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 February 26, 2008

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 FEBRUARY 2008 

NOTICE.......................................................................................................................................... 3

1.0 Submission Requirements to System for Paper Manifest Copies....................................... 3

1.1 General...................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 User Fees................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Designated TSDF Requirements............................................................................... 8

1.4 State Responsibilities.............................................................................................. 10

2.0 Public Access to Electronic Manifests and CBI Claims for Manifest Data ..................... 15

2.1 General.................................................................................................................... 15

2.2 Individual Manifest Records and Commercial Confidentiality Concerns.............. 16

2.3 Release of Aggregate Data and Competitive Harm Concerns................................ 20

3.0 Comments that are Outside the Scope of the 2008 Notice ............................................... 24

Table of Organizations Commenting on the Notice and Commenter Numbers....................... 25
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	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 “eManifest” in this document).

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, several commenters on the 

2001 proposed e-Manifest approach raised strong objections to the decentralized approach, under 

which multiple systems might be developed by private industry to meet the detailed system 

standards suggested by the proposed rule. These commenters suggested that a consistent, 

national system approach would be preferred to the proposed approach. The comments received

in response to the form revisions proposal, on the other hand, raised fewer difficult issues that 

would deter us from going forward with a final rule. Therefore, EPA separated the e-Manifest

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 has continued work on the e-Manifest. In particular, EPA held a 

two-day public meeting in 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 eManifest project. EPA also presented material on alternative information technology (IT) 

approaches to the e-Manifest, including a centralized approach under which EPA would host a 

web-based national system. 
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	2

On April 18, 2006, EPA published a notice describing the Agency’s change of program direction 

and its preferred approach for a centralized e-Manifest system (71 FR 19842). 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 an e-Manifest

system. 

On February 26, 2008, EPA published a notice announcing the availability of additional 

information on the e-Manifest project (73 FR 10204). The notice indicated that EPA had made 

significant progress on the e-Manifest project since the publication of the April 18, 2006 public

notice; however, a few issues raised by commenters in response to the April 2006 public notice 

required further EPA analysis as it made decisions concerning the e-Manifest system. The 2008 

notice requested additional comment on EPA’s preferred approaches for addressing submissions

of paper-based manifests to the electronic manifest system and for addressing confidential 

business information (CBI) claims for manifest data. In total, EPA received 23 public comment 

letters in response to the February 2008 notice. 

On October 5, 2012, the President signed into law the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest 

Establishment Act (e-Manifest Act). The e-Manifest Act requires, among other actions, that 

EPA establish a national system for tracking shipments of federally- and state-regulated wastes 

subject to the hazardous waste manifest requirement. It authorizes EPA to collect reasonable 

user fees as a source of sustainable funding for the system. The e-Manifest Act further states that 

the use of electronic manifests shall be at the election of the system users, and that with respect 

to paper manifests that continue in use, EPA is authorized to collect these for data processing 

purposes so that there is a unified data system with a complete set of manifest data from all 

electronic and paper manifests. The e-Manifest Act further requires EPA to issue its 

implementing regulations for e-Manifest within one year of enactment of the Act. The Response 

to Comment document for the 2008 notice is thus a part of the record support for the final rule 

required by the e-Manifest Act.

Purpose of Document

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

2008 notice. The public comments (e.g., suggestions, concerns, questions) are summarized 

according to specific issues raised in the notice. 

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.
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	3

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

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

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES ON FEBRUARY 

2008 NOTICE

1.0 Submission Requirements to System for Paper Manifest Copies

1.1 General 

Comment: We heard from 14 commenters expressing general support for EPA’s preferred

approach for designated TSDFs to collect and submit copies of paper manifests to the national 

operator (Commenter Nos. 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21). Three of these 

commenters expressed support for the overall approach but recommended that EPA address how 

electronic and paper corrections will be made after submittal, particularly in light of the 60-day

time frame after which the data will become available to the public (Commenter Nos. 15, 19, 

21). Based on their experience, the commenters stated that, during subsequent reviews of 

manifests, errors may be found and need to be corrected. Another commenter expressed support 

but asked EPA to consider eliminating the three-year manifest recordkeeping requirement for 

generators and other entities, since the final copy will reside on the central system (Commenter 

Nos. 6). Another commenter expressed concern for maintaining data quality and suggested 

safeguarding manifest data entry (Commenter No. 19). 

Response: EPA thanks commenters for their general support of EPA’s preferred approach for 

the designated TSDF to submit final copies of the paper manifest to the system. The e-Manifest 

final rule provides that the designated facility must send to the e-Manifest 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 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. When the e-Manifest system is implemented, this requirement for the 

designated facilities will replace any existing requirements for the submission of paper copies by 

designated facilities directly to states, as the system will handle the distribution of manifest 

copies and data to the states.

EPA notes that the e-Manifest final rule provides that manifest data will be available online 90 

days from the date hazardous waste is delivered to the designated facility (instead of 60 days

from the start of the shipment, as proposed in the 2008 notice). This should help to alleviate the 

commenters’ concerns about the need for additional time to address errors in submitted data. 

Nonetheless, EPA agrees that manifest corrections could be needed after the 90-day timeframe. 
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	4

Indeed, EPA anticipates that the national operator itself and the states will need time to review 

and follow up on manifest errors. In addition, EPA fully expects that waste handlers will find 

errors and other issues that need to be revised as part of their routine processing of manifest data. 

The Agency will design an e-Manifest system with the capability for generators, transporters, 

designated facilities, and regulators to make corrections. This process may require correcting 

each manifest separately or could allow block corrections of a set of manifests with the same 

error in waste code, EPA ID number, or other like field. This process will also require access 

controls and time/date stamp features to keep a history of all corrections made. EPA and 

members of the manifest user community have discussed the performance and design 

requirements for addressing errors and corrections and we will continue to do so as we plan for 

the procurement action that will lead to the development and operation of the e-Manifest system. 

Thus, the correction concerns and process for such corrections are system planning and design 

issues beyond the scope of the final rule.

Finally, EPA does not intend to eliminate all the recordkeeping requirements for paper manifests 

as a commenter requested. The final rule requires only that the designated TSDF submit the 

paper copy to the national operator for data processing purposes. As such, this new requirement 

only replaces current requirements that manifest copies be submitted by facilities to the states. 

Copies from generators and transporters will not be collected. It will be necessary for all waste 

handlers to retain their copies, which could be needed for a variety of purposes, such as the 

completion of exception reports or compliance reviews during inspector visits to waste handler 

sites.

1.2 User Fees

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that project funding fees should be further 

evaluated and that the cost to start up and maintain the e-Manifest system may be underestimated 

(Commenter No. 5).

