19290 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 ManifestRelated 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 eManifest 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 eManifest 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: 

• 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. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

OLEM Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• 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-sendcomments-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-epadockets. 

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: groce.bryan@

epa.gov or Tess Fields, Program 

Implementation and Information 

Division, Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery, (202) 566– 

0328; email address: fields.tess@

epa.gov. 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) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 stateonly 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 manifestrelated 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: 

Industrial sector NAICS 

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 eManifest 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19292 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1The 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). 

2Although 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. 

3The 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 

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 eManifest 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 eManifest 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. 

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

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 eManifest 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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 19293 

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. 

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 eManifest 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 eManifest 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 eManifest 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 eManifest 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– 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19294 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

4EPA’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). 

5EPA promulgated the Export Import Revisions 

Final rule on November 4, 2016, which established 

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. 

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 eManifest 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 §§ 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 eManifest system. Currently, however, 

the manifest data from export manifests 

is not captured in the e-Manifest 

system.5


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 19295 

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. 

6As 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. 

The current export and import 

regulations at §§ 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. 

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 eManifest 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19296 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 eManifest 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 §§ 262.20(a)(3) 

and 262.24 for electronic manifest use 

and the electronic signature 

requirements at § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 § 265.1314. Per 

§ 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 §§ 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 

(§§ 264.1312(a) and 265.1312(a)), as 

revised per Section V.C.2 of the 

preamble, is as follows: 

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 

Feei 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: 

Manifest submission type Fee per 

manifest 

Scanned Image Upload ............ $20.00 

Data + Image Upload ............... 13.00 

Manifest submission type Fee per 

manifest 

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 eManifest 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 §§ 264.1313(b) and 

265.1313(b), the inflation adjuster 

formula is as follows: 

FeeiYear 2 = FeeiYear1 × (CPIYear2–2/ 

CPIYear2–1) 

Where FeeiYear2 is the Fee for each type 

of manifest submission ‘‘i’’ in Year 2 of 

the fee cycle; FeeiYear1 is the Fee for each 

type of manifest submission ‘‘i’’ in Year 

1 of the fee cycle; and CPIYear2–2/ 

CPIYear2–1 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP01AP22.004</GPH>

(System Setup Cost) { O&M Cost) Feei = Years X Nt + Marginal Costi + Nt x (1 + Indirect Cost Factor) 

System Setup Cost= Procurement Cost+ EPA Program Cost 

O&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 eManif est System Related Services 
19298 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

the above fee calculation formula, so 

that this recaptured revenue is reallocated like other program operation 

costs to the fees charged on a permanifest basis. Per §§ 264.1313(c) and 

265.1313(c), the revenue recovery 

recapture formula is as follows: 

Revenue Recapturei = [(NiYear1 + 

NiYear2)Actual¥(NiYear1 + NiYear2)Est] × 

Feei(Ave)

Where Revenue Recapturei is the 

amount of fee revenue recaptured for 

each type of manifest submission ‘‘i;’’ 

(NiYear1 + NiYear2)Actual¥(NiYear1 + 

NiYear2)Est 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 

Feei(Ave) is the average fee charged per 

manifest type over the previous twoyear cycle. 

Per § 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 §§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 263.20(g)(3) and remove 

§ 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 systemgenerated 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 § 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 § 263.20(a)(4). 

EPA is proposing the removal of the 

current transporter requirement in 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 eManifest 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 eManifest 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 documentrelated 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 eManifest 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19300 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 §§ 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 documentrelated 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 importexport 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 19301 

7The 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. 

§§ 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 

§§ 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 § 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

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 eManifest system. 

The primary goal of EPA is to 

transition manifest users from a paperintensive, 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 eManifest 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 § 262.42 by adding new paragraph (d) 

and (e) and amending § 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 § 262.42, according 

to the existing requirements specified at 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19302 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

8 Instructions for user registration for the 

RCRAInfo Industry Application are available at 

EPA’s e-Manifest web page (www.epa.gov/emanifest). 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. 

§ 262.83(h). Electronic export Exception 

Reports under § 262.83(h) will be 

developed as part of WIETS. 

Proposed paragraphs at §§ 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 §§ 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 § 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 eManifest 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).) 

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 onsite 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 

§§ 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 §§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 §§ 262.42(a) 

and (b) respectively for written, hardcopy 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 

§ 262.42(a), and (c)(2), and § 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 eManifest 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 (§ 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: 

D 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 

D 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, §§ 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 

§§ 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 §§ 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 eManifest 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19304 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

10Based 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. 

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 eManifest 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 

§§ 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. 

