, and all transporters named on the 

manifest, must participate. EPA believes this will preserve the essential chain-of-custody 

aspects of the paper manifest system. It also includes procedures to follow when access 

to the system is interrupted and a paper replacement manifest must be provided to 

complete the transaction. We believe these procedures will ensure accountability

throughout the use of the electronic manifest. 

3.3 Access Controls/Protections over Data

Comment: We heard from seven commenters that expressed the need for regulator 

access to e-Manifest records (Commenter Nos. 1, 2, 10, 20, 22, 26, 27). One of the 

commenters stated that access controls must allow any emergency responder or any 

RCRA inspector to view the data without restriction (Commenter No 1). The commenter 

stated that, if emergency responders and RCRA inspectors are to use the centralized 

system to access electronic records instead of viewing paper records on the vehicle or onsite, wider access to the system will be necessary than is implied in the 2006 notice. 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	26

Another commenter stated that manifest data must be readily available to state hazardous 

waste inspectors (e.g., during the inspection) (Commenter No. 2). The commenter was 

uncertain if state regulators would be required to pay to access it. The commenter 

expressed concern that fees for states to access the system would be a difficulty. Another 

commenter conveyed the concern of its state inspectors that they may not have access to 

a site’s e-Manifest records during an inspection (Commenter No. 10). They are uncertain 

what recourse they would have, for example, if the site does not have a computer. 

Another commenter believes the states should not collect the manifests, but access the 

central repository for them (Commenter No. 20). Another commenter stated that, if EPA 

allows businesses to stop retaining paper manifest copies for three years, its state program 

would need an assurance that local or state inspectors would have access to the manifest 

data or images (Commenter No. 26). The commenter stated that government regulatory

users should not be subject to a service charge and asked for clarification of this. The 

commenter also said it is imperative that the state have unimpeded access to the 

centralized system in order to facilitate the collection of fees. Another commenter 

recommended that, even in the early versions of the e-Manifest, data be made available 

for downloading and analysis by the states (Commenter No. 27). The commenter 

believes this would allow the states to review a variety of information (e.g., what wastes 

were sent to which receivers by a particular generator during a designated timeframe).

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their views on regulator access to electronic 

manifest records. In the final rule, EPA clarifies that we will design the e-Manifest 

system with access restrictions aimed at ensuring the security and integrity of electronic 

manifest data while manifests are being prepared and transmitted within the e-Manifest 

system. During the time that waste shipments are en route to the receiving facilities, and 

during the period of time (90 days after delivery of waste) when manifest exceptions, 

discrepancies or corrections may be reported, unless otherwise required by federal law, 

EPA intends to restrict access to manifest records to only the facilities involved with a 

shipment and to regulators and emergency responders. These are the entities who have a 

need to know about the manifest data being entered on an electronic manifest while the 

shipment is en route, or while the manifest data is subject to revision during the time for 

reporting waste receipts, exceptions, discrepancies, or corrections Under current 

manifest requirements, waste receipts must be reported to the generator by the designated 

facility within 30 days of the delivery of the waste to the designated facility, and any

significant discrepancies must be reported to EPA or the authorized state if the 

discrepancy is not resolved between the generator and designated facility within 15 days 

from receipt of the waste as provided by 40 CFR 264.71(a)(4) and 264.72(c). In 

addition, the existing regulations provide that exceptions must be reported by generators 

to EPA or authorized states if 45 days have passed since delivery of the waste to the 

initial transporter, and the generator has still not received the final copy of the manifest 

signed by the designated facility. 

These events and the need to verify and correct manifest data affect the finality of 

manifest data. Therefore, unless otherwise required by federal law, EPA will restrict 

access to electronic manifests until the time has passed (i.e., 90 days after delivery to the 

designated facility) after which the manifest data may be considered final and complete. 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	27

While the waste shipments are en route and until the passage of this 90-day period, only

the specific waste handlers named on the manifest as having a role in managing the waste 

shipment shall have access to the electronic manifests, since EPA believes it is important 

for data security to ensure that only these facilities may access the manifest and make the 

required data entries to complete the manifest and verify the receipt of the waste or to 

report exceptions or discrepancies. Federal, state, and local regulators and emergency

responders may also access electronic manifests on the system at any time for purposes of 

monitoring compliance with the manifest regulations and of discharging their emergency

response activities with respect to hazardous waste shipments. However, after this 90-

day period has passed, such that the electronic manifests are considered complete and 

final for regulatory purposes, the manifests shall be considered public records that may be 

released to the public upon request in accordance with the Federal Freedom of 

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552. EPA has included new language in 40 CFR 

§260.2(c)(2) to clarify this time-limited restriction on access to electronic manifests. 