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

e-Manifest system. EPA agrees that it is important to continue to identify and evaluate all 

system costs and ensure that adequate funding is available, and we will continue to evaluate 

various system alternatives and refine and update their cost estimates. This will be done during 

the system and procurement planning phase of the project, and particularly, as part of the capital 

planning and investment control (CPIC) process by which we estimate and justify our budget 

requirements for systems such as the e-Manifest system. EPA and members of the manifest user 

community will discuss user fees as the Agency plans for the procurement action that will lead to 

the development and operation of the e-Manifest system. In addition, EPA will publish Fee Rule 

subsequent to this final rule to announce the user fee schedule for manifest related activities.

Comment: We heard from one commenter expressing concerns that user fees incurred by 

designated TSDFs from the submission of paper manifests would be passed on to their customers 
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	5

(Commenter Nos. 1). The commenter suggested that the e-Manifest should be funded by EPA, 

not user fees. The commenter indicated that the user fee structure could eventually become a 

disincentive for generators to minimize their waste. As generators achieve waste minimization 

goals, the funding base of the e-Manifest will diminish, although system costs will remain 

constant or increase. Since the fees imposed on TSDFs will need to increase to cover the fixed 

costs of the program, waste reduction by generators will correlate with escalating administrative 

costs for each ton of waste generated. The commenter suggested that the system’s funding 

mechanism should build in incentives for waste minimization.

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

e-Manifest. EPA agrees that designated TSDFs will be free to pass the user fees to their 

customers, if they so desire. EPA does not agree that the e-Manifest should be funded by EPA, 

however. Through its interactions with industry, EPA has learned that manifest users are willing 

to pay a reasonable fee for use of the e-Manifest system, provided that certain stipulations are 

met (e.g., transparency in how the fees are used). Consistent with industry’s feedback, the 

Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, PL112-195 (referred to as the “eManifest Act” in this document), authorizes EPA to impose and collect reasonable service fees 

necessary to pay the costs of implementing the e-Manifest system, including any costs incurred 

in collecting and processing data from any paper manifests submitted to the system, and to 

deposit these fees into a special revolving System Fund in the U.S. Treasury (see Section 2(c) of 

the Act). The e-Manifest Act contemplates that appropriated funds will be used to develop the 

IT system, but that these development costs will be later off-set by collected user fees. EPA will 

publish a Fee Rule subsequent to this rule to announce the user fee schedule for manifest-related 

activities.

In addition, the Act requires EPA to establish an Advisory Board which, among other things, will 

evaluate user fees and make recommendations to adjust fees. In addition, the Act contains 

oversight provisions, that require EPA to conduct annual Inspector General audits and submit 

biennial reports to Congress to ensure that user fees remain reasonable and do not adversely 

impact use of e-manifest. 

EPA will work closely with members of the manifest user community to ensure that the user fees 

do not have undesirable effects on manifest user behavior. EPA shares the commenter’s concern 

that the user fees should not become a disincentive for waste minimization, although it is worth 

noting that the user who minimizes its generation of hazardous waste will likely experience 

reduced e-Manifest fee payments on account of having to ship fewer hazardous wastes off-site. 

The Agency will examine during the development of the Fee Rule the role of any incentives in 

the determination of user fees. In the final rule, we state that we will, for example, take input on 

fee incentives that might promote the greater use of electronic manifests, so that there will not be 

significant use of paper manifests over the long term. 
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	6

Comment: We heard from one commenter expressing support for the Agency’s plan to 

modulate the fee based on the actual costs of processing the manifests (Commenter No. 7). The 

commenter suggested that EPA provide incentives for companies to convert paper manifests 

from their generators into an electronic format, even in a format that does not meet all the criteria 

for the electronic system.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its support of the Agency’s preferred approach and 

agrees that the user fees should vary depending on whether paper manifests are submitted 

electronically or not. EPA also agrees with the commenter that it is important to provide 

incentives to convert from paper manifests to electronic manifests. The final rule provides that 

the designated facility must send to the e-Manifest 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 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. The 

data file submission may be subject to quality assurance checks, and the regulated entity would 

be responsible for responding to and correcting errors identified from this check before a 

submission is accepted for processing by the e-Manifest system. This latter alternative would 

provide incentive for designated facilities to convert from paper to electronic manifests because 

it would result in much more timely receipt of the manifest data by the system, and avoid the 

need for manual data entry activities by the system operator. While this is beyond the scope of 

this final rule, we expect that the fees recovered for such activities will reflect the effort required 

by the system operator to process the data into the system.

For paper copies mailed to the system by designated facilities, the e-Manifest system operator 

would create or obtain an image file of each such manifest, and store it on the system for 

retrieval by state or federal regulators. The e-Manifest system operator would also key-in or 

extract the federal- and state-regulated waste data from these copies to the e-Manifest system. 

The designated facility would be required to pay a fee to the system operator for processing the 

data from these final copies of the paper forms, and the fee would vary with the type of 

submission (mailed copy, image file, or image plus data file), as these submission types will 

likely present a different level of effort insofar as the processing steps required to enter the form 

data into the system. The fees for these and other e-Manifest system services will be determined 

later by EPA, and published in a distinct regulatory notice prior to the implementation of the eManifest system. In addition, the specific file formats acceptable for the e-Manifest will be 

specified at a later date.

Comment: We heard from one commenter expressing concerns about the level of user fees 

imposed by the system (Commenter No. 7). The commenter stated that the Agency should set 

the fee based on the parameters required by the law and not delegate this determination to the IT 
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	7

contractor who might use the fee to increase profit. The commenter suggested that one possible 

solution would be for a second contractor to handle the paper manifests. The commenter stated 

that, if the customers see the paper manifest fee as a part of the cost of waste management 

services, rather than a government-imposed fee comparable to a sales tax, it will oppose 

increased fees.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for expressing its concern about the level of user fees 

imposed by the system. EPA agrees that user fees must remain at reasonable levels and assures 

the commenter that safeguards will be in place to ensure oversight and control over fee levels. In 

particular, EPA will determine the fees by regulation, and will not delegate this responsibility to 

the contractor. As an example of this oversight and control, section 2(d)(3)(A) of the Act

requires the submission to Congress every two years a report that includes an accounting of the 

fees collected and expenditures made over the reporting period, as reflected in the system’s 

financial statements. Section 2(d)(3)(B) provides for an annual audit by the EPA Office of 

Inspector General on the fees collected and disbursed under the system, the reasonableness of the 

fee structure then in place, the level of use of the system by the users, and the success to date of 

the system in improving the efficiency of waste shipment tracking and in operating the system on 

a self-sustaining basis. Finally, section 2(f) directs EPA to an Advisory Board that will include 

manifest user representatives, among others, who will meet annually to advise EPA on the eManifest, including the applicable fee structure.

In addition, EPA will work closely with members of the manifest user community to ensure that 

additional controls and safeguards are in place to ensure that fees are fair and reasonable. EPA 

will publish a notice (i.e., user fee rule) subsequent to the e-Manifest Final rule’s effective date 

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

incentives and safeguards to ensure the formulation of reasonable fees.

