Document ID: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0177-0090
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2018-01-03T05:00Z

Regulatory Impact Analysis
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                            EPA's 2017 Final Rule
Establishing User Fees for the RCRA Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest System (e-Manifest)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
              Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR)
                 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (Mailstop 5305P)
                           Washington DC, 20460 USA
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                 December 2017
                               Table of Contents

Acronyms 	iii
Acknowledgements	iv
Executive Summary	ES-1
      ES.1  Overview  	ES-1
      ES.2  Regulatory Changes	ES-2
      ES.3  Affected Universe and Count of Manifests	ES-5
      ES.4  Summary of Findings	ES-7
      ES.5  Other Regulatory and Distributional Issues  	ES-12

Chapter 1:  Problem Statement & Justification for Regulatory Changes	1-1
      1.1  Historical Background of the Paper Manifest System	1-1
      1.2  Purpose of EPA's Electronic Manifest System Rulemaking	1-3
      1.3  The 2012 Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act	1-5
      1.4  The 2014 Final Rule	1-6
      1.5  The 2018 Final Rule	1-7

Chapter 2:  Universe of Affected Entities	2-1
      2.1  Industrial Facilities Potentially Affected by e-Manifest	2-1
      2.2  State Governments Potentially Affected by e-Manifest	2-24
      2.3  Summary of Potentially Affected Entities	2-28

Chapter 3:  Count of Hazardous Waste Manifests	3-1
      3.1  Prior Estimates of Manifests	3-1
      3.2  Current Estimate of Manifests	3-2

Chapter 4:  Baseline (Paper) Manifest Activities in the Hazardous Waste Management 
Industry	4-1
      4.1  Key Assumptions for Baseline Cost Estimation	4-3
      4.2  Baseline Costs Accruing to Industry  -  Federal Manifests	4-5
      4.3  Baseline Costs Accruing to Industry  -  State Manifests	4-9
      4.4  Baseline Costs Accruing to EPA	4-11
      4.5  Baseline Costs Accruing to States	4-11
      4.6  Baseline Costs Accruing to Industry  -  Hazardous Waste Reporting	4-16
      4.7  Baseline Costs Accruing to States  -  Hazardous Waste Reporting	4-17
      4.8  Summary of Baseline Costs	4-18

Chapter 5:  Costs and Cost Savings of the e-Manifest System	5-1
      5.1  Key Assumptions for e-Manifest System Cost and Cost Savings Estimation	5-3
      5.2  e-Manifest System Costs to EPA  -  Development and Operations	5-7
      5.3	  Manifest Processing Costs to EPA	5-18
      5.4  Cost and Cost Savings to Industry  -  Manifest Completion and Submittal	5-21
      5.5  Manifest Fees to Industry	5-30
      5.6  Cost Savings to States	5-37
      5.7  Hazardous Waste Reporting Costs	5-37
      5.8  Summary of Costs and Cost Savings	5-40
      5.9  Unquantified Benefits of the e-Manifest System	5-41
      5.10  Caveats: Other Parameters not Considered in this Analysis	5-43
      
Chapter 6:  Sensitivity Analyses of Final Rule Costs and Cost Savings	6-1
      6.1  Number of Manifests	6-1
      6.2  Adoption Rate of the e-Manifest System	6-3
      6.3  Materials Costs	6-4
      6.4  CROMERR	6-5
      6.5  Payback Period	6-7

Chapter 7:  Supplemental Analyses	7-1
      7.1  Regulatory Planning and Review	7-1
      7.2  Regulatory Flexibility	7-2
      7.3  Employment Impact Analysis	7-10
      7.4  Unfunded Mandates Analysis	7-12
      7.5  Federalism Analysis	7-13
      7.6  Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments	7-14
      7.7  Environmental Justice Analysis	7-14
      7.8  Children's Health Protection Analysis	7-14
      7.9  Energy Impact Analysis	7-15

Appendix A.  Methodology for Estimating Hazardous Waste Tonnage Shipped by SQGs, CESQGs, and Generators of State Hazardous Wastes	A-1
Appendix B.  State Hazardous Waste Programs	B-1
Appendix C.  2014 EPA Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Companies	C-1
Appendix D.  Manifest-Related Activities from the Hazardous Waste Manifest System ICR	D-1
	Appendix E.  EPA Paper Manifest Processing Cost Model	E-1
Appendix F.  e-Manifest Technical Architecture: Helpdesk Operations	F-1
Appendix G.  Industries Potentially Affected by the Rule, by NAICS Code	G-1
      

                                   Acronyms

ASTSWMO
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
BFRA
Bona-Fide Reclamation Agreement
BR
Biennial Report
CBA
Cost-Benefit Analysis
CBI
Confidential Business Information
CDX
Central Data Exchange
CESQG
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
COTS
Commercial Off-the-Shelf
CPI-U
Consumer Price Index  -  All Urban Consumers
CROMERR
Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule
D&B
Dun & Bradstreet
DOT
Department of Transportation
ENVCAP
Environmental Compliance Assistance Platform
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
ETC
Environmental Technology Council
GAO
Government Accountability Office
HMAC
Hazardous Materials Advisory Council
HWMS
Hazardous Waste Manifest System
ICR
Information Collection Request
IT
Information Technology
LQG
Large Quantity Generator
NAICS
North American Industry Classification System
O&M
Operations and Maintenance
OIRA
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB
Office of Management & Budget
ORCR
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
OSW
Office of Solid Waste
QA/QC
Quality Assurance / Quality Control
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA
Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA
Regulatory Impact Analysis
SBA
Small Business Administration
SBREFA
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SIC
Standard Industrial Classification
SISNOSE
Significant Economic Impact for a Substantial Number of Small Entities
SQG
Small Quantity Generator
TSDF
Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facility
UMRA
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
USC
United States Code
WR
Waste Received
XML
Extensible Markup Language

Acknowledgements

Between 2014 and 2017 under three consecutive work assignments, Industrial Economics Incorporated (IEc) provided analytic support for this RIA:
       May 2014 to April 2015: WA 2-17 (contract EP-W-12-013)
       May 2015 to April 2016: WA 3-17 (contract EP-W-12-013)
       April 2016 to December 2017: WA 4-17 (contract EP-W-12-013)

Chris McMinimy, EPA ORCR Economist, was the EPA Contract Officer Technical Representative (COTR) for the work assignments. Other EPA staff assisting with data processing, analysis, and review of prior drafts of this RIA, include (in alphabetical order): Richard Benware, Lee Hofmann, and Mark J. Huff of ORCR.

                               Executive Summary

ES. 1 Overview

Among other regulatory requirements, Subtitle C of the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) required the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a manifest system to track shipments of hazardous waste from sites where wastes are generated to other sites where hazardous waste is managed (i. e., "cradle-to-grave"). EPA published regulations for a paper manifest system on February 26, 1980 (45 Federal Register 12724). Additionally, in 1984, EPA and the Department of Transportation (DoT) promulgated a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest form and procedures (49 FR 10490, March 20, 1984) to create uniform requirements across states and reduce confusion and compliance challenges.[,] The central element of the RCRA manifest is the paper trail chain-of-custody it creates. Each manifest is a paper document that identifies each entity that is responsible for the hazardous waste at each stage of the shipping process, and the final destination of the waste for disposition (i. e. treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling). 

In 1976, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce estimated that approximately 30 to 35 million tons of hazardous waste were dumped on the ground. In 1984, about 25 million tons of hazardous waste were land-disposed annually, threatening groundwater and soil from contamination. This contamination represented environmental externalities  -  a market failure whereby industrial activities generated hazardous waste, with the consequences impacting the public as a whole.

The purpose of the hazardous waste manifest system is to provide nationwide, cradle-to-grave tracking of all offsite shipments of RCRA-regulated hazardous wastes from their point-of-generation (cradle), to their point-of-treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling (grave). The existing manifest system is paper-based, and uses a six-ply carbon copy paper form which must be signed, with one sheet retained for a minimum of three years by every party that has custody of the waste during its shipment. In this way, the system provides a cradle - to-grave record of all RCRA hazardous wastes that are transported offsite from generator facilities to other locations. 

While paper manifests have served as a mechanism to guard against illegal dumping, government and industry sources have commented on the substantial cost of implementing this mechanism. EPA's paper manifest system was the largest paperwork burden of the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste program. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extended approval of the RCRA manifest paperwork burden information collection request (ICR) for only two years in 1994, with the expectation that EPA would, in the interim, adopt manifest revisions that would address its regulatory burden. In 1996, OMB again extended approval of the manifest ICR, but with the expectation that EPA would explicitly address, among other things, innovative approaches as a way to streamline and reduce the annual burden of manifest reporting requirements on the RCRA-regulated community. To reduce paperwork burden on regulated entities, OMB suggested that EPA develop and pilot test the electronic submission and tracking of manifests. 

In September 2012, the US Congress passed legislative bill number S. 710 directing EPA to establish an e-Manifest system and authorizing the appropriation of $6 million over 2013 to 2015 for EPA to establish the e-Manifest system. President Obama signed the e-Manifest Act into law on October 5, 2013 (Public law P. L. 112-195). The Act authorizes EPA to collect user fees to recover the costs associated with developing and running e-Manifest. It also defines the goals of the e-Manifest system to be:

 Meeting the needs of the user community, including State governments that collect manifest data,
 Attracting sufficient user participation and fee revenue to ensure the viability of the system,
 Decreasing the administrative burden of the RCRA hazardous waste manifest system on the user community, and
 Providing waste receipt data for the RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report). 

The current manifest system reduces the cost of correcting environmental externalities and therefore increases social welfare; it is part of the broader system under RCRA of protecting human health and the environment by ensuring proper disposal of wastes. An electronic manifest system can further improve the efficiency of this system by leveraging new technology to reduce labor and cost burdens of tracking hazardous waste and ensuring safe and proper disposal. Additionally, an electronic system can provide new information about hazardous waste shipments to industrial entities, environmental and safety regulators, and the public. By bringing the availability of manifest information closer to real-time than under the paper system, an electronic manifest system may even generate environmental and human health benefits associated with reduced material use and more rapid response to potential waste-related issues.

ES. 2 Regulatory Changes

EPA plans to publish two rules to fully promulgate the 2012 Electronic Manifest Act. EPA published the first of these two rules (hereafter referred to as the first year rule) in the Federal Register on February 7, 2014. This final rule revised EPA's regulatory requirements for the RCRA hazardous waste manifest system to allow EPA to accept electronic manifests in addition to the existing paper manifests. 
      
In addition, the first year rule:
      
       Announces EPA's decision to build a single, centralized, e-Manifest system. The decision to build a single system is a departure from the preference expressed by EPA in the 2001 proposed rule to set universal standards that would allow industry to build decentralized electronic manifest systems of their own. 

       Defines the universe of entities affected by the e-Manifest program as any facility that completes EPA form 8700-22 and 8700-22A. 

       Announces that use of the electronic system will not be mandatory, and that users may choose to submit paper manifests instead. 

       Delays the implementation and compliance dates for the provisions of the first year rule until the e-Manifest system is ready for operation and EPA has published a fee schedule for the use of the system in the Federal Register. This information will be published in the final version of the current rulemaking. 

       Addresses industry concerns about public access to manifest data and states EPA's decision that manifest data will not be treated as confidential business information (CBI). 

       Discusses some technical design aspects of the e-Manifest system, such as how it will capture electronic signatures to be consistent with EPA's 2005 Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR). 

The current rulemaking, for which this RIA is being conducted, will propose a schedule of user fees to cover the costs of building and running the e-Manifest system and e-Manifest program. It will also announce the date when the system will be turned on and EPA will begin to accept electronic manifests. In addition, the user fee rule will address seven issues that arise within the scope of turning on and running the system, and charging and collecting user fees. These issues are essential to successfully implementing the e-Manifest program and running the e-Manifest system. These seven issues are:

      1) Which users of manifests and manifest data will be charged user fees?
      To address this issue, EPA first had to identify all potential users of the system. EPA identified three broad groups of users: 1) industrial facilities that must use manifests to comply with regulatory obligations under RCRA, 2) State governments that track manifest data, and 3) members of the general public that do not use manifests to comply with RCRA but are interested in manifest data nonetheless. EPA recognizes that the activities of each of these user groups will burden the system, though likely to varying degrees. EPA is proposing to charge only industrial users to recover the full costs of running the e-Manifest system. This group will likely use the e-Manifest system substantially more than state governments or the public, will likely realize benefits from using e-Manifest to a greater degree than state governments or the public, and can more practically be assigned user accounts than all potentially interested members of the public. 
      
      2) What will be the transactional basis for assessing user fee obligations?
      EPA next considered what interaction between industrial users and the system would constitute the billable event that triggered the system to charge a user fee. EPA recognizes the link between system costs that accrue and the number of manifests that pass through the system. For this reason, EPA considered multiple stages within the lifecycle of a manifest as the potential billable event, focusing on the beginning, when a manifest is initiated in the system, and the end, when a finalized manifest is submitted to the system. Based on this review, EPA is proposing to make the final submission of the manifest to the system the billable event. Because the finalized manifest will be submitted by a treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF), EPA is also proposing that TSDFs will pay the user fee. 
      
      3) How will users be expected to pay their owed fees?
      EPA is proposing that users pay fees within 30 days, using an electronic payment method supported by the US Treasury. 
      
      4) What model or fee formula will EPA rely on for the determination of users' fees?
      EPA considered several models for assessing user fees. As the submission of the finalized manifest is to be the billable event, each fee formula calculates a per-manifest fee. EPA considered three different options:
      
             Option 1, the Uniform Cost fee, allocates e-Manifest costs evenly across all manifests, creating a single uniform fee. 
             Option 2, the Marginal Cost fee, differentiates fees by manifest type, reflecting differences in EPA labor costs associated with data entry and management for different types of manifests. 
             Option 3, the Marginal Cost Differentiated fee, differentiates fees by labor costs in the same manner as Option 2, and also differentially assigns operations and maintenance costs by manifest type (e.g., paper manifests versus electronic manifests). 
      
      EPA is proposing to initially assess fees using Option 2. However, if the proportion of electronic manifests remains below 75% of the total volume of manifests five years after the system is turned on, then the fee structure may be changed to reflect Option 3. 
      
      5) How will the rule address fee trajectory and fee schedule revisions?
      EPA is proposing to publish a new schedule of fees at two-year intervals, with the first schedule being published in the final version of this rule. At each revision, EPA will run the latest program cost and manifest usage statistics through the fee formula finalized in this rulemaking to determine fees for the next two-year period. EPA intends to use the same underlying fee formula for the foreseeable future, unless operating conditions or expenditures change drastically and render it obsolete. EPA is also proposing to automatically adjust fees from the first year of each cycle to the second. The purpose of this mid-cycle adjustment would be to account for inflation and any errors (positive or negative) in estimating system usage in the first year of the cycle, which is difficult to predict. Thus, depending on inflation and the accuracy of estimates of system usage for the first year of a cycle, fees in the second period could hypothetically stay about the same, increase, or decrease. 
      
      6) Which, if any, manifest transactions warrant a fee premium?
      EPA is proposing to assess two additional fees above and beyond user fees. The first fee will be levied on submissions of non-manifests to the paper processing center. EPA anticipates significant clerical costs associated with opening these materials, determining that they are not manifests, and returning them to the sender via post. EPA is also proposing to assess additional fees on paper manifests that must be resubmitted and undergo additional review and quality assurance (QA/QC) after initial submission. 
      
      7) What sanctions are being proposed to induce prompt payment of user fees?
      EPA is proposing a mix of financial, denial of service, and enforcement sanctions on late fee payments to encourage timely payment of user fees. Sanctions will begin with financial penalties, be upgraded to denial of service penalties 120 days after payment is due, and escalate to enforcement sanctions 150 days after payment is due.
      
Finally, the current rule will revise the manifest regulations at 40 CFR Parts §§ 263.21 by revising existing paragraphs (a) and (b) and adding a new paragraph (c) in that section so that transporters designated on the manifest by generators can make changes on the manifest without prior, explicit approval from the generator, provided their contract with the generator grants them authority to make such changes. EPA is proposing this revision to make the manifest regulations consistent with widespread existing industry practices that enable such changes to the manifest to be made for transportation efficiency. As this revision merely reflects widespread existing industry practices, it is not expected to change industry behavior and thus is not expected to result in net costs or benefits. For this reason this RIA does not estimate the potential economic impacts of this change.
 
 ES.3 Affected Universe and Count of Manifests 

This RIA estimates that in total, 214,242 industrial entities and 33 state governments will be affected by the proposed rule and the implementation of the e-Manifest system. Exhibit ES-1 summarizes these counts across entity type.
 

                                 Exhibit ES-1
                   Summary of Universe of Affected Entities
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       
                                  Entity Type
                                Number affected
                               Source and Notes
                                       1
LQG Shippers and non-LQG TSDF Shippers[a]
                                                                         19,420
2015 RCRA Biennial Report data
                                       2
SQG Shippers (who manifest)
                                                                         35,330
Exhibit 2-6, based on calculations from EPA's 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA.
                                       3
CESQG Shippers (who manifest)
                                                                          2,039
Section 2.1.2.3, based on calculations from EPA's 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA and that only Arkansas requires CESQGs to manifest
                                       4
State Waste Shippers (who manifest)
                                                                        145,522
Exhibit 2-9, based on calculations from EPA's 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA and states with additional wastes which require manifests for shipment
                                       5
SQGs Shipping under BRFAs (who manifest)
                                                                            447
Exhibit 2-10, based on calculations from EPA's 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA.and states requiring manifests for BFRA shipments
                                       6
Industry Subtotal  - Shippers who Manifest
                                                                        202,758

                                       7
Receiver TSDFs*
                                                                            420
2015 RCRA Biennial Report data
                                       8
Receivers of state waste
                                                                          1,117
Section 2.1.2.4, based on applying the ratio of receiver TSDFs (Row 7) to LQG, TSDF, and SQG shippers (Row 1 plus Row 2) to the count of state waste shippers (Row 4).
                                       9
Industry Subtotal  - Shippers and Receivers who Manifest
                                                                        204,295

                                      10
Transporters (Trucks)
                                                                          9,947
Exhibit 2-11, based on 1996 and 2001 DoT Truck Use Surveys based on 1992 and 1997 data, scaled to estimate 2012 truck counts
                                      11
Industry Total
                                                                        214,242

                                      12
State Governments
                                                                             33
ENVCAP data
[a] In 2015 Biennial Report data, 384 facilities classified as LQGs were also shipper facilities as well as receiver TSDFs. Therefore, the subtotal and total in Rows 8 and 10, respectively, may overstate the total number of industry entities affected. However, any non-LQG TSDF shipper would be affected by the rule via requirements that specifically correspond to shippers of waste, while receiver TSDFs would be affected by the rule's requirements that specifically correspond to receivers of waste. Therefore, even though the total number of entities affected may be overstated, the subtotal and totals in this exhibit accurately portray the number of entity-instances estimated to be affected by the rule, as TSDFs that function as both non-LQG shippers and receivers of waste will be impacted by two different sets of requirements associated with the rule. 

To estimate the total number of manifests used annually, this RIA assumes that LQGs and TSDF shippers operate under a weekly pickup schedule for their hazardous waste. Given this assumption, this RIA estimates a total of 1,107,080 manifests from LQG and TSDF shippers annually. Additionally, this RIA assumes that SQGs and generators of state hazardous wastes operate under a monthly pickup schedule for their hazardous waste, leading to an estimate of 2,200,057 manifests from these entities annually. In total, this RIA estimates 3,307,137 manifests used annually for hazardous waste shipments.
 
 ES.4 Summary of Findings 

In establishing an e-Manifest system that will serve as a clearinghouse, on a going-forward basis, for all federal and state manifests, the current (final) rule will incur a set of costs for creating the system, and will result in a set of cost savings from reduced burden relative to the baseline system of paper manifest creation, transmittal, and processing. Within the constraints of data availability, EPA identified the incremental costs and cost savings resulting from the current rule. EPA also assessed the sensitivity of outcomes to key assumptions.

ES.4.1 Costs of e-Manifest

This RIA considers the following major sources of costs:

 Development and maintenance of the e-Manifest system (EPA costs). A majority of the costs associated with the final rule correspond to EPA's development costs for the e-Manifest system. These costs include expenses for both initial system creation and ongoing maintenance, as well as additional costs for activities such as receiving and processing manifests through the e-Manifest system, running a help desk to assist users of the system, and certain Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR)-based requirements associated with the system's use. As noted below, EPA will be remunerated for these costs by industry through the user fees.

 Collection and processing of manifests (EPA costs). In addition to the development, operations, and maintenance costs associated with the e-Manifest system, EPA will also collect and process manifests within the e-Manifest system. These costs apply specifically to manifests submitted non-electronically; these manifests must undergo additional processing and data entry tasks before their information can be uploaded to the system and stored in a format akin to those manifests submitted electronically through the e-Manifest system. As noted below, EPA will be remunerated for these costs by industry through the user fees.

 Manifest fees (industry costs). To recoup e-Manifest system development and maintenance costs, the final rule will apply fees, on a per-manifest basis, to the hazardous waste industry. Effectively, these fees are equivalent to the sum of EPA's system development and maintenance costs (above) and represent a transfer of those costs to industry. Associated with these fees are additional costs to EPA for payment collection; these costs are imputed into the overall system development and maintenance costs recouped through fees to industry.

Additionally, this RIA considers costs associated with CROMERR requirements for the hazardous waste industry. 

ES.4.2 Cost Savings of e-Manifest

This RIA estimates costs savings associated with the following:

 Time and materials savings (industry cost savings). The e-Manifest system will allow manifests to be created and submitted through electronic means, rather than with the current paper form that must be printed, completed, transmitted, submitted, and physically stored in the baseline. This RIA estimates that manifest activities done through the e-Manifest system result in substantial time and materials savings relative to these activities being performed with paper manifests.

 Reduced manifest and program costs (cost savings to states). The e-Manifest system will obviate the need for states to collect and process manifests. While states may still wish to do so to meet their own regulatory, enforcement, or data needs, manifest collection and processing activities will be conducted for all manifests by EPA through the e-Manifest system (and ancillary systems to handle non-electronic manifests received on a going-forward basis). The burden reduction associated with reduced state-level manifest collection and processing represents a cost savings to these states.

 Reduced Biennial Report burden (industry and state cost savings). The hazardous waste industry currently undertakes a number of recordkeeping and reporting activities associated with the RCRA Biennial Report. The e-Manifest system will reduce this burden by automatically collecting some information through manifests submitted to the system; this represents a cost savings both to industry and states.

ES4.3. Comparison of Costs and Cost Savings

Exhibit ES-2 presents an overall summary of the baseline, post-rule, and incremental (post-rule less baseline) costs (and cost savings) of the final rule. Compared to baseline costs of approximately $238 million, post-rule costs range from $252 million in the first year of system launch to $113 million in the sixth year of system launch. Exhibit ES-3 displays the incremental discounted costs of the rule (using three percent and seven percent discount rates), including the annualized incremental costs of the final rule. This RIA estimates approximately $66 million in annualized cost savings over the analyzed six-year period following e-Manifest system launch under a seven percent discount rate and approximately $70 million in annualized cost savings over this period under a three percent discount rate, though the rule results in overall costs in the first year and cost savings in the following five years.

NOTE: The fee estimates presented in this RIA are not EPA's final schedule of fees to be paid for use of the e-Manifest system. Rather, they are derived from the best estimates available at the time of this RIA's publication of costs related to setting up and running the e-Manifest system and program, as well as the best estimates of the adoption of electronic manifests, and finally the best estimates of cost savings that will be realized by switching from paper to electronic manifests. These estimated fees are necessary for properly comparing the costs and cost savings attributable to electronic manifests and for this reason they are presented here.
EPA will publish an actual schedule of fees as a notice in the Federal Register.
NOTE: The fee estimates presented in this RIA are not EPA's final schedule of fees to be paid for use of the e-Manifest system. Rather, they are derived from the best estimates available at the time of this RIA's publication of costs related to setting up and running the e-Manifest system and program, as well as the best estimates of the adoption of electronic manifests, and finally the best estimates of cost savings that will be realized by switching from paper to electronic manifests. These estimated fees are necessary for properly comparing the costs and cost savings attributable to electronic manifests and for this reason they are presented here.
EPA will publish an actual schedule of fees as a notice in the Federal Register.

Note that extending the period of analysis forward in time, other things equal, would increase the cost savings estimate, because the highest cost savings accrue after the system implementation costs have been fully accounted for (in the six-year period and afterward). Additional years would continue to reveal substantial cost savings rather than net costs. Therefore, the estimate of a $66 million annualized cost savings can be thought of as a low-end estimate for the long-term savings associated with a functioning e-Manifest system. For example, extending the period of analysis to ten years from system launch, and assuming that net cost savings in Years 7 through 10 are similar to those experienced in Year 6 leads to an annualized cost savings estimate of approximately $85 million instead.

                                 Exhibit ES-2
  Summary of Costs and Cost Savings of the Final Rule and e-Manifest System 
                            (2017$, millions of $)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       
                                 Cost Category
                                   Baseline
                    Post-Rule (e-Manifest System Launched)
                                       
                                       
                                    Annual
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                         Baseline and Post-Rule Costs
Costs to EPA
                                       1
Receipt/review of federal manifests[a]
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                       2
e-Manifest system  -  annual payment for setup costs ($18.2M total)[b]
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $0.00
                                       3
e-Manifest system  -  operations costs[c]
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $8.39
                                                                          $8.65
                                                                          $9.48
                                                                          $10.6
                                                                          $10.5
                                                                          $10.6
                                       4
e-Manifest system  -  manifest processing costs[c]
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $32.6
                                                                          $26.9
                                                                          $11.3
                                                                          $1.26
                                                                          $1.26
                                                                          $1.26
                                       5
                                                                       Subtotal
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
Costs to Industry
                                       6
Manifest activities[d]
                                                                           $201
                                                                           $195
                                                                           $171
                                                                           $136
                                                                          $88.3
                                                                          $88.3
                                                                          $88.3
                                       7
CROMERR
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                        $0.0361
                                                                         $0.161
                                                                         $0.310
                                                                         $0.527
                                                                         $0.414
                                                                         $0.510
                                       8
Manifest fees[e]
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $44.6
                                                                          $39.2
                                                                          $24.4
                                                                          $15.5
                                                                          $15.4
                                                                          $11.9
                                       9
Hazardous waste reporting activities
                                                                          $10.8
                                                                          $5.02
                                                                          $5.02
                                                                          $5.02
                                                                          $5.02
                                                                          $5.02
                                                                          $5.02
                                      10
State TSDFs - Registration
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                        $0.0593
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                      11
                                                                       Subtotal
                                                                           $212
                                                                           $245
                                                                           $216
                                                                           $165
                                                                           $109
                                                                           $109
                                                                           $106
Costs to States
                                      12
Manifest receipt and processing[f]
                                                                          $16.2
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                      13
Hazardous waste reporting activities
                                                                          $9.09
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                      14
Registering State TSDFs
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                        $0.0731
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                      15
                                                                       Subtotal
                                                                          $25.3
                                                                          $6.37
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                      16
                                                                    Total Costs
                                                                           $238
                                                                           $252
                                                                           $223
                                                                           $173
                                                                           $117
                                                                           $116
                                                                           $113
            Incremental Costs (Post-Rule Costs Less Baseline Costs)
                                      17
                                                       Incremental Costs to EPA
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                      18
                                                  Incremental Costs to Industry
                                                                          $33.0
                                                                          $3.93
                                                                        ($46.3)
                                                                         ($102)
                                                                         ($103)
                                                                         ($106)
                                      19
                                                    Incremental Costs to States
                                                                        ($18.9)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                      20
                          Total Incremental Costs (Cost Savings) (undiscounted)
                                                                          $14.1
                                                                        ($15.1)
                                                                        ($65.2)
                                                                         ($121)
                                                                         ($122)
                                                                         ($125)
                                      21
                   Total Incremental Costs (Cost Savings) (3% discount rate)[g]
                                                                          $13.7
                                                                        ($14.2)
                                                                        ($59.7)
                                                                         ($108)
                                                                         ($105)
                                                                         ($105)
                                      22
                   Total Incremental Costs (Cost Savings) (7% discount rate)[g]
                                                                          $13.2
                                                                        ($13.1)
                                                                        ($53.3)
                                                                        ($92.6)
                                                                        ($86.7)
                                                                        ($83.3)
[a] This RIA assumes that the final rule has no impact on this cost item. For more information on the activities involved, see Exhibit 4-4.
[b] The cost for this item is $18.2 million and is incurred by in years prior to e-Manifest system launch. This cost is apportioned into five equivalent payments of $3.64 million to evidence how the fee will be applied to industry to recoup this cost. This cost is offset by fees, and is not included in the total row.
c The entirety of this cost is offset by fees and is not included in the total row.
[d] Includes costs for federal and state manifests, capital costs to store manifests, and reclamation agreement-specific recordkeeping activities. This RIA assumes that the final rule has no impact on capital costs associated with storing manifests in file cabinets and recordkeeping activities for shipments under reclamation agreements; the difference between baseline and post-rule costs results from the difference in the burden associated with manifest activities for federal and state manifests only.
[e] Amount equivalent to the total fee accrued in a given year, as shown in Rows 2 through 4.
[f] This RIA assumes that states do not undertake any manifest receipt and processing activities in the post-rule scenario, as the necessary data would be accessible through the e-Manifest system to states at no charge. 
[g] Figures discounted back to 2017$. That is, the value in Column C is discounted by one year (2018  -  2017), the value in Column D is discounted by two years, and so on.

Exhibit ES-3
Summary of Costs and Cost Savings of the Final Rule and e-Manifest System, Discounted and Annualized 
                            (2017$, millions of $)
                            (Millions of $, 2014$)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       I
                                       
                            e-Manifest System Year
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                           Total (Years 1 through 6)
              Annualized Incremental Cost (Savings) (Years 1 - 6)
                                       
                                 Calendar Year
                                     2018
                                     2019
                                     2020
                                     2021
                                     2022
                                     2023

                                       1
Incremental Costs (Cost Savings)  -  Undiscounted
EPA
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                       2

Industry
                                                                         $33.0 
                                                                          $3.93
                                                                      ($46.3)0)
                                                                         ($102)
                                                                         ($103)
                                                                         ($106)
                                                                         ($320)
                                                                        ($53.4)
                                       3

States
                                                                        ($18.9)
                                                                      ($19.0)0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                         ($114)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                       4

                                                                          Total
                                                                         $14.1 
                                                                       ($15.1) 
                                                                      ($65.2)0)
                                                                         ($121)
                                                                         ($122)
                                                                         ($125)
                                                                         ($434)
                                                                        ($72.4)
                                       5
                                                       Discounted Total (3%)[a]
                                                                         $13.7 
                                                                        ($14.2)
                                                                      ($59.7)0)
                                                                         ($108)
                                                                         ($105)
                                                                         ($105)
                                                                         ($378)
                                                                        ($69.7)
                                       6
                                                       Discounted Total (7%)[a]
                                                                          $13.2
                                                                        ($13.1)
                                                                        ($53.3)
                                                                        ($92.6)
                                                                        ($86.7)
                                                                        ($83.3)
                                                                         ($316)
                                                                        ($66.3)
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
[a] Figures discounted back to 2017$. That is, the value in Column B is discounted by one year (2018  -  2017), the value in Column C is discounted by two years, and so on.

b Calculated as the annual payment that would need to be made, cognizant of discounting, to reach a total value of $161 million after six years. If the period were extended to ten years (i.e., the total period over which e-Manifest system costs are incurred, including pre-launch setup costs, plus the six-year period analyzed here), the annualized cost savings would be approximately $23.0 million instead. 
c Calculated as the annual payment that would need to be made, cognizant of discounting, to reach a total value of $221 million after six years. If the period were extended to ten years (i.e., the total period over which e-Manifest system costs are incurred, including pre-launch setup costs, plus the six-year period analyzed here), the annualized cost savings would be approximately $26.0 million instead.

ES.4.4 Unquantified Benefits

EPA expects that electronic manifests will enhance many stakeholders' abilities to track and extract data on waste shipments by storing and distributing this data in a central, accessible location. EPA has identified six stakeholder groups that may benefit from better access to manifest shipping data:

 Members of industry that use the manifest for tracking waste shipments;
 Federal and state government RCRA enforcement officials;
 Emergency responders;
 Foreign governments;
 Research institutions; and
 Communities near RCRA-regulated facilities.

This RIA does not attempt to quantify the value of this benefit.

ES.4.5 Uncertainties in the Estimation of Costs and Cost Savings

This RIA also assesses the impacts of uncertainty and potential deviations in EPA's chosen assumptions. Specifically, this RIA conducts sensitivity analyses regarding the following assumptions and parameters:

 Number of manifests. The analysis evaluates the effect of assuming increased hazardous waste shipping frequencies and consequently more manifests in the system.
 Adoption rate. Because cost savings result from adoption of electronic manifests, adoption patterns drive the magnitude of cost and cost savings. 
 Materials costs. The analysis characterizes cost impacts on a more detailed level, specifically assuming that materials costs will be eliminated for manifests generated and submitted electronically.
 CROMERR. The primary analysis assumes that CROMERR applies only to TSDFs and transporters. If CROMERR applied to generators, a large number of additional facilities would incur costs related to this aspect of electronic manifest submission.
 Payback period. Because of the statutory requirement for the manifest fee to recover EPA's costs, the period over which these costs are recovered impacts the level of the fee, and in turn, industry costs.

Overall, this RIA finds that the final rule remains a net cost saving rule even under reasonably pessimistic assumptions that increase costs and reduce cost savings. This conclusion does not hold only in extreme cases, such as those where there are relatively few annual manifests completed.

ES.5 Other Regulatory and Distributional Impacts 

As part of the analysis, EPA assessed the final rule's potential impacts related to:

 Regulatory planning and review: This rule is not expected to result in more than $14.1 million in incremental costs across the economy in any given year and results in net cost savings in most years (an annualized estimate of $66.3 million in cost savings at a seven percent discount rate). Manifest fees to industry do not exceed $44.6 million in any year, and are, even in early years with lower adoption rates, at least partially offset by industry and state government cost savings. As a result, this RIA concludes that the e-Manifest system is not an economically significant regulatory action, though it may still be deemed significant due to the novel legal and policy issues it raises.
       
 Regulatory flexibility: Because the e-Manifest system is designed to be an accessible, voluntary system that can reduce costs to any regulated entity, EPA's does not anticipate any adverse impacts on small businesses under the final rule. A sensitivity analysis determined that at most, 70 potentially small entities (representing 40 sectors) are affected by the rule, and EPA expects many of these to enjoy cost savings. 
       
 Employment impacts: Insufficient data are available to quantify changes in employment associated with the rule. This RIA estimates a reduction in labor hours (approximately 22.8 million over six years) and labor costs faced by all affected entities, including states, hazardous waste generators, transporters, and TSDFs. The RIA does not reflect a complete analysis of labor market effects related to the rule, as the effects are spread across hundreds of thousands of firms in different sectors, and responses to cost reductions are likely to be sector- and firm-specific. Neither the data nor methods were available to conduct such an analysis.
  
 Unfunded mandates: The e-Manifest final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. As described in Chapter 5, this RIA estimates that the net impact of e-Manifest will be to reduce costs to state governments. The e-Manifest rule will not impose any burden on local or tribal governments as they are not stakeholders in the hazardous waste manifest system. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The current hazardous waste paper manifest system imposes no burden or requirements on small governments.
 
 Federalism: As indicated in the UMRA discussion above, this RIA estimates cost savings for state agencies. Thus, the final rule would not result in substantial direct compliance costs, as defined in the EPA guidance, for entities owned by state and local governments. EPA does not estimate that the rule would affect the relationship between the federal government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
 
 Tribal governments: As indicated in the UMRA discussion above, EPA does not estimate any costs of the final rule for state and local governments. Based on these results, the rule is not expected to impose a substantial burden on tribal governments.
 
 Environmental justice: EPA does not estimate that the final rule would result in disproportionately high or adverse impacts for minority or low-income populations. Overall, the Agency anticipates that the rule will support the safe shipment and management of hazardous waste, which benefits all communities. As the rule encourages environmentally sound recordkeeping of hazardous wastes, it will likely reduce the risks associated with treatment, disposal, and recovery.
 
 Children's health protection: EPA does not anticipate that the final rule would lead to a disproportionate negative impact on children. As described in the Environmental Justice section above, the rule improves the information available to EPA through notification, tracking, and reporting requirements, and provides for environmentally sound disposal and recovery. 
 
 Energy Impacts: Changes in the management of hazardous waste resulting from the final rule are not expected to significantly impact energy production or distribution, as these changes relate only to reporting, though the reduction in material (paper) use anticipated under the rule is likely associated with reduced energy demand to manufacture and transport paper. Changes in hazardous waste manifest practices may lead to changes in the management practices of hazardous waste, although the effect of these changes on energy use and generation is uncertain and likely to be minimal. Aside from the potential change in paper use and waste management practices described above, the requirements of the rule would have minimal impact on energy consumption; therefore, the rule is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use. In addition, with net costs of no more than $14.1 million in any year year (including both industry and government net costs), this rule is not considered an economically significant action under Executive Order 12866.

                                   Chapter 1
          Problem Statement and Justification for Regulatory Changes
                                       
1.1 Historical Background of the Paper Manifest System
      
Among other regulatory requirements, Subtitle C of the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) required the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a manifest system to track shipments of hazardous waste from sites where wastes are generated to other sites where hazardous waste is managed (i. e., "cradle-to-grave"). EPA published regulations for a paper manifest system on February 26, 1980 (45 Federal Register 12724). The central element of the RCRA manifest is the paper trail chain-of-custody it creates. Each manifest is a paper document that identifies each entity that is responsible for the hazardous waste at each stage of the shipping process, and the final destination of the waste for disposition (i. e. treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling). 

In 1976, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce estimated that approximately 30 to 35 million tons of hazardous waste were dumped on the ground. In 1984, about 25 million tons of hazardous waste were land-disposed annually, threatening groundwater and soil from contamination. This contamination represented environmental externalities  -  a market failure whereby industrial activities generated hazardous waste, with the consequences impacting the public as a whole.

The purpose of the hazardous waste manifest system is to provide nationwide, cradle-to-grave tracking of all offsite shipments of RCRA-regulated hazardous wastes from their point-of-generation (cradle), to their point-of-treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling (grave). The existing manifest system is paper-based, and uses a six-ply carbon copy paper form which must be signed, with one sheet retained for a minimum of three years by every party that has custody of the waste during its shipment. In this way, the system provides a cradle-to-grave record of all RCRA hazardous wastes that are transported offsite from generator facilities to other locations. 

As a component of EPA's hazardous waste regulatory program, manifests help to ensure that hazardous waste is disposed of at permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. For the majority of hazardous waste in the country, generators, transporters, and disposal facilities are identified and held accountable for proper hazardous waste management, ensuring that the environmental and safety costs of hazardous waste are internalized by private parties and do not fall upon the public.

Soon after the 1980 regulations came into effect, more than 20 states developed and required revised, state-specific hazardous waste manifest forms. These forms meet the minimal Federal requirements but also require additional state information. These differing requirements created significant confusion and compliance challenges, and in 1984, EPA and the Department of Transportation (DoT) in coordinated rulemaking, with significant assistance from the 

                              What is a manifest?
                                       
A "manifest," as referred to in this document, is a six-ply paper form that is the center of RCRA's cradle-to-grave tracking system for RCRA hazardous waste in the United States. When hazardous waste is moved from one facility to another (i.e., shipped), a manifest that identifies the generator, transporter, and receiving facilities involved must accompany it. A manifest also requires information on the types and quantities of hazardous waste being transported, and includes a space for handlers to note any discrepancies that may arise in the course of transporting the waste. Each individual shipment of hazardous waste requires its own separate manifest, and every facility or entity that handles (whether generating, receiving, or transferring) that shipment must sign and retain a copy of said manifest. An individual shipment can range in size from a very small quantity (a single container) to a full truck load or even larger; special manifest rules apply to larger vessels such as trains and ships which transport hazardous waste.

EPA first published the regulations requiring the use of the manifest in 1980 in accordance with Section 3002(a)(5) of RCRA, which directs EPA to "establish requirements respecting... use of a manifest system and any other reasonable means necessary to assure that all such hazardous waste generated is designated for treatment, storage, or disposal, and arrives at treatment, storage, and disposal facilities... for which a permit has been issued..." EPA standardized the manifest format nationwide in 2006 with the goal of reducing the administrative burden associated with its use across different states.