EPA emphasizes that this limited restriction on access is intended to protect the integrity 

and security of manifest data during the period of time that the electronic manifest is 

being completed and verified by the waste handlers that are involved with the 

management of the waste shipment.

Comment: We heard from a commenter that expressed concern that regulator access to 

waste shipment information could constitute an unannounced inspection of site records 

and could result in notices of violations being issued for errors found based on those 

records reviews (Commenter No. 24). The commenter suggested that access by

regulators must be controlled or limited or not be used for "inspection" purposes, or else 

given due notice by a regulator prior to their inspection of any waste shipping or disposal 

records.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for expressing its concern about regulator 

inspection of electronic records. As an initial matter, EPA is not aware of restrictions 

against regulators conducting unannounced inspections of data that are not otherwise 

available to the public. As it currently stands, a large number of the states already collect 

manifest copies from waste handlers that ship within or to their state. EPA is not aware 

that inspector access to these current state manifest collections has been restricted, and 

we do not see a reason for electronic manifest access to be handled differently by the 

national system. Many states are already involved in conducting QA of manifest data 

submitted to the states, and we believe that the states are generally aware that there are 

inadvertent errors that occur with the reporting of these data, and that these states attempt 

to correct such errors rather than pounce on them unannounced for purpose of 

enforcement actions. However, EPA believes that the possibility of state oversight and 

enforcement in appropriate cases provides a useful deterrent against inattentive or 

intentional misreporting of manifest data. 

Therefore, EPA does not agree with the comment and we decline at this time to restrict 

regulator access in the manner suggested. The electronic manifest is intended to benefit 

all system stakeholders, including RCRA regulators involved in enforcement and 

compliance monitoring activities. 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	28

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that EPA needs to clarify access 

controls and make them available for public comment (Commenter No. 12). The 

commenter stated that non-generators should not be able to alter the generator's manifest.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for asking for clarification to access controls on 

manifest data. As the commenter requests, EPA will develop controls on manifest data 

access and corrections during the system development process. This is not an issue that 

will be address in this non-technical regulation.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that its facility has multiple 

management contractors and each with multiple subcontractors (Commenter No. 24). 

The commenter believes access to its manifest records must be available to personnel on 

a site-wide basis (e.g., to enable site-wide reporting). The commenter suggested that 

EPA needs to limit access by EPA Identification Number, not by waste shipper/offeror. 

The commenter believes the e-Manifest system must allow individual sites to determine 

who at their sites needs access and assign the level of access needed for each person.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for offering its position on the need for users to 

tailor access to the particular manifesting practices at their site. We agree that such 

flexibility needs to exist in the e-Manifest system. We will attempt to address this 

comment as appropriate during the system requirements gathering and design phases of 

the project.. This is not an issue to be resolved in this non-technical final regulation.

Comment: We heard from two commenters expressing opposition to protections over 

manifest data (Commenter Nos. 1 and 26). One commenter stated its belief that nothing 

in the e-Manifest system should be allowed to be held confidential under any

circumstances (Commenter No. 1). The commenter stated that more than one company is 

typically involved in the transactions, and when generators, transporters, and facilities all 

share information, the manifest is no longer confidential. The commenter also stated that 

emergency responders need access to all the information. Another commenter stated that 

all manifests are available to the public in its state (Commenter No. 26).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on confidential business 

information. EPA agrees that neither individual manifests nor aggregate manifest data 

should be treated as CBI.

In regard to individual manifests, the Agency believes that any CBI claim that might be 

asserted with respect to individual manifest records would be extremely difficult to 

sustain under the substantive CBI criteria of 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B and of 40 CFR 

260.2, because they must be shared with several commercial entities while they are being 

processed and used, and must be made available to emergency responders. In addition, 

as many states now require the submission of generator and/or TSDF copies of manifests, 

and the data from these manifests are often made publicly available or reported in federal 

and state information systems, it is apparent to EPA that many manifest records and the 

information on them linking waste management firms and generators or transporters are 

already available from a number of states and other legitimate sources. Since the states 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	29

have had far more experience than EPA with the collection and disclosure of manifests, 

EPA is persuaded that the states’ policies in this area are entitled to some deference. 