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 eManifest system but does not require the 

original manifest to be altered or resigned 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 eManifest 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 eManifest 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 19305 

system may be designed in a manner 

that would provide a textbox field/popup 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 eManifest 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 eManifest 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 postreceipt 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 eManifest corrections process. EPA also 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19306 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 eManifest 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 eManifest 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 followup 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 

§§ 264.76 and 265.76 for hazardous 

waste and § 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 

§§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 offsite 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 

§ 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 §§ 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 

§§ 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 § 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 § 761.207(g) consists 

of two subparagraphs. The first 

subparagraph [§ 761.207(g)(1)] is 

adapted from § 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 

[§ 761.207(g)(2)] is adapted from 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 262.24(a)(2). The final sentence in 

proposed § 761.209 incorporates the 

electronic manifest regulations at 

§§ 262.20, 262.24, and 262.25. 

Sixth, EPA is proposing to add two 

new paragraphs in § 761.213. The first 

paragraph [§ 761.213(d)] is adapted from 

§ 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 § 761.211 for transporters 

and § 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) 

[§ 761.211] is adapted from 

§ 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) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19308 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

11EPA’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 

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) [§ 761.213] is 

adapted from § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 761.65(b) or (c)(7). 

Form 6200–025 is required by 

§ 761.180(b)(3) for submission of annual 

reports by commercial storers and 

disposers of PCB waste. Certificates of 

disposal, as described in § 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 § 761.65(a) and uses 

information required by the manifest 

under § 761.218(a)(1)–(2). One-year 

Exception Reports, as described in 

§ 761.219, flag waste shipments that 

were not disposed of within the oneyear time frame required by § 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 § 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 §§ 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&Mfully electronicCost and O&Mall otherCost 

formulas in paragraphs (b) of Parts 264 

and 265. 

EPA is also revising a typographical 

error found in paragraph (e) of § 761.60. 

Paragraph (e) accurately refers to ‘‘an 

incinerator approved under § 761.70 or 

a high-efficiency boiler operating in 

compliance with § 761.71’’ twice in the 

first sentence. However, the fifth 

sentence uses incorrect citations in a 

similar reference to ‘‘a § 761.60 

incinerator or a § 761.61 high-efficiency 

boiler.’’ EPA is proposing to correct the 

regulatory citations in the fifth sentence 

to read ‘‘a § 761.70 incinerator or a 

§ 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 eManifest 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 eManifest 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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 19309 

EPA’s responses to them are available in the public 

docket (www.regulations.gov, Docket no. EPA–HQ– 

OLEM–2020–0075). 

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 eManifest 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 eManifest 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 eManifest, 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 eManifest 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 eManifest, 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 eManifest 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 fivecopy 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 

§ 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 eManifest 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19310 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 eManifest 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 onsite 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 19311 

12For 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. 

and managed the waste onsite 

(including subsequent transfer off-site) 

during the reporting year; and the Offsite 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

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 eManifest 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19312 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 inhouse 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). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 19313 

Although EPA has established 

procedures for facilities to address 

discrepancies and corrections in the eManifest 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 eManifest 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 eManifest 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19314 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

13The 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. 14Permission to use a module is granted on a 

module-by-module basis, except as otherwise 

specified. 

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: 

• myRCRAid pertains to Site 

Identification submissions (EPA Form 

8700–12) 

• Biennial Report pertains to BR 

submissions (EPA Form 8700–13A/B) 

• 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 eManifest 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. 

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. 

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 OffSite 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 ‘‘OffSite 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 19315 

15The 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. 

16A 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. 

Above is an illustration of the eManifest 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. 

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: 

• 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. 

• 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., 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP01AP22.005</GPH>

.~ 

".fmlMc 

,,..__ 

DOQl,0010 

DOQ2 

,_ 

c..t. 

WlOO 

W:?00 

~ 

~ 

~ 

Wffl 

I 

Haup-

_. Qc1 

e• 

~ 

~ , 

UIMO J 

fflMO 4 

HI» 100 

Hill 3 

Tnuferrow 

eetaats I 

\JOH .,... ......... ~ IP 

~ 

TT-

"-

Gill '1 blpl 

Tons 

T-
19316 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

17 In addition to these activities, §§ 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. 

18States have access to e-Manifest and may also 

make corrections. 

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.17 18 The first two activities are 

currently taking place: 

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. Postreceipt 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: 

• 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. 