The current manifest is formally designated EPA Form 8700-22. The continuation sheet, wherein additional wastes can be listed, is formally designated EPA Form 8700-22A.
The manifest serves a number of functions:

 It is a chain of custody document that industry and regulators use to track shipments of hazardous waste.

 It ensures that generation facilities remain responsible for making certain that their waste is properly transported, treated, stored, and disposed by formalizing arrangements for these activities prior to the waste leaving their facilities.

 It meets the requirements of Department of Transportation shipping papers and bills of lading for hazardous waste shipments.

 It informs emergency response teams about the nature of the hazardous waste present in the case of an accident, spill, or leak.

 It is used by State governments to assess fees and taxes on hazardous waste-related activities, such as generation or shipments, and potentially by the public for informational or research purposes.
                              What is a manifest?
                                       
A "manifest," as referred to in this document, is a six-ply paper form that is the center of RCRA's cradle-to-grave tracking system for RCRA hazardous waste in the United States. When hazardous waste is moved from one facility to another (i.e., shipped), a manifest that identifies the generator, transporter, and receiving facilities involved must accompany it. A manifest also requires information on the types and quantities of hazardous waste being transported, and includes a space for handlers to note any discrepancies that may arise in the course of transporting the waste. Each individual shipment of hazardous waste requires its own separate manifest, and every facility or entity that handles (whether generating, receiving, or transferring) that shipment must sign and retain a copy of said manifest. An individual shipment can range in size from a very small quantity (a single container) to a full truck load or even larger; special manifest rules apply to larger vessels such as trains and ships which transport hazardous waste.

EPA first published the regulations requiring the use of the manifest in 1980 in accordance with Section 3002(a)(5) of RCRA, which directs EPA to "establish requirements respecting... use of a manifest system and any other reasonable means necessary to assure that all such hazardous waste generated is designated for treatment, storage, or disposal, and arrives at treatment, storage, and disposal facilities... for which a permit has been issued..." EPA standardized the manifest format nationwide in 2006 with the goal of reducing the administrative burden associated with its use across different states.

The current manifest is formally designated EPA Form 8700-22. The continuation sheet, wherein additional wastes can be listed, is formally designated EPA Form 8700-22A.
The manifest serves a number of functions:

 It is a chain of custody document that industry and regulators use to track shipments of hazardous waste.

 It ensures that generation facilities remain responsible for making certain that their waste is properly transported, treated, stored, and disposed by formalizing arrangements for these activities prior to the waste leaving their facilities.

 It meets the requirements of Department of Transportation shipping papers and bills of lading for hazardous waste shipments.

 It informs emergency response teams about the nature of the hazardous waste present in the case of an accident, spill, or leak.

 It is used by State governments to assess fees and taxes on hazardous waste-related activities, such as generation or shipments, and potentially by the public for informational or research purposes.
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) and the Hazardous Materials Advisory Council (HMAC), promulgated a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest form and procedures (49 FR 10490, March 20, 1984).[,]       
A decade later, the manifest system became one target of the federal effort to reduce regulatory burden. In March 1995, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and the EPA Administrator put forth an agenda to reinvent environmental protection as part of the larger goal of creating a federal government that works more efficiently and costs less. As one effort of this agenda, the Administration and EPA have been committed to the goal of reducing the paperwork burden resulting from environmental regulations by at least 25 percent. 

While paper manifests have served as a mechanism to guard against illegal dumping, government and industry sources have commented on the substantial cost of implementing this mechanism.[,] EPA's paper manifest system was the largest paperwork burden of the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste program. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extended approval of the RCRA manifest paperwork burden information collection request (ICR) for only two years in 1994, with the expectation that EPA would, in the interim, adopt manifest revisions that would address its regulatory burden. In 1996, OMB again extended approval of the manifest ICR, but with the expectation that EPA would explicitly address, among other things, innovative approaches as a way to streamline and reduce the annual burden of manifest reporting requirements on the RCRA-regulated community. To reduce paperwork burden on regulated entities, OMB suggested that EPA develop and pilot test the electronic submission and tracking of manifests. 

Reducing the cost of correcting environmental externalities will increase social welfare. An electronic manifest system can further improve the efficiency of this system by leveraging new technology to reduce labor and cost burdens of tracking hazardous waste and ensuring safe and proper disposal. Additionally, an electronic system can provide new information about hazardous waste shipments to industrial entities, environmental and safety regulators, and the public. By bringing the availability of manifest information closer to real-time than under the paper system, an electronic manifest system may even generate environmental and human health benefits associated with reduced material use and more rapid response to potential waste-related issues.

1.2 Purpose of EPA's Electronic Manifest System Rulemaking
      
As of FY2014, EPA estimates the total annual nationwide paperwork burden of the federal paper manifest system is 2.5 million hours for shipment of EPA-regulated hazardous wastes. In addition, 19 state governments currently require transporters of state (not federally) regulated hazardous wastes to use EPA's RCRA paper manifest; 23 state governments provided EPA with information about their manifest collection and processing activities. Added together, the current annual national paperwork burden hours for EPA-regulated plus state-regulated hazardous waste shipments is estimated in this RIA to involve 6.3 million labor hours per year to process approximately 3.3 million RCRA paper manifests at an estimated annual cost to industry and state governments of approximately $240 million per year. With relatively rare exceptions, EPA itself does not print, distribute, collect, or process RCRA paper manifests, though it incurs relatively small costs annually to receive and review exception reports and similar activities, detailed in Chapter 4 as "Agency burden" costs borne by EPA. 

On May 22, 2001, EPA's Office of Solid Waste (now named the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, or ORCR) published in the Federal Register its intent to implement an e-Manifest system, recognizing that information technologies present tremendous potential for reducing the significant paperwork burden of the current paper-based manifest system. Since 2001, EPA has explored multiple information technology (IT) design configurations for an e-Manifest system to replace the current paper process, involving a number of activities and Federal Register notices, some of which are summarized below.

 EPA solicited stakeholder input on conceptual framework, roadmap, funding, governance, technical and business process approaches and options for an e-Manifest system during a two-day public meeting held in Washington, D.C. on May 19 and 20, 2004.
   
 On April 18, 2006, EPA published a public notice to announce and request comment on EPA's intention to develop a centralized web-based IT system that would be hosted on EPA's IT architecture. EPA received strong support for a national web-based system funded through user-fees. In addition, commenters generally supported EPA's position that use of e-Manifests should be at the election of the users rather than mandatory. 
   
 On February 26, 2008, EPA published a notice to announce the availability of additional information on the e-Manifest project and solicit additional comments on two issues raised in response to the April 2006 notice: concern that an optional e-Manifest system would create dual paper and electronic systems, and differing perspectives related to confidential business information (CBI) claims for e-Manifests. The notice also confirmed EPA's commitment to finalizing a federal regulation that would authorize the use of electronic manifests as the legal equivalent of paper manifests. 
   
 On November 19 and 20, 2008, EPA's ORCR held a meeting of state government and RCRA-regulated industry representatives in Arlington, VA to discuss EPA's 2006 announced preferred approach to develop a centralized web-based IT system that would be hosted on EPA's existing IT architecture. Meeting participants were asked for input into the design, development, and operation of the centralized e-Manifest system. 

1.3 The 2012 Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act

In September 2012, the US Congress passed legislative bill number S. 710 directing EPA to establish an e-Manifest system and authorizing the appropriation of $6 million over 2013 to 2015 for EPA to establish the e-Manifest system. President Obama signed the e-Manifest Act into law on October 5, 2013 (Public law P. L. 112-195). Among other things, the Act specifies dates by which EPA must meet certain system milestones. These milestones are: 

 Publishing a regulation promulgating the Act; 

 Establishing a system advisory board to make recommendations on the operation of the system; and
    
 Bringing the e-Manifest system online such that it can accept electronic manifests from any user. 

In addition to establishing system and program milestones for e-Manifest, the Act also:

 Authorizes EPA to collect user fees to recover the costs associated with developing and running e-Manifest. 

 Establishes a special revolving System Fund to receive user fees. 

 Defines the goals of the e-Manifest system to be:

          Meeting the needs of the user community, including State governments that collect manifest data,
          Attracting sufficient user participation and fee revenue to ensure the viability of the system,
          Decreasing the administrative burden of the RCRA hazardous waste manifest system on the user community, and
          Providing waste receipt data for the RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report). 
                  
 Establishes regular oversight of fee revenue and system expenses by both Congress and the EPA Inspector General's office. 
      
1.4 The 2014 Final Rule
      
EPA plans to publish two rules to fully promulgate the 2012 Electronic Manifest Act. EPA published the first of these two rules (hereafter referred to as the first year rule) in the Federal Register on February 7, 2014. This final rule revised EPA's regulatory requirements for the RCRA hazardous waste manifest system to allow EPA to accept electronic manifests in addition to the existing paper manifests. 
      
In addition, the first year rule:
      
       Announces EPA's decision to build a single, centralized, e-Manifest system. The decision to build a single system is a departure from the preference expressed by EPA in the 2001 proposed rule to set universal standards that would allow industry to build decentralized electronic manifest systems of their own. EPA moved towards the centralized approach after receiving negative feedback from stakeholders in 2001 and 2004 on the decentralized approach. 

       Defines the universe of entities affected by the e-Manifest program as any facility that completes EPA form 8700-22 and 8700-22A. 

       Announces that use of the electronic system will not be mandatory, and that users may choose to submit paper manifests instead. 

       Delays the implementation and compliance dates for the provisions of the first year rule until the e-Manifest system is ready for operation and EPA has published a fee schedule for the use of the system.

       Addresses industry concerns about public access to manifest data and states EPA's decision that manifest data will not be treated as confidential business information (CBI). 

       Discusses some technical design aspects of the e-Manifest system, such as how it will capture electronic signatures to be consistent with EPA's 2005 Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR). 

     The 2018 Final Rule

The current rulemaking addressed in this RIA will propose a schedule of user fees to cover the costs of building and running the e-Manifest system and e-Manifest program. It will also announce the date when the system will be turned on and EPA will begin to accept electronic manifests. In addition, the user fee rule will address seven issues that arise within the scope of turning on and running the system, and charging and collecting user fees. These issues are essential to successfully implementing the e-Manifest program and running the e-Manifest system. These seven issues are:

1) Which users of manifests and manifest data will be charged user fees?
To address this issue, EPA first had to identify all potential users of the system. EPA identified three broad groups of users: 1) industrial facilities that must use manifests to comply with regulatory obligations under RCRA, 2) State governments that track manifest data, and 3) members of the general public that do not use manifests to comply with RCRA but are interested in manifest data nonetheless. EPA recognizes that the activities of each of these user groups will burden the system, though likely to varying degrees. EPA is proposing to charge only industrial users to recover the full costs of running the e-Manifest system. Manifest-related costs, including activities associated with completing the manifest, as well as purchase of the manifest itself and any associated user fees are all parts of the broader cost of managing hazardous waste. By levying costs associated with the e-Manifest system, which will facilitate hazardous waste management, on industry, these costs are kept internal to the industry, akin to the pre-rule scenario. This is more efficient than a structure where other groups, (i.e., governments and/or the public) would ultimately bear the cost for the e-Manifest system. Additionally, industry will likely use the e-Manifest system substantially more than state governments or the public, will likely realize benefits from using e-Manifest to a greater degree than state governments or the public, and can more practically be assigned user accounts than all potentially interested members of the public. 

2) What will be the transactional basis for assessing user fee obligations?
EPA next considered what interaction between industrial users and the system would constitute the billable event that triggered the system to charge a user fee. EPA recognizes the link between system costs that accrue and the number of manifests that pass through the system. For this reason, EPA considered multiple stages within the lifecycle of a manifest as the potential billable event, focusing on the beginning, when a manifest is initiated in the system, and the end, when a finalized manifest is submitted to the system. Based on this review, EPA is proposing to make the final submission of the manifest to the system the billable event. Because the finalized manifest will be submitted by a treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF), EPA is also proposing that TSDFs will pay the user fee, thereby internalizing the costs of the hazardous waste manifest. 

3) How will users be expected to pay their owed fees?
EPA is proposing that users pay fees within 30 days, using an electronic payment method supported by the US Treasury. 

4) What model or fee formula will EPA rely on for the determination of users' fees?
EPA considered several models for assessing user fees. As the submission of the finalized manifest is to be the billable event, each fee formula calculates a per-manifest fee. EPA considered three different options for calculating the fee. Option 1, the Uniform Cost fee, allocates e-Manifest costs evenly across all manifests, creating a single uniform fee. Option 2, the Marginal Cost fee, differentiates fees by manifest type, reflecting differences in EPA labor costs associated with data entry and management for different types of manifests. Option 3, the Marginal Cost Differentiated fee, differentiates fees by labor costs in the same manner as Option 2, and also differentially assigns operations and maintenance costs by manifest type (e.g., paper manifests versus electronic manifests), reflecting differences in these costs by type of manifest. 

EPA's proposed, fourth option is to initially assess fees using the calculus of Option 2. However, if the proportion of electronic manifests remains below 75% of the total volume of manifests six years after the system is turned on, then the fee structure will be changed to reflect Option 3. 

5) How will the rule address fee trajectory and fee schedule revisions?
EPA is proposing to publish a new schedule of fees at two-year intervals, with the first schedule being published in the final version of this rule. At each revision, EPA will run the latest program cost and manifest usage statistics through the fee formula proposed and finalized in this rulemaking to determine fees for the next two-year period. EPA intends to use the same underlying fee formula for the foreseeable future, unless operating conditions or expenditures change drastically and render it obsolete. EPA is also proposing to automatically adjust fees from the first year of each cycle to the second. The purpose of this mid-cycle adjustment would be to account for inflation and any errors (positive or negative) in estimating system usage in the first year of the cycle, which is difficult to predict. Thus, depending on inflation and the accuracy of estimates of system usage for the first year of a cycle, fees in the second period could hypothetically stay about the same, increase, or decrease. 

6) Which, if any, manifest transactions warrant a fee premium?
EPA is proposing to assess two additional fees above and beyond user fees. The first fee will be levied on submissions of non-manifests (i.e., other required or requested regulatory or enforcement information for the facility or firm in question not associated with the manifest, such as responses to requests for information, permit applications, etc.) to the paper processing center. EPA anticipates significant clerical costs associated with opening these materials, determining that they are not manifests, and returning them to the sender via post. EPA is also proposing to assess additional fees on paper manifests that must be resubmitted and undergo additional review and quality assurance (QA/QC) after initial submission. Manifest resubmission and additional review may be triggered by findings requiring corrections with the initial manifest submission, a failure of the initial submission to meet certain data validation requirements, and similar issues.

7) What sanctions are being proposed to induce prompt payment of user fees?
EPA is proposing a mix of financial, denial of service, and enforcement sanctions on late fee payments to encourage timely payment of user fees. Sanctions will begin with financial penalties, be upgraded to denial of service penalties 120 days after payment is due, and escalate to enforcement sanctions 150 days after payment is due.

Finally the current rule will revise the manifest regulations at 40 CFR Parts §§ 263.21 by revising existing paragraphs (a) and (b) and adding a new paragraph (c) in that section so that transporters designated on the manifest by generators can make changes on the manifest without prior, explicit approval from the generator, provided their contract with the generator grants them authority to make such changes. EPA is proposing this revision to make the manifest regulations consistent with widespread existing industry practices that enable such changes to the manifest to be made for transportation efficiency. As this revision merely reflects widespread existing industry practices, it is not expected to change industry behavior and thus is not expected to result in net costs or benefits. For this reason this RIA does not estimate the potential economic impacts of this change.

                                   Chapter 2
                         Universe of Affected Entities

This chapter provides an overview of the universe of industrial facilities and government entities that may be affected by the fees for the RCRA Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest System (e-Manifest) final rule. The rule may affect any industrial facility that uses, signs, or completes a RCRA hazardous waste manifest in the course of conducting business. Thus, the universe of facilities potentially affected by this rule is both large and diverse. To provide a comprehensible picture of this universe, the first section of this chapter describes and categorizes potentially affected facilities according to their roles within the RCRA hazardous waste system and their locations.

The e-Manifest rule may also potentially affect a number of state governments. Under RCRA, state governments have the discretion to impose additional requirements on hazardous waste shipments as long as these requirements are at least as stringent as federal RCRA requirements. A number of state governments have adopted additional standards that may be affected by the e-Manifest system. In particular, requirements that industrial facilities submit copies of the hazardous waste manifest to the state may be streamlined by the e-Manifest system. The second section of this chapter describes the Federal requirements governing state manifest collection programs, and the additional requirements that states often impose on RCRA hazardous waste shipments. 

2.1 Industrial Facilities Potentially Affected by e-Manifest

The universe of facilities that may be affected by the e-Manifest rule includes all facilities that may use, sign, or complete a RCRA hazardous waste manifest in the course of conducting business. As this is a large and heterogeneous group of facilities, this chapter sorts them into three groups according to the role that each has in the RCRA hazardous waste system. The three different roles are: 

 Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) that receive, treat and dispose of hazardous waste;

 Generators that produce hazardous waste and send it offsite to TSDFs for treatment and disposal; and

 Transporters that deliver shipments of waste from generator sites to TSDF sites.

The rest of this section describes each of these three groups in further detail. It provides information on counts of facilities in aggregate and by state, the quantities of hazardous waste handled by each facility type, and prevalent NAICS codes for each group where applicable.

2.1.1 Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (Receiving Hazardous Waste)

Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities are facilities that are permitted under RCRA to receive shipments of RCRA hazardous waste to be treated, stored, or disposed of, as per 40 CFR Part 264 and 40 CFR Part 265. TSDFs will likely be the heaviest and most important users of the e-Manifest system, because they are required to directly interface with all received manifests.

Facilities permitted as TSDFs may be affected by the final rule in multiple ways. The primary role of TSDFs is to serve as the final destination for shipments of waste, which these facilities then treat, store, or dispose. When serving in this capacity, TSDFs act as receivers of hazardous waste. However, TSDFs may also interact with hazardous waste manifests in other ways: specifically, some TSDFs may generate hazardous waste and ship it off-site. When serving in this alternate capacity, TSDFs are considered to be generators of hazardous waste, and the TSDFs that engage in these activities are considered in Section 2.1.2. Meanwhile, the remainder of this section considers TSDFs serving in the primary capacity as receivers of hazardous waste generated by other entities. 

Under RCRA, TSDFs receiving hazardous waste are required to sign and date manifests, note significant discrepancies in the manifest, return a signed manifest to the transporter, send copies of import-affiliated manifests to EPA within 30 days of delivery, and retain a manifest copy for at least three years. Additionally, TSDFs may provide full RCRA compliance services to their generator customers, especially in those cases where a TSDF services relatively small generators. Where this occurs, rather than merely treating waste, TSDFs will also provide services such as preparing copies of the manifest, and transporting waste using trucks owned by the TSDF. Correspondingly, for a certain number of manifests, the TSDF is involved directly in every aspect of manifest activities associated with shipping the waste. For these as well as all other manifests, under the final rule, TSDFs are responsible for transmitting the completed, finalized copies of manifests to the e-Manifest system. Additionally, fees for e-Manifest system use will be levied when the manifest is submitted; correspondingly TSDFs will be the only facilities responsible for paying fees directly to EPA for use of the system.

2.1.1.1 National and State Counts of TSDFs

Data describing the universe of TSDFs comes from the RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report), a summary of hazardous waste generation, shipment, and treatment released every two years. These data, hereafter referred to throughout this RIA as "Biennial Report" data, are compiled from waste reports submitted by TSDF facilities as a part of existing reporting obligations under RCRA. The RCRA Biennial Report therefore provides a fairly complete picture of the TSDF universe that will be impacted by electronic manifests. 

According to the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report (the most recent available), 420 TSDF facilities that were operating in 2015 received hazardous waste from offsite for the purposes of treating, storing, or disposing of it. The remainder of this section refers to these facilities as "receiver TSDFs" as a clarifying measure to distinguish these facilities from facilities permitted as TSDFs that generate and ship hazardous waste off-site, which are discussed on Section 2.1.2.

The Biennial Report data document the number of receiver TSDFs operating in each state and territory of the United States. Exhibit 2-1 displays this information in table form. This Exhibit shows that while receiver TSDFs are spread across the country, they are generally clustered in areas with denser population and more industrial activity. Over half of the receiver TSDFs reported in the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report are located in just 10 states. California, the state with the most reported receiver TSDFs, has 42, while New Hampshire, Montana, and Wyoming have none.

                                  Exhibit 2-1
Counts of Receiver TSDF Facilities by State According to the 2011 RCRA Biennial Report
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       
                                     State
                           Receiver TSDF* Facilities
                                 National Rank
                           % National Total (B/420)
                                       
                                     State
                           Receiver TSDF* Facilities
                                 National Rank
                           % National Total (B/420)
                                       1
Alabama
                                                                              9
                                                                             16
                                                                           2.1%
                                      29
Navajo Nation
                                                                              0
                                                                             50
                                                                           0.0%
                                       2
Alaska
                                                                              1
                                                                             44
                                                                           0.2%
                                      30
Nebraska
                                                                              4
                                                                             31
                                                                           1.0%
                                       3
Arizona
                                                                              8
                                                                             18
                                                                           1.9%
                                      31
Nevada
                                                                              5
                                                                             27
                                                                           1.2%
                                       4
Arkansas
                                                                              4
                                                                             31
                                                                           1.0%
                                      32
New Hampshire
                                                                              0
                                                                             50
                                                                           0.0%
                                       5
California
                                                                             42
                                                                              1
                                                                          10.0%
                                      33
New Jersey
                                                                              9
                                                                             16
                                                                           2.1%
                                       6
Colorado
                                                                              6
                                                                             24
                                                                           1.4%
                                      34
New Mexico
                                                                              4
                                                                             31
                                                                           1.0%
                                       7
Connecticut
                                                                              5
                                                                             27
                                                                           1.2%
                                      35
New York
                                                                             21
                                                                              4
                                                                           5.0%
                                       8
Delaware
                                                                              1
                                                                             44
                                                                           0.2%
                                                                             36
North Carolina
                                                                             11
                                                                             11
                                                                           2.6%
                                       9
District of Columbia
                                                                              0
                                                                             50
                                                                           0.0%
                                      37
North Dakota
                                                                              3
                                                                             36
                                                                           0.7%
                                      10
Florida
                                                                             15
                                                                              7
                                                                           3.6%
                                      38
Ohio
                                                                             22
                                                                              3
                                                                           5.2%
                                      11
Georgia
                                                                              6
                                                                             24
                                                                           1.4%
                                      39
Oklahoma
                                                                             10
                                                                             12
                                                                           2.4%
                                      12
Guam
                                                                              1
                                                                             44
                                                                           0.2%
                                      40
Oregon
                                                                              2
                                                                             40
                                                                           0.5%
                                      13
Hawaii
                                                                              1
                                                                             44
                                                                           0.2%
                                      41
Pennsylvania
                                                                             20
                                                                              5
                                                                           4.8%
                                      14
Idaho
                                                                              2
                                                                             40
                                                                           0.5%
                                      42
Puerto Rico
                                                                              1
                                                                             44
                                                                           0.2%
                                      15
Illinois
                                                                             15
                                                                              7
                                                                           3.6%
                                      43
Rhode Island
                                                                              2
                                                                             40
                                                                           0.5%
                                      16
Indiana
                                                                             12
                                                                             10
                                                                           2.9%
                                      44
South Carolina
                                                                              6
                                                                             24
                                                                           1.4%
                                      17
Iowa
                                                                              3
                                                                             36
                                                                           0.7%
                                      45
South Dakota
                                                                              1
                                                                             44
                                                                           0.2%
                                      18
Kansas
                                                                              4
                                                                             31
                                                                           1.0%
                                      46
Tennessee
                                                                              3
                                                                             36
                                                                           0.7%
                                      19
Kentucky
                                                                              8
                                                                             18
                                                                           1.9%
                                      47
Texas
                                                                             41
                                                                              2
                                                                           9.8%
                                      20
Louisiana
                                                                              8
                                                                             18
                                                                           1.9%
                                      48
Trust Territories
                                                                              0
                                                                             50
                                                                           0.0%
                                      21
Maine
                                                                              2
                                                                             40
                                                                           0.5%
                                      49
Utah
                                                                              8
                                                                             18
                                                                           1.9%
                                      22
Maryland
                                                                              5
                                                                             27
                                                                           1.2%
                                      50
Vermont
                                                                              4
                                                                             31
                                                                           1.0%
                                      23
Massachusetts
                                                                              8
                                                                             18
                                                                           1.9%
                                      51
Virgin Islands
                                                                              0
                                                                             50
                                                                           0.0%
                                      24
Michigan
                                                                             16
                                                                              6
                                                                           3.8%
                                      52
Virginia
                                                                              8
                                                                             18
                                                                           1.9%
                                      25
Minnesota
                                                                             10
                                                                             12
                                                                           2.4%
                                      53
Washington
                                                                             10
                                                                             12
                                                                           2.4%
                                      26
Mississippi
                                                                              3
                                                                             36
                                                                           0.7%
                                      54
West Virginia
                                                                              5
                                                                             27
                                                                           1.2%
                                      27
Missouri
                                                                             15
                                                                              7
                                                                           3.6%
                                      55
Wisconsin
                                                                             10
                                                                             12
                                                                           2.4%
                                      28
Montana
                                                                              0
                                                                             50
                                                                           0.0%
                                      56
Wyoming
                                                                              0
                                                                             50
                                                                           0.0%
                                                                          Total
                                                                            420
                                                                               
                                                                           100%
* "Receiver TSDF" refers to those facilities receiving waste from off-site to treat, store, or dispose of it.
Source: 2015 RCRA Biennial Report facility summary data. Available at: https://rcrainfo.epa.gov/rcrainfoweb/action/modules/br/national/view 

2.1.1.2 Quantities of Waste Received from Offsite by Receiver TSDFs
According to the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report, receiver TSDFs received 6,215,626 tons of hazardous waste nationally. Michigan was the state that received the largest quantity of hazardous waste (709,056 tons); Alaska (among states with receiver TSDFs receiving waste from offsite), accounted for the smallest quantity: 7.3 tons. Consistent with the number of receiver TSDFs, quantities of waste received are correlated with areas that have historically had significant industrial activity. The ten states that received the largest quantities of hazardous waste accounted for 4,541,498 tons, or 73 percent of the total hazardous waste received: Michigan, Ohio, Texas, Indiana, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Illinois, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. Exhibit 2-2 displays this information below.
                                  Exhibit 2-2
Quantity of Hazardous Waste Received by State According to the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       
                                     State
                                 Tons Received
                                 National Rank
                      % of National Total (B/6,
215,626)
                                       
                                     State
                                 Tons Received
                                 National Rank
                      % of National Total 
(B/6,
215,626)
                                       1
Alabama
                                   132,127.7 
                                      16 
                                     2.1%
                                      29
Navajo Nation
                                      -   
                                      50 
                                     0.0%
                                       2
Alaska
                                      7.3 
                                      49 
                                     0.0%
                                      30
Nebraska
                                   43,668.3 
                                      23 
                                     0.7%
                                       3
Arizona
                                   11,296.4 
                                      33 
                                     0.2%
                                      31
Nevada
                                   71,211.3 
                                      19 
                                     1.1%
                                       4
Arkansas
                                   276,659.7 
                                       9 
                                     4.5%
                                      32
New Hampshire
                                      -   
                                      50 
                                     0.0%
                                       5
California
                                   174,887.5 
                                      12 
                                     2.8%
                                      33
New Jersey
                                   146,013.8 
                                      14 
                                     2.3%
                                       6
Colorado
                                   45,855.3 
                                      22 
                                     0.7%
                                      34
New Mexico
                                    2,096.3 
                                      37 
                                     0.0%
                                       7
Connecticut
                                   39,452.5 
                                      25 
                                     0.6%
                                      35
New York
                                   58,173.4 
                                      20 
                                     0.9%
                                       8
Delaware
                                     94.5 
                                      45 
                                     0.0%
                                      36
North Carolina
                                   21,018.4 
                                      29 
                                     0.3%
                                       9
District of Columbia
                                      -   
                                      50 
                                     0.0%
                                      37
North Dakota
                                     249.3 
                                      44 
                                     0.0%
                                      10
Florida
                                   12,850.8 
                                      32 
                                     0.2%
                                      38
Ohio
                                   673,302.3 
                                       2 
                                     10.8%
                                      11
Georgia
                                     606.5 
                                      39 
                                     0.0%
                                      39
Oklahoma
                                   210,304.7 
                                      10 
                                     3.4%
                                      12
Guam
                                     48.4 
                                      48 
                                     0.0%
                                      40
Oregon
                                   48,905.8 
                                      21 
                                     0.8%
                                      13
Hawaii
                                     81.8 
                                      47 
                                     0.0%
                                      41
Pennsylvania
                                   389,924.4 
                                       6 
                                     6.3%
                                      14
Idaho
                                   20,906.6 
                                      30 
                                     0.3%
                                      42
Puerto Rico
                                     267.2 
                                      42 
                                     0.0%
                                      15
Illinois
                                   297,401.5 
                                       7 
                                     4.8%
                                      43
Rhode Island
                                    7,180.7 
                                      36 
                                     0.1%
                                      16
Indiana
                                   551,866.4 
                                       4 
                                     8.9%
                                      44
South Carolina
                                   294,842.5 
                                       8 
                                     4.7%
                                      17
Iowa
                                     258.2 
                                      43 
                                     0.0%
                                      45
South Dakota
                                     93.2 
                                      46 
                                     0.0%
                                      18
Kansas
                                   139,432.5 
                                      15 
                                     2.2%
                                      46
Tennessee
                                   21,192.8 
                                      28 
                                     0.3%
                                      19
Kentucky
                                   79,445.0 
                                      18 
                                     1.3%
                                      47
Texas
                                   647,213.5 
                                       3 
                                     10.4%
                                      20
Louisiana
                                   490,926.9 
                                       5 
                                     7.9%
                                      48
Trust Territories
                                      -   
                                      50 
                                     0.0%
                                      21
Maine
                                     503.8 
                                      40 
                                     0.0%
                                      49
Utah
                                   155,105.1 
                                      13 
                                     2.5%
                                      22
Maryland
                                   43,184.7 
                                      24 
                                     0.7%
                                      50
Vermont
                                    1,782.0 
                                      38 
                                     0.0%
                                      23
Massachusetts
                                    8,157.0 
                                      35 
                                     0.1%
                                      51
Virgin Islands
                                      -   
                                      50 
                                     0.0%
                                      24
Michigan
                                   709,056.1 
                                       1 
                                     11.4%
                                      52
Virginia
                                     485.4 
                                      41 
                                     0.0%
                                      25
Minnesota
                                   29,973.2 
                                      26 
                                     0.5%
                                      53
Washington
                                   25,833.1 
                                      27 
                                     0.4%
                                      26
Mississippi
                                   20,212.3 
                                      31 
                                     0.3%
                                      54
West Virginia
                                   10,935.2 
                                      34 
                                     0.2%
                                      27
Missouri
                                   206,386.9 
                                      11 
                                     3.3%
                                      55
Wisconsin
                                   94,147.8 
                                      17 
                                     1.5%
                                      28
Montana
                                      -   
                                      50 
                                     0.0%
                                      56
Wyoming
                                      -   
                                      50 
                                     0.0%
                                                                          Total
                                   6,215,626
                                       
                                     100%
Source: 2015 RCRA Biennial Report facility summary data. Available at: https://rcrainfo.epa.gov/rcrainfoweb/action/modules/br/national/view

2.1.2 Generators

Generators are the largest and most diverse category of industrial entities subject to RCRA manifest requirements and therefore affected by the rule. Generators include any facility that produces listed or characteristic hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR Part 261 or any other waste defined as hazardous by a state authorized to implement RCRA. Generators fall into five categories of relevance related to the rulemaking. Three of them, Federal Large Quantity Generators (LQGs), Federal Small Quantity Generators (SQGs), Federal Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQGs), are defined in the federal RCRA program. Two other categories reflect specific state programs: generators of state (non-federal) hazardous wastes and generators of hazardous wastes that are exempt from federal RCRA manifest requirements but subject to state manifest requirements. Generators that treat waste onsite and do not ship it offsite are not required to use manifests are not in the universe affected by the rule. 

The way in which generators develop manifests and therefore interact with the e-Manifest system will likely vary across the universe. Larger, more sophisticated generators may initiate manifests (i.e., create the manifest and enter relevant material, quantity, and shipment information), while smaller generators may allow the receiving TSDF to initiate manifests on their behalf. EPA anticipates that all generators (even those who still generate paper manifests) will use the e-Manifest system to meet requirements for ensuring their waste has been successfully been shipped and their manifests have been successfully finalized and submitted. 

Throughout this chapter and the remainder of this RIA, the term "shipper" is used to describe the subset of hazardous waste generators in each category who ship their hazardous waste off-site and are therefore subject to the final rule. This RIA avoids describing these entities solely as "generators" because different types of generators are specifically defined by RCRA, and include facilities not affected by the rule.

2.1.2.1 Large Quantity Generators

Large quantity generators (LQGs) are facilities that produce greater than or equal to 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a month or greater than 1 kg of acute hazardous waste in a month. LQGs are required to report their activities to EPA; as a result, according to the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report summary data, approximately 74 percent of the facilities reporting waste shipments off-site are LQGs (19,334 facilities). 

National and State Counts of LQG Facilities and non-LQG TSDF Shipper Facilities

The RCRA Biennial Report reflects data compiled from waste reports submitted by LQG facilities as a part of their reporting obligations under RCRA, and provides a comprehensive overview of the LQG universe that may be subject to the final rule. The Biennial Report identifies LQGs as facilities that generate hazardous wastes above certain quantities as a byproduct of primary operations. The Biennial Report also identifies shipper facilities that are TSDFs, a category of facilities that has been interpreted in prior RCRA hazardous waste manifest ICRs and economic analyses as TSDF facilities that are similar to LQGs because they ship waste offsite to other TSDFs in sufficient quantities to meet LQG classification thresholds. Both LQG and non-LQG shipping TSDFs are considered potentially affected facilities and counted in this RIA.

According to the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report 19,410 facilities operating in 2015 generated sufficient quantities of hazardous (or acutely hazardous) waste to meet the LQG threshold. The 2015 Biennial Report data indicate that 19,420 LQGs and non-LQG TSDF shippers shipped hazardous waste offsite for treatment in 2015; these facilities are subject to manifest requirements and affected by the final rule.

The geographic distribution of LQGs and non-LQG TSDF shippers is similar to that of receiver TSDFs. Exhibit 2-3 displays Biennial Report data on LQG locations; about half of the LQGs (approximately 57 percent) reported in the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report data are located in 10 states. The number of LQGs and non-LQG TSDF shippers varies considerably across states. California, the state with the most reported LQGs and non-LQG TSDF shippers, has 2,367, while Wyoming, the state with the fewest reported number of LQGs and non-LQG TSDF shippers (excluding U.S. territories), has 14.

                                  Exhibit 2-3
Count of LQGs and Non-LQG TSDF shippers by State from the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       
                                     State
                            LQG Shipper Facilities
                        Non-LQG TSDF Shipper Facilities
                                     Total
                                    (B + C)
                                 National Rank
                        % of National Total (D/19,420)
                                       1
Alabama
                                                                           364 
                                                                           -   
                                                                           364 
                                                                             19
                                                                           1.9%
                                       2
Alaska
                                                                            27 
                                                                             1 
                                                                            28 
                                                                             50
                                                                           0.1%
                                       3
Arizona
                                                                           256 
                                                                             1 
                                                                           257 
                                                                             25
                                                                           1.3%
                                       4
Arkansas
                                                                            97 
                                                                             1 
                                                                            98 
                                                                             38
                                                                           0.5%
                                       5
California
                                                                         2,325 
                                                                            42 
                                                                         2,367 
                                                                              1
                                                                          12.2%
                                       6
Colorado
                                                                           136 
                                                                           -   
                                                                           136 
                                                                             35
                                                                           0.7%
                                       7
Connecticut
                                                                           376 
                                                                           -   
                                                                           376 
                                                                             18
                                                                           1.9%
                                       8
Delaware
                                                                            68 
                                                                           -   
                                                                            68 
                                                                             43
                                                                           0.4%
                                       9
District of Columbia
                                                                            66 
                                                                           -   
                                                                            66 
                                                                             44
                                                                           0.3%
                                      10
Florida
                                                                           422 
                                                                           -   
                                                                           422 
                                                                             12
                                                                           2.2%
                                      11
Georgia
                                                                           623 
                                                                             3 
                                                                           626 
                                                                              9
                                                                           3.2%
                                      12
Guam
                                                                            12 
                                                                           -   
                                                                            12 
                                                                             53
                                                                           0.1%
                                      13
Hawaii
                                                                            70 
                                                                           -   
                                                                            70 
                                                                             42
                                                                           0.4%
                                      14
Idaho
                                                                            31 
                                                                           -   
                                                                            31 
                                                                             48
                                                                           0.2%
                                      15
Illinois
                                                                           852 
                                                                           -   
                                                                           852 
                                                                              6
                                                                           4.4%
                                      16
Indiana
                                                                           660 
                                                                           -   
                                                                           660 
                                                                              8
                                                                           3.4%
                                      17
Iowa
                                                                           153 
                                                                             1 
                                                                           154 
                                                                             30
                                                                           0.8%
                                      18
Kansas
                                                                           207 
                                                                             3 
                                                                           210 
                                                                             27
                                                                           1.1%
                                      19
Kentucky
                                                                           303 
                                                                           -   
                                                                           303 
                                                                             24
                                                                           1.6%
                                      20
Louisiana
                                                                           420 
                                                                             2 
                                                                           422 
                                                                             12
                                                                           2.2%
                                      21
Maine
                                                                            89 
                                                                           -   
                                                                            89 
                                                                             40
                                                                           0.5%
                                      22
Maryland
                                                                           320 
                                                                             2 
                                                                           322 
                                                                             22
                                                                           1.7%
                                      23
Massachusetts
                                                                           604 
                                                                           -   
                                                                           604 
                                                                             10
                                                                           3.1%
                                      24
Michigan
                                                                           325 
                                                                             3 
                                                                           328 
                                                                             21
                                                                           1.7%
                                      25
Minnesota
                                                                           341 
                                                                             1 
                                                                           342 
                                                                             20
                                                                           1.8%
                                      26
Mississippi
                                                                           140 
                                                                             1 
                                                                           141 
                                                                             32
                                                                           0.7%
                                      27
Missouri
                                                                           394 
                                                                             2 
                                                                           396 
                                                                             17
                                                                           2.0%
                                      28
Montana
                                                                            48 
                                                                           -   
                                                                            48 
                                                                             46
                                                                           0.2%
                                      29
Navajo Nation
                                                                           -   
                                                                           -   
                                                                           -   
                                                                             55
                                                                           0.0%
                                      30
Nebraska
                                                                            77 
                                                                             2 
                                                                            79 
                                                                             41
                                                                           0.4%
                                      31
Nevada
                                                                           103 
                                                                           -   
                                                                           103 
                                                                             37
                                                                           0.5%
                                      32
New Hampshire
                                                                           141 
                                                                           -   
                                                                           141 
                                                                             32
                                                                           0.7%
                                      33
New Jersey
                                                                           709 
                                                                             3 
                                                                           712 
                                                                              7
                                                                           3.7%
                                      34
New Mexico
                                                                            52 
                                                                           -   
                                                                            52 
                                                                             45
                                                                           0.3%
                                      35
New York
                                                                         2,142 
                                                                             1 
                                                                         2,143 
                                                                              2
                                                                          11.0%
                                      36
North Carolina
                                                                           407 
                                                                             2 
                                                                           409 
                                                                             16
                                                                           2.1%
                                      37
North Dakota
                                                                            22 
                                                                           -   
                                                                            22 
                                                                             51
                                                                           0.1%
                                      38
Ohio
                                                                           963 
                                                                             4 
                                                                           967 
                                                                              4
                                                                           5.0%
                                      39
Oklahoma
                                                                           171 
                                                                           -   
                                                                           171 
                                                                             28
                                                                           0.9%
                                      40
Oregon
                                                                           155 
                                                                             2 
                                                                           157 
                                                                             29
                                                                           0.8%
                                      41
Pennsylvania
                                                                           920 
                                                                           -   
                                                                           920 
                                                                              5
                                                                           4.7%
                                      42
Puerto Rico
                                                                            90 
                                                                           -   
                                                                            90 
                                                                             39
                                                                           0.5%
                                      43
Rhode Island
                                                                           138 
                                                                           -   
                                                                           138 
                                                                             34
                                                                           0.7%
                                      44
South Carolina
                                                                           417 
                                                                           -   
                                                                           417 
                                                                             14
                                                                           2.1%
                                      45
South Dakota
                                                                            30 
                                                                           -   
                                                                            30 
                                                                             49
                                                                           0.2%
                                      46
Tennessee
                                                                           241 
                                                                             1 
                                                                           242 
                                                                             26
                                                                           1.2%
                                      47
Texas
                                                                         1,315 
                                                                             1 
                                                                         1,316 
                                                                              3
                                                                           6.8%
                                      48
Trust Territories
                                                                           -   
                                                                           -   
                                                                           -   
                                                                             55
                                                                           0.0%
                                      49
Utah
                                                                           109 
                                                                           -   
                                                                           109 
                                                                             36
                                                                           0.6%
                                      50
Vermont
                                                                            37 
                                                                           -   
                                                                            37 
                                                                             47
                                                                           0.2%
                                      51
Virgin Islands
                                                                             1 
                                                                           -   
                                                                             1 
                                                                             54
                                                                           0.0%
                                      52
Virginia
                                                                           318 
                                                                             3 
                                                                           321 
                                                                             23
                                                                           1.7%
                                      53
Washington
                                                                           473 
                                                                             2 
                                                                           475 
                                                                             11
                                                                           2.4%
                                      54
West Virginia
                                                                           144 
                                                                             1 
                                                                           145 
                                                                             31
                                                                           0.7%
                                      55
Wisconsin
                                                                           416 
                                                                             1 
                                                                           417 
                                                                             14
                                                                           2.1%
                                      56
Wyoming
                                                                            14 
                                                                           -   
                                                                            14 
                                                                             52
                                                                           0.1%
                                                                          Total
                                                                         19,334
                                                                             86
                                                                         19,420
                                                                               
                                                                           100%
Source: 2015 RCRA Biennial Report facility summary data. Available at: https://rcrainfo.epa.gov/rcrainfoweb/action/modules/br/national/view

National and State Counts of Hazardous Waste shipped offsite for treatment by LQGs and non-LQG TSDF Shippers

The 2015 RCRA Biennial Report also provides data on the quantities of hazardous waste generated and shipped by LQGs. According to the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report, LQGs and non-LQG TSDFs generated 33,445,027 tons of hazardous waste nationally; the bulk of this waste is treated onsite by facilities that also have permitted treatment, storage, and disposal operations. According to the Biennial Report, in 2015, 6,452,123 tons of hazardous waste, about 19 percent of the tons generated, was shipped offsite for treatment, storage, or disposal, and therefore subject to accompanying manifest requirements. LQGs and non-LQG TSDF shippers in Texas shipped the largest quantity of hazardous waste offsite (792,585 tons), while LQGs and non-LQG TSDF shippers in the District of Columbia shipped the fewest (excluding U.S. territories), 644 tons (Exhibit 2-4).