Finally, EPA notes that members of the regulated industry have generally conceded the 

point that individual manifests and the data included in them should not be the subject of 

CBI claims. 

In regard to aggregate manifest data, EPA notes that the e-Manifest system is being 

developed so that electronic manifests and data are available to the authorized states at 

the same time they are available to EPA. EPA understands from state comments and 

from state responses to surveys and requests for clarification that among the states that 

collect and track manifests, the policy of many of these states is not to recognize any CBI 

claims when processing requests from the public for aggregate manifest or waste receipt 

data. In addition, EPA cannot objectively determine whether a particular system search 

or FOIA request would entail the disclosure of a company’s customer list. EPA has not 

received any significant input from industry to help the Agency with this determination. 

These findings do not support the policy of treating aggregated manifest data as CBI in 

the manner advocated by the regulated industry. Therefore, EPA’s final position is to 

categorically exclude aggregate manifest data obtained from the e-Manifest system from 

CBI coverage.

While EPA is rejecting the comments that requested CBI handling of individual or 

aggregate manifest data, EPA emphasizes that the restrictions on access included in the 

final rule should mitigate greatly the concern that the e-Manifest system may be data

mined by a waste handler’s competitors for sensitive customer list information. Under 

this final regulation, unless otherwise required by federal law, the system will not provide 

direct public access to manifest data during the time that manifested waste shipments are 

“in process,” which covers the time that wastes are en route to the destination facility, 

and a period of 90 days after the receipt of the wastes by the destination facility. During 

this period that waste shipments are in process, only the waste handlers named on a 

particular manifest, RCRA regulators, and emergency responders will be able to gain 

access to these manifests from the system. 

Commenters advised EPA that current state agency disclosures of manifest data from 

paper manifest tracking programs do not raise CBI issues for the industry, because it

normally takes several months for the states to disclose the data, and by this time, the 

customer list sensitivity has diminished. By restricting public access though the system 

to these data for the transit time and an additional 90 days post-delivery, EPA believes 

that industry members will likewise be shielded from disclosure of their customer 

information by the system for several months. Thus, there will not be the immediacy of 

data access that troubled those commenters who argued that the immediacy of data 

mining under e-Manifest was the distinguishing feature that required CBI treatment of eManifest information. 

Comment: We heard from three commenters expressing general support for the CBI 

procedures (Commenter Nos. 10, 11 and 25). One commenter agreed that CBI claims 

can be made but stated that CBI claims should not apply to state regulators (Commenter 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	30

No. 10). One commenter supported EPA’s CBI procedures, but recommended that 

access to electronic information on manifests be limited to government authorities and 

the parties involved in a specific transaction for a period of one year from receipt by the 

destination facility (Commenter No. 11). The commenter believes a one-year period will 

ensure the material has been properly recycled, treated or disposed and therefore makes 

the information useless to any person or organization that could utilize the material for 

nefarious purposes. The commenter also believes a similar argument for limiting access 

until after the first year can be made by industry for competitive reasons as well. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views. Refer to the response above for 

EPA’s rationale for determining the manifests should be not treated as CBI. We 

appreciate the comment indicating that the proposed 45 day period of restricted access 

was insufficient, and that a year of restricted access would be sufficient to deal with 

competitiveness issues and concerns about interception of waste shipments for nefarious 

purposes. In response, we have extended the period of restricted access to the period 

while waste shipments are “in process,” which we interpret as the time that waste 

shipments are in transit to the destination facility, plus an additional 90-day period 

measured from the date of receipt by the destination facility. EPA believes that one year 

would be too long a period to restrict public access, given that paper manifest data has 

been generally made available to the public without restriction from state agencies after 

several months. With a 90-day period of restricted public access through the system

(unless otherwise required by law), the public and the industry members will be no worse 

off than they are currently in their dealings with the states' disclosure practices, insofar as 

gaining access to data that could potentially raise competitive concerns if immediately

released to the public.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that EPA must consider that some of the 

Department of Energy information is classified and must be held in a secure depository

inside the United States (Commenter No. 24).