• 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 eManifest 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 prepopulating 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 inhouse systems but not enter these 

updates in e-Manifest using the postreceipt data correction procedures at 

§ 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 postreceipt data corrections ‘‘may’’ be 

submitted at any time by any interested 

person shown on the manifest. Should 

EPA revise this language to make postreceipt data corrections mandatory and, 

if so, for what types of errors? EPA 

believes the manifest discrepancy 

procedures at §§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 eManifest 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 ‘‘eManifest’’ 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 dropdown 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 prepopulated 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 nonhalogenated (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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19318 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 eManifest 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 shipmentlevel 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 offsite, 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 indepth 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: 

• EPA’s proposal to revise 40 CFR 

262.83(c) by adopting the existing 

manifest provisions at §§ 262.20(a)(3) 

and 262.24 for electronic manifest use 

and the electronic signature 

requirements at § 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. 

• EPA’s proposal to add new 

provisions under § 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 

§ 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. 

• 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 § 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 § 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. 

• EPA’s proposal to revise 

§ 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 eManifest system, making the current 

requirement unnecessary. 

• EPA’s proposal to remove the 

current transporter requirement in 

§ 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 § 263.20(g)(3). 

• 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: 

• 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: 

• 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 §§ 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: 

• 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: 

• 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 

§ 262.24(c). 

• EPA’s proposal to revise the current 

35/45-day LQG exception reporting 

timeframes in § 262.42(a) and (c)(2), and 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19320 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

timeframe for verification of shipment 

delivery is 60 days (§ 262.42(b)). 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• EPA’s consideration of an alternate 

approach that would eliminate the 

requirement for Discrepancy Reports 

altogether, and instead, address 

discrepancy events through the eManifest 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 postreceipt manifest corrections. 

• 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 §§ 264.76 and 265.76 for 

hazardous waste and § 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. 

• 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 §§ 264.76 and 265.76 for hazardous 

waste and § 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: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• Potential ways to improve data 

quality in the waste description field 

(see preamble section IV.C.4.2.4). 

• 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. 

• EPA’s proposal to add the waste 

description to the manifest. 

• 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 HSWAbased 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 eManifest 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 

§ 262.42(d)–(e) ......................................................................................... Submission of Electronic Exception Reports to the e-Manifest system. 

§ 262.83(c)(4) ............................................................................................ Exporters required electronic or paper manifest to the system. 

§ 262.83(c)(5) ............................................................................................ Imposition of fees on exporters for their manifest submission. 

§ 262.83(c)(7) ............................................................................................ Exporters’ replacement manifests. 

§ 262.83(c)(8) ............................................................................................ Exporters’ post receipt data corrections. 

§ 264.72(c)(1)–(4), § 265.72(c)(1)–(c)(4) .................................................. Submission of Electronic Discrepancy Reports to the e-Manifest System. 

§ 264.76(a), § 265.76(a) ............................................................................ Submission of Electronic Unmanifested Waste Reports to the e-Manifest system. 

§ 264.76(b), § 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 § 271.10 

regarding regulatory amendments to the 

hazardous waste export and import 

regulations are discussed in preamble 

section V.D. The first change at 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19322 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 eManifest 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 § 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 (§§ 264.1311, 265.1311), 

and the user fee calculation 

methodology (§§ 264.1312, 265.1312). 

These user fee provisions in subpart FF 

are based on the authority of the eManifest 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 documentrelated 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 exportrelated 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/lawsregulations/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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 manifestrelated 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 Manifestrelated Reports, PCB Manifest 

Amendments and Technical 

Corrections, EPA considers two ‘‘worstcase’’ 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 eManifest 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19324 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Section 260.2 amends paragraphs 

(d)(1) and (2) by adding a sentence at 

the end of each paragraph to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

■ 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. 

■ 4. Section 261.4 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(25)(i)(A), (H), 

and (v) to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 261.6 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(A) and (B) 

to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 262.83 with the exception of 

§ 262.83(c); 

(B) Transporters transporting a 

shipment for export or import must 

comply with the movement document 

requirements listed in § 263.20(a)(2) and 

(c). 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 19325 

§ 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 

■ 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. 

§ 262.20 [Amended] 

■ 8. Section 262.20 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2). 

■ 9. Section 262.21 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (f)(5), (6), and (7) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 262.42 is amended 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(2), 

and adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 261.31or 

§ 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 § 262.42(a)(2) for large quantity 

generators or § 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 § 262.25. 

(2) Any requirement in these 

regulations to give, provide or send an 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19326 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 eManifest 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 eManifest 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 §§ 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. 

■ 11. Section 262.83 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(6), (b)(1)(i) 

through (iv), (b)(3), (c), (d)(2)(i) through 

(v), (viii), (ix), and (xv); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(xvi), 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (f)(4), (5), 

(6)(ii), (g), (i)(1)(v) and 

■ d. Adding paragraph (i)(1)(vi). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 262.81. 