                                  Exhibit 2-4
Tons of Hazardous Waste Shipped by LQGs and Non-LQG TSDF Shippers According to the 2011 RCRA Biennial Report
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       
                                     State
                                 Tons Shipped
                                 National Rank
                       % of National Total (B/6,452,123)
                                       1
Alabama
                                                                       186,597 
                                                                             10
                                                                           2.9%
                                       2
Alaska
                                                                         2,465 
                                                                             47
                                                                           0.0%
                                       3
Arizona
                                                                        33,972 
                                                                             36
                                                                           0.5%
                                       4
Arkansas
                                                                       209,286 
                                                                              9
                                                                           3.2%
                                       5
California
                                                                       600,919 
                                                                              2
                                                                           9.3%
                                       6
Colorado
                                                                        45,187 
                                                                             28
                                                                           0.7%
                                       7
Connecticut
                                                                        41,196 
                                                                             30
                                                                           0.6%
                                       8
Delaware
                                                                        12,204 
                                                                             39
                                                                           0.2%
                                       9
District of Columbia
                                                                           644 
                                                                             52
                                                                           0.0%
                                      10
Florida
                                                                        37,675 
                                                                             33
                                                                           0.6%
                                      11
Georgia
                                                                        58,250 
                                                                             25
                                                                           0.9%
                                      12
Guam
                                                                           132 
                                                                             53
                                                                           0.0%
                                      13
Hawaii
                                                                           772 
                                                                             51
                                                                           0.0%
                                      14
Idaho
                                                                         4,867 
                                                                             43
                                                                           0.1%
                                      15
Illinois
                                                                       174,604 
                                                                             12
                                                                           2.7%
                                      16
Indiana
                                                                       401,367 
                                                                              5
                                                                           6.2%
                                      17
Iowa
                                                                        53,639 
                                                                             26
                                                                           0.8%
                                      18
Kansas
                                                                        90,983 
                                                                             18
                                                                           1.4%
                                      19
Kentucky
                                                                       169,986 
                                                                             13
                                                                           2.6%
                                      20
Louisiana
                                                                       597,937 
                                                                              3
                                                                           9.3%
                                      21
Maine
                                                                         2,440 
                                                                             48
                                                                           0.0%
                                      22
Maryland
                                                                       127,340 
                                                                             16
                                                                           2.0%
                                      23
Massachusetts
                                                                        37,901 
                                                                             32
                                                                           0.6%
                                      24
Michigan
                                                                       342,737 
                                                                              6
                                                                           5.3%
                                      25
Minnesota
                                                                        53,103 
                                                                             27
                                                                           0.8%
                                      26
Mississippi
                                                                        84,821 
                                                                             21
                                                                           1.3%
                                      27
Missouri
                                                                        86,885 
                                                                             19
                                                                           1.3%
                                      28
Montana
                                                                         3,448 
                                                                             45
                                                                           0.1%
                                      29
Navajo Nation
                                                                           -   
                                                                             55
                                                                           0.0%
                                      30
Nebraska
                                                                        35,177 
                                                                             35
                                                                           0.5%
                                      31
Nevada
                                                                        15,177 
                                                                             38
                                                                           0.2%
                                      32
New Hampshire
                                                                         3,247 
                                                                             46
                                                                           0.1%
                                      33
New Jersey
                                                                       340,715 
                                                                              7
                                                                           5.3%
                                      34
New Mexico
                                                                         7,061 
                                                                             41
                                                                           0.1%
                                      35
New York
                                                                       136,154 
                                                                             15
                                                                           2.1%
                                      36
North Carolina
                                                                        93,101 
                                                                             17
                                                                           1.4%
                                      37
North Dakota
                                                                         1,453 
                                                                             50
                                                                           0.0%
                                      38
Ohio
                                                                       583,268 
                                                                              4
                                                                           9.0%
                                      39
Oklahoma
                                                                        86,844 
                                                                             20
                                                                           1.3%
                                      40
Oregon
                                                                        44,860 
                                                                             29
                                                                           0.7%
                                      41
Pennsylvania
                                                                       213,441 
                                                                              8
                                                                           3.3%
                                      42
Puerto Rico
                                                                        15,383 
                                                                             37
                                                                           0.2%
                                      43
Rhode Island
                                                                        11,127 
                                                                             40
                                                                           0.2%
                                      44
South Carolina
                                                                       180,051 
                                                                             11
                                                                           2.8%
                                      45
South Dakota
                                                                         1,599 
                                                                             49
                                                                           0.0%
                                      46
Tennessee
                                                                        38,930 
                                                                             31
                                                                           0.6%
                                      47
Texas
                                                                       792,585 
                                                                              1
                                                                          12.3%
                                      48
Trust Territories
                                                                           -   
                                                                             55
                                                                           0.0%
                                      49
Utah
                                                                        64,735 
                                                                             23
                                                                           1.0%
                                      50
Vermont
                                                                         3,465 
                                                                             44
                                                                           0.1%
                                      51
Virgin Islands
                                                                             2 
                                                                             54
                                                                           0.0%
                                      52
Virginia
                                                                        59,964 
                                                                             24
                                                                           0.9%
                                      53
Washington
                                                                        73,377 
                                                                             22
                                                                           1.1%
                                      54
West Virginia
                                                                        35,231 
                                                                             34
                                                                           0.5%
                                      55
Wisconsin
                                                                       147,002 
                                                                             14
                                                                           2.3%
                                      56
Wyoming
                                                                         6,819 
                                                                             42
                                                                           0.1%
                                       
                                                                          Total
                                                                      6,452,123

                                     100%
Source: 2015 RCRA Biennial Report facility summary data. Available at: https://rcrainfo.epa.gov/rcrainfoweb/action/modules/br/national/view

2.1.2.2 Small Quantity Generators

Small Quantity Generators (SQGs) are facilities that produce between 100 kilograms and 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste, in a month. SQGs are far more numerous than LQGs, but produce and ship less hazardous waste, though relatively few SQGs treat waste on site. SQGs are subject to fewer reporting requirements under RCRA than LQGs; as a result data to describe the population of SQGs are more limited.

National and State Counts of SQG Facilities

The universe of SQGs operating in the U.S. is more difficult to accurately characterize than the universe of LQGs, because SQGs are not required by RCRA to submit data to the Biennial Report. SQGs are required to obtain a RCRA ID number and notify state regulators and EPA of their status the first time they generate a sufficient quantity of hazardous waste to meet the SQG threshold. However, SQGs are not required to recertify or follow up in subsequent years, making it difficult to verify that their status has not changed over time. Because the Biennial Report includes only facilities that actively generate data in a given year and are required to report, the total number of operating SQGs is not readily available.

To estimate the size of the SQG universe, this RIA uses the estimation approaches and results in EPA's 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA. In that RIA, EPA pioneered two methodologies to estimate active SQGs; both estimates use the data files that underpin the RCRA Biennial Report. 

For the low-end estimate, EPA used the Waste Received (WR) form in the underlying Biennial Report data files to identify the facilities that shipped hazardous waste off-site; the analysis then cross-checked this list against the Site ID form in RCRAInfo to identify active SQGs in 2011. This universe was then supplemented with new SQGs notifying after a certain cutoff date (at which point they may not have been captured on the WR forms) and available state-level information on SQG universes. This low-end estimate of approximately 45,800 SQGs may omit some SQGs that manage hazardous waste on site, or SQGs that TSDFs failed to report on data forms specific to the Biennial Report.

The approach to the high-end estimate of SQGs is similar to that of the low-end estimate, but uses WR forms from each of the three Biennial Report cycles of 2007, 2009, or 2011 to identify SQGs shipping waste off-site in any of those three periods. This approach was similarly supplemented with available state-level data and other information as described for the low-end approach. Because some facilities may have been SQGs for one reporting cycle, but not for others, this approach may lead to an overestimate of the current universe of SQGs, or the universe of SQGs at any specific point in time in recent history. This alternative approach leads to a high-end estimate of approximately 59,700 SQGs nationwide.

This RIA averages the estimates from these two approaches, which leads to an estimate of 52,732 SQGs nationwide. For a small number of states, EPA was able to obtain specific estimates for the count of SQGs within the state; in these cases, no averaging was applied and EPA used the actual count of SQGs instead. 

Like LQGs and TSDFs, SQGs are located throughout the U.S., but tend to be concentrated in industrial areas. The 10 states with the most SQGs account for almost 60 percent of the national total. The number of SQGs varies considerably across states. California, the state with the most estimated SQGs, has 5,915, while Montana, the state with the fewest estimated SQGs, has 66 (Exhibit 2-5). 

Similar to LQGs, not all of the SQGs identified by EPA as detailed above engage in shipping hazardous waste; EPA separately estimated within the 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA that only 77 percent of SQG-generated hazardous waste is sent offsite for treatment, storage, or disposal. This RIA assumes that the proportion of waste shipped off-site equates to the proportion of SQGs shipping hazardous waste off-site. That is, as shown in Exhibit 2-5, only 77 percent of the estimated number of SQGs in each state is assumed to ship hazardous waste off-site, and thus be subject to the final rule. 

                                  Exhibit 2-5
                           Estimate of SQGs by State
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       
                                     State
                                 Low Count[a]
                                 High Count[a]
                              Average (B+C)/2[a]
                                     Rank
                              % Total (D/52,732)
             Estimated Count of SQGs Shipping Off-Site (D * 0.77)
                                       1
Alabama
                                                                          1,226
                                                                          1,226
                                                                          1,226
                                                                             16
                                                                           2.3%
                                                                            944
                                       2
Alaska
                                                                             96
                                                                            143
                                                                            120
                                                                             46
                                                                           0.2%
                                                                             92
                                       3
Arizona
                                                                            511
                                                                            770
                                                                            641
                                                                             23
                                                                           1.2%
                                                                            494
                                       4
Arkansas
                                                                            256
                                                                            318
                                                                            287
                                                                             34
                                                                           0.5%
                                                                            221
                                       5
California
                                                                          5,915
                                                                          5,915
                                                                          5,915
                                                                              1
                                                                          11.2%
                                                                           4555
                                       6
Colorado
                                                                            434
                                                                            482
                                                                            458
                                                                             29
                                                                           0.9%
                                                                            353
                                       7
Connecticut
                                                                            756
                                                                          1,092
                                                                            924
                                                                             19
                                                                           1.8%
                                                                            711
                                       8
Delaware
                                                                            155
                                                                            218
                                                                            187
                                                                             44
                                                                           0.4%
                                                                            144
                                       9
District of Columbia
                                                                             36
                                                                             74
                                                                             55
                                                                             52
                                                                           0.1%
                                                                             42
                                      10
Florida
                                                                          3,800
                                                                          3,800
                                                                          3,800
                                                                              3
                                                                           7.2%
                                                                           2926
                                      11
Georgia
                                                                            900
                                                                          1,288
                                                                          1,094
                                                                             17
                                                                           2.1%
                                                                            842
                                      12
Guam
                                                                              3
                                                                              8
                                                                              6
                                                                             54
                                                                           0.0%
                                                                              5
                                      13
Hawaii
                                                                            122
                                                                            165
                                                                            144
                                                                             45
                                                                           0.3%
                                                                            111
                                      14
Idaho
                                                                             79
                                                                             89
                                                                             84
                                                                             49
                                                                           0.2%
                                                                             65
                                      15
Illinois
                                                                          2,958
                                                                          4,897
                                                                          3,928
                                                                              2
                                                                           7.4%
                                                                           3025
                                      16
Indiana
                                                                            790
                                                                          1,156
                                                                            973
                                                                             18
                                                                           1.8%
                                                                            749
                                      17
Iowa
                                                                            471
                                                                            675
                                                                            573
                                                                             27
                                                                           1.1%
                                                                            441
                                      18
Kansas
                                                                            480
                                                                            680
                                                                            580
                                                                             25
                                                                           1.1%
                                                                            447
                                      19
Kentucky
                                                                            355
                                                                            469
                                                                            412
                                                                             31
                                                                           0.8%
                                                                            317
                                      20
Louisiana
                                                                            705
                                                                          1,068
                                                                            887
                                                                             20
                                                                           1.7%
                                                                            683
                                      21
Maine
                                                                            304
                                                                            304
                                                                            304
                                                                             33
                                                                           0.6%
                                                                            234
                                      22
Maryland
                                                                            974
                                                                          1,780
                                                                          1,377
                                                                             13
                                                                           2.6%
                                                                           1060
                                      23
Massachusetts
                                                                          2,683
                                                                          2,683
                                                                          2,683
                                                                              5
                                                                           5.1%
                                                                           2066
                                      24
Michigan
                                                                          1,486
                                                                          2,194
                                                                          1,840
                                                                              8
                                                                           3.5%
                                                                           1417
                                      25
Minnesota
                                                                          1,366
                                                                          1,366
                                                                          1,366
                                                                             14
                                                                           2.6%
                                                                           1052
                                      26
Mississippi
                                                                            210
                                                                            286
                                                                            248
                                                                             37
                                                                           0.5%
                                                                            191
                                      27
Missouri
                                                                          1,279
                                                                          1,727
                                                                          1,503
                                                                             11
                                                                           2.9%
                                                                           1157
                                      28
Montana
                                                                             55
                                                                             77
                                                                             66
                                                                             51
                                                                           0.1%
                                                                             51
                                      29
Navajo Nation
                                                                              6
                                                                              6
                                                                              6
                                                                             53
                                                                           0.0%
                                                                              5
                                      30
Nebraska
                                                                            226
                                                                            273
                                                                            250
                                                                             36
                                                                           0.5%
                                                                            193
                                      31
Nevada
                                                                            196
                                                                            280
                                                                            238
                                                                             38
                                                                           0.5%
                                                                            183
                                      32
New Hampshire
                                                                            201
                                                                            201
                                                                            201
                                                                             41
                                                                           0.4%
                                                                            155
                                      33
New Jersey
                                                                            850
                                                                            850
                                                                            850
                                                                             21
                                                                           1.6%
                                                                            655
                                      34
New Mexico
                                                                            156
                                                                            236
                                                                            196
                                                                             42
                                                                           0.4%
                                                                            151
                                      35
New York
                                                                          1,983
                                                                          3,255
                                                                          2,619
                                                                              7
                                                                           5.0%
                                                                           2017
                                      36
North Carolina
                                                                          1,169
                                                                          1,786
                                                                          1,478
                                                                             12
                                                                           2.8%
                                                                           1138
                                      37
North Dakota
                                                                             62
                                                                             78
                                                                             70
                                                                             50
                                                                           0.1%
                                                                             54
                                      38
Ohio
                                                                          2,041
                                                                          3,240
                                                                          2,641
                                                                              6
                                                                           5.0%
                                                                           2034
                                      39
Oklahoma
                                                                            379
                                                                            502
                                                                            441
                                                                             30
                                                                           0.8%
                                                                            340
                                      40
Oregon
                                                                            235
                                                                            285
                                                                            260
                                                                             35
                                                                           0.5%
                                                                            200
                                      41
Pennsylvania
                                                                          2,721
                                                                          4,293
                                                                          3,507
                                                                              4
                                                                           6.7%
                                                                           2700
                                      42
Puerto Rico
                                                                             96
                                                                            115
                                                                            106
                                                                             47
                                                                           0.2%
                                                                             82
                                      43
Rhode Island
                                                                            700
                                                                            700
                                                                            700
                                                                             22
                                                                           1.3%
                                                                            539
                                      44
South Carolina
                                                                            485
                                                                            722
                                                                            604
                                                                             24
                                                                           1.1%
                                                                            465
                                      45
South Dakota
                                                                            182
                                                                            256
                                                                            219
                                                                             39
                                                                           0.4%
                                                                            169
                                      46
Tennessee
                                                                            442
                                                                            710
                                                                            576
                                                                             26
                                                                           1.1%
                                                                            444
                                      47
Texas
                                                                          1,471
                                                                          2,164
                                                                          1,818
                                                                              9
                                                                           3.4%
                                                                           1400
                                      48
Trust Territories
                                                                              3
                                                                              5
                                                                              4
                                                                             56
                                                                           0.0%
                                                                              3
                                      49
Utah
                                                                            174
                                                                            205
                                                                            190
                                                                             43
                                                                           0.4%
                                                                            146
                                      50
Vermont
                                                                            185
                                                                            250
                                                                            218
                                                                             40
                                                                           0.4%
                                                                            168
                                      51
Virgin Islands
                                                                              6
                                                                              5
                                                                              6
                                                                             54
                                                                           0.0%
                                                                              5
                                      52
Virginia
                                                                          1,274
                                                                          2,029
                                                                          1,652
                                                                             10
                                                                           3.1%
                                                                           1272
                                      53
Washington
                                                                            532
                                                                            604
                                                                            568
                                                                             28
                                                                           1.1%
                                                                            437
                                      54
West Virginia
                                                                            280
                                                                            376
                                                                            328
                                                                             32
                                                                           0.6%
                                                                            253
                                      55
Wisconsin
                                                                          1,227
                                                                          1,227
                                                                          1,227
                                                                             15
                                                                           2.3%
                                                                            945
                                      56
Wyoming
                                                                             75
                                                                             99
                                                                             87
                                                                             48
                                                                           0.2%
                                                                             67
                                                                               
                                                                          Total
                                                                         45,762
                                                                         59,702
                                                                         52,732
                                                                               
                                                                         100.0%
                                                                         40,604
Source: 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA. Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0002. 
a In cases where the Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA contained specific estimates for the count of SQGs in a given state, no averaging is applied, and columns B, C, and D report the actual count of SQGs within the state.

SQGs Operating under Reclamation Agreements

Even among SQGs that ship waste off-site, not all hazardous waste shipped requires a manifest. Specifically, hazardous waste that is transported and covered under a bona-fide reclamation agreement (BFRA) is not required to have accompanying manifests, unless the SQG is in a state that explicitly requires manifests for hazardous waste sent for reclamation and recovery.

EPA estimates that 10 percent of all SQG-generated hazardous waste is managed off-site via reclamation and recovery. Note that this fraction is a subset of the 77 percent of SQG-generated hazardous waste shipped off-site. Correspondingly, if it is assumed that SQGs who use BFRAs manage all of their hazardous waste in this way, then the universe of SQG shippers who manifest is smaller than the universe of SQG hazardous waste shippers, because some SQG shippers manage their hazardous waste via off-site reclamation and recovery, which in most states does not require a RCRA manifest. 

This RIA therefore assumes that 10 percent of the SQG-generated federal hazardous waste, and 10 percent of the SQGs in each state are governed by BFRAs, and calculates the total universe of SQGs who ship hazardous waste and may be affected by the final rule by subtracting 10 percent of total hazardous waste shipped by SQGs, and 10 percent of the SQGs themselves, from the total estimate of SQG shippers in each state. For example, as shown in Exhibit 2-5, this RIA estimates 1,226 SQGs in Alabama, of which 944 (77 percent) are estimated to ship hazardous waste off-site. Given the assumption that 10 percent of SQG-generated hazardous waste (and thus, correspondingly, 10 percent of SQGs, consistent with assumptions above) is shipped off-site for reclamation and recovery purposes, 123 SQGs in Alabama (10 percent of 1,226) are assumed to ship hazardous waste that does not require a manifest. The resulting estimate of SQG shippers who manifest in Alabama is 821. Exhibit 2-6 repeats this calculation for each state; in total, this RIA estimates 35,330 SQG shippers who manifest as compared to 40,604 SQG shippers.

                                  Exhibit 2-6
Count of SQGs who Manifest for Shipments of Hazardous Waste Off-Site, by State
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       D
                                       E
                                       
                                     State
                            Estimated Count of SQGs
             Estimated Count of SQGs Shipping Off-Site (B * 0.77)
Estimated Count of SQGs Shipping Off-Site for Reclamation and Recovery (B * 0.1)
                     Estimated Count of SQGs who Manifest
                                   (C  -  D)
                              % Total (D/35,330)
                                       1
Alabama
                                                                          1,226
                                                                            944
                                                                            123
                                                                            821
                                                                           2.3%
                                       2
Alaska
                                                                            120
                                                                             92
                                                                             12
                                                                             80
                                                                           0.2%
                                       3
Arizona
                                                                            641
                                                                            494
                                                                             64
                                                                            429
                                                                           1.2%
                                       4
Arkansas
                                                                            287
                                                                            221
                                                                             29
                                                                            192
                                                                           0.5%
                                       5
California
                                                                          5,915
                                                                           4555
                                                                            592
                                                                          3,963
                                                                          11.2%
                                       6
Colorado
                                                                            458
                                                                            353
                                                                             46
                                                                            307
                                                                           0.9%
                                       7
Connecticut
                                                                            924
                                                                            711
                                                                             92
                                                                            619
                                                                           1.8%
                                       8
Delaware
                                                                            187
                                                                            144
                                                                             19
                                                                            125
                                                                           0.4%
                                       9
District of Columbia
                                                                             55
                                                                             42
                                                                              6
                                                                             37
                                                                           0.1%
                                      10
Florida
                                                                          3,800
                                                                           2926
                                                                            380
                                                                          2,546
                                                                           7.2%
                                      11
Georgia
                                                                          1,094
                                                                            842
                                                                            109
                                                                            733
                                                                           2.1%
                                      12
Guam
                                                                              6
                                                                              5
                                                                              1
                                                                              4
                                                                           0.0%
                                      13
Hawaii
                                                                            144
                                                                            111
                                                                             14
                                                                             96
                                                                           0.3%
                                      14
Idaho
                                                                             84
                                                                             65
                                                                              8
                                                                             56
                                                                           0.2%
                                      15
Illinois
                                                                          3,928
                                                                           3025
                                                                            393
                                                                          2,631
                                                                           7.4%
                                      16
Indiana
                                                                            973
                                                                            749
                                                                             97
                                                                            652
                                                                           1.8%
                                      17
Iowa
                                                                            573
                                                                            441
                                                                             57
                                                                            384
                                                                           1.1%
                                      18
Kansas
                                                                            580
                                                                            447
                                                                             58
                                                                            389
                                                                           1.1%
                                      19
Kentucky
                                                                            412
                                                                            317
                                                                             41
                                                                            276
                                                                           0.8%
                                      20
Louisiana
                                                                            887
                                                                            683
                                                                             89
                                                                            594
                                                                           1.7%
                                      21
Maine
                                                                            304
                                                                            234
                                                                             30
                                                                            204
                                                                           0.6%
                                      22
Maryland
                                                                          1,377
                                                                           1060
                                                                            138
                                                                            923
                                                                           2.6%
                                      23
Massachusetts
                                                                          2,683
                                                                           2066
                                                                            268
                                                                          1,798
                                                                           5.1%
                                      24
Michigan
                                                                          1,840
                                                                           1417
                                                                            184
                                                                          1,233
                                                                           3.5%
                                      25
Minnesota
                                                                          1,366
                                                                           1052
                                                                            137
                                                                            915
                                                                           2.6%
                                      26
Mississippi
                                                                            248
                                                                            191
                                                                             25
                                                                            166
                                                                           0.5%
                                      27
Missouri
                                                                          1,503
                                                                           1157
                                                                            150
                                                                          1,007
                                                                           2.9%
                                      28
Montana
                                                                             66
                                                                             51
                                                                              7
                                                                             44
                                                                           0.1%
                                      29
Navajo Nation
                                                                              6
                                                                              5
                                                                              1
                                                                              4
                                                                           0.0%
                                      30
Nebraska
                                                                            250
                                                                            193
                                                                             25
                                                                            167
                                                                           0.5%
                                      31
Nevada
                                                                            238
                                                                            183
                                                                             24
                                                                            159
                                                                           0.5%
                                      32
New Hampshire
                                                                            201
                                                                            155
                                                                             20
                                                                            135
                                                                           0.4%
                                      33
New Jersey
                                                                            850
                                                                            655
                                                                             85
                                                                            570
                                                                           1.6%
                                      34
New Mexico
                                                                            196
                                                                            151
                                                                             20
                                                                            131
                                                                           0.4%
                                      35
New York
                                                                          2,619
                                                                           2017
                                                                            262
                                                                          1,755
                                                                           5.0%
                                      36
North Carolina
                                                                          1,478
                                                                           1138
                                                                            148
                                                                            990
                                                                           2.8%
                                      37
North Dakota
                                                                             70
                                                                             54
                                                                              7
                                                                             47
                                                                           0.1%
                                      38
Ohio
                                                                          2,641
                                                                           2034
                                                                            264
                                                                          1,769
                                                                           5.0%
                                      39
Oklahoma
                                                                            441
                                                                            340
                                                                             44
                                                                            295
                                                                           0.8%
                                      40
Oregon
                                                                            260
                                                                            200
                                                                             26
                                                                            174
                                                                           0.5%
                                      41
Pennsylvania
                                                                          3,507
                                                                           2700
                                                                            351
                                                                          2,350
                                                                           6.7%
                                      42
Puerto Rico
                                                                            106
                                                                             82
                                                                             11
                                                                             71
                                                                           0.2%
                                      43
Rhode Island
                                                                            700
                                                                            539
                                                                             70
                                                                            469
                                                                           1.3%
                                      44
South Carolina
                                                                            604
                                                                            465
                                                                             60
                                                                            404
                                                                           1.1%
                                      45
South Dakota
                                                                            219
                                                                            169
                                                                             22
                                                                            147
                                                                           0.4%
                                      46
Tennessee
                                                                            576
                                                                            444
                                                                             58
                                                                            386
                                                                           1.1%
                                      47
Texas
                                                                          1,818
                                                                           1400
                                                                            182
                                                                          1,218
                                                                           3.4%
                                      48
Trust Territories
                                                                              4
                                                                              3
                                                                              0
                                                                              3
                                                                           0.0%
                                      49
Utah
                                                                            190
                                                                            146
                                                                             19
                                                                            127
                                                                           0.4%
                                      50
Vermont
                                                                            218
                                                                            168
                                                                             22
                                                                            146
                                                                           0.4%
                                      51
Virgin Islands
                                                                              6
                                                                              5
                                                                              1
                                                                              4
                                                                           0.0%
                                      52
Virginia
                                                                          1,652
                                                                           1272
                                                                            165
                                                                          1,107
                                                                           3.1%
                                      53
Washington
                                                                            568
                                                                            437
                                                                             57
                                                                            381
                                                                           1.1%
                                      54
West Virginia
                                                                            328
                                                                            253
                                                                             33
                                                                            220
                                                                           0.6%
                                      55
Wisconsin
                                                                          1,227
                                                                            945
                                                                            123
                                                                            822
                                                                           2.3%
                                      56
Wyoming
                                                                             87
                                                                             67
                                                                              9
                                                                             58
                                                                           0.2%
                                       
                                                                          Total
                                                                         52,732
                                                                         40,604
                                                                          5,273
                                                                         35,330
                                                                         100.0%

Six states require manifests for SQG-generated hazardous waste shipped off-site for reclamation and recovery. The entity counts affected by these requirements are estimated in Section 2.1.2.5.

National and State Quantities of Hazardous Waste shipped offsite for treatment by SQGs

Waste tonnage data for SQGs is not consistently available in the RCRA Biennial Report. EPA's 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA provides estimates of waste tonnage shipped by SQGs, but does not do so on a state-by-state basis. An interpolation of the methodology in that RIA on a state-by-state basis is presented in Appendix A. 

2.1.2.3 Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators

Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQGs) produce hazardous waste in quantities less than or equal to 100 kilograms in a month. CESQGs are the most numerous of all generator types. While RCRA does not require reporting by CESQGs at the national level, 14 authorized state RCRA programs require CESQGs to notify and report their waste activity. Estimates of the number of CESQGs are interpolated from these state counts up to the national level. This RIA uses ratios of LQGs to CESQGs and SQGs to CESQGs developed in the Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA to estimate a national universe of CESQGs. These ratios are based on the number of CESQGs reported by 14 states. Exhibit 2-7 reproduces Exhibit 2-2 from the Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA and documents these ratios.

                                  Exhibit 2-7
                       Ratios of CESQGs to SQGs and LQGs
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       
                                     State
                                 Count of LQGs
                                 Count of SQGs
                                Count of CESQGs
                            Ratio of CESQGs to SQGs
                         Ratio of CESQGs to LQGs (E/B)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                      Low
                                     High
                                       
                                   Low (E/D)
                                  High (E/C)
                                       
                                       1
Alabama
                                                                            223
                                                                          1,226
                                                                          1,226
                                                                          3,390
                                                                            2.8
                                                                            2.8
                                                                          15.2 
                                       2
Arizona
                                                                            210
                                                                            511
                                                                            770
                                                                          1,774
                                                                            2.3
                                                                            3.5
                                                                           8.4 
                                       3
California
                                                                          1,223
                                                                          5,915
                                                                          5,915
                                                                         21,000
                                                                            3.6
                                                                            3.6
                                                                          17.2 
                                       4
Florida
                                                                            279
                                                                          3,800
                                                                          3,800
                                                                         19,350
                                                                            5.1
                                                                            5.1
                                                                          69.4 
                                       5
Hawaii
                                                                             31
                                                                            122
                                                                            165
                                                                            692
                                                                            4.2
                                                                            5.7
                                                                          22.3 
                                       6
Massachusetts
                                                                            402
                                                                          2,683
                                                                          2,683
                                                                         12,559
                                                                            4.7
                                                                            4.7
                                                                          31.2 
                                       7
Maine
                                                                             52
                                                                            304
                                                                            304
                                                                            949
                                                                            3.1
                                                                            3.1
                                                                          18.3 
                                       8
Minnesota
                                                                            320
                                                                          1,366
                                                                          1,366
                                                                         21,743
                                                                           15.9
                                                                           15.9
                                                                          67.9 
                                       9
Nevada
                                                                             68
                                                                            196
                                                                            280
                                                                          3,187
                                                                           11.4
                                                                           16.3
                                                                          46.9 
                                      10
New Hampshire
                                                                            100
                                                                            201
                                                                            201
                                                                          1,818
                                                                            9.0
                                                                            9.0
                                                                          18.2 
                                      11
New Jersey
                                                                            575
                                                                            850
                                                                            850
                                                                          9,000
                                                                           10.6
                                                                           10.6
                                                                          15.7 
                                      12
Rhode Island
                                                                             65
                                                                            700
                                                                            700
                                                                          2,100
                                                                            3.0
                                                                            3.0
                                                                          32.3 
                                      13
Washington
                                                                            412
                                                                            532
                                                                            604
                                                                         22,315
                                                                           36.9
                                                                           41.9
                                                                          54.2 
                                      14
Wisconsin
                                                                            394
                                                                          1,227
                                                                          1,227
                                                                          9,323
                                                                            7.6
                                                                            7.6
                                                                          23.7 
                                      15
Total
                                                                          4,354
                                                                         19,633
                                                                         20,091
                                                                        129,200
                                                                            6.4
                                                                            6.6
                                                                          29.7 
Source: 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA, Exhibit 2-2. Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0002. 

To estimate national counts of CESQGs, this RIA applies the ratios of CESQGs to low estimates of SQGs, high estimates of SQGs, and LQGs for each state. These ratios are 6.4, 6.6, and 29.7 respectively (see Exhibit 2-7). After multiplying these ratios by state counts of SQGs and LQGs, this RIA takes the lowest and highest estimate for each state and calculates the average. This average is used throughout the rest of this RIA. Note that this extrapolation approach only applies to states for which no CESQG counts exist; the universes noted for the 14 states in Exhibit 2-7 are directly applied.

Exhibit 2-8 displays this analysis and its results. Column B provides state counts of LQGs, and columns C and D show estimates of SQGs. Columns, E, F, and G display the products of different state counts of SQGs and LQGs with the range of ratios determined in Exhibit 2-7. Columns H and I display the lowest and highest estimates of CESQGS for each state from columns E, F, and G, respectively. Column I displays the highest estimate of CESQGs for each state from columns E, F, and G. Column J displays the average of columns H and I. Ultimately, based on this analysis, this RIA employs a national CESQG count of approximately 381,000.