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its input. EPA has made a final determination 

that manifests should not be treated as CBI, for which there is a distinct FOIA exemption 

If federal regulations for the protection of classified data apply to manifests, steps will be 

taken to comply with these provisions. EPA will need more information from DOE and 

DOD organizations about their national security/national defense related claims with 

respect to manifest data before the Agency can develop a policy on how such claims 

should be asserted and processed. This final rule addresses the FOIA exemption for CBI.
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	31

3.4 System Compatibility

Comment: We heard from two commenters noting that it is essential that any national 

system be designed to be compatible with the currently existing state systems 

(Commenter No. 4, 26). One of these commenters believes that EPA’s preferred 

approach meets this need (Commenter No. 4). Another commenter expressed uncertainty

if the national system will be compatible with its state system and urged EPA to consider 

states’ systems to ensure compatibility (e.g., compatibility for downloading and 

transferring data) (Commenter No. 26).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their concerns about system compatibility

with state systems. We agree with the importance of such compatibility, and believe the 

final rule approach will provide a relatively high likelihood for compatibility with both 

existing state and industry systems. As discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this 

document, the e-Manifest will be hosted on EPA's existing CDX or equivalent system

computer hub or equivalent system, and will be connected to state governments via 

EPA's partnership National Environmental Information Exchange Network, on which 

there are 51 state nodes, 12 Tribal nodes, and 2 Territory nodes. As of May 2013, all 50 

states, 90 tribes and five territories had received EPA Exchange Network grants.

Briefly, the Exchange Network is a secure Internet- and standards-based approach for 

exchanging environmental data. EPA, state environmental departments, and U.S. tribes 

and territories are partnering to build the Exchange Network to increase access to 

environmental data. In this view, the e-Manifest will be hosted on an existing network 

that already is connected to, and therefore compatible with, many of the states’ systems. 

As the final rule indicates, the Agency intends to implement data exchange between eManifest and external systems with XML schemas, which are now almost universally

used for such data exchange purposes. The States will only need to develop the 

appropriate application interfaces between e-Manifest and their existing state data 

systems, and they will need to have, of course, XML compatible data systems.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that the manifest format needs to be suitable 

for downloading into an Oracle database so that users will be able to produce site-specific 

reports (Commenter No. 24).

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its input. EPA agrees that the e-Manifest 

should be compatible with users’ existing systems and software. The Agency intends for 

the e-Manifest to offer users with a range of options for downloading data and/or 

producing standardized or customized reports. 

3.5 System Security

Comment: We heard from one commenter that asked for EPA to re-examine the security

of the e-Manifest system (Commenter No. 9). It expressed concerns about lost or stolen 

data and the potential inappropriate use of data by authorized or unauthorized users. 

Another commenter stated that, with the appropriate expertise, a user could initiate an e-
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	32

Manifest that fraudulently indicates shipment and disposal of hazardous waste that has 

never been sent offsite (Commenter No. 10). The commenter noted, however, that this 

would require the generator, transporter and TSD to provide fraudulent signatures.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their concerns about lost or stolen data and 

possible inappropriate uses of manifest data. We agree with the commenter in the 

importance of system security. In developing the e-Manifest, the Agency will address 

system security controls in accordance with Federal information technology standards 

and guidance, including NIST’s FIPS PUB 200, “Minimum Security Requirements for 

Federal Information and Information Systems,” (March, 2006) and NIST’s Special 

Publication 800-53 Rev. 3, “Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information 

Systems and Organizations,” (August 2009, as updated in May 2010). These 

publications specify minimum requirements in 17 distinct security-related areas (e.g., 

media protection, system and information integrity). Refer to Section 3.2 of this 

document for further information on this.

3.6 System Failure

Comment: We heard from five commenters that asked EPA to address system failure 

(Commenter Nos. 9, 21, 22, 24, 27). A number of these commenters asked EPA to 

clarify if a user would be out of compliance if there are problems associated with the 

system, or if data are lost in the middle of generating the e-Manifest (Commenter Nos. 9, 

21, 22). One of the commenters urged EPA to clarify the consequences of system 

malfunctions for all participants in the management system, and develop backup systems 

to ensure unimpeded movement of manifested waste (Commenter No. 21). One 

commenter asked for clarification whether facilities still need to hard copy print all the 

forms for backup, in case of system failures (Commenter No. 22). One commenter stated 

the need for back-up systems and accommodations for peak usage and natural disasters 

and emergency situations (Commenter No. 24). One commenter asked for clarification 

on transporter liability if its computer cannot access the e-Manifest during transportation 