Comment: We heard from two commenters expressing doubt in the accuracy of the costs

estimated in the notice (Commenter No. 7 and 17). The commenters believe the estimates are 

low and do not capture all costs associated with using the e-Manifest system. In addition, the 

commenters believe that any additional system costs/fees for handling the paper manifest should 

be phased in over time (e.g., 2 years) to allow time for the e-Manifest system to demonstrate its 

reliability for everyday use, ease of use and provide the regulated community time to switch 

from paper to electronic systems. In addition, one of the commenters suggested that a lower fee 

or no fee should be charged at the launch of the electronic system to allow the Agency and 

contractor to beta test the system to understand the real costs of conversion of the various types 

of data sets provided by users (Commenter No. 7). The commenter stated that, after this 

introductory period, the fee could be increased to ensure recovery of the full costs of the 

conversion process.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on the Agency’s estimated costs for the 

system. EPA acknowledges that its estimates are subject to change as it continues to analyze and 
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	8

plan the system, develop system requirements, and collect market research and stakeholder 

feedback. 

In regard to phasing in the collection of paper manifests over time, EPA understands the 

commenters’ concerns and is evaluating options for transitioning to the new collection 

requirements of the final rule. EPA will announce the implementation date for e-Manifest in the 

subsequent Fee Rule regulation, and any discussion of phasing in paper manifest collection will 

be taken up in that notice, and not in this final rule. EPA notes, however, that user fees will be 

needed to reimburse the contractor for collecting and processing paper manifests, whether such a 

collection is phased in over time or not. Section 2(c) of the Act authorizes EPA to impose and 

collect reasonable service fees necessary to pay the costs of implementing the e-Manifest system, 

including any costs incurred in collecting and processing data from any paper manifests 

submitted to the system. It is therefore inconsistent with the statute and economically infeasible 

to delay the collection of fees associated with collecting and processing the paper manifest if the 

contractor is in fact performing these activities.

EPA will work closely with members of the manifest user community to find ways to ensure a 

successful transition to the new requirements. We will publish a Fee Rule subsequent to this

rule’s issuance to announce the user fee schedule for manifest related activities, and the date that 

e-Manifest system use, with paper manifest collection, will commence.

1.3 Designated TSDF Requirements

Comment: We heard from one commenter asking for clarification that, under EPA’s approach, 

the designated TSDF would still be required to send a signed copy of the paper manifest to the 

generator after receipt of the waste (Commenter No. 19). The commenter stated that this 

requirement is an important element of RCRA’s “cradle-to-the-grave” waste management 

scheme as it assures the generator that its wastes have in fact been received at the appropriate 

TSDF. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its request for clarification about the existing 

requirement for the designated TSDF to return a signed copy of the manifest to the generator. 

These requirements are found at 40 CFR 264.71(a)(2)(iv) and 265.71(a)(2)(iv). The final rule

retains these requirements; as such, designated TSDFs will still be required to send a signed copy 

of the paper manifest to the generator after receipt of the waste. This final rule only alters the 

current requirement that TSDFs mail the top copy (Copy 1) of the manifest forms to state 

agencies. When e-Manifest is implemented, this rule will instead require the top copy to be sent 

to the national system operator. 

Comment: We heard from one commenter asking for clarification regarding the term, “final 

destination facility” (Commenter No. 15). The commenter stated that, if EPA intends to have the 

final destination facility submit all the manifests pertaining to received wastes, then that point 

needs to be made clear. If instead it is EPA's intent that each designated (receiving) facility
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	9

submits the manifest, then EPA needs to use that terminology and refrain from using terms such 

as “final destination facility” or “designated final TSDF.”

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its requested clarification regarding designated 

TSDFs. In its final rule, EPA provides that a facility that receives a paper manifest must submit 

a copy to the national operator. The final regulations do not refer to a “designated final TSDF”

or “final destination facility.” Each designated facility that receives a shipment accompanied by

a paper manifest must submit a copy to the national operator.

Comment: We heard from three commenters asking for greater clarification on how rejected 

loads should be handled, given EPA’s approach for the designated TSDF to submit the final

paper copy to the national system (Commenter Nos. 6, 15, 18):

 Must the rejecting TSDF submit the copy to the system? 

 How must partial and complete load rejections be handled?

 Must the generator submit a manifest copy to the system if he receives a full rejection 

accompanied by the original manifest?

 Must the manifest accompanying the rejected load be submitted to the system?

 How will the system track or reconcile quantities or volumes of residues and rejected 

loads involving a new manifest, regardless of whether the shipment is directed back to 

the original generator or an alternate facility?

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their questions about how to handle paper manifests

accompanying rejected loads. The e-Manifest final rule amends 40 CFR 264.71 and 265.71 by

providing that, if the facility receives a hazardous waste shipment accompanied by a manifest, 

the owner/operator must send a copy to the e-Manifest within 30 days of delivery. Hence, a 

facility subject to section 264.71 or 265.71 as amended (i.e., a facility that has received a 

shipment and signed the manifest to acknowledge receipt) must submit a copy of the paper 

manifest to the system, regardless of whether it is subsequently rejected or not. For full and 

partial rejected loads that are sent to an alternate facility or generator after the transporter has 

left, the rejecting facility would be required to submit a copy of the rejected load’s manifest to 

the system, as required by section 264.71 or 265.71. For full and partial rejected loads that are 

sent to an alternate facility or generator before the transporter has left, the rejecting facility

would not be required to submit a copy of the rejected load’s manifest to the system if it has not 

signed the manifest to acknowledge receipt of the waste. Rather, it would complete block 18b of 

the original manifest to supply information on the alternate designated TSDF, provide copies to 

the transporter, and retain a copy. When the manifest is received by the system, reconciliation 

between original and new manifests can occur as necessary.

Comment: We heard from one commenter expressing concern for the requirement for the 

designated TSDF to submit copies of paper manifests within 30 days of receipt of waste 

(Commenter No. 18). The commenter believes EPA should require submittal within 30 days of 
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	10

the TSDF’s final acceptance of the waste. The commenter stated that, upon receipt of a 

shipment, the designated TSDF will perform analyses in accordance with its waste analysis plan) 

and may reject some or all of the waste. This can take some time. Hence, the commenter 

believes it is more appropriate to start the time frame based on waste acceptance, not receipt.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its suggestion to require paper manifest submittal to 

the national operator within 30 days of waste acceptance by the TSDF, not waste receipt. EPA 

agrees that, after waste receipt, a TSDF may need some time before making a final acceptance 

decision and that such a decision could affect the manifest’s contents. However, EPA continues 

to believe that a 30-day timeframe is sufficient for the majority of cases. Indeed, TSDFs are 

required to follow up with generators about discrepancies within 15 days of receipt of the 

shipment and send a signed copy to the generator within 30 days. Hence, EPA believes its 30-

day requirement for submittal to the national operator is consistent with these existing 

timeframes. EPA also notes the 30-day requirement is consistent with, if not longer than, some

states’ current timeframes for submittal of a manifest copy (e.g., New York State currently 

requires submittal within 10 days of TSDF receipt).

