[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19290-19339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04705]



[[Page 19289]]

Vol. 87

Friday,

No. 63

April 1, 2022

Part IV





 Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, et al.





Integrating e-Manifest With Hazardous Waste Exports and Other Manifest-
Related Reports, PCB Manifest Amendments and Technical Corrections; 
Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 19290]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, 271, and 761

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0609; FRL-7308-01-OLEM]
RIN 2050-AH12


Integrating e-Manifest With Hazardous Waste Exports and Other 
Manifest-Related Reports, PCB Manifest Amendments and Technical 
Corrections

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes certain amendments to the electronic manifest (e-
Manifest) regulations concerning the e-Manifest program and system. 
Specifically, EPA is proposing changes to manifest regulations for 
shipments of hazardous waste that are exported for treatment, storage, 
and disposal. These proposed changes follow EPA's e-Manifest User Fee 
final rule, promulgated in January 2018, which stated that the scope of 
the e-Manifest requirements and system would not extend to U.S. export 
shipments of hazardous wastes until the Agency determined, through 
separate rulemaking, which entity in the export process would be 
responsible for submitting export manifests to the e-Manifest system 
and paying the associated user fees. EPA is also proposing regulatory 
changes to the RCRA hazardous waste export and import shipment 
international movement document-related requirements to more closely 
link the manifest data with the international movement document data. 
In addition, EPA is proposing regulatory amendments to three manifest-
related reports (i.e., discrepancy, exception, and unmanifested waste 
reports) and is requesting public comment on changes to the manifest 
form. EPA is also requesting public comment with respect to how the 
Agency can begin to integrate biennial reporting requirements with e-
Manifest data. Additionally, EPA is proposing conforming regulatory 
changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) manifest regulations 
for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) wastes. Finally, the Agency is 
proposing to make technical corrections to fix typographical errors in 
the e-Manifest and movement document regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 31, 2022. Under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection 
provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before May 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2021-0609, by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be Proprietary Business 
Information (PBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided.
    <bullet> Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, OLEM Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand 
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the 
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and 
our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are open to the 
public by appointment only to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. 
Our Docket Center staff also continues to provide remote customer 
service via email, phone, and webform. Hand deliveries and couriers may 
be received by scheduled appointment only. For further information on 
EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us 
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along 
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding 
specific aspects of this document, contact Bryan Groce, Program 
Implementation and Information Division, Office of Resource 
Conservation and Recovery, (202) 566-0339; email address: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d4a5f424e48034f5f544c436d485d4c034a425b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b7c6974787e357969627a755b7e6b7a357c746d">[email protected]</span></a> or Tess Fields, Program Implementation and 
Information Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, 
(202) 566-0328; email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2f49464a434b5c015b4a5c5c6f4a5f4e01484059"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="13757a767f77603d67766060537663723d747c65">[email protected]</span></a>. In addition, please 
refer to EPA's e-Manifest web page for further information, 
www.epa.gov/e-manifest.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble 
is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. List of Acronyms Used in This Action
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. What action is the Agency taking?
    D. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
    E. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?
II. Public Participation
    A. Written Comments
III. Background
    A. e-Manifest Act and System Launch
    B. 2014 One Year Rule
    C. 2018 User Fee Rule
    D. 2019 ICR
    E. June 2019 Advisory Board Meeting
IV. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule
    A. What is EPA proposing for international shipments of 
hazardous waste?
    B. What is EPA proposing with respect to Exception, Discrepancy, 
and Unmanifested Waste Reports?
    C. What other regulatory changes is EPA addressing in today's 
this action?
    D. Summary of Requests for Public Comment
V. State Implementation
    A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
    B. Legal Authority for This Rule's Regulatory Changes and 
Implications
    C. Conforming Changes to 40 CFR 271.10 and 271.12
    D. Provisions of the Proposed Rule That Are Not Authorizable
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
List of Subjects

I. General Information

A. List of Acronyms Used in This Action

Acronym Meaning

ACH Automated Clearinghouse
AES Automated Export System
AOC Acknowledgment of Consent (issued by EPA)

[[Page 19291]]

API Application Programming Interface
BR Biennial Report
CBI Confidential Business Information
CBP United States Customs and Border Protection
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CROMERR Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule
CRT Cathode Ray Tube
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
EEI Electronic Export Information
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
GM EPA's Waste Generation and Management Form
ICR Information Collection Request
IT Information Technology
ITDS International Trade Data System
JSON JavaScript Object Notation
LQG Large Quantity Generator
MTN Manifest Tracking Number
NAICS North American Industrial Classification System
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OI EPA's Off-Site Identification Form
OLEM Office of Land and Emergency Management
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl
PPC EPA's Paper Processing Center
QA Quality Assurance
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRAInfo Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SLAB Spent Lead-Acid Battery
SQG Small Quantity Generator
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSDF Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
WC Waste Characteristic
WIETS Waste Import Export Tracking System
WR EPA's Waste Received from Off-Site Form

B. Does this action apply to me?

    The hazardous waste manifest program affects approximately 100,319 
federally regulated entities and an equal or greater number of entities 
handling state-only regulated wastes in at least 750 industries. These 
industries are involved in the off-site shipping, transporting, and 
receiving of several million tons of wastes that are required under 
either federal or state regulation to use the RCRA hazardous waste 
manifest. EPA estimates that these entities currently use between 
1,785,405 hazardous waste manifests (EPA Form 8700-22) and continuation 
sheets (EPA Form 8700-22A) annually to track RCRA hazardous wastes, 
TSCA polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) wastes, and state-only regulated 
wastes from generation sites to destination facilities designated on a 
manifest for treatment, storage, or disposal. The affected entities 
include hazardous waste generators, hazardous waste transporters, 
owners or operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities 
(TSDFs), as well as the corresponding entities that handle state-only 
regulated wastes and PCB wastes subject to tracking with the RCRA 
manifest.
    Additionally, this proposed rule would affect entities (including 
exporter, importer, disposal facility owner/operator, or recovery 
facility owner/operator) who are involved in transboundary movements of 
hazardous waste for recovery or disposal that are subject to the 
manifest regulations to track their import or export shipments in the 
United States, or to the international movement document requirements 
to track their import or export shipments both inside and outside of 
the United States.
    Finally, this proposed rule would affect entities who would be 
required to complete any of the following manifest-related reports: (1) 
An Exception Report when the generator has not received a final 
manifest from the receiving facility; (2) a Discrepancy Report when the 
materials received do not match with the quantities or types of 
materials indicated as being shipped by generators; or (3) an 
Unmanifested Waste Report when wastes that should have been manifested 
arrive at a facility without a manifest.
    Potential affected entities include, but are not limited to:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  NAICS
                       Industrial sector                         code(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting....................       11
Mining.........................................................       21
Utilities......................................................       22
Construction...................................................       23
Manufacturing..................................................    31-33
Wholesale Trade................................................       42
Retail Trade...................................................    44-45
Transportation and Warehousing.................................    48-49
Information....................................................       51
Waste Management & Remediation Services........................      562
Public Administration..........................................       92
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities that EPA is now aware could 
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not 
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your 
entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria found in the title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) parts 262, 263, 264, 265, and 761. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is proposing regulatory amendments to the manifest regulations 
to require waste handlers who export manifested hazardous waste 
shipments out of the U.S. to submit the export manifests to EPA and pay 
the requisite user fee to process them. If the proposed regulations are 
finalized, export manifests would be collected in the e-Manifest system 
and the exporters who submit these manifests would be invoiced for 
those submissions. With respect to the international movement document 
requirements, EPA is proposing changes to allow international movement 
document confirmations to link to RCRA manifest tracking for export and 
import shipments. EPA is also proposing regulatory changes to integrate 
existing Discrepancy Reports, Exception Reports, and Unmanifested Waste 
Reports into the e-Manifest system. The proposed changes would allow 
entities to leverage the e-Manifest system to complete these reports 
electronically. The Agency is also proposing conforming changes to the 
TSCA manifest regulations for PCB wastes to align with the RCRA 
manifest regulations and the e-Manifest program, including the adoption 
of the e-Manifest rules for PCB wastes required to be tracked via a 
manifest.
    Finally, EPA is requesting additional comment on certain manifest 
forms changes proposed in the February 2019 e-Manifest Information 
Collection Request (ICR) public notice (84 FR 2854, February 8, 2019). 
EPA proposed modifications to the manifest form and continuation sheet 
to enhance the quality of shipment data reported on the manifest (both 
paper and electronic), including shipment data for import and export 
waste shipments. However, commenters in response to the February 2019 
public notice raised issues, including those related to biennial 
reports, that require further inquiry and additional public comment 
through this notice as the Agency makes decisions concerning the e-
Manifest system.

D. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    The authority to propose this rule is found in sections 1002, 
2002(a), 3001-3004, and 3017 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as 
amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and as 
amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 6901, 
6906 et seq., 6912, 6921-6925, 6937, and 6938, and further amended by 
the Hazardous

[[Page 19292]]

Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, Public Law 112-195, 
section 6939g, and in sections 6, 8, 12, 15, and 17 of the Toxic 
Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611, 2614, and 2616.

E. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?

    EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs and 
benefits associated with this proposed action. The Regulatory Impact 
Analysis for EPA's Proposed Rule Integrating e-Manifest with Hazardous 
Waste Exports and Other Manifest-related Reports, PCB Manifest 
Amendments and Technical Corrections (RIA), is available in the docket 
for this rulemaking. EPA estimates that the proposed regulatory changes 
will decrease the aggregate burden across all entities manifesting 
waste by $7.50 million, annually. However, this rulemaking consists of 
a series of provisions that affect a series of overlapping regulated 
universes differently (see Chapter 2 of the RIA). This figure is net of 
the increase in costs expected among importers and exporters of 
approximately $221,000. For entities manifesting waste domestically, 
the proposed revisions are expected to create a cost savings of 
approximately $7.73 million, based on transitions to automated systems 
for exception and discrepancy reporting and the removal of the 
requirement for receiving facilities to mail manifests to unregistered 
generators. In contrast, exporters and importers would face an increase 
in aggregate costs primarily driven by manifest fees that would be 
assessed on export shipments. See RIA Exhibit 3-10 for a summary of 
annual costs across all regulatory changes.

II. Public Participation

A. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-
0609, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the 
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may 
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to 
EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Due to public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket 
Center and Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only. Our 
Docket Center staff also continues to provide remote customer service 
via email, phone, and webform. Hand deliveries or couriers will be 
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information and 
updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at 
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information 
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area 
health departments, and our federal partners so that we can respond 
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

III. Background

A. e-Manifest Act and System Launch

    With the enactment of the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest 
Establishment Act in 2012, Congress provided EPA authority to establish 
the national electronic hazardous waste manifest system to track 
hazardous waste shipments electronically. The Act also provided EPA 
authority to adopt regulations that (1) allow the Agency to accept 
electronic manifests originated in the e-Manifest system as the legal 
equivalent to paper manifests; (2) require manifest users to submit 
paper copies of the manifest to the system for data processing; (3) 
collect manifests in the e-Manifest system for waste shipments required 
to be shipped using a RCRA manifest under federal or state law; and (4) 
set up user fees to offset the costs of developing and operating the e-
Manifest system.
    The goal of the Act was for EPA to provide manifest users a more 
modern, efficient electronic manifest process option as compared to the 
traditionally paper-intensive process to track federally regulated or 
state-only regulated waste shipments requiring a RCRA manifest for 
transportation. Pursuant to the Act, EPA launched the national system 
on June 30, 2018, as a module component of the existing Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo).\1\ Through 
the e-Manifest system, manifest users can create, edit, retrieve, sign, 
and store manifests electronically as well as retrieve status 
information on manifests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The RCRAInfo Industry Application provides the mechanism by 
which a site that generates and/or manages RCRA Subtitle C hazardous 
waste may submit information to their regulator (typically a state 
environmental Agency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 2014 One Year Rule

    EPA published the first e-Manifest final rule, also known as the 
One Year Rule, on February 7, 2014 (79 FR 7518). The One Year Rule 
established the legal and policy framework for the use of electronic 
manifests. First, that rule explained that electronic manifests 
obtained, completed, transmitted, and signed in the national e-Manifest 
system in accordance with the electronic formats announced in the rule 
are considered the legal equivalent of paper manifests signed with 
conventional ink signatures. Further, wherever the existing federal and 
state regulations require a RCRA paper manifest to be supplied, signed, 
used or carried with a hazardous waste shipment, the execution of an 
electronic manifest in the national e-Manifest system is deemed to 
comply with the requirements to obtain, sign, carry, or otherwise use 
the hazardous waste manifest.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although electronic manifests will satisfy the U.S. 
Department of Transportation's hazardous materials regulations on 
retention of shipping paper records, DOT's regulations continue to 
require a printed copy of the electronic manifest on the transport 
vehicle. Therefore, e-Manifest users must for the foreseeable future 
produce one paper copy of the manifest to carry on the transport 
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the One Year Rule explained that if RCRA-manifested 
shipments are tracked using paper manifest forms, then the receiving 
facilities must submit the top copies of those manifests to EPA. The 
rule explained that receiving facilities have a few options for 
submitting the top manifest copy of the RCRA manifest to EPA: 
Electronically submitting manifests directly in the e-Manifest system, 
uploading manifest data plus a digital image of a paper manifest from 
an industry system, submitting a digital image of a paper manifest, and 
mailing in a hard, top copy of the paper manifest.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The One Year offered three options for submitting the top 
copy of paper manifests to the system. These options included 
submitting hardcopies, image files, and data uploads plus image 
files at system launch. However, the current manifest submission 
requirement at 40 CFR parts 264.71(a)(2)(v)(B) and 
265.71(a)(2)(v)(B) will eliminate the option to submit a hard copy 
of the information contained in the top copy (Page 1) of a paper 
manifest (EPA Form 8700-22) and continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-
22A) to EPA beginning June 30, 2021. On that date, the top copy of 
manifest forms is limited to uploading manifest data and a digital 
image of a paper manifest or a digital image of a paper manifest.

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

[[Page 19293]]

    Third, the One Year Rule explained that the submission of 
electronic manifests using the national e-Manifest system is currently 
governed by the provisions of EPA's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting 
Rule (CROMERR), which addresses direct reporting of environmental 
information to EPA. Compliance with CROMERR requirements for direct 
electronic reporting is a condition that must be met to obtain and 
execute a valid electronic manifest. Finally, the One Year Rule 
announced the types of electronic documents that can be completed and 
submitted electronically to the e-Manifest system. These document types 
are limited to the standard electronic formats created by EPA as the 
authorized substitute for EPA Form 8700-22 (Manifest) and EPA Form 
8700-22A (Continuation Sheet). The rule, however, did not address which 
entity should submit the manifest to EPA and did not address how the 
Agency would establish and collect user fees, leaving those issues to 
be considered in EPA's second rulemaking effort, which the Agency 
completed in 2018.

C. 2018 User Fee Rule

    Section 2(c) of the e-Manifest 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 paper manifests submitted to the 
system. While the One Year Rule addressed the fundamental scope and 
policy issues related to the use of electronic manifests, the rule did 
not address user fees to any significant extent. EPA explained in the 
One Year Rule, that the development of an e-Manifest user fee 
methodology and fee schedules would be undertaken as a separate 
rulemaking. EPA published this separate rule, the User Fee final rule, 
on January 3, 2018 (83 FR 420). This final rule established the user 
fees and other actions necessary to implement the system.
    First, pursuant to the e-Manifest Act, the final rule established 
the methodology that EPA uses to set and revise user fees to recover 
the full costs of an electronic manifest system. This includes costs 
incurred in developing, operating, maintaining, and upgrading the 
national e-Manifest system.
    Second, the final rule also implemented a process that allows for 
hybrid manifests to assist the generators in transitioning to fully 
electronic manifests. A hybrid manifest begins as a paper manifest at 
the generator site and transitions to an electronic manifest with the 
initial transporter and through to the receiving facility.
    Third, because the user fees are required to reach full cost 
recovery, the rule explained that some manifests have greater 
processing costs than others and as a result, fees will differ 
depending upon the type of manifest submitted. Thus, EPA published 
multiple user fees tailored to the type of manifest submission (i.e., 
fully electronic/hybrid, image upload plus data file, image only 
upload, and mailed paper submission). Fully electronic and hybrid 
manifests necessitate the least amount of processing and Quality 
Assurance (QA) related costs, while paper manifests require greater 
processing costs for data key entry and QA activities, depending upon 
the mode of submission (i.e., mail, data file upload, or image file) to 
the system.
    Fourth, the rule announced EPA's decision to charge user fees on a 
per manifest basis. The billable event is the submission of the 
information contained in the final, top copy of the manifest to the 
system by the receiving facility. EPA decided to collect user fees from 
receiving facilities rather than from generators. Collecting user fees 
from generators would entail the establishment of more than 100,000 
payment accounts for the federal waste and state-only regulated waste 
generators, which would have significantly increased costs for 
invoicing and collection activities. By contrast, collecting user fees 
from several hundred receiving facilities results in far greater 
administrative efficiency.
    Finally, the rule announced the date--June 30, 2018--on which EPA 
would launch the e-Manifest system, begin receiving electronic 
manifests and paper manifest copies, and begin collecting user fees for 
receipt of the manifest information. The rule also clarified that the 
implementation date was limited to the collection of domestic and 
import shipments that are required to be shipped under a manifest under 
either federal or state law. At that time, EPA had not provided an 
opportunity for public comment regarding how exporters or other 
handlers involved with export shipments would meet obligations under 
the e-Manifest system and intended to leave that issue to this separate 
rulemaking.

D. 2019 ICR

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EPA 
developed an information collection request (ICR), titled 
``Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management 
Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System (EPA ICR No. 
2050-0039),'' for the e-Manifest rules and e-Manifest system. This ICR 
provides an overview of the collection for information required under 
the e-Manifest system and estimates the cost and time for manifest 
users to respond to the requirements. EPA solicited public comments on 
this ICR through an announcement in the Federal Register on February 8, 
2019 (84 FR 2854). To further reduce the administrative burden of the 
e-Manifest rule and system on manifest users, EPA proposed changes to 
the manifest forms. Specifically, EPA proposed and solicited comments 
and information to: (1) Improve the precision of waste quantities and 
units of measure reported in Items 11 and 12 of the hazardous waste 
manifest (both paper and electronic), respectively; (2) enhance the 
quality of international shipment data reported on the manifest; and 
(3) assist EPA with integrating e-Manifest and Biennial Report (BR) 
requirements. EPA received no comments on the ICR's draft hourly burden 
or cost estimates. However, EPA received ten comments from industry and 
state stakeholders regarding the proposed manifest form changes 
detailed in the notice. A few issues raised by commenters in response 
to the February 2019 public notice prompted the Agency to pursue 
further engagement with stakeholders before making final decisions 
concerning the RCRA hazardous waste manifest form and e-Manifest 
system. Therefore, under today's action EPA is soliciting additional 
comment on the proposal regarding enhancing the quality of 
international shipment data on the manifest. EPA is also requesting 
additional comment on the proposal to improve the precision of waste 
quantities and units of measure reported in Items 11 and 12 of the 
hazardous waste manifest (both paper and electronic) as well as to add 
new data fields on the manifest to integrate e-Manifest and the waste 
receipt form for the hazardous waste BR (EPA form 8700-13A/B).

E. June 2019 Advisory Board Meeting

    EPA convened the e-Manifest Advisory Board to hold a public 
meeting, entitled ``Increasing Adoption of the e-Manifest system,'' on 
June 18-

[[Page 19294]]

20, 2019.\4\ The primary goals of the Advisory Board meeting were to: 
(1) Identify the main challenges generators and other waste handlers 
face when using fully electronic manifests; and (2) obtain advice from 
the Board on ways to increase adoption of electronic manifests. EPA 
requested input from the Board on identifying the main challenges 
generators, transporters, and receiving facilities face with using 
fully electronic manifests and possible solutions to the challenges. To 
incentivize greater e-Manifest adoption by waste handlers, the Board 
recommended EPA integrate the Biennial Reports, Discrepancy Reports, 
Exception Reports, and Unmanifested Waste Reports into the e-Manifest 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, Final 
e-Manifest Advisory Report/Meeting Minutes for the June 2019 FAC 
meeting (i.e., the Board's recommendations), and EPA's responses to 
them are available in the public docket (www.regulations.gov, Docket 
no. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0194).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. What is EPA proposing for international shipments of hazardous 
waste?

    This action considers regulatory amendments to the manifest 
regulations for hazardous waste export shipments. The proposed 
amendments would require export manifests to be collected in the e-
Manifest system. If finalized, the following entities involved in 
export shipments would be responsible for the submission of the 
manifest to EPA's e-Manifest system and the payment of user fees: (1) 
An exporter who is required to originate the manifest for a shipment of 
hazardous waste; or (2) any recognized trader who proposes export of 
the hazardous wastes for recovery or disposal operations in the country 
of import. The proposed amendments are discussed below in greater 
detail under preamble section IV.A.3.
    This action also addresses comments on several proposed changes to 
the manifest form and continuation sheet for transboundary shipments 
and requests additional comment on certain manifest form changes 
proposed in the Federal Register on February 8, 2019 (84 FR 2854). EPA 
considered changes to the manifest forms as part of the renewal of the 
Information Collection Request (ICR) for the form (OMB Control Number 
2050-0039) and solicited public comment on this ICR through that FR 
notice. The proposed changes would require exporters and importers to 
record the hazardous waste stream consent numbers for export and import 
shipments in new, distinct fields on the continuation sheet. In 
addition, the proposed changes would require the exporter's EPA ID 
number to be recorded in a designated field on the continuation sheet, 
if the exporter is a recognized trader located separate from the site 
initiating the export shipment. Currently, there is no space on the 
manifest for an exporter that is not the site initiating the export 
shipment to record this information. The proposed manifest form changes 
related to hazardous waste export and import shipments are discussed 
below in greater detail under preamble section IV.A.4. Finally, this 
action proposes changes under 40 CFR part 262 subpart H for the 
manifest and movement document requirements, and details technical 
corrections and conforming amendments to requirements for transboundary 
shipments. The proposed changes to the manifest and movement 
requirements are discussed below in greater detail under preamble 
sections IV.A.5 and IV.A.6, respectively.
1. Background on Current Manifest and Movement Document Requirements 
for International Shipments
    Current RCRA regulations require exporters and importers of 
hazardous waste shipments to comply with the manifest and movement 
document regulations under 40 CFR part 262, subpart H. For the 
hazardous waste manifest, current export and import regulations at 
Sec. Sec.  262.83(c) and 262.84(c) require exporters and importers, 
respectively, to record export or import data on the manifest. For 
hazardous waste shipments departing the U.S., the exporter of the 
hazardous waste shipment must comply with the manifest requirements of 
40 CFR 262.20 through 262.23 except that in lieu of the name, site 
address, and EPA ID number of the designated facility, the exporter 
must: Enter the name and site address of the foreign receiving 
facility; check the export box and enter the U.S. port of exit (city 
and state) from the United States in Item 16; and record the waste 
stream consent number for each waste listed on the manifest. If the 
exporter is the generator or the site from where the export manifest is 
initiated, the exporter's information will be listed in Item 1 and Item 
5. However, if the exporter is a recognized trader whose physical 
location is separate or different than the site initiating the export 
shipment, then the exporter information is not required to be entered 
on the manifest.
    For hazardous waste shipments entering the U.S., the manifest 
regulations for importers are similar to the requirements for 
exporters. The importer must also comply with manifest requirements at 
40 CFR 262.20 through 262.23, and the importer is considered the RCRA 
generator whose EPA ID number will be entered in Item 1. Additionally, 
the importer's information must be entered in Item 5 except that the 
importer must enter the name and site address of the foreign facility 
on the right side of Item 5 of the manifest in lieu of entering its 
physical site address, and the importer must also enter the name, site 
address, and EPA ID number of the domestic designated facility in Item 
8 of the manifest. If the domestic designated facility is also the 
importer, its information will be entered in both locations on the 
manifest. Finally, the importer must check the import box and enter the 
U.S. port of entry (city and state) into the United States in Item 16.
    Both hazardous waste export and import regulations require that 
consent numbers be entered on the manifest. For export shipments, 
current export regulations at 40 CFR 262.83(c)(3) require the exporter 
to record the consent numbers on the manifest for each waste stream 
listed in Item 9b of the manifest when it initiates the manifest. 
Similarly, import-related regulations at 40 CFR 264.71(a)(3)(i) require 
U.S. facilities receiving hazardous waste subject to 40 CFR part 262, 
subpart H from a foreign entity to record the relevant waste stream 
consent number from consent documentation supplied by EPA to the 
facility for each waste listed on the manifest. Currently, EPA 
recommends listing the consent numbers in Item 14, ``Special Handling 
Instructions and Additional Information,'' on the paper manifest form 
due to the lack of dedicated fields for listing such numbers.
    In addition, the RCRA hazardous waste regulations at 40 CFR parts 
264.71(a)(2)(v)(B) and 265.71(a)(2)(v)(B) require domestic destination 
facilities receiving import shipments to submit the import manifests to 
the e-Manifest system and pay the requisite fees for their processing 
and data capture in the e-Manifest system. The current hazardous waste 
regulation at 40 CFR 263.20(g)(4)(i) also requires transporters who 
transport hazardous waste out of the U.S. to send copies of paper 
manifests for export shipments to the e-Manifest system. Currently, 
however, the manifest data from export manifests is not captured in the 
e-Manifest system.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA promulgated the Export Import Revisions Final rule on 
November 4, 2016, which established the current requirement for the 
transporter to send paper copies of export manifests to the e-
Manifest system. While transporters are currently submitting export 
manifests to EPA, the paper processing center is not entering the 
data from them into the e-Manifest system. EPA did not establish a 
regulation in the June 2018 User Fee Final rule requiring 
transporters, nor any other entity involved in the export shipment, 
to pay the requisite user fee for processing of the export 
manifests. EPA is pursuing a new regulatory change under today's 
proposed rule to address which entity involved in the export supply 
chain is best suited to submit export manifests to EPA and pay the 
requisite user fee for the processing of export manifests.

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

[[Page 19295]]

    The current export and import regulations at Sec. Sec.  262.83(d) 
and 262.84(d) require exporters and importers, respectively to record 
export or import data on the international movement document for all 
exported or imported hazardous wastes that are required to be 
manifested or managed under the alternate management standards of 40 
CFR parts 266 (e.g., spent lead-acid batteries (SLABs)) or 273 (i.e., 
universal wastes). For export hazardous waste shipments, the exporter 
must: Enter the information listed in 40 CFR 262.83(d)(2)(i)-(xii) when 
initiating the international movement document; ensure through use of 
contract terms that the international movement document accompanies the 
shipment from the site in the U.S. where the export shipment is 
initiated to the foreign receiving facility; and ensure that 
appropriate signatures are entered for each custody transfer from 
shipment initiation to the foreign receiving facility per 40 CFR 
262.83(d)(2)(xiii)-(xiv). The foreign receiving facility must send a 
copy of the signed international movement document within three days of 
shipment delivery to: The exporter, the importing country's competent 
authority, and any transit country(ies)'s competent authority(ies) to 
confirm receipt of the shipment per 40 CFR 262.83(d)(2)(xv). For 
shipments made after the electronic import-export reporting compliance 
date that EPA will establish in a future Federal Register notice \6\, 
the exporter must have contract terms requiring the foreign facility to 
send an electronic copy of the signed international movement document 
at the same time to EPA using the Waste Import-Export Tracking System 
(WIETS) or its successor system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As part of the November 28, 2016, import-export revisions 
final rule (81 FR 85696), EPA defined two dates that would be 
established and announced via future Federal Register notices. One 
was the AES filing compliance date, which was established in the 
Federal Register on August 29, 2017 (82 FR 41015) to be December 31, 
2017. The other is the electronic import-export reporting compliance 
date that has yet to be established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the exporter must have contract terms requiring the foreign 
receiving facility to send a copy of the signed and dated confirmation 
of recovery or disposal as soon as possible, but no later than thirty 
days after completing recovery or disposal of the waste in the shipment 
and no later than one calendar year following receipt of the waste, to 
the exporter and to the competent authority of the country of import 
per 40 CFR 262.83(f)(5). If the initial foreign receiving facility 
performed interim operations on the waste shipment, the contract terms 
must also require that the initial foreign receiving facility obtain a 
copy of the signed and dated confirmation of recovery or disposal from 
the subsequent foreign facility that performed the final operation on 
the waste shipment and promptly forward the copy to the exporter and to 
the country of import, per 40 CFR 262.83(f)(6). For shipments made 
after the electronic import-export reporting compliance date that EPA 
will establish in a future Federal Register document, the exporter must 
have contract terms requiring the foreign facility to send an 
electronic copy of each signed and dated confirmation of recovery or 
disposal at the same time to EPA using WIETS or its successor system.
    For import waste shipments being shipped to U.S. receiving 
facilities, the importer must similarly ensure through contract terms 
that the information listed in 40 CFR 262.84(d)(2)(i)-(xii) is included 
on the international movement document when the foreign exporter 
initiates the movement document. Additionally, the contract must 
require that the movement document accompanies the shipment from the 
foreign site where the import shipment is initiated to the U.S. 
receiving facility, with appropriate signatures entered for each 
custody transfer per 40 CFR 262.84(d)(2)(xiii)-(iv). Finally, the U.S. 
receiving facility must send a copy of the signed movement document 
within three days of shipment delivery to the foreign exporter, to the 
exporting country's competent authority, and to any transit 
country(ies)'s competent authority(ies) to confirm receipt of the 
shipment per 40 CFR 262.84(d)(2)(xv). For shipments made after the 
electronic import-export reporting compliance date that EPA will 
establish in a future Federal Register document, the U.S. receiving 
facility must send an electronic copy of the signed movement document 
at the same time to EPA using WIETS or its successor system. Lastly, 
the U.S. receiving facility must send a copy of the signed and dated 
confirmation of recovery or disposal as soon as possible, but no later 
than thirty days after completing recovery or disposal on the waste in 
the shipment and no later than one calendar year following the receipt 
of the waste, to the foreign exporter and to the competent authority of 
the country of export per 40 CFR 262.84(g)(1). If the initial U.S. 
receiving facility performed interim operations on the waste shipment, 
the U.S. receiving facility must obtain a copy of the signed and dated 
confirmation of recovery or disposal from the subsequent U.S. facility 
that performed the final operation on the waste shipment and promptly 
forward the copy to the foreign exporter and to the country of export 
per 40 CFR 262.84(g)(2). Just as with the copy of the signed movement 
document, for shipments made after the electronic import-export 
reporting compliance date that EPA will establish in a future Federal 
Register notice, the U.S. facility must send an electronic copy of each 
signed and dated confirmation of recovery or disposal at the same time 
to EPA using WIETS or its successor system.
    2. Potential Manifest Changes Discussed in February 8, 2019, ICR 
Proposal for Export and Import Shipments
    EPA proposed and requested comment on several changes to the 
hazardous waste manifest form and continuation sheet as part of the 
renewal of the Information Collection Request (ICR) for the form (OMB 
Control Number 2050-0039). First, to enhance the quality of data 
recorded on the manifest and continuation sheet (both paper and 
electronic), EPA proposed new form data fields to allow: (1) The 
hazardous waste stream consent numbers for export and import shipments 
to be recorded in a separate, distinct field on a manifest (See 84 FR 
2854 and 2855); and (2) the exporter's EPA ID Number to be captured on 
the manifest, if the exporter is a recognized trader located separate 
from the site initiating the export shipment (See 84 FR 2854 and 2856). 
EPA explained in the proposal that the addition of a separate data 
field to the paper and electronic manifest for consent numbers would 
facilitate the electronic upload or manual entry of data from paper 
export and import manifests as the manifest would more clearly list the 
consent number for each waste stream. Further, the addition of this 
field would also facilitate the retrieval of export and import manifest 
data from the e-Manifest system for all manifested export and import 
shipments. The February 2019 Federal Register notice (84 FR 2854) also 
explained that the addition of the exporter's EPA ID