(Commenter No. 27).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their comments and concerns about system 

failure. We agree in the need to minimize system downtime. We also recognize the need 

to include provisions in the final rule that clarify user liability in regard to lost or 

corrupted data on the system. In this respect, the final rule provides that no generator, 

transporter or designated facility may be held liable for the inability to produce an 

electronic manifest for inspection if it can demonstrate that the inability to produce the 

electronic manifest is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the EPA system for 

which it bears no responsibility. We believe these provisions address the commenters’ 

suggestions. The final rule also includes provisions for transporters (see § 263.20(a)(6) 

and designated facilities (see §§ 264.71(h) and 265.71(h)) to provide and complete paper 

replacement manifests in the event the system becomes unavailable for any reason after a 

manifest has been initiated electronically but cannot be completed electronically. Thus, 

the paper copy that is currently required to be carried on the transport vehicles for HMR 

purposes can also serve as the back-up document for completing hazardous waste 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	33

tracking activities, in the event the e-Manifest system becomes unavailable while the 

shipment is en route.

3.7 Central Repository

Comment: We heard from one commenter that stated that reliance on the centralized 

repository will work only if two conditions are met: 1) The generator has a means, at the 

location of the site of generation, for retrieval and review of the data; and 2) The paper 

manifests are maintained on-site for a minimum period of 45 days, which coincides with 

the amount of time a generator has to file an exception report if they have not received 

confirmation that the waste was received at the designated facility in the format of a 

signed manifest since the exception report must include a copy of the manifest 

(Commenter no. 15).

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its input and agrees that, under the e-Manifest 

system, a generator must be able to retrieve and review the electronic manifest. 

Consistent with this view, the e-Manifest final rule provides that a generator may prepare 

an electronic manifest for the tracking of hazardous waste shipments involving any 

RCRA hazardous waste only if it is known at the time the manifest is originated that all 

waste handlers named on the manifest participate in the electronic manifest system.

In regard to recordkeeping of the manifest copy, EPA notes that an electronic copy of the 

generator’s manifest will reside on the system. Provided that all applicable requirements 

of the final rule have been met, this copy is equivalent to the paper copy in all respects. 

Therefore, the generator need not retain a paper copy of a manifest prepared and 

transmitted via the system, except as otherwise specified (e.g., for manifests completed 

with signature devices that are undergoing EPA tests).

Comment: We heard from one commenter that asked if the central repository will satisfy

the requirement for waste handlers to maintain copies of the manifests for three years 

(Commenter No. 22).

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its question about the recordkeeping in the 

central repository. The final rule provides that any requirement in the regulations for an 

electronic manifest user to keep or retain a copy of each manifest is satisfied when the 

user retains a copy of an electronic manifest for the same retention period as required for 

paper manifest records. The final rule includes standards that must be met to comply

with the recordkeeping requirements. For example, it 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. 

See, for example, the regulations at 40 CFR 262.24(a)(2) in the final rule.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that stated that the central repository should 

be current and available at all times (Commenter No. 23).
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	34

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its comment about the central repository. 

This is a system design issue rather than a regulatory issue for this final rule to address. 

We agree generally that the central repository should be available to users at all times. 

Practically speaking, however, we recognize that there are downtimes in any Internetbased system), and there must be occasional downtimes scheduled for system 

maintenance. In designing the system, we will take efforts to minimize downtime of the 

EPA system, in recognition of the need for users to have ongoing access to their manifest 

data.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that asked if small quantity generators or 

conditionally exempt small quantity generators would be required to have an EPA 

identification number to use the centralized system (Commenter No. 18).

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its question and agrees that each site 

originating the manifest should have its own unique number, whether it is an EPA 

identification number, state identification number, or other number. EPA will determine 

the most appropriate type of number at a later date. This is a system requirements and 

design issue, rather than a regulatory issue to be resolved in this final rule.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that, if a business discontinues use of the eManifesting service and could no longer access their data, it would not be able to comply

with the three year retention and would be out of compliance, unless the business can 

download, store, and make available to the regulator their manifest data (Commenter No. 

26). The commenter stated that the system needs to allow for changes in business 

decisions.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its suggestion about the central repository. 

We agree that a user needs to have access to its manifest data for three years, as required 

in the regulations. In fact, the final rule provides that an electronic manifest user satisfies 

the electronic recordkeeping requirement if it can, among other things, store, access, and 

retrieve all of its electronic manifest records from an account or record collection 

established for it on the EPA Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest System. In a 

circumstance in which a business discontinues active use of the system, we expect it to 

maintain access to its manifest records nonetheless, or to arrange to download and store 

all its records locally. This could be accomplished, for example, by maintaining its 

current user account with the e-Manifest system for the remainder of the three-year 

retention period.