In addition, EPA recognizes the potential difficulties in enforcing a requirement that is tied to the

date of acceptance. TSDFs are not required to document the date of acceptance, and the date 

could vary widely at a TSDF on a shipment-by-shipment basis, depending on the wastes received

and other factors. By comparison, the date of receipt is clearly displayed on the manifest and 

therefore easily verifiable, making enforcement more practicable.

As discussed above, the Agency will need to design an e-Manifest system with the capability for 

generators, transporters, or designated facilities to make those corrections. EPA and members of 

the manifest user community will discuss the performance and design requirements for 

addressing errors and corrections as we plan for the procurement action that will lead to the 

development and operation of the e-Manifest system. The correction process for e-Manifest is a 

system planning and design issue, and not a regulatory issue to be resolved in this final rule.

1.4 State Responsibilities

Comment: We heard from one commenter (state agency) who stated its belief that EPA has 

underestimated the complexities of collecting and processing manifests (Commenter No. 9). For 

example, the commenter disputed EPA’s estimate of the number of manifest users. The 

commenter stated that, for its state to be supportive of the preferred approach, it would need to 

maintain its own system that it would download to and want legally binding ground rules (e.g., 

an agreement that EPA will not preempt state rules or manifest systems, EPA will follow 

timeframes for entry and quality checks of manifest data, and that all state data needs will be 

included in the national system regardless of any volume or data entry/follow up issues that it

causes EPA). The state would have to review the system’s database before it would be 

supportive.
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	11

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for expressing its concerns about the complexities of 

collecting and processing manifests. EPA agrees that the system will need to be designed to 

address wide range of manifest practices and needs (e.g., interoperability of e-Manifest with 

states’ existing systems) and that EPA will coordinate with the states in its design and operation. 

EPA has made a number of efforts to better understand state and industry needs for the system 

and the potential complexities of collecting and processing manifest data. EPA has compiled 

significant feedback through various outreach efforts, such as national meetings and webinars in 

which there was significant state and industry involvement, and Federal register notices 

requesting comments on aspects of the e-Manifest. EPA will direct its contractor to address 

industry and state needs and expectations when it designs, develops and operates the system.

Further, EPA believes the states have already begun to consider necessary changes to their 

environmental programs to enable electronic reporting (e.g., statutory and budgetary changes), 

such as through the National Environmental Information Exchange Network. 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 have been partnering to 

build the Exchange Network to increase access to environmental data. Currently, there are 51 

state nodes, 12 tribal nodes and 2 territory nodes on the Exchange Network. As of May 2013, all 

50 states, 90 tribes and five territories had received EPA Exchange Network grants. In this view, 

the Exchange Network provides a highly proven and widely compatible method for the exchange 

of electronic data between EPA and the states.

In addition, under the Central Data Exchange (CDX), which is EPA’s point of entry for 

environmental data submissions to the Agency, there are currently 64 data flows that are 

receiving data from EPA, state, Tribal, and industry users. EPA will use this experience to 

ensure that state needs and expectations are met as appropriate.

Finally, EPA acknowledges the difficulty in estimating the number of potential manifest users 

because of a lack of data on certain types of users (e.g., small quantity generators). Over the 

years, EPA has improved its approach for estimating the size of the manifest user population, but 

acknowledges that some limitations still exist. EPA will continue to refine its estimates, but is 

confident that its current estimates provide a realistic and helpful understanding of the 

complexities and challenges in developing and operating the system.

Since e-Manifest will result in a national solution for manifest data reporting, it will probably not 

be possible to accommodate every state's current data needs or current timeframes. A national 

solution entails that there be consistent procedures and practices, some of which may deviate 

from particular states' current practices and procedures. This is to be expected, and we will 

discuss these areas closely with the states. Also, the final rule does preempt states from 

maintaining electronic manifest requirements that are inconsistent with federal requirements. A 

national electronic manifest program cannot succeed unless it is implemented consistently in all 

the states, and the e-Manifest Act requires this consistency.
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	12

Comment: We heard from three commenters (two states and a state association) with the 

questions and concerns listed below (Commenter Nos. 3, 9 and 21)

 Could states collect the manifest directly and share it with the e-Manifest via the CDX?

 Who will be responsible for reviewing the manifests for quality and following up to 

resolve problems?

 Has EPA considered all of the costs associated with data entry and correction of errors?

 EPA’s approach would require submission of only the designated TSDF copy and thus 

not fully track cradle-to-grave concerns (e.g., situations where the shipment does not 

arrive at the designated TSDF or where the TSDF fails to submit a copy).

 How will the state components of the manifest be enforced? The commenter stated that it 

is unclear if EPA or the states would be responsible for conducting investigations and 

enforcement.

 What happens if the national system does not work and states have dismantled their 

programs?

 There is concern with the timeliness and quality of the data under the proposed National 

system versus the quality of the existing state data

 The EPA notice does not address future modifications such as a decision by EPA to 

reduce the amount of data it collects.

 The system will be developed with heavy input and perhaps undue influence from larger 

companies and states at the expense of the needs of states currently implementing, 

manifest databases.

 How long is EPA planning on retaining images of the manifests scanned? The 

commenter recommends that the images be saved indefinitely.

 State agencies will need to retrieve data from the database by generator (not by TSDF or

transporter). 

 EPA needs to ensure that the e-Manifest provides hazardous waste data to states in an 

appropriate and timely format in order to meet state data needs.

 The system must be flexible enough to handle state-only manifests.

 Some states currently obtain the image of manifests to capture certain elements (e.g., 

signatures) and the e-Manifest also should capture images or provide other suitable 

methods for ensuring manifest enforcement.

 Will the national system assign each CESQG in the country with a unique identification 

number or other identifier in order for the states to retrieve generator-specific data?

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their many suggestions and questions about the eManifest and emphasizes that states’ acceptance of the e-Manifest is essential. EPA agrees with 

the commenters’ requests and suggestions that the e-Manifest must generally satisfy states’ needs 

and expectations and agrees that the Agency and states need to coordinate on the collection,

processing and correction of manifest data. 
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	13

EPA is clarifying that most of these issues and questions raised by these commenters will be 

addressed not through EPA’s e-Manifest final rule, but through EPA’s procurement of a 

contractor to design, develop and operate the system. The purpose of the e-Manifest final rule is 

essentially to establish new requirements that will authorize 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 establishes that electronic manifest 

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

In anticipation of the procurement, EPA has held numerous forums to provide information and 

solicit feedback from state and industry manifest users. This includes, for example, national 

meetings and webinars with state and industry manifest users as well as other outreach efforts, 

including Federal Register notices of data availability in 2006 and 2008. In addition, EPA 

conducted three system requirements meetings with stakeholders during February – March, 

2013. Through these outreach efforts, EPA has asked state and industry manifest users to 

describe their needs and desires for the system. In addition, EPA has been conducting market 

research and other analyses to identify and examine existing and future technologies that could 

be used to satisfy industry and state needs and expectations for electronic manifesting. Based on 

the user feedback and other information that EPA has compiled, the Agency will direct the 

contractor to design, develop and operate a system that satisfies industry and state needs and 

expectations for the e-Manifest system, including those raised by the commenters.