                                  Exhibit 2-8
                          Estimated Counts of CESQGs
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       I
                                       J
                                       K
                                       
                                     State
                                 Count of LQGs
                                 Count of SQGs
                                Count of CESQGS
                                  CESQG Range
                                Average (H+I)/2
                              % Total (J/381,145)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                      Low
                                     High
                                    C x 6.4
                                    D x 6.6
                                   B x 29.7
                                      Low
                                     High
                                       
                                       
                                       1
Alabama*
                                                                            223
                                                                          1,226
                                                                          1,226
                                                                          3,390
                                                                          3,390
                                                                          3,390
                                                                          3,390
                                                                          3,390
                                                                          3,390
                                                                           0.9%
                                       2
Alaska
                                                                             27
                                                                             96
                                                                            143
                                                                            617
                                                                            941
                                                                            801
                                                                            617
                                                                            941
                                                                            779
                                                                           0.2%
                                       3
Arizona*
                                                                            210
                                                                            511
                                                                            770
                                                                          1,774
                                                                          1,774
                                                                          1,774
                                                                          1,774
                                                                          1,774
                                                                          1,774
                                                                           0.5%
                                       4
Arkansas
                                                                            123
                                                                            256
                                                                            318
                                                                          1,646
                                                                          2,093
                                                                          3,650
                                                                          1,646
                                                                          3,650
                                                                          2,648
                                                                           0.7%
                                       5
California*
                                                                          1,223
                                                                          5,915
                                                                          5,915
                                                                         21,000
                                                                         21,000
                                                                         21,000
                                                                         21,000
                                                                         21,000
                                                                         21,000
                                                                           5.5%
                                       6
Colorado
                                                                            107
                                                                            434
                                                                            482
                                                                          2,791
                                                                          3,172
                                                                          3,175
                                                                          2,791
                                                                          3,175
                                                                          2,983
                                                                           0.8%
                                       7
Connecticut
                                                                            278
                                                                            756
                                                                          1,092
                                                                          4,862
                                                                          7,186
                                                                          8,249
                                                                          4,862
                                                                          8,249
                                                                          6,555
                                                                           1.7%
                                       8
Delaware
                                                                             49
                                                                            155
                                                                            218
                                                                            997
                                                                          1,435
                                                                          1,454
                                                                            997
                                                                          1,454
                                                                          1,225
                                                                           0.3%
                                       9
District of Columbia
                                                                             23
                                                                             36
                                                                             74
                                                                            232
                                                                            487
                                                                            682
                                                                            232
                                                                            682
                                                                            457
                                                                           0.1%
                                      10
Florida*
                                                                            279
                                                                          3,800
                                                                          3,800
                                                                         19,350
                                                                         19,350
                                                                         19,350
                                                                         19,350
                                                                         19,350
                                                                         19,350
                                                                           5.1%
                                      11
Georgia
                                                                            334
                                                                            900
                                                                          1,288
                                                                          5,788
                                                                          8,476
                                                                          9,911
                                                                          5,788
                                                                          9,911
                                                                          7,849
                                                                           2.1%
                                      12
Guam
                                                                              8
                                                                              3
                                                                              8
                                                                             19
                                                                             53
                                                                            237
                                                                             19
                                                                            237
                                                                            128
                                                                           0.0%
                                      13
Hawaii*
                                                                             31
                                                                            122
                                                                            165
                                                                            692
                                                                            692
                                                                            692
                                                                            692
                                                                            692
                                                                            692
                                                                           0.2%
                                      14
Idaho
                                                                             19
                                                                             79
                                                                             89
                                                                            508
                                                                            586
                                                                            564
                                                                            508
                                                                            586
                                                                            547
                                                                           0.1%
                                      15
Illinois
                                                                            641
                                                                          2,958
                                                                          4,897
                                                                         19,022
                                                                         32,226
                                                                         19,021
                                                                         19,021
                                                                         32,226
                                                                         25,623
                                                                           6.7%
                                      16
Indiana
                                                                            503
                                                                            790
                                                                          1,156
                                                                          5,080
                                                                          7,607
                                                                         14,926
                                                                          5,080
                                                                         14,926
                                                                         10,003
                                                                           2.6%
                                      17
Iowa
                                                                            128
                                                                            471
                                                                            675
                                                                          3,029
                                                                          4,442
                                                                          3,798
                                                                          3,029
                                                                          4,442
                                                                          3,735
                                                                           1.0%
                                      18
Kansas
                                                                            170
                                                                            480
                                                                            680
                                                                          3,087
                                                                          4,475
                                                                          5,045
                                                                          3,087
                                                                          5,045
                                                                          4,066
                                                                           1.1%
                                      19
Kentucky
                                                                            269
                                                                            355
                                                                            469
                                                                          2,283
                                                                          3,086
                                                                          7,982
                                                                          2,283
                                                                          7,982
                                                                          5,133
                                                                           1.3%
                                      20
Louisiana
                                                                            331
                                                                            705
                                                                          1,068
                                                                          4,534
                                                                          7,028
                                                                          9,822
                                                                          4,534
                                                                          9,822
                                                                          7,178
                                                                           1.9%
                                      21
Maine*
                                                                             52
                                                                            304
                                                                            304
                                                                            949
                                                                            949
                                                                            949
                                                                            949
                                                                            949
                                                                            949
                                                                           0.2%
                                      22
Maryland
                                                                            132
                                                                            974
                                                                          1,780
                                                                          6,264
                                                                         11,714
                                                                          3,917
                                                                          3,917
                                                                         11,714
                                                                          7,815
                                                                           2.1%
                                      23
Massachusetts*
                                                                            402
                                                                          2,683
                                                                          2,683
                                                                         12,559
                                                                         12,559
                                                                         12,559
                                                                         12,559
                                                                         12,559
                                                                         12,559
                                                                           3.3%
                                      24
Michigan
                                                                            342
                                                                          1,486
                                                                          2,194
                                                                          9,556
                                                                         14,438
                                                                         10,148
                                                                          9,556
                                                                         14,438
                                                                         11,997
                                                                           3.1%
                                      25
Minnesota*
                                                                            320
                                                                          1,366
                                                                          1,366
                                                                         21,743
                                                                         21,743
                                                                         21,743
                                                                         21,743
                                                                         21,743
                                                                         21,743
                                                                           5.7%
                                      26
Mississippi
                                                                            128
                                                                            210
                                                                            286
                                                                          1,350
                                                                          1,882
                                                                          3,798
                                                                          1,350
                                                                          3,798
                                                                          2,574
                                                                           0.7%
                                      27
Missouri
                                                                            282
                                                                          1,279
                                                                          1,727
                                                                          8,225
                                                                         11,365
                                                                          8,368
                                                                          8,225
                                                                         11,365
                                                                          9,795
                                                                           2.6%
                                      28
Montana
                                                                             41
                                                                             55
                                                                             77
                                                                            354
                                                                            507
                                                                          1,217
                                                                            354
                                                                          1,217
                                                                            785
                                                                           0.2%
                                      29
Navajo Nation
                                                                              1
                                                                              6
                                                                              6
                                                                             39
                                                                             39
                                                                             30
                                                                             30
                                                                             39
                                                                             35
                                                                           0.0%
                                      30
Nebraska
                                                                             64
                                                                            226
                                                                            273
                                                                          1,453
                                                                          1,797
                                                                          1,899
                                                                          1,453
                                                                          1,899
                                                                          1,676
                                                                           0.4%
                                      31
Nevada*
                                                                             68
                                                                            196
                                                                            280
                                                                          3,187
                                                                          3,187
                                                                          3,187
                                                                          3,187
                                                                          3,187
                                                                          3,187
                                                                           0.8%
                                      32
New Hampshire*
                                                                            100
                                                                            201
                                                                            201
                                                                          1,818
                                                                          1,818
                                                                          1,818
                                                                          1,818
                                                                          1,818
                                                                          1,818
                                                                           0.5%
                                      33
New Jersey*
                                                                            575
                                                                            850
                                                                            850
                                                                          9,000
                                                                          9,000
                                                                          9,000
                                                                          9,000
                                                                          9,000
                                                                          9,000
                                                                           2.4%
                                      34
New Mexico
                                                                             39
                                                                            156
                                                                            236
                                                                          1,003
                                                                          1,553
                                                                          1,157
                                                                          1,003
                                                                          1,553
                                                                          1,278
                                                                           0.3%
                                      35
New York
                                                                          1,471
                                                                          1,983
                                                                          3,255
                                                                         12,752
                                                                         21,420
                                                                         43,650
                                                                         12,752
                                                                         43,650
                                                                         28,201
                                                                           7.4%
                                      36
North Carolina
                                                                            437
                                                                          1,169
                                                                          1,786
                                                                          7,518
                                                                         11,753
                                                                         12,967
                                                                          7,518
                                                                         12,967
                                                                         10,243
                                                                           2.7%
                                      37
North Dakota
                                                                             19
                                                                             62
                                                                             78
                                                                            399
                                                                            513
                                                                            564
                                                                            399
                                                                            564
                                                                            481
                                                                           0.1%
                                      38
Ohio
                                                                            716
                                                                          2,041
                                                                          3,240
                                                                         13,125
                                                                         21,322
                                                                         21,246
                                                                         13,125
                                                                         21,322
                                                                         17,223
                                                                           4.5%
                                      39
Oklahoma
                                                                            179
                                                                            379
                                                                            502
                                                                          2,437
                                                                          3,304
                                                                          5,312
                                                                          2,437
                                                                          5,312
                                                                          3,874
                                                                           1.0%
                                      40
Oregon
                                                                            181
                                                                            235
                                                                            285
                                                                          1,511
                                                                          1,876
                                                                          5,371
                                                                          1,511
                                                                          5,371
                                                                          3,441
                                                                           0.9%
                                      41
Pennsylvania
                                                                            671
                                                                          2,721
                                                                          4,293
                                                                         17,498
                                                                         28,251
                                                                         19,911
                                                                         17,498
                                                                         28,251
                                                                         22,875
                                                                           6.0%
                                      42
Puerto Rico
                                                                             80
                                                                             96
                                                                            115
                                                                            617
                                                                            757
                                                                          2,374
                                                                            617
                                                                          2,374
                                                                          1,496
                                                                           0.4%
                                      43
Rhode Island*
                                                                             65
                                                                            700
                                                                            700
                                                                          2,100
                                                                          2,100
                                                                          2,100
                                                                          2,100
                                                                          2,100
                                                                          2,100
                                                                           0.6%
                                      44
South Carolina
                                                                            257
                                                                            485
                                                                            722
                                                                          3,119
                                                                          4,751
                                                                          7,626
                                                                          3,119
                                                                          7,626
                                                                          5,373
                                                                           1.4%
                                      45
South Dakota
                                                                             33
                                                                            182
                                                                            256
                                                                          1,170
                                                                          1,685
                                                                            979
                                                                            979
                                                                          1,685
                                                                          1,332
                                                                           0.3%
                                      46
Tennessee
                                                                            334
                                                                            442
                                                                            710
                                                                          2,842
                                                                          4,672
                                                                          9,911
                                                                          2,842
                                                                          9,911
                                                                          6,377
                                                                           1.7%
                                      47
Texas
                                                                          1,006
                                                                          1,471
                                                                          2,164
                                                                          9,460
                                                                         14,241
                                                                         29,852
                                                                          9,460
                                                                         29,852
                                                                         19,656
                                                                           5.2%
                                      48
Trust Territories
                                                                              1
                                                                              3
                                                                              5
                                                                             19
                                                                             33
                                                                             30
                                                                             19
                                                                             33
                                                                             26
                                                                           0.0%
                                      49
Utah
                                                                            111
                                                                            174
                                                                            205
                                                                          1,119
                                                                          1,349
                                                                          3,294
                                                                          1,119
                                                                          3,294
                                                                          2,206
                                                                           0.6%
                                      50
Vermont
                                                                             39
                                                                            185
                                                                            250
                                                                          1,190
                                                                          1,645
                                                                          1,157
                                                                          1,157
                                                                          1,645
                                                                          1,401
                                                                           0.4%
                                      51
Virgin Islands
                                                                              2
                                                                              6
                                                                              5
                                                                             39
                                                                             33
                                                                             59
                                                                             33
                                                                             59
                                                                             46
                                                                           0.0%
                                      52
Virginia
                                                                            219
                                                                          1,274
                                                                          2,029
                                                                          8,193
                                                                         13,352
                                                                          6,499
                                                                          6,499
                                                                         13,352
                                                                          9,925
                                                                           2.6%
                                      53
Washington*
                                                                            412
                                                                            532
                                                                            604
                                                                         22,315
                                                                         22,315
                                                                         22,315
                                                                         22,315
                                                                         22,315
                                                                         22,315
                                                                           5.9%
                                      54
West Virginia
                                                                             98
                                                                            280
                                                                            376
                                                                          1,801
                                                                          2,474
                                                                          2,908
                                                                          1,801
                                                                          2,908
                                                                          2,354
                                                                           0.6%
                                      55
Wisconsin*
                                                                            394
                                                                          1,227
                                                                          1,227
                                                                          9,323
                                                                          9,323
                                                                          9,323
                                                                          9,323
                                                                          9,323
                                                                          9,323
                                                                           2.4%
                                      56
Wyoming
                                                                             15
                                                                             75
                                                                             99
                                                                            482
                                                                            651
                                                                            445
                                                                            445
                                                                            651
                                                                            548
                                                                           0.1%
                                                                        Totals:
                                                                         14,262
                                                                         45,762
                                                                         59,702
                                                                        297,229
                                                                        389,870
                                                                        423,209
                                                                        292,911
                                                                        469,380
                                                                        381,145
                                                                           100%
* Actual counts of CESQGs within these states are available in Exhibit 2-7 and are not extrapolated.

As with SQGs, this rule affects only facilities that must manifest shipments of hazardous waste and as most CESQGs are not required to manifest their hazardous waste shipments, the above estimate is an overestimate of the affected CESQG universe for this rule. Furthermore, even if CESQGs were required to manifest hazardous waste shipments, not all CESQGs that generated hazardous waste would also be hazardous waste shippers; correspondingly, this RIA applies the 77 percent proportion of SQGs that ship waste off-site to CESQGs as well. 

Only one state, Arkansas, requires CESQGs to manifest shipments of hazardous waste. Correspondingly, the universe of CESQGs assumed to be affected by the manifest rule is thus 2,039, reflecting the assumption that, 77 percent of the 2,648 CESQGs in Arkansas as shown in Exhibit 2-8 (or 2,039 CESQGs), are shipping hazardous waste off-site and must manifest. 

Because CESQGs are subject to few reporting requirements, it is necessary to extrapolate estimates of the average number of tons generated per CESQG from states where that data is available. EPA's Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA provides estimates of waste tonnage generated and shipped by CESQGs, but does not do so on a state-by-state basis. For additional information, see Appendix A. 

2.1.2.4 Generators and Receivers of State Hazardous Wastes

The previous sections on generators have examined facilities that generate and ship hazardous waste as defined in the federal RCRA regulations. Most states have been delegated authority to enforce RCRA as well as to add additional requirements unique to the state. Some states have elected to list additional wastes as hazardous, necessitating a manifest whenever these state hazardous wastes are shipped offsite. As the e-Manifest system will be the exclusive terminus for all hazardous waste manifests, it will accept manifests accompanying shipments of state hazardous wastes. As a result, the facilities that generate these state hazardous wastes must be counted as a part of the affected universe for this rulemaking.
To determine the universe of state hazardous waste generators, this RIA first examined state RCRA requirements to determine which states had listed additional wastes as hazardous. Of the states, 19 have listed additional wastes as state hazardous wastes. These 19 states are listed in Exhibit 2-9.

As there is little information on the counts of state hazardous waste generators, this RIA makes the simplifying assumption that the count of state hazardous waste generators is equal to the count of CESQGs in a state. Exhibit 2-9 displays the estimated count of state waste generators in each of these 19 states, as seen in Column J of Exhibit 2-8. As applied to CESQG shippers above, this RIA assumes that 77 percent of CESQGs ship hazardous waste off-site. This proportion is applied to yield an estimate of the state hazardous waste generators in each of the 19 states. Overall, this RIA estimates 145,522 generators who ship state hazardous wastes offsite for treatment will be affected by the final rule.

In addition to the generators of state hazardous waste considered part of the affected universe for this rulemaking, the rule also requires receivers of state hazardous wastes to register and obtain an EPA ID number as a requirement of participating in manifest submission following implementation of the e-Manifest system. Note that TSDFs under the federal RCRA program already have an EPA ID number, and thus are not subject to this requirement.

The number of receivers of state hazardous wastes is not tracked on a national basis. However, due to the minimal cost associated with this requirement, as described in Chapter 5, the number of state hazardous waste receivers does not have a substantial impact on the costs and cost savings estimated in this RIA. Therefore, this RIA makes the simplifying assumption that the ratio of state hazardous waste receivers to state hazardous waste generators is equal to the ratio of federal hazardous waste receivers, i.e., receiver TSDFs, to the ratio of federal hazardous waste shippers, i.e., LQG, TSDF, and SQG shippers. In other words, there are 420 federal receiver TSDFs (Exhibit 2-1), and a total of 54,750 federal hazardous waste shippers (19,334 LQG shippers and 86 TSDF shippers from Exhibit 2-3, and 35,330 SQG shippers from Exhibit 2-6), yielding a ratio of approximately 0.008 receivers per shipper. Applying this ratio to the 145,522 state hazardous waste generators in Exhibit 2-9 yields an estimate of approximately 1,117 state receivers of hazardous waste. This result may be an overestimate or underestimate, depending on the quantity of state hazardous waste receivers in the 19 states detailed in Exhibit 2-9, but the results of this RIA do not vary substantially with alterations to this estimate, except in unlikely, extreme cases wherein the number of state receivers of hazardous waste deviate from this estimate by a factor of five or more (i.e., instances where the total number of state receivers of hazardous waste exceeds approximately 6,100).

                                  Exhibit 2-9
Estimated Counts of State Hazardous Waste Generators Affected by the Final Rule
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       
                                     State
                  Count of Generators (assumed to be CESQGs)
                         Count of Shippers (B * 0.77)
                                       1
California
                                                                         21,000
                                                                         16,170
                                       2
Colorado
                                                                          2,983
                                                                          2,297
                                       3
Illinois
                                                                         25,623
                                                                         19,370
                                       4
Indiana
                                                                         10,003
                                                                          7,702
                                       5
Kentucky
                                                                          5,133
                                                                          3,952
                                       6
Louisiana
                                                                          7,178
                                                                          5,527
                                       7
Maine
                                                                            949
                                                                            731
                                       8
Maryland
                                                                          7,815
                                                                          6,018
                                       9
Michigan
                                                                         11,997
                                                                          9,238
                                      10
Missouri
                                                                          9,795
                                                                          7,542
                                      11
New Hampshire
                                                                          1,818
                                                                          1,400
                                      12
New York
                                                                         28,201
                                                                         21,715
                                      13
Oregon
                                                                          3,441
                                                                          2,650
                                      14
Rhode Island
                                                                          2,100
                                                                          1,617
                                      15
South Carolina
                                                                          5,373
                                                                          4,137
                                      16
Texas
                                                                         19,656
                                                                         15,135
                                      17
Utah
                                                                          2,206
                                                                          1,699
                                      18
Vermont
                                                                          1,401
                                                                          1,079
                                      19
Washington
                                                                         22,315
                                                                         17,183
                                                                          Total
                                                                        188,987
                                                                        145,522

2.1.2.5 SQGs Shipping Under Reclamation Agreements

As described in Section 2.1.2.2, not all SQG shippers are required to manifest, because SQG-generated hazardous waste that is shipped off-site for reclamation and recovery is exempt from manifest requirements under the federal RCRA program. However, as described in Section 2.2, six states (Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, and New Hampshire) require manifests for these shipments despite the federal exemption. Correspondingly, this RIA estimates the count of SQGs that must manifest due these state-specific requirements as part of the affected universe for the final rule. This RIA estimates the entity counts associated with these BFRA manifest requirements by simply adding back in the 10 percent of SQGs omitted from these six states in Section 2.1.2.2 as SQGs who ship their waste but do not provide accompanying manifests. Exhibit 2-10 summarizes the estimated entity counts across these six states. Overall, this RIA estimates 447 SQGs that manifest due to these state-specific BFRA manifest requirements.

                                 Exhibit 2-10
      Estimated Counts of SQGs who Manifest for Waste Shipped under BFRAs
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       
                                     State
                                     SQGs
               SQGs who Manifest for Waste Shipped under BFRAs 
                                   (B * 0.1)
                                       1
Connecticut
                                                                            924
                                                                             92
                                       2
Delaware
                                                                            187
                                                                             19
                                       3
Kentucky
                                                                            412
                                                                             41
                                       4
Maryland
                                                                          1,377
                                                                            138
                                       5
Minnesota
                                                                          1,366
                                                                            137
                                       6
New Hampshire
                                                                            201
                                                                             20
                                                                          Total
                                                                            447

2.1.3 Transporters

The universe of facilities affected by the final rule includes transporters, who haul shipments of hazardous waste from generators to TSDFs. Transporters predominantly use specialized trucks to carry these shipments, but in some cases waste is also hauled by rail and occasionally by barge. As hazardous waste is hauled predominantly by trucks and each shipment (i.e., a truckload or partial truckload) requires a separate manifest, this RIA focuses on the number of hazardous waste hauling trucks, rather than the number of transporter companies or facilities, to estimate the impacts of the final rule on transporters of hazardous waste.

To estimate the count of hazardous waste hauling trucks, this RIA uses counts from two Department of Transportation (DoT) surveys of the US national trucking fleet. The first study, from 1996, is the Analysis of the Truck Inventory and Use Survey from the Truck Size and Weight Perspective for Trucks with Four- Axles or Less. A companion study, from 2001, is the Analysis of the Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey for Trucks with Five-Axles or More. Both studies include counts of trucks hauling two categories of hazardous waste: EPA manifested and non-EPA manifested waste. As these surveys were completed before EPA standardized the hazardous waste manifest form in 2005, it is likely that non-EPA manifested hazardous waste is waste listed on a state hazardous waste manifest. In this analysis, both categories of waste hauling trucks are counted as within the universe of affected entities. 

Critically, the data included in these studies originates from years prior to the study publication date. Specifically, the first study primarily uses data from 1992, while the second study primarily relies on data from 1997. More recent estimates of trucks engaged specifically in hazardous waste hauling are not available. In order to more accurately estimate the number of trucks currently in existence and engaging in hazardous waste hauling, this RIA scales the figures from these two studies. Specifically, this RIA uses employment data from the Economic Censuses from 1992, 1997, and 2012 to derive a scaling factor to apply to the 1992 and 1997 data from DoT surveys based on the number of employees engaged in hazardous waste trucking sectors, as follows:

 1992: 9,270 employees in SIC 4212 (Local Trucking without Storage)  -  Subpart relating to Hazardous Waste Materials; 

 1997: 8,468 employees in NAICS 562112 (Hazardous Waste Collection); and

 2012: 9,987 employees in NAICS 562112 (Hazardous Waste Collection).

To adjust the 1992 and 1997 data from DoT surveys to reflect 2012, the corresponding scaling factors are approximately 1.08 for 1992-sourced data (i.e., the 1996 study) and approximately 1.18 for 1997-sourced data (i.e. the 2001 study). Note that while the remainder of this chapter uses data from, or based on, the 2015 Biennial Report cycle, the Economic Census is available only in five-year increments and the 2012 Economic Census represents the closest data source both to present day and the 2015 Biennial Report.

The total count of hazardous waste hauling trucks per the 1996 and 2001 studies is 8,734. Exhibit 2-11 displays the counts of affected trucks by truck type and waste type, and shows the application of scaling factors derived above to these estimates. The total count of hazardous waste hauling trucks affected by the final rule is estimated to be 9,947 in 2012.

                                 Exhibit 2-11
                   Counts of Hazardous Waste Hauling Trucks 
                                  Truck Type
                                    2-
axle
                                    3-axle
                                    4-axle
                                      2+2
                                     2-S1
                                     2-S2
                                     3-S1
                           Truck + Trailer @ 5-axle
                                     3-S2
                           Tridem Axle Semi-trailer
                                    4S1/ S2
                                     Total
                        EPA Manifested Hazardous Waste
Truck Counts (1992/1997 data)
                                     1,097
                                      454
                                      15
                                      105
                                      24
                                      99
                                      22
                                       0
                                     3,743
                                      724
                                      175
                                     6,458
Truck Counts (2012 estimate)
                                     1,182
                                      489
                                      16
                                      113
                                      26
                                      107
                                      24
                                       0
                                     4,414
                                      854
                                      206
                                     7,431
Percent
                                     17.0%
                                     7.0%
                                     0.2%
                                     1.6%
                                     0.4%
                                     1.5%
                                     0.3%
                                     0.0%
                                     58.0%
                                     11.2%
                                     2.7%
                                    100.0%
                      Non-EPA Manifested Hazardous Waste
Truck Counts (1992/1997 data)
                                                                          1,202
                                                                            168
                                                                              0
                                                                            105
                                                                              0
                                                                            174
                                                                              0
                                                                             24
                                                                            525
                                                                             78
                                                                              0
                                                                          2,276
Truck Counts (2012 estimate)
                                                                          1,295
                                                                            181
                                                                              0
                                                                            113
                                                                              0
                                                                            187
                                                                              0
                                                                             28
                                                                            619
                                                                             92
                                                                              0
                                                                          2,516
Percent
                                                                          52.8%
                                                                           7.4%
                                                                           0.0%
                                                                           4.6%
                                                                           0.0%
                                                                           7.6%
                                                                           0.0%
                                                                           1.1%
                                                                          23.1%
                                                                           3.4%
                                                                           0.0%
                                                                         100.0%
                                    Totals
Truck Counts (1992/1997 data)
                                                                          2,299
                                                                            622
                                                                             15
                                                                            210
                                                                             24
                                                                            273
                                                                             22
                                                                             24
                                                                          4,268
                                                                            802
                                                                            175
                                                                          8,734
Truck Counts (2012 estimate)
                                                                          2,477
                                                                            670
                                                                             16
                                                                            226
                                                                             26
                                                                            294
                                                                             24
                                                                             28
                                                                          5,034
                                                                            946
                                                                            206
                                                                          9,947
Percent
                                                                          26.3%
                                                                           7.1%
                                                                           0.2%
                                                                           2.4%
                                                                           0.3%
                                                                           3.1%
                                                                           0.3%
                                                                           0.3%
                                                                          48.9%
                                                                           9.2%
                                                                           2.0%
                                                                         100.0%
Source: Department of Transportation Vehicle Inventory and Use Surveys. Available at:
1996 report (1992 data)- https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/rpt6_mai.pdf - provides 2-axle, 3-axle, 4-axle, 2+2, 2-S1, 2-S2, and 3-S1 truck counts.
2001 report (1997 data) - http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/vius97.pdf - provides truck + trailer @ 5-axle, 3-S2, tride axle semi-trailer, and 4S1/S2 truck counts.
2012 estimates derived via scaling based on employee counts in hazardous waste trucking industries across the 1992, 1997, and 2012 Economic Censuses. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

2.2 State Governments Potentially Affected by e-Manifest

Nearly all state governments, with the exception of Iowa and Alaska, are authorized to implement and enforce RCRA. As a part of this authorization, the delegated States have the discretion to modify RCRA to suit their specific needs so long as these modifications are consistent with and at least as stringent as the base federal regulations. In practice many states elect to adopt modifications to RCRA that make their programs more stringent than the federal RCRA regulations. These modifications are significant to this rulemaking because they change the contents of, distribution rules for, or reporting rules for hazardous waste manifests. E-Manifest, as the sole national hazardous waste manifest system, will need to accommodate these state specific manifest requirements. Data on state RCRA program requirements come from the Environmental Compliance Assistance Platform (ENVCAP). ENVCAP is a repository of environmental regulations maintained by the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences and supported by EPA Office of Enforcement Compliance Assurance.
State programs differ from the federal RCRA program in six ways. They are:

 Inclusion of additional wastes as hazardous. States may specify additional wastes, such as used oil, as hazardous. These wastes are subject to the full requirements of RCRA, including manifests. Currently 19 states have listed additional wastes as hazardous.

 Disallowing federal manifest exemptions. Under federal RCRA regulations SQGs with contractual reclamation agreements with TSDFs do not have to manifest their shipments of hazardous waste. Six states have not adopted this exemption, and require manifests for hazardous waste shipments made under these agreements.

 Requiring copies of the manifest to be distributed to the state. EPA does not collect copies of the manifest from industry. However, 32 states require industry to send them copies of the manifest from shipments originating and/or terminating within their boundaries.

 Requiring additional reports from industry. The federal RCRA program requires industry to make reports to EPA when certain manifest irregularities occur. Seventeen states have listed additional irregularities requiring reports, tightened reporting timetables, or added additional classes of facilities that must report contingencies.

 Requiring industry to keep additional records. The federal RCRA program requires facilities to maintain records of all manifest shipments for three years. Five states have imposed additional recordkeeping requirements. For example: 

 Washington requires generators to retain manifests for five years. 
 Kentucky specifies that generators must retain both their original manifest copy and the copy mailed to them by the TSDF.
 Delaware requires CESQGs to document off-site shipments of hazardous waste and retain those records for three years.

 Miscellaneous additional requirements. 22 states have additional requirements that make their programs more stringent than the federal RCRA program, distinct from the additional requirements described in the five items above. For example, Louisiana requires generators to obtain a letter from a receiver TSDF acknowledging that the TSDF can receive the waste before the generator ships it to the TSDF; the generator must retain this letter as a part of recordkeeping.

State specific regulations are significant to this rulemaking because they will affect the universe of facilities and wastes that must report through e-Manifest as well as the functionality of the system. State-specific wastes and the manifests that carry their codes must be recognized, accepted and processed by e-Manifest. The system will need to understand state reporting exemptions and be able to accept manifests that are subject to these exemptions. States that currently require manifests to be submitted to them will in the future rely on e-Manifest to provide them with the data they currently collect. The system must also support the recordkeeping requirements of state programs if it is to successfully serve as the national repository for manifest data. Ultimately, state requirements affect the operational scope of the e-Manifest system, because the system must incorporate and reflect state-specific requirements; the costs of this interaction will be reflected in the user fees, costs, and benefits attributable to the e-Manifest program.

With respect to state-listed hazardous wastes, EPA examined existing state hazardous waste programs to determine which states may have additional facilities that would be subject to the final rule. Programs were evaluated as presented in the ENVCAP. For each program, EPA evaluated the following three aspects of the state-specific regulations:

 Does the state list additional hazardous wastes which would require manifests?

 Does the state require manifests for wastes excluded under bona fide reclamation agreements

 Does the state require manifests for wastes shipped by CESQGs?

According to the data in ENVCAP and summarized in Exhibit 2-12, 19 states list at least one additional state hazardous waste that is not listed federally. Six states also require manifests for shipments made under a BFRA. Finally, one state requires manifests for CESQGs. As seen in the table below, three states have both state hazardous wastes and requirements for manifests accompanying wastes transported under a BFRA. For further discussion of state programs, including the additional state wastes in each state, see Appendix B.

                                 Exhibit 2-12
                   States Which Require Additional Manifests
                     Manifests for State Hazardous Wastes
                   Manifests for Shipments Made under BFRAs
                             Manifests for CESQGS
CA, CO, IL, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MI, MO, NH, NY, OR, RI, SC, TX, UT, VT, WA
CT, DE, KY, MD, MN, NH
AR
Source: State program data taken from www.envcap.org/statetools/ (Accessed April 2015) 

Exhibit 2-13 summarizes the states with additional RCRA requirements that will affect the e-Manifest system and program. Each column pertains to one of the 6 areas in which state programs differ from the federal RCRA program. A designation of "same" indicates that that state does not differ from the federal RCRA program, "differs" indicates that it does, and "-" indicates that that state is not authorized to implement or enforce RCRA and therefore does not differ from the federal program. In all, 33 states have RCRA programs that are more stringent than the federal RCRA program.

                                 Exhibit 2-13
             Differences Between National and State RCRA Programs
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       
                                     State
                               Additional Wastes
                                  Exemptions
                                 Distribution
                                   Reporting
                                    Record
                                    keeping
                                     Other
                                       1
Alabama
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                       2
Alaska
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       3
Arizona
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                       4
Arkansas
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                       5
California
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                       6
Colorado
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                       7
Connecticut
                                     same
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                       8
Delaware
                                     same
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                     same
                                       9
District of Columbia
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                      10
Florida
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                      11
Georgia
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                      12
Guam
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                      13
Hawaii
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                      14
Idaho
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                      15
Illinois
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                      16
Indiana
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                      17
Iowa
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                      18
Kansas
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                      19
Kentucky
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                     same
                                      20
Louisiana
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                      21
Maine
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                      22
Maryland
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                      23
Massachusetts
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                      24
Michigan
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                      25
Minnesota
                                     same
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                      26
Mississippi
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                      27
Missouri
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                      28
Montana
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                      29
Navajo Nation
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                      30
Nebraska
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                      31
Nevada
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                      32
New Hampshire
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                      33
New Jersey
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                      34
New Mexico
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                      35
New York
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                      36
North Carolina
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                      37
North Dakota
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                      38
Ohio
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                      39
Oklahoma
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                      40
Oregon
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                      41
Pennsylvania
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                      42
Puerto Rico
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                      43
Rhode Island
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                      44
South Carolina
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                      45
South Dakota
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                      46
Tennessee
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                      47
Texas
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                      48
Trust Territories
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                      49
Utah
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                      50
Vermont
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                      51
Virgin Islands
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                       -
                                      52
Virginia
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                      53
Washington
                                    differs
                                     same
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                      54
West Virginia
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                      55
Wisconsin
                                     same
                                     same
                                    differs
                                    differs
                                     same
                                     same
                                      56
Wyoming
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same
                                     same

In addition, as noted in Section 2.1.2.4, receivers of state hazardous wastes without EPA ID numbers will each need to acquire an EPA ID number to continue to submit manifests following implementation of the e-Manifest system, regardless of the manifest type each entity submits. This RIA assumes that following current practice, state programs in the 19 states in the left column of Exhibit 2-13 with state hazardous waste will perform the activities necessary to register receivers of state hazardous wastes and provide them with EPA ID numbers, as necessary. This requirement applies only to these 19 states, and therefore does not change the estimate of 33 state governments affected by the rule.   

2.3 Summary of Potentially Affected Entities

This section summarizes the counts of affected industrial entities and states. In all 200,096 industrial entities and 33 state governments are estimated to be affected by the e-Manifest rule. Exhibit 2-14 displays these counts.

                                 Exhibit 2-14
                   Summary of Universe of Affected Entities
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       
                                  Entity Type
                                Number affected
                               Source and Notes
                                       1
LQG Shippers and non-LQG TSDF Shippers[a]
                                                                         19,420
2015 RCRA Biennial Report data
                                       2
SQG Shippers (who manifest)
                                                                         35,330
Exhibit 2-6, based on calculations from EPA's 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA.
                                       3
CESQG Shippers (who manifest)
                                                                          2,039
Section 2.1.2.3, based on calculations from EPA's 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA and that only Arkansas requires CESQGs to manifest
                                       4
State Waste Shippers (who manifest)
                                                                        145,522
Exhibit 2-9, based on calculations from EPA's 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA and states with additional wastes which require manifests for shipment
                                       5
SQGs Shipping under BRFAs (who manifest)
                                                                            447
Exhibit 2-10, based on calculations from EPA's 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA.and states requiring manifests for BFRA shipments.
                                       6
Industry Subtotal  - Shippers who Manifest
                                                                        202,758

                                       7
Receiver TSDFs*
                                                                            420
2015 RCRA Biennial Report data
                                       8
Receivers of state waste
                                                                          1,117
Section 2.1.2.4, based on applying the ratio of receiver TSDFs (Row 7) to LQG, TSDF, and SQG shippers (Row 1 plus Row 2) to the count of state waste shippers (Row 4).
                                       9
Industry Subtotal  - Shippers and Receivers who Manifest
                                                                        204,295

                                      10
Transporters (Trucks)
                                                                          9,947
Exhibit 2-11, based on 1996 and 2001 DoT Truck Use Surveys based on 1992 and 1997 data, scaled to estimate 2012 truck counts
                                      11
Industry Total
                                                                        214,242

                                      12
State Governments
                                                                             33
ENVCAP data
[a] In 2015 Biennial Report data, 384 facilities classified as LQGs were also shipper facilities as well as receiver TSDFs. Therefore, the subtotal and total in Rows 8 and 10, respectively, may overstate the total number of industry entities affected. However, any non-LQG TSDF shipper would be affected by the final rule via requirements that specifically correspond to shippers of waste, while receiver TSDFs would be affected by the rule's requirements that specifically correspond to receivers of waste. Therefore, even though the total number of entities affected may be overstated, the subtotal and totals in this exhibit accurately portray the number of entity-instances estimated to be affected by the rule, as TSDFs that function as both non-LQG shippers and receivers of waste will be impacted by two different sets of requirements associated with the rule. 

                                   Chapter 3
                      Count of Hazardous Waste Manifests
                                       
This chapter provides an estimate of the number of manifests likely to be affected by the final rule. Because most costs and cost savings associated with the rule accrue on a per-manifest basis, the estimate of manifests is a critical component of the remainder of this RIA.

The annual number of manifests accompanying shipments of hazardous waste represents the basis for establishing e-Manifest user fees, because the bulk of all costs associated with manifests are incurred on a per-manifest Basis. Additionally, all costs and cost savings associated with the final rule are driven in large part by the number of manifests. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to establish per manifest user fees that allocate the total annual costs of developing, managing, and supporting the e-Manifest system across the number of manifests handled by the system each year. Likewise, the analyses of baseline costs and system cost savings in this RIA both begin by estimating the per-manifest burden of complying with the manifest regulations, and then scale these estimates up to estimate costs and benefits nationally. Because the annual count of manifests fluctuates from year to year based on the national level of economic activity, the analysis in this RIA considers a number of sources based on 2015 data to estimate and project a "typical" annual count of manifests.

3.1 Prior Estimates of Manifests

Multiple estimates approximate the annual count of hazardous waste manifests. One key source is the Information Collection Request (ICR) that EPA must submit to OMB every three years to continue requiring industry to use manifests. This Hazardous Waste Manifest System ICR, most recently updated in 2015, contains an estimate of the annual count of RCRA manifests associated with the federal program. However, the scope of this ICR does not consider the burden from manifests or activities associated with individual State-specific programs and requirements. Similarly, this ICR estimates only the annual count of manifests bearing federal hazardous waste codes, and omits manifests that bear only state hazardous waste codes. Because the e-Manifest system created by the final rule will be the central, national destination for all manifests, regardless of whether they bear state or federal waste codes, the current Hazardous Waste Manifest System ICR undercounts the number of annual manifests that will enter the e-Manifest system, as well as the current volume of manifests created and submitted under federal and state requirements. Exhibit 3-1 below displays the annual estimate of federal manifests from the last three Hazardous Waste Manifest System ICRs.

                                  Exhibit 3-1
                 ICR Estimate of the Annual Count of Manifests
                                  ICR Number
                                     Year
              Average Annual Estimate of Manifests (Federal only)
                                    801.20
                                     2015
                                   1,407,016
                                    801.18
                                     2012
                                   1,887,404
                                    801.15
                                     2004
                                   1,762,276

EPA also estimated the annual count of manifests in the 2005 Final Revisions to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest Form rule. In this rule, EPA set national standards for the layout of the hazardous waste manifest, which had previously been modified by a number of states to suit the needs of their delegated RCRA programs. Because the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest Form rule affected manifests bearing federal waste codes as well as manifests bearing state waste codes, it required a national comprehensive estimate of the count of state and federal manifests. The national count of all manifests for that rule was estimated at between 2.4 million and 5.1 million manifests per year.

3.2 Current Estimate of Manifests

To develop an up-to-date annual count of manifests for the final rule, this RIA extrapolates a manifest count from hazardous waste generation and shipping data provided within the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report. Then, in order to validate this estimate, this RIA considers additional methods and data sources. Specifically, this section validates the extrapolated estimate of manifests by examining industry surveys of TSDFs and paper manifest printers.

3.2.1 Extrapolated Estimate of Manifests Based on 2015 RCRA Biennial Report Data

In this section, this RIA estimates the annual number of RCRA hazardous waste manifests produced to accompany shipments of hazardous waste. It estimates manifests accompanying shipments of federally-defined hazardous waste, as well as shipments of state government-defined hazardous wastes. 

This analysis relies on several different sets of data, and incorporates the universe of facilities that generate, transport, and receive hazardous wastes with manifests and are therefore likely to be affected by the final rule as described in Chapter 2. As the Chapter 2 analysis incorporates data from the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report, EPA's 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA, the ENVCAP environmental compliance assistance platform, and the Department of Transportation's Vehicle Inventory and Use Surveys from 1996 and 2001, this section similarly relies on these sources to estimate the annual count of manifests. 

To estimate the number of manifests generated by the facilities in the universe, this RIA begins with 2015 RCRA Biennial Report data that provide facility-level tonnages of hazardous waste generation as well as shipments. Additionally, this RIA assumes that hazardous waste shipping trucks have a maximum capacity of 30 tons. Based on these two key data inputs, this analysis uses waste tonnage data from the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report to estimate a count of manifests used by LQGs and non-LQG TSDF shippers, for whom the most waste data is available via the Biennial Report. This methodology is then applied, in a simplified manner, to other entities: SQGs and state hazardous waste shippers.
	
3.2.1.1 Estimate of Annual LQG and Non-LQG TSDF Shipper Manifests

To estimate the annual count of manifests used by LQGs and non-LQG TSDF shippers, this RIA identified all generating facilities reporting to the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report as LQGs and non-LQG TSDF shippers. This process excludes entities not required to submit data to the Biennial Report (e.g., SQGs and CESQGs, for which data is incomplete), as well as those that generate hazardous waste but do not ship waste off-site. (Only approximately 20 percent of hazardous waste tonnage is shipped off-site per the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report data.)

To convert the figures above into estimates of annual manifest counts for each facility, this RIA applied three further assumptions: 

 Each hazardous waste truck can accommodate a load of up to 30 tons.

 Hazardous waste shipments from each generator are picked up as part of routes that are regularly serviced by transporters occurring either weekly, monthly, or quarterly.

 Each shipment (i.e., one truck carrying one load picked up from one facility) requires its own manifest.

Then, this RIA used the above assumptions along with the calculations described above to estimate the total number of hazardous waste shipments from LQGs and non-LQG TSDF shippers for each facility, which were summed to obtain a total number of manifests in the LQG and non-TSDF shipper universe. Specifically, this RIA further calculated that shipments of less than 30 tons would require one truck each, while shipments of over 30 tons would require enough trucks to haul the entire tonnage of a shipment away. Additionally, this RIA calculated the average per-facility number of manifests used by the generators within each tonnage generation group as the number of trucks required to haul away weekly, monthly, and quarterly shipments.

For example, a generator shipping 200 tons of waste in 2015 was estimated to require 52 manifests if served on a weekly basis (3.8 tons picked up every week for 52 weeks), 12 manifests if serviced on a monthly basis (16.7 tons picked up every month), or eight manifests if serviced on a quarterly basis (50 tons picked up every quarter, requiring two trucks each quarter). Generally, shippers that send less than 240 tons off-site in a year (approximately 92 percent of all generators and shippers) require 52, 12, or four manifests if pickups are assumed to occur on a weekly, monthly, or quarterly basis, respectively. This is because multiple trucks are not required per pickup to service the loads from these generators. However, shippers that send larger tonnages require multiple trucks per pickup to service their loads, and correspondingly require larger numbers of manifests. The frequency of pickups does not substantially alter the number of trucks required to service these shippers, because each pickup will require multiple trucks. 

To obtain a national count of manifests, this RIA then summed the number of manifests estimated across all LQG and non-LQG TSDF shippers. Exhibit 3-2 displays the results from the calculations described above. 

3.2.1.2 Estimate of Annual SQG and State Hazardous Waste Manifests

This RIA uses a similar process to estimate the annual count of manifests used by small quantity generators (SQGs) and generators of state hazardous waste. The key assumption employed by this RIA for these facilities is that the generators in these facility classes produce no more than one load's worth of hazardous waste per shipment. Similarly to the LQG and non-LQG TSDF shipper facilities discussed above, this RIA assumes that these facilities' shipments are picked up as part of weekly, monthly, or quarterly routes by transporters. From these assumptions, the annual number of manifests submitted by these facilities is equal to the product of the number of facilities and the number of shipments under each shipping scenario (i.e., weekly, monthly, or quarterly pickups by transporters).

                                  Exhibit 3-2
Estimate of Average Annual Count of Manifests from LQGs and Non-LQG TSDF Shippers
                                       A
                                       B
                                     Item
                      Manifest Counts (All BR Facilities)
                                       1
LQG/TSDF Weekly
                                   1,107,080
                                       2
LQG/TSDF Monthly
                                    406,428
                                       3
LQG/TSDF Quarterly
                                    273,360
Note: Per 2015 RCRA Biennial Report data, 26,270 entities shipped a total of 6,641,023 tons off-site. Of these, 19,420 were LQGs or TSDFs. The rest were SQGs or CESQGs, for which manifests are estimated separately.

Exhibit 3-3 below contains a summary of the estimate of SQG, state hazardous waste, and SQG shippers operating under reclamation agreements. Rows 1-3 contain the facility counts and manifest estimates for each of these three facility types. Column B contains the facility counts for each category of shipper, and column C contains average annual manifest estimates for each category under the three shipping scenarios.