[[Page 19296]]

number would be necessary, if EPA decided that the exporter is the 
party best suited to be billed for export manifests collected in the e-
Manifest system; the current manifest does not provide adequate 
information to invoice exporters.
    Specifically, EPA requested comment on whether: (1) Space should be 
added to Item 16 (i.e., the International Shipments field) of the 
manifest to accommodate consent numbers corresponding to each of the 
waste streams listed in Item 9 of the manifest; or (2) the continuation 
sheet should be revised to accommodate consent numbers, the primary 
exporter's EPA ID number, if necessary, and other international 
shipment information currently recorded in Item 16 of the manifest.
    Finally, in addition to the revisions to the continuation sheet 
discussed above, EPA also requested comment on whether the continuation 
sheet should be expanded to capture all international shipment data 
recorded on the manifest and movement document and ultimately captured 
in the e-Manifest system.
3. What is EPA proposing with respect to submitting export manifests to 
EPA's e-Manifest system?
    EPA intends to collect export manifests in the e-Manifest system. 
Like user fees for domestic manifests, the fees for export manifest 
submissions would be assessed on a per manifest basis. User fees would 
be assessed upon the submission of the final manifest containing the 
signature of the transporter who transported the waste shipment out of 
the United States. The regulatory amendments discussed in this section 
of the preamble would require the exporter to submit the top copies of 
both the manifest and continuation sheet to EPA and pay the requisite 
processing fee for the submissions.
    Although the transporter, under current regulations, closes out the 
export manifest, EPA believes the exporter is better suited to submit 
the manifest and continuation sheet to the system for several reasons. 
First, the exporter is primarily responsible for the arrangement of the 
shipment exiting the U.S. and therefore has firsthand knowledge of the 
export shipment. Besides submitting the electronic notifications of 
intent to export to EPA in WIETS, the exporter: Receives an 
acknowledgement of consent (AOC) from EPA documenting consent from the 
foreign country to receive the export shipment, prepares the manifest 
for the export shipment if required, prepares the movement document, 
submits Electronic Export Information (EEI) for each shipment to the 
Automated Export System (AES) operated by U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP), receives copies of the signed movement documents and 
confirmations of recovery or disposal from the foreign receiving 
facility, submits exceptions reports to EPA as needed, and submits an 
export annual report listing details concerning all export shipments 
made during the previous calendar year.
    There are fewer exporters than transporters in the hazardous waste 
management industry and they are required to be domiciled in the United 
States. In contrast, a foreign transporter that has obtained an EPA ID 
number to carry manifested hazardous waste in the U.S. may not be 
domiciled in the United States. As a result, EPA believes it would be 
more practical and efficient administratively to focus fee collections 
and payments in the system on the several hundred exporters rather than 
working to allow foreign transporters access to the system. 
Traditionally in other EPA programs, foreign entities have posed 
regulatory challenges including requirements to post bonds, provide 
foreign immunity waivers, and special registration procedures. There 
are also additional challenges verifying the identity of foreign users 
for electronic signatures as the current EPA methods are designed to be 
used in the United States. Therefore, under this proposed rule, 
exporters would submit the manifest to EPA's e-Manifest system and pay 
the appropriate per manifest fee to EPA for each export manifest 
submitted to the e-Manifest system, subject to the fee determination 
methodology, payment methods, dispute procedures, sanctions, and other 
fee requirements specified in subpart FF (Fees for the Electronic 
Hazardous Waste Manifest Program) of part 265.
    Accordingly, EPA is proposing several regulatory amendments to the 
manifest provisions under 40 CFR 262.83 and 263.20 for hazardous waste 
exports to allow hazardous waste or other regulated waste handlers who 
must use the manifest for tracking export shipments to electronically 
complete, provide, sign, transmit, and store EPA Form 8700-22 
(manifest) and EPA Form 8700-22A (continuation sheet) in the e-Manifest 
system in accordance with the authorized electronic formats announced 
in the February 2014 One Year Rule.
    First, EPA's proposal revises 40 CFR 262.83(c) by adopting the 
existing manifest provisions at Sec. Sec.  262.20(a)(3) and 262.24 for 
electronic manifest use and the electronic signature requirements at 
Sec.  262.25 for export manifests. If these provisions are finalized as 
proposed, a person exporting a shipment out of the U.S. (i.e., a 
generator or a recognized trader located separate from the site 
initiating the shipment) may, in lieu of using a paper manifest form, 
use an electronic manifest to track the export shipment within the 
United States. These electronic manifests would be considered the legal 
equivalent of paper manifests signed with conventional ink signatures. 
EPA notes that use of electronic manifests is voluntary and therefore 
exporters could continue to track export shipments using the existing 
paper forms under the proposal. If an export shipment was initiated by 
the initial transporter under a hybrid manifest in accordance with 
Sec.  262.24(c), then an exporter would also be required to complete 
and sign that manifest electronically in the system.
    Second, EPA is proposing the addition of new provisions under Sec.  
262.83. These would require an exporter to submit the top copy of a 
manifest form and continuation sheet (whether paper or electronic) to 
EPA for processing, in accordance with the proposal for export 
shipments described in this section of the preamble. The new provisions 
would also require the exporter to pay the requisite processing fee for 
the submission using the existing fee provisions under 40 CFR part 265 
subpart FF. Under today's rule, EPA is proposing new paragraphs (c)(4) 
through (c)(8) under Sec.  262.83(c). If finalized, an exporter who 
elects to use an electronic manifest and continuation sheet for an 
export shipment, would be required to complete, sign, and submit the 
manifest and continuation sheet electronically in the e-Manifest system 
for the waste shipment within 30 days of receipt of the electronic 
manifest signed by the last transporter who carried the export shipment 
to a U.S. seaport for loading onto an international carrier or to a 
U.S. road or rail port of exit.
    If the waste shipment was transported within and then exited the 
U.S. under a paper manifest and continuation sheet, the exporter would 
submit images of the paper forms, or uploaded data plus images of the 
paper forms, to EPA. Upon receipt of image files of a paper manifest 
and continuation sheet, EPA's paper processing center (PPC) would 
process the manifests, and the manifest data for the export shipment 
would be captured in the e-Manifest system.
    New Sec.  262.83(c)(4) would generally provide an exporter the same 
options as a U.S. receiving facility to submit the original paper 
manifests to the system,

[[Page 19297]]

with one exception. Exporters will not be afforded an option to mail in 
paper manifests to EPA's e-Manifest system. Prior to June 30, 2021, EPA 
had accepted manifest data from final manifest copies submitted by U.S. 
receiving facilities using several modes of delivery. These options 
included submission of a paper hard copy; image upload of the manifest 
copy; manifest data upload (e.g., JSON file) plus image upload of the 
manifest copy; or an electronic manifest (i.e., fully electronic or 
hybrid manifest). However, per current regulation at 40 CFR parts 
264.71(a)(2)(v)(B) and 265.71(a)(2)(v)(B), beginning June 30, 2021, 
U.S. receiving facilities, and therefore exporters, will be limited to 
submitting paper manifests and continuation sheets via image upload or 
data plus image upload to EPA. Both U.S. receiving facilities and 
exporters would also have the option to submit electronic manifests to 
the system.
    Third, EPA is proposing to adopt the fee provisions of the 
electronic hazardous waste manifest program under 40 CFR part 265 
subpart FF (40 CFR 265.1300, 265.1311, 265.1312, 265.1313, 265.1314, 
265.1315, and 265.1316) for hazardous waste export shipments. EPA 
finalized these provisions in the User Fee Final Rule (83 FR 420, 
January 3, 2018) and utilizes them for domestic receiving facilities of 
hazardous waste and other federal or state regulated wastes. If 
finalized, exporters of a waste shipment subject to the manifest 
requirements would be expected to make payments to EPA for manifest 
activities conducted during the prior month per Sec.  265.1314. Per 
Sec.  265.1311, EPA would impose a per manifest fee for each manifest 
submitted to the system based on the type (paper or electronic) and 
mode of submission (data upload, image file upload, or electronic). EPA 
would use the fee formula and methodology and fee revisions described 
at Sec. Sec.  265.1312 and 265.1313, respectively, to calculate the 
manifest fees based on exporters' manifest activities in the system. 
The mathematical expression of the Marginal Cost Differentiated Fee 
Option (Sec. Sec.  264.1312(a) and 265.1312(a)), as revised per Section 
V.C.2 of the preamble, is as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP22.004

Where:

System Setup Cost = Procurement Cost + EPA Program CostO&M Cost = 
Electronic System O&M Cost + Paper Center O&M Cost + Help Desk Cost 
+ EPA Program Cost + CROMERR Cost + LifeCycle Cost to Modify or 
Upgrade e-Manifest System Related Services

Fee<INF>i</INF> represents the per manifest fee for each manifest 
submission type ``i'' and Nt refers to the total number of manifests 
completed in a year.
    User fees are refreshed for each of the two years following the 
issuance of a new fee schedule. The table below lists the user fees for 
fiscal years 2022 and 2023 (October 1, 2021, through September 30, 
2023) for the e-Manifest system. The FY 2022/2023 user fees for scanned 
image uploads and data plus image uploads for paper manifests are set 
at $20 and $13, respectively. The FY2022/2023 user fees for electronic 
manifest submissions (including hybrid manifests) are set at $8:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Fee per
                  Manifest submission type                     manifest
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scanned Image Upload.......................................       $20.00
Data + Image Upload........................................        13.00
Electronic Manifest (Fully Electronic & Hybrid)............         8.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

These user fees are set based on the manifest usage and processing 
costs for each manifest type. As mentioned in today's preamble at V.C, 
as of June 30, 2021, EPA no longer accepts mailed paper manifests for 
manifest processing and data entry into the e-Manifest system. Instead, 
receiving facilities must submit paper manifests as either a scanned 
image upload or data plus image upload. EPA reiterates there are no 
user fees for mailed paper manifests since the e-Manifest PPC will no 
longer accept them for processing into the e-Manifest system.
    EPA notes since fee schedules are announced for each of the two 
years following the issuance of the new fee schedule, the Agency has 
also included two adjusters to the fee formula methodology. The first 
fee adjuster, known as the ``inflation'' adjuster, accounts for 
inflationary effects between the first and second years of each fee 
schedule. Per Sec. Sec.  264.1313(b) and 265.1313(b), the inflation 
adjuster formula is as follows:

Feei<INF>Year 2</INF> = Feei<INF>Year1</INF> x (CPI<INF>Year2-2</INF>/
CPI<INF>Year2-1</INF>)

Where Feei<INF>Year2</INF> is the Fee for each type of manifest 
submission ``i'' in Year 2 of the fee cycle; Feei<INF>Year1</INF> is 
the Fee for each type of manifest submission ``i'' in Year 1 of the fee 
cycle; and CPI<INF>Year2-2</INF>/CPI<INF>Year2-1</INF> is the ratio of 
the CPI published for the year two years prior to Year 2 to the CPI for 
the year one year prior to Year 2 of the cycle.
    The second fee adjuster, known as the ``revenue recapture'' 
adjuster, targets recapturing revenue that was lost on account of 
imprecision in estimating the numbers and types of manifest submissions 
that would be processed by the e-Manifest system. Unlike the inflation 
adjuster, which operates to adjust fees between the first and second 
years of each two-year fee cycle, the revenue recapture adjuster looks 
back to the previous two-year fee cycle and attempts to recover revenue 
losses from that previous cycle through adjustments to the fee 
schedules for the new cycle. The revenue recaptured through this 
adjuster is added to the O&M Costs in

[[Page 19298]]

the above fee calculation formula, so that this recaptured revenue is 
re-allocated like other program operation costs to the fees charged on 
a per-manifest basis. Per Sec. Sec.  264.1313(c) and 265.1313(c), the 
revenue recovery recapture formula is as follows:

Revenue Recapture<INF>i</INF> = [(N<INF>iYear1</INF> + 
N<INF>iYear2</INF>)<INF>Actual</INF>-(Ni<INF>Year1</INF> + 
N<INF>iYear2</INF>)<INF>Est</INF>] x Fee<INF>i(Ave)</INF>

Where Revenue Recapture<INF>i</INF> is the amount of fee revenue 
recaptured for each type of manifest submission ``i;'' 
(N<INF>iYear1</INF> + N<INF>iYear2</INF>)<INF>Actual</INF>-
(N<INF>iYear1</INF> + N<INF>iYear2</INF>)<INF>Est</INF> is the 
difference between actual manifest numbers submitted to the system for 
each manifest type during the previous 2-year cycle, and the numbers 
estimated when we developed the previous cycle's fee schedule; and 
Fee<INF>i(Ave)</INF> is the average fee charged per manifest type over 
the previous two-year cycle.
    Per Sec.  265.1314, exporters would receive an electronic invoice 
or bill displaying their manifest activity during the prior month and 
would be expected to make payments in full within 30 days from the date 
of the invoice. Exporters would be expected to submit electronic 
payments to the U.S. Department of Treasury through the e-Manifest 
system using one of the acceptable electronic payment options, which 
include commercial credit cards, commercial debit cards, and Automated 
Clearinghouse (ACH) debits.
    Per the late fee and collection provisions at Sec. Sec.  265.1315 
and 265.1315, exporters who do not pay their invoices in full and on 
time would be charged late fees. Late fees begin to accrue for bills 
not paid in full within 30 days from the date of the invoice. The fees 
include a penalty (currently 1% annualized of the billable invoice 
total) and a $15 handling charge for each month the bill is unpaid. A 
one-time increase of this penalty to 6% is charged if a bill is not 
paid four months after the invoice has been issued. After four months, 
the unpaid invoice is forwarded to the U.S. Treasury Department for 
collection and further action.
    Per Sec.  265.1316, exporters would be able to dispute an invoice 
using the informal dispute process, if they believe an invoice to be in 
error (e.g., the invoice does not accurately describe the numbers of 
manifests submitted in the prior billing period, the types of manifests 
(paper vs. electronic) submitted in the prior billing period, or, 
because the invoice appears to have made a mathematical error in 
generating the amount of fees due under the invoice).
    If finalized, the proposed amendments would require any party 
acting as the U.S. exporter that originated the manifest for an export 
shipment of hazardous waste in accordance with the manifest 
requirements under 40 CFR part 262 subpart B and Sec.  262.83(c), 
whether they be a generator, receiving facility, or recognized trader, 
to submit the export manifests to the system and pay the requisite 
fees.
    Finally, EPA is proposing to revise Sec.  263.20(g)(3) and remove 
Sec.  263.20(g)(4)(i). Section 263.20(g)(3) currently requires the 
transporter to provide a copy of the export manifest to the generator. 
Today's proposal would allow the collection of manifest data in the e-
Manifest system, making the current requirement unnecessary. Employees 
of a generator site registered in the RCRAInfo Industry Application for 
access to the e-Manifest system could view export manifests for their 
site in the system. Generators that elect not to register for e-
Manifest, could obtain the export manifest via a system-generated 
email, using the generator's email address, which EPA is proposing to 
add to the manifest form. For further details regarding the addition of 
the generator's email address on the paper manifest, please refer to 
Section IV.C.3. of today's proposed rule. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
to modify Sec.  263.20(g)(3) to require the transporter who transports 
the hazardous waste export shipment out of the U.S. via road or rail 
border crossing or delivers the export shipment to a seaport for 
loading onto an international carrier to send paper copies of the 
manifest and continuation sheet (or images of the paper copies) to the 
exporter instead of to the generator, or transmit the export manifest 
and continuation sheet electronically in the system in accordance with 
the existing manifest requirement for electronic manifest use at Sec.  
263.20(a)(4).
    EPA is proposing the removal of the current transporter requirement 
in Sec.  263.20(g)(4)(i). EPA has determined that transporters are not 
best suited for submitting the export manifest to the system and paying 
the requisite processing fee based on the above modification to Sec.  
263.20(g)(3). EPA notes that transporters would be able to use 
electronic manifests in lieu of paper manifests to transport RCRA-
manifested waste shipments out of the U.S. in accordance with Sec.  
263.20(a)(4). Transporters would need to obtain a RCRAInfo Industry 
Application account to access and use the e-Manifest system. 
Additionally, EPA is proposing to remove 40 CFR 263.20(g)(4)(ii), which 
lists the ``AES filing compliance date'' promulgated in the hazardous 
waste import/export final rule dated November 28, 2016 (81 FR 85696). 
The AES filing compliance date was specified as December 31, 2017, in a 
Federal Register notice dated August 28, 2017 (82 FR 41015). That 
compliance date has passed, and as such the requirement for the 
transporter to provide a paper copy of the manifest to a U.S. customs 
official at the point of departure for shipments initiated prior to the 
AES filing is now obsolete.
    EPA requests comment on all the proposed changes discussed above. 
In addition, EPA requests information regarding whether the proposed 
changes would work for foreign transporters who transport export 
shipments to and across the U.S. border. In addition, EPA requests 
information regarding how many foreign transporters currently transport 
such shipments within the United States.
4. What is EPA proposing with respect to manifest form changes related 
to export and import hazardous waste shipments?
    EPA received minimal comments on the February 2019 Federal Register 
notice for the proposed ICR which included adding new data fields on 
the manifest for consent numbers and EPA ID numbers for exporters (To 
view these comments, refer to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0756, 
www.regulations.gov). While comments from state agencies and industry 
organizations supported adding these new data fields, comments from 
hazardous waste TSDFs and their trade organizations expressed concern 
about the proposed additions to the International Shipments field (Item 
16) on the manifest or inclusion of this field on the continuation 
sheet for the proposed data fields. One commenter argued modifications 
to the form for international shipments as well as other form changes 
detailed in the February 2019 public notice will have substantial 
implications, increase burdens on industry and result in significant 
costs to have facilities redesign and reprogram their IT systems. Two 
commenters suggested that before changing the manifest form, EPA should 
consider how best to upgrade the Waste Import Export Tracking System 
(WIETS) and ultimately integrate it with the e-Manifest system. These 
commenters also stressed that if the Agency continues to require AOC 
numbers on the manifest, Agency information about an international 
shipment, including an exporter's EPA ID, are available via WIETS. All 
commenters opposed to the February 2019 proposal for international

[[Page 19299]]

shipment form changes also suggested EPA develop a separate 
international shipment manifest form that would contain information 
from both the manifest and movement document.
    For the following reasons, EPA has decided against considering 
expansion of Item 16 on the manifest to accommodate these new fields 
and is not considering merging the manifest and international movement 
documents or creating a separate, international manifest to capture all 
international shipment data on one paper form. First, as mentioned in 
the February 2019 Federal Register notice (84 FR 2854 at 2856), the 
one-page paper manifest already contains many data elements and does 
not have much space left for new additions. Second, EPA assessed 
merging the international movement document shipment tracking with the 
manifest requirements to capture both manifest and international 
movement document data in the e-Manifest system. However, the potential 
reduction in burden from eliminating duplicative data that are 
currently required to be listed on both the manifest and the 
international movement document would not offset the increase in e-
Manifest program costs due to the increased need for data entry by 
EPA's PPC to accommodate the additional data fields currently required 
by the international movement document. Additionally, merging the 
manifest and international movement document tracking would increase 
burden by requiring the use of manifests and payment of manifest fees 
for export and import shipments that are currently exempted from 
manifesting requirements but subject to international movement document 
requirements (e.g., universal waste, SLABs). EPA's proposal therefore 
keeps manifest requirements separate from the international movement 
document requirements for both export and import shipments. EPA, 
however, intends to address the electronic international movement 
document-related data as part of EPA's WIETS, as it is integrated as a 
module in the RCRAInfo Industry Application. See Section IV.A.6. for 
further discussion of the proposed international movement document-
related changes EPA is proposing.
    At this time, EPA is proposing to: (1) Move the International 
Shipments field (i.e., Item 16) from the manifest to the continuation 
sheet, and (2) add new fields for consent numbers and the exporter's 
EPA Identification number and email address to the International 
Shipments field. EPA is seeking comment on a proposed revised version 
of the continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A) reflecting EPA's proposed 
move of international shipment information to EPA Form 8700-22A, which 
is available in the docket for this rulemaking. If finalized, EPA would 
remove the International Shipments field from the manifest and re-
designate it as Items 33a and 33b on the continuation sheet as shown on 
the draft form. EPA would also revise the current manifest instructions 
for completing the International Shipments field to reflect these new 
changes.
    For Item 33a, the exporter would be required to check the export 
box and enter the port of exit (city and state) from the U.S. in this 
new field. In addition, if located separate from the site initiating 
the shipment, the exporter would be required to enter its EPA ID number 
and email address in this field. The final domestic transporter of the 
export shipment would be required to date the manifest in Item 33a to 
indicate the day the shipment left the U.S. via a road or rail border 
crossing or the date the shipment was delivered to a seaport of exit 
for loading onto an international carrier. EPA notes that the 
requirement under the existing manifest instruction for the final 
domestic transporter to sign the manifest on the date the waste departs 
the country has been removed. For import shipments, the importer would 
be required to check the import box and enter the port of entry (city 
and state) into the United States in new Item 33a of the continuation 
sheet. For Item 33b, destination facilities of import shipments and 
exporters would be required to record the consent numbers on the 
manifest for each waste stream listed in Items 9b and 27b of the 
manifest and continuation sheet, respectively, in this new section.
    EPA understands the one commenter's concerns regarding the 
increased costs they would incur to upgrade their systems to 
accommodate the new fields. EPA also agrees with other commenters' 
suggestion that the international shipment information such as the 
exporter's EPA ID number can be retrieved via WIETS using the waste 
stream consent numbers currently captured in Item 14 of the manifest. 
EPA, however, believes the addition of data fields for international 
shipment information is needed for several reasons. First, EPA 
continues to believe the addition of separate data fields to the paper 
and electronic manifest for consent numbers would facilitate the 
electronic upload or manual data entry of data from paper export and 
import manifests as the manifest would more clearly list the consent 
number for each waste stream. Second, as discussed in Section IV.A.3. 
of this rule, EPA is proposing to require exporters to submit the top 
copy of manifests to EPA and pay the requisite processing fee for those 
submissions. An exporter's site ID number is needed to ensure that the 
exporter can use electronic manifests, upload paper manifests to its 
site account in the system, track its manifest activity (for both 
electronic and paper manifests) in the system, and receive accurate 
invoices for each billing cycle. If the responsible exporter is 
separate from the site initiating the export shipment, relying on 
consent numbers to retrieve an exporter's ID number from WIETS in lieu 
of obtaining that number directly from the e-Manifest system or the 
paper form would require the system or the PPC to obtain reference data 
on the exporter EPA ID number for each waste stream consent number from 
WIETS. This process is less efficient than obtaining the exporter's EPA 
ID number directly from the system or the paper form. The addition of a 
new data field for the exporter's EPA ID number would enable the e-
Manifest system to access the EPA ID number directly or enable the EPA 
PPC to more efficiently obtain and key that number directly into the 
system from the paper forms. This efficiency would reduce EPA's 
administrative costs for processing export manifests.
    As an alternative to creating a new, separate field on the 
continuation sheet for the exporter's ID number, an exporter could use 
the existing Generator ID Number (Item 1) to record its ID number on 
the manifest, if the exporter is the generator or initiated the export 
shipment. EPA discussed and requested comments on this alternative 
option in the February 2019 Federal Register notice (See 84 FR 2854 at 
2856, February 8, 2019) and is now seeking further input. As part of 
this option, the exporter would record its ID number in the Generator 
ID Number field and its name and site address in Item 5 of the 
manifest. If, however, the exporter is not the generator or did not 
initiate the export shipment, then the exporter would enter its name 
and site address on the left side of Item 5 and supply the generator's 
information (i.e., generator site's name and address), including the 
generator's site ID on the right side of Item 5. Additionally, as 
discussed in Section IV.C.3. of this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to 
add a new field in Item 5 of the manifest for the generator's email 
address. Currently, ``email address'' is an optional field in the e-
Manifest system. An exporter would be expected to provide its email 
address in this new field. If the exporter is not the generator, the 
exporter would be

[[Page 19300]]

expected to supply the generator's email address on the right side of 
the form. EPA requests comment on all of these proposed changes to the 
manifest form and continuation sheet.
5. What is EPA proposing in today's action that only impacts import 
shipments?
    EPA is proposing to delete the requirement in 40 CFR 262.84(c)(4) 
that the importer provide an additional copy of the manifest to the 
transporter to be submitted by the receiving facility to EPA per 
Sec. Sec.  264.71(a)(3) and 265.71(a)(3). This additional copy of the 
manifest is no longer necessary because the receiving facility is now 
required to always submit the top copy of the paper manifest and any 
continuation sheets to the e-Manifest system.
6. Additional Proposed Changes to International Shipment Requirements
    EPA's proposal includes revisions to the export and import shipment 
international movement document-related requirements to more closely 
link the manifest data with the international movement document data. 
Doing so will enable linking the manifest data with the eventual 
confirmation of receipt and confirmation of recovery or disposal sent 
by the U.S. receiving facility to WIETS for an import shipment, or sent 
by the foreign receiving facility for an export shipment for submittal 
by the exporter to WIETS. As mentioned in Section IV.A.3, EPA intends 
to redesign WIETS to a module integrated within the RCRAInfo Industry 
Application that will allow more efficient data sharing between WIETS 
and the other modules and improved access by state agencies and the 
public to export and import final data. WIETS currently includes 
industry-created and submitted export notices, import notices, and 
export annual reports; EPA review and processing of such submittals; 
and EPA node-based electronic exchanges of notice and response (e.g., 
consent) data with Canada and Mexico. The redesign is planned to occur 
in two stages. The initial stage would make export notices, import 
notices and export annual reports, and related Agency processing more 
efficient and automated through integration with the RCRAInfo Industry 
Application and through use of an Application Programing Interface-
based electronic exchange of notice and response data with Mexico and 
eventually Canada. The second stage of the redesign intends to add 
functionality to enable the establishment of the electronic import-
export reporting compliance date discussed in the November 28, 2016, 
final rule revising hazardous waste import and export requirements (81 
FR 85700). Once both stages are fully completed, EPA intends the 
redesigned WIETS to include the additional electronic documents such 
as: Export confirmations of receipt, export Exception Reports, export 
confirmations of recovery or disposal, import confirmations of receipt, 
receiving facility notifications of the need to arrange alternate 
management or the return of an import shipment, and import 
confirmations of recovery or disposal. Lastly, EPA's proposal reflects 
potential future electronic data exchange of international movement 
document data, confirmation of receipt data, and confirmation of 
recovery or disposal data between the U.S. and another country such as 
Canada. Should such an electronic data exchange agreement be 
established, facilities in both countries could utilize the exchange to 
transmit required data more efficiently.
    EPA is therefore proposing revisions to 40 CFR 262.83(d)(2)(i) and 
262.84(d)(2)(i) to require the international movement document to list 
the RCRA manifest tracking number from Item 4 if the shipment is 
required to be manifested while being transported in the United States. 
Additionally, since Canadian movement documents have unique tracking 
numbers similar to manifest tracking numbers, EPA is proposing 
revisions to 40 CFR 262.83(d)(2)(ii) and 262.84(d)(2)(ii) to add the 
unique international movement document tracking number as an acceptable 
alternative to listing the shipment number and total number of 
shipments from the EPA AOC or the foreign export permit on the generic 
international movement document available at http://www.basel.int/Portals/4/Basel%20Convention/docs/techmatters/forms-notif-mov/vCOP8.doc.
    Parallel to the manifest submittal requirements, EPA is proposing 
revisions to 40 CFR 262.83(d)(2)(xv) and 262.84(d)(2)(xv) to require 
the exporter and U.S. receiving facility to submit a copy of the signed 
international movement document to WIETS. Exporters would be required 
to submit the copy to WIETS within three days of receiving the copy 
from the foreign facility, and U.S. receiving facilities would be 
required to submit the copy to WIETS within three days of shipment 
delivery to confirm receipt of the shipment for shipments occurring on 
or after the electronic import-export reporting compliance date. The 
proposed new 40 CFR 262.83(d)(2)(xvi) requires exporters to submit a 
copy of the signed confirmations of recovery or disposal that it 
receives from the foreign receiving facility to WIETS within three days 
of the exporter's receiving the copy of the signed confirmation of 
recovery or disposal for shipments occurring on or after the electronic 
import-export reporting compliance date. To reflect the possible 
establishment of an electronic exchange of shipment tracking data with 
another country like Canada, EPA is proposing revisions to 40 CFR 
262.83(f)(4)-(5), 262.83(f)(6)(ii), 262.84(d)(2)(xv), 262.84(g)(1)-(2), 
and new 40 CFR 262.83(d)(2)(xvii) to allow an established data exchange 
to be used to comply with the transmittal of shipment confirmations for 
export and import shipments between the exporter or receiving facility 
and the foreign receiving facility or foreign exporter, respectively, 
and between the receiving facility and the competent authority for the 
country of export for import shipments. Similarly, EPA is proposing new 
40 CFR 262.83(f)(3)(iii) and 262.84(f)(4)(iii) to allow the use of an 
established data exchange to comply with the transmittal across borders 
of notifications of the need to arrange for the alternate management or 
return of an individual shipment for export and import shipments per 40 
CFR 262.83(f)(3)(i) and 262.84(f)(4)(i).
    Lastly, EPA is proposing the following technical corrections and 
conforming amendment to import and export requirements. First, EPA is 
proposing revisions to 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5)(v)(B), 261.39(a)(5)(xi), 
262.83(a)(6), and 262.83(g) to reflect that the AES compliance date of 
December 31, 2017 (which was specified in an announcement in a Federal 
Register notice dated August 28, 2017 (82 FR 41015)) has passed and 
requirements concerning shipments made prior to that date can no longer 
apply and are thus obsolete. Next, EPA is proposing revisions to 40 CFR 
262.84(b)(1) to reflect that all import notices are submitted 
electronically using WIETS at this time. Electronic import notices have 
made EPA's processing more efficient and allow importers and receiving 
facilities to store and download EPA AOC letters and import consent 
documentation within WIETS rather than keeping paper copies for 
recordkeeping on site. Additionally, EPA is proposing revisions to the 
text in 40 CFR 261.6(a)(3)(i)(A)-(B) and 262.20(a)(2) to reflect that 
40 CFR part 262 subparts E and F no longer exist as of December 31, 
2016, and 40 CFR part 262 subpart H applies. EPA is also proposing 
revisions to

[[Page 19301]]

Sec. Sec.  262.83(d)(2)(xv), 262.83(f)(4)-(5) and (6)(ii), 
262.84(d)(2)(xv), and 262.84(g)(1)-(2) to clarify that confirmations of 
receipt and confirmations of recovery or disposal for export and import 
shipments are only required to be sent to the competent authorities of 
the countries that control such shipments as exports, transits, or 
imports of hazardous wastes, consistent with existing text in 40 CFR 
264.12(a)(2), 264.12(a)(4), 265.12(a)(2), and 265.12(a)(4). EPA is 
additionally proposing revisions to Sec. Sec.  261.4(a)(25)(i)(A), 
261.4(a)(25)(i)(H), 261.39(a)(5)(i)(A), 261.39(a)(5)(i)(F), 
262.83(b)(1)(i)-(iv), 262.83(b)(3), 262.83(d)(2)(iii)-(v), 
262.83(d)(2)(iii)-(v), 262.83(d)(2)(viii)-(ix), 262.84(b)(1)(i)-(iv), 
262.84(b)(2), 262.84(c)(1)(i), 262.84(d)(2)(iii)-(v), 
262.84(d)(2)(viii)-(ix), to specify the listing of the site address in 
notices, manifests and international movement documents in place of the 
existing requirement to list ``address,'' to facilitate country review 
of the documents. EPA is also proposing revisions to 40 CFR 
260.2(d)(1)-(2) and 261.4(a)(25)(v) to make hazardous secondary 
material export documents prepared, used and submitted under 40 CFR 
261.4(a)(25) available to the public when these electronic documents 
are considered by EPA to be final documents on March 1 of the calendar 
year after the related hazardous secondary material exports occur. EPA 
is proposing this conforming change to make hazardous secondary 
material exports, reinstated as part of EPA's response to vacatur of 
certain provisions of the definition of solid waste rule effective May 
30, 2018 (83 FR 24664), consistent with EPA's earlier rule regarding 
confidentiality determinations related to all exports, imports or 
transits of hazardous waste and exports of conditionally excluded 
materials (i.e., cathode ray tubes) subject to export, import, or 
transit requirements (82 FR 60894) when the final rule was published on 
December 26, 2017.