Several of the comments summarized above are, however, addressed by the e-Manifest Act or 

the final rule. First, the e-Manifest Act and final rule are clear that the national system will be 

the collection point for electronic manifests and the final TSDF copy of paper manifests that

continue in use. So, states will not be collecting manifests directly from waste handlers; rather, 

the waste handlers will submit manifests to the system, and the system will distribute the 

manifests and their data to the state systems. The one exception is generator copies of paper 

manifests. If states desire to collect the generator copy of paper manifests that continue in use 

after the implementation of e-Manifest (in order to verify all cradle-to-grave concerns that might 

arise with paper manifests), they may do so, as the national system will not collect these 

generator copies. 

Second, under the terms of the e-Manifest Act and this final rule, the e-Manifest and supporting 

regulations will initially be enforced by EPA, until such time that the authorized state programs 

adopt fully consistent state regulations for e-Manifest and are authorized for the program 

revisions. At such time, states (as well as EPA) will then be able to enforce the state’s 

authorized program revisions for e-Manifest regulations.
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	14

Any future modifications to e-Manifest, including decisions either to increase or decrease the 

amount of data collected on the manifest, would likely require a regulatory change, and the 

development of a revised Information Collection Request (ICR) documenting the change.

This final rule does not alter the current requirement that manifest copies be retained for at least 

three years for RCRA compliance purposes. As a matter of system planning and design, 

however, the Agency will discuss with stakeholders whether an extended storage or archive 

service should also be supported (for an additional fee) by e-Manifest. 

Finally, the system will be developed with the flexibility to track state-only manifests. The eManifest Act requires that the system be developed to include the tracking of these wastes, and 

the final rule codifies this requirement in the § 260.10 definition of “user of the electronic 

manifest system.”

Comment: We heard from one commenter (state agency) stating that TSDFs must be required to 

submit copies of manifests (paper, scanned, and e-Manifest copies) to states that require such 

submittals under state regulations (Commenter No. 9). This way states may choose to maintain 

their own databases using data directly from the TSDFs rather than relying on the national 

database for data.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its views on states’ collection of manifest data during 

operation of the e-Manifest. As discussed in the responses above, EPA will direct its contractor 

to develop and operate an e-Manifest system that meets the diverse needs of industry and state 

manifest users. The e-Manifest Act and this final rule contemplate a national system that will be 

the exclusive reporting hub for electronic manifests, as well as for the submission of final paper 

copies from designated facilities. The Agency fully expects states to retain their own manifest 

data bases, but we expect that e-Manifest will be the exclusive means for reporting manifests to 

EPA and the states. The e-Manifest Act and the final rule include state-only wastes and paper 

manifest reporting within the scope of the national system in order to avoid the necessity of 

maintaining duplicative reporting requirements. With the exception noted above for generator 

copies of paper manifests (which the system will not collect), states will be precluded from 

requiring manifest copy submissions directly to the states, independently of e-Manifest. 

Comment: We heard from one commenter recommending that EPA address whether the Agency

and state regulators will issue notices of violations for errors found by them on manifests during 

their reviews of data submitted (Commenter No. 15). In addition, the commenter asked if 

regulators will issue notices of violation (NOVs) for errors found by the receiving facility or the 

shipper and self-disclosed by them and whether both the initial data submittal and any 

subsequent corrections will be treated as self-disclosures and will, therefore, be afforded some 

protection against violations.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its suggestion that EPA clarify how regulators will 

address manifest violations that are found in the system. EPA expects that states currently
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	15

collecting manifests from waste handlers will continue to do so via the e-Manifest system when 

operational. EPA further expects that, for the most part, states will handle manifest errors as 

they currently do. State programs have much experience with identifying potential manifest 

errors and dealing with the regulated community on correcting these errors. While more 

egregious errors or patterns of errors suggestive of inattention to manifest requirements could 

give rise to enforcement actions, enforcement policies will be a matter for the EPA enforcement 

offices and state agencies to address. This is not an appropriate topic for this final rule. Manifest

users should consult their state agency for information about its compliance monitoring and 

enforcement policies.

Comment: We heard from three commenters who stated that the e-Manifest would obviate the 

need for the states to collect manifests separately and that EPA should make sure states eliminate 

their requirements for the collection of manifests (Commenter Nos. 6, 18, 19). They stated that 

submission of copies to states would be unnecessary as states could access this information from 

the centralized e-Manifest system. Maintaining state requirements for submission of paper 

manifest copies would defeat the primary goal of the e-Manifest program (i.e., to reduce 

paperwork burden and duplication). One of the commenters also suggested that EPA should 

encourage states to reassess whether fees associated with current paper manifest collection and 

processing requirements should be reduced. (Commenter No. 19).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on states’ collection of manifest data 

during operation of the e-Manifest. EPA agrees that the e-Manifest will make manifest data 

available to the states immediately for their own use (e.g., they will not be restricted from 

manifest data while the shipment is in progress). The e-Manifest Act and this final rule 

contemplate a national system that will be the exclusive reporting hub for electronic manifests, 

as well as for the submission of final paper copies from designated facilities. The Agency fully 

expects states to retain their own manifest databases, but we expect that e-Manifest will be the 

exclusive means by which users will submit manifests to EPA and the states. However, as there 

may still be some involvement by the states in processing manifest data in their datasystems, and 

in conducting quality assurance activities, it is premature to conclude that there will be no state 

fees necessary. Also, the collection of generator copies of paper manifests may be required 

independently by the states, however, as the national system will not collect the generator copy 

of paper manifest that continue in use after e-Manifest is implemented. EPA will examine this 

issue closely during the development of the Fee Rule, and it will clearly be our objective to 

coordinate the federal and state fees so that there is no duplication.

2.0 Public Access to Electronic Manifests and CBI Claims for Manifest Data

2.1 General

Comment: We heard from eight commenters expressing general support for EPA’s position that 

manifest data are not confidential business information (CBI) (Commenter Nos. 2, 3, 9, 10, 14, 
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	16

16, 20, and 22).

1

 One of these commenters indicated that it surveyed a number of states and 

found that most do not honor CBI claims for manifests (Commenter No. 3). The commenter 

stated that the states do not believe manifest data in the system should have CBI protection. 