3.8 Gradual Roll-out/Scalability

Comment: We heard from four commenters that expressed support for the gradual rollout of the e-Manifest (Commenter Nos. 14, 20, 25 and 30). One commenter asked EPA 

to continue to look for opportunities to integrate technology to reduce the cost of 

compliance and create regulatory flexibility (Commenter No. 14). In this regard, the 

commenter supports developing a core system that can be expanded in the future to allow 

users to submit Biennial Reports and other data gathering. Another commenter stated 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	35

that EPA should work out the bugs in the basic system before adding greater functionality

(Commenter No. 20). Another commenter emphasized that, once the system has proven 

reliable, it should be scalable, providing opportunities to offer additional services in the 

future, such as biennial reporting (Commenter No. 25). Another commenter stated that 

EPA's decision to defer details to the contracting process is a common-sense approach for 

ensuring that the technical specifications for an electronic manifest system are 

implemented and developed in the most effective and efficient manner for the regulated 

community (Commenter No. 30).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their many viewpoints on scalability of the 

system. This is a system design issue, rather than a regulatory issue that will be resolved 

in this final rule. EPA agrees with comments that the system should be scalable, and that 

we should develop a system with core functionality before expanding it to the Biennial 

Report or other enhancements. We recognize industry’s desire for added functionality in 

the near term, but we have to balance their need against other considerations, including 

the challenge of developing a new IT system with even the core manifest functionality. 

For example, EPA will procure an IT contractor to develop the system, and this 

contractor will assume upfront risk in developing the system. We are very aware that any

prospective contractor will weigh the risks of participation against the potential benefits. 

If EPA’s approach is too aggressive, it could repel qualified contractors who would 

otherwise be interested in developing the system. In addition, we realize that the main 

purpose of the system is to support the commercial shipment of hazardous waste. Users 

of the system will need reliable services to support their commercial activities. Because 

of such factors, we believe it is prudent to develop the basic manifest system first and 

work out its technical difficulties before considering expansions to the system.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that encouraged EPA to develop a robust 

suite of reporting capabilities in the e-Manifest upfront (Commenter No. 5). The 

commenter was concerned that funding may run out before additional reporting 

capabilities are integrated, if EPA pursues a more gradual approach. Another commenter 

stated that the e-Manifest system would not result in benefits to its state program until it 

is expanded such that data collected through the e-Manifest system can replace the 

Biennial Report (Commenter No. 27). The commenter recommends that until the eManifest system is updated to capture the information required to generate the biennial 

report, the e-Manifest system should allow the collection of limited state data (e.g., state 

waste codes in addition to EPA waste codes), related to the biennial report. It also 

recommends that if the e-Manifesting system is made mandatory for everyone, EPA 

should work with the states in revising the requirements of future biennial reporting. The 

commenter also suggests that EPA consider developing alternatives for companies 

without computers or compatible systems.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their suggestion on expanding the system in 

the near term. Please refer to the Agency response above for our rationale for a gradual 

expansion of the system. This is a system planning and design issue, rather than a 

regulatory issue to be resolved in this final rule. Beyond this, it is important to note that 

funding of the system will originate from user fees. It is important to put in place a core 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	36

system that meets basic shipment tracking needs first, so that this functionality can be 

promptly implemented, and user fees can begin to be collected so as to stabilize the 

longer term funding of the system. EPA expects to set fees that will cover the costs for 

development, maintenance, and operation of the system, as well as costs for future 

upgrades. In this regard, EPA expects funding to be available for system expansions 

based on the fee system put in place. Finally, EPA will need to consult closely with the 