* * * * * 

(c) RCRA manifest instructions for 

export shipments. The exporter must 

comply with the manifest requirements 

of §§ 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 § 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 eManifest 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 

§ 265.1311, and determined in 

§ 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 § 265.1313. 

(ii) An exporter subject to user fees 

under this section shall make user fee 

payments in accordance with the 

requirements of § 265.1314, subject to 

the informal fee dispute resolution 

process of § 265.1316, and subject to the 

sanctions for delinquent payments 

under § 265.1315. 

(6) Electronic manifest signatures. 

Electronic manifest signatures shall 

meet the criteria described in § 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 eManifest 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 § 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19328 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 263.20(g). 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Amend § 262.84 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 

through (iv), (b)(2), (c)(1)(i) and (c)(3); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (c)(4); 

■ c. Redesignating paragraph (c)(5) as 

new paragraph (c)(4); 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (d)(2)(i), (ii) 

through (v), (viii) through (ix), (xv), 

■ e. Adding paragraph (f)(4)(iii), and 

■ f. Revising paragraphs (g)(1), and (2). 

The revisions and additions to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 

■ 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. 

■ 14. Section 263.20 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2), (c), (g)(1), (3), 

and removing paragraph (g)(4) toread as 

follows. 

§ 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 

■ 15. The authority citation for part 264 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, 

6925, and 6939g. 

■ 16. Section 264.12 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(4)(i) and 

(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19330 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 

§ 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 eManifest 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 eManifest 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Section 264.72 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 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 eManifest 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 eManifest system for which the owner or 

operator bears no responsibility. 

* * * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 19331 

■ 19. Section 264.76 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 eManifest 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. 

■ 20. Section 264.1310 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Paper 

manifest submissions’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 264.1311(b), or by 

submitting both an image file and data 

file in accordance with the procedures 

of § 264.1311(c). 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 

§ 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 § 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 eManifest 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 22. Section 264.1312 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) to read 

as follows: 

§ 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: 

Where Feei represents the per 

manifest fee for each manifest 

submission type ‘‘i’’ and Nt 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: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP01AP22.006</GPH>

( . System Setup Cost O&M Cost) Marginal Costi + y N + N 

ears x t t 

x (1 + Indirect Cost Factor) 

System Setup Cost= Procurement Cost+ EPA Program Cost 

O&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 
19332 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Where Ni refers to the total number of 

one of the four manifest submission 

types ‘‘i’’ completed in a year and O&Mi

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 

■ 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. 

■ 24. Section 265.12 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(4)(i) and 

(ii), to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 25. Amend § 265.71 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iv), (v); 

■ b. Adding (a)(2)(vi); and 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i), (ii), 

(b)(4), and (d). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP01AP22.007</GPH>

( . System Setup Cost O&Mi Cost) Feei = Marginal Costi + y N + N 

ears x t i 

x (1 + Indirect Cost Factor) 

System Setup Cost= Procurement Cost+ EPA Program Cost 

O&MfullyelectronicCost = Electronic System O&M Cost+ Help Desk Cost+ 

EPA Program Cost+ CROMERR Cost+ LifeCycle Cost to Modify or Upgrade e -

Mani[ est System Related Services 

O&Mazz other Cost= Electronic System O&M Cost+ Paper Center O&M Cost+ 

Help Desk Cost+ EPA Program Cost+ CROMERR Cost+ 

Lif eCycle Cost to Modify or Upgrade e - Mani[ est System Related Services 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 eManifest 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 26. Section 265.72 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 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 eManifest 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 27. Section 265.76 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 eManifest 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. 

■ 28. Section 265.1310 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Paper 

manifest submissions’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 265.1310 Definitions applicable to the 

subpart. 

* * * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19334 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 264.1311(b) of this 

title, or by submitting both an image file 

and data file in accordance with the 

procedures of § 264.1311(c) of this title. 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 

§ 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 

§ 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 eManifest 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 30. Section 265.1312 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) to read 

as follows: 

§ 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: 

Where Feei represents the per manifest 

fee for each manifest submission type 

‘‘i’’ and Nt 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: 

Where Ni refers to the total number of 

one of the four manifest submission 

types ‘‘i’’ completed in a year and O&Mi Cost refers to the differential O&M Cost 

for each manifest submission type ‘‘i.’’ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP01AP22.008</GPH> EP01AP22.009</GPH>

( . System Setup Cost O&M Cost) Marginal Costi + y N + N 

ears x t t 

x (1 + Indirect Cost Factor) 