                                  Exhibit 3-3
Estimate of Average Annual Count of Manifests from SQGs, State Hazardous Waste Shippers, and Federally Exempt Waste Facilities
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       
                               Shipper Category
                            Shipper Facility Counts
                                Manifest Counts
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                Weekly Shipping
                                   (B x 52)
                               Monthly Shipping
                                   (B x 12)
                              Quarterly Shipping
                                    (B x 4)
                                       1
SQGs
                                                                         35,330
                                                                      1,837,183
                                                                        423,965
                                                                        141,322
                                       2
State Hazardous Wastea 
                                                                        148,008
                                                                      7,696,398
                                                                      1,776,092
                                                                        592,031
                                       3
Federally Exempt SQGs  -  reclamation agreements (non-manifesters)[b]
                                                                          4,827
                                                                        250,981
                                                                         57,919
                                                                         19,306
                                       4
                                                                          Total
                                                                        188,165
                                                                      9,533,581
                                                                      2,200,057
                                                                        733,352
a Consists of 145,522 state waste shippers plus 2,039 CESQG shippers required to manifest per state-specific requirements plus 447 SQG shippers operating under bona-fide reclamation agreements not exempt from federal manifest requirements due to state-specific regulations. See Chapter 2 and Exhibits 2-14 and 2-15 for additional information.
b This category pertains to a class of SQG facilities who are exempt from manifest because their shipments of hazardous waste are covered under reclamation agreements. Note that within six States, State-specific regulations require even these shippers to conduct manifest activities; these facilities are included as State Hazardous Waste shippers in Row 2 due to these manifest requirements. It is not included in the manifest count in the total row, because manifests are not required for these facilities and their shipments.

The total number of manifests under each shipping scenario is equal to the sum of the totals from Exhibits 3-2 and 3-3. 

 The total annual count of manifests under the weekly shipping scenario is 10,640,661.
 The total annual count of manifests under the monthly shipping scenario is 2,606,473. 
 The total annual count of manifests under the quarterly shipping scenario is 1,006,031. 

There exists insufficient information to determine the shipment and pickup schedules under which generators and transporters of hazardous waste function. The majority of manifests correspond to shipments from SQGs and generators of state hazardous waste. This is not surprising as the entity counts for these facility classes greatly exceed the number of LQGs and non-LQG TSDF currently shipping waste off-site. However, this RIA assumes that LQGs and non-LQG TSDFs ship waste on a weekly pickup schedule, an intuitive assumption as bigger generators generating more waste will be more likely to require more frequent pickups. As a conservative (high-cost) assumption, this RIA also assumes that SQGs and state hazardous waste generators ship waste on a monthly pickup schedule, as they generate relatively less waste than LQG and non-LQG TSDFs. Additionally, it is likely that different SQGs ship wastes under all three shipping scenarios; the monthly scenario represents an average of the three scenarios. Based on these assumptions, this RIA estimates 1,107,080 manifests from LQGs and non-LQG TSDF shippers (see the highlighted figure in Exhibit 3-2) and 2,200,057 manifests from SQGs and state hazardous waste generators (see the highlighted figure in Exhibit 3-3), for a total of 3,307,137 manifests generated annually. Of these 3,307,137 manifests, 1,531,045 manifests are federal manifests (LQG, non-LQG TSDF shipper, and SQG-originated manifests), while the remaining 1,776,092 manifests are state manifests (state hazardous waste manifests from Exhibit 3-3).

This RIA's estimate of 3.3 million annual manifests falls within the range of manifests estimated in the 2005 Revisions to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest Form final rule. Chapter 6 includes an evaluation of additional scenarios under alternate annual counts of manifests.

3.2.2 Estimate of Manifests based on Industry Responses
This section attempts to validate or benchmark the estimate of approximately 3.3 million annual manifests using two surveys of hazardous waste management industry participants.

3.2.2.1 Manifest Estimate from TSDF Responses

In an effort to confirm or refine the estimate of the number of manifests based on Biennial Report tonnages and facility populations, EPA asked nine of the largest TSDF companies to report the number of manifests they used annually for the past three years. In response to the survey, six firms provided counts of the manifests they used, displayed in Rows 1 through 6 and Columns B through D in Exhibit 3-4. Additional information on this survey and TSDF companies' responses is available in Appendix C.

To derive a national estimate of manifests from this sample, EPA scaled the responses using market concentration ratios from the 2007 Economic Census. Market concentration ratios indicate the percentage of total sales, receipts, or revenue of an industry that accrue to a given number of firms in a specified six-digit NAICS code. The concentration ratio for NAICS 562211, hazardous waste treatment and disposal, was 44.6 percent for the four largest firms in the industry, and 59.2 percent for the eight largest firms in 2007, the most recent year available. Assuming that market concentration scales perfectly with manifest use (i.e., companies making up 50 percent market concentration use 50 percent of manifests) and that the six firms that reported to the survey represent a market concentration between that of the top four and the top eight in the industry, a range of average annual manifest use can be extrapolated. Under these assumptions, the national total count of manifests may be between 1.3 million and 1.8 million manifests per year.

                                  Exhibit 3-4
  Reported Manifest Usage by 6 TSDF Companies for the Years 2011 through 2013
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D

                                    Company
                                  Count 2013
                                  Count 2012
                                  Count 2011
                                       1
Veolia
                                                                        100,000
                                                                        100,000
                                                                        100,000
                                       2
Tradebe
                                                                         45,000
                                                                         46,000
                                                                         45,000
                                       3
Clean Harbors Environmental Services
                                                                        561,761
                                                                        569,507
                                                                        572,290
                                       4
Ross Environmental Services, Inc.
                                                                         14,448
                                                                         13,592
                                                                         12,782
                                       5
Heritage Environmental Services
                                                                         50,200
                                                                         42,700
                                                                         49,700
                                       6
Systech Environmental Corporation
                                                                         21,470
                                                                         22,982
                                                                         19,629
                                       7
                                                                          Total
                                                                        792,879
                                                                        794,781
                                                                        799,401
                                       8
National Total Using 4-Firm Concentration Ratio (44.6%)
                                                                      1,777,756
                                                                      1,782,020
                                                                      1,792,379
                                       9
National Total using 8-Firm Concentration Ratio (59.2%)
                                                                      1,339,323
                                                                      1,342,535
                                                                      1,350,340

The estimates derived from this methodology are consistent with the results from the various federal manifest ICRs (see Exhibit 3-1) but fall below the range of manifests estimated in the 2005 Final Revisions to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest Form rule. Most telling, the most recent Hazardous Waste Manifest System ICR only accounts for only federal hazardous waste manifests. Also this survey-derived estimate falls below the range estimated in the 2005 Final Revisions to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest Form (see Section 3.1); this suggests that these estimates likely understate total manifest numbers, potentially because survey respondents' responses only estimated the number of federal manifests used. It is also potentially possible that the scaling factors are not appropriate for the firms represented here, i.e., these firms are not the largest firms in the industry, or manifest usage accrues to firms in other six-digit NAICS codes. Alternately, manifest usage may simply not scale proportionally to market concentration.

3.2.2.2 Manifest Estimate from Manifest Printer Responses

EPA does not print and distribute copies of the manifest, but authorizes specific companies to print the specialized form. Currently, 13 companies are approved by EPA to print the manifest. Nine of these companies offer manifests for sale, and four are TSDF companies that print manifests for their own use. For this estimate, EPA contacted nine manifest printers and asked them to report the number of manifests they sell annually. Five of these companies responded (see Exhibit 3-5). Respondents sent in figures for single years, multiple years, and averages; Exhibit 3-5 reflects annual averages of manifests sold. Three of the TSDF companies with totals displayed in Exhibit 3-4, Stericycle/PSC, Veolia, and Tradebe, are also registered printers of the manifest. 

                                  Exhibit 3-5
             Average Annual Sales Printed of Manifest Paper Forms
                                     Item
                                    Company
               Average Annual Printed Manifest Paper Form Sales
                                       1
JJ Keller
                                                                      1,500,000
                                       2
Flesh Co
                                                                      1,120,400
                                       3
Welsh & Associates
                                                                         60,000
                                       4
Genoa Forms
                                                                        300,000
                                       5
                                                            Subtotal (Printers)
                                                                      2,980,400
                                       6
Stericycle / PSC
                                                                        305,909
                                       7
Veolia
                                                                        100,000
                                       8
Tradebe 
                                                                         45,000
                                       9
                 Total (Printers and TSDFs who print for manifests for own use)
                                                                     3,431,309 

This combined estimate of manifests printed and sold annually is 3.4 million  -  roughly similar to the 3.3 million manifests estimated in Section 3.2.1 above. This count may overestimate the total number of manifests used, because more manifests are likely sold than used in a given year, which affords generators a buffer to ensure that they do not run out of manifests before purchasing more. This count may underestimate the total number of manifests used because Exhibit 3-6 does not capture four of the nine companies currently selling manifests. 

                                  Exhibit 3-6
                  Summary of Annual Manifest Count Estimates
                                     Item
                                    Source
                           Annual Manifest Estimate
                                     Notes
                                       1
EPA Hazardous Waste Manifest System ICRs
                            1,407,016  -  1,887,404
Federal manifests only, 2004-2015
                                       2
Final Revisions to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest Form rule
                            2,400,000  -  5,100,000
Federal and state manifests, 2005
                                       3
RIA primary estimate
                                   3,307,137
Federal and state manifests
                                       4
Extrapolated estimate from TSDF survey
                            1,339,323  -  1,792,379
May include only federal manifests, 2011-2013
                                       5
Manifest printer responses
                                   3,431,309
Federal and state manifests

The cost impacts and related analyses in the remainder of this RIA rely on the annual manifest count of approximately 3.3 million. Sensitivity analyses considering alternate annual manifest counts are included in Chapter 6. This estimate appears to be similar to an independent assessment of the number of manifests sold by manifest printers annually, and exceeds an estimate from a survey of TSDF manifest users, which may not have included state manifests in their responses.

                                   Chapter 4
Baseline (Paper) Manifest Activities in the Hazardous Waste Management Industry
                          The paper manifest process
                                       
A manifest form contains identifying information about a hazardous waste shipment as well as the entities handling the waste, from origin point to final destination. A paper copy must accompany the shipment of hazardous waste. The form contains signature lines for all entities that handle the waste. Under the current paper manifest system:

 Generators that ship hazardous waste off-site initiate a manifest(s) for a shipment, potentially with the assistance of a transporter or receiver TSDF. A generator fills out this six-ply form with facility identification information and waste descriptions (including waste quantity, type, and container descriptions), signs the document, and pulls off and retains a copy.

 The transporter that picks up the hazardous waste shipment from the generator facility must also supply identifying information, sign the form, and retain a copy.

 All waste handlers, including subsequent transporters and the final receiver TSDF receiving the waste also fill out identifying information, sign the manifest, and retain a copy.

 The receiver TSDF ultimately receiving the waste sends a copy of the complete manifest with all signatures back to the original generator. In some states, this TSDF is also responsible for sending a copy of the complete manifest to a state regulatory authority.

 All waste handlers must retain their manifest copies for at least three years. Although the current manifest form is a paper six-ply form, many waste handlers, as well as some states that collect manifest data, also have their own IT systems to store manifest data electronically (e.g., scanned image or XML format). These systems are not currently used to comply with the manifest requirements for hazardous waste under RCRA. However, they may be adaptable to that purpose after the launch of the e-Manifest system.

In the case of discrepancies between the physical waste cargo and the information on the manifest form, shipments of waste may be sent back to the original generator facility.

For a detailed description of the set of activities that constitute the full paper manifest process, see Appendix D.
                          The paper manifest process
                                       
A manifest form contains identifying information about a hazardous waste shipment as well as the entities handling the waste, from origin point to final destination. A paper copy must accompany the shipment of hazardous waste. The form contains signature lines for all entities that handle the waste. Under the current paper manifest system:

 Generators that ship hazardous waste off-site initiate a manifest(s) for a shipment, potentially with the assistance of a transporter or receiver TSDF. A generator fills out this six-ply form with facility identification information and waste descriptions (including waste quantity, type, and container descriptions), signs the document, and pulls off and retains a copy.

 The transporter that picks up the hazardous waste shipment from the generator facility must also supply identifying information, sign the form, and retain a copy.

 All waste handlers, including subsequent transporters and the final receiver TSDF receiving the waste also fill out identifying information, sign the manifest, and retain a copy.

 The receiver TSDF ultimately receiving the waste sends a copy of the complete manifest with all signatures back to the original generator. In some states, this TSDF is also responsible for sending a copy of the complete manifest to a state regulatory authority.

 All waste handlers must retain their manifest copies for at least three years. Although the current manifest form is a paper six-ply form, many waste handlers, as well as some states that collect manifest data, also have their own IT systems to store manifest data electronically (e.g., scanned image or XML format). These systems are not currently used to comply with the manifest requirements for hazardous waste under RCRA. However, they may be adaptable to that purpose after the launch of the e-Manifest system.

In the case of discrepancies between the physical waste cargo and the information on the manifest form, shipments of waste may be sent back to the original generator facility.

For a detailed description of the set of activities that constitute the full paper manifest process, see Appendix D.
This chapter characterizes baseline practices associated with the manifest process within the hazardous waste management industry. This chapter addresses the following broad categories of baseline practices and separately characterizes the costs for each:

 Paper manifest costs accruing to industry: federal manifests. This category pertains to the cost to industry to comply with the federally-required paper manifest process, including all aspects of manifest completion, transmittal, discrepancy resolution, and similar activities. For the unit costs associated with these activities, this RIA uses the latest (2015) Information Collection Request (ICR) for the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System (the "HWMS ICR"). This RIA assumes that these costs accrue to the set of 1,531,045 federal manifests described in Chapter 3.

 Paper manifest costs accruing to industry: state-specific manifests. This category pertains to the cost to industry to comply with non-federal (state-specific) paper manifest requirements. Given the degree of variability in state requirements, as a simplifying assumption, this RIA assumes that the unit costs associated with the paper manifest process for federal manifests similarly apply to state-specific manifests. This RIA therefore scales the total costs associated with the 1,531,045 federal manifests to reflect the 1,776,092 state-specific and federally-exempt manifests (see Chapter 3).  

 EPA burden to process paper manifests (Agency burden). This category addresses costs that EPA incurs to conduct activities associated with federal paper manifests. Although EPA does not collect or directly process paper manifests in the baseline, the Agency does engage in activities such as reviewing exception reports and receiving discharge notifications from hazardous waste transporters. For the unit costs associated with these activities, this RIA again uses the HWMS ICR. This Agency burden only reflects the activities associated with federal manifests. Under the final rule, EPA will implement and maintain an e-Manifest system that will substantially alter the Agency burden associated with hazardous waste manifest processes.

 Burden accruing to states to process paper manifests (state burden). This category pertains to the costs that states incur to receive, process, and conduct other activities associated with both federal and state-specific manifests. To estimate state burden costs, this RIA collected information on the nature and extent of state activities in collecting and processing manifests. Based on this information, this RIA models the costs of manifest collection and processing for the set of 23 states for which information is available about manifest processing-related activities. While these activities are not directly required by the RCRA statute, it is possible that the final rule's creation of an e-Manifest system will change (and reduce) state burden by transferring these activities to EPA's centralized system.

 Burden accruing to industry to comply with Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report, or BR) reporting. This category pertains to the requirements for private facilities to submit reports to EPA or the states at least every two years that document the quantities and nature of hazardous waste generated during a given year and the disposition of these hazardous wastes. For the unit costs and counts associated with these activities, this RIA uses the latest Information Collection Request (ICR) for the RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (the "BR (Biennial Report) ICR"). Because this RIA assumes that the e-Manifest system will reduce industry burden associated with Hazardous Waste Report reporting, the baseline burden associated with these activities is included as a baseline cost.

 Burden accruing to states to comply with Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report) reporting. States also engage in a number of activities to collect information associated with industry Hazardous Waste Report reporting, such as assisting respondents, entering report submissions, and performing quality assurance. The BR ICR is similarly used to track unit costs and counts associated with these activities carried out by the states. Because this RIA assumes that the e-Manifest system will reduce the state burden associated with Hazardous Waste Report reporting, the baseline burden associated with these activities is considered in this chapter as a baseline cost.

4.1 Key Assumptions for Baseline Cost Estimation

This RIA makes three overarching assumptions governing the baseline costs estimated in this chapter. This section documents these assumptions.

4.1.1 Exclusion of Baseline Costs Not Impacted by the Final Rule

Hazardous waste management and transport consists of a number of activities, only some of which directly relate to the manifest process. This chapter addresses only costs associated with manifest preparation, not other costs associated with packing and shipping waste.

Furthermore, not all activities described in the RCRA HWMS ICR will be directly impacted by the final rule. Specifically, the HWMS ICR includes two substantial components that are separate from the items included in this chapter:

 Reading the regulations. While hazardous waste shippers, transporters, and receivers may need to read new regulations associated with changes to the manifest process, this RIA assumes that they have already read the current regulations and are not doing so regularly. Correspondingly, this activity is not included in the assessment of baseline costs in this chapter. 

 Costs accruing to registrant organizations (manifest printers). A distinct group of actors associated with the manifest process are the registrant organizations that apply to, and are authorized by, EPA to print hazardous waste manifests. Because paper manifests will still be available even in the post-rule scenario where the e-Manifest system has been enacted, this RIA does not assume that the final rule will have any impact on registrant organizations. Correspondingly, baseline costs associated with registrant organization activities are not included in the assessment of baseline costs in this chapter. Note that given the low magnitude of costs associated with registrant organization activities per the HWMS ICR (under $3,000 per year), this assumption does not substantially impact the calculus for baseline or post-rule costs associated with the final rule.

Additionally, the BR ICR estimates costs to EPA to compile the Hazardous Waste Report. While these costs are minor, this RIA does not expect these costs to be substantially altered by the propose rule's creation of an e-Manifest system; correspondingly, these costs are not included as baseline Agency burden costs in this chapter.

Finally, there are a handful of activities included, but not burdened, in the HWMS ICR. These activities pertain to compliance with state, rather than federal, manifest program requirements. As the HWMS ICR ascribes no burden to these activities, this chapter similarly does not include them.

4.1.2 State-Specific Manifest Activity Costs Accruing to Industry

As mentioned above, this RIA assumes that industry's unit costs for the paper manifest process from the HWMS ICR are equally applicable to federal manifests (those directly addressed in the HWMS ICR) and state-specific manifests. In reality, state-specific manifests may have fewer requirements than federal manifests, or additional requirements not captured within the HWMS ICR. Also, many industry burden costs in the HWMS ICR rely on calculations or assumptions regarding the proportion of the manifest or shipment universe that meet certain criteria (e.g., the proportion of hazardous waste shipments made by water or rail, or the proportion of manifests where the receiving TSDF assists the generator with manifest completion) that may not be equivalent across federal manifests and state-specific manifests.

However, given the absence of available unit cost information on industry compliance with state-specific manifest regulations, this RIA assumes that both the unit costs and proportions from the HWMS ICR are applicable to both federal and state-specific manifests. The impact of this uncertainty is unclear. To the extent that state-specific manifests have fewer requirements for completion than federal manifests, this assumption may overstate baseline costs; it may understate baseline costs where state-specific manifests have more and/or costlier compliance requirements than federal manifests.

4.1.3 Complete Use of Paper Manifests in the Baseline

A central assumption of this RIA is that, in the baseline, all manifests are completed in accordance with the complete set of activities listed in the HWMS ICR. That is, this baseline analysis assumes that each shipment is accompanied by a fully-completed paper manifest. This is consistent with current regulations pertaining to hazardous waste transport and management.

While some larger generators and receivers may use electronic or proprietary systems to internally manage manifest-related workflow or data, they are still required to use and complete paper manifests. This RIA does not consider the capital and operating costs of electronic systems to be a required baseline cost, nor does it consider any baseline differences in unit costs associated with manifest completion in these systems. EPA does not know whether or how many businesses will continue to or cease to operate such electronic systems after the implementation of the final rule. It seems possible that some businesses will be able to rely on the e-Manifest system to replace internal electronic systems. Due to the voluntary nature of these systems, and that EPA has no data on how many will continue to or cease to use these systems, this RIA does not estimate a change in costs associated with use of these systems due to the final rule. 
Correspondingly, this chapter captures the baseline costs in the scenario that all manifests are fully completed in paper form, consistent with the assumptions made in the latest Hazardous Waste Manifest System ICR.

4.2 Baseline Costs Accruing to Industry  -  Federal Manifests

The 2015 HWMS ICR provides a comprehensive set of unit costs and frequencies associated with the activities required to complete a federal paper manifest. These activities include both basic tasks (e.g., signing and dating the manifest) as well as responses to issues or discrepancies (e.g., preparing exception reports, contacting generators for further instructions in instances of undeliverable shipments, etc.). 

Five distinct entity types develop and use federal manifests: three generator types (LQGs, non-LQG TSDF shippers, and SQGs), transporters, and TSDF receivers. The burden (cost) differs across entity types. For example, TSDF receivers bear the greatest costs associated with manifest completion activities, while transporters incur the highest costs associated with undeliverable shipments.

Exhibit 4-1 summarizes baseline costs accruing to industry for federal manifests by entity type as well as a broad activity category. While the HWMS ICR included a variety of specific activities associated with each aspect of the manifest process, these are condensed for illustrative purposes. For a detailed walkthrough of costs by individual activity included in the HWMS ICR as calculated for this RIA, see Appendix D. All unit costs and other proportional assumptions (e.g., the proportion of shipments involving rejected wastes, etc.) used to generate the figures in Exhibit 4-1 are taken from the HWMS ICR, though the costs are presented on the basis of 1,531,045 federal manifests, as indicated in Chapter 3.

                                  Exhibit 4-1
Baseline Costs Accruing to Industry for Activities Associated with Federal Manifests
                     (2017$, millions of $, annual costs)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       
                               Activity Category
                                  Entity Type
                                     Total
                                       
                                       
                           Generators who Ship Waste
                                 Transporters
                                TSDF Receivers
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                     LQGs
                                 Non-LQG TSDFs
                                     SQGs
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       1
Manifest completion, transmittal, and recordkeeping
                                                                         $19.31
                                                                          $0.34
                                                                          $4.38
                                                                         $17.85
                                                                         $44.30
                                                                         $86.16
                                       2
Discrepancy / exception reports
                                                                          $1.44
                                                                     < $0.01
                                                                        $0.0687
                                      N/A
                                                                          $2.13
                                                                          $3.65
                                       3
Undeliverable shipments
                                                                     < $0.01
                                                                     < $0.01
                                                                     < $0.01
                                                                     < $0.01
                                      N/A
                                                                        $0.0135
                                       4
Rejected shipments
                                                                     < $0.01
                                                                     < $0.01
                                                                     < $0.01
                                                                        $0.0193
                                                                          $1.43
                                                                          $1.45
                                       5
Notifications of discharge[a]
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                                                        $0.0517
                                      N/A
                                                                        $0.0517
                                       6
                                                                          Total
                                                                          $20.8
                                                                          $0.34
                                                                          $4.45
                                                                          $17.9
                                                                          $47.9
                                                                          $91.3
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Sources: Unit costs and proportions: Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request (ICR) Number 801.20 Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System. April 30, 2015. Manifest counts: see Chapter 3, manifest counts at maximum shipping frequencies assumed to be weekly for LQGs and non-LQG TSDF shippers and monthly for all other entity types, including generators of State-specific hazardous wastes. Specifically, per Chapter 3, this RIA uses estimates of 1,107,080 LQG and non-LQG TSDF shipper-originated manifests, and 423,965 SQG-originated manifests; these entities are the only ones originating federal manifests. See Exhibits 3-2 and 3-3, respectively.
a This activity category applies only to transporters because discharges at shipping or receiving facilities would not be directly manifest-related and paperwork burdens associated with those discharges would fall under requirements associated with other aspects of RCRA.

Per Exhibit 4-1, total baseline industry burden costs associated with federal manifests are approximately $91 million (2017$) annually. The majority of these costs, approximately 94 percent, accrue to activities associated with manifest completion, transmittal, and recordkeeping. This result is intuitive because all manifests have associated completion, transmittal, and recordkeeping requirements; the remaining six percent of industry burden costs accrue to those activities which only occur intermittently. For example, per the HWMS ICR, fewer than two percent of LQG shipper-originated manifests require the LQG shipper to develop an exception report, and less than one percent of manifests received by receiver TSDFs require a full-fledged discrepancy report filing. 

The majority of the costs (approximately 52 percent) in Exhibit 4-1 accrue to TSDF receivers. A substantial proportion of these costs (approximately 36 percent of overall TSDF receiver costs) are driven by instances where a "designated" TSDF assists a generator with manifest completion. This scenario, which occurs for 42 percent of LQG-originated manifests and 80 percent of SQG-originated manifests per the HWMS ICR, apportions a high degree of burden onto designated TSDF receivers; if these designated TSDFs did not assist LQGs and SQGs with manifest completion, the majority of costs would accrue to LQG, non-LQG TSDF, and SQG shippers that originate waste shipments instead. Note that the $91 million total estimated for the final rule baseline is similar to the approximately $86 million total included on Exhibit 18 of the HWMS ICR. The slight differential occurs for the following reasons: 

 The HWMS ICR calculates total industry burden on the basis of 1,407,016 federal manifests. This figure is approximately nine percent lower than the RIA's basis of 1,531,045 federal manifests. This increases the RIA's costs in the baseline scenario accruing to federal manifests relative to costs in the HWMS ICR. (Another difference is that the HWMS ICR does not include costs associated with state-specific manifests, which are addressed in Section 4.3.)

 This RIA does not include costs to registrant organizations (manifest printers) or costs associated with reading the regulations, as described in Section 4.1 above. This decreases the RIA's costs relative to costs in the HWMS ICR; the HWMS ICR includes over $4 million in costs associated with these items.

4.2.1 Baseline Capital Costs  -  Federal Manifests

In addition to the costs in Exhibit 4-1, which are based on unit costs for labor hours and operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses, the HWMS ICR also includes an estimate of capital costs associated with the manifest process. These baseline capital costs specifically address the acquisition of file cabinets to store manifests and other reports required by the regulations. 

This RIA applies a similar methodology to estimate baseline capital costs, but revises one assumption in the HWMS ICR. Specifically, the HWMS ICR assumes (p. 34) that the purchase price of a file cabinet should be annualized over the "three-year effective life of this ICR." However, the effective life of a file cabinet is likely longer than three years; this RIA therefore amortizes the purchase price of a file cabinet over seven years, consistent with the Internal Revenue Service's guidelines for  useful life of "office furniture, fixtures, and equipment" assets. 

This RIA estimates that approximately 5.9 million manifests and reports will need to be filed and retained by industry each year; this figure is calculated by considering the sum of manifest-related paperwork and records that must be retained by industry as required by the regulations. Applying the proportion of federal manifests to total manifests estimated in Chapter 3 yields approximately 2.8 million federal manifests and federal manifest-related reports that must be stored in accordance with manifest requirements. However, because each report must be kept for three years, the total storage requirement is three times the annual figure (or 8.3 million manifests). The HWMS ICR assumes that approximately 517 standard-size, five-drawer, lateral file cabinets (holding 16,000 documents each) will meet the capacity required, at a cost approximately $863 each. The corresponding total cost for 517 such cabinets is approximately $446,000. However, amortized over seven years under a seven percent discount rate, the annual cost of this storage requirement for federal manifests is approximately $83,000. This estimate is conservative in that it does not account for the value of office space occupied by the file cabinets.

4.2.2 Additional Costs Associated with Reclamation Agreements

As discussed in Chapter 2, some SQG shippers of hazardous waste are exempt from most manifest requirements if their waste is shipped under a reclamation agreement. While formal manifests are not required for these shipments, these SQG shippers must retain copies of the reclamation agreements, while the transporters that take on these shipments must still record the information, carry a record of the shipment, and retain the record. 

Per Chapter 2, this RIA estimates that ten percent of all SQGs, or approximately 5,300 SQGs, ship hazardous waste under a reclamation agreement. Assuming that each such SQG sends one shipment monthly, this entails approximately 63,000 such shipments annually. However, as shown in Exhibit 2-10, approximately 450 of these SQGs are located in states where SQGs shipping hazardous waste under reclamation agreements are not exempt from manifest requirements.  This RIA therefore estimates that approximately 4,800 SQGs and 58,000 annual shipments are under reclamation agreements to which a limited set of manifest costs (as opposed to the complete set of manifest costs for other federal manifests) apply. The remaining 5,400 manifests are state-specific manifested shipments (see Section 4.3).

Exhibit 4-2 summarizes these additional baseline costs associated with shipments made under reclamation agreements, which total approximately $3 million annually. Note that the majority of these costs accrue to transporters, who must, according to the HWMS ICR, record the waste information in addition to transporting and retaining the record. SQGs must retain a copy of the reclamation agreement (a relatively low-burden activity).

                                  Exhibit 4-2
Baseline Costs Accruing to Industry for Activities Associated with Reclamation Agreements
                     (2017$, millions of $, annual costs)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       
                               Activity Category
                                  Entity Type
                                     Total
                                       
                                       
                       Generators who Ship Waste (SQGs)
                                 Transporters
                                   Receivers
                                       
                                       1
Reclamation agreement-specific recordkeeping activities
                                                                         $0.135
                                                                          $3.31
                                      N/A
                                                                          $3.45
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Sources: Unit costs and proportions: Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request (ICR) Number 801.20 Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System. April 30, 2015. Values adjusted to 2017$ using the CPI-U. Manifest counts: see Chapter 3, manifest counts at maximum shipping frequencies assumed to be monthly.

4.3 Baseline Costs Accruing to Industry  -  State Manifests

As described at the beginning of this chapter, this RIA assumes that industry activities described in the HWMS ICR are applicable to both federal manifests and state-specific manifests. This RIA therefore calculates baseline costs accruing to industry for state manifest requirements by scaling the costs estimated in Exhibit 4-1. Specifically, as seen in Chapter 3 (specifically Exhibit 3-3), this RIA estimates that 1,531,045 federal manifests and 1,776,092 manifests for state wastes (i.e., state-specific manifests) are generated annually.[,] This means that for every federal manifest, approximately 1.16 state-specific manifests incur similar unit costs.

Exhibit 4-3 provides the calculations associated with applying federal manifest unit costs and assumptions in the HWMS ICR to the 1,776,092 state manifests. Note that because the definitions of LQGs, SQGs, and TSDF shippers specifically apply to generators of federal hazardous waste, Exhibit 4-3 aggregates all shippers together for illustrative purposes, rather than speculating regarding the extent to which state-specific manifests originate from different classes of facilities.

                                  Exhibit 4-3
Baseline Costs Accruing to Industry for Activities Associated with State-Specific Manifests
                     (2017$, millions of $, annual costs)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       
                               Activity Category
                                  Entity Type
                                     Total
                                       
                                       
                           Generators who Ship Waste
                                 Transporters
                                   Receivers
                                       
                                       1
Manifest completion, transmittal, and recordkeeping
                                                                          $27.9
                                                                          $20.7
                                                                          $51.4
                                                                           $100
                                       2
Discrepancy / exception reports
                                                                          $1.76
                                      N/A
                                                                          $2.47
                                                                          $4.23
                                       3
Undeliverable shipments
                                                                     < $0.01
                                                                     < $0.01
                                      N/A
                                                                        $0.0156
                                       4
Rejected shipments
                                                                     < $0.01
                                                                        $0.0224
                                                                          $1.65
                                                                          $1.68
                                       5
Notifications of discharge[a]
                                      N/A
                                                                        $0.0600
                                      N/A
                                                                        $0.0600
                                       6
                                                                          Total
                                                                          $29.6
                                                                          $20.8
                                                                          $55.5
                                                                           $106
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Sources: Unit costs and proportions: Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request (ICR) Number 801.20 Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System. April 30, 2015. Values adjusted to 2017$ using the CPI-U. Manifest counts: see Chapter 3 manifest counts at maximum shipping frequencies assumed to be weekly for LQGs and non-LQG TSDF shippers and monthly for all other entity types, including generators of state-specific hazardous wastes. Figures above reflect figures from Exhibit 4-1 multiplied by 1.16, which is the ratio of state manifests to federal manifests (1,776,092 / 1,531,045).
a This activity category applies only to transporters because discharges at shipping or receiving facilities would not be directly manifest-related and paperwork burdens associated with those discharges would fall under separate RCRA requirements.

The relative magnitudes of the individual values within Exhibit 4-3 are consistent with those in Exhibit 4-1, reflecting the extrapolation. Overall, baseline industry costs associated with state-specific manifests are estimated at approximately $106 million annually. Thus, baseline labor and O&M-related costs adding together federal and state-specific manifests accruing to industry total approximately $197 million annually. The inclusion of state-specific manifests leads to baseline costs substantially higher than the approximately $86 million estimated in the HWMS ICR, which included only federal manifests.

4.3.1 Baseline Capital Costs  -  State Manifests

Similarly to baseline capital costs for federal manifests, this RIA also calculates comparable costs for state manifests by scaling the capital costs for federal manifests by the same factor of approximately 1.16. 

This RIA estimates that approximately 5.9 million total manifests and reports will need to be kept by industry, annually (see Section 4.2.1). Applying the proportion of state-specific manifests to total manifests estimated in Chapter 3 yields approximately 3.2 million state-specific manifests and associated reports that must be stored as part of the manifest system requirements. However, because each report must be kept for three years, annual storage requirements are three times this figure. The number of individual documents stored annually is therefore approximately 9.6 million. Per the HWMS ICR's assumptions that a standard-size, five-drawer, lateral file cabinet holds 16,000 documents, approximately 585 such cabinets will be required to meet the capacity required at a price of $863 apiece. Using the same assumptions as for federal manifests (Section 4.2.1) the amortized annual cost of this storage requirement for state-specific manifests is approximately $94,000.

4.4 Baseline Costs Accruing to EPA

The RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System ICR accrues relatively few costs to EPA. This is because the current regulations require states, rather than EPA, to collect hazardous waste manifests. (Baseline state burden is considered in Section 4.5 below). The HWMS ICR details only the following EPA activities associated with the manifest process: 

 Review of exception reports from generators;
 Receipt of notifications of discharge from transporters; and
 Receipt of import manifests, discrepancy reports, and unmanifested waste reports from receiver TSDFs.

In addition, each of the above activities pertains only to exceptions that do not regularly occur in the manifest system. The HWMS ICR estimates that exception reports occur to fewer than two percent of manifests originating at LQG shippers. Correspondingly, this RIA estimates total baseline Agency burden of approximately $1.04 million annually (Exhibit 4-4). Approximately two-thirds of this burden reflects review of exception reports.

                                  Exhibit 4-4
        Baseline Costs Accruing to EPA for Manifest-Related Activities 
                     (2017$, millions of $, annual costs)
                                     Item
                                   Activity
                             Estimated Cost to EPA
                                       1
Review of exception reports from generators
                                                                         $0.711
                                       2
Receive notifications of discharge from transporters
                                                                        $0.0456
                                       3
Receive import manifests from receiver TSDFs
                                                                        $0.0874
                                       4
Review discrepancy reports from receiver TSDFs
                                                                         $0.189
                                       5
Review unmanifested waste reports from receiver TSDFs
                                                                     < $0.01
                                       6
                                                                          Total
                                                                          $1.04
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Sources: Unit costs and proportions: Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request (ICR) Number 801.20 Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System. April 30, 2015. Values adjusted to 2017$ using the CPI-U. Manifest counts: see Chapter 3, manifest counts at maximum shipping frequencies assumed to be weekly for LQGs and TSDF shippers and monthly for all other entity types, including generators of state-specific hazardous wastes.

4.5 Baseline Costs Accruing to States

In the baseline, states that operate hazardous waste programs under RCRA incur a range of costs associated if they engage in activities related to collecting and processing manifests. These baseline activities are separate from the state-specific manifest requirements for generators, transporters, and receiver TSDFs (Section 2.2). This section focuses on the cost (burden) to states of processing and reviewing hazardous waste manifests if they do so in the baseline.
The e-Manifest system anticipated in the final rule will substantially impact the baseline state burden of collecting and processing manifests. Chapter 5 describes in more detail the e-Manifest system that will eliminate the need for state manifest collection and processing activities.  

A full description of the method through which this RIA estimates the baseline costs associated with state manifest collection and processing activities is available in Appendix E. The remainder of this section provides a summary of the key assumptions and calculations.

To calculate baseline costs accruing to states, this RIA: 

 Estimates the total number of manifests processed by states in the baseline;
 Estimates the burden, per hour, required by state staff to process and analyze manifests, and extrapolates that to all manifests processed by states; and
 Monetizes the burden by applying labor rates from the Biennial Report ICR (see Section 4.7), for consistency with other calculations in this chapter.

4.5.1 Number of Manifests Processed by States in the Baseline

Per Chapter 3, this RIA estimates that a total of approximately 3.3 million manifests are created, filled out, and submitted annually. Of those, this RIA estimates that approximately 1.8 million are state-specific manifests, while approximately 1.5 million are federal manifests. 

In 2014, EPA conducted several analyses to identify current (baseline) state manifest processing practices and activities. Data were gathered and analyzed through review of state programs and meetings and conference calls with state representatives. A total of 23 states provided information to EPA documenting their manifest processing activities. These analyses also revealed that states have varying approaches to receiving, reviewing, analyzing, and correcting manifests. Some states identified specific practices for manifest receipt, data entry, and follow-up for identified errors, while other states provided more general information. 

EPA's data collection effort did not identify the number of manifests processed by each of the responding state programs. Correspondingly, this RIA estimates this number as follows:

 The 2011 Biennial RCRA Report provides state-by-state estimates for the amount of hazardous waste received in each state; from this the RIA calculates the share of hazardous waste received nationally accruing to the 23 states identified as engaging in manifest processing. This calculation makes two assumptions: 1) states with manifest processing programs process both federal and state-specific manifests; and, 2) the number of manifests processed by a state is directly proportional to the hazardous waste tonnage received by that state. The 23 states examined represent approximately 44 percent of national hazardous waste tonnage received.

 This RIA conducts a similar calculation for state manifests but considers a universe of 31 states (the 23 states already identified, and eight additional states identified as requiring manifests for state hazardous wastes in Exhibit 2-12). This RIA assumes that these 31 states are the only ones with any state-specific manifests and are the only ones who engage in any processing of manifests. 

Separately, EPA received manifest processing count estimates from two states, Michigan and New York. These estimates are 290,000 manifests processed annually by Michigan, and 70,000 manifests processed annually by New York. This RIA uses these estimates in lieu of extrapolated manifest processing estimates for these two states. By removing these two states from the proportions of hazardous waste received by the subset of 23 states, this RIA uses a proportion of approximately 39 percent of federal manifests and 52 percent state-specific manifests processed by the 21 states for which this RIA had no specific estimates of manifest count. As a validation of this RIA's method, the non-extrapolated manifest counts for New York and Michigan are slightly higher than their extrapolated estimates would be. Specifically, Michigan's self-reported manifest count is approximately five percent higher than an extrapolated total of manifests for the state based on hazardous waste tonnage received; New York's self-reported manifest count is approximately 27 percent higher. If a similar relationship holds for the remaining 21 states, this RIA's estimation of baseline state costs may underestimate the total number of manifests processed by states in the baseline (and therefore the potential cost savings associated with changing to e-Manifest).

In total, this RIA estimates that the 23 manifest-processing states process approximately 1.7 million manifests annually, or 52 percent of the annual manifests estimated in Chapter 3 (Exhibit 4-5).