B. What is EPA proposing with respect to Exception, Discrepancy, and 
Unmanifested Waste Reports?

    While the manifest system is often regarded as consisting only of 
the actual manifest form and any necessary continuation sheets, the 
complete manifest system extends to several related written reports 
that are required under the existing regulations when there are 
specific unresolved problems or irregularities related to a waste 
shipment that is subject to manifesting. There are currently three 
additional reports under the RCRA Subtitle C regulations that complete 
the manifest tracking system: Exception Reports, Discrepancy Reports, 
and Unmanifested Waste Reports. These reports address issues that arise 
when return manifests from receivers are late (Exceptions), when the 
materials received do not match with the quantities or types of 
materials indicated as being shipped by generators (Discrepancies), and 
instances when wastes that should have been manifested arrive at a 
facility without a manifest (Unmanifested Wastes).
    This action proposes and solicits public comment on revisions to 
the manifest requirements applicable to Exception Reports, Discrepancy 
Reports, and Unmanifested Waste Reports at 40 CFR 262.42, 264.72, and 
264.76 respectively. During past Advisory Board meetings, the e-
Manifest Advisory Board recommended that EPA integrate these written 
reports into the e-Manifest system. Below, EPA describes each report in 
greater detail, and the Agency's proposal on how to leverage e-Manifest 
to satisfy each requirement.
1. Exception Reporting
    Exception Reporting applies to generators, and these reports are 
required in the federal regulations at 40 CFR 262.42 (Hazardous Waste) 
and 40 CFR 761.217 (PCBs). Exception reports are intended to address 
the situation in which the generator does not receive timely 
confirmation that their hazardous or PCB wastes, tracked with a 
manifest, arrived at the facility designated by the generator to 
receive its waste. For large quantity generators or LQGs (those 
generating 1 kg or greater of acute hazardous waste or 1,000 kg or 
greater of non-acute hazardous waste per month) and all PCB waste 
generators, Exception Reporting is a two-step process. In the first 
step, if the generator has not received the signed, return copy of the 
manifest from the designated facility within 35 days from the date the 
transport of the waste shipment began, the generator must contact the 
transporter and/or the designated facility to determine the status of 
the generator's waste. In the second step, if the status of that waste 
is not resolved within 45 days (from the start of transport), the 
generator must file an Exception Report with their EPA Regional 
Administrator (or State Director in authorized states). The Exception 
Report, as currently implemented by regulation, is a separate written 
report that consists of: (1) A legible copy of the manifest for which 
the generator does not have confirmation of delivery; and (2) a cover 
letter signed by the generator explaining its efforts to locate the 
waste and the results of those efforts. There is a similar Exception 
Reporting requirement applicable to small quantity generators (SQGs) at 
Sec.  262.42(b), except that SQGs have an additional 15 days (60 days 
total) to reconcile the status of their waste with the other handlers, 
and the separate cover letter is not required as a part of their 
report.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The current Exception Report requirements for SQGs require 
such generators to submit a legible copy of the manifest, with some 
indication that the generator has not received confirmation of 
delivery, to the relevant EPA Regional Administrator. The submission 
to EPA need only be a handwritten or typed note on the manifest 
itself, or on an attached sheet of paper, stating that the return 
copy was not received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.1. What is EPA proposing for Exception Reports?
    The Agency is proposing two changes related to Exception Reports: 
(1) Allow generators using electronic or hybrid manifests to use the e-
Manifest system to satisfy exception reporting requirements; and (2) 
adjust exception reporting timeframes to better align with timeframes 
required for submission and processing of paper manifests in the e-
Manifest system.
    The primary goal of EPA is to transition manifest users from a 
paper-intensive, burdensome system to the more efficient e-Manifest 
system to track and manage hazardous waste shipments. At present, 
electronic manifests (both fully electronic and hybrid manifests) 
represent an extremely small portion of manifests managed in the system 
and most generators continue to track their waste shipments under the 
paper-based system. During the e-Manifest system Advisory Board meeting 
in June 2019, entitled ``Increasing Adoption of the e-Manifest 
system,'' the Advisory Board recommended that EPA integrate Exception 
Reports into the e-Manifest system. EPA accepts the Board's 
recommendation and believes integration of Exception Reports in the e-
Manifest system could add to the incentives for generators to use 
electronic manifests. Therefore, EPA is proposing regulatory amendments 
to the existing Exception Report requirements at Sec.  262.42 by adding 
new paragraph (d) and (e) and amending Sec.  761.217 by adding new 
paragraphs (c) and (d). EPA notes these proposed regulatory amendments 
do not apply to exporters of waste shipments subject to the manifest 
requirements. Exporters must file export Exception Reports, in lieu of 
the requirements of Sec.  262.42, according to the existing 
requirements specified at

[[Page 19302]]

Sec.  262.83(h). Electronic export Exception Reports under Sec.  
262.83(h) will be developed as part of WIETS.
    Proposed paragraphs at Sec. Sec.  262.42(d) and 761.217(c) 
establish the legal and policy framework for the use of electronic 
Exception Reports for hazardous waste and PCB waste, respectively. If 
finalized, Exception Reports originated in the e-Manifest system would 
be considered the legal equivalent of paper Exception Reports signed 
with conventional ink signatures. Further, wherever the existing 
regulations require an Exception Report to be completed, signed, 
provided, and sent to the EPA Regional Administrator (or the State 
Director in authorized states), the execution of an electronic 
Exception Report would be deemed to comply with the requirements to 
complete, sign, provide, send, or otherwise use the Exception Report.
    Under paragraphs Sec. Sec.  262.42(e) and 761.217(d), EPA is 
proposing to restrict electronic exception reporting to manifested 
shipments using electronic manifests (hybrid or fully electronic) 
pursuant to Sec.  262.24(c). This is because to leverage the e-Manifest 
system to assist with exception reporting, the system must ``know'' the 
date of shipment from the generator. When electronic manifests are 
used, this information is readily available. Conversely, paper 
manifests are not submitted to the e-Manifest system until after the 
signed, final manifest is submitted by the receiving facility, 
rendering it impossible for the system to identify paper manifests 
initiated by the generator but not yet completed by the receiving 
facility. For hybrid manifests, a generator would be required to 
register in the RCRAInfo Industry Application for an account to take 
advantage of electronic exception reporting in the e-Manifest 
system.\8\ (Relatedly, EPA is also requesting comment in today's 
proposal regarding whether all generators should be required to 
register for access to the e-Manifest system (See Section IV.C.3).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Instructions for user registration for the RCRAInfo Industry 
Application are available at EPA's e-Manifest web page (www.epa.gov/e-manifest). Each user of the e-Manifest system must obtain a 
RCRAInfo Industry Application account for access to the e-Manifest 
system. EPA recommends each site register at least two site 
employees as Site Managers before registering for any other 
permission levels. A Site Manager is a special permission afforded 
to users of a module in the RCRAInfo Industry Application. In 
addition to having permission to view, create, and sign manifests 
electronically in the e-Manifest system, Site Managers also manage 
and approve permissions for other users at their organizational 
site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The hybrid or mixed paper/electronic manifest is a manifest 
approach that EPA adopted in the User Fee Final rule to assist 
generators who are not able to fully participate in electronic 
manifesting. Under the hybrid manifest approach, generators are not 
required to obtain e-Manifest system accounts nor are they required to 
electronically track their wastes. The hybrid manifest approach allows 
the initial transporter and subsequent waste handlers to use fully 
electronic manifests with their non-participating generator customers. 
The initial transporter may print a copy of the electronic manifest for 
the generator, and the generator may sign the paper copy, obtain the 
initial transporter's ink signature on the paper copy, and then retain 
the paper copy on-site as the generator's initial manifest copy as is 
done under traditional manifest requirements. From then on, the initial 
transporter and subsequent waste handlers complete the remainder of the 
tracking of the shipment electronically in the e-Manifest system with 
electronic signatures and electronic transmissions to the system. As 
discussed above, generators using the hybrid manifest approach must 
still register for an account in the RCRAInfo Industry Application in 
order to utilize electronic Exception Reporting under this proposed 
rule, even if they do not track their wastes electronically.
    Under today's proposed electronic exception reporting approach, EPA 
would upgrade the e-Manifest system's functionality to alert large 
quantity generators and small quantity generators based off of their 
notified federal generator status, as well as PCB waste generators, if 
receiving facilities designated on their manifests have not submitted 
final, signed manifests to the system for confirmation of delivery 
within the required timeframes at Sec. Sec.  262.42(a)(1), 262.42(b), 
or 761.217(a)(1), respectively. Additionally, the system could alert 
the respective receiving facility on the manifest.
    First, the system would monitor the verification timeframe 
beginning at the custody exchange from the generator to the initial 
transporter by way of the generator's electronic signature for the 
fully electronic manifest or the initial transporter's electronic 
signature for the hybrid manifest. Second, the system would provide an 
alert to generators when exception reporting requirements may be 
triggered; and if needed, allow generators to submit required Exception 
Report information electronically, and disseminate the Exception Report 
to the relevant EPA Region or the authorized state Agency. LQGs and PCB 
waste generators would still be required to contact the transporter 
and/or the owner or designated facility per Sec. Sec.  262.42(a) or 
761.217(a) to determine the status of the hazardous or PCB waste and 
provide an explanation of their efforts to locate the hazardous or PCB 
waste and the results of those efforts. Such generators, however, would 
not be required to manually submit the report to EPA or the states.
    EPA may design the system to provide a drop-down list of 
explanations that an LQG or PCB generator could select from to explain 
its efforts to locate and reconcile their unverified shipment. The 
explanation from the drop-down list or text string would be used to 
complete the Exception Report. For example, a text string could say, 
``The initial transporter and/or designated facility were contacted via 
telephone regarding the delivery date of the waste(s) identified in 9b 
to the designated facility. To date, no information has been provided 
confirming shipment receipt by the designated facility.'' The drop-down 
list could also include an explanation of ``other'' which a user would 
select, if the options available did not accurately explain the set of 
circumstances or reasons why they are unable to confirm delivery by the 
designated facility. If a user selected this option, the system could 
provide a text field/pop-up box and prompt the user to enter a ``text 
string'' explaining the site's efforts to locate the shipment and 
reconcile the problem. Following completion of the Exception Report, 
the e-Manifest system would then transmit the report to the relevant 
EPA Region or authorized state Agency. For SQGs, the drop-down menu 
would not be necessary as SQGs are not required to provide a detailed 
explanation regarding the inability to verify delivery of their 
manifested shipment to the destination facility. Instead, under the 
proposal, the system would provide a copy of the manifest for which the 
SQG does not have confirmation of delivery along with a statement 
saying, ``The return manifest copy was not received.''
    Although this action considers regulatory amendments to the 
existing Exception Report regulations to allow for electronic exception 
reporting, EPA is not proposing to collect and upload written, paper-
copies of Exception Reports in the e-Manifest system. EPA believes 
maintaining paper Exception Report submissions would be costlier to 
maintain and thus would result in the need for EPA to contemplate a 
distinct or additional fee premium related to entering Exception 
Reports to ensure related costs are recovered. Therefore, to avoid 
incurring costs related to paper processing and data entry activities 
necessary to enter the Exception Report

[[Page 19303]]

information into the e-Manifest system, EPA would require LQGs and SQGs 
who opt out of tracking their waste shipments electronically in the 
system to comply with the existing exception reporting requirements at 
Sec. Sec.  262.42(a) and (b) respectively for written, hard-copy 
Exception Reports.
    EPA requests comment on the proposed approach to adopt electronic 
Exception Reports only for registered generators using fully electronic 
or hybrid manifests. This approach would allow generators who initiate 
shipments under electronic or hybrid manifests to use the system to 
trigger alerts regarding manifest exceptions and allow for electronic 
submission of the Exception Report.
    In addition to the above proposed changes, EPA is also proposing to 
revise the current 35/45-day timeframes in Sec.  262.42(a), and (c)(2), 
and Sec.  761.217(a) and (b) to better conform to timeframes for 
submittal and processing of paper manifests in the e-Manifest system. 
For example, for entities using paper manifests, receiving facilities 
have 30 days from receipt of a generator's shipment to submit the 
final, signed paper manifest to EPA. In addition, EPA's PPC needs time 
to enter data, e.g., from image copies of paper manifests, especially 
if the paper manifests contain incorrect, illegible, or incomplete 
data. Thus, the Agency realizes that LQGs may not be able to access the 
final, signed paper manifest in e-Manifest until past the first 35-day 
exception reporting timeframe in the regulations.
    Therefore, EPA believes adjustments to the current 35/45-day 
timeframes for an LQG generator to verify shipment receipt by the 
receiving facility are needed to conform to changes related to e-
Manifest submissions. To align with timeframes related to submitting 
and processing paper manifests in the e-Manifest system, EPA is 
proposing that all LQGs have five additional days to verify receipt of 
the shipment, reconcile the late manifests with the transporter and/or 
destination facility, and complete and submit Exception Reports to the 
EPA Regional Administrator (or state Agency in authorized state). LQGs 
and PCB waste generators would have up to 40 days to verify that their 
waste was received by the facility designated on the manifest. The 40-
day timeframe would begin from the date the manifest was accepted by 
the initial transporter for off-site transportation to the receiving 
facility. If an LQG does not receive notification from the e-Manifest 
system that the final, signed manifest was received within this 40-day 
timeframe, the LQG must contact the transporter and/or the designated 
facility to determine the status of the generator's waste. If the 
status of the shipment is not resolved within 50 days (from the start 
of transport), the LQG must file an Exception Report with the EPA 
Regional Administrator (or state Agency in authorized states). EPA 
requests comment on the proposed 40/50-day timeframes of exception 
reporting for LQGs. EPA is not proposing additional time for SQGs to 
verify receipt of their shipments by the destination facility. The 
current SQG timeframe for verification of shipment delivery is 60 days 
(Sec.  262.42(b)). EPA believes the proposed timeframes triggering 
exception reporting for LQGs aligns adequately with the e-Manifest 
system.
2. Discrepancy Reporting
    The manifest form enables the receiving facility to flag several 
types of ``discrepancy'' events on the manifest. Under the current 
regulations and manifest forms, there are boxes to be checked in the 
manifest's discrepancy field (Item 18) when the designated facility 
finds or produces one of, but not limited to, these shipment 
irregularities:
    [ssquf] Significant differences in the quantity of waste shown on 
the manifest as having been shipped, and what the designated facility 
determines to have been received. By regulation, significant quantity 
discrepancies occur when there is any variation in piece count (e.g., 
four drums received instead of five), as well as when there is a 
variance of 10% or more by weight for any bulk or batch wastes shipped 
on a manifest; and
    [ssquf] Significant differences between the type of waste shown as 
shipped and what the designated facility received. Significant type 
discrepancies are defined as obvious differences which can be 
discovered by inspection or waste analysis, such as a solvent 
substituted for an acid, or toxic constituents that were not listed on 
the manifest.
    While five types of discrepancies can be checked off on the 
manifest form, only significant discrepancies in quantity and type are 
treated as major irregularities requiring additional, separate 
reporting requirements. The RCRA regulations refer to these reporting 
requirements as Discrepancy Reports. Under the existing federal 
regulation, Sec. Sec.  264.72, 265.72, and 761.215, provide a two-step 
process for handling significant quantity and type discrepancies in 
hazardous and PCB waste shipments, respectively. First, upon 
discovering a significant quantity or type discrepancy, the facility 
must attempt to reconcile the discrepancy with the generator or 
transporter. Second, if the significant discrepancy remains unresolved 
on the date 15 days after receipt of the waste, the facility must 
immediately send a letter to the EPA Regional Administrator or to the 
authorized state describing the discrepancy and attempts to reconcile 
it. This letter report must also include a copy of the manifest at 
issue.
2.1. What is EPA proposing for Discrepancy Reports?
    During the June 2019 Advisory Board meeting, the Board recommended 
that EPA integrate Discrepancy Reports into the e-Manifest system. EPA 
accepts the Board's recommendation and believes integration of 
Discrepancy Reports in the e-Manifest system would reduce paperwork 
burden and may incentivize users to transition to fully electronic or 
hybrid manifests by increasing the value of the system. Therefore, EPA 
is proposing two changes related to Discrepancy Reports: (1) Allow 
receiving facilities to use the e-Manifest system to satisfy 
discrepancy reporting requirements; and (2) adjust the discrepancy 
reporting timeframe to better align with timeframes required for 
submission and processing of manifests in the e-Manifest system. EPA is 
proposing changes to integrate the system with Discrepancy Reports by 
adding new requirements under Sec. Sec.  264.72(c) and 265.72(c) 
(Hazardous Waste) and 761.215(c) (PCBs) that would address the legal 
equivalency of the electronic reports to the written, paper reports and 
allow for electronic discrepancy reporting for wastes shipped on 
electronic or hybrid and paper manifests.
    EPA is proposing new paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of Sec. Sec.  
264.72, 265.72, and 761.215 to establish the legal and policy framework 
for the use of electronic Discrepancy Reports. If finalized, 
Discrepancy Reports originated in the e-Manifest system would be 
considered the legal equivalent to paper Discrepancy Reports signed 
with conventional ink signatures. Further, wherever the existing 
regulations require a Discrepancy Report to be completed, signed, and 
sent to the EPA Regional Administrator (or the regulating Agency in 
authorized states), the execution of an electronic Discrepancy Report 
in the national e-Manifest system would be deemed to comply with the 
requirements to complete, sign, provide, send, or otherwise use the 
discrepancy report.
    However, unlike our proposed restriction to limit electronic 
exception reporting to electronic manifests, EPA is proposing to extend 
electronic reporting of Discrepancy Reports to all manifest

[[Page 19304]]

submission types, including paper (i.e., image only and image plus 
data). EPA believes this approach is more appropriate for discrepancy 
reporting because, unlike exception reports, which must be completed by 
generators, discrepancy reports must be completed by receiving 
facilities, and receiving facilities already are registered in the e-
Manifest system, e.g., for billing purposes. In addition, discrepancy 
reporting is not limited by the use of paper manifests, because, unlike 
exception reporting, the system does not need to ``know'' the date of 
shipment from the generator in order to generate a Discrepancy Report.
    The e-Manifest regulations currently allow receiving facilities to 
submit final, signed manifests to EPA within 30 days after a shipment 
is received. In addition, time is needed for EPA's PPC to process paper 
manifests, which, as mentioned previously, can be delayed due to the 
data quality. Consequently, facilities may not be able to submit the 
final, signed paper manifests to the e-Manifest system until past the 
15-day discrepancy reporting timeframe in the regulations.\9\ 
Therefore, EPA believes adjustments to the current 15-day timeframe of 
significant discrepancies (i.e., waste shipments having significant 
differences between the quantity or type of waste shown as shipped by 
the generator and what the designated facility received) are needed. To 
this end, EPA is proposing revisions to Sec. Sec.  264.72(c) 265.72(c), 
and 761.215 to allow receiving facilities up to 20 days to reconcile a 
shipment with the generator and/or transporter for such discrepancies. 
This proposed timeframe is also consistent with the conceivable number 
of days passed before receiving facilities upload copies of paper 
manifests to the e-Manifest system.\10\ The proposed timeframe would 
begin at the custody exchange from the delivering transporter to the 
receiving facility by way of the receiving facility's signature on a 
manifest. The proposed 20-day timeframe would also apply to users of 
fully electronic and hybrid manifests. EPA describes the proposals for 
electronic discrepancy reporting and the reconciliation timeframe below 
in greater detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 40 CFR 264.71(a)(2) and 264.72(a)(2) require a designated 
facility to sign and date a manifest, and immediately give the 
delivering transporter a copy of the signed manifest. 40 CFR 
264.72(c) and 265.72(c) require TSDFs to report the discrepancy 15 
days after receiving the waste.
    \10\ Based on consultations with receiving facilities, EPA has 
learned facilities typically take up to 20 days to load digital 
copies of paper manifests to the e-Manifest system. Prior to 
uploading digital copies of paper manifests to the e-Manifest 
system, receiving facilities confirm whether the wastes having been 
shipped and reflected on a manifest by the generator match what the 
designated facility determines to have been received. Upon receipt 
of a waste shipment, a receiving facility compares the manifest to 
its generator customer's waste profile (WP) and identifies any 
discrepancies. A receiving facility may also conduct waste testing 
to confirm the WP which could lead to discrepancies. The timeframe 
for manifest uploads may be shorter if a receiving facility prepares 
the manifest on behalf of the generator because the manifest is 
based on the WP at the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Receiving facilities would still be expected to reconcile the 
discrepancy with the generator or transporter (e.g., with telephone 
conversations) within the proposed 20-day timeframe. After receiving 
facilities have certified to the receipt of hazardous wastes by signing 
Item 20 of the manifest, the receiving facility can resolve significant 
discrepancies in waste quantity or type either on the manifest prior to 
submission to EPA or, post-receipt by EPA, through the corrections 
process in e-Manifest adopted in the User Fee Final Rule. As explained 
in that final rule, a post-receipt correction operates as a change to 
the data records in the e-Manifest system but does not require the 
original manifest to be altered or re-signed by a receiving facility. 
Note that any waste handler shown on the manifest, including waste 
handlers who tracked their waste using paper manifests, can submit 
post-receipt corrections in e-Manifest. However, such waste handlers 
would need to register and obtain a RCRAInfo account to be able to make 
post-receipt corrections in e-Manifest. Under the proposed approach, 
the system would monitor the 20-day reconciliation timeframe and 
generate the electronic Discrepancy Report, if significant 
discrepancies were identified but the generator, transporter, or 
receiving facility did not submit the correction to the system within 
the 20 days.
    The approach for integrating the e-Manifest system and the 
Discrepancy Report for paper and electronic manifest involves four 
elements: (1) A copy of the manifest at issue; (2) the significant 
discrepancy type (i.e., significant difference in quantity or type); 
(3) date of signature of the receiving facility; and (4) a description 
explaining the discrepancy and attempts to reconcile it. Since paper 
manifests are not submitted to the e-Manifest system until after a 
receiving facility signs them, a receiving facility may need to 
document the significant discrepancy information and the attempts to 
reconcile it in Item 18a of the manifest at the time of submission of 
the manifest to ensure that the system can monitor the discrepancy and 
alert the user, if post-receipt corrections are not made before the 20-
day timeframe is triggered.
    EPA believes that immediately upon inspection, a receiving facility 
should be able to discover variations in container piece count as well 
as when there is a variance of 10% or more by weight for any bulk or 
batch wastes shipped on a manifest. As such, receiving facilities 
should be able to check the corresponding discrepancy box in Item 18a 
of a manifest and submit the manifest to the e-Manifest system rather 
quickly. The system would begin monitoring the 20-day discrepancy 
timeframe once the manifest is loaded into the system, and if 
necessary, generate a Discrepancy Report. Similarly, for most 
shipments, a receiving facility should be able to immediately discover 
upon inspection significant differences between the type of waste shown 
as shipped and what the receiving facility received; occasionally 
significant discrepancies are not discovered immediately and may 
require waste analysis for identification.
    Our proposed approach discusses discrepancy reporting procedures 
for submitting copies of paper manifests (image only or data + image) 
and electronic manifests (fully electronic or hybrid). Currently, image 
files of paper manifests are submitted to the e-Manifest system via 
EPA's Application Programming Interface (API) services or directly in 
the e-Manifest system by accessing a user's account dashboard and 
selecting the ``Upload Paper Manifest'' option. Regardless of the paper 
submission method chosen for the image file, the PPC would enter all 
data recorded on a manifest into the system, including the significant 
discrepancy type from Item 18a and the waste shipment receipt date 
recorded in Item 20 of the designated facility block of the manifest. A 
receiving facility would record the attempts to reconcile the 
discrepancy at the time of a manifest submission or after the manifest 
was uploaded into the system.
    If discovery of a discrepancy is immediate, a receiving facility 
may elect to document the attempts to reconcile the discrepancy in Item 
18a of the manifest. If, however, discovery of a discrepancy is delayed 
or a receiving facility delays submission of a manifest to the system 
and reconciliation of the discrepancy is approaching the 20-day 
reporting timeframe, the receiving facility would document its attempts 
to reconcile a significant discrepancy at the time of documenting the 
discrepancy in quantity or type in Item 18a and submit the manifest to 
the system. This information would be used as part of a Discrepancy 
Report, if the discrepancy was not resolved within the 20-day 
discrepancy timeframe. The

[[Page 19305]]

system may be designed in a manner that would provide a textbox field/
pop-up box that would prompt the PPC staff to enter the discrepancy 
description from Item 18a in the pop-up box. Once the paper manifests 
are loaded into the e-Manifest system, the system would flag the 
discrepancy and monitor its status. If the 20-day discrepancy timeframe 
is triggered, the system would immediately alert the facility that the 
discrepancy status is unchanged and, if necessary, generate the 
Discrepancy Report. At that time, the system would instruct a receiving 
facility to enter a description of its attempts to reconcile the 
discrepancy, if it had not provided such information in the image file, 
and instruct the facility to transmit the report to the relevant EPA 
Region or state. A receiving facility would use the drop-down list (as 
described above in Section IV.B.1.1 for Exception Reports) to record a 
description of the discrepancy event on the manifest. The drop-down 
list would provide possible descriptions detailing the discrepancy and 
the attempts the receiving facility made to reconcile it. For example, 
a text string description for a significant discrepancy regarding a 
variation in piece count could say, ``The number of drums as having 
been shipped for the waste shown in line #1 of Item 9b does not match 
the number of drums actually received. The generator and/or initial 
transporter were contacted via telephone regarding the discrepancy. The 
discrepancy has not been resolved at this time.''
    If a receiving facility submitted an image plus data manifest via 
API services, the receiving facility would follow the above discrepancy 
reporting procedures. If the receiving facility submitted the manifest 
near the 20-day reporting timeframe, at the time of manifest submission 
it would have to report both the discrepancy type and its attempts to 
reconcile the discrepancy. The description of the discrepancy and 
efforts to resolve the discrepancy would have to be included in the 
data file. Similarly, if a facility submitted the image plus data 
manifest from its dashboard using the ``Upload Paper Manifest'' option, 
then the facility would enter all manifest data from the image file, 
including the discrepancy description and attempts to resolve it, using 
the drop-down list described above. If the system prepared a draft 
Discrepancy Report, the system would instruct the receiving facility to 
add a description of the discrepancy to the report and its attempts to 
reconcile the discrepancy, if the facility had not documented such 
information in the data file, and instruct the facility to transmit the 
report to the relevant EPA Region or state.
    The e-Manifest system would leverage data for hybrid and fully 
electronic manifests to flag, monitor, and generate the Discrepancy 
Reports. A drop-down list may be used to describe efforts to reconcile 
a discrepancy. Regardless of the manifest submission type chosen for 
electronic manifests, a description of the discrepancy and attempts to 
reconcile it, and a copy of the manifest at issue would complete the 
Discrepancy Report, and the receiving facility would be prompted to 
transmit the report to the relevant EPA Regional Administrator or 
state.
    For reasons similar to those explained above for electronic 
exception reporting, EPA believes allowing electronic discrepancy 
reporting serves to increase use and value of the e-Manifest system 
while reducing costs related to collecting and processing paper-based 
Discrepancy Reports, which may necessitate a distinct or additional fee 
premium to recover such costs. While the manifest containing the 
significant discrepancy comprises most of the Discrepancy Report and is 
already captured in the system, other aspects of the Discrepancy Report 
are not, and would require the PPC to process the data from paper 
Discrepancy Reports and enter them into the e-Manifest system. Thus, 
manual processing of these written reports would require additional 
time and perhaps some separate, distinct fee to recover the processing 
costs. EPA prefers not to allocate its existing or future resources to 
process any paper documents other than paper manifests and believes the 
proposed option is the best approach. EPA requests comment on its 
proposed approach to adopt electronic Discrepancy Reports for fully 
electronic and hybrid manifests, as described above.
    EPA notes that although it is not impossible to implement 
electronic discrepancy reporting for manifests that do not originate in 
the e-Manifest system, implementation of our proposal may be 
challenging given that data quality issues may delay the loading of 
image files and the data contained in them into the e-Manifest system. 
After image-only files are received by EPA, the PPC requires time to 
process them. The PPC may also need additional time to process image 
files that were submitted with the corresponding data via API services 
or the ``Upload Paper Manifest'' option. Consequently, if data from 
these manifests are not keyed into the e-Manifest system before the 
discrepancy timeframe is reached, the system could not monitor, flag, 
or alert receiving facilities of a manifest discrepancy, nor could it 
generate a Discrepancy Report. Additionally, with image only and data 
plus image submissions, a receiving facility will have up to 30 days 
from delivery to submit its final copy to EPA. To leverage the e-
Manifest system to assist the receiving facility with discrepancy 
monitoring, alert the receiving facility of the 20-day discrepancy 
timeframe, and generate a Discrepancy Report, a receiving facility 
would need to submit the final manifest several days prior to the 20-
day discrepancy timeframe, which may not always be practicable. If the 
manifests are not loaded in the system before the 20-day timeframe and/
or the system cannot generate a Discrepancy Report, then a receiving 
facility would be required to submit a written report to the EPA or 
state. For these reasons, EPA can see how electronic reporting of 
Discrepancy Reports may be better suited for manifests that originated 
in the e-Manifest system. Therefore, EPA requests comment on whether 
there should be a limit on our discrepancy reporting proposal to 
manifests that originated electronically (i.e., fully electronic or 
hybrid) in the e-Manifest system. EPA also requests comment on other 
approaches that should be considered for electronic discrepancy 
reporting associated with digital copies of paper manifests.
    Finally, EPA is considering an alternate approach that would 
eliminate the requirement for Discrepancy Reports altogether, and 
instead, address discrepancy events through the e-Manifest corrections 
process. Under this approach, receiving facilities or EPA's PPC would 
upload/enter discrepancies identified under Item 18. Generators who had 
e-Manifest system access would receive email alerts regarding Item 18 
discrepancies, review the final manifest in e-Manifest, and submit 
post-receipt manifest corrections. Thus, disagreements would be worked 
out by handlers via the current corrections process. In lieu of a 
formal Discrepancy Report to federal or state regulators, the e-
Manifest system would make available, as it does currently, all 
manifest corrections to regulators. In addition, the system would 
produce a report for regulators highlighting Item 18 discrepancies not 
corrected by the generator within a certain timeframe (e.g., 15 days). 
EPA requests comment on this alternate approach to discontinue separate 
Discrepancy Reports, and instead rely on the e-Manifest corrections 
process. EPA also

[[Page 19306]]

requests comments on whether this approach to eliminate Discrepancy 
Reports would require the Agency to also adopt a requirement that all 
generators register for access to e-Manifest so as to ensure generators 
have a means to resolve discrepancies in the system. Additionally, this 
approach would not require receiving facilities to submit a letter to 
regulators describing the discrepancy and attempts to reconcile it and, 
instead, would rely on regulators reviewing system reports and 
following up with receiving facilities as desired.
3. Unmanifested Waste Reporting
    As mentioned previously, the Advisory Board made recommendations 
for improving electronic manifest adoption by manifest users. Besides 
the Board's recommendations to integrate Discrepancy and Exception 
Reports into the e-Manifest system, the Board recommended EPA also 
integrate Unmanifested Waste Reports into the e-Manifest system. EPA 
agrees with the Board's recommendation. The Discrepancy, Exception, and 
Unmanifested Waste Reports generally serve similar purposes and are all 
required when specific, unresolved problems or irregularities occur to 
waste shipments that are subject to manifesting. However, electronic 
reporting in the e-Manifest system for unmanifested waste shipment 
presents unique implementation issues that do not arise with the other 
reports.
    Unlike manifested shipments that require Discrepancy or Exception 
Reports, there is no existing manifest in the system when an 
unmanifested report is required. The system can readily accommodate 
electronic Discrepancy and Exception Reports, if finalized, because 
existing manifest data captured in the e-Manifest system can support 
flagging, tracking, and follow-up actions related to exception and 
discrepancy events. This is not the case with unmanifested waste 
shipments, because manifest data for unmanifested shipments do not 
exist in the system. Therefore, information for the unmanifested waste 
shipment would need to be incorporated into e-Manifest, requiring 
administrative costs and requiring user fees to recover those costs.
3.1. What is EPA proposing for Unmanifested Waste Reports?
    EPA is proposing to accept only electronic submissions of 
Unmanifested Waste Reports to the system by the receiving facility. EPA 
would not accept Unmanifested Waste Reports through a written, hard 
copy report. EPA would revise the reporting content specified in 
Sec. Sec.  264.76 and 265.76 for hazardous waste and Sec.  761.216 for 
PCB wastes. These revisions would require an electronic reporting 
format that would be very similar to the current electronic form for 
manifests, except that the receiving facility would not be expected to 
complete all the fields currently required on the manifest. For the 
electronic Unmanifested Waste Report, a receiving facility would be 
expected to provide information similar to the generator information 
currently required on manifests (i.e., Items 1, 5, and 10 thru 13), if 
available; the transporter information (i.e., Items 6 and 7 (if 
available)); and the receiving facility information (i.e., Items 8 and 
19) in the e-Manifest system. In addition, a receiving facility would 
be required to provide the density or specific gravity information for 
a waste, if it is reporting volumetric measures (gallons, liters, or 
cubic yards). Finally, the receiving facility would be expected to 
provide a brief explanation of why the waste was unmanifested, if 
known.
    Receiving facilities would not be expected to obtain generator 
signatures (Item 15 of the manifest) or transporter signatures (Item 17 
of the manifest), nor would they be expected to provide the DOT 
shipping description of the waste, which would normally appear in Items 
9a and 9b (i.e., the identification number, the proper shipping name, 
the hazard class or division number, and the packing group). Upon 
completion of the electronic Unmanifested Waste Report, the e-Manifest 
system would distribute the electronic report to the EPA Regional 
Administrator (or authorized state). Thus, submission of written 
reports to federal or state regulatory agencies would no longer be 
required.
    Since receiving facilities should already have access to the e-
Manifest system to submit manifests and pay fees, they would readily be 
able to submit Unmanifested Waste Reports to the system. Notably, 
generators would not need to participate in these report submissions, 
so their lack of electronic access is not as important as with today's 
proposed changes to exceptions. However, such generators could still 
receive a system-generated email as described in section IV.C.3 of this 
preamble alerting them of their unmanifested hazardous waste shipment. 
At that time, the generators would be asked to register and obtain a 
RCRAInfo account for e-Manifest system access.
    Unlike electronic discrepancy and exception reporting, EPA proposes 
to impose a user fee, equivalent to the user fees for electronic 
manifests, on receiving facilities for each submission of an 
Unmanifested Waste Report. Specifically, EPA is proposing to modify 
Sec. Sec.  264.76, 265.76, and 761.216 by adding new paragraph (b) to 
assess a user fee on a per Unmanifested Waste Report basis for the 
submission of each electronic Unmanifested Waste Report that is 
electronically signed and submitted to the e-Manifest system by 
receiving facilities. The fee would be assessed at the applicable rate 
for electronic manifest submissions. Under this proposed option, 
unmanifested waste reports would be collected electronically in the 
system and thus share marginal costs like those for electronic 
manifests. Additionally, the Agency notes that unmanifested waste 
shipments would have incurred a user fee had the shipment used a 
manifest in compliance with the RCRA regulations and thus imposing a 
user fee for unmanifested wastes would not impose any new burden. 
Receiving facilities' monthly invoices would reflect both manifest and 
unmanifested waste reporting activities for the prior month's 
activities. EPA requests comment on its proposed approach to integrate 
Unmanifested Waste Reports into the e-Manifest system and charge the 
electronic manifest fee rate for these submissions. EPA also requests 
comment on whether a separate, distinct user fee should be imposed for 
these reports.