Another commenter expressed support based on a number of points (e.g., confidential 

information in their state can already be obtained through secondary sources and methods), but 

acknowledged there could be homeland security issues related to making e-Manifest data public 

(Commenter No. 16). The commenter believes there needs to be a balance between such 

safeguards and making the information public. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their support of the Agency’s position that manifest 

data should not be handled as confidential business information. Refer to other responses in this 

section for a detailed explanation of EPA’s rationale for this position.

Comment: We heard from one commenter expressing concern about EPA’s assertion that only

one state is known to allow for claims of CBI for manifest information (Commenter No. 17). 

The commenter asserts that this number is much greater as many states do not collect manifests

and many of the remaining states that do collect manifests do so in the paper format that is 

difficult to search and collate. The commenter continues that, in reality, any entity that was 

looking to assemble a competitor’s customer list from manifest data must visit each state that 

collects manifests and collate this data manually and any manifest data that is presently available 

at the state level varies significantly as to the freshness of the data. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for expressing its concern about EPA’s assertions about 

states that allow CBI claims for manifest data. EPA agrees that a number of states do not collect 

the manifest, but disagrees that it would be difficult for an interested party to obtain manifest 

data about its competitor based on state records. From its research, EPA found 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. We 

understand as well that there is a concern about the potential immediacy of data disclosure 

through e-Manifest, whereas the discovery of customer information currently from state agencies 

may require several months to accomplish. We did not find any significant history or record of 

current state practices withholding individual manifests from disclosure on account of customer 

information, with the narrow exception of a California statute that applies only to certain stateregulated (not RCRA) wastes and the disclosure of transporter/customer information. Refer to 

the Agency’s responses below for additional information on its rationale for why the manifest 

data should not be treated as CBI.

2.2 Individual Manifest Records and Commercial Confidentiality Concerns

 

1

Note that a number of commenters expressed support for one or more specific aspects of EPA’s position on CBI. 

Some of these commenters are reflected in this paragraph on general support. Rather, they are reflected in the 

paragraphs below, which deal with specific aspects of EPA’s position. 
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	17

Comment: We heard from six comments expressing support specifically for EPA’s position that 

individual manifests are not eligible for CBI claims (Commenter Nos. 4, 6, 7, 13, 17, and 22). 

One of these commenters expressed support, but stated that the right of the public to view 

manifests is not absolute and may be subjected to reasonable restrictions (Commenter No. 22). 

The commenter believes a reasonable restriction on searches by the general public would be a 

per-manifest retrieval fee. However, the commenter noted that a number of foreign entities may

search the e-Manifest system’s database to gain a competitive advantage. A number of these 

entities may be located in countries that do not offer comparably open and available information

about the customers of their entities (termed “non-reciprocal states” by the commenter). The 

commenter suggests that EPA should block searches by persons and entities based in nonreciprocal states unless and until the state grants reciprocity. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their support of the Agency’s position that individual 

manifests should not be treated as CBI. Based on the information available to EPA, the Agency

has concluded that information contained in individual hazardous waste manifest records, 

including any individual electronic manifests that may be submitted and collected electronically 

through the e-Manifest system, is essentially public information and therefore is not eligible 

under federal law for treatment as CBI. The effect of this decision is that EPA is making a 

categorical determination that it will not accept any CBI claims that might be asserted in the 

future in connection with processing, using, or retaining individual paper or electronic manifests. 

This decision will apply prospectively from the effective date of this e-Manifest final rule. 

The Agency’s CBI determination for individual manifests rests on several findings. First, 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. 

A business that still desires to protect commercial information would find it exceedingly difficult 

to protect its individual manifest records from disclosure by all the other persons who come into 

contact with its manifests. For example, a business desiring to protect commercial information 

in the manifest context would need to enter into and enforce non-disclosure agreements or 

similar legal mechanisms with all its customers and other third parties and affected interests who 

might also be named as waste handlers on its manifests or who otherwise might be expected to 

come into contact with its manifests. 

Second, 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. EPA did not find any significant 

history or record of current state practices withholding individual manifests from disclosure on 

account of customer information, with the narrow exception of a California statute that applies 
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	18

only to certain state-regulated (not RCRA) wastes and the disclosure of transporter/customer 

information.

Since the states 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. 

Several state programs now deny CBI treatment to data contained in manifest records, while 

other states have indicated to EPA that they routinely disclose manifest records to the public. 

EPA has concluded that among the states that collect manifest copies, it has been the general 

practice among these states for more than 20 years to disclose manifest data without CBI

limitations. Our information on state practices suggests that free disclosure has been the 

predominant practice for dealing with data from individual manifest records among these states, 

and there have not been significant objections raised by members of industry to those states’ 

disclosure practices. EPA is not persuaded that it should reverse this long-standing policy

among those states by adopting a federal regulation that conflicts with the prevailing state laws 

and regulations on this issue. 

Finally, EPA notes that the comments submitted by members of the regulated industry in 

response to the 2008 notice generally conceded the point that individual manifests and the data 

included in them should not be the subject of CBI claims. These commenters agreed that 

individual hazardous waste manifests are basically treated as public information. 

For these reasons, EPA believes that individual manifest records and the data contained in them 

should not be subject to CBI claims, since they are not entitled to protection as CBI in nearly all 

states that collect hazardous waste manifests. Since many manifests are available to the public 

without restriction in a significant number of states, EPA has determined that data from 

individual manifests cannot be claimed to be confidential under federal information law. 

Therefore, EPA is codifying in 40 CFR 260.2(c)(1) this categorical determination that the data 

included in individual hazardous waste manifests cannot be the subject of CBI claims. This 

regulation will apply prospectively to electronic and paper manifests, and to domestic and 

transboundary shipment manifests. 

In regard to restricting certain foreign competitors from accessing the e-Manifest, the Agency

notes that such restrictions would contradict the Agency’s primary goal of making the database 

fully open and transparent to the public. In addition, given the fact that many foreign companies 

have affiliates in the U.S., it is practically impossible to restrict their access to the system. 

Comment: We heard from one commenters opposing EPA’s position that individual manifests 

should be available to the public (Commenter No. 12). The commenter believes that data 

displaying the details of individual manifests should not be anonymously downloadable, but 

should be available only to the entities involved with a shipment, and to regulators and 

emergency responders for underway shipments. The commenter is concerned from an anti-
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	19

terrorism/security standpoint that electronic availability of hazardous waste manifest data will 

increase opportunities for data mining related to types and locations of hazardous wastes.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for expressing its concerns about terrorism and security. 

EPA has considered these concerns, along with other viewpoints raised by commenters, and 

determined that its original approach should be modified. In its original approach, EPA 

envisioned that manifest data would be available to the public after 60 days from the start of the 

shipment. As explained further in the response below, EPA has revised its approach to provide 

that manifest data will be publicly available from the system after 90 days from the date of

delivery to the designated facility. 