                                  Exhibit 4-5
     Estimate of Manifests Processed by Annually by States in the Baseline
                                     Item
                                Geographic Unit
                              Federal Manifests 
                           State-Specific Manifests
                                Total Manifests
                                       1
National
                                                                      1,531,045
                                                                      1,776,092
                                                                      3,307,137
                                       2
National Share
                                      46%
                                      54%
                                     100%
                                       3
New York[a]
                                                                         32,407
                                                                         37,593
                                                                         70,000
                                       4
Michigan[a]
                                                                        132,590
                                                                        153,812
                                                                        286,402
                                       5
Remaining National [1  -  3  -  4] 
                                                                      1,366,048
                                                                      1,584,687
                                                                      2,950,735
                                       6
Share of manifests in other 21 states
                                      39%
                                      52%
                                      N/A
                                       7
Other 21 states processing manifests [2 x 6][b]
                                                                        529,030
                                                                        825,211
                                                                      1,354,241
                                       8
                                          Total Manifests Processed [3 + 4 + 7]
                                                                        694,027
                                                                      1,016,616
                                                                      1,710,643
[a] State Government Annual Costs for Collecting & Processing Completed Hazardous Waste Paper Manifests: Summary of Cost Data from Two Case Studies Supplied to Office of Solid Waste in 2007. Summarized by Mark Eads, economist, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, May 5, 2009.
[b] "State Manifest Program Summary BAH 3-28-14," prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton for U.S. EPA, March 28, 2014, and  notes from an April 23, 2014 meeting with state program representatives, prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton for U.S. EPA. The former data source identified 23 states with manifest programs and an additional 15 states without a manifest program; data were not collected on the remaining 12 states, which are assumed to lack a state-specific manifest program.

Approximately one million of the 1.7 million manifests are for state-specific wastes; this represents approximately 57 percent of all state-specific manifests estimated in Chapter 3. This RIA assumes that the remaining manifests (23 percent of all manifests; 43 percent of state-specific manifests) are not processed or reviewed in any way, and does not burden any costs to states associated with these collection or receipt activities.

4.5.2 Per-Manifest Burden for States in the Baseline

In 2014, EPA developed a paper processing cost model to estimate the potential costs to EPA associated with processing paper manifests; this section applies the methodology of that model to estimate state manifest processing costs in the baseline. The details of this model are discussed in Appendix E. This model identifies ten distinct activities in the manifest receipt and processing process (e.g., preparation: sorting mail and separating supplemental documents, corrections, scanning of manifest documents, electronic archiving, etc.) and five "failure scenarios" necessitating additional follow-up (e.g., invalid identifying information for generator, transporter, or TSDF receiver, unresolved corrections, etc.), and assigns hourly cost estimates to each activity and failure scenario. Not every activity and failure scenario applies to every manifest: for example, the model assumes that only six percent of manifests have supplemental documentation requiring additional effort (see Appendix E for additional information).

Because state information on processing activities and costs was incomplete, this RIA applies a basic set of processing assumptions for the approximately 1.7 million manifests estimated to be processed by states in the baseline. While some states may engage in more or fewer activities than estimated by EPA's model, given an absence of complete state-specific information, this RIA applies the model's standard estimates across all affected manifests. In other words, this RIA assumes that state manifest processing activities in the baseline are roughly comparable to EPA manifest processing activities estimated within its paper processing cost model.

EPA's paper processing cost model assigns all standard manifest processing steps to a basic level of program staff; this RIA assumes that clerical labor will complete these tasks. Similarly, the model assumes that activities associated with failure scenarios require more expensive analyst staff to investigate and resolve issues; this RIA assumes that technical labor will complete these tasks. Based on the paper processing cost model's assumptions, this RIA assumes that approximately 0.26 hours (approximately 16 minutes) are currently required to process each manifest, with an additional burden of 0.096 hours (approximately six minutes) to investigate and resolve failure scenarios. Note that both of these estimates are meant to reflect the average amount of time needed to complete a given task: in reality, especially for failure scenarios, most manifests will require no analyst time to investigate and resolve issues, while a minority of manifests may require considerably more than six minutes of analyst time to be fully processed with all issues resolved.

As described in more detail in Appendix E, the paper processing cost model indicates that the majority of time associated with manifest processing activities accrues to data entry. Of non-failure scenario-related activities, the model estimates that over half of total manifest processing burden accrues to data entry tasks, as opposed to other activities such as billing, validating, correcting, or archiving manifests. Similarly, the model estimates that over half of the total processing burden for analysts accrues to the scenario where billing information (for state-specific manifest and/or hazardous waste fees) is not included along with manifest transmission.

4.5.3 Total Burden for State Manifest Processing

For consistency with additional calculations in this chapter (see Section 4.7), this RIA applies labor rates from the 2017 Hazardous Waste Permitting ICR for state employees to monetize the total baseline costs associated with state manifest processing activities: clerical staff ($22.94per hour) for basic activities and technical staff ($35.96 per hour) for response to problems. On a per-manifest basis, manifest processing activities accrue approximately $6.00 in costs, and failure scenario-related activities accrue approximately $3.46 in costs, or a total of $9.46 in state costs for processing a given manifest, on average.

This yields a total baseline cost to states for manifest processing of approximately $16 million ($9.46 x approximately 1.7 million manifests from Exhibit 4-5).

4.6 Baseline Costs to Industry  -  Hazardous Waste Reporting

RCRA requires that hazardous waste generators and TSDFs submit reports to EPA or the states at least every two years documenting the quantities and nature of hazardous waste generated during a given year, as well as the disposition of these hazardous wastes. The information from these reports is published by EPA online, and for years 2011 and earlier, in the National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report. EPA anticipates that the e-Manifest system will reduce the industry burden associated with Biennial Report reporting; the baseline burden associated with these activities is therefore considered in this chapter.

The 2015 BR ICR re-estimated the total burden to industry associated with collecting and submitting Biennial Report information. This ICR estimates both the number of facilities expected to engage in each hazardous waste reporting activity, as well as the unit costs associated with each activity. This RIA uses the BR ICR estimates of burden hours and entity counts but uses industry labor rates from the HWMS ICR for consistency with other baseline costs (Section 4.2). These labor rates differ in slight ways: for example, the BR ICR's hourly labor rate for clerical labor is $34.39 compared with $22.40 from the HWMS ICR (both in 2014$); meanwhile, BR ICR applies $76.73 hourly for managerial labor while the HWMS ICR uses $81.73 (in 2014$). This RIA uses the HWMS ICR labor rates, adjusted for inflation using the CPI-U.

In total, baseline industry costs for contributing to the Biennial Report are approximately $11 million annually (Exhibit 4-6). The largest individual activity is the preparation of Form WR (waste received from off-site); other activities, such as report submission and recordkeeping, are less burdensome.
                                  Exhibit 4-6
 Baseline Costs Accruing to Industry for Hazardous Waste Reporting Activities
                     (2017$, millions of $, annual costs)
                                     Item
                                   Activity
                          Estimated Cost to Industry
                                       1
Read Hazardous Waste Report instructions
                                                                          $1.67
                                       2
Revise data systems to include new data items not part of facility's general business operations
                                                                         $0.141
                                       3
Prepare Site ID Form
                                                                         $0.134
                                       4
Prepare Form GM
                                                                          $2.35
                                       5
Prepare Form WR
                                                                          $4.87
                                       6
Prepare Form OI[a]
                                      N/A
                                       7
Submit report to the state or EPA Regional Office
                                                                         $0.971
                                       8
Maintain a copy of each form for three years
                                                                         $0.686
                                       9
                                                                          Total
                                                                          $10.8
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Sources: Unit costs and activity counts: Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request (ICR) Number 0976.17 2015 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification. January 22, 2015. Labor rates: Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request (ICR) Number 801.20 Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System. April 30, 2015, adjusted for inflation to 2017$ using the CPI-U.
a Per the BR ICR, Form OI is a state-optional form that is not expected to be submitted by any entities. 

Because of the different labor rates used and inflation adjustments, this $11 million annual industry burden estimate for Biennial Report preparation is lower than the BR ICR estimate of roughly $12 million.

4.7 Baseline Costs to States  -  Hazardous Waste Reporting

States must also engage in a number of activities to collect Biennial Report information, and the e-Manifest system anticipated under the final rule will reduce these costs. 

To estimate baseline state costs associated with Biennial Report activities, this RIA again relies on the BR ICR used to estimate unit burden and associated costs for specific activities. However, in this case this RIA also uses state government labor rates from the BR ICR (p. 48).

Total baseline costs accruing to states associated with Biennial Report activities are approximately $9 million (Exhibit 4-7). Quality assurance constitutes the largest individual activity and over 90 percent of overall baseline state burden associated with Hazardous Waste Reporting activities.

                                  Exhibit 4-7
  Baseline Costs Accruing to States for Hazardous Waste Reporting Activities
                     (2017$, millions of $, annual costs)
                                     Item
                                   Activity
                           Estimated Cost to States
                                       1
Distribute Hazardous Waste Report forms and instructions
                                                                         $0.250
                                       2
Assist respondents
                                                                         $0.236
                                       3
Key entry of report submissions
                                                                        $0.0965
                                       4
Perform quality assurance
                                                                          $8.51
                                       5
                                                                          Total
                                                                          $9.09
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Sources: Unit costs and activity counts: Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request (ICR) Number 0976.17 2015 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification. January 22, 2015. Labor rates: Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request (ICR) Number 801.20 Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System. April 30, 2015, adjusted for inflation to 2017$ using the CPI-U.

a Per the BR ICR, Form OI is a state-optional form that is not expected to be submitted by any entities. 

As discussed in Section 4.1, this RIA does not include baseline costs associated with EPA's Agency burden pertaining to Hazardous Waste Report activities. These activities are not expected to be impacted by the rule's creation of an e-Manifest system, and are thus not burdened or estimated in this chapter.

4.8 Summary of Baseline Costs

Exhibit 4-8 below summarizes the various cost components discussed in this chapter. Overall, this RIA estimates baseline costs of $238 million annually.

                                  Exhibit 4-8
                           Summary of Baseline Costs
                     (2017$, millions of $, annual costs)
                                     Item
                                 Cost Category
                                     Cost
                              Source within Ch. 4
                                       1
Industry  -  manifest activities for federal manifests, including capital costs
                                                                          $91.4
Exhibit 4-1 and Section 4.2.1
                                       2
Industry  -  reclamation agreement-specific recordkeeping activities
                                                                          $3.45
Exhibit 4-2
                                       3
Industry  -  manifest activities for state-specific manifests
                                                                        $106.04
Exhibit 4-3 and Section 4.3.1
                                       4
EPA  -  agency burden for receipt/review of federal manifests
                                                                          $1.04
Exhibit 4-4
                                       5
States  -  burden for processing manifests
                                                                          $16.2
Section 4.5.3
                                       6
Industry  -  hazardous waste reporting
                                                                          $10.8
Exhibit 4-6
                                       7
States  -  hazardous waste reporting
                                                                          $9.09
Exhibit 4-7
                                       8
                                            Total  -  Industry [1 + 2 + 3 + 6] 
                                                                           $212

                                       9
                                                       Total  -  States [5 + 7]
                                                                          $25.3

                                      10
                                                              Total  -  EPA [4]
                                                                          $1.04

                                      11
                                                                    Grand Total
                                                                           $238

Totals may not sum due to rounding.
[a] These costs represent costs to industry entities shipping under BFRAs that are not exempt from manifest requirements due to state-specific regulations. See Section 4.2.2 for additional information.

                                   Chapter 5
                Costs and Cost Savings of the e-Manifest System
               Electronic manifests under the e-Manifest system
                                       
An electronic manifest will contain the same information fields as a paper form. Hazardous waste shipments with an electronic manifest created through the e-Manifest system will still need to be accompanied by a printed paper copy to comply with DoT requirements. Under the e-Manifest system:

 Generators that ship hazardous waste off-site initiate a manifest through the e-Manifest system for a shipment, potentially in coordination with any transporters or receiver TSDFs that conduct business using the e-Manifest system. An electronic record is created with facility identification information and waste descriptions (including waste quantity, type, and container descriptions). Upon shipment, the generator attaches their electronic signature to the record. The live electronic manifest is housed within the e-Manifest system, and can be accessed online.

 The transporter that picks up the hazardous waste shipment from the generator facility will open the electronic manifest, supply identifying information, and attach their electronic signature to it. To fulfill DoT requirements, a current printed paper copy of the manifest record must accompany the shipment throughout the journey.

 All waste handlers, including subsequent transporters and the final receiver TSDF receiving the waste also fill out identifying information and electronically sign the manifest.

 The receiver TSDF ultimately receiving the waste attaches a CROMERR-compliant signature to the electronic manifest. The closed manifest, with completed shipment information, is housed within the e-Manifest system. Waste handlers, states, and EPA can access manifest data through the e-Manifest system without additional data entry.

Receiver TSDFs will send completed, signed manifests created outside of the e-Manifest system directly to EPA. EPA will process these non-electronic manifests and incorporate their manifest data into the e-Manifest system.
               Electronic manifests under the e-Manifest system
                                       
An electronic manifest will contain the same information fields as a paper form. Hazardous waste shipments with an electronic manifest created through the e-Manifest system will still need to be accompanied by a printed paper copy to comply with DoT requirements. Under the e-Manifest system:

 Generators that ship hazardous waste off-site initiate a manifest through the e-Manifest system for a shipment, potentially in coordination with any transporters or receiver TSDFs that conduct business using the e-Manifest system. An electronic record is created with facility identification information and waste descriptions (including waste quantity, type, and container descriptions). Upon shipment, the generator attaches their electronic signature to the record. The live electronic manifest is housed within the e-Manifest system, and can be accessed online.

 The transporter that picks up the hazardous waste shipment from the generator facility will open the electronic manifest, supply identifying information, and attach their electronic signature to it. To fulfill DoT requirements, a current printed paper copy of the manifest record must accompany the shipment throughout the journey.

 All waste handlers, including subsequent transporters and the final receiver TSDF receiving the waste also fill out identifying information and electronically sign the manifest.

 The receiver TSDF ultimately receiving the waste attaches a CROMERR-compliant signature to the electronic manifest. The closed manifest, with completed shipment information, is housed within the e-Manifest system. Waste handlers, states, and EPA can access manifest data through the e-Manifest system without additional data entry.

Receiver TSDFs will send completed, signed manifests created outside of the e-Manifest system directly to EPA. EPA will process these non-electronic manifests and incorporate their manifest data into the e-Manifest system.

This chapter characterizes the costs and costs savings associated with the final rule's creation of an e-Manifest system. In establishing an e-Manifest system that will serve as a clearinghouse, on a going-forward basis, for all federal and state manifests, the final rule will impose costs for creating the system, and will result in cost savings from reduced burden relative to the baseline system of paper manifest creation, processing, recordkeeping and hazardous waste reporting.

Specifically, this chapter considers the following sources of costs:

 The cost of developing and maintaining the e-Manifest system (EPA). A majority of the costs associated with the final rule correspond to EPA's development costs for the e-Manifest system. These costs include expenses for both initial system creation and ongoing maintenance, as well as additional costs for activities such as running a help desk to assist users of the system, and certain Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR)-based requirements associated with the system's use. 

 The cost of collecting and processing manifests (EPA). In addition to the development, operations, and maintenance costs associated with the e-Manifest system, EPA will also collect and process manifests within the e-Manifest system. These costs apply specifically to manifests submitted non-electronically; these manifests must undergo additional processing and data entry tasks before their information can be uploaded to the system and stored in a format akin to those manifests submitted electronically through the e-Manifest system. 

 Manifest fees (industry). To recoup e-Manifest system development and maintenance costs, the final rule will apply fees, on a per-manifest basis, to the hazardous waste industry. Effectively, these fees are equivalent to the sum of EPA's system development and maintenance costs (above) and represent a transfer of those costs to industry. Associated with these fees are additional costs to EPA for payment collection; these costs are imputed into the overall system development and maintenance costs recouped through fees to industry.

This RIA also considers costs associated with CROMERR requirements for the hazardous waste industry.

Additionally, this chapter includes the following sources of cost savings:

 Time and materials savings to industry. The e-Manifest system will allow manifests to be created and submitted through electronic means, rather than with the current paper form that must be printed (or purchased), completed, transmitted, submitted, and stored in the baseline. This RIA estimates that manifest activities done through the e-Manifest system result in substantial time and materials savings relative to these activities being performed with paper manifests.

 Cost savings accruing to states. The e-Manifest system will obviate the need for states to collect and process manifests. While states may still wish to do so to meet their own regulatory, enforcement, or data needs, manifest collection and processing activities will be conducted for all manifests by EPA through the e-Manifest system (and ancillary systems to handle non-electronic manifests received on a going-forward basis). The burden reduction associated with reduced state-level manifest collection and processing represents a cost savings to these states.

 Cost savings associated with Biennial Report burden. As described in Chapter 4, the hazardous waste industry currently undertakes a number of recordkeeping and reporting activities associated with the RCRA Biennial Report. The e-Manifest system will reduce this burden by automatically collecting some information through manifests submitted to the system; this represents a cost savings both to industry and states which currently receive and process this reported information in the baseline.

5.1 Key Assumptions for e-Manifest System Cost and Cost Savings Estimation

The cost analyses in this chapter rely on a handful of key assumptions that pertain to the universe affected by the final rule, the types of electronic manifest submission methods modeled in this chapter, and the adoption rate of the e-Manifest system and other electronic submission methods by industry after the  rule goes into effect.

5.1.1 Universe Impacts of the Final Rule

This RIA assumes that the final rule and the creation of an e-Manifest system do not impact:
 
 the number of entities currently functioning in the hazardous waste management industry, or
 the number of manifests currently used by this industry. 

Specifically, this RIA does not estimate or otherwise model any changes to the affected universe of hazardous waste generating, transporting, and receiving entities stemming from the e-Manifest system, or any changes to hazardous waste shipping patterns or quantities.

The e-Manifest system pertains to the manner in which manifests are created, transmitted, submitted, and processed. It does not address industrial processes or storage requirements, and it does not affect the number of hazardous waste shipments that must be made. The extent to which manifest fees associated with the e-Manifest system may impact small entities is assessed in Chapter 7; this analysis does not predict any market exits as a result of the final rule. This RIA therefore assumes that the number of manifests used annually remains consistent with the estimates in Chapter 3.

5.1.2 Manifest Creation and Submission Methods 

Chapter 4's estimate of baseline burden of manifest creation, completion, and transmittal activities models all manifest activities as handled in a uniform, paper-based process, consistent with the activities described in the Hazardous Waste Manifest System ICR. This scenario reflects the standardized requirements related to manifests under RCRA.

In addition to meeting these requirements, however, many TSDFs have implemented electronic systems for initiating, tracking, and reporting shipments of waste that support their manifest requirements. While these systems are separate from baseline requirements and costs, the e-Manifest system and the post-rule scenario in this RIA address the fact that manifest generators opt to continue this baseline practice (i.e., continue to use a paper system), or may create, complete, and transmit manifests directly through the e-Manifest system. In addition, EPA's final rule allows for several "alternative paper submissions" that allow entities in the hazardous waste management industry (primarily receiver TSDFs, who have the final responsibility for transmitting the manifest to the regulator) to use their current systems to submit "paper" manifests in an electronic, less burdensome way. This RIA therefore considers the relative costs and cost savings of several alternative "paper" submissions, including submission of scanned images of manifests along with the paper manifest, and submission of manifest data electronically in addition to the paper manifest.

However, the final rule requires that for all manifests not directly associated with the e-Manifest system, all activities applicable to paper manifests in the baseline continue to apply. In other words, if a manifest is not submitted through the e-Manifest system, all requirements applicable to and required for paper manifests continue to apply, even if the manifest in question is created and handled in a way that is different from a wholly paper manifest system (e.g., through a TSDF's proprietary internal electronic system). For any manifest that is not created and managed through the e-Manifest system, all hazardous waste industry entities continue to incur the burden associated with the paper manifest as detailed in the HWMS ICR, regardless of the files that constitute the final submission (i.e., a paper manifest, or a paper manifest with additional, non-required documentation). Correspondingly, the suite of manifest activities and submission options considered in this RIA, and specifically this chapter, is as follows:

 Paper manifest creation, completion, and submission  -  "paper" variant. Under this variant, all manifest activities accrue as described in the HWMS ICR. There are no time and materials burden reductions associated with this variant, as it is identical to the manifest activities modeled in the baseline. This includes the manifest processing cost associated with received manifests, which is consistent with the per-manifest processing burden described in Section 4.5. In other words, this RIA models manifests under this variant as identical to those considered in the baseline scenario, with the exception of any applicable manifest fees associated with the e-Manifest system.
       
 Manifest submission via scanned manifest image  -  "image" variant. This variant is similar to the paper variant above, but manifest submittal is accompanied by an electronically-transmitted scanned image of the manifest. Because the final rule requires that for all manifests not directly associated with the e-Manifest system, all activities applicable to paper manifests continue to apply regardless of submission method, there are no time and materials burden reductions associated with this variant that accrue to industry. This RIA correspondingly models manifests under this variant as identical to those considered in the baseline scenario, with the exception of any applicable manifest fees associated with the e-Manifest system. Specifically, some TSDFs may already manage manifests in ways that involve creating electronic images of manifests by scanning them. Submitting an electronic image does not change costs to TSDFs, but reduces EPA's processing burden, as this RIA assumes that EPA will scan all paper manifests, and this step will not be necessary if TSDFs submit scanned images. Therefore, relative to the paper variant, manifests submitted with accompanying scanned images have reduced processing burdens as they require slightly fewer processing activities by EPA. 
       
 Manifest submission via Extensible Markup Language (XML) schema  -  "XML" variant. This variant is similar to the paper and image variants above, but manifest submittal is accompanied by an electronically-transmitted XML schema which contains the relevant and appropriate manifest information. Again, the RIA models manifests under this variant as identical to those considered in the baseline scenario, with the exception of any applicable manifest fees associated with the e-Manifest system. However, relative to the paper and image variants, manifests submitted with accompanying scanned images have reduced processing burdens as they require fewer processing activities. Specifically, manifests submitted with accompanying XML schema do not require data entry activities associated with manifest processing, which constitute a substantial portion of the overall processing burden. 

 Manifests through the e-Manifest system  -  "electronic" variant. This variant consists of manifest creation, completion, and submission through the e-Manifest system. While the specifics of the system and its functionality have not yet been determined, this RIA assumes that manifest activities in this variant will be easily accessible through a simple user interface, akin to a web-enabled application. This RIA assumes that manifest activities associated with this variant result in time and materials burden reductions relative to the other variants, as certain manual tasks (e.g., filling in specific information on the manifest) will be expedited or automated via the system, and materials costs (e.g., mailing costs and postage fees) will no longer be required. Fees associated with the e-Manifest system will apply to this variant; manifest processing associated with this variant is considered in aggregate with e-Manifest system operations.

For the remainder of this chapter and this RIA, manifests created and submitted under these variants are referred to as paper, image, XML, and electronic manifests, respectively. 

5.1.3 Adoption Rate

To estimate the costs and especially cost savings associated with the final rule over time, this RIA assumes a specific adoption rate of the e-Manifest system and other manifest submission methods that changes over the first few years after the creation of the e-Manifest system. This RIA considers the effects of other potential adoption rates on costs and cost savings in Chapter 6. 

The adoption rates illustrated in this section are based on responses to a 2014 EPA survey of large TSDFs (see Section 3.2.2.1) and insights from conversations between EPA and the Environmental Technology Council (ETC), an industry trade group which represents many firms with TSDF facilities. The organizing principles of these adoption rates include:

 The assumption that industry entities will prioritize eliminating paper manifests in favor of XML, image, or electronic manifests;

 The assumption that industry adopts electronic manifests gradually over a four-year period, with slow initial adoption; and

 The assumption that a minority of paper manifests may continue to exist for the foreseeable future. 

In addition, to operationalize these assumptions, this RIA applies the following:

 A proportion of the industry currently has the capacity to provide XML schema submissions in the baseline, based on the presence of sophisticated electronic systems currently in place and used by TSDFs, including the respondents to EPA's 2014 survey. These industry entities may be handling manifests in an XML export-ready framework in the baseline; this RIA assumes that this proportion of the industry will either continue to handle manifests in this manner and submit XML-variant manifests, or adopt electronic manifests starting in the second year after the creation of the e-Manifest system. Since these entities have invested in technology capable of delivering XML submissions, we assume that it will be most cost effective for these entities to use XML or electronic manifests following the implementation of the final rule.

 Some entities using paper manifests in the baseline will move towards the use of image manifests after the implementation of the final rule. However, entities with the capacity to use XML manifests in the baseline will not scan manifests prior to submission, as this would increase their costs.

Exhibit 5-1 summarizes the adoption rates used for the remainder of this chapter across the four manifest variants described in Section 5.1.2 in a tabular format. Exhibit 5-2 displays these adoption rates visually, both in terms of all four manifest variants, and in terms of electronic manifests (i.e., use of the e-Manifest system) relative to all other manifest types (i.e., paper manifests potentially accompanied by image or XML schema submission). Note that for consistency with EPA's projected development timeline for the e-Manifest system, adoption rates are shown for a six-year period; however, this RIA assumes that adoption stabilizes in the fourth year following implementation of the final rule.

For the purposes of this RIA, development of the e-Manifest system is expected to occur over the 2016-2018 period, with the system going live and accessible to users in 2018. Correspondingly, Year 1 in Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2 refers to 2018, the first year that the e-Manifest system will be fully in place and ready for use. This convention holds throughout the rest of this chapter.

Exhibit 5-1
Adoption Rates of Manifest Creation and Submission Systems  -  Tabular Summary
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       
                               Manifest Variant
                     Baseline (Year 0, pre-implementation)
                 Year (following implementation of final rule)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                       1
Paper Manifest Process
Paper submission
                                    100.00%
                                    52.75%
                                    37.50%
                                    11.25%
                                     1.25%
                                     1.25%
                                     1.25%
                                       2

Scanned image submission
                                     0.00%
                                     4.75%
                                    18.75%
                                    11.25%
                                     1.25%
                                     1.25%
                                     1.25%
                                       3

XML schema submission 
                                     0%[a]
                                    37.50%
                                    18.75%
                                    22.50%
                                     2.50%
                                     2.50%
                                     2.50%
                                       4
e-Manifest System Process (electronic manifest)
                                      N/A
                                     5.00%
                                    25.00%
                                    55.00%
                                    95.00%
                                    95.00%
                                    95.00%
[a] As indicated in Section 4.1.3, this RIA assumes complete use of paper manifests in the baseline. However, responses to EPA's 2014 survey of TSDFs and EPA's conversations with an industry trade group suggest that approximately 40 percent of hazardous waste generators and receiver TSDFs may already have and use electronic and/or proprietary systems to internally manage manifest-related workflow or data, and are capable of submitting manifests in the XML schema format. Per current RCRA requirements, these entities may not do so and must use paper manifests in the baseline, but are modeled as submitting XML variant manifests once they are allowed to do so following implementation of the final rule. Note that this RIA also assumes that the proportion of the industry with these systems in place will continue to handle manifests in this manner or adopt electronic manifests, rather than switching to handling manifests in paper or scanned image formats. 
                                       
                                  Exhibit 5-2
 Adoption Rates of Manifest Creation and Submission Systems  -  Visual Summary

The remainder of this chapter presents annual costs for Years 1 through 6 after e-Manifest system launch, as well as annualized costs estimates over this period, where relevant. This period captures all variability in costs and cost savings as introduced through the various parameters and assumptions relied upon throughout this chapter. Specifically, this period captures both the stabilization of the adoption rates shown in Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2 and covers periods both before and after all system development costs incurred by EPA have been recouped via manifest fees (see below).

5.2 e-Manifest System Costs to EPA  -  Development and Operations

This section details this RIA's estimation of the development and maintenance costs associated with the e-Manifest system. The estimates in this section rely primarily on EPA estimates of system development costs, though some components are estimated through other estimates from Chapters 2, 3, and 4.

This section considers two types of system costs. Setup costs pertain to activities undertaken and costs incurred prior to the launch of the e-Manifest system; operations costs pertain to activities undertaken while the system is functional. While this distinction is not directly salient for the discussion of EPA costs that proceeds throughout this section, this RIA distinguishes these two costs because they have differing effects on the manifest fees that will be applied to the hazardous waste industry to recoup these costs. Specifically, all setup costs will be considered on a lump-sum basis and recouped over a designated payback period after system launch, while the fees will aim to recoup all operations costs on an annual basis (i.e., the fee in a given year is structured such that it will recoup all operations costs incurred by EPA in that year).

5.2.1 System Development Costs

This cost category directly pertains to the activities involved in developing and deploying the e-Manifest electronic system. The primary activities associated with this cost category include planning, design, construction, testing, integration, and piloting of the e-Manifest system. Costs will also be incurred for the integration of Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) requirements with the e-Manifest system, the development of a processing center to handle manifests submitted without use of the e-Manifest system, and the development of a help desk to assist users with the e-Manifest system.

EPA recently estimated that over a five-year development period, costs would be $1.2 million in the first and second development years, $4.0 million in the third development year, $4.3 in the fourth development year, and $6.8 million in the fifth, and final, year of development (all costs in 2014 dollars). This RIA inflates these costs to 2017 dollars to arrive at a total 2017 dollar-denominated estimate of approximately $18.2 million in system development costs.[,] 

5.2.2 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

EPA also recently estimated the costs associated with operating and maintaining the system. This estimate accounts for both the physical materials associated with keeping the system operational (e.g., hardware, servers, office space) as well as program-related and technical/information technology-related support for the system. These costs range from approximately $487,000 to $798,000 annually for the e-Manifest system (2014 dollars). Applying the same calculations to this estimate as to the system development costs yields a 2017 dollar-denominated cost of $507,000 to $831,000 annually in e-Manifest system O&M costs, for a total cost of approximately $3.44 million across the first six years of system operation. System O&M costs decrease over time; this RIA applies the approximately $507,000 annual cost in Years 4 through 6 of system operation, as well as in perpetuity thereafter.

5.2.3 Paper Manifest Processing-related Costs

The e-Manifest system will require some capacity to receive and process manifests submitted under the paper process, including paper manifests, image manifests, and XML manifests, as described above. This RIA estimates a $1 million annual cost to manage specific considerations pertaining to these manifests. Note that this figure pertains to non-labor costs to process manifests submitted through formats other than the e-Manifest system, such as necessary capital and equipment costs, storage space, utility and lease costs for the physical location where the paper manifest processing will occur, and so on; this RIA estimates the direct costs (i.e., labor) associated with processing manifests submitted under the baseline paper process in Section 5.3. This RIA applies this cost in perpetuity, beginning with the year of system launch.

5.2.4 e-Manifest System Call Center Costs

As part of e-Manifest system functionality, EPA will staff and operate a call center to assist users. This RIA estimates that these call center costs scale to some extent with the proportion of the universe actively using the e-Manifest system. Appendix E, EPA's Technical Architecture Helpdesk Operations document, provides additional detail on the specific call center costs used in this RIA. Specifically, this RIA estimates approximately $820,000 in fixed costs associated with the call center, which recur annually regardless of system usage. Additionally, this RIA estimates that each additional percentage point of e-Manifest system usage in a given year (e.g., five percent of manifests are created and submitted via the e-Manifest system in 2018, etc.) results in approximately $17,000 in additional call center costs in that year. This RIA therefore estimates costs of between approximately $900,000 and $2.5 million for the call center in a given year, based on the proportion of the universe adopting the e-Manifest system for the first time in a given year, consistent with the adoption rates displayed in Exhibit 5-1. This RIA applies this cost in perpetuity, beginning with the year of system launch, though costs in a given year vary based on the proportion of the universe that has adopted use of the e-Manifest system in that year. After e-Manifest adoption plateaus, this RIA estimates the call center cost at approximately $2.6 million annually.

5.2.5 e-Manifest System CROMERR-Related Costs

The e-Manifest system will require industry entities to comply with Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) standards when submitting information to EPA. These standards require users to obtain and use user-specific accounts when submitting information, a process which EPA manages (these requirements, as they apply to industry, are covered in greater detail in Section 5.4.2). Entities that will use the e-Manifest system following the implementation of the final rule represent an influx of new users to the CROMERR system; the e-Manifest system will therefore result in higher EPA costs due to the additional burden of managing an additional set of CROMERR registrations and user actions.

In 2004, EPA analyzed the costs of CROMERR-related activities as part of a broader cost-benefit activities of CROMERR and its standards. These standards identified four specific EPA CROMERR-related activities that scale with the number of CROMERR-registered users (or facilities) that this RIA considers in estimating CROMERR-related costs associated with use of the e-Manifest system:

 Receipt, processing, review, approval, and filing of CROMERR subscriber agreements (i.e., user registrations)  -  this activity varies with the number of unique users registering with the CROMERR system;
       
 Identification and resolution of CROMERR-related, facility-specific problems  -  this activity varies with the number of unique facilities registered with the CROMERR system;

 Response to CROMERR-related information requests posed to EPA from registered CROMERR users  -  this activity varies with the number of unique users registered with the CROMERR system; and

 Operation of the CROMERR help desk, which assists users with difficulties they may encounter during registration or other activities  -  this activity varies with the number of unique users registered with the CROMERR system.

To assess additional CROMERR-related costs to EPA resulting from the addition of users to the CROMERR system, this RIA assigns costs to these activities as described below.

Broadly, this RIA assumes that CROMERR-related requirements will apply to receiver TSDFs and transporters, who will be legally able to sign the manifest on behalf of their generator customers so long as documentation of a contractual relationship between the TSDF and generator company exists, and will not be imposed on the complete suite of generators that generate hazardous waste for off-site shipment. Therefore, CROMERR costs accrue only to a limited set of industry entities and their employees. This RIA assumes that each receiver TSDF will seek CROMERR registrations for five employees, while each truck engaged in shipping hazardous waste is operated by two drivers, each of whom will require a CROMERR registration to complete manifest activities through the e-Manifest system. The total set of users considered in the calculations below is therefore approximately 28,000: five employees at each of 420 federal receiver TSDFs and 1,117 state waste-only TSDFs receivers plus two drivers at each of 9,947 trucks (see Chapter 2). Due to the relatively low number of receiver TSDFs, truck drivers make up the majority of the new CROMERR user registrations required. For simplicity, this RIA assumes that each facility operates its own hazardous waste shipping truck. This may be a conservative (i.e., high-cost) assumption if multiple trucks are aggregated at a single establishment or facility; in that case, the EPA costs of CROMERR activities due to the final rule may be overstated.

This RIA assesses the costs under alternative assumptions governing CROMERR, such as scenarios where CROMERR is required for generators in addition to TSDF receivers and transporters, in Chapter 6.

5.2.5.1 CROMERR User Registration Costs to EPA

The CROMERR Cost Benefit Analysis estimated approximately 10 minutes (0.17 hours) for EPA to process a single CROMERR user registration. However, user registrations will be required not only for users at facilities adopting use of the e-Manifest system in a given year, but also for a proportion of new users at facilities that had already adopted the e-Manifest system (i.e., as a result of user turnover) and for a proportion of new facilities that did not previously operate in the market (i.e., as a result of facility turnover). As a conservative (high-cost) assumption, this RIA assumes that 25 percent of facilities turn over each year. This assumption is most applicable to trucks, as they may enter or leave the hazardous waste shipment market with relatively few barriers. This RIA further assumes that 20 percent of employees at existing facilities (i.e., drivers at an existing set of trucks) turn over every year, and will also require new CROMERR registrations.

Correspondingly, the cost of CROMERR user registrations in a given year can be expressed as:

 The cost to register new users at new facilities adopting use of the e-Manifest system in that year; plus
 The cost to register users at new facilities (i.e., those that just entered the market) in a given year, assuming the same proportion of these facilities use the e-Manifest system as the remainder of the universe (i.e., existing facilities); plus
 The cost to register new users at existing facilities in that year.

For example, in the first year of the e-Manifest system, this RIA assumes five percent adoption of the system (see Exhibit 5-1). Per the fully-loaded labor rates from the HWMS ICR, 0.17 hours of technical labor equals $9.71 multiplying this figure by approximately 28,000 new CROMERR registrations required across the universe, and then by five percent, yields approximately $13,000 in first-year CROMERR user registration costs to EPA. 

Similarly, in the second year, new user registrations apply to 20 percent of facilities (25 percent adoption per Exhibit 5-1 less the five percent of facilities with users registered in the previous year). This equals approximately $53,000 (28,000 total possible registrations x 20 percent x $9.71). Additionally, 25 percent of facilities with previously-registered users turn over and must fully register new users, for a cost of approximately $3,000 (five percent of the universe of previous year facilities x 25 percent facilities turnover x $9.71 x 28,000 total possible registrations). Lastly, 20 percent of the users at the facilities with previously-registered users turn over and must be replaced with new registrations for new users, for a cost of approximately $2,000 (five percent of the universe of previous year facilities x 75 percent facilities non-turnover x 20 percent user turnover x $9.71 x 28,000 total possible registrations). The total cost of CROMERR user registrations in the second year is therefore approximately $59,000.

Per the CROMERR Cost Benefit Analysis, users who remain registered for three years must renew their CROMERR registration in the third year. These re-registration costs apply only to users at existing facilities, two years after those facilities are estimated to have adopted the e-Manifest system. Correspondingly, these registration renewal costs apply only beginning in the third year after system implementation.

This RIA applies the same process to all other years. CROMERR costs associated with user registrations range from approximately $13,000 in the first year to approximately $224,000 in the sixth year after system implementation (95 percent adoption), and remain constant at $188,000 annually thereafter.

5.2.5.2 Cost to EPA of Resolving CROMERR Facility Registration Issues

The CROMERR Cost Benefit Analysis estimated approximately one hour for EPA to directly engage facilities to investigate facility-specific registration issues, and indicated that such activities would apply only for three percent of facilities each year. Correspondingly, this RIA estimates costs for this activity in a given year as total facilities/trucks x three percent x the adoption rate in that year x $57.11 (the cost for one hour of EPA technical labor per the HWMS ICR, inflated to 2017$). Costs range from approximately $1,000 to approximately $19,000 as the adoption rate increases over time, and remain constant at approximately $20,000 annually thereafter. 

The costs associated with this activity are especially sensitive to the assumption that each truck is its own facility; however, as costs associated with this activity are low even under this conservative (high-cost) assumption, altering it is unlikely to result in substantial cost impacts.

5.2.5.3 Cost to EPA for Information Request Responses

The CROMERR Cost Benefit Analysis estimated that the CROMERR system responds to requests, inquiries, budget updates, and similar queries from both internal (EPA-originated) and external (industry-originated) sources, and indicated that such activities were expected to apply to three percent of registered users in a given year. The RIA estimates costs for this activity similarly to those for facility registration issues, with the key differences being that this item applies on a per-user basis, rather than a per-facility basis, and that the CROMERR Cost Benefit Analysis estimated 1.5 hours to respond to each request, rather than one hour to investigate and resolve facility registration issues.

This RIA estimates that costs for this activity in a given year equal total possible registered users (approximately 28,000) x three percent x the adoption rate in that year x $85.66 (the cost for 1.5 hours of EPA technical labor per the HWMS ICR). Costs range from approximately $3,500 to approximately $67,000 as the adoption rate increases over time, and remain constant at approximately $71,000 annually thereafter.

5.2.5.4 Cost to EPA for CROMERR Help Desk Calls Related to e-Manifest

The CROMERR Cost Benefit Analysis estimated approximately eight minutes (0.13 hours) for EPA to respond to a single help desk call, on average. It also assumed that such calls would specifically be related to registration, and that, on average, each registering user would make one such call to the CROMERR help desk in the course of registration. Because of facility and user turnover, this cost applies to more than just the set of users at facilities newly-adopting the e-Manifest system in a given year. The calculations for this cost item are similar to that for user registrations, but use 0.13 hours of EPA technical labor rather than 0.17 hours per instance. Correspondingly, CROMERR costs associated with the help desk range from approximately $10,000 in the first year to approximately $78,000 in the sixth year after system implementation (95 percent adoption), with higher costs in some interim years to account for large numbers of first-time user registrations in those years. The annual costs for this activity total approximately $82,000 after e-Manifest adoption plateaus.

5.2.5.5 Summary of CROMERR-Related Costs to EPA

Exhibit 5-3 summarizes the CROMERR-related costs accruing to EPA estimated by this RIA as a result of the implementation of the e-Manifest system. The cumulative e-Manifest system adoption rate drives these costs, but the fourth year of system operation results in the highest costs in this period due to a large increase in e-Manifest adoption between this year and the previous year. Overall, CROMERR-related costs range from approximately $28,000 to approximately $420,000, depending on the cumulative and incremental adoption rates of e-Manifest in a given year. This RIA applies these costs in perpetuity, beginning with the year of system launch and reaching a final constant cost of approximately $360,000 after Year 6. However, costs in a given year vary based on the proportion of the universe that has adopted use of the e-Manifest system in that year and previous years, as shown in Exhibit 5-3.