C. What other regulatory changes is EPA addressing in today's this 
action?

    This action proposes changes or regulatory amendments to the 
manifest requirements under 40 CFR parts 262, 264, 265, and 761. First, 
this section details technical corrections and conforming changes to 
certain RCRA and TSCA PCB regulations under 40 CFR parts 262, 264, 265, 
and 761. These corrections and conforming changes are necessary to 
remove obsolete requirements, correct typographical errors, and/or 
improve alignment with the e-Manifest program. The proposed changes to 
the TSCA PCB regulations are discussed in greater detail below in 
preamble section IV.C.1. Conforming changes and technical corrections 
to the RCRA regulations are discussed in greater detail below in 
Section IV.C.2.
    Second, this action considers certain aspects of the e-Manifest 
Advisory Board's recommendations about final paper manifest copies 
returned to generators who do not have access to view copies of 
completed manifests in the system. Specifically, this section proposes 
and solicits public comment on adding an email address field to Item

[[Page 19307]]

5 of the generator block of the paper manifest so that the e-Manifest 
system can email copies of completed paper manifests to the generator's 
email address recorded in that field in lieu of receiving facilities 
having to mail copies to the generators' postal mail address. Under the 
proposal, the e-Manifest system would also send notifications to 
unregistered generators via the email address requesting that they 
register and obtain an account in e-Manifest for their site. This 
section also requests comment on mandating that generators register and 
obtain e-Manifest accounts for access to the e-Manifest system to view 
their copies of completed manifests. Detailed discussions about the 
addition of the generator's email address to the manifest form and 
generator access to final copies of manifests stored in the system are 
discussed under preamble section IV.C.3.
    Third, this action requests additional comment on proposals 
detailed in the February 2019 Federal Register ICR renewal notice 
regarding modification of the manifest form and instructions to improve 
the accuracy and precision of waste data reported in the manifest 
fields at Items 11 (Total Quantity) and 12 (Units of Measure) of the 
manifest. These proposed form changes would facilitate receiving 
facilities leveraging the e-Manifest system to populate the 
corresponding fields of the Waste Received from Off-site (WR) Form as 
part of the biennial report.
    Finally, this action considers a conceptual approach for e-Manifest 
integration with the biennial report and requests comment on it. The 
conceptual approach discussion detailed below considers public comments 
on the February 2019 Federal Register ICR notice dated February 8, 2019 
(84 FR 2854) regarding data accuracy and precision as well as the 
addition of certain BR data fields (e.g., form codes) of the WR Form to 
the manifest form. The e-Manifest Advisory Board also recommended that 
EPA integrate the e-Manifest system with the BR. Detailed discussions 
about the accuracy and precision of data reported in Items 11 and 12 of 
the manifest as well as EPA's conceptual approach for BR integration 
are discussed under preamble section IV.C.4.
1. What is EPA proposing for the TSCA PCB regulations?
    The PCB regulations at 40 CFR part 761 subpart K require the use of 
the manifest, EPA Form 8700-22. EPA is proposing several conforming 
changes to the TSCA PCB regulations at 40 CFR part 761 to clarify the 
ability to use electronic manifests and the e-Manifest system to 
fulfill waste tracking and recordkeeping requirements. EPA is proposing 
to clarify the regulatory text to make it clear that electronic 
manifests, when used in accordance with 40 CFR part 262 subpart B and 
the PCB regulations, are legally equivalent to paper manifests. The 
proposed changes to Exception, Discrepancy, and Unmanifested Waste 
Reporting outlined in Section B would also apply to the PCB 
regulations.
    First, EPA is proposing to add the Hazardous Waste Electronic 
Manifest Establishment Act to the Authority section for 40 CFR part 
761. The e-Manifest Act was signed into law in 2012 and authorizes the 
EPA to implement a national electronic manifest system and requires 
that the costs of developing and operating the new e-Manifest system be 
recovered from user fees charged to those who use hazardous waste 
manifests to track off-site shipments of their wastes. Through the 
Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, EPA became 
responsible for developing an electronic manifest system and publishing 
regulations to allow for the use of electronic manifests. The e-
Manifest Act and current manifest regulations have always applied to 
all hazardous waste manifests as well as manifests for PCB waste, but 
the PCB regulations had not been updated to reflect this. EPA is 
proposing this conforming change in the regulation as a clarification 
that the e-Manifest Act applies to manifests for PCB waste.
    Second, EPA is proposing to add a definition for ``electronic 
manifest'' to Sec.  761.3. The proposed definition is similar to the 
existing definition of ``manifest.'' In addition to being used in 
accordance with the instructions included with the manifest form and 
Subpart K, the electronic manifest must also be used in a manner that 
complies with Sec. Sec.  262.20, 262.24, and 262.25. Establishing a 
definition for electronic manifest is consistent with the structure of 
the PCB regulations and allows for more streamlined regulatory text in 
Subpart K.
    Third, EPA is proposing to remove some phrases to clarify that 
electronic signatures are acceptable. EPA proposes to strike several 
instances of the words ``written,'' ``handwritten,'' and ``by hand'' 
from the PCB regulations at 40 CFR part 761 subpart K that could be 
interpreted to require the use of paper manifests. See revised language 
at Sec. Sec.  761.210(a)(1), 761.210(a)(2), 761.211(d)(1), 
761.211(e)(3), 761.211(f)(3)(i), 761.211(f)(4)(i), 761.213(a)(2), and 
761.217(a)(1).
    Fourth, EPA is proposing to add a brief overview of the electronic 
manifest requirements to Sec.  761.207. While the proposed revisions 
largely incorporate parts of Part 262 subpart B, EPA felt it would 
improve the clarity and readability of Part 761 subpart K to include 
two of the most directly applicable subsections, adapted for the PCB 
context. New Sec.  761.207(g) consists of two subparagraphs. The first 
subparagraph [Sec.  761.207(g)(1)] is adapted from Sec.  262.20(a)(3) 
and clarifies that any person required to prepare a manifest may use an 
electronic manifest as long as the electronic manifest complies with 
specific EPA requirements. The second subparagraph [Sec.  
761.207(g)(2)] is adapted from Sec.  262.24(a) and establishes the 
legal equivalence of electronic manifests to paper manifests. The 
proposed approach is in line with the other text of Subpart K.
    Fifth, in Sec.  761.209, EPA is proposing to clarify how the 
requirement to provide copies of the manifest to each of the regulated 
parties is fulfilled by EPA's e-Manifest system. The proposed language 
was adapted from Sec.  262.24(a)(2). The final sentence in proposed 
Sec.  761.209 incorporates the electronic manifest regulations at 
Sec. Sec.  262.20, 262.24, and 262.25.
    Sixth, EPA is proposing to add two new paragraphs in Sec.  761.213. 
The first paragraph [Sec.  761.213(d)] is adapted from Sec.  265.71(h) 
and clarifies that a commercial storage or disposal facility must 
follow certain manifest tracking procedures using paper manifests as 
replacements for the electronic manifest, if the electronic manifest 
becomes unavailable and cannot be completed. From the point at which 
the electronic manifest is no longer available for tracking the PCB 
shipment, the paper replacement manifest would be completed and managed 
just as it would be completed and managed with the standard paper 
manifest form.
    Second, EPA is proposing to add new paragraphs to Sec.  761.211 for 
transporters and Sec.  761.213 for commercial storage or disposal 
facilities to clarify that they must follow special manifest tracking 
procedures for manifests that are initiated electronically, but, for 
whatever reason, cannot be completed electronically. New paragraph (d) 
[Sec.  761.211] is adapted from Sec.  263.20(a)(6) of the transporter 
regulations, ``Special procedures when electronic manifest is not 
available.'' In such cases, the transporter in possession of the waste 
must reproduce sufficient copies of the paper copy that is carried on 
the transport vehicle (which copy becomes the ``replacement'' manifest)

[[Page 19308]]

and complete all further tracking requirements with the replacement 
manifest. This transporter should produce enough copies so that the 
transporter in possession of the waste and all subsequent handlers 
named on the manifest will be able to keep a paper copy for their 
records. The transporter must also produce two additional copies that 
will be delivered with the waste to the receiving facility.
    The new paragraph (d) [Sec.  761.213] is adapted from Sec.  
265.71(h), of the designated facility regulations ``Special procedures 
applicable to replacement manifests.'' When the electronic manifest is 
not available, the designated facility must likewise sign the remaining 
printed copies at the time the waste shipment is ultimately delivered 
to the designated facility. Upon signing the remaining copies to 
acknowledge the receipt of the waste (or to note discrepancies), the 
designated facility must provide one copy to the delivering 
transporter, must keep one copy for its records, and must, within 30 
days of receipt of the waste, send one copy to the generator and submit 
an additional copy to the e-Manifest system for data processing.
    Finally, EPA is proposing to add text in Sec.  761.180(b)(3) to 
allow for the future use of an approved electronic system, such as the 
RCRAInfo industry application, for the submission of Forms 7710-53 and 
6200-025, Certificates of Disposal, and One-year Exception Reports. 
Form 7710-53, the Notification of PCB Activity form, as described in 
Sec.  761.205, is required for all commercial storers, transporters, 
and disposers of PCB waste and generators with PCB waste subject to the 
waste storage requirements of Sec.  761.65(b) or (c)(7). Form 6200-025 
is required by Sec.  761.180(b)(3) for submission of annual reports by 
commercial storers and disposers of PCB waste. Certificates of 
disposal, as described in Sec.  761.218, are required to be sent by the 
disposer to the generator for every shipment of waste disposed. The 
certificate of disposal serves as confirmation to the generator that 
their waste was disposed of within the one-year time frame required by 
Sec.  761.65(a) and uses information required by the manifest under 
Sec.  761.218(a)(1)-(2). One-year Exception Reports, as described in 
Sec.  761.219, flag waste shipments that were not disposed of within 
the one-year time frame required by Sec.  761.65(a). EPA is proposing 
to allow the submission of these documents in the future through an 
EPA-approved electronic system, such as the RCRAInfo Industry 
Application. This change would not add burden to any regulated parties 
and, in fact, would serve to reduce burden, as it would simply provide 
an electronic method of submitting information already required by the 
PCB regulations.
2. What technical corrections and other regulatory amendments is EPA 
proposing under today's action?
    With today's action, EPA is revising certain regulatory 
requirements that will be obsolete before promulgation of this rule, 
are now obsolete, or have typographical errors in them. Specifically, 
EPA is removing paragraph (a)(2)(v)(A) and revising paragraph 
(a)(2)(v)(B) of 40 CFR 264.71 and 265.71. EPA is also revising the 
definition of ``Paper manifest submissions'' of 40 CFR 264.1310 and 
265.1310 and the ``Manifest transactions subject to fees'' regulations 
of 40 CFR 264.1311 and 265.1311. Beginning June 30, 2021, EPA will no 
longer accept paper manifest submissions to the PPC via postal mail and 
will remove the current PPC mailing address from our e-Manifest web 
page (www.epa.gov/e-manifest) prior to that sunset date to avoid 
receipt of paper manifests at that time. Therefore, these regulatory 
amendments are necessary to reflect the forthcoming ban on postal mail 
submissions for paper manifests.
    EPA is also revising Sec.  262.20 by removing paragraph (a)(2) from 
that section. This current regulation is obsolete as it provides the 
delayed compliance date for use of the old 6-copy manifest form and 
continuation sheet. EPA standardized the manifest forms in the March 
2005 final rule and delayed requiring use of them until September 6, 
2005 (70 FR 10815, Mar. 4, 2005).
    EPA is revising minor typographical misspelling errors found in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec. Sec.  264.1312 and 265.1312. These 
sections provide the user fee calculation methodology for determining 
the fees that receiving facilities are assessed based on their usage of 
manifests in the system. Existing paragraph (a) contains a 
typographical misspelling error in the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) 
Cost formula. Existing paragraph (b) contains typographical misspelling 
errors in both the O&M Cost formulas for fully electronic manifest 
usage and all other manifest usage. Specifically, ``e-Manifest'' is 
misspelled as ``eManfiest'' in the O&M Cost formula in paragraphs (a) 
of Parts 264 and 265 and is also similarly misspelled in both the 
O&M<INF>fully electronic</INF>Cost and O&M<INF>all other</INF>Cost 
formulas in paragraphs (b) of Parts 264 and 265.
    EPA is also revising a typographical error found in paragraph (e) 
of Sec.  761.60. Paragraph (e) accurately refers to ``an incinerator 
approved under Sec.  761.70 or a high-efficiency boiler operating in 
compliance with Sec.  761.71'' twice in the first sentence. However, 
the fifth sentence uses incorrect citations in a similar reference to 
``a Sec.  761.60 incinerator or a Sec.  761.61 high-efficiency 
boiler.'' EPA is proposing to correct the regulatory citations in the 
fifth sentence to read ``a Sec.  761.70 incinerator or a Sec.  761.71 
high efficiency boiler.''
3. What is EPA proposing regarding generator access to final copies of 
manifest?
    During the June 2019 Advisory Board meeting, the Advisory Board 
addressed several issues limiting generator's use of fully electronic 
manifests in the e-Manifest system. One issue addressed by the Board 
and reaffirmed by one public commenter was generators' inability or 
reluctance to register in the e-Manifest system so that they have 
access to fully electronic manifest tracking. In addition, the public 
commenter asserted that the low number of generators registered in the 
e-Manifest system has caused continued burden to receiving facilities, 
because they must continue to mail paper manifest copies to generators 
who do not have access to view their manifests in the system. Thus, 
receiving facilities continue to incur the cost of mailing paper 
manifest copies to generators, in addition to submitting copies to 
EPA's e-Manifest system. The commenter suggested that this burden could 
be eliminated, if (1) EPA mandated generators to register for access to 
the e-Manifest system, and (2) the Agency designed the system to 
generate automated email that could notify generators that their 
completed manifests are available for viewing. The Board agreed 
automated email notifications could eliminate the need of receiving 
facilities to mail paper copies of manifests to generators and could 
incentivize generators to register in the e-Manifest system for access 
to initiate fully electronic manifests or to view uploaded images of 
their paper manifests if they continue to track their shipments using 
paper. The Board also recommended EPA mandate generator registration. 
The Board reaffirmed this position in its recommendations following the 
April 2020 Board meeting.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA's background paper and related supporting materials, 
Final e-Manifest Advisory Report/Meeting Minutes for the April 2020 
FAC meeting (i.e., the Board's recommendations), and EPA's responses 
to them are available in the public docket (www.regulations.gov, 
Docket no. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0075).

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

[[Page 19309]]

    EPA acknowledges that generators' reluctance or inability to adopt 
fully electronic manifests or register in the system for access to 
uploaded images has burdened receiving facilities by requiring them to 
physically mail manifest copies to generators who do not have access to 
the e-Manifest system. However, as explained in the e-Manifest One Year 
Rule, the e-Manifest Act did not mandate generators and other waste 
handlers to use electronic manifests in the e-Manifest system. 
Therefore, waste handlers may elect not to track their shipments 
electronically (i.e., continue to use paper manifests). Consequently, 
EPA deliberately undertook a phased approach to e-Manifest system 
implementation so that the Agency could accomplish the Act's objectives 
to both allow the continued use of paper manifests, while still 
facilitating the adoption of electronic manifesting. For example, EPA 
established a methodology to tailor user fees based on how manifests 
are submitted to EPA, with electronic manifests incurring the lowest 
user fees. EPA also included in the User Fee Final rule a phase-out by 
June 30, 2021, of mailed paper manifest submissions by receiving 
facilities. EPA also explained in the User Fee Final Rule, its goal to 
phase out all paper manifest use after five years, but a decision to do 
this will await a fuller evaluation of manifest use trends in several 
years, and possible consultation with the e-Manifest Advisory Board on 
appropriate steps to facilitate more electronic manifest use.
    While EPA continues to explore ways to improve waste handler 
adoption of e-Manifest, the Agency is proposing an alternative solution 
to the public commenter's and Board's recommendation. EPA accepts the 
Advisory Board's recommendation to enhance ability of generators to 
receive final manifest copies from the e-Manifest system, rather than 
from receiving facilities. EPA also accepts the Board's recommendation 
to add space on the manifest form to collect the generator's email 
address and therefore is proposing to add space in Block 5 of the 
manifest (i.e., the Generator's Name and Mailing Address block) and 
require generators to provide an email address in that space. 
Collecting generators' email addresses on the manifest form would, in 
turn, allow the e-Manifest system to generate email providing final 
copies of the manifest to generators, regardless of whether the 
generator is ultimately registered in e-Manifest. To ensure that the 
automated email is not undelivered or left unnoticed or unopened, EPA 
proposes to require the generator to enter an email address associated 
with the company site and shared with site employees who are directly, 
or indirectly, involved with arranging the waste shipment for off-site 
transportation, or who have day-to-day responsibilities of the site's 
operations.
    For generators who track their wastes using a paper manifest or a 
hybrid manifest but are not registered in the system, an automated 
email would alert generators that their manifests have been completed 
and are available in the system for viewing. In addition, the automated 
email would alert generators about return manifests from receivers that 
are late (Exceptions), and when materials received by the facility 
designated on the manifest do not match with the quantities or types of 
materials indicated as being shipped by generators (Discrepancies). 
Specifically, the email would ask a generator to verify the email 
addresses recorded on the paper manifest before providing them the 
site's manifest activity tracked in the system. Following email 
verification, the system would transmit digital copies of a generator's 
manifests via the verified email address. The email would also provide 
a link to EPA's e-Manifest user registration web page and encourage the 
generator to register at least two Site Managers in RCRAInfo to access 
their manifests in the e-Manifest system (EPA recommends each site 
register two Site Managers so a back-up Site Manager is available). For 
manifests containing wastes that are also listed by the Department of 
Homeland Security as ``chemicals of interest,'' the generators will 
only be sent a notification that the manifest was uploaded and will 
need to register to see the manifests. EPA notes that once a generator 
registers in e-Manifest, the site would receive a notification email 
regarding the recent manifest activity tracked in the system on a 
weekly basis. Under this proposed approach, receiving facilities would 
no longer be required to mail paper copies of manifests to generators, 
even if those generators did not yet have e-Manifest access to view 
their final manifests. Thus, receiving facilities would not incur the 
cost of mailing paper manifest copies to generators. Therefore, today's 
proposed rule revises 40 CFR 264.71(a)(2)(iv) and 264.71(b)(4), and 
265.71(a)(2)(iv) and 265.71(b)(4) by removing the existing requirement 
that receiving facilities mail paper manifests to the generators and 
clarifying that they submit the top copies (Page 1) to the e-Manifest 
system only.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to revise the current 5-copy form to 
conform with the proposed distribution requirement. Currently, the 
manifest form printing specification and the distribution notation at 
the bottom of the second copy (Page 2) of the five-copy set of forms 
require this copy be sent by the designated facility to the generator. 
Under today's proposal, this copy (Page 2) would no longer be needed 
and thus would be removed from the five-copy set of forms. This 
proposed rule creates a new four-copy form and eliminates the copy, 
previously denoted as ``Page 2: Designated facility to generator.'' The 
printing specification requirements at Sec.  262.21(f)(5), (6), and (7) 
are revised to align with the proposed four-copy form. Thus, the copies 
of the form would be distributed as follows:

    Page 1 (top copy): ``Designated facility to EPA's e-Manifest 
system'';
    Page 2: ``Designated facility copy'';
    Page 3: ``Transporter copy''; and,
    Page 4 (bottom copy): ``Generator's initial copy.''

    The submission of the top copy to the system by the receiving 
facilities will enable destination states and certain generators (i.e., 
generators who are registered and can access their final manifest in 
the system) to receive the manifest final copies from the e-Manifest 
system. EPA reiterates that, under this proposal, generators who are 
not registered (and thus cannot access their final manifest in the 
system) for the e-Manifest system would receive their manifest final 
copies via email. EPA requests comment on its proposed approach.
    EPA also requests comment on whether the Agency should eliminate 
the designated facility copy (Page 3) from the five-copy form. Under 
existing federal manifest regulations, all manifest users can use e-
Manifest to meet their recordkeeping requirements with respect to the 
image file copy of the final manifest and can also discard any 
corresponding paper copy of the manifest, once the image file of the 
final manifest is available in their account. Thus, designated 
facilities currently retain Page 3 of the mailed paper manifest for 
their records but discard it once the corresponding top copy of the 
completed manifest is available in the system. However, as of June 30, 
2021, a designated facility can only submit a paper manifest via an 
image file of Page 1 of the manifest, and any continuation sheet, or 
both a data file and the image file corresponding to Page 1 of the

[[Page 19310]]

manifest, and any continuation sheet, to the e-Manifest system. (As 
mentioned above in Section IV.C.2 of this preamble, this action makes 
regulatory amendments to 40 CFR 264.71 and 265.71 to reflect the ban on 
postal mail submissions for paper manifests beginning on June 30, 
2021.) In view of the fact that submission of paper manifests to the e-
Manifest system via postal mail are no longer permissible and thus 
options available to receiving facilities for submission of paper 
manifests are limited to either a scanned image upload or a data plus 
image upload, EPA believes Page 3 of the existing manifest forms could 
no longer be needed and thus, the copies of the form could be 
distributed as follows:

    Page 1 (top copy): ``Designated facility to EPA's e-Manifest 
system'';
    Page 2: ``Transporter facility copy'' and;
    Page 3: (bottom copy): ``Generator's initial copy''

    EPA requests comment on removing Page 3 (Designated facility copy) 
from the manifest form and continuation sheet.
    EPA recognizes some generators may not have email addresses 
associated with the company site and thus use personal email addresses 
for their businesses. EPA requests comment on whether such sites should 
record their site manager's or site contact's email address in the 
proposed email entry field since site managers and site contacts should 
be familiar with the general circumstances of a waste shipment and the 
accompanying manifest. Thus, the site manager or site contact would be 
available to respond promptly to EPA's or the relevant state regulating 
Agency's requests regarding the manifest. EPA also requests comment on 
the cost savings to receiving facilities under this approach since they 
would no longer be expected to mail hardcopies of manifests to 
unregistered generators. In addition, EPA requests comment on whether 
notification emails should be sent to unregistered generators on a 
periodic basis, e.g., should the notification email be sent daily, 
weekly, or bi-weekly?
    EPA also acknowledges there may be internet connectivity problems 
in some regional areas of the U.S. that may cause difficulty for 
generators to receive the signed and dated manifests via email. 
Further, some generators may not have email accounts to receive the 
completed manifests. EPA, however, believes the universe of such 
generators is very small and thus, if generators have unreliable 
internet connection or do not have emails, these generators should make 
arrangements with their receiving facilities to supply them with paper 
copies of completed manifests. EPA requests comment on this approach.
    In addition, EPA acknowledges today's proposal regarding 
unregistered generators receiving digital copies of completed manifests 
from the e-Manifest system rather than receiving paper copies from the 
receiving facilities via postal mail may not incentivize such 
generators to register in the e-Manifest system for electronic manifest 
use. Therefore, EPA requests comment on an alternative option to 
mandate that generators register for access to the e-Manifest system. 
Specifically, each generator site would be required to register at 
least one Site Manager in RCRAInfo for e-Manifest system access (EPA 
recommends each site register at least two Site Managers). At the time 
of registration, the user would be required to provide a company email 
address associated with the company site and shared with site employees 
who are directly, or indirectly, involved with arranging the waste 
shipment for off-site transportation, or who have day-to-day 
responsibilities for the site's operations. This option would require 
EPA or the states to register the initial Site Manager for a generator 
site, as is done currently. Once a Site Manager is registered and 
approved, however, that individual would be responsible for the user 
registration of future e-Manifest system users at the company site. 
Under this approach, EPA would not need to collect generator email 
addresses on the manifest form. In addition, EPA would not email 
digital copies of manifests to generators as they would be expected to 
access their accounts to view their manifests. EPA, however, would send 
notification email to generators regarding their sites' recent manifest 
activity tracked in the system. Finally, under this alternate approach, 
as with the proposed approach, receiving facilities would not be 
required to mail hardcopies of manifests to generators as all 
generators would be required to register in the system and have access 
to their manifests.
4. What is EPA proposing or requesting comment on regarding the 
Manifest Form and Biennial Report Integration with the e-Manifest?
4.1 Background
    EPA explained in the February 8, 2019, Federal Register notice to 
renew the Information Collection Request for the manifest form (EPA 
form 8700-22/22A) that the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest 
Establishment Act mandates that EPA build the e-Manifest system to 
provide users the ability to report hazardous waste receipt data 
applicable to the biennial hazardous waste report in e-Manifest (See 84 
FR 2854 at 2857). Besides recommending that EPA integrate manifested-
related reports with the e-Manifest system, as discussed in section 
IV.B of today's notice, the e-Manifest Advisory Board also recommended 
that EPA focus its efforts to integrate the e-Manifest system with the 
Biennial Report (also known as BR or the Hazardous Waste Report). The 
Board believes such integration would encourage users to transition to 
fully electronic or hybrid manifests, thereby increasing the value of 
the e-Manifest system and perhaps reducing regulatory recordkeeping and 
reporting burden of the BR program. The BR is a set of forms (EPA form 
8700-13) and instructions for sites to report to EPA and states about 
their hazardous waste generation, management and final disposition. 
Specifically, certain sites must submit a report covering each odd-
numbered year (called the ``collection year'' or ``reporting year'') by 
March 1 of every even-numbered year (``submission year''). The report 
may be submitted by paper or electronically to the state or EPA Region. 
Electronic submissions can be made using the Biennial Report Module in 
the RCRAInfo Industry Application or the state's own choice of BR 
software.
    Sites must submit a BR if they meet its applicability requirements. 
In general, sites must submit if they meet the definition of a large 
quantity generator during the collection year or if they treated, 
stored, recycled or disposed of RCRA hazardous wastes on-site or 
shipped hazardous waste offsite to a RCRA permitted treatment, storage, 
recycling, and disposal facility, or received hazardous wastes from 
off-site hazardous waste generators without storing the wastes before 
recycling during the reporting year. Sites that do not meet these 
criteria are not required to file a report under the federal 
regulations, e.g., under the federal program, most small and very small 
quantity generators do not need to file a biennial report. However, 
state regulations may be more stringent, for example, in requiring more 
sites to report or more frequent reporting, e.g., on an annual basis.
    The BR consists of a number of forms: the RCRA Subtitle C Site 
Identification Form (Site ID Form), completed by all reporting sites; 
the Waste Generation and Management Form (GM Form), completed by 
generators; the Waste Received from Off-site Form (WR Form), completed 
by facilities that received hazardous waste shipments from off-site

[[Page 19311]]

and managed the waste onsite (including subsequent transfer off-site) 
during the reporting year; and the Off-site Identification Form(s) (OI 
Forms), completed by sites that received hazardous waste from off-site 
or sent hazardous waste off-site during the reporting year; however, 
the OI Form is completed only if required by the state.
    In the February 8, 2019, notice, EPA noted that the manifest and BR 
forms collect several of the same data elements. For example, a WR Form 
is divided into three identical parts (i.e., waste blocks), labeled 
Waste 1, Waste 2, and Waste 3 that collect information on the 
quantities, characteristics, and management of each hazardous waste. A 
waste block has ten fields to capture this information. EPA compared 
the WR Form's waste block to the manifest and concluded that the 
manifest collects most of the waste block's data. The three fields of a 
waste block not addressed by the manifest are the waste description 
(Item A in a waste block of the WR Form), form code (Item E in a waste 
block of the WR Form) and waste density (Item G in a waste block of the 
WR Form). Form codes describe the general physical and chemical 
characteristics of a hazardous waste and, although the manifest 
captures waste quantity, waste density is not mandatory for wastes 
whose quantity is reported by volume.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For some wastes, the manifest also does not capture all 
applicable federal or state waste codes. Instructions indicate that 
up to six federal and state waste codes must be entered to describe 
each waste. Some wastes carry more than six waste codes. However, 
for biennial reporting, TSDFs must report all waste codes that apply 
to the waste reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GM Form collects information on the quantities and 
characteristics of hazardous waste generated on-site and shipped off-
site. The GM Form is divided primarily into three blocks labeled: (1) 
Waste Characteristics, (2) On-site Generation and Management of 
Hazardous Waste, and (3) Off-site Shipment of Hazardous Waste. EPA 
compared the GM Form's information to the manifest and concluded the 
manifest contains all the data required for Item B of the Off-site 
Shipment of Hazardous waste block of the GM Form (i.e., EPA ID Number 
of TSDF, off-site management method code, and total quantities of waste 
shipped) and some of the data elements captured in the Waste 
Characteristics (WC) Block. The manifest does not address the three 
data fields required for the WC Block as described above for the WR 
Form [waste description (Item A in a WC block of the GM Form), form 
code (Item E in a WC block of the GM Form) and waste density (Item H in 
a WC block of the GM Form)]; nor does it capture the source code (Item 
D in a WC block of the GM Form), management method code for a source 
code G25 (Item D in a WC block of the GM Form), foreign country code 
for source code G62 (Item D in a WC block of the GM Form), waste 
minimization code (Item F in a WC block of the GM Form), and the 
radioactive mix field (Item G in a WC block of the GM Form). Source 
codes describe the type of process or activity (i.e., source) from 
which a hazardous waste was generated. This code may also be useful to 
formulate the waste description of a waste for both the GM and WR 
Forms. In addition, the manifest does not address the BR data required 
for the On-site Generation and Management of Hazardous Waste block of 
the GM Form.
    To satisfy the objectives of the e-Manifest Act, EPA proposed and 
requested public comment to modify the paper manifest to include form 
codes and waste density as well as source codes which are collected on 
the GM Form (Item D of the GM Form). Comments on EPA's proposed form 
additions, as an initial step towards full integration of e-Manifest 
with BR, however, were mixed. While most commenters supported BR 
integration with the e-Manifest system, some commenters did not support 
adding the three new BR fields to the manifest form. These commenters 
asserted their companies would incur significant costs to re-program 
their IT systems for the proposed form revisions, and the FR notice did 
not provide adequate information regarding how BR integration would 
take place.
    One commenter asked where the new additions would be placed on the 
manifest form and how EPA would use the e-Manifest system to streamline 
BR requirements. Other commenters stated the proposed BR additions are 
insufficient and data gaps exist (e.g., density reported in lbs/gal or 
specific gravity (sg)) between the proposed additional fields and what 
is expected in a BR. Additionally, these commenters indicated other 
data elements expected in a BR do not match data currently collected on 
the manifest. For example, the waste description reported in BR does 
not match the DOT shipping description reported on the manifest, the 
quantities of waste reported on manifests are typically estimates and 
not the actual waste amounts, the units of measure reported on the 
manifest are different than those required for biennial reporting, and 
the restriction of the number of waste codes reported on the manifest 
is insufficient for BR. To populate the BR with manifest data, these 
inconsistencies would have to be reconciled. Most commenters opposed 
the proposal and suggested EPA develop a plan and schedule so that 
their companies could determine the burden reduction and cost savings 
for full integration of e-Manifest with BR. One state commenter who 
supported the proposal also acknowledged data gaps exist between the 
manifest and what is expected in a BR beyond the proposed collection of 
source codes, form codes, and density information. This commenter also 
reiterated the sentiments of other commenters regarding the 
incompatibility of the DOT descriptions recorded on the manifest and 
the waste descriptions reported for the BR. This commenter indicated 
that the DOT descriptions on manifests are not a good substitute for a 
waste description on a BR, because they are generally too generic and 
do not provide the detail needed for regulatory purposes under the RCRA 
hazardous waste program. This commenter also suggested these gaps and 
other data quality issues regarding manifest data collection must be 
addressed before manifest data can be utilized to populate biennial 
reporting.
    EPA acknowledges the proposed BR additions on the manifest are 
insufficient to fully integrate with BR and appreciates the commenters' 
suggestions. Regarding generators reporting estimates of waste 
quantities on the manifest instead of actual weights, EPA explained in 
the March 2005 Manifest Forms Revision rule, that the e-Manifest 
regulations have always required generators to enter actual quantities 
of waste shipped and not merely the capacity of the containers selected 
for shipment. At that time, EPA clarified this point by amending the 
manifest instructions to Item 11 of the form with additional language 
emphasizing the generators' responsibility to report quantities shipped 
and not simply container capacities (See 70 FR 10776 at 10819). 
Further, the March 2005 rule also explained that the manifest 
regulations have always placed the responsibility for verifying the 
actual quantities received on the designated facilities. These 
facilities are required to acknowledge that the quantities of wastes 
indicated as shipped were received, or otherwise report a significant 
discrepancy on the manifest if the quantities received do not closely 
match the generator's ``as shipped'' quantities. EPA, however, 
acknowledges that DOT allows shippers (e.g., generators) to enter 
either net weights or gross weights on shipping papers

[[Page 19312]]

depending on the mode of transportation (e.g., public highway 
transportation) for the shipment, and therefore some generators often 
record net or gross weights in Item 11 of the manifest. Thus, data 
entries recorded in this field are often inconsistent and consequently 
are not aligned with the reportable quantities reported for BR 
purposes.
    Regarding a commenter's claim about the inability to list all waste 
codes on the manifest for biennial reporting, EPA expanded Item 13 of 
the form so that up to six waste codes could be entered in that field 
as part of the standardization of the manifest form in the March 2005 
rule. EPA decided to limit the number of waste codes for a few reasons. 
EPA received comments stating that six waste codes normally would be 
more than adequate to describe hazardous wastes commonly shipped under 
the manifest. Second, at that time the Agency believed, and continues 
to believe, that requiring the listing of all waste codes on the 
manifest creates an unnecessary burden in completing the manifest 
without improving appreciably the quality of the hazardous waste data 
(See 70 FR 10776 at 10788). Finally, space on the manifest limits our 
ability to allocate additional space for this purpose. The recent 
addition of electronic manifests as an acceptable manifest type offers 
further flexibility. While space limitations on the paper manifest 
prevent the allocation of new waste codes on the paper manifest form, 
manifests in the e-Manifest system do not have this problem. Therefore, 
if a receiving facility believes the waste codes recorded on the paper 
manifest are insufficient, it can report an additional list of waste 
codes for each waste stream in the e-Manifest system along with its 
submission of a manifest hardcopy plus data upload or add them after-
the-fact as part of the corrections process.
    Regarding the commenter's assertion that the units of measure 
reported on the manifest are different than those required for the BR, 
EPA proposed in the February 8, 2019, Federal Register notice to 
improve the precision or accuracy of the waste data reported on the 
manifest by amending the current units of measure (i.e., use of 
decimals or fractions, or smaller units of measure) required to be 
reported in the ``Total Quantity'' field of the manifest (i.e., Item 11 
of the manifest and Item 29 of the continuation sheet) (See 84 FR 2584 
at 2855). EPA requested comment on the proposed changes but did not 
propose to reconcile them with the current units of measure required 
for biennial reporting. Therefore, in today's notice, EPA is requesting 
additional comment on whether the Agency should revise the manifest 
instructions to allow reporting of decimals or fractions in Item 11 of 
the manifest or smaller units of measure in Item 12 as detailed in the 
February 2019 notice. Additionally, EPA is requesting comment on 
whether EPA should also amend the units of measure currently required 
for biennial reporting so that they match those for manifests and thus 
would enable manifest data to be used for quantity reporting in the BR.
    Regarding one commenter's question about placement of the proposed 
additions on the form, EPA requested comment in the February 2019 
notice on whether EPA should expand Item 19 of the manifest to include 
source code, form code, and density information, or create separate new 
data fields for each. In addition, EPA mentioned in the notice that EPA 
could add a BR data field in Item 16 of the manifest (EPA Form 8700-22) 
if EPA removed the current International Shipment field to the 
continuation sheet.
4.2 Conceptual Approach
    Based on the public's comments on the February 2019 notice, as well 
as further examination of possible integration options, EPA has decided 
to move forward with early steps towards integrating the e-Manifest 
with biennial reporting, specifically with respect to the WR form. (EPA 
may consider integrating the e-Manifest with the GM Form at a later 
time.) Although EPA is still in the early stages of this integration 
effort, the Agency is presenting a conceptual approach in today's 
notice as an initial step toward encouraging greater conversation and 
collaboration with the public and ensuring their input is incorporated 
into our initial plans.
    EPA is taking public comment on the approach and the questions and 
challenges raised below in this preamble. After the close of the 
comment period, EPA will review the comments to identify areas of 
support, opposition, concerns, and suggestions; and determine the next 
steps. EPA will publish periodic updates on our work status and seek 
further opportunities for collaboration. In addition, EPA will consult 
with the e-Manifest Advisory Board on a final approach for BR 
integration.
    EPA believes a gradual process for developing the approach is 
appropriate given that the e-Manifest system is still relatively new 
and evolving, having begun operation in June 2018. As the system 
matures, some challenges could be abated through routine system 
upgrades and increased use of the electronic manifest, which is 
expected to result in better data quality than the paper form.
    The Hazardous Waste e-Manifest Establishment Act mandates that the 
system provide waste receipt data for the biennial reports that 
facilities must submit. EPA designed the system to serve as the 
facilities' primary data source for completing the WR form and were 
guided by the following additional considerations.
    (a) Data Quality. The manifest and WR Form have different purposes, 
uses and reporting procedures, which result in differences in their 
data. The manifest's primary purpose is to serve as a chain-of-custody 
document, ensuring that the shipment arrives at the designated facility 
intact. It provides essential information for emergency responders 
(e.g., in case of a spill) and waste handlers. It is initially prepared 
by the generator or another person acting on its behalf (e.g., broker, 
transporter, or designated facility). During transit, the manifest is 
transferred among waste handlers who take custody of the shipment. It 
is closed out by the designated facility and uploaded to the national 
system. After upload, the manifest remains largely untouched, except 
for corrections by the EPA PPC or persons involved in the shipment 
(i.e., post-receipt data corrections by the designated facility).
    The WR Form's primary purpose is for facilities to share 
information with the public about their waste receipts (e.g., waste 
characteristics, management). States may use the information for 
additional purposes. In addition, facilities maintain data systems 
about their wastes, which are used for a variety of purposes (e.g., 
customer accounts/billing, waste management, reporting). Facilities may 
continually update, edit, and correct their in-house data even after 
the manifest has been submitted to the national system.
    These and other differences between the manifest and WR Form lead 
to challenges that must be resolved in our integration approach. 
Examples of such challenges include the following:
    1. Data in e-Manifest may be out of sync with a facility's in-house 
data. As discussed later in this preamble, facilities continually 
update their in-house data when they find errors or obsolete data. For 
example, after a manifest is closed out and submitted to the national 
system, a facility may weigh or test the waste, which can result in 
information different from what is on the manifest (e.g., revised waste 
quantity or EPA waste codes).