EPA believes this longer timeframe will help to alleviate the commenter’s anti-terrorism and 

security concerns. First, extending the timeframe to 90 days from date of delivery to the 

designated TSDF means that there is significantly less likelihood that the manifest data will 

become publicly available while the shipment is in progress. In addition, the extended timeframe 

increases the likelihood that the waste associated with the manifest will have been disposed of

(or otherwise re-shipped offsite under a new manifest), making the manifest data less relevant 

and useful to parties who could pose security or terrorism concerns.

Comment: We heard from four commenters expressing support for EPA’s preference to 

establish a time frame, such as 60 days, during which there will be limited access to manifests 

(Commenter Nos. 4, 7, 17 and 19). Two commenters supported the 60-day timeframe, provided 

that it is not considered a “compliance point” for completion of manifests (Commenter Nos. 4, 

17).

We heard from one commenter expressing opposition to EPA’s preference for a 60-day time 

frame (Commenter No. 6). The commenter noted that some shipments may take longer than 60 

days and recommended that, as an alternative, EPA release final manifest data after the final 

record/entry is completed for a waste shipment and avoid prescribing a timeframe. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their views on EPA’s preference to establish a time 

frame, such as 60 days from the date that the shipment began, during which there will be limited 

access to manifests. While EPA is categorically denying CBI treatment to both individual 

manifests and to aggregate manifest collections or reports obtained in response to data queries or 

requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) involving manifest data, EPA recognizes 

that manifest information in its possession may not be ready for general release to the public. In 

the 2008 notice, EPA proposed that it would not directly disclose manifest data to the public for 

at least 60 days after the start of a waste shipment, as this period would provide necessary time 

for the shipment to be delivered, for exceptions and discrepancies to be resolved, and for 

manifest data to be verified or corrected. 

However, a commenter noted that 60 days may not be a sufficient amount of time in several 

instances for manifest data to be verified and corrected. In addition, EPA also received 
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	20

comments indicating that there are hazardous waste shipments that could pose national security 

concerns if shipment information were to be made directly available to the general public during

transportation, and this information were to fall into the hands of those who might use these 

materials to do harm to other persons or to the homeland.

Thus, EPA is adopting in its e-Manifest final rule its decision to amend 40 CFR 260.2(c)(2) to 

state that manifests are considered to be in process during the time that they are in transportation 

to the receiving facility, as well as for a period of 90 days after receipt when the date are subject 

to correction and verification. This 90-day period for correction and verification of waste 

shipment information will be measured from the date of receipt of the waste by the designated 

facility, rather than from the date of the start of transportation. Until this 90-day period has 

passed, unless otherwise required by federal law, manifests are not considered complete and final 

documents and will not be disclosed directly to the public via on-line access to the e-Manifest 

system. During this period of restricted direct, on-line access to manifest data, the manifest 

information in the system will be fully available to regulators and to emergency responders, 

These in process manifests would also be available to local governments or police agencies that 

have been delegated inspection or program implementation responsibilities by their states. 

Hazardous waste handlers will also have direct access at all times to those manifests on which 

they appear as the named handlers of waste shipments.

Therefore, the final regulation announces a 90-day period measured from the date of receipt of 

hazardous waste shipments during which only regulators, emergency responders, and the waste 

handler entities named on particular manifests will have direct on-line access to manifest data. 

EPA will not provide the general public with direct, on-line access to these data during this 90-

day period, but will make such information available to the public to the extent required by other 

federal law, e.g., FOIA. After the 90-day period of restricted access has passed, the Agency

intends to provide full direct, on-line access by the public to all manifest data in the system. EPA 

believes 90 days, rather than 60 days, is an appropriate period of time for restricted access,

because this timeframe should provide adequate time to protect the integrity and security of the 

manifest data during the period of time that the electronic manifest is being processed and ensure 

that manifest exceptions, discrepancies, and corrections can be reported.

EPA emphasizes that the final rule’s restriction on access to data for 90 days from the date of 

receipt of waste is limited to EPA in its role as the federal custodian of data in the e-Manifest 

system data repository. Since authorized states will receive electronic manifests and data 

simultaneously with EPA, this federal regulation does not affect the states’ laws or regulations

on disclosure of manifest data under their public information laws. States that wish, for example, 

to disclose manifest data to the public more immediately after the receipt of hazardous waste 

shipments are free to do so under their public information laws, and these states may continue to 

do so once this regulation is in effect.

2.3 Release of Aggregate Data and Competitive Harm Concerns
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	21

Comment: We heard from five commenters expressing opposition to EPA’s position that

aggregate manifest data are not eligible for CBI claims or similar protections (Commenter Nos. 

4, 6, 7, 12 and 17). Some of these commenters identified several potential concerns, including 

the ability of competitors to gain an unfair advantage based on a ‘real time’ access to

aggregated/consolidated manifest data and the potential for other entities to use sensitive

shipment information in an inappropriate manner, raising potential security concerns. They

asserted that customer lists are considered valuable business information and gave examples of 

how companies protect such customer information. In addition, they expressed concern that the 

e-Manifest would make such information available promptly, unlike current methods of 

obtaining manifest data, which takes longer and would make the data significantly dated. They

also disagreed with EPA’s position that, even if aggregate data were deemed CBI, the data could 

be obtained from the states that do not have FOIA protections. They believe that a number of 

states have other protections over customer information and some state courts have upheld CBI 

claims.

In addition, three commenters expressed support for EPA’s alternative approach in which it 

would redact selected information from a manifest record (e.g., the generator, transporter, or 

designated facility identification, shipment-specific details (dates, codes and weights)) before 

granting a FOIA request of aggregate data (Commenter Nos. 6, 7, 17). Some of these 

commenters suggested that requesters wanting release from this policy could submit a FOIA 

request to the Agency, but the manifest submitter would be given notice of the request and an 

opportunity to oppose disclosure as required by fundamental fairness and Executive Order 

12,600. One of these commenters clarified that EPA should redact any information from a 

manifest record that is to be made public via a FOIA request that is not necessary to satisfy the 

stated purpose of the request (Commenter No. 6).