                                  Exhibit 5-3
                         CROMERR-Related Costs to EPA 
                     (2017$, thousands of $, undiscounted)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       
                         CROMERR-Related Cost Category
               Year (following e-Manifest system implementation)
                           Total (Years 1 through 6)
                                       
                                       
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                       
                                       1
e-Manifest System Adoption Rate
                                      5%
                                      25%
                                      55%
                                      95%
                                      95%
                                      95%
                                      N/A
                                       2
User Registration Costs
                                                                         $13.4 
                                                                         $58.9 
                                                                          $117 
                                                                          $206 
                                                                          $172 
                                                                          $224 
                                                                          $791 
                                       3
Facility Registration Issue Costs
                                                                        $0.984 
                                                                         $4.92 
                                                                         $10.8 
                                                                         $18.7 
                                                                         $18.7 
                                                                         $18.7 
                                                                         $72.8 
                                       4
Information Request Response Costs
                                                                         $3.54 
                                                                         $17.7 
                                                                         $39.0 
                                                                         $67.3 
                                                                         $67.3 
                                                                         $67.3 
                                                                          $262 
                                       5
Help Desk Costs
                                                                         $10.2 
                                                                         $45.0 
                                                                         $81.9 
                                                                          $127 
                                                                         $77.8 
                                                                         $77.8 
                                                                          $420 
                                                                          Total
                                                                          $28.2
                                                                           $127
                                                                          $249 
                                                                          $419 
                                                                          $336 
                                                                          $388 
                                                                        $1,550 

5.2.6 e-Manifest System Billing Costs

To recoup the e-Manifest system costs described in Section 5.2, the final rule will apply fees, on a per-manifest basis, to the hazardous waste industry. In addition to the fees themselves, EPA must also undertake a set of billing and invoicing activities to collect the fees. The costs to collect these manifest fees are part of the set of costs that is recovered through the fees. In other words, the fees applied by the final rule reflect the costs of collecting these fees from industry.

This RIA assumes that the final rule will require TSDF receivers to pay for each manifest submitted. It is likely that TSDFs will pass through all or part of the fee to generators and/or transporters as part of the waste management and disposition services they provide more efficiently than any fee-collection system that would require thousands of generators to submit payment. 

All manifests will be subject to fees under the final rule; the fee will vary according to the type of manifest submitted, reflecting the different costs associated with processing paper and electronically-submitted manifests, but billing and payment collection activities are not expected to differ across types of manifests submitted.

EPA's costs for billing TSDFs for manifest fees reflect four distinct activities:

 Generate a list of operating TSDFs that have submitted manifests with contact information for invoicing;

 Generate an invoice for each TSDF;

 Send each TSDF a unique access code (in the form of a PIN or password) that allows for each TSDF to view their bill; and

 After payment has been processed through pay.gov, send each TSDF a receipt confirming that payment has been accepted and processed.

To estimate billing costs to EPA, this RIA uses EPA labor rates from the HWMS ICR and burden hours from the Pesticide Registration Fees Program (PRFP) ICR from 2010, which details a set of activities similar to those that will be required to collect payments from TSDFs.

Correspondingly, this RIA estimates total EPA costs associated with billing and payment collection of manifest fees under the final rule as described below.

Per Chapter 2, this RIA estimates that a universe of 1,537 active receiver TSDFs (420 federal receiver TSDFs and an estimated 1,117 state waste-only TSDFs) will be invoiced. Using fully-loaded EPA labor rates from the HWMS ICR, this RIA estimates annual listing generation costs of approximately $850 (16 hours of clerical labor at $24.37 and eight hours of technical labor at $57.11), approximately $527,000 in invoicing costs (0.5 hours of technical labor x 1,537 TSDFs x 12 monthly instances of invoicing in a year), and approximately $90,000 each in costs to send access codes and receipts to TSDFs (0.2 hours of clerical labor x 1,537 TSDFs x 12 monthly instances of sending access codes or receipts). Total billing and payment collection costs are approximately $680,000 annually. This RIA applies this cost in perpetuity, beginning with the year of system launch.

5.2.7 EPA Additional Program Costs

This RIA estimates that EPA will incur an annual cost of approximately $2.8 million to manage aspects of the e-Manifest system not otherwise covered by the six cost categories discussed above. These costs occur only during the active life of the e-Manifest system. This RIA applies the program costs occurring following system launch in perpetuity, beginning with the year of system launch, treating them as operations costs.

Following system launch, these costs include compiling necessary reports for the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the EPA Inspector General (IG), and Congress, as well as designing any necessary upgrades to the e-Manifest system.

5.2.8 EPA Additional Indirect Costs

EPA will incur indirect costs on and above the direct program activities performed by e-Manifest system staff and the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR). Other EPA offices and Regions will incur costs relating to promulgation of the e-Manifest and e-Manifest fee rules, participating in the e-Manifest advisory board and assisting with the operations and maintenance of the e-Manifest system in a broad capacity.

Indirect costs can be difficult to track because they are incurred as part of the normal course of operations at many offices across EPA. Additionally, the level of e-Manifest system-related costs incurred by a particular EPA office may change over time as the program develops and its needs change. For these reasons, this RIA accounts for indirect costs using an indirect cost factor proportionate to other EPA system costs. This factor is based on EPA's Office of Financial Management (OFM) indirect cost methodology, as required by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board's Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Standards #4: Managerial Cost Accounting Standards and Concepts. OFM publishes, on an annual basis, an indirect cost rate for each of the Regional Offices and Program Offices within EPA; this RIA uses the indirect cost factor of 33.22 percent for EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM), the highest-level program office within which ORCR resides. This factor is applied to the sum of operations costs incurred in a given year. 
5.2.9 Summary of EPA Costs

Exhibits 5-4 and 5-5 summarize the costs to EPA associated with the e-Manifest system. Exhibit 5-4 pertains to the setup costs incurred prior to system launch; Exhibit 5-5 details the operations costs incurred following system launch over a six-year time horizon. 

                                  Exhibit 5-4
                Summary of e-Manifest System Setup Costs to EPA
                     (2017$, millions of $, undiscounted)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       
                           e-Manifest Cost Category
                                    Year -4
                                    Year -3
                                     Year 
                                      -2
                                     Year
                                       -1
                            Year 1 (system launch)
                               Total Setup Costs
                                       1
System development
                                     $1.27
                                     $1.27
                                                                          $4.19
                                                                          $4.43
                                                                          $7.05
                                                                          $18.2
                                       2
                                                                       Total[a]
                                                                          $18.2
System development costs based on EPA's most recent system architecture designs and related operations information.

Setup costs total approximately $18 million. 

                                  Exhibit 5-5
             Summary of e-Manifest System Operations Costs to EPA
                     (2017$, millions of $, undiscounted)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       
                           e-Manifest Cost Category
                                     Year 
                                       1
                                     Year 
                                       2
                                     Year 
                                       3
                                     Year 
                                       4
                                     Year 
                                       5
                                     Year 
                                       6
                                    Total 
                              (Years 1 through 6)
                                       1
Operations and maintenance
                                                                         $0.829
                                                                         $0.567
                                                                         $0.524
                                                                         $0.506
                                                                         $0.506
                                                                         $0.506
                                                                          $3.44
                                       2
Paper manifest processing O&M
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $6.24
                                       3
Call center
                                                                         $0.938
                                                                          $1.30
                                                                          $1.84
                                                                          $2.56
                                                                          $2.56
                                                                          $2.56
                                                                          $11.7
                                       4
CROMERR-related costs
                                                                         $0.028
                                                                         $0.127
                                                                         $0.249
                                                                         $0.419
                                                                         $0.336
                                                                         $0.388
                                                                          $1.55
                                       5
Billing
                                                                         $0.707
                                                                         $0.707
                                                                         $0.707
                                                                         $0.707
                                                                         $0.707
                                                                         $0.707
                                                                          $4.24
                                       6
Additional program costs
                                                                          $2.76
                                                                          $2.76
                                                                          $2.76
                                                                          $2.76
                                                                          $2.76
                                                                          $2.76
                                                                          $16.5
                                       7
Subtotal  -  direct EPA costs
                                                                          $6.30
                                                                          $6.49
                                                                          $7.11
                                                                          $7.98
                                                                          $7.90
                                                                          $7.95
                                                                          $43.7
                                       8
Additional indirect costs[a]
                                                                          $2.09
                                                                          $2.16
                                                                          $2.36
                                                                          $2.65
                                                                          $2.62
                                                                          $2.64
                                                                          $14.5
                                       9
                                                                          Total
                                                                          $8.39
                                                                          $8.65
                                                                          $9.48
                                                                          $10.6
                                                                          $10.5
                                                                          $10.6
                                                                          $58.3
a Calculated as 33.22 percent of all other costs incurred in a given year, based on the most recent indirect cost rate for EPA OLEM published by EPA OFM.

Operations costs, inclusive of indirect costs, range from approximately $8.4 million to $10.6 million annually in the six-year period following system launch, and are approximately $10.6 million annually thereafter. These costs vary based on the cumulative and incremental (i.e., relative to the previous year) adoption of the e-Manifest system in a given year. For example, costs in Year 4 are marginally higher than costs in Years 5 and 6 due to higher incremental adoption of e-Manifest in that year leading to higher CROMERR-related costs associated with initial user registrations. Overall, operations costs across this six-year period total approximately $58 million, inclusive of indirect costs. 

5.3 Manifest Processing Costs to EPA

In addition to the design, development, and implementation of the e-Manifest system, under the final rule, EPA will collect and process all manifests created and submitted by the hazardous waste industry. The e-Manifest system will be designed in such a way that manifests submitted electronically through the system ("electronic manifests") will not require any additional effort or activity from EPA in order for their data to be fully captured by the system. However, as the rule continues to allow for submission of non-electronic manifests in various formats, EPA will incur costs associated with receiving and processing these manifests and entering their data into the e-Manifest system. 

In Section 4.5, this RIA estimated that approximately 1.8 million manifests, or approximately 54 percent of the total estimate of 3.3 million annual manifests used by the hazardous waste industry, are currently collected and processed by states. Therefore, under the final rule, EPA will assume responsibility for processing these 1.8 million manifests, in addition to the 1.5 million manifests not currently verified as collected or processed by states. While increasing costs to EPA, this has the effect of reducing costs to states (see Section 5.6 for additional information).

To estimate the costs associated with EPA manifest processing activities, this RIA uses the 2014 paper processing cost model also used in Chapter 4 to estimate the state burden associated with manifest processing. The details of this model are discussed in Appendix D. This model identifies ten distinct activities in the manifest receipt and processing process (e.g., preparation: sorting mail and separating supplemental documents, corrections, scanning of manifest documents, electronic archiving, etc.) and five "failure scenarios" necessitating additional follow-up (e.g., invalid identifying information for generator, transporter, or TSDF receiver, unresolved corrections, etc.), and assigns hourly cost estimates to each activity and failure scenario. Not every activity and failure scenario applies to every manifest: for example, the model assumes that only six percent of manifests have supplemental documentation requiring additional effort. 

Additionally, in accordance with Section 5.1.2, this chapter estimates manifest collection and processing costs under three distinct manifest submission formats: the paper format, the image format, and the XML format. Specifically, paper variant manifest processing applies the same assumptions from the paper processing cost model as this RIA used to estimate state manifest processing burden in Chapter 4, while image and XML variant manifests result in lower overall burden to account for the additional information submitted with these manifests, which lowers processing time and the incidence of certain failure scenarios. Lastly, given the assumed design of the e-Manifest system, this RIA does not estimate any cost to EPA associated with the processing of electronic manifests, which will directly provide their data to the e-Manifest system without the need for additional actions by EPA staff.

The paper processing cost model assigns all standard manifest activities to a basic level of program staff; in Chapter 4, this RIA used the Biennial Report ICR fully-loaded rates for state clerical labor, but this section applies fully-loaded EPA clerical labor rates from the HWMS ICR ($24.37 per hour), for consistency with the remainder of the RIA where EPA costs are estimated. Similarly, fully-loaded EPA technical labor rates from the HWMS ICR ($57.11 per hour) are used for activities associated with failure scenarios. The EPA labor rates from the HWMS ICR are higher than the state labor rates applied in Section 4.5.2 ($22.94 per hour for clerical staff and $35.96 per hour for technical staff).

The assumptions and calculations within the paper processing cost model indicate that per-manifest processing burdens vary across manifest format, as follows:

 Paper variant  -  approximately 0.26 hours of clerical labor and approximately 0.096 hours of technical labor (consistent with Chapter 4); overall per-manifest cost of $11.82 under EPA fully-loaded labor rates from the HWMS ICR.

 Image variant  -  approximately 0.19 hours of clerical labor and approximately 0.036 hours of technical labor; overall per-manifest cost of $6.69 under EPA fully-loaded labor rates from the HWMS ICR.

 XML variant  -  approximately 0.056 hours of clerical labor and 0.014 hours of technical labor; overall per-manifest cost of $2.16 under EPA fully-loaded labor rates from the HWMS ICR.

Based on the adoption rates used in this chapter, the overall manifest processing cost to EPA varies based on the number of manifests of each type (variant) received. As the adoption rate of the e-Manifest system increases, paper manifest processing costs to EPA are expected to drop sharply. Exhibit 5-6 details the annual costs based on the per-manifest costs described above and the adoption rate scenario from Section 5.1.3.

 Exhibit 5-6
Summary of Manifest Processing Costs to EPA by Manifest Variant 
                     (2017$, millions of $, undiscounted)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H

                               Manifest Variant
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                     Total
                              (Years 1 through 6)
                                       1
Paper Manifest Process
Paper submission
                                                                          $20.7
                                                                          $14.7
                                                                          $4.42
                                                                         $0.492
                                                                         $0.492
                                                                         $0.492
                                                                          $41.4
                                       2

Scanned image submission
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $4.12
                                                                          $2.47
                                                                         $0.275
                                                                         $0.275
                                                                         $0.275
                                                                          $8.46
                                       3

XML schema submission
                                                                          $2.68
                                                                          $1.34
                                                                          $1.61
                                                                         $0.179
                                                                         $0.179
                                                                         $0.179
                                                                          $6.16
                                       4
e-Manifest System Process (electronic manifest)
                                                                         $0.00 
                                                                         $0.00 
                                                                         $0.00 
                                                                         $0.00 
                                                                         $0.00 
                                                                         $0.00 
                                                                         $0.00 
                                       5
                                                                          Total
                                                                          $24.5
                                                                          $20.2
                                                                          $8.50
                                                                         $0.945
                                                                         $0.945
                                                                         $0.945
                                                                          $56.0

The proportion of manifests received in the paper variant substantially drive EPA's manifest processing costs. Costs in Year 1 (approximately 53 percent of manifests submitted as the paper variant) for manifest processing total approximately $23 million; by Year 4, where 95 percent of manifests are submitted electronically and 1.25 percent are submitted as paper, paper processing costs total under $1 million.

In accordance with Section 5.2.8, this RIA also applies the 33.22 percent indirect cost factor for OLEM to the manifest processing costs displayed in Exhibit 5-6. The application of this factor directly increases the manifest processing costs by 33.22 percent (Exhibit 5-7).

Despite the higher labor rates used in this analysis, the inclusion of the indirect cost factor, and the greater volume of manifests processed by EPA relative to baseline state paper manifest processing detailed in Section 4.5, cumulative EPA processing costs dip below the less comprehensive cumulative baseline state manifest processing costs in Year 5, the second year that the adoption scenario estimates e-Manifest system adoption plateauing at 95 percent. This analysis indicates that the e-Manifest system will result in substantial long-term savings in total manifest processing costs, even after accounting for the larger volume of manifests that will be collected in the post-rule scenario.

Exhibit 5-7
Summary of Manifest Processing Costs to EPA by Manifest Variant, including Indirect Costs[a]
(2017$, millions of $, undiscounted)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H

                               Manifest Variant
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                     Total
                              (Years 1 through 6)
                                       1
Paper Manifest Process
Paper submission
                                                                          $27.6
                                                                          $19.6
                                                                          $5.89
                                                                         $0.655
                                                                         $0.655
                                                                         $0.655
                                                                          $55.1
                                       2

Scanned image submission
                                                                          $1.39
                                                                          $5.49
                                                                          $3.29
                                                                         $0.366
                                                                         $0.366
                                                                         $0.366
                                                                          $11.3
                                       3

XML schema submission
                                                                          $3.57
                                                                          $1.78
                                                                          $2.14
                                                                         $0.238
                                                                         $0.238
                                                                         $0.238
                                                                          $8.21
                                       4
e-Manifest System Process (electronic manifest)
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                       5
                                                                          Total
                                                                          $32.6
                                                                          $26.9
                                                                          $11.3
                                                                           $1.3
                                                                          $1.26
                                                                          $1.26
                                                                          $74.6
                                       6
                                                               Cumulative Total
                                                                          $32.6
                                                                          $59.5
                                                                          $70.8
                                                                          $72.1
                                                                          $73.4
                                                                          $74.6
                                      N/A
                                       7
           Cumulative Total of Baseline State Processing Costs (Exhibit 4-8)[b]
                                                                          $16.2
                                                                          $32.4
                                                                          $48.6
                                                                          $64.7
                                                                          $80.9
                                                                          $97.1
                                      N/A
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
[a] Calculated as 33.22 percent of all costs incurred, based on the most recent indirect cost rate for EPA OLEM published by EPA OFM.
[b] Estimated cost of $16.2 million annually per Exhibit 4-8 in Chapter 4.

5.4 Cost and Cost Savings to Industry  -  Manifest Completion and Submittal

The final rule will have several impacts on the hazardous waste industry related to manifest completion and submittal. Broadly, this RIA estimates that industry time and material burden associated with manifest completion tasks will decrease under the e-Manifest system. However, these cost savings will be offset in part by the manifest fees, and by CROMERR requirements applicable to subsets of the industry.

5.4.1 Reduced Manifest Completion and Submittal Burden

This RIA estimates that submission of fully-electronic manifests through the e-Manifest system will provide substantial cost savings to generators, transporters, and receivers of hazardous waste, who will no longer need to rely on a manual, paper system with multiple physical copies distributed to waste management and regulatory entities throughout the process. The RIA bases this estimate on expected changes to the various manifest-related activities. Specifically, this RIA groups activities described in Chapter 4 and the HWMS ICR into two categories:

 Activities with major burden reductions achieved through electronic manifests  -  this category pertains to activities which are greatly expedited or obviated through the use of electronic manifests. Examples of these types of activities include manifest completion (by generators who do not currently use any proprietary electronic systems to generate and complete manifests), manifest storage and recordkeeping and manifest transmittal to other industry or regulatory entities. This RIA assumes that these activities experience an 80 percent burden reduction when associated with electronic manifests.

 Activities with minimal burden reductions achieved through electronic manifests  -  this category pertains to activities which are only marginally expedited through the use of electronic manifests. Many manifest-related activities fall into this category, including most activities associated with rejected wastes, undeliverable shipments, exception reports, or other potential issues encountered in the process of hazardous waste transportation. Additionally, activities that are likely to be completed by TSDFs (which may already have proprietary electronic systems to generate and complete manifests) are grouped into this category, as the use of electronic manifests would not significantly change baseline practices. This RIA assumes that these activities experience a five percent burden reduction when associated with electronic manifests. 

Additionally, a minority of manifest-related activities, namely those related to notifications of hazardous waste discharges, are not assumed by this RIA to have any burden reduction associated with electronic manifests, as they do not directly pertain to paperwork requirements for the manifest. 

Exhibits 5-8 and 5-9 present the cost savings to industry based on the application of these reductions. These reductions apply only to the proportion of manifests submitted as electronic manifests, based on the adoption rate presented in Section 5.1.3, in a given year. Exhibit 5-8 displays baseline costs and corresponding reductions on an entity basis, while Exhibit 5-9 presents these items on an activity basis. Note that while the corresponding Exhibits 4-1 and 4-3 disaggregated the savings across federal and state manifests for illustrative purposes, Exhibits 5-8 and 5-9 aggregate the baseline costs into one row to allow for easier comparisons between the baseline and post-rule scenarios.

     Exhibit 5-8
Costs to Industry for Manifest Activities, Entity Basis 
                     (2017$, millions of $, undiscounted)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       
                                  Entity Type
                     Baseline (0% electronic manifests)[a]
                       Year 1 (5% electronic manifests)
                       Year 2 (25% electronic manifests)
                       Year 3 (55% electronic manifests)
                       Year 4 (95% electronic manifests)
                       Year 5 (95% electronic manifests)
                       Year 6 (95% electronic manifests)
                                       1
Generators who Ship Waste
                                                                          $55.2
                                                                          $53.2
                                                                          $45.2
                                                                          $33.3
                                                                          $17.3
                                                                          $17.3
                                                                          $17.3
                                       2
Transporters
                                                                          $38.7
                                                                          $37.2
                                                                          $31.0
                                                                          $21.8
                                                                          $9.42
                                                                          $9.42
                                                                          $9.42
                                       3
Receivers
                                                                           $103
                                                                           $101
                                                                          $91.4
                                                                          $77.0
                                                                          $57.9
                                                                          $57.9
                                                                          $57.9
                                       4
                                                                          Total
                                                                           $197
                                                                           $191
                                                                           $168
                                                                           $132
                                                                          $84.6
                                                                          $84.6
                                                                          $84.6
[a] Calculated as the sum of the total rows (Row 6 in both exhibits) in Exhibits 4-1 and 4-3. 

On an entity basis, transporters of hazardous waste enjoy the greatest burden reduction, followed by shippers. TSDF receivers of hazardous waste enjoy the smallest relative burden reduction from the adoption and use of electronic manifests, because many of the activities with major burden reductions do not apply to these entities, and because in many cases they are already using proprietary electronic systems in the baseline. In contrast, transporter and shipper activities emphasize manifest completion, storage, and transmittal activities, all of which have major burden reductions.

    Exhibit 5-9
Costs to Industry for Manifest Activities, Activity Basis 
                     (2017$, millions of $, undiscounted)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       
                                 Activity Type
                     Baseline (0% electronic manifests)[b]
                       Year 1 (5% electronic manifests)
                       Year 2 (25% electronic manifests)
                       Year 3 (55% electronic manifests)
                       Year 4 (95% electronic manifests)
                       Year 5 (95% electronic manifests)
                       Year 6 (95% electronic manifests)
                                       1
Manifest Completion[a]
                                                                           $186
                                                                           $180
                                                                           $157
                                                                           $121
                                                                          $74.0
                                                                          $74.0
                                                                          $74.0
                                       2
Discrepancy / Exception Reports
                                                                          $7.88
                                                                          $7.86
                                                                          $7.78
                                                                          $7.66
                                                                          $7.50
                                                                          $7.50
                                                                          $7.50
                                       3
Undeliverable Shipments
                                                                          $0.03
                                                                          $0.03
                                                                          $0.03
                                                                          $0.03
                                                                          $0.03
                                                                          $0.03
                                                                          $0.03
                                       4
Rejected Shipments / Wastes
                                                                          $3.14
                                                                          $3.13
                                                                          $3.10
                                                                          $3.05
                                                                          $2.99
                                                                          $2.99
                                                                          $2.99
                                       5
Notifications of Discharge
                                                                          $0.11
                                                                          $0.11
                                                                          $0.11
                                                                          $0.11
                                                                          $0.11
                                                                          $0.11
                                                                          $0.11
                                       6
                                                                          Total
                                                                           $197
                                                                           $191
                                                                           $168
                                                                           $132
                                                                          $84.6
                                                                          $84.6
                                                                          $84.6
[a] Includes all activities pertaining to manifest completion, transmittal, and recordkeeping.
[b] Calculated as the sum of the total rows (Row 6 in both exhibits) in Exhibits 4-1 and 4-3. 

On an activity basis, the largest burden reductions accrue to manifest completion activities, which also include all transmittal and recordkeeping requirements. This intuitively follows from the nature of electronic manifests and the e-Manifest system, as activities in this category represent routine tasks most easily expedited through automation or near-automation, and fall into the major burden reduction category. The remaining activities are exclusively those in the minimal reduction category, and achieve cost savings of under five percent even as electronic manifest use plateaus at 95 percent in Years 4, 5, and 6. The majority of industry cost savings accrue to manifest completion, transmittal, and recordkeeping activities: in Years 4 through 6, overall (undiscounted) cost savings relative to the baseline for manifest activities are approximately $112 million each year; over 99 percent of this total accrues to manifest completion, transmittal, and recordkeeping activities.

Based on Exhibits 5-8 and 5-9, Exhibit 5-10 summarizes cost savings to industry in Years 1 through 6. On a non-discounted basis, relative to baseline costs for manifest-related activities estimated in Chapter 4, this RIA estimates approximately $440 million in savings to industry over the first six years following e-Manifest system launch. Annually, undiscounted cost savings over this period range from approximately $6 million to approximately $110 million. The approximately $110 million in cost savings occurs annually in perpetuity after the adoption rate plateaus. On a discounted basis, with discounting at a seven percent discount rate applied to 2017 and assuming that the e-Manifest system launches in 2018, cost savings total approximately $330 million instead. 

Exhibit 5-10
Cost Savings to Industry Associated with Use of Electronic Manifests 
                            (2017$, millions of $)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       
                                     Cost
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                     Total
                              (Years 1 through 6)
                                       1
% of electronic manifests
                                      5%
                                      25%
                                      55%
                                      95%
                                      95%
                                      95%
                                      N/A
                                       2
Baseline Cost[a]
                                                                           $197
                                                                           $197
                                                                           $197
                                                                           $197
                                                                           $197
                                                                           $197
                                                                         $1,184
                                       3
Post-Rule Cost
                                                                           $191
                                                                           $168
                                                                           $132
                                                                          $84.6
                                                                          $84.6
                                                                          $84.6
                                                                           $745
                                       4
Cost Savings (undiscounted)
                                                                          $5.93
                                                                          $29.6
                                                                          $65.2
                                                                           $113
                                                                           $113
                                                                           $113
                                                                           $439
                                       5
Cost Savings 
(3% discount rate)[b]
                                                                          $5.76
                                                                          $27.9
                                                                          $59.7
                                                                           $100
                                                                          $97.2
                                                                          $94.3
                                                                           $385
                                       6
Cost Savings 
(7% discount rate)[b]
                                                                          $5.54
                                                                          $25.9
                                                                          $53.2
                                                                          $85.9
                                                                          $80.3
                                                                          $75.1
                                                                           $326
Totals may not sum due to rounding. Discounting applied under the assumption that 2017 is the base year and Year 1, the first year of e-Manifest system operation, occurs in 2018. Correspondingly, the six years in this table are discounted by one through six years, respectively.
[a] Values in this column represent the sum of Rows 1 and 3 from Exhibit 4-8 in Chapter 4.
[b] Cost savings in out years are less heavily discounted under a lower discount rate.

5.4.2 CROMERR Costs to Industry

As described in Section 5.2.5, the e-Manifest system will require e-Manifest system users to comply with CROMERR standards when submitting information to EPA. To submit information, employees of entities using the e-Manifest system must be registered in the CROMERR system; use of the e-Manifest system will therefore result in additional industry costs associated with CROMERR registration.

EPA's 2004 cost-benefit analysis of CROMERR identified five registration activities required to use the e-Manifest system:

 Registering with CROMERR, including preparing, submitting, mailing to EPA, and filing a wet-ink signature agreement as part of the registration process;
       
 Placing a phone call to the CROMERR help desk for assistance with the registration process;

 Additional registration with EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX);

 Obtaining digital signature certifications for users that may potentially submit enforcement-sensitive information; and

 Identification and resolution of problems pertaining to CROMERR registration.

This RIA assumes that CROMERR will apply to all receiver TSDFs and transporters, but not to generators. Consistent with the estimates of EPA CROMERR-related costs, this RIA assumes that each of the 420 federal receiver TSDFs and 1,117 state waste-only TSDFs will seek CROMERR registrations for five employees, while each of the 9,947 trucks engaged in shipping hazardous waste is operated by two drivers, each of whom will require a CROMERR registration to complete manifest activities through the e-Manifest system, for a total of approximately 28,000 users (see Chapter 2). For simplicity, this RIA assumes that each facility operates its own hazardous waste shipping truck; to the extent that this is a high-cost assumption because multiple trucks are aggregated at a single establishment or facility, the costs of CROMERR registration to industry would be lower.

This RIA assesses the costs under alternative assumptions governing CROMERR, such as scenarios where CROMERR is required for generators in addition to TSDF receivers and transporters, in Chapter 6.

The methodology for estimating CROMERR costs to industry is broadly similar to the methodology used to estimate CROMERR-related e-Manifest system costs to EPA in Section 5.2.5. Therefore, this section briefly explains the cost associated with each of the five industry CROMERR registration activities noted above, making reference to the specific calculations as described in more detail in Section 5.2.5 where relevant.

5.4.2.1 CROMERR User Registration  -  Industry Costs

Consistent with Section 5.2.5.1, industry costs for CROMERR registration include: 15 minutes (0.25 hours) for a single employee to register with CROMERR, including preparation, submitting, and filing of the necessary wet-ink signature agreements, and a $2.50 (2003$) charge for postage, which equals $3.37 in 2017$. Users must register not only at those facilities that adopt use of the e-Manifest system registrations but also for a proportion of new users at facilities that had already adopted the e-Manifest system (i.e., as a result of user turnover) and for a proportion of new facilities that did not previously operate in the market (i.e., as a result of facility turnover). Additionally, users who remain registered for three years must renew their CROMERR registration in the third year. These re-registration costs apply only to users at existing facilities, two years after those facilities are estimated to have adopted the e-Manifest system.

Costs of user registration to industry are similar to the costs of processing user registrations to EPA because they reflect the other side of the same interaction (Section 5.2.5.1), though the cost of $13.90 per user registration is based on the industry technical labor rate of $42.06 from the HWMS ICR and $3.37 in postage fees and 0.25 hours, rather than 0.17 hours, for the registration process.

This RIA estimates annual costs to industry for user registrations of approximately $19,000 in the first year after e-Manifest system launch (five percent e-Manifest system adoption) and approximately $320,000 in the sixth year after e-Manifest system launch (95 percent e-Manifest system adoption), and approximately $270,000 annually in perpetuity. These costs vary based on cumulative and incremental e-Manifest system adoption in a given year. It is possible that some hazardous waste truckers and many employees at receiver TSDFs are already registered with CROMERR; to the extent that this is the case, these costs may be an overestimate.

5.4.2.2 CROMERR Help Desk  -  Industry Costs

Consistent with EPA's costs, the CROMERR Cost Benefit Analysis estimated approximately eight minutes (0.13 hours) for industry to place and complete a help desk call, on average. It also assumed that such calls would specifically be related to registration, and that, on average, each registering user would make one such call to the CROMERR help desk in the course of registration. Because of facility and user turnover, this cost applies to more than just the set of users at facilities newly-adopting the e-Manifest system in a given year. The calculations for this cost item are similar to that for user registrations, but use 0.13 hours of industry technical labor rather than 0.25 hours per instance. 

Correspondingly, CROMERR costs to industry associated with the help desk range from approximately $8,000 in the first year to approximately $57,000 in the sixth year after system implementation (95 percent adoption) and annually thereafter, with higher costs in some interim years to account for large numbers of first-time user registrations in those years.

5.4.2.3 CDX Registration

Each registering employee must register with the CDX system once as part of CROMERR registration; the CROMERR Cost Benefit Analysis estimates that this registration takes three minutes (0.05 hours) to complete. Due to facility and user turnover, this cost applies to more than just the set of users at facilities newly-adopting the e-Manifest system in a given year. The calculations for this cost item are similar to that for help desk calls, but use 0.05 hours of industry technical labor rather than 0.13 hours per instance. 

Costs to industry associated with CDX registration range from approximately $3,000 in the first year to approximately $22,000 in the sixth year after e-Manifest system implementation and annually thereafter, with highest costs in some interim years to account for large numbers of first-time user registrations in those years.

5.4.2.4 Digital Signature Certification

The CROMERR Cost Benefit Analysis also assumes that 20 percent of employee registrations would be required to submit enforcement-sensitive information to EPA. In order to preserve the integrity of these data, the analysis assumes that these registrants obtain and install a digital electronic signature certificate on their browser, which requires 30 minutes of industry technical labor. Similar to the broader CROMERR registration, this must be renewed every two years after the first year. The calculations for this item are similar to those for CROMERR registration (Section 5.4.2.1) but use 0.5 hours of industry technical labor instead for 20 percent of employee registrations instead. 

Costs to industry associated with this activity range from approximately $6,000 in the first year to approximately $97,000 in the sixth year after e-Manifest system implementation, with an annual cost in perpetuity of approximately $60,000.

5.4.2.5 CROMERR Facility Registration Issues

The CROMERR Cost Benefit Analysis estimates approximately one hour for industry staff to investigate registration issues or respond to EPA queries, and indicates that such activities apply to three percent of facilities each year. This RIA estimates costs for this activity in a given year as total facilities/trucks x the adoption rate in that year x $42.06 (the cost for one hour of industry technical labor per the HWMS ICR). Costs range from approximately $700 to approximately $14,000 as the adoption rate increases over time, and at $23,000 annually thereafter. 

The costs associated with this activity are especially sensitive to the assumption that each truck is its own facility; however, as costs associated with this activity are low even under this conservative assumption, altering it is unlikely to result in substantial cost impacts.

5.4.2.5 Summary of CROMERR-Related Costs to Industry

Exhibit 5-11 summarizes the CROMERR-related costs to industry estimated by this RIA. The cumulative e-Manifest system adoption rate drives these costs, but the fourth year of system operation results in the highest costs in this period due to a large increase in e-Manifest adoption between this year and the previous year. Overall, CROMERR registration costs for industry range from approximately $36,000 to approximately $530,000, depending on the cumulative and incremental adoption rates of e-Manifest in a given year. Following Year 6, these costs are approximately $430,000 in perpetuity.

       Exhibit 5-11
CROMERR Registration and Related Costs to Industry 
                     (2014$, thousands of $, undiscounted)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       
                           CROMERR-Related Activity
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                    Total 
                              (Years 1 through 6)
                                       1
% of electronic manifests
                                      5%
                                      25%
                                      55%
                                      95%
                                      95%
                                      95%
                                      N/A
                                       2
CROMERR Registration
                                                                          $19.1
                                                                          $85.2
                                                                           $168
                                                                           $295
                                                                           $246
                                                                           $320
                                                                         $1,133
                                       3
Help Desk
                                                                          $7.54
                                                                          $33.2
                                                                          $60.3
                                                                          $93.5
                                                                          $57.3
                                                                          $57.3
                                                                           $309
                                       4
CDX Registration
                                                                          $2.90
                                                                          $12.8
                                                                          $23.2
                                                                          $36.0
                                                                          $22.0
                                                                          $22.0
                                                                           $119
                                       5
Digital Signature Certification
                                                                          $5.80
                                                                          $25.8
                                                                          $50.7
                                                                          $89.3
                                                                          $74.5
                                                                          $96.9
                                                                           $343
                                       6
Facility Registration Issues
                                                                          $0.72
                                                                          $3.62
                                                                          $7.97
                                                                          $13.8
                                                                          $13.8
                                                                          $13.8
                                                                          $53.6
                                       7
                                                                          Total
                                                                          $36.1
                                                                           $161
                                                                           $310
                                                                           $527
                                                                           $414
                                                                           $510
                                                                         $1,957
Totals may not sum due to rounding.

5.4.3 System Investment by Industry

This RIA considers only the cost savings associated with the use of electronic manifests and the costs associated with CROMERR for TSDF receivers and transporters as non-manifest fee cost impacts to industry from the e-Manifest system.

Under certain specifications of the e-Manifest system, industry entities may need to invest in internal system upgrades or hardware in order to use the e-Manifest system. These types of upgrades may range from programming to align existing proprietary systems with the e-Manifest system to a requirement to purchase smartphones or tablets in order to use the e-Manifest system at the point of waste transfer, or while the waste is in transit.

This RIA assumes that the e-Manifest system implemented under the final rule will not require any such investment in either hardware or software by firms or facilities in the hazardous waste industry. To the extent that this is not the case, costs to industry associated with the rule may be understated. This RIA further assumes that the e-Manifest system will be web-based, and that costs incurred voluntarily by industry to connect internal or proprietary systems to the e-Manifest system will reflect opportunities for cost savings or functionality beyond the scope of this RIA. This RIA therefore considers such activities to bear a net cost of zero  -  if net costs were high, industry actors would not undertake these activities.

Reflecting this assumption, the adoption rates in Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2 used throughout this chapter indicate near-universal adoption of electronic manifests over a period of four years. In other words, this RIA assumes that the majority of industry entities eventually adopt the use of electronic manifests in part because the one-time costs associated with adoption, if any, are offset by cost savings. Due to a lack of information on what implementation costs may be if they are not minimal, this RIA instead assesses the possibility that industry entities would have to incur significant adoption costs using a sensitivity analysis in Chapter 6 that focuses on adoption rates for the electronic manifests. The sensitivity analysis considers a scenario where ultimate adoption of electronic manifests is considerably lower than the primary analysis in this chapter.

5.5 Manifest Fees to Industry

Under the final rule, e-Manifest fees effectively function as a transfer between EPA and industry, as EPA transfers the system development and operations costs it incurs, in full, to industry. All costs described in Section 5.2 and 5.3 will be recouped through these manifest fees. Over a six-year period of analysis, the total amount to be recouped by these fees is consistent with the total costs incurred by EPA for system development and maintenance in this period; in other words, the fees recoup the sum of the totals in Exhibits 5-4, 5-5, and 5-7.

5.5.1.1 Principles Guiding Manifest Fee Options

In considering fee structures to recoup e-Manifest system costs under the final rule, EPA conducted a review of relevant literature sources and federal guidance documents, especially Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25 and numerous reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Based on these source and other fee design considerations, EPA has distilled six principles of fee design that bound and guide the development of EPA's manifest fee options included in this RIA:

 Ensure that administrative (e.g., fee collection) costs are not a significant portion of total EPA system costs. OMB Circular A-25 emphasizes the need to ensure that the cost of collecting the fee does not represent a significant proportion of the fee itself.

 Align fee burden with users receiving the most extensive services and/or cost savings. A key principle in economic theory, and one emphasized in GAO's Federal User Fees: A Design Guide, is that prices for government services should be set such that each individual user offsets the costs incurred for providing a service to the user. Users who impose the greatest costs on the e-Manifest systems should pay higher fees and the fees should reflect the costs imposed. 

 Consider whether the market is segmented in a way that requires a tiered fee structure. If the market structures of the relevant industries reveal significant differentiated use of services, costs and benefits to users are likely segmented as well. Alignment of fees with these costs and benefits should take market segmentation into account.

 Agencies should consider system users that are less able to pay when designing a fee structure. While fees that accurately reflect the costs incurred by the system through each individual user are generally both efficient and equitable, economics and GAO also consider distributional impacts across users, and explicitly note that the burden of the fee should be borne by the users better able to pay.

 The fee structure should address variability in fee receipts relative to costs. Variability in fee receipts relative to program costs can be a major challenge in designing fees. For example, over time, the relative numbers of electronic and non-electronic manifest may change, as well as their costs. If programs fail to address this variability, fees can either fail to recover costs or recover too much and lead to an excessive burden on users of the service. 

 Fee design should encourage adoption of the system with the greatest net benefits. In accordance with overall economic efficiency, fee designs should align private user incentives to promote actions that present the least cost and greatest benefits to the system as a whole. The design considerations here build on assumptions that show that use of the e-Manifest system represents the lowest per-manifest (and total) cost option for EPA (Exhibit 5-6) and a lower per-manifest cost for regulated entities as well (Exhibits 5-8 and 5-9). The impact of fixed costs on adoption rates for electronic manifests should continue to be a focus in assessing the costs of regulatory options.

Based on the above principles, EPA developed four fee options, presented in the following section. 

5.5.2 Fee Options for the Final Rule

This section presents EPA's four fee options for the final rule. Three of these options represent distinct methods of assessing fees across manifest submission options, while the fourth, EPA's final preferred option, is a hybrid of two options that does not require a separate modeling and estimation effort. This RIA does not estimate that the different fee options will result in different total costs collected and recouped via the manifest fees, as the full cost recovery principle remains in effect for each option discussed below. Rather, these options change only the distribution of how the cost recovery burden falls on different manifest variants.