[[Page 19313]]

Although EPA has established procedures for facilities to address 
discrepancies and corrections in the e-Manifest system, it is not clear 
that all facilities are conducting these procedures in all cases. If 
they fail to do so, this causes data in the e-Manifest system to be 
obsolete or incorrect. As such, the manifest data would need to be 
corrected before it can be used to populate the waste block of the WR 
Form. Otherwise, BR data quality and its usefulness to the public and 
regulators would be adversely impacted.
    2. Data in the manifest may have errors. Generators and others 
occasionally make errors (e.g., typographical mistakes, incorrect ID 
numbers) when completing the manifest form. If an error is unnoticed, 
the manifest may be uploaded to the national system without the error 
being resolved.
    3. The manifest is designed to describe a specific waste shipment 
and provide information to particular types of personnel (e.g., spill 
responders, waste handlers). Some of the manifest's information, such 
as the DOT shipping description, can require regulatory or other 
expertise to understand. On the other hand, the WR Form is designed to 
be readily understood by the general public. For example, the WR Form 
gives facilities discretion to consolidate and summarize multiple, 
similar waste receipts into a single WR Form. This enables facilities 
to provide a clear and understandable summary-level description of its 
annual waste receipts in comparison with the per-shipment data offered 
by the manifests.
    (b) Burden reduction and ease of use. EPA believes Congress's 
intent under the Act is for the Agency to develop an approach that 
minimizes burden and causes minimal disruption to facilities' and 
states' existing reporting practices and systems. This is consistent 
with the overall goal of the e-Manifest, i.e., to streamline facility 
reporting activities by leveraging electronic technology. Further, the 
Act states that facilities should have the ability to report e-Manifest 
data in the BR. This mandate suggests that Congress was contemplating 
an approach that streamlines reporting activities by eliminating 
redundancies between the manifest and WR Form.
    In designing the approach, EPA began with the premise that the most 
streamlined approach for facilities would be enabling the direct and 
seamless transfer of data from e-Manifest to the waste blocks of the WR 
Form. Because of the data quality challenges discussed above, however, 
a process of direct and seamless transfer may not be possible. It is 
evident that facilities would need to review, edit, and correct e-
Manifest data before it can be transferred to the WR Form.
    To this end, our conceptual approach would establish an 
intermediate step for the facility to perform these activities before 
transferring the data to the WR Form. EPA recognizes this step would 
impose some facility burden, some of which would be offset through 
automated assistance to facilities in completing the waste description 
field of the WR Form.
    (c) Transparency. Currently there is limited transparency in how 
facilities review, edit, correct, consolidate and report their waste 
receipts in the WR Form. Facility in-house data are not generally 
shared with regulators or the public; as such, it is difficult to 
confirm the accuracy and completeness of the reported data.
    In response to the February 8, 2019, notice, a state commenter 
asked for the ability to cross check data between the e-Manifest system 
and WR Form to verify the WR Form data. EPA agrees with this commenter 
on the importance of having e-Manifest data available as a cross-check 
tool. In addition, EPA believes regulators should be able to examine 
how the facility edited, corrected, consolidated, and otherwise 
modified the e-Manifest data in preparing the WR Form. These 
capabilities are provided in this approach.
    The approach involves three elements, as discussed below. EPA 
requests comment on the overall approach and any aspects of it. In 
addition, throughout the discussion, EPA raises questions about 
specific issues for public comments.
4.2.1 Manifest Form Changes
BR Codes
    In our February 2019 notice, EPA compared the data collected on the 
manifest and BR forms (i.e., GM Form and WR Form) and requested comment 
on whether BR source codes and form codes should be added to the 
manifest. Since then, EPA decided to defer integration of the e-
Manifest and GM Form and thus would defer adding source codes to the 
manifest. However, EPA has continued to evaluate form codes.
    This approach would be to add form codes to the DESIGNATED FACILITY 
field of the manifest, such as in Item 19. Item 19 has four boxes for 
entering a BR management method code for each waste described in Item 
9b. EPA could divide each box in two, allowing a form code and 
management method code for each waste. The designated facility would 
choose the code that best corresponds to the physical form or chemical 
composition of the waste.
    EPA believes that collecting form codes on each manifest could make 
it easier for TSDFs to complete the WR Form. The form code plays an 
important role in the completion of the WR Form for many facilities. 
The BR instructions require that a separate waste block of the WR Form 
be completed for each waste received from each off-site generator. 
However, as described in the BR Instructions, hazardous waste from the 
same off-site handler may be aggregated as long as a single form code 
describes the physical form or chemical composition and all of the 
waste is managed in a single process system (i.e., same management 
method code). In other words, multiple wastes may be aggregated in the 
same waste block of a WR Form as specified, reducing the overall number 
of WR Form blocks that must be completed and submitted. This is 
discussed further in Section IV.C.4.2.2 of this preamble.
    Under this approach, facilities would record form codes on every 
manifest. By contrast, a facility's BR is submitted every other year 
under the federal program. For example, a facility's 2017 BR submission 
describes activities that occurred in 2017 (odd-numbered years are 
``reporting years'' or ``collection years'') and was due by March 2018 
(even-numbered years are ``submission years''). The next reporting year 
under the federal program was 2019. Under this approach, form codes 
recorded on manifests in reporting years would be captured in the BR, 
but codes recorded in submission (non-reporting) years would not.
    EPA requests comment on whether form codes should be added to the 
manifest. Would facilities experience significant burden or 
inconvenience completing them? If they are added to the form, should 
receiving facilities be required to record them in both reporting and 
submission years or should the codes be required only in reporting 
years? In this latter option, manifests received by the receiving 
facility from January 1 through December 31 of each reporting year 
would require form codes. During submission years, form codes would be 
optional. Alternatively, EPA could make form codes completely optional 
and then only facilities that opt to use this approach described today 
would record them during the reporting year.
Waste Quantity
    Instructions to Item 11 of the manifest directs the generator to 
enter the total

[[Page 19314]]

quantity of waste. A generator may enter waste quantity based on actual 
measurements or reasonably accurate estimates of actual quantities 
shipped. Container capacities are not acceptable as estimates.
    Further, the DOT regulations allow shippers (e.g., generators) to 
enter either net weights or gross weights (i.e., gross weight is the 
weight of the waste and container) on shipping papers depending on the 
mode of transportation (e.g., public highway transportation) for the 
shipment. Therefore, some generators may record net or gross weights in 
Item 11.
    Although it has been routine for generators to record gross weights 
in Item 11 of the manifest and as a result some designated facilities 
submit the affected manifests to the e-Manifest system without 
correcting the inaccurate quantity amount, EPA is considering whether 
this is appropriate for purposes of manifest completion. For some 
wastes, the container is intended only as a device in which the waste 
is stored and transported before being emptied fully and used again. 
Such containers are not waste and should not be reflected in the 
reported weight.
    EPA is requesting comment on whether a clarification should be 
added to the manifest's instructions that designated facilities must 
report all waste quantities in Item 11 of the manifest by net weight. 
Should this clarification also be extended to generators when they 
complete the manifest form?
4.2.2 Integration of e-Manifest Data With Biennial Report Module in 
RCRAInfo Industry Application
    As mentioned earlier, the RCRAInfo Industry Application provides 
the mechanism by which a site may submit information to their state 
regulator. The application contains the following modules:
    <bullet> myRCRAid pertains to Site Identification submissions (EPA 
Form 8700-12)
    <bullet> Biennial Report pertains to BR submissions (EPA Form 8700-
13A/B)
    <bullet> e-Manifest pertains to manifest submissions (EPA Form 
8700-22/22A)
    For several reasons, EPA believes the RCRAInfo Industry Application 
is the appropriate mechanism for sharing e-Manifest data with receiving 
facilities for completion of WR Forms. As an initial point, a number of 
designated facilities are using both the Biennial Report and e-Manifest 
modules for their reporting responsibilities and are therefore already 
set up and familiar with their functions. For example, all receiving 
facilities are required to register with the e-Manifest system to 
receive and pay invoices. Further, EPA is encouraging BR users to 
prepare and submit reports electronically, such as via the Biennial 
Report module.\13\ More than 60% of receiving facilities are in states 
that allow registration with the module.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Biennial Report Module is optional. Regulators may 
choose to use it to collect BR data for sites in their state or may 
opt to use other software or mechanisms. For a site to submit their 
BR in the module, its state regulator must indicate that they will 
accept BR data from the module.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Biennial Report module would be a useful interface 
for users to review, sort and transfer manifest data from the e-
Manifest module for completion of WR Forms. Users obtain permission to 
use the Biennial Report module, and various types of permission are 
granted based on each person's role and level of responsibility over 
the report (e.g., preparer, certifier, site manager).\14\ Receiving 
facilities can select their desired form to complete (e.g., GM Form, WR 
Form), and the module offers various system tools and controls to 
assist users with completing them. For example, users have the option 
of reviewing tables of previously reported data to compare how their 
current waste quantities compare to previous cycles. They also have the 
option of retrieving and copying GM Form data from their most recent 
submission (excluding quantity) into their new GM Form submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Permission to use a module is granted on a module-by-module 
basis, except as otherwise specified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, under the approach described today, a receiving facility 
in the BR module would be given the option of accessing its manifest 
data from e-Manifest for completing its WR Forms. The information would 
be retrieved in a tabular format (called the ``e-Manifest Data Transfer 
Table''). The table would present all the wastes received by the 
receiving facility during the biennial reporting year. Each waste would 
be presented in a row of the table. The rows would be organized by off-
site shipper EPA ID number.
    For example, if a receiving facility received 20 manifests from 
Off-site Shipper 1 and 10 manifests from Off-Site Shipper 2 during the 
year and each manifest contained four wastes in Item 9b, the table 
would have 120 rows of wastes. The 80 rows of Off-Site Shipper 1 waste 
would be presented in the ``Off-Site Shipper 1 EPA ID #'' field of the 
table and the 40 rows of Off-Site Shipper 2 waste would be presented in 
the ``Off-Site Shipper 2 EPA ID #'' field.
    The table would have 11 columns of data about the wastes. Of these, 
nine would contain data needed to complete a waste block of the WR 
Form. This includes EPA hazardous waste codes, state hazardous waste 
codes, EPA ID number of the off-site shipper, form code, management 
method code, waste quantity, unit of measure, waste density, and 
density description (i.e., ``lbs/gal'' or ``specific gravity''). There 
also would be columns for the DOT shipping description and manifest 
tracking number (MTN).
    As such, each row would have 11 data fields. The nine fields 
described above would be mapped electronically to their corresponding 
fields of the waste block of a WR Form, enabling data to transfer 
automatically when prompted by the receiving facility. The two other 
data fields of the row--DOT shipping description and MTN--are not 
requested in the waste block and therefore would not be mapped or 
transferred. However, both fields would be available as a reference. In 
addition, the table would maintain records (e.g., an audit trail) 
enabling a person (e.g., a facility or regulator) to determine the MTN 
of the waste entered into each waste block of a WR Form.

[[Page 19315]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP22.005

    Above is an illustration of the e-Manifest Data Transfer Table. 
Please note, EPA has considered that this could be done via a system-
to-system approach as well. Under our conceptual approach, a receiving 
facility would transfer the table to one block of a WR Form. To 
transfer the nine data fields to the corresponding fields of a WR Form, 
a receiving facility would click on the ``Transfer row contents'' 
button. To use the table, a receiving facility would log in to the 
RCRAInfo Industry Application, access the Biennial Report module, and 
select the WR Form tab. The facility would then have the option of 
retrieving the table for completion of its current WR Forms.\15\ The 
facility would be able to add to, delete and otherwise modify the 
table's contents so that the data are suitable for the BR. This 
includes, for example, reviewing the table's contents for omissions and 
performing data quality reviews and corrections to eliminate errors. 
See the discussion later in this section on data reviews and 
corrections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The table could be used in the Biennial Report module or 
downloaded as a flat file. The discussion in this preamble describes 
how the table would be used in the module.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA expects the facility to supplement the manifest 
data, as needed, to ensure all of the information requested on a WR 
Form is provided. As pointed out by several commenters on the 2019 
notice, some manifests do not contain sufficient information on a 
waste's EPA and state waste codes and density. These issues and the 
approach for addressing them are as follows:
    <bullet> Waste Codes. The manifest instructions require that, for 
each waste in Item 9b, preparers provide up to six EPA and state waste 
codes in Item 13. State waste codes that are not redundant with federal 
codes also must be entered. The BR, on the other hand, does not limit 
the number of EPA waste codes reported on a WR Form.\16\ State waste 
codes must be reported as specified. As such, a manifest may not 
include all of a waste's federal and state waste codes required for 
biennial reporting (e.g., a waste with seven or more EPA waste codes). 
Under this approach, the table would have sufficient space for the 
facility to add EPA and state waste codes to meet the requirements of 
the BR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A WR Form waste block has 12 boxes for EPA waste codes and 
six boxes for state waste codes. Additional codes can be entered in 
a ``Comments'' box.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Waste Density. For each waste in Item 9b of the manifest, 
preparers must provide the waste quantity in Item 11 and the unit 
weight or volume in Item 12. If the quantity is reported by volume, the 
preparer may enter additional descriptive information, such as the 
waste's specific gravity, in Item 14 ``Special Handling Instructions 
and Additional Information.'' However, the specific gravity is not 
mandatory, and some manifests lack this information. Item G of a WR 
Form waste block requires a waste's quantity and unit of measure to be 
provided. For a waste reported by volume, its density in lbs/gal or 
specific gravity must be entered in all cases. As such, a manifest may 
not include the waste density data needed to complete Item G of a WR 
Form for wastes reported by volume. Under this approach, the table 
would include columns for waste density in lbs/gal or specific gravity, 
allowing the facility to enter this information if missing from the 
manifest. Currently, density is an optional field in e-Manifest, so it 
could be entered in advance of this process or when the manifest is 
entered in the system. In addition, the table could offer a drop-down 
list for densities. As an initial step, the facility would set up the 
drop-down list by pre-populating it with generic densities applicable 
to specific waste types commonly reported by volume. Then, when the 
facility discovers a waste's density is missing, it could use the drop-
down list to make the appropriate selection. The list could be saved 
for future biennial reporting cycles.
    When the facility decides that a row is complete and free of 
errors, it would select the row and transfer its data to a WR Form 
waste block. After transfer, all fields of the block would be complete, 
except for Item A, waste description. The facility would have to 
complete Item A subsequently. (See Section IV.C.4.2.3 of this preamble 
for a discussion of waste descriptions.) The facility would conduct a 
comprehensive review of all WR Forms as usual before submittal.
    EPA notes that a receiving facility might receive multiple 
shipments of the same or similar wastes from the same off-site shipper 
during the reporting year. As discussed earlier, the facility could 
transfer these wastes to the same WR Form waste block if they have the 
same form code and management method code and if it is otherwise 
appropriate to do. To this end, the table could offer tools to sort the 
rows in an off-site shipper's field based on specified criteria (e.g., 
BR codes), making it easier to identify and group rows with similar 
wastes. The receiving facility would select the relevant rows and 
consolidate their data into a single waste block. The table would 
prevent consolidating dissimilar wastes (e.g.,

[[Page 19316]]

wastes with different form codes or wastes from two or more off-site 
shippers).
    The above paragraphs describe our general conceptual approach for 
using manifest data to pre-populate WR Form waste blocks. As part of 
this approach, EPA envisions a process for reviewing and correcting 
errors in the manifest data before the data are transferred to the 
waste blocks. EPA understands that completing the manifest can be a 
complex and fluid process and errors cannot always be avoided. Data 
requested on the manifest may not be known with full certainty when it 
is entered. In addition, clerical and other errors inevitably occur, 
particularly in completing the paper manifest.
    The following are the manifest data review and correction 
activities that would take place after the manifest is submitted to the 
national system, but before the data are transferred to a WR 
Form.<SUP>17 18</SUP> The first two activities are currently taking 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In addition to these activities, Sec. Sec.  264/265.71 and 
264/265.72 require facilities to address manifest discrepancies. 
This includes, for example, noting on the manifest and attempting to 
resolve significant differences between the quantity or type of 
hazardous waste designated on the manifest or shipping paper, and 
the quantity and type of hazardous waste a facility actually 
receives. If the discrepancy is not resolved within 15 days after 
receiving the waste, the facility must immediately submit a letter 
to EPA describing the discrepancy and attempts to reconcile it and a 
copy of the manifest or shipping paper at issue.
    \18\ States have access to e-Manifest and may also make 
corrections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Corrections by the EPA PPC. 40 CFR 264.71 requires designated 
facilities to submit the top copy of each paper-based manifest and 
continuation sheet to the e-Manifest system. For image only 
submissions, the PPC enters the manifest data into the e-Manifest 
system. As part of this process, the PPC may identify and resolve basic 
errors in the data (e.g., invalid generator or transporter EPA ID 
number). The PPC follows procedures to contact the designated facility 
via email, then a phone call. In some cases, the PPC also may contact 
the generator if the designated facility could not answer the 
questions.
    The e-Manifest system validates uploads for missing and invalid 
image plus data manifest entries. For example, the system will compare 
a site's address and EPA ID Number on the manifest to the site's 
corresponding information in RCRAInfo. If an error is found (e.g., a 
state-issued ID number that is not included in RCRAInfo's Handler 
module), EPA will follow up with the site to request correct 
information.
    2. Post-Receipt Manifest Data Corrections. Section 264/265.71(l) 
establishes procedures for facilities and others to correct manifest 
data after the manifest has been closed out. Post-receipt data 
corrections may be submitted at any time. Each correction submission 
must be electronic and describe the correction in sufficient detail. 
Other interested persons will be notified and given an opportunity to 
comment before the correction is finalized.
    3. Corrections by the Facility within the e-Manifest Data Transfer 
Table. Under EPA's conceptual approach, after the facility enters the 
Biennial Report module and pulls up the table to complete its WR Forms, 
the facility would be expected to conduct two types of data review and 
correction activities:
    <bullet> Review and correct errors identified by the table. EPA 
envisions that the table would offer basic data validation tools and 
flag fields containing possible errors. For example, specific fields of 
the table could be compared to EPA's official data sources to find 
errors. This could include comparing EPA and state hazardous waste 
codes in the table to EPA's official list of waste codes. If a code in 
the table does not match any code in the list, its field would be 
flagged. The same could be done for EPA ID numbers and BR codes. The 
table could also include cross-checks within the same row (e.g., 
between a waste's form code and management method code). Both fields 
would be flagged if the management method is not compatible with the 
form code. Fields with missing data also would be flagged.
    <bullet> Review and correct all other errors. EPA expects that many 
errors would remain in the table notwithstanding the above activities. 
Facilities would be expected to conduct a thorough review based on 
their in-house knowledge and information (e.g., waste profiles, waste 
analysis results, in-house data systems).
    The facility is responsible for ensuring full compliance with the 
BR requirements and instructions, regardless of the data and user tools 
provided.
4.2.3 Issues for Public Comment Regarding Biennial Report Integration
    EPA is requesting comment on the following issues:
    (a) EPA realizes that the data in the e-Manifest system may contain 
numerous errors and other issues that must be resolved before the data 
can be used for BR purposes. Examples include data omissions, invalid 
EPA ID numbers, state-issued ID numbers that do not show up in EPA's 
data system, incorrect generator addresses, and typographical errors 
such as transposed digits in an EPA ID number or BR code. How can EPA 
improve the conceptual approach to resolve these issues more 
effectively? How can EPA ensure that the facility has actually reviewed 
and corrected the data thoroughly before pre-populating the waste block 
of the WR Form? Should a facility be prevented from pre-populating the 
waste block until all flagged errors have been addressed?
    (b) Closely related to this, some facilities may not have up-to-
date information in the e-Manifest system. For example, after a 
manifest is closed out and submitted to the national system, a facility 
may perform weighing, testing or treatment that results in information 
different from what is on the manifest (e.g., revised EPA waste codes, 
different management method code). The facility may update its in-house 
systems but not enter these updates in e-Manifest using the post-
receipt data correction procedures at Sec.  264/265.71(l). How 
extensive is this issue in e-Manifest (i.e., outdated, inaccurate 
data)? How should EPA revise the conceptual approach to better 
integrate facility workflows and data management to minimize 
differences between facility in-house systems and the e-Manifest 
system?
    EPA notes that the post-receipt data correction procedures do not 
mandate that facilities update the e-Manifest system whenever they find 
an error. Rather, the regulations state that post-receipt data 
corrections ``may'' be submitted at any time by any interested person 
shown on the manifest. Should EPA revise this language to make post-
receipt data corrections mandatory and, if so, for what types of 
errors? EPA believes the manifest discrepancy procedures at Sec. Sec.  
264/265.71 and 264/265.72 help to clarify this issue. If a designated 
facility discovers significant differences between the quantity or type 
of hazardous waste designated on the manifest or shipping paper and the 
quantity and type of hazardous waste it actually receives, it must note 
the discrepancy on the manifest and attempt to resolve it. For bulk 
wastes, significant differences in quantity are variations greater than 
10 percent in weight. For batch waste, significant differences in 
quantity are any variation in piece count (e.g., one drum in a 
truckload). Significant differences in type are obvious differences 
which can be discovered by inspection or waste analysis (e.g., toxic 
constituents not reported on the manifest).
    Since the facility must record these differences on the manifest if 
they are discovered during waste receipt, it is worth considering 
whether they should be recorded in the e-Manifest system if they are 
discovered any time after

[[Page 19317]]

receipt? If so, should they be subject to mandatory data correction 
procedures? Should other types of errors be brought under mandatory 
correction procedures, such as missing or invalid EPA ID numbers? If 
not, how can EPA more effectively encourage facilities to correct them? 
More broadly, is it necessary for data in the e-Manifest system to be 
up to date if not used to complete the BR? Or should data in the e-
Manifest system generally be viewed as a snapshot of a shipment 
received by the facility without an expectation that it be current?
    (c) Under EPA's approach, the facility would be able to add to, 
delete and otherwise modify the transfer table's data before pre-
populating a WR Form. The data in the table and ultimately reported in 
the BR should correspond closely to the data stored in e-Manifest. The 
post-receipt data correction process was established to ensure that e-
Manifest data remain accurate and up to date. However, the approach 
does not extend the data correction process to the transfer table after 
it has been retrieved in the Biennial Report module at the end of the 
reporting year.
    Essentially, EPA sees a trade-off between closely guarding the 
table's manifest data against undocumented edits versus creating a 
system that encourages facilities to make all necessary corrections. 
EPA does not want to establish an onerous correction process that 
discourages facilities from making all corrections. Should the transfer 
table allow the facility to add to, delete and otherwise modify all of 
the table's contents, or should the table protect some or all of the 
data from such modifications? Should the table create an audit trail of 
all of the facility's data modifications? What other user controls and 
data validations should the table provide?
    (d) Aside from the data issues discussed above, would the table 
provide a relatively straightforward way of completing the waste blocks 
of the WR Form? Is it reasonable to expect a facility to review, edit, 
correct, and transfer potentially thousands of rows of wastes to the 
waste blocks as described in this approach?
4.2.4 Waste Descriptions on WR Form
    The instructions for the waste description (Item A) of the WR Form 
recommend that a short narrative description of the waste be provided, 
such as general type; source; type of hazard; and generic chemical name 
or primary hazardous constituents. Several commenters on the February 
2019 notice stated that the waste description is burdensome. We also 
reviewed data from past WR Form submittals and noticed a wide variation 
in the information provided. Some forms include a one- or two-word 
description (e.g., ``aerosols,'' ``hypochlorite solutions''), whereas 
others include the DOT shipping description. These descriptions are not 
acceptable because they do not respond to the instructions fully.
    EPA has begun considering options for assisting receiving 
facilities in preparing waste descriptions in the Biennial Report 
module. Our objective is to improve the quality of the descriptions 
while streamlining receiving facility activities where possible. To 
this end, a possible option is to provide automated assistance to 
receiving facilities in completing the waste description comparable to 
the ``e-Manifest'' module's assistance for preparers of the electronic 
manifest.
    The e-Manifest module offers several types of assistance to 
preparers of the electronic manifest, such as completing the DOT 
shipping description in Item 9b of the form. Completion of a DOT 
shipping description requires knowledge of the DOT regulations, and 
therefore, assistance may be warranted for some preparers. For example, 
in the e-Manifest module, if a user wants to enter a DOT ID and proper 
shipping name into the manifest, the user begins typing this 
information and a drop-down list will display the proper shipping names 
that contain the values the user provided. If the user types 
``fireworks,'' the drop-down list will show ``UN0333/Fireworks,'' 
``UN0334/Fireworks,'' ``UN0335/Fireworks,'' ``UN0336/Fireworks,'' and 
``UN0337/Fireworks.'' The user can select the appropriate ID and name. 
The Hazard Class and Packing Group will be pre-populated based on the 
user's selection.
    A similar approach could be used for the waste description field of 
a WR Form waste block in the Biennial Report module. If form codes are 
added to the manifest, EPA would like to take comment on whether 
sufficient data would be available to build satisfactory waste 
descriptions using automated methods. For example, suppose EPA 
programmed the waste description field to build waste descriptions 
based on form code, management method code and EPA hazardous waste 
codes. If a waste were entered into a WR Form waste block with form 
code W103 (``Spent concentrated acid (5% or more)''), management method 
code H070 (``Chemical treatment'') and EPA hazardous waste codes D002 
and D007, Item A could be pre-populated with ``Spent concentrated acid 
(5% or more) managed by chemical treatment; RCRA characteristic for 
corrosivity and toxicity.'' If a waste were entered with form code W203 
(``Concentrated non-halogenated (e.g., non-chlorinated) solvent''), 
management method code H061 (``Fuel blending prior to energy recovery 
at another site'') and EPA hazardous waste codes D001 and F003, Item A 
could be pre-populated with ``Concentrated non-halogenated solvent 
managed by fuel blending prior to energy recovery at another site; RCRA 
characteristic for ignitability and listed spent solvent waste.''
    The receiving facility could reject the system's suggestion and 
develop its own description. Alternatively, the facility could edit the 
suggestion as desired. For example, a pop-up box could prompt the 
facility to indicate the source of the waste, if known, or chemical 
names. The receiving facility is ultimately responsible for ensuring a 
full and accurate waste description regardless of the assistance 
provided.
    A number of issues, however, would need to be resolved for this 
approach to work. For example, some BR code descriptions are too long 
to be added to a waste description and need to be shortened to a few 
words. In addition, some wastes have too many EPA and state waste codes 
to fit in the waste description field. For these wastes, the system 
could describe the codes by category (``listed spent solvent waste'' 
for EPA waste codes F001 to F005, ``listed wood preserving waste'' for 
EPA waste codes F032, F034 and F035, etc.). For P- and U-listed wastes, 
the module could give the chemical's name in addition to the category. 
For example, the module could say ``acute hazardous waste: Fluorine'' 
for waste code P056. If a waste code represents multiple chemicals, the 
module could present them in a drop-down list and the facility could 
select the correct one. Finally, this approach does not tell us all the 
relevant information about the waste and thus EPA would like to take 
comment on how to improve this option to meet the needs of the Biennial 
Report waste description field. For example, D001 ignitable waste for 
H040 incineration, from W001 lab packs do not describe the ignitable 
waste that is being incinerated. The waste could be gasoline, ethanol, 
or something else. EPA is requesting comment on ways to improve data 
quality in the waste description field.
    There are two additional options EPA would like to take comment on 
for generating waste descriptions, but these were not expounded 
previously by the Agency due to the perceived complexity of them. The 
first is comparing the previous BR cycle's submission of the

[[Page 19318]]

submitting receiving facility to the manifest data it signed for in the 
system. The other is adding the waste description to the manifest.
    In terms of comparing the waste descriptions to the previous BR 
submission, the system would compare the previous cycle to the waste 
codes, form codes, management method codes, and Generators IDs against 
what was submitted in e-Manifest during the previous year and any 
additional manifests brought in due to when the waste was generated. If 
the fields match, then the waste description would be provided with a 
dropdown or an array of possible waste descriptions (if requested over 
e-Manifest web services). The receiving facility would choose the 
appropriate waste description and if necessary, edit it, and submit it 
with their BR submission. If there is not a match, then the waste 
description would need to be provided.
    There are several issues with this approach. First is how to 
properly identify CESQGs/VSQGs and slight variations in how their 
addresses were entered into the system. Other issues revolve around the 
number of WR forms submitted by receiving facilities. Receiving 
facilities would still need to analyze each waste stream to determine 
the appropriate waste description. Further, from a systems approach, 
compiling this list based on the criteria provided over the entire 
universe of WR Forms would require a significant computational effort.
    The other option for comment is adding the waste description to the 
manifest form either on the form itself or in the system as an optional 
field. This option would provide automation at the time of report 
compilation for the waste description field, but it would also add 
another element to the manifest form and if the receiving facility was 
inconsistent in describing the waste, such inconsistencies could cause 
confusion when the receiving facility completed its biennial report.
4.2.5 Final BR Integration Questions for Commenters
    EPA requests comments on the following:
    (a) Earlier in this preamble, it was explained that our conceptual 
approach for e-Manifest integration with the biennial report does not 
fully account for the fact that facilities may revise their in-house 
waste-related data after the manifest has been submitted to the 
national system, but they may not reflect the revisions in the e-
Manifest system. For example, facilities periodically update, and 
correct data based on waste testing, weighing, management and disposal. 
Facilities normally reflect these changes in their in-house systems but 
might not follow the post-receipt data correction procedures to enter 
them in the e-Manifest system. EPA also discussed that the e-Manifest 
system contains other data errors and problems, such as missing data, 
invalid EPA ID numbers, and incorrect management method codes, which 
must be resolved before the data can be reported in the WR Form. EPA 
asked for comments on how this approach could address these problems 
more effectively.
    EPA is now raising these challenges again in the larger context of 
evaluating whether they can be overcome in developing an approach that 
is beneficial to facilities and states. In other words, can the data 
problems in e-Manifest be addressed effectively (e.g., through 
mandatory post-receipt data corrections, additional data reviews) 
without placing unnecessary burden on facilities and states and 
discouraging them from adopting the overall approach?
    (b) Currently, facilities preparing the WR Form at the end of a 
reporting year may evaluate, consolidate, and summarize a year's worth 
of shipment-level data, to thereby report it in a consistent, uniform 
manner. Should EPA enhance the approach to provide a better ability for 
facilities to evaluate, consolidate and summarize e-Manifest data when 
pre-populating the WR Form? What additional capabilities do facilities' 
in-house systems provide for reviewing, correcting, consolidating, and 
summarizing data that should be offered by the table in this approach?
    (c) Would BR data quality and usefulness be impacted under this 
approach, and if so, how?
    (d) Would this approach increase burden and complexity to 
facilities or regulators under the manifest or BR program? For example, 
some facilities could experience significant incremental burden in 
reviewing, editing, correcting, and transferring manifest data to the 
waste blocks of the WR Form. However, would their incremental burden be 
offset if the module pre-populates the waste description field of each 
block?
    (e) After a facility's WR Forms are submitted to the state or EPA 
Region, the module could offer these completed forms (without waste 
quantity) to the facility for the next BR cycle. The facility would 
have the option of completing these pre-populated forms or preparing 
new ones. Would these pre-populated forms streamline the facility's 
activities without compromising data quality?
    (f) As discussed earlier in this preamble, the PPC has experienced 
difficulty in entering image files and hardcopies of paper copies of 
manifests into the e-Manifest system due to incorrect, illegible or 
incomplete data. This has slowed the PPC's data entry, resulting in 
tens of thousands of paper manifests not being entered into the system 
in a timely manner. If a form is not entered into the system, it would 
not be included in the e-Manifest Data Transfer Table in this approach. 
How should these forms be addressed under the approach? At the end of 
the reporting year, should facilities receive a list of manifests that 
have not been entered into e-Manifest so they can incorporate the 
wastes into WR Forms using other data?
    (g) As stated previously in this preamble, EPA may consider 
integrating the e-Manifest system with the GM Form at a later time. 
EPA, however, believes the Agency could also establish an approach to 
integrate the e-Manifest system with the GM Form that is analogous to 
our conceptual approach for e-Manifest integration with the WR Form. 
For instance, EPA could: (1) Use eight of the nine data fields 
described above (i.e., EPA hazardous waste codes, state hazardous waste 
codes, form code, management method code for off-site shipments, waste 
quantity shipped off-site, unit of measure, waste density, and density 
description (i.e., ``lbs/gal'' or ``specific gravity'')); (2) use the 
EPA ID number of the designated facility receiving the off-site 
shipment; and (3) add the source code and waste minimization code to 
the manifest to map these manifest data electronically to their 
corresponding blocks of the GM Form for e-Manifest integration. These 
manifest data could be transferred automatically from a table to the WC 
block and the Off-site Shipment of Hazardous Waste block of the GM Form 
when prompted by the LQG. EPA requests comment on whether the Agency 
should establish a similar conceptual approach for e-Manifest 
integration with the GM Form. Would such an approach work for the GM 
Form? Please consider the relevant issues and questions addressed above 
in this section of the preamble as well as other issues and questions 
detailed throughout section IV.C.4 to provide comment.
    (h) As stated in section IV.C.4.2.1, EPA would require the 
receiving facility to report the form code on the manifest for each 
waste stream reported in Item 9b. Given that both the GM Form and the 
WR Form require the form code, would LQGs be amenable to EPA requiring 
the receiving facility to report

[[Page 19319]]

the form code on the manifest on their behalf and ultimately using it 
for the GM Form? Would receiving facilities be amenable to reporting 
the form code on the manifest in lieu of the LQG reporting it?