System Advisory Board on the need for and timing of system upgrades and expansions, 

as these will affect the cost of the system and the level of fees that will need to be 

charged to recover those additional costs.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that recommended that the implementation of 

additional services, such as biennial reporting, occur within two years of implementation 

of the e-Manifest (Commenter No. 11). The commenter believes these additional 

features are important to the regulated community and their implementation would bring 

about additional cost savings, which in turn would drive support for use of the eManifest.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its suggestion on expanding the system. This 

is a system planning and design issue, rather than a regulatory issue to be resolved in this 

final rule. We agree with the comment that added functionality such as for biennial 

reporting is important to the regulated community, and indeed, the e-Manifest Act 

includes integration with biennial reporting as one of the measures for ultimate system 

success. As stated in the 2006 notice, it is our current intention to expand the system to 

include such functions after the core system is developed and proven to be in good 

working order. However, we cannot predict with certainty when such expansion would 

occur, as there are too many variables involved. For example, we cannot predict the 

growth rate in the use of the core system, and the demands placed on the system. We 

also cannot predict the types or complexity of technical difficulties to be resolved in 

executing a system expansion, or the increased user fees that will be required to fund the 

expansion. For such reasons, we do not want to establish a hard and fast deadline for 

expanding the system’s functionality. That said, we continue to believe that the core 

system will provide many benefits that will be attractive to users, such as streamlined 

manifest completion and reporting and associated burden savings. Beyond this, we fully

expect users to find ways to download and manipulate their electronic manifest data from 

the core system to facilitate their reporting activities. Therefore, we do not believe that 

the absence of specific functionalities would necessarily limit users’ ability to take 

advantage of the electronic data for their other reporting needs.

3.9 Integration of e-Manifest into Existing Regulatory Program

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that hard copies of the manifest or 

"official" printouts would have to be available at generator sites so facilities can use them 

to determine their generator status and to calculate state generator fees (Commenter No. 

2). To accurately do this, the commenter believes that facilities must be able to determine 

their monthly generation rates.
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	37

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its suggestion on the availability of manifest 

data. EPA is clarifying that users of the e-Manifest will have full access to their manifest 

data in the system. If they would like to use their manifest data for compliance or other 

purposes, they should be free to do so, without necessitating the retention of paper copies.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that that the e-Manifest implementation 

could be hindered for international shipments because of existing import and export 

tracking requirements, as well as the regulations in foreign countries (Commenter No. 

12).

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its views on international shipments. EPA is 

clarifying that, at least at the outset, we envision the e-Manifest as a system for domestic 

shipments. Therefore, this final rule does not contain provisions aimed at automating the 

transboundary tracking processes or integrating e-Manifest with other nations' tracking 

documents. EPA is not now making arrangements with foreign countries to develop or 

integrate cross-boundary electronic systems. EPA also is clarifying that we do not 

envision automating the manifesting and reporting functions associated with international 

shipments. Should the scope of the e-Manifest system be expanded later to encompass 

these or other RCRA reporting requirements, EPA will provide notice of the change in 

scope and indicate when it will be prepared to accept the additional reports electronically

this regard, we do not envision use of the e-Manifest system in shipping hazardous waste 

internationally. For importers and exporters that choose to use the e-Manifest for the 

domestic portion of a shipment (e.g., for shipping a waste that has already been imported 

in the country), the e-Manifest system will be designed to be compatible with the 

manifest completion requirements for international shipments. Therefore, we do not 

share the commenter’s concerns about the existing import and export tracking 

requirements.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that stated that no mention of the 

Acknowledgement of Consent (AOC) was made in the 2006 notice (Commenter No. 19). 

The commenter recommends that EPA incorporate an electronic system for the AOC for 

hazardous waste transported internationally. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its views on an electronic AOC. In the 

preamble to the final rule, we clarify that we do not envision automating the reporting 

functions associated with international shipments, such as the Acknowledgement of 

Consent. Thus, this final rule does not include any provisions that would integrate the 

acknowledgment of consent for waste exports with e-Manifest. These and other reports 

or submissions must be submitted in accordance with the requirements and procedures 

specified in the specific regulations which describe when these reports are required and 

how one should supply these records or reports. Should the scope of the e-Manifest 

system be expanded later to encompass these or other RCRA reporting requirements, 

EPA will provide notice of the change in scope and indicate when it will be prepared to 

accept the additional reports electronically. This is consistent with our approach to 

develop the e-Manifest system gradually, i.e., to develop the core domestic e-Manifest 
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	38

system and then expand it as appropriate. Please refer to the Agency responses in Section 

3.8 of this document for additional information on this scalability. 

Comment: We heard from four commenters that are concerned that the new system and 

associated regulations would not be compatible with the state system (Commenter Nos. 