System Setup Cost = Procurement Cost + EPA Program Cost 

O&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 

( . System Setup Cost O&Mi Cost) 

Feei = Marginal Costi + y N + N 

ears x t i 

x (1 + Indirect Cost Factor) 

System Setup Cost= Procurement Cost+ EPA Program Cost 

O&MfullyelectronicCost = Electronic System O&M Cost+ Help Desk Cost+ 

EPA Program Cost+ CROMERR Cost+ LifeCycle Cost to Modify or Upgrade e -

Manifest System Related Services 

O&Mazz other Cost= Electronic System O&M Cost+ Paper Center O&M Cost+ 

Help Desk Cost+ EPA Program Cost+ CROMERR Cost+ 

Lif eCycle Cost to Modify or Upgrade e - Manifest System Related Services 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 19335 

PART 267—STANDARDS FOR 

OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF 

HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES 

OPERATING UNDER A 

STANDARDIZED PERMIT 

■ 31. The authority citation for part 267 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6902, 6912(a), 6924– 

6926, and 6930. 

■ 32. Section 267.71 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(6)(i), (ii), and (d) 

to read as follows: 

§ 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 

■ 33. The authority citation for part 271 

continues to read as follows: 

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

and 6939g. 

■ 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’’. 

§ 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 in the 

Federal Register (FR)].

E-manifest user fees for hazardous 

waste exporters, and related export/ 

import revisions.

[FR page numbers] [Date of X months from date of publication of final rule]. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 2—SELF–IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984 

Effective date Self-implementing provision RCRA citation Federal Register 

reference 

*******

[Date X days after of publication of final 

rule in the Federal Register (FR)].

E-manifest user fees for hazardous 

waste exporters, and related export/ 

import revisions.

3017 [Federal Register citation]. 

* * * * * 

■ 35. Section 271.10 is amended by 

adding paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19336 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(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. 

■ 36. Section 271.12 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (i)(4), (5) and 

revising paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§ 271.12 Requirements for hazardous 

waste management facilities. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(4) Requirements for owners and 

operators of facilities to submit 

electronic Discrepancy Reports to the eManifest system; and 

(5) Requirements for owners and 

operators to submit electronic 

Unmanifested Waste Reports to the eManifest 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 

■ 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. 

■ 38. Section 761.3 is amended by 

adding the definition ‘‘Electronic 

manifest’’ in alphabetical order to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 §§ 262.20, 262.24, and 262.25. 

* * * * * 

Subpart D—Storage and Disposal 

■ 39. Section 761.60 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 761.70 or a high efficiency 

boiler operating in compliance with 

§ 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 

§ 761.70 or § 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 § 761.70 

incinerator or a § 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 40. Section 761.180 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 41. Section 761.205 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 42. Section 761.207 is amended by 

adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 761.207 The manifest—general 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(g)(1) A person required to prepare a 

manifest under § 761.207 may prepare 

and use an electronic manifest, 

provided that the person: 

(i) Complies with the requirements in 

§ 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 §§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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 eManifest 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 eManifest 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 postreceipt data corrections process by 

following the process described in 

§ 265.71(l) of this chapter, which 

applies to corrections made to either 

paper or electronic manifest records. 

■ 43. Section 761.209 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 eManifest system. All parties using 

electronic manifests must do so in 

accordance with §§ 262.20, 262.24, and 

262.25. 

■ 44. Section 761.210 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) introductory 

text, (a)(1) and (2) of to read as follows: 

§ 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 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 

§ 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 § 263.20(a)(6). 

■ 46. Section 761.213 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2)(i) and adding 

paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 265.71(h). 

(e) Imposition of user fee for manifest 

submissions. (1) As prescribed in 

§ 265.1311, and determined in 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 264.1314, subject to the informal fee 

dispute resolution process of 

§ 264.1316, and subject to the sanctions 

for delinquent payments under 

§ 264.1315. 

■ 47. Section 761.215 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and 

revising (f)(6) to read as follows: 

§ 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
19338 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 39. Section 761.216 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

and adding paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

■ 40. Section 761.217 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1) and adding 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 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 eManifest 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 § 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 eManifest 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 eManifest 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 41. Section 761.218 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 §§ 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 eManifest system and has access to the 

electronic manifests for the site. 

■ 42. Section 761.219 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as 

follows: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2022 / Proposed Rules 19339 

§ 761.219 One-year exception reporting. 

* * * * * 

(e) Legal equivalence to paper Oneyear Exception Reports. Electronic Oneyear 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 § 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 §§ 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 eManifest 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2