D. Summary of Requests for Public Comment

    EPA requests comments on various aspects of this proposed rule 
throughout the preamble. This section summarizes each request at a high 
level. Please refer to the relevant sections for more in-depth 
discussion of the relevant issues for public comment.
    Regarding submitting export manifests to EPA's e-Manifest system 
(discussed in preamble section IV.A.3), EPA requests comment on the 
following:
    <bullet> EPA's proposal to revise 40 CFR 262.83(c) by adopting the 
existing manifest provisions at Sec. Sec.  262.20(a)(3) and 262.24 for 
electronic manifest use and the electronic signature requirements at 
Sec.  262.25 for export manifests. If these provisions are finalized as 
proposed, a person exporting a shipment out of the U.S. (i.e., a 
generator or a recognized trader located separate from the site 
initiating the shipment) may, in lieu of using a paper manifest form, 
use an electronic manifest to track the export shipment within the 
United States.
    <bullet> EPA's proposal to add new provisions under Sec.  262.83. 
These would require an exporter to submit the top copy of a manifest 
form and continuation sheet (whether paper or electronic) to EPA for 
processing, in accordance with the proposal for export shipments 
described in this section of the preamble. The new provisions would 
also require the exporter to pay the requisite processing fee for the 
submission using the existing fee provisions under 40 CFR part 265 
subpart FF. EPA is proposing new paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(8) under 
Sec.  262.83(c). If finalized, an exporter who elects to use an 
electronic manifest and continuation sheet for an export shipment, 
would be required to complete, sign, and submit the manifest and 
continuation sheet electronically in the e-Manifest system for the 
waste shipment within 30 days of receipt of the electronic manifest 
signed by the last transporter who carried the export shipment to a 
U.S. seaport for loading onto an international carrier or to a U.S. 
road or rail port of exit.
    <bullet> EPA's proposal to adopt the fee provisions of the 
electronic hazardous waste manifest program under 40 CFR part 265 
subpart FF (40 CFR 265.1300, 265.1311, 265.1312, 265.1313, 265.1314, 
265.1315, and 265.1316) for hazardous waste export shipments. If 
finalized, exporters of a waste shipment subject to the manifest 
requirements would be expected to make payments to EPA for manifest 
activities conducted during the prior month per Sec.  265.1314. 
Additionally, the proposed amendments would require any party acting as 
the U.S. exporter that originated the manifest for an export shipment 
of hazardous waste in accordance with the manifest requirements under 
40 CFR part 262 subpart B and Sec.  262.83(c), whether they be a 
generator, receiving facility, or recognized trader, to submit the 
export manifests to the system and pay the requisite fees.
    <bullet> EPA's proposal to revise Sec.  263.20(g)(3), which 
currently requires the transporter to provide a copy of the export 
manifest to the generator. Today's proposal would allow the collection 
of manifest data in the e-Manifest system, making the current 
requirement unnecessary.
    <bullet> EPA's proposal to remove the current transporter 
requirement in Sec.  263.20(g)(4)(i). EPA has determined that 
transporters are not best suited for submitting the export manifest to 
the system and paying the requisite processing fee based on the above 
modification to Sec.  263.20(g)(3).
    <bullet> EPA's proposal to remove 40 CFR 263.20(g)(4)(ii), which 
lists the ``AES filing compliance date'' promulgated in the hazardous 
waste import/export final rule dated November 28, 2016 (81 FR 85696). 
The AES filing compliance date was specified as December 31, 2017, in a 
Federal Register notice dated August 28, 2017 (82 FR 41015). That 
compliance date has passed, and as such the requirement for the 
transporter to provide a paper copy of the manifest to a U.S. customs 
official at the point of departure for shipments initiated prior to the 
AES filing is now obsolete.
    In addition, EPA requests information regarding whether the 
proposed changes would work for foreign transporters who transport 
export shipments to and across the U.S. border. EPA also requests 
information regarding how many foreign transporters currently transport 
such shipments within the United States.
    Regarding manifest form changes related to export and import 
hazardous waste shipments (discussed in preamble section IV.A.4), EPA 
requests comment on the following:
    <bullet> EPA's proposal to move the International Shipments field 
(i.e., Item 16) from the manifest to the continuation sheet and add new 
fields for consent numbers and the exporter's EPA Identification number 
and email address to the International Shipments field. If finalized, 
EPA would remove the International Shipments field from the manifest 
and re-designate it as Items 33a and 33b on the continuation sheet as 
shown on the draft form. EPA would also revise the current manifest 
instructions for completing the International Shipments field to 
reflect these new changes. A proposed revised version of the 
continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A) reflecting these proposed 
changes is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Regarding proposals that only impact import shipments (discussed in 
preamble section IV.A.5), EPA requests comment on the following:
    <bullet> EPA's proposal to delete the requirement in 40 CFR 
262.84(c)(4) that the importer provide an additional copy of the 
manifest to the transporter to be submitted by the receiving facility 
to EPA per Sec. Sec.  264.71(a)(3) and 265.71(a)(3). This additional 
copy of the manifest is no longer necessary because the receiving 
facility is now required to always submit the top copy of the paper 
manifest and any continuation sheets to the e-Manifest system.
    Regarding additional proposed changes to international shipment 
requirements (discussed in preamble section IV.A.6), EPA requests 
comment on the following:
    <bullet> EPA's proposal to revise the export and import shipment 
international movement document-related requirements to more closely 
link the manifest data with the international movement document data.
    Regarding proposals to revise manifest requirements applicable to 
Exception Reports, Discrepancy Reports, and Unmanifested Waste Reports 
(discussed in preamble section IV.B.1-3), EPA requests comment on the 
following:
    <bullet> EPA's proposal to allow generators using electronic or 
hybrid manifests to use the e-Manifest system to satisfy exception 
reporting requirements. EPA is proposing to restrict electronic 
exception reporting to manifested shipments using electronic manifests 
(hybrid or fully electronic) pursuant to Sec.  262.24(c).
    <bullet> EPA's proposal to revise the current 35/45-day LQG 
exception reporting timeframes in Sec.  262.42(a) and (c)(2), and Sec.  
761.217(a) and (b) to better conform to timeframes for submittal and 
processing of paper manifests in the e-Manifest system, thus adjusting 
it to a 40/50-day timeframe. EPA is not proposing additional time for 
SQGs to verify receipt of their shipments by the destination facility. 
The current SQG

[[Page 19320]]

timeframe for verification of shipment delivery is 60 days (Sec.  
262.42(b)).
    <bullet> EPA's proposal to integrate Discrepancy Reports into the 
e-Manifest system, which includes four elements: (1) A copy of the 
manifest at issue; (2) the significant discrepancy type (i.e., 
significant difference in quantity or type); (3) date of signature of 
the receiving facility; and (4) a description explaining the 
discrepancy and attempts to reconcile it.
    <bullet> EPA's proposal to allow receiving facilities to use the e-
Manifest system to satisfy discrepancy reporting requirements and its 
proposal to adjust the discrepancy reporting timeframe to allow 
receiving facilities up to 20 days to reconcile a shipment with the 
generator and/or transporter for such discrepancies. Unlike our 
proposed restriction to limit electronic exception reporting to 
electronic manifests, EPA is proposing to extend electronic reporting 
of Discrepancy Reports to all manifest submission types, including 
paper.
    <bullet> Whether or not there should be a limit on our discrepancy 
reporting proposal to manifests that originated electronically (i.e., 
fully electronic or hybrid) in the e-Manifest system, as well as if 
there are other approaches EPA should consider for electronic 
discrepancy reporting associated with digital copies of paper 
manifests.
    <bullet> EPA's consideration of an alternate approach that would 
eliminate the requirement for Discrepancy Reports altogether, and 
instead, address discrepancy events through the e-Manifest corrections 
process. Under this approach, receiving facilities or EPA's PPC would 
upload/enter discrepancies identified under Item 18. Generators who had 
e-Manifest system access would receive email alerts regarding Item 18 
discrepancies, review the final manifest in e-Manifest, and submit 
post-receipt manifest corrections.
    <bullet> EPA's proposal to accept only electronic submissions of 
Unmanifested Waste Reports to the system by the receiving facility, 
with the goal of integrating Unmanifested Waste Reports into the e-
Manifest system. EPA would not accept Unmanifested Waste Reports 
through a written, hard copy report. EPA would revise the reporting 
content specified in Sec. Sec.  264.76 and 265.76 for hazardous waste 
and Sec.  761.216 for PCB wastes. Unlike electronic discrepancy and 
exception reporting, EPA proposes to impose a user fee, equivalent to 
the user fees for electronic manifests, on receiving facilities for 
each submission of an Unmanifested Waste Report.
    <bullet> EPA's proposed approach to integrate Unmanifested Waste 
Reports into the e-Manifest system (by only accepting electronic 
submissions of Unmanifested Waste Reports to the system by the 
receiving facility and revising the reporting content specified in 
Sec. Sec.  264.76 and 265.76 for hazardous waste and Sec.  761.216 for 
PCB wastes) and charge the electronic manifest fee rate for these 
submissions. EPA also requests comment on whether a separate, distinct 
user fee should be imposed for these reports.
    Regarding other proposals (discussed in preamble section IV.C), EPA 
requests comment on the following:
    <bullet> Technical corrections and conforming changes to certain 
RCRA and TSCA PCB regulations under 40 CFR parts 262, 264, 265, and 
761. These corrections and conforming changes are necessary to remove 
obsolete requirements, correct typographical errors, and/or improve 
alignment with the e-Manifest program.
    <bullet> EPA's proposal to add an email address field to Item 5 of 
the generator block of the paper manifest so that the e-Manifest system 
can email copies of completed paper manifests to the generator's email 
address in lieu of receiving facilities having to mail copies to the 
generators' postal mail address. Under the proposal, the e-Manifest 
system would also send notifications to unregistered generators via the 
email address requesting that they register and obtain an account in e-
Manifest for their site.
    <bullet> EPA's request for comment on whether to mandate that 
generators register and obtain e-Manifest accounts for access to the e-
Manifest system to view their copies of completed manifests.
    <bullet> Proposals detailed in the February 2019 Federal Register 
ICR renewal notice regarding modification of the manifest form and 
instructions to improve the accuracy and precision of waste data 
reported in the manifest fields at Items 11 (Total Quantity) and 12 
(Units of Measure) of the manifest. These proposed form changes would 
facilitate receiving facilities leveraging the e-Manifest system to 
populate the corresponding fields of the Waste Received from Off-site 
(WR) Form as part of the biennial report.
    <bullet> EPA's consideration of a conceptual approach for e-
Manifest integration with the biennial report, particularly regarding 
data accuracy and precision as well as the addition of certain BR data 
fields (e.g., form codes) of the WR Form to the manifest form. There 
are specific questions raised in preamble section IV.C.4.2.3 and 
IV.C.4.2.5.
    <bullet> Potential ways to improve data quality in the waste 
description field (see preamble section IV.C.4.2.4).
    <bullet> EPA's proposal to compare the previous BR cycle's 
submission of the submitting receiving facility to the manifest data it 
signed for in the system.
    <bullet> EPA's proposal to add the waste description to the 
manifest.
    <bullet> Whether or not EPA should establish a similar conceptual 
approach for e-Manifest integration with the GM Form. Would such an 
approach work for the GM Form?

V. State Implementation

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States

    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified states to 
administer their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of the federal 
program within the state. Following authorization, EPA retains 
enforcement authority under section 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, 
although authorized states have primary enforcement responsibility. The 
standards and requirements for state authorization are found at 40 CFR 
part 271.
    Prior to the enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments 
of 1984 (HSWA) and of the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest 
Establishment Act, a state with final RCRA authorization administered 
its hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of EPA administering the 
federal program in that state. The federal requirements no longer 
applied in the authorized state, and EPA could not issue permits for 
any facilities in that state, since only the state was authorized to 
administer the program and issue RCRA permits. When new, more stringent 
federal requirements were promulgated, the state was obligated to enact 
equivalent authorities within specified time frames. However, the new 
federal requirements did not take effect in an authorized state until 
the state adopted the federal requirements as state law.
    In contrast, with the adoption of RCRA section 3006(g), which was 
added by HSWA, new requirements and prohibitions imposed under the HSWA 
authority take effect in authorized states at the same time that they 
take effect in unauthorized states. EPA is directed by section 3006(g) 
to implement HSWA-based requirements and prohibitions in authorized 
states until the state is granted authorization to do so. While states 
must still adopt HSWA related provisions as state law to retain final 
authorization, EPA implements the HSWA provisions in authorized states 
until the states do so.
    The e-Manifest Act contains similar authority to HSWA with respect 
to

[[Page 19321]]

federal and state implementation responsibilities in RCRA authorized 
states. Section 2(g)(3) of the e-Manifest Act, entitled Administration, 
provides that EPA shall carry out regulations promulgated under the Act 
in each state unless the state program is fully authorized to carry out 
such regulations in lieu of EPA. Also, section 2(g)(2) of the Act 
provides that any regulation promulgated by EPA under the e-Manifest 
Act shall take effect in each state (under federal authority) on the 
same effective date that EPA specifies in its promulgating regulation. 
Thus, the result is that regulations promulgated by EPA under the e-
Manifest Act, like HSWA-based regulations, are implemented and enforced 
by EPA until the states are authorized to carry them out.
    Authorized states generally are required to modify their programs 
when EPA promulgates federal requirements that are more stringent or 
broader in scope than existing federal requirements. However, as EPA 
explained previously when adopting manifest form revisions to fully 
standardize the RCRA manifest, the hazardous waste manifest is not 
governed by this authorization policy. Rather, the RCRA manifest 
requires strict consistency in its implementation, so that EPA changes 
to federal manifest form requirements must be implemented consistently 
in the states. See 70 FR 10776 at 10810 (March 4, 2005). This is so, 
whether the manifest program change is based on base RCRA or on e-
Manifest Act authority.
    TSCA does not grant EPA authority to authorize states to administer 
the program. EPA directly implements the federal PCB regulations in all 
states and territories.

B. Legal Authority for This Rule's Regulatory Changes and Implications

    Several of the provisions in this proposed rule are based on the 
authority of the e-Manifest Act and are listed in the table below. 
These provisions (if finalized) would be implemented and enforced by 
EPA in all states consistently on the effective date of the final rule. 
States must adopt the authorizable e-Manifest Act-based provisions of 
this final rule in order to enforce them under state law, and to 
maintain manifest program consistency. However, EPA will continue to 
implement and enforce these provisions until such time as the state 
modifies its authorized program to adopt these provisions and receives 
authorization from EPA for the program modification.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Regulation                            Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   262.42(d)-(e)...................  Submission of Electronic
                                          Exception Reports to the e-
                                          Manifest system.
Sec.   262.83(c)(4)....................  Exporters required electronic
                                          or paper manifest to the
                                          system.
Sec.   262.83(c)(5)....................  Imposition of fees on exporters
                                          for their manifest submission.
Sec.   262.83(c)(7)....................  Exporters' replacement
                                          manifests.
Sec.   262.83(c)(8)....................  Exporters' post receipt data
                                          corrections.
Sec.   264.72(c)(1)-(4), Sec.            Submission of Electronic
 265.72(c)(1)-(c)(4).                     Discrepancy Reports to the e-
                                          Manifest System.
Sec.   264.76(a), Sec.   265.76(a).....  Submission of Electronic
                                          Unmanifested Waste Reports to
                                          the e-Manifest system.
Sec.   264.76(b), Sec.   265.76(b).....  Imposition of fees to receiving
                                          facilities for their
                                          Electronic Unmanifested Waste
                                          Report submission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, the manifest-related report provisions at 40 CFR 
262.42 (a)(1)-(2), 262.42(c)(2), 264.72(c), and 265.72(c) are based on 
the base RCRA statutory authority. Because these provisions would be 
finalized under RCRA base program authority, these regulatory changes 
would not become effective in authorized states until the regulatory 
changes are adopted under state law and EPA authorizes the state 
program modification. States must adopt the regulatory changes in their 
authorized programs to maintain manifest program consistency. In 
unauthorized states, these regulations would become effective on the 
effective date of this final rule. Because TSCA is not administered by 
state programs, all proposed changes to 40 CFR part 761 would become 
effective in all states and territories on the effective date of the 
rule.

C. Conforming Changes to 40 CFR 271.10 and 271.12

    This proposed rule also includes conforming changes to 40 CFR 
271.10 and 271.12, addressing the requirements for hazardous waste 
generators and exporters, and receiving facilities, respectively, that 
must be included in authorized state programs to maintain consistency 
with the federal program. Other conforming changes to Sec.  271.10 
regarding regulatory amendments to the hazardous waste export and 
import regulations are discussed in preamble section V.D. The first 
change at Sec.  271.10(j)(i) clarifies that authorized state programs 
must include requirements for electronic Exception Reports in the EPA's 
e-Manifest system, in lieu of sending signed copies to the EPA Regional 
Administrator or the states. The second change at Sec.  271.10(j)(ii) 
clarifies that authorized state programs must include a requirement 
that hazardous waste exporters submit a signed copy of each paper 
manifest and continuation sheet (or the data from paper manifests) to 
the EPA's e-Manifest system, in lieu of providing additional copies of 
the manifest to the hazardous waste transporters. These modifications 
are necessary to effectuate the intent of Congress that under the e-
Manifest Act, the e-Manifest system will operate as a national, one-
stop reporting hub for manifests and data. When electronic Exception 
Reports are implemented in the e-Manifest system, EPA expects that the 
states with such tracking programs will obtain their manifest copies 
(and data) and electronic Exception Reports from e-Manifest, rather 
than requiring regulated entities to mail their manifests or exception 
reports to these states.
    Finally, the e-Manifest-related amendments at Sec.  271.12(i) and 
(k) must be included in authorized state programs for electronic 
Discrepancy Reports and Unmanifested Waste Reports to maintain 
consistency with the federal program. The amendments to Sec.  271.12(i) 
clarify that authorized programs must include requirements that 
designated or receiving facilities submit electronic Discrepancy 
Reports and Unmanifested Waste Reports in the EPA's e-Manifest system, 
in lieu of sending signed copies to the states. The amendment at Sec.  
271.12(k) clarifies that authorized state programs must include 
requirements for hazardous waste management facilities and facilities 
submitting electronic Unmanifested Waste Reports in the e-Manifest 
system to pay user fees to EPA to recover all

[[Page 19322]]

costs related to the development and operation of an electronic 
hazardous waste manifest system (e-Manifest system).
    Several of these states with manifest tracking programs assess 
their own fees to offset the costs of administering their state 
manifest tracking programs, or they may assess waste generation or 
management fees to support state programs, based on manifest data in 
their state tracking systems. It is likely that many of these state 
manifest tracking programs and related fees may continue to operate for 
the foreseeable future. EPA emphasizes that the federal user fees that 
are proposed in this regulation are solely to offset EPA's costs in 
developing and operating the e-Manifest system. It is not the purpose 
of this regulation to suspend, reduce, or otherwise impact the existing 
state fees that support states' manifest tracking programs, or the fees 
levied by state programs on waste generation or management. EPA is not 
now in a position to predict what, if any, impact this federal user fee 
regulation may have on any such state fee collection programs.

D. Provisions of the Proposed Rule That Are Not Authorizable

    There are some provisions in this proposed rule that can be 
administered and enforced only by EPA, and not by authorized states. 
First, the group of non-authorizable requirements included in this 
proposed rule are Sec.  262.21(f)(5), (6), and (7). These provisions 
together announce the revised printing specification for the proposed 
four-copy paper manifest and continuation sheet paper forms, the 
revised copy distribution requirements to be printed on each copy of 
the form, and the revised specification for printing the appropriate 
manifest instructions on the back of the form copies. If finalized, 
state programs are not required to take any action respecting these 
regulatory changes to the printing specifications, and they will take 
effect in all states on the effective date of this rule. The RCRA 
manifest requires strict consistency in its implementation, so that an 
EPA change to federal manifest form requirements must be implemented 
consistently in the states. See generally 70 FR 10776 at 10810 (March 
4, 2005).
    The second group of non-authorizable requirements in this proposed 
rule are regulatory amendments to certain fee methodology and related 
fee implementation provisions set forth in subpart FF of 40 CFR parts 
264 and 265. These requirements include definitions relevant to the 
program's fee calculations (Sec. Sec.  264.1311, 265.1311), and the 
user fee calculation methodology (Sec. Sec.  264.1312, 265.1312). These 
user fee provisions in subpart FF are based on the authority of the e-
Manifest Act, and (if finalized) would be implemented and enforced by 
EPA on the effective date of the final rule and perpetually thereafter. 
The user fee provisions of subpart FF describe the methods and 
processes that EPA alone will use in setting fees to recover its 
program costs, and in administering and enforcing the user fee 
requirements. Therefore, states cannot be authorized to implement or 
enforce any of the subpart FF provisions.
    Although states cannot receive authorization to administer or 
enforce the federal government's e-Manifest program user fees, 
authorized state programs must still include the content of or 
references to the subpart FF requirements. This is necessary to ensure 
that members of their regulated communities will be on notice of their 
responsibilities to pay user fees to the EPA e-Manifest system when 
they utilize the system. Authorized state programs must either adopt or 
reference appropriately the user fee requirements of this final rule.13 
However, when a state adopts the user fee provisions of this rule, the 
state must not replace federal or EPA references with state references 
or terms that would suggest the collection or implementation of these 
user fees by the state.
    The last group of non-authorizable provisions in this proposed rule 
are regulatory amendments to certain export and import regulations 
detailed in preamble sections IV.A.4, IV.A.5, and IV.A.6 are not 
authorizable. Because of the federal government's special role in 
matters of foreign policy, EPA does not authorize states to administer 
federal import/export functions in the regulations discussed in those 
preamble sections. This approach of having federal, rather than state, 
administering of the import/export functions promotes national 
coordination, uniformity, and the expeditious transmission of 
information between the United States and foreign countries.
    Although states do not receive authorization to administer the 
federal government's import/export functions in 40 CFR part 262 subpart 
H, or the import/export relation functions in certain other RCRA 
hazardous waste regulations, state programs are still required to adopt 
the provisions in this rule to maintain their equivalency with the 
federal program (see 40 CFR 271.10(a) and (d) which will also be 
amended in this rule).
    This rule contains many amendments to the export and import 
shipment international movement document-related requirements under 40 
CFR part 262 subpart H to more closely link the manifest data with the 
international movement document data. The rule also contains conforming 
import and export-related amendments to 40 CFR parts 260, 261, 262, 
263, 264, 265, 267, and 271, almost all of which are more stringent.
    The states that have already adopted 40 CFR part 262 subparts H, 40 
CFR part 263, 40 CFR part 264, 40 CFR part 265, and any other import/
export related regulations discussed in this rule must adopt the 
revisions to those provisions in this final rule. When a state adopts 
the import/export provisions in this rule (if final), they must not 
replace federal or international references or terms with state 
references or terms.

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review because it: (1) 
Materially alters the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user 
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; and (2) may raise novel legal or policy issues. Budgetary 
impacts of the e-Manifest user fee program may be altered by this 
rulemaking as it establishes fees for hazardous waste exporters. Any 
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in 
the docket for this action. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of 
the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This 
analysis (titled ``The Regulatory Impact Analysis for EPA's Proposed 
Rule Integrating e-Manifest with Hazardous Waste Exports and Other 
Manifest-related Reports, PCB Manifest Amendments and Technical 
Corrections'') is available in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2712.01. You can 
find a copy of

[[Page 19323]]

the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    Implementation of this e-Manifest rule will impose new information 
collection requirements on the regulated community who must use the 
manifest for tracking hazardous waste export shipments, and who must 
prepare manifest-related reports such as exception, discrepancy, and 
unmanifested waste reports to address specific problems that arise in 
the use of the manifest. The rule also consists of a series of 
clarifications to the manifest regulations under RCRA and TSCA that are 
not expected to result in behavior changes by the regulated community, 
and therefore do not have associated costs.
    Generally, the generators, transporters, designated facilities, and 
emergency response teams (in the case of accidents) are the primary 
users of manifests. However, EPA may review these documents during a 
facility inspection to make sure proper records are being kept and 
regulations are complied with. EPA also reviews and responds to 
exception reports, discrepancy reports, and un-manifested waste 
reports. The public will also have access to data in the e-Manifest 
system.
    Although the primary effect of this proposed rule will be to 
replace current paper-based information requirements with electronic-
based requirements to submit or retain the same shipment information, 
there could be minor additions or changes to the information collection 
requirements, such as information that may be provided to establish 
user accounts and fee payment accounts, information submitted for 
identity management, as well as waste profile or other information that 
may be useful for the creation and submission of electronic manifests 
and manifest-related reports.
    Respondents/affected entities: Business or other for-profit.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: The recordkeeping and 
notification requirements are required for parties performing relevant 
manifest activities (e.g., submitting export manifests). These 
requirements are described in detail in the ICR Supporting Statement.
    Estimated number of respondents: 203,936.
    Frequency of response: Per Shipment.
    Total estimated burden: 2,458,568 hours.
    Total estimated cost: $121,690,615, includes $27,400,688 annualized 
capital costs or O&M costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at 
the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 
comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments 
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the 
interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular 
information collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for 
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB must receive 
comments no later than May 31, 2022.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In 
making this determination, EPA concludes that the impact of concern for 
this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, 
and that the Agency is certifying that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because the rule relieves burden on the small entities subject to the 
rule. All entities that manifest waste domestically are expected to 
benefit from cost savings. However, the proposed rule does result in 
net costs for hazardous waste exporters. In section 4.2 of the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis for EPA's Proposed Rule Integrating e-
Manifest with Hazardous Waste Exports and Other Manifest-related 
Reports, PCB Manifest Amendments and Technical Corrections, EPA 
considers two ``worst-case'' scenarios to analyze the upper bounds of 
net costs to 111 small exporter entities. Under both scenarios, the 
proposed rule would not result in significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities with respect to exporter small 
entities because the upper bound of costs for the regulation per entity 
does not exceed one percent or three percent of annual revenues for 20 
percent of small entities in a sector, or 100 small entities total.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As documented in 
the Regulatory Impact Analysis for EPA's Proposed Rule Integrating e-
Manifest with Exports and Other Manifest-related Reports, PCB Manifest 
Amendments and Technical Corrections found in the docket, EPA finds 
that the rule would not result in annual expenditures exceeding $100 
million annually and therefore would not be subject to requirements of 
section 202 of UMRA as listed above.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not impose any new requirements on 
tribal officials, nor will it impose substantial direct compliance 
costs on them. This action will not create a mandate for tribal 
governments, i.e., there are no authorized tribal programs that will 
require revision and reauthorization on account of the e-Manifest 
system and regulatory program requirements. Nor do we believe that the 
e-Manifest system will impose any enforceable duties on these entities. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by 
Executive Order 12866. In addition, because the rule would not increase 
risk related to exposure to hazardous materials, the Agency does not 
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this 
action present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive 
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations that Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (May 18, 2001) because it is not likely 
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use 
of energy. The proposed rule would not directly regulate energy 
production or

[[Page 19324]]

consumption and is expected to result in net cost savings.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high 
and adverse health or environmental effects on minority populations, 
low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Findings are 
documented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for EPA's Proposed Rule 
Integrating e-Manifest with Hazardous Waste Exports and Other Manifest-
related Reports, PCB Manifest Amendments and Technical Corrections 
found in the docket. Proposed changes in this proposed rule, however, 
will serve to increase public transparency of hazardous waste activity 
in communities, including greater access to information regarding 
hazardous waste shipments exported out of the U.S. and information 
regarding irregularities in the manifest process, e.g., manifest 
exception, discrepancy, and unmanifested waste reporting.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 260

    Environmental protection, Exports, Hazardous materials 
transportation, Hazardous waste, Imports, Labeling, Packaging and 
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 261

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

40 CFR Part 262

    Environmental protection, Electronic reporting requirements, 
Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Imports, 
Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

40 CFR Part 263

    Environmental protection, Electronic reporting requirements, 
Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Imports.

40 CFR Part 264

    Environmental protection, Electronic reporting requirements, 
Hazardous waste, Imports, Packaging and containers, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.

40 CFR Part 265

    Environmental protection, Electronic reporting requirements, 
Hazardous waste, Imports, Packaging and containers, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 267

    Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Facilities 
Operating Under a Standardized Permit.

40 CFR Part 271

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

40 CFR Part 761

    Environmental protection, Manifest, Polychlorinated biphenyls.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 
CFR parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, 271, and 761 as follows:

PART 260--HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

0
1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 
6935, 6937, 6938, 6939, 6939g and 6974.

0
2. Section 260.2 amends paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) by adding a sentence 
at the end of each paragraph to read as follows:


Sec.  260.2  Availability of information; confidentiality of 
information

* * * * *
    (d)(1) * * * After [Effective Date of the Final Rule], no claim of 
business confidentiality may be asserted by any person with respect to 
information contained in hazardous secondary material export documents 
prepared, used and submitted under Sec.  261.4(a)(25), whether 
submitted electronically into EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System 
or in paper format.
    (2) * * * After [Effective Date of the Final Rule], EPA will make 
available to the public under this section any hazardous secondary 
material export documents prepared, used and submitted under Sec.  
261.4(a)(25) on March 1 of the calendar year after the related 
hazardous secondary material exports occur, when these documents are 
considered by EPA to be final documents.
* * * * *

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
3. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y), and 
6938.

0
4. Section 261.4 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(25)(i)(A), (H), 
and (v) to read as follows:


Sec.  261.4  Exclusions

    (a) * * *
    (25) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Name, site address, telephone number and EPA ID number (if 
applicable) of the hazardous secondary material generator;
* * * * *
    (H) The name and site address of the reclaimer, any intermediate 
facility and any alternate reclaimer and intermediate facilities; and
* * * * *
    (v) EPA will provide a complete notification to the country of 
import and any countries of transit. A notification is complete when 
EPA receives a notification which EPA determines satisfies the 
requirements of paragraph (a)(25)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 261.6 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(A) and (B) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  261.6  Requirements for recyclable materials.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) The person initiating a shipment for reclamation in a foreign 
country, and any intermediary arranging for the shipment, must comply 
with the requirements applicable to an exporter in Sec.  262.83 with 
the exception of Sec.  262.83(c);
    (B) Transporters transporting a shipment for export or import must 
comply with the movement document requirements listed in Sec.  
263.20(a)(2) and (c).
* * * * *
0
6. Section 261.39 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(A), (F), 
(a)(5)(v)(B) is amended by revising the language before the colon in 
the first sentence; and revising paragraph (a)(5)(xi).
    The revisions to read as follows:

[[Page 19325]]

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

    (a) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Name, site address, telephone number and EPA ID number (if 
applicable) of the exporter of the CRTs.
* * * * *
    (F) The name and site address of the recycler or recyclers and the 
estimated quantity of used CRTs to be sent to each facility, as well as 
the names of any alternate recyclers.
* * * * *
    (v) * * *
    (B) The exporter or a U.S. authorized agent must: * * *
* * * * *
    (xi) Annual reports must be submitted to EPA using the allowable 
methods specified in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section. Exporters 
must keep copies of each annual report for a period of at least three 
years from the due date of the report. Exporters may satisfy this 
recordkeeping requirement by retaining electronically submitted annual 
reports in the CRT exporter's account on EPA's Waste Import Export 
Tracking System (WIETS), or its successor system, provided that a copy 
is readily available for viewing and production if requested by any EPA 
or authorized state inspector. No CRT exporter may be held liable for 
the inability to produce an annual report for inspection under this 
section if the CRT exporter can demonstrate that the inability to 
produce the annual report is due exclusively to technical difficulty 
with EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS), or its 
successor system for which the CRT exporter bears no responsibility.
* * * * *

PART 262--STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
7. The authority citation for part 262 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6912, 6922-6925, 6937, 6938 
and 6939g.


Sec.  262.20  [Amended]

0
8. Section 262.20 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(a)(2).
0
9. Section 262.21 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(5), (6), and 
(7) to read as follows:


Sec.  262.21  Manifest tracking numbers, manifest printing, and 
obtaining manifests.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (5) The manifest and continuation sheet must be printed as four-
copy forms. Copy-to-copy registration must be exact within 1/32nd of an 
inch. Handwritten and typed impressions on the form must be legible on 
all four copies. Copies must be bound together by one or more common 
stubs that reasonably ensure that they will not become detached 
inadvertently during normal use.
    (6) Each copy of the manifest and continuation sheet must indicate 
how the copy must be distributed, as follows:
    (i) Page 1 (top copy): ``Designated facility to EPA's e-Manifest 
system'';
    (ii) Page 2: ``Designated facility copy'';
    (iii) Page 3: ``Transporter copy''; and
    (iv) Page 4 (bottom copy): ``Generator's initial copy.''
    (7) The instructions for the manifest form (EPA Form 8700-22) and 
the manifest continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A) shall be printed in 
accordance with the content that is currently approved under OMB 
Control Number 2050-0039 and published to the e-Manifest program's 
website. The instructions must appear legibly on the back of the copies 
of the manifest and continuation sheet as provided in this paragraph 
(f). The instructions must not be visible through the front of the 
copies when photocopied or faxed.
    (i) Manifest Form 8700-22.
    (A) The ``Instructions for Generators'' on Copy 4;
    (B) The ``Instructions for Transporters'' on Copy 3; and
    (C) The ``Instructions for Treatment, Storage, and Disposal 
Facilities'' on Copy 2.
    (ii) Manifest Form 8700-22A.
    (A) The ``Instructions for Generators'' on Copy 4;
    (B) The ``Instructions for International Shipment Block'' and 
``Instructions for Transporters'' on Copy 3; and
    (C) The ``Instructions for Treatment, Storage, and Disposal 
Facilities'' on Copy 2.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 262.42 is amended revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(2), 
and adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  262.42  Exception reporting.