Finally, one commenter suggested that data otherwise downloadable in aggregate could be made 

available only after one year following shipment receipt at the destination facility (Commenter 

No. 12). The commenter suggested one year because this is typically the maximum storage time 

at a permitted TSDF and allows time for recycling, treatment, and disposal; and therefore, the 

information is useless to would-be terrorists/ saboteurs. The commenter stated that the aggregate 

data should not reveal details of individual manifests for one year. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their concerns about EPA’s position that aggregate 

manifest data should not be treated as CBI. While EPA understands industry’s comments and 

concerns regarding the potential harm to a company’s competitive position if aggregate data 

from multiple manifests could be obtained efficiently from EPA through the system or under a 

FOIA request, the Agency is not persuaded by the comments that EPA should treat aggregate 

manifest data obtained from the system as confidential business information. 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 now understands from state comments 

and from state responses to surveys and requests for clarification that among the states that 
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	22

collect and track manifests, the laws and regulations 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. EPA identified some 21 states from questions or surveys addressing state policies with 

respect to processing requests for data from both state manifest tracking systems and state waste 

receipt information managed in the states’ annual report data systems. Thus, a large amount of 

aggregate information, including information on facilities and their generator customers, would 

be available from these 21 states without CBI restrictions. These states’ disclosure policies will 

still apply after states begin to acquire their manifest data from the e-Manifest system. Since a 

substantial amount of aggregate data could be obtained by the public through these states, EPA is 

not convinced that it should accord such information confidential status under federal 

information law. 

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 

comments in response to the 2008 notice to help the Agency with this determination, other than 

comments from industry relying on a “mosaic” theory to support their argument that the eManifest system could disclose CBI. The mosaic theory is premised on the notion that 

information already available to a requestor, when combined with information it might obtain 

from the government, may in total amount to a customer list. The problem posed by this 

argument is that EPA cannot possibly know how much customer information a particular 

requestor already has available from other sources, or whether a relatively small or large amount 

of additional information is needed from e-Manifest to enable that requestor to assemble a full 

customer list. The mosaic theory does not provide EPA with any practical or objective basis for 

recognizing CBI in the e-Manifest system.

In summary, EPA points to several reasons for its decision that aggregate manifest data should 

not be treated as CBI: 1) the states’ current and long-standing policies generally favoring 

disclosure of all manifest data, 2) the availability of much of this aggregate information from 

state data systems and the RCRA Biennial Report, 3) the difficulty of identifying objectively 

when a customer list would be disclosed to a competitor, and 4) EPA’s belief that the 

competitive sensitivity of aggregate data can be addressed sufficiently by restricting direct public 

access to “in process” manifest data. 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 eManifest system from CBI coverage. 

While EPA is rejecting the comments that requested CBI handling of 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 the final regulations, 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 
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	23

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 directly 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 (unless otherwise required by federal 

law), 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 aggregate eManifest information. 

EPA rejects the comment that the period of restricted access should extend to one year from the 

date of receipt by the designated facility. While EPA understands that the one year period 

corresponds to the time that some Land Disposal Restricted hazardous wastes may be stored 

prior to treatment, EPA believes that one year would be too long a period to restrict public access 

to manifest data. EPA believes that a 90 day period of restricted access to manifest data (unless 

otherwise required by federal law) results in a more reasonable accommodation of the industry

and public interests in the data, particularly given that paper manifest data have 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, 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 expressing concern with EPA’s alternative approach 

to limit responses to requesters who ask for 50 or more manifests, as prima facie evidence that 

the requester is seeking or could assemble protected customer lists (Commenter No. 7). The 

commenter believes this type of approach may be ineffective because data mining companies 

could evade the restrictions (e.g., by making multiple requests for 49 forms).

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its concern about EPA’s alternative approach. EPA 

agrees that this approach has several limitations, as the commenter suggests. This approach is 

unnecessary, however, given EPA’s final decision to categorically exclude aggregate manifest 

data from CBI coverage. 
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	24

3.0 Comments that are Outside the Scope of the 2008 Notice

EPA has determined that a number of comments received by the Agency are outside the scope of 

the 2008 notice. These include comments on aspects of the e-Manifest for which EPA did not 

seek comment. Although EPA appreciates this feedback, it has not prepared a detailed response 

for each comment. Rather, EPA has listed the issues raised in these comments and provides a 

brief response:

 Support for an optional e-Manifest (Commenter Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 14, 18, 19, and 22).

 Support for making the e-Manifest mandatory (Commenter No. 4).

 Support for a centralized, unified e-Manifest (Commenter Nos. 2,4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, 17, 18, 

19, and 21)

 Support for phase-in of e-Manifest (Commenter Nos. 2, 3 and 17).

 Support for a system that meets user and regulator needs in timely manner (Commenter 

Nos. 3, 6, 7, 9 and 12).

 Support for a system that handles state-specific manifests and wastes (Commenter Nos. 3 

and 9).

 Support for system that ensures enforceability of manifest comparable to paper forms 

(Commenter Nos. 3 and 9).

 Request for electronic manifest format to look exactly like the paper manifest 

(Commenter No. 3).

 Support for the transporter to carry the paper manifest in the truck (Commenter No. 3).

 Support and questions related to elimination of the Biennial Report and other paperwork 

(Commenter Nos. 3, 5, 8, 15, and 19).

 Concerns about how the e-Manifest would handle imports and exports (Commenter No. 

3).

 Request that authorized states not be required to get re-authorized to implement the 

electronic manifest (Commenter No. 3).

 Request for EPA funding to support states’ changes to their manifest data processing 

systems to accommodate data from the e-Manifest (Commenter No. 3).

 Concerns, questions and suggestions about user fees for e-Manifest (Commenter Nos. 1, 

5, 7, and 17).

 Encouragement to EPA to reach out to regulated industry and states (Commenter No. 7).

 Concerns about coordinating the e-Manifest with U.S. DOT requirement for carrying a 

paper copy of the manifest or shipping paper (e.g., the potential for dual paperwork 

systems) (Commenter Nos. 9 and 18).

 Request for EPA to allow recordkeeping and mailing of scanned image of the paper 

manifest instead of paper copy itself (Commenter No. 12).

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their many suggestions, concerns, and questions 

about the e-Manifest. Over the years, EPA has prepared comment-response documents for other
EPA	Final	Response	to	Comment	Document:	 November	12,	2013 Page	25

Agency notices on the e-Manifest that include responses to the above comments. Please refer to 

the following documents for Agency responses:

 “Response to Comments Document; Hazardous Waste Management System: 

Modifications of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System; Proposed e-Manifest System 

(Published on May 22, 2001).”

 “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).”

In regard to comments on user fees, the Agency intends to publish in the future a separate Fee 

Rule to announce the user fee schedule for manifest related activities. This regulation will

clarify issues about the formulation and collection of fees.

Table of Organizations Commenting on the Notice and Commenter Numbers

Commenter 

No.

Commenter

1 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

2 API

3 Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

(ASTSWMO)

4 Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC)

5 The Dow Chemical Company

6 DuPont

7 Environmental Technology Council (ETC)

8 Charles Lister

9 Maine Department of Environmental Protection

10 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

11 National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)

12 Department of the Navy

13 State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

14 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

15 Oak Ridge National Laboratory

16 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

17 Safety-Kleen Systems Inc.

18 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

19 Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG)

20 Visionary Solutions, LLC

21 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Waste and Materials Management 

Program

22 World Resources Company (WRC)