10, 18, 26 and 27). They encourage EPA to develop a system that addresses state-only

wastes, universal wastes, household hazardous wastes, and non-hazardous waste, and is 

compatible with state reporting requirements. Without these accommodations, they

indicated that waste handlers in their state would have to comply with multiple sets of 

manifesting and reporting requirements (e.g., federal e-Manifest and state-specific 

procedures). One of the commenters stated that TSDFs deal with these wastes in 

different ways and suggested that clarifications would be helpful (e.g., EPA could include 

a check box on the manifest to identify the regulated status of the waste) (Commenter No. 

10). The commenter also suggested that EPA clarify how the system will handle 

manifests from conditionally exempt small quantity generators. Another commenter 

stated that limiting the centralized system to strictly RCRA wastes may decrease its cost 

effectiveness (Commenter No. 18). 

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their suggestions for the e-Manifest to 

encompass state-specific wastes. We agree with comments that the e-Manifest needs to 

be a flexible system that can accommodate state-specific wastes for tracking non-federal

waste types. The e-Manifest Act requires that the system be implemented to track both 

shipments of federal RCRA wastes subject to manifesting and to state-regulated wastes or 

other materials subject to the manifest requirement under state law. The final rule 

codifies this requirement in the § 260.10 definition of "user of the electronic manifest 

system." The remainder of these comments that suggest how the system might be 

implemented to accommodate state wastes or CESQG wastes are system design issues, 

rather than regulatory issues to be addressed in this final rule. We will design the eManifest system to enable this capability and address these concerns.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that the requirement for the last rail carrier to 

get a copy of the signed manifest does not seem to have a purpose, other than to place an 

additional requirement on the rail carrier to maintain another copy (Commenter No. 19). 

The commenter suggested that the requirement for the designated facility to provide a 

signed copy of the manifest to the last rail transported be eliminated. The commenter 

stated, for example, that the railroads will have a record that they transported the 

hazardous waste electronically under the new proposed electronic system.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its input. However, at this time, the Agency is 

not considering regulatory changes that are outside the scope of the e-Manifest project. 

In any case, EPA notes that the e-Manifest will significantly streamline users’ transmittal 

and retention of manifest records. For example, once a transporter signs the electronic 

manifest, that copy would be retained in the system and serve as the transporter’s official 

copy. The transporter could then transmit a copy to the next waste handler via the central 

system or portable device.
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	39

Comment: We heard from one commenter that asked if the Land Disposal Restrictions 

(LDR) paperwork needs to be completed and transmitted in hardcopy for an automated 

shipment (Commenter No. 22). The commenter also asked for clarification on whether 

the manifest can be initiated by a broker on behalf of a generator customer.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its questions. EPA envisions that the first 

generation e-Manifest would not integrate LDR paperwork. We believe it is important 

first to successfully develop the core functions of the system. Hence, during this initial 

phase, waste handlers would be required to comply with the LDR requirements using 

hardcopies. After the core functions are in good shape, EPA intends to gradually

integrate other collections into the system as appropriate. This could include, for 

example, LDR paperwork.

Comment: We heard from one commenter on its desire for the system to integrate 

greater functionality with existing reporting requirements, such as the LDR paperwork 

requirements (Commenter No. 24).

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its questions. As stated in the response 

above, EPA envisions that the first generation e-Manifest would not integrate LDR 

paperwork. We believe it is important first to successfully develop the core functions of 

the system. After the core functions are in good shape, EPA intends to gradually

integrate other collections into the system as appropriate, such as LDR paperwork.
EPA Final Response to Comments Document: November 12, 2013 Page	40

Table of Organizations Commenting on the Notice and Commenter Numbers

Commenter 

Number

Name of Organization Commenting on the Notice

1 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

2 New Mexico Environment Department

3 API

4 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

5 Wisconsin Department of Environmental Resources

6 IT Inc

7 Graphic Arts Coalition

8 National Federation of Independent Business

9 IPC

10 Florida Department of Environmental Protection

11 Safety-Kleen Systems Inc.

12 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

13 National Paint and Coatings Association

14 The Dow Chemical Company

15 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

16 American Trucking Association

17 National Automobile Dealers Association

18 U.S. Department of Defense

19 Association of American Railroads

20 Environmental Technology Council

21 Waste Management

22 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

23 Missouri Department of Natural Resources

24 Oak Ridge National Laboratory

25 Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition

26 California Department of Toxic Substances Control

27 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

28 U.S. Department of Energy

29 Onyx Environmental Services, L.L.C.

30 Utility Solid Waste Activities Group

31 Alcoa