    (a)(1) A generator of 1,000 kilograms or greater of hazardous waste 
in a calendar month, or greater than 1 kg of acute hazardous waste 
listed in Sec.  261.31 or 261.33(e) in a calendar month, who does not 
receive a copy of the manifest with the signature of the owner or 
operator of the designated facility within 40 days of the date the 
waste was accepted by the initial transporter must contact the 
transporter and/or the owner or operator of the designated facility to 
determine the status of the hazardous waste.
    (2) A generator of 1,000 kilograms or greater of hazardous waste in 
a calendar month, or greater than 1 kg of acute hazardous waste listed 
in Sec.  261.31or Sec.  261.33(e) in a calendar month, must submit an 
Exception Report to the EPA Regional Administrator for the Region in 
which the generator is located if the generator has not received a copy 
of the manifest with the signature of the owner or operator of the 
designated facility within 50 days of the date the waste was accepted 
by the initial transporter. The Exception Report must include:
    (i) A legible copy of the manifest for which the generator does not 
have confirmation of delivery;
    (ii) A cover letter signed by the generator or his authorized 
representative explaining the efforts taken to locate the hazardous 
waste and the results of those efforts.
    (b) A generator of greater than 100 kilograms but less than 1000 
kilograms of hazardous waste in a calendar month who does not receive a 
copy of the manifest with the signature of the owner or operator of the 
designated facility within 60 days of the date the waste was accepted 
by the initial transporter must submit a legible copy of the manifest, 
with some indication that the generator has not received confirmation 
of delivery, to the EPA Regional Administrator for the Region in which 
the generator is located.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) The 40/50/60-day timeframes begin the date the waste was 
accepted by the initial transporter forwarding the hazardous waste 
shipment from the designated facility to the alternate facility.
    (d) Legal equivalence to paper Exception Reports. Electronic 
Exception Reports that are prepared in accordance with Sec.  
262.42(a)(2) for large quantity generators or Sec.  262.42(b) for small 
quantity generators and used in accordance with this section in lieu of 
paper Exception Reports are the legal equivalent of paper Exception 
Reports bearing handwritten signatures, and satisfy for all purposes 
any requirement in these regulations to complete, sign, provide, and 
retain an exception report.
    (1) Any requirement in these regulations to sign an Exception 
Report certification by hand is satisfied by signing with a valid and 
enforceable electronic signature within the meaning of Sec.  262.25.
    (2) Any requirement in these regulations to give, provide or send 
an

[[Page 19326]]

Exception Report to the EPA Regional Administrator is satisfied when an 
electronic Exception Report is distributed to the EPA Regional 
Administrator by submission to the e-Manifest system.
    (3) Any requirement in these regulations for a generator to keep or 
retain a copy of an Exception Report is satisfied by retention of a 
signed electronic Exception Report in the generator's account on the 
national e-Manifest system, provided that the Exception Report is 
readily available for viewing and production if requested by any EPA or 
authorized state inspector.
    (4) No generator may be held liable for the inability to produce an 
electronic Exception Report for inspection under this section if the 
generator can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic 
Exception Report is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the 
e-Manifest system for which the generator bears no responsibility.
    (e) Restriction on use of electronic exception reporting. A 
generator may participate in electronic exception reporting if:
    (1) The manifest at issue is an electronic manifest or a hybrid 
manifest (mixed paper and electronic manifest) in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  262.24(c) and 262.25 of this part; and
    (2) For mixed paper and electronic manifests (i.e., hybrid 
manifests), the generator has registered with EPA and has access to the 
electronic manifests for the site.
0
11. Section 262.83 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(6), (b)(1)(i) through (iv), (b)(3), (c), 
(d)(2)(i) through (v), (viii), (ix), and (xv);
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(xvi),
0
c. Revising paragraphs (f)(4), (5), (6)(ii), (g), (i)(1)(v) and
0
d. Adding paragraph (i)(1)(vi).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  262.83  Exports of hazardous waste.

    (a) * * *
    (6) The exporter or a U.S. authorized agent submits Electronic 
Export Information (EEI) for each shipment to the Automated Export 
System (AES) or its successor system, under the International Trade 
Data System (ITDS) platform, in accordance with 15 CFR 30.4(b), and 
includes the following items in the EEI, along with the other 
information required under 15 CFR 30.6:
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Exporter name and EPA identification number, site address, 
telephone, fax numbers, and email address;
    (ii) Foreign receiving facility name, site address, telephone, fax 
numbers, email address, technologies employed, and the applicable 
recovery or disposal operations as defined in Sec.  262.81;
    (iii) Foreign importer name (if not the owner or operator of the 
foreign receiving facility), site address, telephone, fax numbers, and 
email address;
    (iv) Intended transporter(s) and/or their agent(s); site address, 
telephone, fax, and email address;
* * * * *
    (3) Notifications listing interim recycling operations or interim 
disposal operations. If the foreign receiving facility listed in 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section will engage in any of the interim 
recovery operations R12 or R13 or interim disposal operations D13 
through D15, or in the case of transboundary movements with Canada, any 
of the interim recovery operations R12, R13, or RC3, or interim 
disposal operations D13 to D14, or D15, the notification submitted 
according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section must also include the 
final foreign recovery or disposal facility name, site address, 
telephone, fax numbers, email address, technologies employed, and which 
of the applicable recovery or disposal operations R1 through R11 and D1 
through D12, or in the case of transboundary movements with Canada, 
which of the applicable recovery or disposal operations R1 through R11, 
RC1 to RC2, D1 through D12, and DC1 to DC2 will be employed at the 
final foreign recovery or disposal facility. The recovery and disposal 
operations in this paragraph are defined in Sec.  262.81.
* * * * *
    (c) RCRA manifest instructions for export shipments. The exporter 
must comply with the manifest requirements of Sec. Sec.  262.20 through 
262.25 except that:
    (1) In lieu of the name, site address and EPA ID number of the 
designated permitted facility, the exporter must enter the name and 
site address of the foreign receiving facility;
    (2) In the International Shipments block on the Continuation Sheet 
(EPA Form 8700-22A), the exporter must:
    (i) Check the export box;
    (ii) enter the exporter's EPA ID number and email address;
    (iii) enter the U.S. port of exit (city and state) from the United 
States; and
    (iv) list the waste stream consent number from the AOC for each 
hazardous waste listed on the manifest, matched to the relevant list 
number for the hazardous waste from block 9b. If additional space is 
needed, the exporter should use an additional Continuation Sheet(s) 
(EPA Form 8700-22A).
    (3) The exporter may obtain the manifest from any source so long as 
the source of the printed form has received approval from EPA to print 
the manifest in accordance with Sec.  262.21(g)(1) of this part.
    (4) Within 30 days of receiving an export manifest from the final 
domestic transporter to carry the export shipment to or across the U.S. 
port of exit, the exporter must submit the top copy (Page 1) of the 
signed and dated manifest (both and electronic and paper) and all 
continuation sheets (both electronic and paper) to the e-Manifest 
system. The exporter must submit the paper manifest and all paper 
continuation sheets to the e-Manifest system for purposes of data entry 
and processing by transmitting to the EPA system an image file of Page 
1 of the manifest and all continuation sheets, or by transmitting to 
the e-Manifest system both a data file and the image file corresponding 
to Page 1 of the manifest and all continuation sheets.
    (5) Imposition of user fee for manifest submission. (i) As 
prescribed in Sec.  265.1311, and determined in Sec.  265.1312, an 
exporter who is a user of the electronic manifest system shall be 
assessed a user fee by EPA for the submission and processing of each 
electronic and paper manifest. EPA shall update the schedule of user 
fees and publish them to the user community, as provided in Sec.  
265.1313.
    (ii) An exporter subject to user fees under this section shall make 
user fee payments in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  
265.1314, subject to the informal fee dispute resolution process of 
Sec.  265.1316, and subject to the sanctions for delinquent payments 
under Sec.  265.1315.
    (6) Electronic manifest signatures. Electronic manifest signatures 
shall meet the criteria described in Sec.  262.25 of this chapter.
    (7) Special procedures applicable to replacement manifests. Within 
30 days of receiving a paper replacement manifest from the last 
transporter carrying the shipment to or across the U.S. border for a 
manifest that was originated electronically, the exporter must send a 
signed and dated copy of the paper replacement manifest to the e-
Manifest system,
    (8) Post-receipt manifest data corrections. After foreign 
facilities have certified to the receipt of hazardous wastes by sending 
a copy of the movement document to the exporter per paragraph 
(d)(2)(xvii) of this section, any post-receipt data corrections may be 
submitted at any time by any interested

[[Page 19327]]

person (e.g., domestic waste handler) shown on the manifest.
    (i) Interested persons must make all corrections to manifest data 
by electronic submission, either by directly entering corrected data to 
the web-based service provided in e-Manifest system for such 
corrections, or by an upload of a data file containing data corrections 
relating to one or more previously submitted manifests.
    (ii) Each correction submission must include the following 
information:
    (A) The Manifest Tracking Number and date of receipt by the 
facility of the original manifest(s) for which data are being 
corrected;
    (B) The Item Number(s) of the original manifest that is the subject 
of the submitted correction(s); and
    (C) For each Item Number with corrected data, the data previously 
entered, and the corresponding data as corrected by the correction 
submission.
    (iii) Each correction submission shall include a statement that the 
person submitting the corrections certifies that to the best of his or 
her knowledge or belief, the corrections that are included in the 
submission will cause the information reported about the previously 
received hazardous wastes to be true, accurate, and complete.
    (A) The certification statement must be executed with a valid 
electronic signature under CROMERR section 3.10; and
    (B) A batch upload of data corrections may be submitted under one 
certification statement.
    (iv) Upon receipt by the system of any correction submission, other 
interested persons shown on the manifest will be provided electronic 
notice of the submitter's corrections.
    (v) Other interested persons shown on the manifest may respond to 
the submitter's corrections with comments to the submitter, or by 
submitting another correction to the e-Manifest system, certified by 
the respondent as specified in paragraph (c)(7)(iii) of this section, 
and with notice of the corrections to other interested persons shown on 
the manifest.
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The corresponding consent number(s) and hazardous waste 
number(s) for the listed hazardous waste from the relevant EPA AOC(s) 
and if required to be accompanied by a RCRA Uniform Hazardous Waste 
Manifest within the United States, the manifest tracking number from 
block 4;
    (ii) The shipment number and the total number of shipments from the 
EPA AOC or the movement tracking number;
    (iii) Exporter name and EPA identification number, site address, 
telephone, fax numbers, and email address;
    (iv) Foreign receiving facility name, site address, telephone, fax 
numbers, email address, technologies employed, and the applicable 
recovery or disposal operations as defined in Sec.  262.81;
    (v) Foreign importer name (if not the owner or operator of the 
foreign receiving facility), site address, telephone, fax numbers, and 
email address;
* * * * *
    (viii) Name (if not exporter), site address, telephone, fax 
numbers, and email of company originating the shipment;
    (ix) Company name, EPA ID number, site address, telephone, fax, and 
email address of all transporters;
* * * * *
    (xv) As part of the contract requirements per paragraph (f) of this 
section, the exporter must require that the foreign receiving facility 
send a copy of the signed movement document to confirm receipt within 
three working days of shipment delivery to the exporter, and to the 
competent authorities of the countries of import and transit that 
control the shipment as an import and transit of hazardous waste 
respectively. For shipments occurring on or after the electronic 
import-export reporting compliance date, the exporter must
    (A) Initiate the movement document using the allowable methods 
listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and
    (B) Close out the movement document within three working days of 
receiving a copy of the signed movement document sent from the foreign 
receiving facility to confirm receipt using the allowable methods 
listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section;
    (xvi) As part of the contract requirements per paragraph (f) of 
this section, the exporter must require that the foreign receiving 
facility send a copy of the confirmation of recovery or disposal, as 
soon as possible, but no later than thirty days after completing 
recovery or disposal on the waste in the shipment and no later than one 
calendar year following receipt of the waste, to the exporter and to 
the competent authority of the country of import. If the movement 
includes shipment to a foreign interim receiving facility, the exporter 
must additionally require that the interim receiving facility promptly 
send copies of the confirmation of recovery or disposal that it 
receives from the final recovery or disposal facility within one year 
of shipment delivery to the final recovery or disposal facility that 
performed one of recovery operations R1 through R11, or RC1, or one of 
disposal operations D1 through D12, DC1 or DC2 as defined in Sec.  
262.81 to the competent authority of the country of import and to the 
exporter. For shipments occurring on or after the electronic import-
export reporting compliance date, the exporter must submit each 
confirmation of recovery or disposal to EPA within three working days 
of receiving the confirmation of recovery or disposal from the foreign 
receiving facility using the allowable methods listed in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section; and
    (xvii) for shipments sent to a country with which EPA has 
established an electronic exchange of movement document tracking data, 
foreign receiving facility transmittal to the exporter of the 
confirmation of receipt and the confirmation of recovery or disposal 
may be sent via the electronic exchange.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) Transmittals made by the transporter or foreign receiving 
facility under paragraph (i) of this section being sent to the exporter 
or EPA from a country with which EPA has established an electronic 
exchange of movement document tracking data may be sent via the 
electronic exchange.
* * * * *
    (4) Contracts must specify that the foreign receiving facility send 
a copy of the signed movement document to confirm receipt within three 
working days of shipment delivery to the exporter and to the competent 
authorities of the countries of import and transit that control the 
shipment as an import and transit of hazardous waste respectively. For 
shipments sent to a country with which EPA has established an 
electronic exchange of movement document tracking data, foreign 
receiving facility transmittal to the exporter of the confirmation of 
receipt may be sent via the electronic exchange.
    (5) Contracts must specify that the foreign receiving facility 
shall send a copy of the signed and dated confirmation of recovery or 
disposal, as soon as possible, but no later than thirty days after 
completing recovery or disposal on the waste in the shipment and no 
later than one calendar year following receipt of the waste, to the 
exporter and to the competent authority of the country of import that 
controls the shipment as an import of hazardous waste. For shipments 
sent to a country

[[Page 19328]]

with which EPA has established an electronic exchange of movement 
document tracking data, foreign receiving facility transmittal to the 
exporter of the confirmation of recovery or disposal may be sent via 
the electronic exchange.
    (6) * * *
    (ii) Promptly send copies of the confirmation of recovery or 
disposal that it receives from the final foreign recovery or disposal 
facility within one year of shipment delivery to the final foreign 
recovery or disposal facility that performed one of recovery operations 
R1 through R11, or RC1, or one of disposal operations D1 through D12, 
DC1 or DC2 to the competent authority of the country of import that 
controls the shipment as an import of hazardous waste and to the 
exporter. For shipments sent to a country with which EPA has 
established an electronic exchange of movement document tracking data, 
foreign receiving facility transmittal to the exporter of the 
confirmation of recovery or disposal may be sent via the electronic 
exchange.
* * * * *
    (g) Annual reports. The exporter shall file an annual report with 
EPA no later than March 1 of each year summarizing the types, 
quantities, frequency, and ultimate destination of all such hazardous 
waste exported during the previous calendar year. The exporter must 
submit annual reports to EPA using the allowable methods specified in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The annual report must include all of 
the following paragraphs (g)(1) through (6) of this section specified 
as follows:
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) The exporter shall keep the following records in paragraphs 
(i)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section and provide them to EPA or 
authorized state personnel upon request:
* * * * *
    (v) A copy of each contract or equivalent arrangement established 
per paragraph (f) of this section for at least three (3) years from the 
expiration date of the contract or equivalent arrangement.
    (vi) A copy of each manifest sent by the last transporter in the 
United States per Sec.  263.20(g).
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec.  262.84 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iv), (b)(2), (c)(1)(i) and 
(c)(3);
0
b. Removing paragraph (c)(4);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (c)(5) as new paragraph (c)(4);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (d)(2)(i), (ii) through (v), (viii) through 
(ix), (xv),
0
e. Adding paragraph (f)(4)(iii), and
0
f. Revising paragraphs (g)(1), and (2).
    The revisions and additions to read as follows:


Sec.  262.84   Imports of hazardous waste.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Foreign exporter name, site address, telephone, fax numbers, 
and email address;
    (ii) Receiving facility name, EPA ID number, site address, 
telephone, fax numbers, email address, technologies employed, and the 
applicable recovery or disposal operations as defined in Sec.  262.81;
    (iii) Importer name (if not the owner or operator of the receiving 
facility), EPA ID number, site address, telephone, fax numbers, and 
email address;
    (iv) Intended transporter(s) and/or their agent(s); site address, 
telephone, fax, and email address;
* * * * *
    (2) Notifications listing interim recycling operations or interim 
disposal operations. If the receiving facility listed in paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii) of this section will engage in any of the interim recovery 
operations R12, R13 or RC3 or interim disposal operations D13 through 
D15, the notification submitted according to paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section must also include the final recovery or disposal facility name, 
site address, telephone, fax numbers, email address, technologies 
employed, and which of the applicable recovery or disposal operations 
R1 through R11, RC1, and D1 through D12, will be employed at the final 
recovery or disposal facility. The recovery and disposal operations in 
this paragraph are defined in Sec.  262.81.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) In place of the generator's name, mailing and site addresses 
and EPA identification number, the name and site address of the foreign 
generator and the importer's name, mailing address and EPA 
identification number must be used.
* * * * *
    (3) In the International Shipments block on the Continuation Sheet 
(EPA Form 8700-22A), the importer must check the import box and enter 
the port of entry (city and State) into the United States.
    (4) In lieu of the requirements of Sec.  262.20(d), where a 
shipment cannot be delivered for any reason to the receiving facility, 
the importer must instruct the transporter in writing via fax, email or 
mail to:
    (i) Return the hazardous waste to the foreign exporter or designate 
another facility within the United States; and
    (ii) Revise the manifest in accordance with the importer's 
instructions.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) The corresponding AOC number(s) and waste number(s) for the 
listed waste and if required to be accompanied by a RCRA uniform 
hazardous waste manifest within the United States, the manifest 
tracking number from block 4;(ii) The shipment number and the total 
number of shipments under the AOC number or the movement tracking 
number;
    (iii) Foreign exporter name, site address, telephone, fax numbers, 
and email address;
    (iv) Receiving facility name, EPA ID number, site address, 
telephone, fax numbers, email address, technologies employed, and the 
applicable recovery or disposal operations as defined in Sec.  262.81;
    (v) Importer name (if not the owner or operator of the receiving 
facility), EPA ID number, site address, telephone, fax numbers, and 
email address;
* * * * *
    (viii) Name (if not the foreign exporter), site address, telephone, 
fax numbers, and email of the foreign company originating the shipment;
    (ix) Company name, EPA ID number, site address, telephone, fax, and 
email address of all transporters;
* * * * *
    (ix) Company name, EPA ID number (for transporters carrying RCRA 
manifested hazardous waste within the U.S. only), address, telephone, 
fax, and email address of all transporters;
* * * * *
    (xv) The receiving facility must send a copy of the signed movement 
document to confirm receipt within three working days of shipment 
delivery to the foreign exporter and to the competent authorities of 
the countries of export and transit that control the shipment as an 
export and transit of hazardous waste respectively. For shipments 
received on or after the electronic import-export reporting compliance 
date, the receiving facility must close out the movement document to 
confirm receipt within three working days of shipment delivery using 
EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS), or its successor 
system. For shipments sent from a country with which EPA has 
established an electronic exchange of movement document tracking data, 
the receiving facility may use WIETS or its successor system to

[[Page 19329]]

send movement document confirmation data back through the electronic 
exchange to the foreign exporter and the country of export.
    (f) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iii) Transmittals made by the transporter or receiving facility 
under paragraph (i) of this section being sent to a competent authority 
or foreign exporter in a country with which EPA has established an 
electronic exchange of movement document tracking data may be sent via 
the electronic exchange.
* * * * *
    (g) Confirmation of recovery or disposal. The receiving facility 
must do the following:
    (1) Send copies of the signed and dated confirmation of recovery or 
disposal, as soon as possible, but no later than thirty days after 
completing recovery or disposal on the waste in the shipment and no 
later than one calendar year following receipt of the waste, to the 
foreign exporter, to the competent authority of the country of export 
that controls the shipment as an export of hazardous waste, and for 
shipments recycled or disposed of on or after the electronic import-
export reporting compliance date, to EPA electronically using EPA's 
WIETS, or its successor system. For shipments sent from a country with 
which EPA has established an electronic exchange of movement document 
tracking data, the receiving facility may use WIETS or its successor 
system to send confirmation of recovery or disposal data back through 
the electronic exchange to the foreign exporter and the country of 
export.
    (2) If the receiving facility performed any of recovery operations 
R12, R13, or RC3, or disposal operations D13 through D15, the receiving 
facility shall promptly send copies of the confirmation of recovery or 
disposal that it receives from the final recovery or disposal facility 
within one year of shipment delivery to the final recovery or disposal 
facility that performed one of recovery operations R1 through R11, or 
RC1 to RC2, or one of disposal operations D1 through D12, or DC1 to 
DC2, to the competent authority of the country of export that controls 
the shipment as an export of hazardous waste, and for confirmations 
received on or after the electronic import-export reporting compliance 
date, to EPA electronically using EPA's WIETS, or its successor system. 
The recovery and disposal operations in this paragraph are defined in 
Sec.  262.81. For shipments sent from a country with which EPA has 
established an electronic exchange of movement document tracking data, 
the receiving facility may use WIETS or its successor system to send 
confirmation of recovery or disposal data back through the electronic 
exchange to the country of export.
* * * * *

PART 263--STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
13. The authority citation for part 263 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922--6925, 6937, 6938, and 
6939g.

0
14. Section 263.20 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (c), 
(g)(1), (3), and removing paragraph (g)(4) toread as follows.


Sec.  263.20   The manifest system.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Exports. For exports of hazardous waste subject to the 
requirements of subpart H of 40 CFR part 262, a transporter may not 
accept hazardous waste without a manifest signed by the generator in 
accordance with this section, as appropriate, and a movement document 
that includes all information required by 40 CFR 262.83(d).
* * * * *
    (c) The transporter must ensure that the manifest accompanies the 
hazardous waste. For exports, the transporter must ensure that a 
movement document that includes all information required by 40 CFR 
262.83(d) also accompanies the hazardous waste. For imports, the 
transporter must ensure that a movement document that includes all 
information required by 40 CFR 262.84(d) also accompanies the hazardous 
waste.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) Date the manifest in the International Shipments block on the 
Continuation Sheet(s) to indicate the date that the shipment left the 
United States or has been delivered to a seaport of exit for loading 
onto an international carrier;
* * * * *
    (3) Return signed, top copies of the manifest and continuation 
sheet to the exporter.
* * * * *

PART 264--STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

0
15. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, 6925, and 6939g.

0
16. Section 264.12 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(4)(i) 
and (ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  264.12   Required notices.

    (a) * * *
    (2) As per 40 CFR 262.84(d)(2)(xv), a copy of the movement document 
bearing all required signatures within three (3) working days of 
receipt of the shipment to the foreign exporter and to the competent 
authorities of the countries of export and transit that control the 
shipment as an export and transit shipment of hazardous waste 
respectively. For shipments received on or after the electronic import-
export reporting compliance date, the receiving facility must close out 
the movement document to confirm receipt within three working days of 
shipment delivery using EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System 
(WIETS), or its successor system. For shipments sent from a country 
with which EPA has established an electronic exchange of movement 
document tracking data, the receiving facility may use WIETS or its 
successor system to send movement document confirmation data back 
through the electronic exchange to the foreign exporter and the country 
of export. The original of the signed movement document must be 
maintained at the facility for at least three (3) years. The owner or 
operator of a facility may satisfy this recordkeeping requirement by 
retaining electronically submitted documents in the facility's account 
on WIETS, or its successor system, provided that copies are readily 
available for viewing and production if requested by any EPA or 
authorized state inspector. No owner or operator of a facility may be 
held liable for the inability to produce the documents for inspection 
under this section if the owner or operator of a facility can 
demonstrate that the inability to produce the document is due 
exclusively to technical difficulty with WIETS, or its successor system 
for which the owner or operator of a facility bears no responsibility.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) Send copies of the signed and dated confirmation of recovery or 
disposal, as soon as possible, but no later than thirty days after 
completing recovery or disposal on the waste in the shipment and no 
later than one calendar year following receipt of the waste, to the 
foreign exporter, to the competent authority of the country of export 
that controls the shipment as an export of hazardous waste, and for 
shipments recycled or disposed of on or after the electronic import-
export reporting

[[Page 19330]]

compliance date, to EPA electronically using WIETS, or its successor 
system. For shipments sent from a country with which EPA has 
established an electronic exchange of movement document tracking data, 
the receiving facility may use WIETS or its successor system to send 
confirmation of recovery or disposal data back through the electronic 
exchange to the foreign exporter and the country of export.
    (ii) If the facility performed any of recovery operations R12, R13, 
or RC3, or disposal operations D13 through D15, promptly send copies of 
the confirmation of recovery or disposal that it receives from the 
final recovery or disposal facility within one year of shipment 
delivery to the final recovery or disposal facility that performed one 
of recovery operations R1 through R11, or RC1, or one of disposal 
operations D1 through D12, or DC1 to DC2, to the competent authority of 
the country of export that controls the shipment as an export of 
hazardous waste, and on or after the electronic import-export reporting 
compliance date, to EPA electronically using WIETS, or its successor 
system. The recovery and disposal operations in this paragraph are 
defined in 40 CFR 262.81. For shipments sent from a country with which 
EPA has established an electronic exchange of movement document 
tracking data, the receiving facility may use WIETS or its successor 
system to send confirmation of recovery or disposal data back through 
the electronic exchange to the country of export.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 264.71 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iv), and 
(v), (a)(3)(i) and (ii), (b)(4) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  264.71   Use of manifest system.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) Within 30 days of delivery, send a copy (Page 1) of the signed 
and dated manifest to the e-Manifest system;
    (v) Paper manifest submission requirements are:
    (A) [Reserved]
    (B) Options for compliance on June 30, 2021. Beginning on June 30, 
2021, the requirement to submit the top copy (Page 1) of the paper 
manifest and any paper continuation sheet to the e-Manifest system for 
purposes of data entry and processing may be met by the owner or 
operator only by transmitting to the e-Manifest system an image file of 
Page 1 of the manifest and any continuation sheet, or by transmitting 
to the e-Manifest system both a data file and the image file 
corresponding to Page 1 of the manifest and any continuation sheet, 
within 30 days of the date; of delivery; and
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Additionally, list the relevant waste stream consent number 
from consent documentation supplied by EPA to the facility for each 
waste listed on the manifest in the International Shipments block on 
the Continuation Sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A), matched to the relevant 
list number for the waste from block 9b. If additional space is needed, 
the owner or operator should use an additional Continuation Sheet(s) 
(EPA Form 8700-22A); and
    (ii) Send a copy of the manifest within thirty (30) days of 
delivery to the e-Manifest system per paragraph (a)(2)(v) of this 
section.
    (b) * * *
    (4) Within 30 days of delivery, send a copy (Page 1) of the signed 
and dated manifest to the e-Manifest system; and
* * * * *
    (d) As per 40 CFR 262.84(d)(2)(xv), within three (3) working days 
of the receipt of a shipment subject to 40 CFR part 262, subpart H, the 
owner or operator of a facility must provide a copy of the movement 
document bearing all required signatures to the foreign exporter and to 
the competent authorities of the countries of export and transit that 
control the shipment as an export and transit of hazardous waste 
respectively. For shipments received on or after the electronic import-
export reporting compliance date, the receiving facility must close out 
the movement document to confirm receipt within three working days of 
shipment delivery using EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System 
(WIETS), or its successor system. For shipments sent from a country 
with which EPA has established an electronic exchange of movement 
document tracking data, the receiving facility may use WIETS or its 
successor system to send movement document confirmation data back 
through the electronic exchange to the foreign exporter and the country 
of export. The original copy of the movement document must be 
maintained at the facility for at least three (3) years from the date 
of signature. The owner or operator of a facility may satisfy this 
recordkeeping requirement by retaining electronically submitted 
documents in the facility's account on WIETS, or its successor system, 
provided that copies are readily available for viewing and production 
if requested by any EPA or authorized state inspector. No owner or 
operator of a facility may be held liable for the inability to produce 
the documents for inspection under this section if the owner or 
operator of a facility can demonstrate that the inability to produce 
the document is due exclusively to technical difficulty with WIETS, or 
its successor system, for which the owner or operator of a facility 
bears no responsibility.
* * * * *
0
18. Section 264.72 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  264.72   Manifest discrepancies.

* * * * *
    (c) Upon discovering a significant difference in quantity or type, 
the owner or operator must attempt to reconcile the discrepancy with 
the waste generator or transporter (e.g., with telephone 
conversations). If the discrepancy is not resolved within 20 days after 
receiving the waste, the owner or operator must immediately submit to 
the EPA Regional Administrator a letter describing the discrepancy and 
attempts to reconcile it, and a copy of the manifest or shipping paper 
at issue.
    (1) Legal equivalence to paper Discrepancy Reports. Electronic 
Discrepancy Reports that are completed, transmitted, and used in 
accordance with this section in lieu of the paper Discrepancy Report 
are the legal equivalent of paper Discrepancy Reports and satisfy for 
all purposes any requirement in these regulations to complete, provide, 
use, or retain a Discrepancy Report.
    (2) Any requirement in these regulations to give, provide, or 
submit a copy of the Discrepancy Report to the EPA Regional 
Administrator is satisfied when an electronic Discrepancy Report is 
distributed to the EPA Regional Administrator by submission to the e-
Manifest system.
    (3) Any requirement in these regulations for an owner or operator 
to keep or retain a copy of a Discrepancy Report is satisfied by the 
retention of the facility's electronic Discrepancy Report in its 
account on the e-Manifest system, provided that such copies are readily 
available for viewing and production if requested by any EPA or 
authorized state inspector.
    (4) No owner or operator may be held liable for the inability to 
produce an electronic Discrepancy Report for inspection under this 
section if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the inability to 
produce the electronic Discrepancy Report is due exclusively to a 
technical difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the owner or 
operator bears no responsibility.
* * * * *

[[Page 19331]]

0
19. Section 264.76 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  264.76   Unmanifested waste report.

    (a) If a facility accepts for treatment, storage, or disposal any 
hazardous waste from an off-site source without an accompanying 
manifest, or without an accompanying shipping paper as described by 
Sec.  263.20(e) of this chapter, and if the waste is not excluded from 
the manifest requirement by this chapter, then the owner or operator 
must prepare an electronic Unmanifested Waste Report in the e-Manifest 
system for submission to the EPA within 15 days after receiving the 
waste. The Unmanifested Waste Report must contain the following 
information:
    (1) The EPA identification number, name and address of the 
facility;
    (2) The date the facility received the waste;
    (3) The EPA identification number, name and address of the 
generator and the terminal [or final] transporter, if available;
    (4) A description and the quantity of each unmanifested hazardous 
waste the facility received;
    (5) The method of treatment, storage, or disposal for each 
hazardous waste;
    (6) The certification signed by the owner or operator of the 
facility or his authorized representative; and,
    (7) A brief explanation of why the waste was unmanifested, if 
known.
    (b) Per Unmanifested Waste Report fee. Fees shall be assessed on a 
per Unmanifested Waste Report basis for the submission of each 
electronic Unmanifested Waste Report that is electronically signed and 
submitted to the e-Manifest system by the owners or operators of 
receiving facilities, with the fee assessed at the applicable rate for 
electronic manifest submissions.
0
20. Section 264.1310 is amended by revising the definition of ``Paper 
manifest submissions'' to read as follows:


Sec.  264.1310   Definitions applicable to the subpart.

* * * * *
    Paper manifest submissions mean submissions to the paper processing 
center of the e-Manifest system by facility owners or operators, of the 
data from the designated facility copy of a paper manifest, EPA Form 
8700-22, or a paper Continuation Sheet, EPA Form 8700-22A. Such 
submissions may be made by submitting image files from paper manifests 
or continuation sheets in accordance with Sec.  264.1311(b), or by 
submitting both an image file and data file in accordance with the 
procedures of Sec.  264.1311(c).
* * * * *
0
21. Section 264.1311 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2), adding 
paragraph (4), revising paragraph (b) introductory text, and (c) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  264.1311   Manifest transactions subject to fees.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The submission of each paper manifest submission to the paper 
processing center signed by owners or operators of receiving 
facilities, with the fee assessed according to whether the manifest is 
submitted to the system by the upload of an image file or by the upload 
of a data file representation of the paper manifest; and
* * * * *
    (4) The submission of unmanifested waste reports per Sec.  264.76.
    (b) Image file uploads from paper manifests. Receiving facilities 
may submit image file uploads of completed, ink-signed manifests to the 
e-Manifest system. Such image file upload submissions may be made for 
individual manifests received by a facility or as a batch upload of 
image files from multiple paper manifests received at the facility:
* * * * *
    (c) Data file uploads from paper manifests. Receiving facilities 
may submit data file representations of completed, ink-signed manifests 
in lieu of submitting image files to the e-Manifest system. Such data 
file submissions from paper manifests may be made for individual 
manifests received by a facility or as a batch upload of data files 
from multiple paper manifests received at the facility.
* * * * *
0
22. Section 264.1312 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  264.1312   User fee calculation methodology.

    (a) The fee calculation formula or methodology that EPA will use 
initially to determine per manifest fees is as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP22.006

    Where Fee<INF>i</INF> represents the per manifest fee for each 
manifest submission type ``i'' and N<INF>t</INF> refers to the total 
number of manifests completed in a year.
    (b)(1) If after four years of system operations, electronic 
manifest usage does not equal or exceed 75% of total manifest usage, 
EPA may transition to the following formula or methodology to determine 
per manifest fees:

[[Page 19332]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP22.007

    Where N<INF>i</INF> refers to the total number of one of the four 
manifest submission types ``i'' completed in a year and O&M<INF>i</INF> 
Cost refers to the differential O&M Cost for each manifest submission 
type ``i.''
* * * * *

PART 265--INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF 
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

0
23. The authority citation for part 265 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6905, 6906, 6912, 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 
6935, 6936, 6937, and 6939g.

0
24. Section 265.12 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(4)(i) 
and (ii), to read as follows:


Sec.  265.12   Required notices.

    (a) * * *
    (2) As per 40 CFR 262.84(d)(2)(xv), a copy of the movement document 
bearing all required signatures within three (3) working days of 
receipt of the shipment to the foreign exporter and to the competent 
authorities of the countries of export and transit that control the 
shipment as an export and transit shipment of hazardous waste 
respectively. For shipments received on or after the electronic import-
export reporting compliance date, the receiving facility must close out 
the movement document to confirm receipt within three working days of 
shipment delivery using EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System 
(WIETS), or its successor system. For shipments sent from a country 
with which EPA has established an electronic exchange of movement 
document tracking data, the receiving facility may use WIETS or its 
successor system to send movement document confirmation data back 
through the electronic exchange to the foreign exporter and the country 
of export. The original of the signed movement document must be 
maintained at the facility for at least three (3) years. The owner or 
operator of a facility may satisfy this recordkeeping requirement by 
retaining electronically submitted documents in the facility's account 
on WIETS, or its successor system, provided that copies are readily 
available for viewing and production if requested by any EPA or 
authorized state inspector. No owner or operator of a facility may be 
held liable for the inability to produce the documents for inspection 
under this section if the owner or operator of a facility can 
demonstrate that the inability to produce the document is due 
exclusively to technical difficulty with WIETS, or its successor 
system, for which the owner or operator of a facility bears no 
responsibility.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) Send copies of the signed and dated confirmation of recovery or 
disposal, as soon as possible, but no later than thirty days after 
completing recovery or disposal on the waste in the shipment and no 
later than one calendar year following receipt of the waste, to the 
foreign exporter, to the competent authority of the country of export 
that controls the shipment as an export of hazardous waste, and on or 
after the electronic import-export reporting compliance date, to EPA 
electronically using WIETS, or its successor system. For shipments sent 
from a country with which EPA has established an electronic exchange of 
movement document tracking data, the receiving facility may use WIETS 
or its successor system to send confirmation of recovery or disposal 
data back through the electronic exchange to the foreign exporter and 
the country of export.
    (ii) If the facility performed any of recovery operations R12, R13, 
or RC3, or disposal operations D13 through D15, promptly send copies of 
the confirmation of recovery or disposal that it receives from the 
final recovery or disposal facility within one year of shipment 
delivery to the final recovery or disposal facility that performed one 
of recovery operations R1 through R11, or RC1, or one of disposal 
operations D1 through D12, or DC1 to DC2, to the competent authority of 
the country of export that controls the shipment as an export of 
hazardous waste, and on or after the electronic import-export reporting 
compliance date, to EPA electronically using WIETS, or its successor 
system. The recovery and disposal operations in this paragraph are 
defined in 40 CFR 262.81. For shipments sent from a country with which 
EPA has established an electronic exchange of movement document 
tracking data, the receiving facility may use WIETS or its successor 
system to send confirmation of recovery or disposal data back through 
the electronic exchange to the country of export.
* * * * *
0
25. Amend Sec.  265.71 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iv), (v);
0
b. Adding (a)(2)(vi); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i), (ii), (b)(4), and (d).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  265.71   Use of manifest system.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) Within 30 days of delivery, send a copy (Page 1) of the signed 
and dated manifest to the e-Manifest system;
    (v) Paper manifest submission requirements are:

[[Page 19333]]

    (A) [Reserved]
    (B) Options for compliance on June 30, 2021. Beginning on June 30, 
2021, the requirement to submit the top copy (Page 1) of the paper 
manifest and any paper continuation sheet to the e-Manifest system for 
purposes of data entry and processing may be met by the owner or 
operator only by transmitting to the e-Manifest system an image file of 
Page 1 of the manifest and any continuation sheet, or by transmitting 
to the e-Manifest system both a data file and the image file 
corresponding to Page 1 of the manifest and any continuation sheet, 
within 30 days of the date of delivery.; and
    (vi) Retain at the facility a copy of each manifest for at least 
three years from the date of delivery.
    (3) * * *
    (i) Additionally, list the relevant waste stream consent number 
from consent documentation supplied by EPA to the facility for each 
waste listed on the manifest in the International Shipments block on 
the Continuation Sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A), matched to the relevant 
list number for the waste from block 9b. If additional space is needed, 
the owner or operator should use an additional Continuation Sheet(s) 
(EPA Form 8700-22A); and
    (ii) Send a copy of the manifest to the e-Manifest system per 
paragraph (a)(2)(v) of this section.
    (b) * * *
    (4) Within 30 days of delivery, send a copy (Page 1) of the signed 
and dated manifest to the e-Manifest system.
* * * * *
    (d) As per 40 CFR 262.84(d)(2)(xv), within three (3) working days 
of the receipt of a shipment subject to 40 CFR part 262, subpart H, the 
owner or operator of a facility must provide a copy of the movement 
document bearing all required signatures to the foreign exporter and to 
the competent authorities of the countries of export and transit that 
control the shipment as an export and transit shipment of hazardous 
waste respectively. For shipments received on or after the electronic 
import-export reporting compliance date, the receiving facility must 
close out the movement document to confirm receipt within three working 
days of shipment delivery using WIETS, or its successor system. For 
shipments sent from a country with which EPA has established an 
electronic exchange of movement document tracking data, the receiving 
facility may use WIETS or its successor system to send movement 
document confirmation data back through the electronic exchange to the 
foreign exporter and the country of export. The original copy of the 
movement document must be maintained at the facility for at least three 
(3) years from the date of signature. The owner or operator of a 
facility may satisfy this recordkeeping requirement by retaining 
electronically submitted documents in the facility's account on WIETS, 
or its successor system, provided that copies are readily available for 
viewing and production if requested by any EPA or authorized state 
inspector. No owner or operator of a facility may be held liable for 
the inability to produce the documents for inspection under this 
section if the owner or operator of a facility can demonstrate that the 
inability to produce the document is due exclusively to technical 
difficulty with EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS), or 
its successor system, for which the owner or operator of a facility 
bears no responsibility.
* * * * *
0
26. Section 265.72 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  265.72  Manifest discrepancies.

* * * * *
    (c) Upon discovering a significant difference in quantity or type, 
the owner or operator must attempt to reconcile the discrepancy with 
the waste generator or transporter (e.g., with telephone 
conversations). If the discrepancy is not resolved within 20 days after 
receiving the waste, the owner or operator must immediately submit to 
the EPA Regional Administrator a letter describing the discrepancy and 
attempts to reconcile it, and a copy of the manifest or shipping paper 
at issue.
    (1) Legal equivalence to paper Discrepancy Reports. Electronic 
Discrepancy Reports that are completed, transmitted, and used in 
accordance with this section in lieu of the paper Discrepancy Report 
are the legal equivalent of paper Discrepancy Reports and satisfy for 
all purposes any requirement in these regulations to complete, provide, 
use, or retain a Discrepancy Report.
    (2) Any requirement in these regulations to give, provide, or 
submit a copy of the Discrepancy Report to the EPA Regional 
Administrator is satisfied when an electronic Discrepancy Report is 
distributed to the EPA Regional Administrator by submission to the e-
Manifest system.
    (3) Any requirement in these regulations for an owner or operator 
to keep or retain a copy of a Discrepancy Report is satisfied by the 
retention of the facility's electronic Discrepancy Report in its 
account on the e-Manifest system, provided that such copies are readily 
available for viewing and production if requested by any EPA or 
authorized state inspector.
    (4) No owner or operator may be held liable for the inability to 
produce an electronic Discrepancy Report for inspection under this 
section if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the inability to 
produce the electronic discrepancy re is due exclusively to a technical 
difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the owner or operator 
bears no responsibility.
* * * * *
0
27. Section 265.76 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  265.76  Unmanifested waste report.

    (a) If a facility accepts for treatment, storage, or disposal any 
hazardous waste from an off-site source without an accompanying 
manifest, or without an accompanying shipping paper as described by 
Sec.  263.20(e) of this chapter, and if the waste is not excluded from 
the manifest requirement by this chapter, then the owner or operator 
must prepare an electronic Unmanifested Waste Report in the e-Manifest 
system for submission to the EPA within 15 days after receiving the 
waste. The Unmanifested Waste Report must contain the following 
information:
    (1) The EPA identification number, name and address of the 
facility;
    (2) The date the facility received the waste;
    (3) The EPA identification number, name and address of the 
generator and the terminal [or final] transporter, if available;
    (4) A description and the quantity of each unmanifested hazardous 
waste the facility received;
    (5) The method of treatment, storage, or disposal for each 
hazardous waste;
    (6) The certification signed by the owner or operator of the 
facility or his authorized representative; and,
    (7) A brief explanation of why the waste was unmanifested, if 
known.
    (b) Per Unmanifested Waste Report fee. Fees shall be assessed on a 
per Unmanifested Waste Report basis for the submission of each 
electronic Unmanifested Waste Report that is electronically signed and 
submitted to the e-Manifest system by the owners or operators of 
receiving facilities, with the fee assessed at the applicable rate for 
electronic manifest submissions.
0
28. Section 265.1310 is amended by revising the definition of ``Paper 
manifest submissions'' to read as follows:


Sec.  265.1310   Definitions applicable to the subpart.

* * * * *

[[Page 19334]]

    Paper manifest submissions mean submissions to the paper processing 
center of the e-Manifest system by facility owners or operators, of the 
data from the designated facility copy of a paper manifest, EPA Form 
8700-22, or a paper Continuation Sheet, EPA Form 8700-22A. Such 
submissions may be made by submitting image files from paper manifests 
or continuation sheets in accordance with Sec.  264.1311(b) of this 
title, or by submitting both an image file and data file in accordance 
with the procedures of Sec.  264.1311(c) of this title.
* * * * *
0
29. Section 265.1311 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2), adding 
paragraph (4), revising (b) introductory text, and (c) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec.  265.1311   Manifest transactions subject to fees.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The submission of each paper manifest submission to the paper 
processing center signed by owners or operators of receiving 
facilities, with the fee assessed according to whether the manifest is 
submitted to the system by the upload of an image file or by the upload 
of a data file representation of the paper manifest; and
* * * * *
    (4) Unmanifested waste reports per Sec.  265.76.
    (b) Image file uploads from paper manifests. Receiving facilities 
may submit image file uploads of completed, ink-signed manifests to the 
e-Manifest system. Such image file upload submissions may be made for 
individual manifests received by a facility or as a batch upload of 
image files from multiple paper manifests received at the facility:
* * * * *
    (c) Data file uploads from paper manifests. Receiving facilities 
may submit data file representations of completed, ink-signed manifests 
in lieu of submitting image files to the e-Manifest system. Such data 
file submissions from paper manifests may be made for individual 
manifests received by a facility or as a batch upload of data files 
from multiple paper manifests received at the facility.
* * * * *
0
30. Section 265.1312 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  265.1312   User fee calculation methodology.

    (a) The fee calculation formula or methodology that EPA will use 
initially to determine per manifest fees is as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP22.008


Where Fee<INF>i</INF> represents the per manifest fee for each manifest 
submission type ``i'' and N<INF>t</INF> refers to the total number of 
manifests completed in a year.
    (b)(1) If after four years of system operations, electronic 
manifest usage does not equal or exceed 75% of total manifest usage, 
EPA may transition to the following formula or methodology to determine 
per manifest fees:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP22.009


Where N<INF>i</INF> refers to the total number of one of the four 
manifest submission types ``i'' completed in a year and O&M<INF>i</INF> 
Cost refers to the differential O&M Cost for each manifest submission 
type ``i.''

[[Page 19335]]

PART 267--STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 
FACILITIES OPERATING UNDER A STANDARDIZED PERMIT

0
31. The authority citation for part 267 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6902, 6912(a), 6924-6926, and 6930.

0
32. Section 267.71 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(6)(i), (ii), 
and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  267.71   Use of the manifest system.

    (a) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i) Additionally, list the relevant waste stream consent number 
from consent documentation supplied by EPA to the facility for each 
waste listed on the manifest in the International Shipments block on 
the Continuation Sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A), matched to the relevant 
list number for the waste from block 9b. If additional space is needed, 
the receiving facility should use an additional Continuation Sheet(s) 
(EPA Form 8700-22A); and
    (ii) submit a copy of the manifest to the e-Manifest system per 40 
CFR 264.71(a)(2)(v) or 265.71(a)(2)(v).
* * * * *
    (d) As per 40 CFR 262.84(d)(2)(xv), within three (3) working days 
of the receipt of a shipment subject to 40 CFR part 262, subpart H, the 
owner or operator of a facility must provide a copy of the movement 
document bearing all required signatures to the foreign exporter and to 
the competent authorities of the countries of export and transit that 
control the shipment as an export and transit shipment of hazardous 
waste respectively. For shipments received on or after the electronic 
import-export reporting compliance date, the receiving facility must 
close out the movement document to confirm receipt within three working 
days of shipment delivery using EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking 
System (WIETS), or its successor system. For shipments sent from a 
country with which EPA has established an electronic exchange of 
movement document tracking data, the receiving facility may use WIETS, 
or its successor system, to send movement document confirmation data 
back through the electronic exchange to the foreign exporter and the 
country of export. The original copy of the movement document must be 
maintained at the facility for at least three (3) years from the date 
of signature. The owner or operator of a facility may satisfy this 
recordkeeping requirement by retaining electronically submitted 
documents in the facility's account on EPA's Waste Import Export 
Tracking System (WIETS), or its successor system, provided that copies 
are readily available for viewing and production if requested by any 
EPA or authorized state inspector. No owner or operator of a facility 
may be held liable for the inability to produce the documents for 
inspection under this section if the owner or operator of a facility 
can demonstrate that the inability to produce the document is due 
exclusively to technical difficulty with EPA's Waste Import Export 
Tracking System (WIETS), or its successor system, for which the owner 
or operator of a facility bears no responsibility.
* * * * *

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

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

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6926, and 6939g.

0
34. Section 271.1 paragraph (j)(2) is amended by adding an entry to 
Table 1 in chronological order by ``Promulgation date'' and adding an 
entry to Table 2 in chronological order by ``Effective date''.


Sec.  271.1  Purpose and scope.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (2) * * *

               Table 1--Regulations Implementing the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Promulgation date           Title of regulation     Federal Register reference        Effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
[Date of publication of final rule  E-manifest user fees   [FR page numbers].............  [Date of X months
 in the Federal Register (FR)].      for hazardous waste                                    from date of
                                     exporters, and                                         publication of final
                                     related export/                                        rule].
                                     import revisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

            Table 2--Self-Implementing Provisions of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Self-implementing
             Effective date                        provision           RCRA citation  Federal Register reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
[Date X days after of publication of      E-manifest user fees for              3017  [Federal Register
 final rule in the Federal Register        hazardous waste                             citation].
 (FR)].                                    exporters, and related
                                           export/import revisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
0
35. Section 271.10 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  271.10  Requirements for generators of hazardous wastes.

* * * * *
    (j) The State shall have standards for hazardous generators and 
exporters which are equivalent to 40 CFR part 262. These standards 
shall include:
    (1) Compliance with the manifest system including the requirements 
that the:
    (i) Generator submits electronic Exception Reports to the e-
Manifest system; and
    (ii) exporter submits a signed copy of the manifest and 
continuation sheet to the EPA's e-Manifest system.

[[Page 19336]]

    (A) After listing the relevant consent number from consent 
documentation supplied by EPA to the exporter for each waste listed on 
the manifest, matched to the relevant list number for the waste from 
Item 9b to EPA using the allowable methods listed in 40 CFR 262.83(b) 
until the facility can submit such a copy to the e-Manifest system per 
40 CFR 262.83(c)(4); and
    (iii) exporter pay user fees to EPA to recover EPA's costs related 
to the development and operation of an electronic hazardous waste 
manifest system, in the amounts specified by the user fee methodology 
included in subpart FF of 40 CFR parts 265, for all paper and 
electronic manifests submitted to the e-Manifest system.
0
36. Section 271.12 is amended by adding paragraphs (i)(4), (5) and 
revising paragraph (k) to read as follows:


Sec.  271.12  Requirements for hazardous waste management facilities.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (4) Requirements for owners and operators of facilities to submit 
electronic Discrepancy Reports to the e-Manifest system; and
    (5) Requirements for owners and operators to submit electronic 
Unmanifested Waste Reports to the e-Manifest system.
    (k) Requirements for owners or operators of facilities to pay user 
fees to EPA to recover EPA's costs related to the development and 
operation of an electronic hazardous waste manifest system, in the 
amounts specified by the user fee methodology included in subpart FF of 
40 CFR parts 264 and 265, for all paper and electronic manifests and 
electronic Unmanifested Waste Reports submitted to the e-Manifest 
system.

PART 761--POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) MANUFACTURING, 
PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE, AND USE PROHIBITIONS

0
37. The authority citation for part 761 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611, 2614, and 2616 and 42 
U.S.C. 6939g.

0
38. Section 761.3 is amended by adding the definition ``Electronic 
manifest'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  761.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Electronic manifest means the electronic equivalent of the manifest 
(which is defined in this section as the shipping document EPA form 
8700-22 and any continuation sheet attached to EPA form 8700-22, 
originated and signed by the generator of PCB waste in accordance with 
the instructions included with the form, and subpart K of this part), 
and also in accordance with Sec. Sec.  262.20, 262.24, and 262.25.
* * * * *

Subpart D--Storage and Disposal

0
39. Section 761.60 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  761.60  Disposal requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) Any person who is required to incinerate any PCBs and PCB items 
under this subpart and who can demonstrate that an alternative method 
of destroying PCBs and PCB items exists and that this alternative 
method can achieve a level of performance equivalent to an incinerator 
approved under Sec.  761.70 or a high efficiency boiler operating in 
compliance with Sec.  761.71, must submit a written request to the EPA 
Regional Administrator or the Director, Office of Resource Conservation 
and Recovery, for a waiver from the incineration requirements of Sec.  
761.70 or Sec.  761.71. Requests for approval of alternate methods that 
will be operated in more than one Region must be submitted to the 
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, except for 
research and development activities involving less than 500 pounds of 
PCB material (see paragraph (i)(2) of this section). Requests for 
approval of alternate methods that will be operated in only one Region 
must be submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator. The 
applicant must show that his or her method of destroying PCBs will not 
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. On 
the basis of such information and any available information, EPA may, 
in its discretion, approve the use of the alternate method if it finds 
that the alternate disposal method provides PCB destruction equivalent 
to disposal in a Sec.  761.70 incinerator or a Sec.  761.71 high 
efficiency boiler and will not present an unreasonable risk of injury 
to health or the environment. Any approval must be stated in writing 
and may include such conditions and provisions as EPA deems 
appropriate. The person to whom such waiver is issued must comply with 
all limitations contained in such determination. No person may use the 
alternate method of destroying PCBs or PCB items prior to obtaining 
permission from the appropriate EPA official.
* * * * *
0
40. Section 761.180 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  761.180  Records and monitoring.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) The owner or operator of a PCB disposal facility (including an 
owner or operator who disposes of their own waste and does not receive 
or generate manifests) or a commercial storage facility shall submit an 
annual report using EPA Form 6200-025, which briefly summarizes the 
records and annual document log required to be maintained and prepared 
under paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section to the Director, Office 
Resource Conservation and Recovery in accordance with the instructions 
on the form by July 15 of each year, beginning with July 15, 1991. The 
first annual report submitted on July 15, 1991, shall be for the period 
starting February 5, 1990, and ending December 31, 1990. The annual 
report shall contain no confidential business information. The annual 
report shall consist of the information listed in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) 
through (b)(3)(vi) of this section.
* * * * *
0
41. Section 761.205 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  761.205  Notification of PCB waste activity (EPA Form 7710-53).

* * * * *
    (d) Persons required to notify under this section shall file EPA 
Form 7710-53 with EPA in accordance with the instructions on the form.
* * * * *
0
42. Section 761.207 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  761.207  The manifest--general requirements.

* * * * *
    (g)(1) A person required to prepare a manifest under Sec.  761.207 
may prepare and use an electronic manifest, provided that the person:
    (i) Complies with the requirements in Sec.  262.24 for use of 
electronic manifests, and
    (ii) Complies with the requirements of 40 CFR 3.10 for the 
reporting of electronic documents to EPA.
    (2) Legal Equivalence to paper manifests. Electronic manifests that 
are obtained, completed, and transmitted in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
761.208 and 262.20(a)(3), and used in accordance with sections 262.20, 
262.24, and 262.25 in lieu of EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A, are the 
legal equivalent of paper manifest forms bearing

[[Page 19337]]

handwritten signatures, and satisfy for all purposes any requirement in 
these regulations to obtain, complete, sign, provide, use, or retain a 
manifest.
    (i) Any requirement in these regulations to sign a manifest or 
manifest certification by hand, or to obtain a handwritten signature, 
is satisfied by signing with or obtaining a valid and enforceable 
electronic signature within the meaning of Sec.  262.25.
    (ii) Any requirement in these regulations to give, provide, send, 
forward, or return to another person a copy of the manifest is 
satisfied when an electronic manifest is transmitted to the other 
person by submission to the e-Manifest system.
    (iii) Any requirement in these regulations for a generator to keep 
or retain a copy of each manifest is satisfied by retention of a signed 
electronic manifest in the generator's account on the e-Manifest 
system, provided that such copies are readily available for viewing and 
production if requested by any EPA or authorized state inspector.
    (iv) No generator may be held liable for the inability to produce 
an electronic manifest for inspection under this section if the 
generator can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic 
manifest is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e-
Manifest system for which the generator bears no responsibility.
    (v) Post-receipt manifest data corrections. After facilities have 
certified to the receipt of hazardous wastes by signing Item 20 of the 
manifest, any post-receipt data corrections may be submitted at any 
time by any interested person (e.g., waste handler) named on the 
manifest. A generator, transporter, or commercial storage or disposal 
facility may participate electronically in the post-receipt data 
corrections process by following the process described in Sec.  
265.71(l) of this chapter, which applies to corrections made to either 
paper or electronic manifest records.
0
43. Section 761.209 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  761.209  Number of copies of a manifest.

    The manifest consists of at least the number of copies which will 
provide the generator, the transporter, and the owner or operator of 
the designated facility with one copy each for their records and a copy 
to be submitted to the e-Manifest system as indicated in the 
instructions included with EPA form 8700-22. Any requirement in these 
regulations to give, provide, send, forward, or return to another 
person a copy of the manifest is satisfied when an electronic manifest 
is transmitted to the other person by submission to the e-Manifest 
system. All parties using electronic manifests must do so in accordance 
with Sec. Sec.  262.20, 262.24, and 262.25.
0
44. Section 761.210 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory 
text, (a)(1) and (2) of to read as follows:


Sec.  761.210  Use of the manifest--Generator requirements.

    (a) The generator must:
    (1) Sign the manifest certification; and
    (2) Obtain the signature of the initial transporter and date of 
acceptance on the manifest; and
* * * * *
0
45. Section 761.211 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1), (e)(3), 
and (f)(3)(i), (f)(4)(i) and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  761.211  Manifest system--Transporter requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Obtain the date of delivery and the signature of that 
transporter or of the owner or operator of the designated facility on 
the manifest; and
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) The delivering transporter obtains the date of delivery and 
signature of the owner or operator of the designated facility on either 
the manifest or the shipping paper; and
    (f) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Obtain the date of delivery and signature of the owner or 
operator of the designated facility on the manifest or the shipping 
paper (if the manifest has not been received by the facility); and
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) Obtain the date of delivery and the signature of the next non-
rail transporter on the manifest; and
* * * * *
    (g) Special procedures when electronic manifest is not available. 
If after a manifest has been originated electronically and signed 
electronically by the initial transporter, and the electronic manifest 
system should become unavailable for any reason, then the transporter 
must follow the replacement manifest procedures in accordance with 
Sec.  263.20(a)(6).
0
46. Section 761.213 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(i) and 
adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  761.213  Use of manifest--Commercial storage and disposal 
facility requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Sign and date each copy of the manifest;
* * * * *
    (d)) Special procedures applicable to replacement manifests. If a 
commercial storage or disposal facility receives hazardous waste that 
is accompanied by a paper replacement manifest for a manifest that was 
originated electronically, the facility must follow the replacement 
manifest procedures in accordance with Sec.  265.71(h).
    (e) Imposition of user fee for manifest submissions. (1) As 
prescribed in Sec.  265.1311, and determined in Sec.  265.1312, a 
commercial storage or disposal facility who is a user of the electronic 
manifest system shall be assessed a user fee by EPA for the submission 
and processing of each electronic and paper manifest. EPA shall update 
the schedule of user fees and publish them to the user community, as 
provided in Sec.  265.1313.
    (2) A commercial storage or disposal facility subject to user fees 
under this section shall make user fee payments in accordance with the 
requirements of Sec.  264.1314, subject to the informal fee dispute 
resolution process of Sec.  264.1316, and subject to the sanctions for 
delinquent payments under Sec.  264.1315.
0
47. Section 761.215 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) 
and revising (f)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  761.215  Manifest discrepancies.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Legal equivalence to paper Discrepancy Reports. Electronic 
Discrepancy Reports that are completed, transmitted, and used in 
accordance with this section in lieu of the paper Discrepancy Report 
are the legal equivalent of paper Discrepancy Reports and satisfy for 
all purposes any requirement in these regulations to complete, provide, 
use, or retain a discrepancy report.
    (2) Any requirement in these regulations to give, provide, or send 
a Discrepancy Report to the EPA Regional Administrator is satisfied 
when an electronic Discrepancy Report is transmitted to the EPA by 
submission to the e-Manifest system.
    (3) Any requirement in these regulations for an owner or operator 
to keep or retain a copy of each Discrepancy Report is satisfied by the 
retention of the facility's electronic Discrepancy Reports in its 
account on the e-Manifest system, provided that such Discrepancy 
Reports are readily available for viewing and production if

[[Page 19338]]

requested by any EPA or authorized state inspector.
    (4) No owner or operator may be held liable for the inability to 
produce a Discrepancy Report for inspection under this section if the 
owner or operator can demonstrate that the inability to produce the 
electronic Discrepancy Report is due exclusively to a technical 
difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the owner or operator 
bears no responsibility.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (6) Sign the Generator's/Offeror's Certification to certify, as the 
offeror of the shipment, that the waste has been properly packaged, 
marked and labeled and is in proper condition for transportation, and 
mail, or submit electronically through the e-Manifest system, a signed 
copy of the manifest to the generator identified in Item 5 of the new 
manifest.
* * * * *
0
39. Section 761.216 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  761.216  Unmanifested waste report.

    (a) If a facility accepts for storage or disposal any PCB waste 
from an offsite source without an accompanying manifest, or without an 
accompanying shipping paper as described by Sec.  761.211(e), and the 
owner or operator of the commercial storage or disposal facility cannot 
contact the generator of the PCB waste, then they shall notify the 
Regional Administrator of the EPA region in which their facility is 
located of the unmanifested PCB waste so that the EPA Regional 
Administrator can determine whether further actions are required before 
the owner or operator may store or dispose of the unmanifested PCB 
waste, and additionally the owner or operator must prepare an 
electronic Unmanifested Waste Report in the e-Manifest system for 
submission to the EPA Regional Administrator within 15 days after 
receiving the waste. The Unmanifested Waste Report must contain the 
following information:
* * * * *
    (b) Per Unmanifested Waste Report fee. Fees shall be assessed on a 
per Unmanifested Waste Report basis for the submission of each 
electronic Unmanifested Waste Report that is electronically signed and 
submitted to the e-Manifest system by the owners or operators of 
receiving facilities, with the fee assessed at the applicable rate per 
40 CFR part 265.1312 for electronic manifest submissions.
0
40. Section 761.217 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) and adding 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  761.217  Exception reporting.

    (a)(1) A generator of PCB waste, who does not receive a copy of the 
manifest with the signature of the owner or operator of the designated 
facility within 40 days of the date the waste was accepted by the 
initial transporter, shall immediately contact the transporter and/or 
the owner or operator of the designated facility to determine the 
status of the PCB waste.
* * * * *
    (c) Legal equivalence to paper exception reports. Electronic 
Exception Reports that are originated in the e-Manifest system in 
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section and used in accordance 
with this section in lieu of paper Exception Reports are the legal 
equivalent of paper Exception Reports bearing handwritten signatures 
and satisfy for all purposes any requirement in these regulations to 
complete, sign, provide, and retain an Exception Report.
    (1) Any requirement in these regulations to sign an Exception 
Report certification by hand is satisfied by signing with a valid and 
enforceable electronic signature within the meaning of Sec.  262.25.
    (2) Any requirement in these regulations to give, provide or send 
an Exception Report to the EPA Regional Administrator is satisfied when 
an electronic Exception Report is transmitted to the EPA Regional 
Administrator by submission to the e-Manifest system.
    (3) Any requirement in these regulations for a generator to keep or 
retain a copy of an Exception Report is satisfied by retention of a 
signed electronic Exception Report in the generator's account on the 
national e-Manifest system, provided that the Exception Report is 
readily available for viewing and production if requested by any EPA or 
authorized state inspector.
    (4) No generator may be held liable for the inability to produce an 
electronic Exception Report for inspection under this section if the 
generator can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic 
Exception Report is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the 
e-Manifest system for which the generator bears no responsibility.
* * * * *
0
41. Section 761.218 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  761.218  Certificate of disposal.

* * * * *
    (e) Legal equivalence to paper certificates of disposal. Electronic 
certificates of disposal that are originated in an EPA-approved 
electronic system in accordance with this section and used in 
accordance with this section in lieu of paper certificates of disposal 
are the legal equivalent of paper certificates of disposal bearing 
handwritten signatures, and satisfy for all purposes any requirement in 
these regulations to complete, sign, provide, and retain a certificate 
of disposal.
    (1) Any requirement in these regulations to sign a certificate of 
disposal by hand is satisfied by signing with a valid and enforceable 
electronic signature within the meaning of Sec.  262.25.
    (2) Any requirement in these regulations to give, provide or send a 
certificate of disposal to the EPA Regional Administrator is satisfied 
when an electronic certificate of disposal is transmitted to the EPA 
Regional Administrator by submission to an EPA-approved electronic 
system.
    (3) Any requirement in these regulations for a generator or 
disposer to keep or retain a copy of a certificate of disposal is 
satisfied by retention of a signed electronic certificate of disposal 
in the generator's or disposer's account, respectively, on an EPA-
approved electronic system, provided that the certificate of disposal 
is readily available for viewing and production if requested by any EPA 
or authorized state inspector.
    (4) No generator or disposer may be held liable for the inability 
to produce an electronic certificate of disposal for inspection under 
this section if the generator or disposer can demonstrate that the 
inability to produce the electronic certificate of disposal is due 
exclusively to a technical difficulty with the EPA-approved electronic 
system for which the generator or disposer bears no responsibility.
    (f) Restriction on use of electronic certificates of disposal. The 
owner or operator of a disposal facility may participate in electronic 
certificates of disposal if it is known at the time the certificate of 
disposal is originated that:
    (1) The manifest at issue originated in the e-Manifest system in 
accordance with Sec. Sec.  262.24(c) and 262.25 of this part; and
    (2) for mixed paper and electronic manifests (i.e., hybrid 
manifests), the generator has registered in the e-Manifest system and 
has access to the electronic manifests for the site.
0
42. Section 761.219 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read 
as follows:

[[Page 19339]]

Sec.  761.219  One-year exception reporting.

* * * * *
    (e) Legal equivalence to paper One-year Exception Reports. 
Electronic One-year Exception Reports that are originated in an EPA-
approved electronic system in accordance with paragraph (a) of this 
section and used in accordance with this section in lieu of paper One-
year Exception Reports are the legal equivalent of paper One-year 
Exception Reports bearing handwritten signatures and satisfy for all 
purposes any requirement in these regulations to complete, sign, 
provide, and retain a One-year exception report.
    (1) Any requirement in these regulations to sign a One-year 
Exception Report certification by hand is satisfied by signing with a 
valid and enforceable electronic signature within the meaning of Sec.  
262.25.
    (2) Any requirement in these regulations to give, provide or send a 
One-year Exception Report to the EPA Regional Administrator is 
satisfied when a One-year electronic Exception Report is transmitted to 
the EPA Regional Administrator by submission to an EPA-approved 
electronic system.
    (3) Any requirement in these regulations for a generator or 
disposer to keep or retain a copy of a One-year Exception Report is 
satisfied by retention of a signed electronic One-year Exception Report 
in the generator's or disposer's respective account on an EPA-approved 
electronic system, provided that the One-year Exception Report is 
readily available for viewing and production if requested by any EPA or 
authorized state inspector.
    (4) No generator or disposer may be held liable for the inability 
to produce an electronic One-year Exception Report for inspection under 
this section if the generator or disposer can demonstrate that the 
inability to produce the electronic One-year Exception Report is due 
exclusively to a technical difficulty with the EPA-approved electronic 
system for which the generator or disposer bears no responsibility.
    (f) Restriction on use of electronic One-year Exception Reporting. 
A generator or disposer may participate in electronic One-year 
Exception Reporting if it is known at the time the One-year Exception 
Report is originated that:
    (1) The manifest at issue originated in the e-Manifest system in 
accordance with Sec. Sec.  262.24(c) and 262.25 of this part; and
    (2) for mixed paper and electronic manifests (i.e., hybrid 
manifests), the generator has registered in the e-Manifest system and 
has access to the electronic manifests for the site.

[FR Doc. 2022-04705 Filed 3-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>