NOTE: The fee estimates presented in this RIA are not EPA's final schedule of fees to be paid for use of the e-Manifest system. Rather, they are derived from the best estimates available at the time of this RIA's publication of costs related to setting up and running the e-Manifest system and program, as well as the best estimates of the adoption of electronic manifests, and finally the best estimates of cost savings that will be realized by switching from paper to electronic manifests. These estimated fees are necessary for properly comparing the costs and cost savings attributable to electronic manifests and for this reason they are presented here.
EPA will publish an actual schedule of fees as a notice in the Federal Register.
NOTE: The fee estimates presented in this RIA are not EPA's final schedule of fees to be paid for use of the e-Manifest system. Rather, they are derived from the best estimates available at the time of this RIA's publication of costs related to setting up and running the e-Manifest system and program, as well as the best estimates of the adoption of electronic manifests, and finally the best estimates of cost savings that will be realized by switching from paper to electronic manifests. These estimated fees are necessary for properly comparing the costs and cost savings attributable to electronic manifests and for this reason they are presented here.
EPA will publish an actual schedule of fees as a notice in the Federal Register.

5.5.2.1 Shared Assumptions across Fee Options

The fee options presented in this RIA incorporate the following set of underlying assumptions:

 All fee options are designed to fully recover EPA's costs to design, build, and run the e-Manifest system and program, consistent with the Electronic Manifest Establishment Act requirement. Each fee option therefore is designed to recover the same cost, and relies on some of the same underlying parameters and other information to estimate fees, though each option uses different calculations to arrive at final fee amounts.

 All fee options assign fees on a per-manifest basis. EPA considered assigning fees in other ways, such as annual subscriptions, but determined that per-manifest fees are best to ensure that users bear the costs of supporting the e-Manifest system in proportion to their use of it. The heaviest users of the system will submit the most manifests, realize the most benefits, and also bear the largest share of the burden of supporting the system. Less frequent users will also realize benefits and bear costs in proportion to their use. 

 All fee options assume that TSDFs pay the fees.

 All fee options assume that manifests may be submitted to the system in accordance with one of the four manifest variants discussed in Section 5.1.2 (paper, image, XML, or electronic). Each fee option assigns fees to these manifest variants in a different manner; this assignment protocol is the distinguishing feature of each option.

 All fee options assume that setup costs are distributed across a predetermined payback period, and will cease being recovered after that period ends. Correspondingly, fees will be lower after this period has ended, as setup costs will cease being recovered at this point. This RIA assumes this payback period to be five years; costs under alternate payback scenarios are considered in Chapter 6.

5.5.2.2 Option 1  -  Uniform Cost Fee

Under this fee option, this RIA assigns a single, uniform fee to all manifest variants. This RIA first estimates a weighted average marginal cost by considering the relative prevalence of each manifest variant in a given year (per the assumed adoption rate in Section 5.1.3) as well as the marginal cost to process that manifest variant per Section 5.3. This weighted average marginal cost ranges from $9.86 in the first year after e-Manifest system launch to $0.38 in the fourth year after system launch. Under the statute, EPA must alter the fee to reflect different levels of adoption, but the fee at any given point in time would not vary across manifest variants (i.e., paper, image, XML, etc.).

Under this option, this RIA then evenly divides all remaining costs to EPA (Section 5.2) across all manifests. Setup costs are divided by a factor of five (due to a payback period length of five years) and each fifth of the overall setup costs is applied to the total sum that must be recovered in a given year (for the first five years, only). Exhibit 5-12 illustrates the calculation of the fee, breaking it down into the components that it recovers. Exhibit 5-13 then illustrates the total amount estimated to be collected through this fee option. 

  Exhibit 5-12
Option 1  -  Uniform Cost Fee Estimation, Manifest Fee Basis 
                             (2017$, undiscounted)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       
                                   Category
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                       1
Marginal Processing Cost
                                                                          $9.86
                                                                          $8.14
                                                                          $3.43
                                                                          $0.38
                                                                          $0.38
                                                                          $0.38
                                       2
Setup Cost (per manifest)
                                                                          $1.10
                                                                          $1.10
                                                                          $1.10
                                                                          $1.10
                                                                          $1.10
                                                                          $0.00
                                       3
O&M Cost (per manifest)
                                                                          $2.54
                                                                          $2.62
                                                                          $2.87
                                                                          $3.22
                                                                          $3.18
                                                                          $3.20
                                       4
                                                    Total Fee for All Manifests
                                                                          $13.5
                                                                          $11.9
                                                                          $7.39
                                                                          $4.70
                                                                          $4.66
                                                                          $3.58

         Exhibit 5-13
Option 1  -  Uniform Cost Fee, Total Fee Levied 
                     (2017$, millions of $, undiscounted)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       
                                     Cost
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                     Total
                                       1
Marginal Processing Cost
                                                                          $32.6
                                                                          $26.9
                                                                          $11.3
                                                                          $1.26
                                                                          $1.26
                                                                          $1.26
                                                                          $74.6
                                       2
Setup Cost (per manifest)
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $18.2
                                       3
O&M Cost (per manifest)
                                                                          $8.39
                                                                          $8.65
                                                                          $9.48
                                                                          $10.6
                                                                          $10.5
                                                                          $10.6
                                                                          $58.3
                                       4
                                                               Total Fee Levied
                                                                          $44.6
                                                                          $39.2
                                                                          $24.4
                                                                          $15.5
                                                                          $15.4
                                                                          $11.9
                                                                           $151

Over the six-year period presented, the total amount recovered is approximately $151 million, consistent with the sum of the total costs incurred by EPA across Exhibits 5-4, 5-5, and 5-7. The columns in Exhibit 5-13 specifically pertain to these exhibits: the total in row 1 of approximately $74.6 million matches the corresponding total from Exhibit 5-7; the totals in rows 2 and 3 similarly pertain to the totals of Exhibits 5-4 and 5-5, respectively. 

This option is the most simple of those presented in this RIA. Industry feedback has indicated that industry would prefer such a fee in the early years of the system due to its simplicity; however, this option is the most likely to over- or under-collect fees, because it requires EPA to accurately estimate the adoption rate in order to accurately estimate the weighted average marginal cost to process a manifest. Therefore, this option is least likely to fulfill EPA's statutory requirement to fully recover costs each year, though it does so in this RIA, where the adoption rate is assumed to be known and rigid. 

This option also subsidizes users who submit manifests that are relatively costly for EPA to process at the expense of users submitting other manifest variants. It is less efficient than the other options because the users do not internalize the costs they actually impose. Thus, it will not given an efficient incentive to users to discontinue submitting paper variant manifests and switch to the e-Manifest system.

5.5.2.3 Option 2  -  Marginal Cost Fee

For this option, this RIA assigns differential fees to each manifest variant, based on the different marginal costs to EPA associated with processing each manifest variant. This RIA then distributes the remaining costs (setup costs, operations costs) equally across each manifest type, similar to Option 1. The resulting fee for each manifest variant under this option is equal to the marginal cost of processing that manifest variant (per Section 5.3), plus a uniform portion of the setup and operations costs. Exhibits 5-14 and 5-15 display the per-manifest fee and the total amount recovered, respectively, for each manifest variant. Again, note that the total amount recovered is approximately $151 million, and the amount recovered for each cost type incurred by EPA, while not shown in these exhibits, is similarly to that shown in Exhibit 5-13. The fees collected in each year similarly track with the figures in Exhibit 5-13, which is a necessary condition of the fee design to fully recover operations costs, processing (marginal) costs and a portion of setup costs in each year, regardless of the fee structure.

Exhibit 5-14
Option 2  -  Marginal Cost Fee, Manifest Basis by Manifest Variant 
                             (2017$, undiscounted)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       
                               Manifest Variant
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                       1
Paper Manifest Variants
Paper Variant
                                                                         $19.48
                                                                         $19.56
                                                                         $19.81
                                                                         $20.16
                                                                         $20.13
                                                                         $19.05
                                       2

Image Variant
                                                                         $12.49
                                                                         $12.57
                                                                         $12.81
                                                                         $13.17
                                                                         $13.13
                                                                         $12.05
                                       3

XML Variant
                                                                          $6.51
                                                                          $6.59
                                                                          $6.84
                                                                          $7.19
                                                                          $7.16
                                                                          $6.08
                                       4
e-Manifest
Electronic Variant
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.72
                                                                          $3.97
                                                                          $4.32
                                                                          $4.28
                                                                          $3.20
Note: Fees increase between Year 1 and Year 4 as EPA system O&M costs, including call center costs and CROMERR costs increase with greater e-Manifest adoption, but cease increasing after Year 4 as e-Manifest adoption plateaus and the payback period ends following Year 5.

Exhibit 5-15
Option 2  -  Marginal Cost Fee, Total Fee Levied by Manifest Variant 
                     (2017$, millions of $, undiscounted)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       
                               Manifest Variant
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                     Total
                                       1
Paper Manifest Variants
Paper Variant
                                                                          $34.0
                                                                          $24.3
                                                                          $7.37
                                                                         $0.833
                                                                         $0.832
                                                                         $0.787
                                                                          $68.1
                                       2

Image Variant
                                                                          $1.96
                                                                          $7.79
                                                                          $4.77
                                                                         $0.544
                                                                         $0.543
                                                                         $0.498
                                                                          $16.1
                                       3

XML Variant
                                                                          $8.08
                                                                          $4.09
                                                                          $5.09
                                                                         $0.595
                                                                         $0.592
                                                                         $0.503
                                                                          $18.9
                                       4
e-Manifest
Electronic Variant
                                                                         $0.602
                                                                          $3.07
                                                                          $7.21
                                                                          $13.6
                                                                          $13.5
                                                                          $10.1
                                                                          $48.0
                                       5
                                                               Total Fee Levied
                                                                          $44.6
                                                                          $39.2
                                                                          $24.4
                                                                          $15.5
                                                                          $15.4
                                                                          $11.9
                                                                           $151
Note: Fees increase between Year 1 and Year 4 as EPA system O&M costs, including call center costs and CROMERR costs increase with greater e-Manifest adoption, but cease increasing after Year 4 as e-Manifest adoption plateaus and the payback period ends following Year 5.

Option 2 is more likely than Option 1 to fully recover EPA's costs because it does not rely on correct predictions of the e-Manifest adoption rate to accurately assess marginal costs that are considered part of the fee for each manifest variant in this fee option. By virtue of higher fees accruing to manifests which require a higher burden to process, it also provides market signaling information that will encourage users to switch towards electronic manifests.

5.5.2.4 Option 3  -  Marginal Cost Differentiated Fee

The Marginal Cost Differentiated Fee option is similar to Option 2, except that paper manifest processing operations costs (Section 5.2.3) are distributed only across paper manifest variants (paper, image, and XML manifest submissions), and do not accrue to electronic manifests. In other words, whereas in Option 2, non-labor costs for EPA's paper processing center were distributed across all manifest variants, under Option 3, these costs are distributed across paper manifest variants only. Because the annual cost of these non-labor paper manifest processing operations is fairly low (approximately $1 million annually), this does not substantially change the cost calculus of this option relative to Option 2. However, it does slightly apportion costs away from electronic manifests and towards the other manifest variants. Similar to Option 2, this fee option is more likely than Option 1 to fully recover EPA's costs, as it does not rely on long-term predictions regarding the adoption rate to levy marginal processing costs for different manifest variants. It encourages switching towards electronic manifests slightly more than Option 2, by apportioning more of the costs of paper processing specifically to paper manifest variants, causing their prices to be higher relative to electronic manifests.. Exhibits 5-16 and 5-17 display the per-manifest fee and the total amount recovered, respectively, for each manifest variant under this option. Again, because adoption rates are held constant across fee options, note that the total amount recovered is approximately $151 million.

Exhibit 5-16
Option 3  -  Marginal Cost Differentiated Fee, Manifest Basis by Manifest Variant 
                             (2017$, undiscounted)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       
                               Manifest Variant
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                       1
Paper Manifest Variants
Paper Variant
                                                                         $19.50
                                                                         $19.70
                                                                         $20.32
                                                                         $28.12
                                                                         $28.09
                                                                         $27.01
                                       2

Image Variant
                                                                         $12.51
                                                                         $12.71
                                                                         $13.33
                                                                         $21.13
                                                                         $21.09
                                                                         $20.01
                                       3

XML Variant
                                                                          $6.54
                                                                          $6.73
                                                                          $7.35
                                                                         $15.15
                                                                         $15.12
                                                                         $14.04
                                       4
e-Manifest
Electronic Variant
                                                                          $3.22
                                                                          $3.30
                                                                          $3.55
                                                                          $3.90
                                                                          $3.86
                                                                          $2.78
Note: Fees increase between Year 1 and Year 4 as EPA system O&M costs, including call center costs and CROMERR costs increase with greater e-Manifest adoption, but cease increasing after Year 4 as e-Manifest adoption plateaus and the payback period ends following Year 5.

Exhibit 5-17
Option 3  -  Marginal Cost Differentiated Fee, Total Fee Levied by Manifest Variant 
                     (2017$, millions of $, undiscounted)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       
                               Manifest Variant
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                     Total
                                       1
Paper Manifest Variants
Paper Variant
                                                                          $34.0
                                                                          $24.4
                                                                          $7.56
                                                                          $1.16
                                                                          $1.16
                                                                          $1.12
                                                                          $69.5
                                       2

Image Variant
                                                                          $1.97
                                                                          $7.88
                                                                          $4.96
                                                                         $0.873
                                                                         $0.872
                                                                         $0.827
                                                                          $17.4
                                       3

XML Variant
                                                                          $8.11
                                                                          $4.18
                                                                          $5.47
                                                                          $1.25
                                                                          $1.25
                                                                          $1.16
                                                                          $21.4
                                       4
e-Manifest
Electronic Variant
                                                                         $0.532
                                                                          $2.73
                                                                          $6.45
                                                                          $12.2
                                                                          $12.1
                                                                          $8.75
                                                                          $42.8
                                       5
                                                                          Total
                                                                          $44.6
                                                                          $39.2
                                                                          $24.4
                                                                          $15.5
                                                                          $15.4
                                                                          $11.9
                                                                           $151
Note: Fees increase between Year 1 and Year 4 as EPA system O&M costs, including call center costs and CROMERR costs increase with greater e-Manifest adoption, but cease increasing after Year 4 as e-Manifest adoption plateaus and the payback period ends following Year 5.
                                       
This option redistributes about $5 million in fees over six years away from electronic manifests and toward paper manifests, relative to Option 2. Overall, on an annual basis, fees range from approximately $45 million to approximately $12 million, and are approximately $12 million in perpetuity as the payback period ends and fees are required only to recoup ongoing e-Manifest system operations and processing costs.

5.5.2.4 Option 4  -  Preferred Option

For the remainder of this RIA, the final Preferred Option is a hybrid of Option 2 and Option 3. Specifically, the Preferred Option consists of initially assessing fees under Option 2. Then, if adoption of electronic manifests does not surpass a predetermined threshold (75 percent) after a specified amount of time (five years), fees would begin to be levied under Option 3 instead. Option 3 slightly incentivizes adoption of electronic manifests relative to Option 2. Thus the Preferred Option should increase e-Manifest system use more than Option 2 in case initial electronic manifest adoption is slower than expected, creating inefficiencies in EPA operations and raising overall costs.

This RIA considers a threshold electronic manifest adoption rate of 75 percent after five years of e-Manifest system operation. The assumed adoption rate per Section 5.1.3 meets this threshold in which case Option 3 fee pricing would not be triggered. As a result, this RIA assesses fees under Option 2. However, Chapter 6 analyzes scenarios where the adoption rate differs, and the switch to Option 3 fees takes effect.

Regardless of the fee option, the annual fees collected, shown in Exhibits 5-13, 5-15, and 5-17, apply in Years 1 through 6 of e-Manifest system operations, offsetting EPA's e-Manifest system development and operation costs, as well as cost savings to industry described in Exhibit 5-10. Exhibit 5-18 summarizes the aggregate costs and cost savings to industry as described so far in this chapter.

Over the six-year period, undiscounted cost savings to industry, accounting for burden reductions in manifest activities as well as cost increases due to manifest fees and CROMERR requirements total approximately $290 million. On an annual basis, undiscounted, incremental costs range from approximately $39 million to approximately $100 million in cost savings; approximately $100 million in annual savings to industry occurs in perpetuity as the payback period ends and fees recoup only ongoing operations costs incurred by EPA. 

On a discounted basis under a seven percent discount rate, where out-year costs are discounted back to 2017 and the first year of e-Manifest system operation is assumed to be 2018, cost savings are approximately $270 million instead. This represents an annualized cost savings associated with these three items of approximately $56 million.

                                 Exhibit 5-18
             Summary of Select Costs and Cost Savings to Industry 
                            (2014$, millions of $)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       I
                                       
                                 Cost Category
                                   Baseline
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                     Total
                                 (Years 1 - 6)
                                       1
Industry Manifest activities (Exhibit 5-10)
                                                                           $197
                                                                           $191
                                                                           $168
                                                                           $132
                                                                          $84.6
                                                                          $84.6
                                                                          $84.6
                                                                           $745
                                       2
CROMERR Costs to Industry (Exhibit 5-11)
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                        $0.0361
                                                                         $0.161
                                                                         $0.310
                                                                         $0.527
                                                                         $0.414
                                                                         $0.510
                                                                          $1.96
                                       3
Manifest fees (Exhibit 5-15) (calculated to recoup system setup and operations costs to EPA)
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $44.6
                                                                          $39.2
                                                                          $24.4
                                                                          $15.5
                                                                          $15.4
                                                                          $11.9
                                                                           $151
                                       4
                                                                    Total Costs
                                                                           $197
                                                                           $236
                                                                           $207
                                                                           $157
                                                                           $101
                                                                           $100
                                                                            $97
                                                                           $898
Costs (Cost Savings) Relative to Baseline
                                       5
Industry Manifest activities
                                                                        ($5.93)
                                                                        ($29.6)
                                                                          $65.2
                                                                         ($113)
                                                                         ($113)
                                                                         ($113)
                                                                         ($439)
                                       6
CROMERR Costs to Industry
                                                                        $0.0361
                                                                         $0.161
                                                                         $0.310
                                                                         $0.527
                                                                         $0.414
                                                                         $0.510
                                                                          $1.96
                                       7
Manifest fees (calculated to recoup system setup and operations costs to EPA)
                                                                          $44.6
                                                                          $39.2
                                                                          $24.4
                                                                          $15.5
                                                                          $15.4
                                                                          $11.9
                                                                           $151
                                       8
                                      Total Costs (Cost Savings) (undiscounted)
                                                                         $38.7 
                                                                         $9.73 
                                                                        ($40.5)
                                                                        ($96.6)
                                                                        ($96.8)
                                                                         ($100)
                                                                         ($286)
                                       9
                                  Total Costs (Cost Savings) (3% discount rate)
                                                                         $37.6 
                                                                         $9.17 
                                                                        ($37.0)
                                                                        ($85.8)
                                                                        ($83.5)
                                                                        ($84.0)
                                                                         ($244)
                                      10
                                  Total Costs (Cost Savings) (7% discount rate)
                                                                         $36.2 
                                                                         $8.50 
                                                                        ($33.0)
                                                                        ($73.7)
                                                                        ($69.0)
                                                                        ($66.8)
                                                                         ($198)

However, in addition to the cost components detailed in Exhibit 5-18, this RIA also assesses a number of other costs and cost savings resulting from the final rule and the implementation of the e-Manifest system.

5.6 Cost Savings to States

In Chapter 4, this RIA detailed and estimated the baseline costs associated with a number of activities carried out by states to collect and process federal and state manifests. This RIA estimated these costs at approximately $16 million annually (Exhibit 4-8). Following the implementation of the final rule, states will no longer need to collect and process manifests, as this will be handled by the e-Manifest system for both electronic and paper manifests. The states will be able to access data stored in the e-Manifest system at no charge. This RIA assumes that to the extent that states will wish to continue to collect and process manifests to meet state-specific regulatory, enforcement, or data needs, they will be able to do so through the e-Manifest system. Correspondingly, this RIA assumes that states incur no costs to collect and process manifests in the post-rule scenario, and therefore that they enjoy approximately a $16 million cost savings annually as a result of the rule.

5.7 Hazardous Waste Reporting Costs

Chapter 4 assessed baseline costs of hazardous waste reporting to both industry and states (Sections 4.6 and 4.7, respectively). This RIA assumes that the e-Manifest system will reduce the burden associated with hazardous waste reporting by reducing the number of individual reporting activity instances that take place in a given (biennial) reporting cycle. 

5.7.1 Hazardous Waste Reporting Costs to Industry

This RIA estimates the following impacts to hazardous waste reporting activities and costs due to implementation of the e-Manifest system:

 As federal TSDFs will be submitting the final manifest with all attendant data to EPA, other entities will no longer be directly required to specially prepare specific reporting forms, such as the site ID form or read the reporting instructions. Similarly, only receiver TSDFs will be required to submit any reports, rather than receivers and generators.

 Under the final rule, this RIA assumes that TSDFs will not need to revise their data systems to include new reporting items, as this will be handled by the e-Manifest system architecture.

 Generators will not need to specially fill out and file a GM (Generation and Management) Form, as this information will be automatically collected and populated by the e-Manifest system based on submitted manifests.

 The burden associated with creating and submitting WR (Waste Received) Forms will accrue only to federal receiver TSDFs, rather than all receivers of hazardous waste, as assumed in the BR ICR. This reduces the burden associated with WR Forms by removing the costs associated with non-TSDF receivers creating and submitting these forms. 

The overall impact of these changes to industry reporting in the post-rule scenario is summarized in Exhibit 5-19. Overall, this RIA estimates approximately $6 million in annual cost savings to industry associated with reduced burden for hazardous waste reporting activities.

                                 Exhibit 5-19
Baseline and Post-Rule Costs Accruing to Industry for Hazardous Waste Reporting Activities
                     (2017$, millions of $, annual costs)
                                     Item
                                   Activity
                          Estimated Cost to Industry
                   Estimated Incremental Cost (Cost Savings)
                                       
                                       
                                   Baseline
                                   Post-Rule
                                       
                                       1
Read Hazardous Waste Report instructions
                                                                         $1.67 
                                                                       $0.0341 
                                                                        ($1.63)
                                       2
Revise data systems to include new data items not part of facility's general business operations
                                                                        $0.141 
                                                                         $0.00 
                                                                       ($0.141)
                                       3
Prepare Site ID Form
                                                                        $0.134 
                                                                      $0.00274 
                                                                       ($0.131)
                                       4
Prepare Form GM
                                                                         $2.35 
                                                                         $0.00 
                                                                        ($2.35)
                                       5
Prepare Form WR
                                                                         $4.87 
                                                                         $4.45 
                                                                       ($0.424)
                                       6
Prepare Form OI[a]
                                                                            N/A
                                                                            N/A
                                                                            N/A
                                       7
Submit report to the state or EPA Regional Office
                                                                        $0.902 
                                                                       $0.0184 
                                                                       ($0.883)
                                       8
Maintain a copy of each form for three years
                                                                        $0.686 
                                                                        $0.514 
                                                                       ($0.172)
                                       9
                                                                          Total
                                                                         $10.8 
                                                                         $5.02 
                                                                        ($5.73)
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Baseline sources: Unit costs and activity counts: Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request (ICR) Number 0976.17 2015 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification. January 22, 2015. Labor rates: Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request (ICR) Number 801.20 Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System. April 30, 2015, adjusted for inflation to 2017$ using the CPI-U
Post-rule values based on EPA assumptions regarding burden changes associated with implementation and functioning of the e-Manifest system.
a Per the BR ICR, Form OI is a state-optional form that is not expected to be submitted by any entities. 

5.7.2 Hazardous Waste Reporting Costs to States

Similarly, this RIA also estimates a set of reduction in burden accruing to states, again stemming from a reduced number of activities. Specifically, as only TSDFs will submit information to the e-Manifest system, this RIA estimates that states will conduct relevant activities in support of receiver TSDFs only, rather than TSDFs and generators. Additionally, this RIA assumes that states will enjoy a reduced burden associated with quality assurance checks on received submissions, as only TSDF receivers of hazardous waste will submit WR Forms in the post-rule scenario, as compared to all receivers of hazardous waste assumed to do so per the BR ICR.

The overall impact of these changes to industry reporting in the post-rule scenario is summarized in Exhibit 5-20. Overall, this RIA estimates approximately $3 million in annual cost savings to states associated with reduced burden for hazardous waste reporting activities.

                                 Exhibit 5-20
Baseline and Post-Rule Costs Accruing to States for Hazardous Waste Reporting Activities
                     (2017$, millions of $, annual costs)
                                     Item
                                   Activity
                           Estimated Cost to States
                   Estimated Incremental Cost (Cost Savings)
                                       
                                       
                                   Baseline
                                   Post-Rule
                                       
                                       1
Distribute Hazardous Waste Report forms and instructions
                                                                         $0.251
                                                                       $0.00509
                                                                       ($0.245)
                                       2
Assist respondents
                                                                         $0.236
                                                                       $0.00480
                                                                       ($0.231)
                                       3
Key entry of report submissions
                                                                        $0.0966
                                                                       $0.00178
                                                                      ($0.0947)
                                       4
Perform quality assurance
                                                                          $8.52
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                        ($2.22)
                                       5
                                                                          Total
                                                                          $9.10
                                                                          $6.30
                                                                        ($2.79)
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Baseline Sources: Unit costs and activity counts: Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request (ICR) Number 0976.17 2015 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification. January 22, 2015. Labor rates: Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request (ICR) Number 801.20 Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System. April 30, 2015, adjusted for inflation to 2017$ using the CPI-U.
Post-rule values based on EPA assumptions regarding burden changes associated with implementation and functioning of the e-Manifest system.
a Per the BR ICR, Form OI is a state-optional form that is not expected to be submitted by any entities. 

In aggregate, cost savings associated with reduced burden for hazardous waste reporting are estimated at approximately $9 million annually across both states and industry.

5.8 State Hazardous Waste Receiver Registration Costs 

As described in Chapter 2, this RIA assesses the costs to state hazardous waste receivers to register and receive an EPA ID. It also assesses the costs to state agencies to register these facilities.

Chapter 2 estimates a total of 1,117 state hazardous waste receivers. These receivers will need to submit a registration form requesting an EPA ID. The cost to do so is encapsulated in the activity, "Gather information and prepare Site ID Form" as captured in EPA's latest Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 0976.18 "2017 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification," dated December 2016. Per this source, the cost to industry to prepare and submit the site identification form is 0.08 hours of managerial labor, 0.6 hours of technical labor, and 0.16 hours of clerical labor, or approximately $53 per form. Given that 1,117 state hazardous waste receivers must submit this form, the cost of this activity is approximately $59,000. Note that this is a one-time cost that is modeled as occurring in Year 1 of system operation as a conservative assumption.

The cost for state agencies to assist hazardous waste receivers with obtaining EPA IDs is assumed to be captured by the burden to distribute Hazardous Waste Report forms and instructions, assist respondents, key entry of report submissions, and perform quality assurance, as also captured in the Supporting Statement for Information collection Request Number 0976.18. These four activities, in total, require 0.08 hours of managerial labor, 0.87 hours of technical labor, and 1.28 hours of clerical labor per receiver application for an EPA ID, or approximately $65 per form received. Given that 1,117 state hazardous waste receivers are estimated to request an EPA ID, the cost of this activity is approximately $73,000. Note that this is a one-time cost that is modeled as occurring in Year 1 of system operation as a conservative assumption.

The marginal magnitude of these costs renders the estimates in this RIA insensitive to deviations in either the count of state hazardous waste receivers or the cost for them and/or state agencies to provide them with EPA IDs. The total cost of this activity across both states and industry is under $150,000, and is a one-time cost. A fivefold increase in either the count of state hazardous waste receivers or the labor burdens associated with EPA ID requests would increase six-year, annualized cost savings estimated by this RIA by approximately seven percent, though the majority of this cost savings decrease results due to additional EPA costs associated with billing and invoicing a considerably expanded number of entities, rather than the one-time costs associated with requesting an EPA ID. Therefore, the effects of this requirement, and the uncertainty associated with the number of state hazardous waste received in existence and affected by the final rule on industry and state costs are severely limited.

5.9 Summary of Costs and Cost Savings 

This section summarizes the costs and cost savings to EPA, industry, and states as described throughout this chapter. As presented below, costs to EPA detailed in this chapter are assumed by this RIA to be directly offset by manifest fees to industry. These fees, in turn, initially exceed but eventually only partially offset the cost savings accruing to industry associated with less burdensome manifest activities stemming from the use of electronic manifests.

All costs included in the exhibits below are based on the adoption rate depicted in Section 5.1.3. 

In a few cases, this RIA does not anticipate that certain baseline costs will be affected by the final rule. These costs include EPA-specific agency burden for receipt and review of paperwork associated with federal manifest (see Exhibit 4-4, approximately $1 million annually) and industry costs associated with recordkeeping activities for hazardous waste shipments made under reclamation agreements (see Exhibit 4-2, approximately $3 million annually). Additionally, while the capital costs of obtaining physical storage (e.g., file cabinets) may be lessened in the post-rule scenario as manifests are handled electronically and require less physical storage, these costs are assumed to stay constant in the post-rule scenario, an assumption which may slightly understate the cost savings of the rule.

Exhibit 5-21 presents an overall summary of the baseline, post-rule, and incremental (post-rule less baseline) costs (and cost savings) of the final rule. Compared to baseline costs of approximately $238 million, post-rule costs range from $252 million in the first year of system launch to $113 million in the sixth year of system launch. Exhibit 5-22 displays the incremental discounted costs of the rule (using three percent and seven percent discount rates), including the annualized incremental costs of the final rule. This RIA estimates approximately $66 million in annualized cost savings under a seven percent discount rate and approximately $70 million in annualized cost savings over this period under a three percent discount rate, though the rule results in overall costs in the first year and cost savings in the following five years.[,]

Note that extending the period of analysis forward in time under the adoption rate assumptions presented in this chapter would increase the cost savings estimate, because the highest cost savings accrue after the system implementation costs have been fully accounted for (in the six-year period and afterward). Additional years would continue to reveal substantial cost savings rather than net costs. Therefore, the estimate of a $66 million annualized cost savings can be thought of as a low-end estimate for the long-term savings associated with a functioning e-Manifest system. For example, extending the period of analysis to ten years from system launch, and assuming that net cost savings in Years 7 through 10 are similar to those experienced in Year 6 leads to an annualized cost savings estimate of approximately $85 million instead.
                                 Exhibit 5-21
  Summary of Costs and Cost Savings of the Final Rule and e-Manifest System 
                            (2017$, millions of $)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       
                                 Cost Category
                                   Baseline
                    Post-Rule (e-Manifest System Launched)
                                       
                                       
                                    Annual
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                         Baseline and Post-Rule Costs
Costs to EPA
                                       1
Receipt/review of federal manifests[a]
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                       2
e-Manifest system  -  annual payment for setup costs ($18.2M total)[b]
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $0.00
                                       3
e-Manifest system  -  operations costs[c]
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $8.39
                                                                          $8.65
                                                                          $9.48
                                                                          $10.6
                                                                          $10.5
                                                                          $10.6
                                       4
e-Manifest system  -  manifest processing costs[c]
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $32.6
                                                                          $26.9
                                                                          $11.3
                                                                          $1.26
                                                                          $1.26
                                                                          $1.26
                                       5
                                                                       Subtotal
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
Costs to Industry
                                       6
Manifest activities[d]
                                                                           $201
                                                                           $195
                                                                           $171
                                                                           $136
                                                                          $88.3
                                                                          $88.3
                                                                          $88.3
                                       7
CROMERR
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                        $0.0361
                                                                         $0.161
                                                                         $0.310
                                                                         $0.527
                                                                         $0.414
                                                                         $0.510
                                       8
Manifest fees[e]
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $44.6
                                                                          $39.2
                                                                          $24.4
                                                                          $15.5
                                                                          $15.4
                                                                          $11.9
                                       9
Hazardous waste reporting activities
                                                                          $10.8
                                                                          $5.02
                                                                          $5.02
                                                                          $5.02
                                                                          $5.02
                                                                          $5.02
                                                                          $5.02
                                      10
State TSDFs - Registration
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                        $0.0593
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                      11
                                                                       Subtotal
                                                                           $212
                                                                           $245
                                                                           $216
                                                                           $165
                                                                           $109
                                                                           $109
                                                                           $106
Costs to States
                                      12
Manifest receipt and processing[f]
                                                                          $16.2
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                      13
Hazardous waste reporting activities
                                                                          $9.09
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                      14
Registering State TSDFs
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                        $0.0731
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                      15
                                                                       Subtotal
                                                                          $25.3
                                                                          $6.37
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                      16
                                                                    Total Costs
                                                                           $238
                                                                           $252
                                                                           $223
                                                                           $173
                                                                           $117
                                                                           $116
                                                                           $113
            Incremental Costs (Post-Rule Costs Less Baseline Costs)
                                      17
                                                       Incremental Costs to EPA
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                      18
                                                  Incremental Costs to Industry
                                                                          $33.0
                                                                          $3.93
                                                                        ($46.3)
                                                                         ($102)
                                                                         ($103)
                                                                         ($106)
                                      19
                                                    Incremental Costs to States
                                                                        ($18.9)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                      20
                          Total Incremental Costs (Cost Savings) (undiscounted)
                                                                          $14.1
                                                                        ($15.1)
                                                                        ($65.2)
                                                                         ($121)
                                                                         ($122)
                                                                         ($125)
                                      21
                   Total Incremental Costs (Cost Savings) (3% discount rate)[g]
                                                                          $13.7
                                                                        ($14.2)
                                                                        ($59.7)
                                                                         ($108)
                                                                         ($105)
                                                                         ($105)
                                      22
                   Total Incremental Costs (Cost Savings) (7% discount rate)[g]
                                                                          $13.2
                                                                        ($13.1)
                                                                        ($53.3)
                                                                        ($92.6)
                                                                        ($86.7)
                                                                        ($83.3)
[a] This RIA assumes that the final rule has no impact on this cost item. For more information on the activities involved, see Exhibit 4-4.
[b] The cost for this item is $18.2 million, per Exhibit 5-4, and is incurred by in years prior to e-Manifest system launch. This cost is apportioned into five equivalent payments of $3.64 million to evidence how the fee will be applied to industry to recoup this cost. Note that the entirety of this cost is offset by fees, and it is not included in the total row.
c The entirety of this cost is offset by fees, and it is not included in the total row.
[d] Includes costs for federal and state manifests, capital costs to store manifests, and reclamation agreement-specific recordkeeping activities. This RIA assumes that the final rule has no impact on capital costs associated with storing manifests in file cabinets and recordkeeping activities for shipments under reclamation agreements; the difference between baseline and post-rule costs results from the difference in the burden associated with manifest activities for federal and state manifests only.
[e] Amount equivalent to the total fee accrued in a given year, as shown in Rows 2 through 4.
[f] This RIA assumes that states do not undertake any manifest receipt and processing activities in the post-rule scenario, as the necessary data would be accessible through the e-Manifest system to states at no charge. 
[g] Figures discounted back to 2017$. That is, the value in Column C is discounted by one year (2018  -  2017), the value in Column D is discounted by two years, and so on.

Exhibit 5-22
Summary of Costs and Cost Savings of the Final Rule and e-Manifest System, Discounted and Annualized 
                            (2017$, millions of $)
                            (Millions of $, 2014$)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       I
                                       
                            e-Manifest System Year
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                           Total (Years 1 through 6)
              Annualized Incremental Cost (Savings) (Years 1 - 6)
                                       
                                 Calendar Year
                                     2018
                                     2019
                                     2020
                                     2021
                                     2022
                                     2023

                                       1
Incremental Costs (Cost Savings)  -  Undiscounted
EPA
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                       2

Industry
                                                                         $33.0 
                                                                          $3.93
                                                                      ($46.3)0)
                                                                         ($102)
                                                                         ($103)
                                                                         ($106)
                                                                         ($320)
                                                                        ($53.4)
                                       3

States
                                                                        ($18.9)
                                                                      ($19.0)0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                         ($114)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                       4

                                                                          Total
                                                                         $14.1 
                                                                       ($15.1) 
                                                                      ($65.2)0)
                                                                         ($121)
                                                                         ($122)
                                                                         ($125)
                                                                         ($434)
                                                                        ($72.4)
                                       5
                                                       Discounted Total (3%)[a]
                                                                         $13.7 
                                                                        ($14.2)
                                                                      ($59.7)0)
                                                                         ($108)
                                                                         ($105)
                                                                         ($105)
                                                                         ($378)
                                                                        ($69.7)
                                       6
                                                       Discounted Total (7%)[a]
                                                                          $13.2
                                                                        ($13.1)
                                                                        ($53.3)
                                                                        ($92.6)
                                                                        ($86.7)
                                                                        ($83.3)
                                                                         ($316)
                                                                        ($66.3)
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
[a] Figures discounted back to 2017$. That is, the value in Column B is discounted by one year (2018  -  2017), the value in Column C is discounted by two years, and so on.

b Calculated as the annual payment that would need to be made, cognizant of discounting, to reach a total value of $161 million after six years. If the period were extended to ten years (i.e., the total period over which e-Manifest system costs are incurred, including pre-launch setup costs, plus the six-year period analyzed here), the annualized cost savings would be approximately $23.0 million instead. 
c Calculated as the annual payment that would need to be made, cognizant of discounting, to reach a total value of $221 million after six years. If the period were extended to ten years (i.e., the total period over which e-Manifest system costs are incurred, including pre-launch setup costs, plus the six-year period analyzed here), the annualized cost savings would be approximately $26.0 million instead.

5.10 Unquantified Benefits of the e-Manifest System 

EPA expects that electronic manifests will enhance many stakeholders' abilities to track and extract data on waste shipments by storing and distributing this data in a central, accessible location. EPA has identified seven stakeholder groups that may benefit from better access to manifest shipping data:

 Members of industry that use the manifest for tracking waste shipments;
 Federal and state government RCRA enforcement officials;
 Emergency responders;
 Foreign governments;
 Research institutions; 
 Communities near RCRA-regulated facilities; and
 Other federal agencies

This RIA does not attempt to quantify the value of this benefit.

5.11 Caveats: Other Parameters not Considered in this Analysis 

This RIA acknowledges, but does not incorporate into its estimation of the final rule's economic impacts, a set of additional considerations, as described below.

 Penalties. Under the final rule, EPA will also apply costs, in the form of penalties, to hazardous waste industry entities that burden the non-electronic manifest processing functions of the e-Manifest system by mailing non-manifest documents. If, for example, a regulated entity opts to mail facility permit or other information required for separate submission to EPA's e-Manifest center, EPA will incur costs to receive, open, review, and return this information to the sender. EPA therefore expects to apply a penalty to such actions. 

 Alteration of the fee. The regulatory framework surrounding the e-Manifest system, including this final rule, allows for alteration of the manifest fees applied to industry in order to prevent over-recovery or under-recovery of the system's setup and operation costs beyond a certain amount. This RIA, functioning under assumptions of certainty in the adoption rate and thus achievable full cost recovery, does not model potential alterations in the fee, though the costs associated with this process are included in EPA's costs. However, to the extent that the actual adoption rate differs from EPA's assumed adoption rate, or to the extent that EPA's system development and operations costs, including non-electronic manifest processing costs, differ from EPA's a priori estimates of these parameters, the fee may need to be altered to prevent under- or over-recovery. In these cases, fees can again be reestablished for full cost recovery using the guidelines and calculations set out in this chapter, though they may also need to be adjusted upward or downward to account for under- or over-collection that has accrued to date. EPA's burden associated with tracking the total amount collected through fees and considering alterations to the fee, including potentially calculating new fee levels, is covered under the "additional program costs" category in Section 5.2.7.

 Enforcement actions due to non-payment of fees. This RIA does not consider the costs of payment collection or other enforcement actions for TSDFs that do not provide payment of fees in a timely manner. This is considered to be an area of non-compliance outside the purview of this RIA, which considers costs and benefits under full compliance with the final rule. However, given that payment will be directly requested only from the small universe of receiver TSDFs, this is considered to be a relatively unlikely outcome, as these TSDFs interact with EPA and other regulatory agencies on a regular basis.

                                   Chapter 6
           Sensitivity Analyses of Final Rule Costs and Cost Savings

Certain aspects of EPA's compliance cost estimates are characterized by significant uncertainty and are sufficiently large that deviations from chosen assumptions may have a measurable impact on cost estimates. In this section, the analysis evaluates the sensitivity of certain results to variation in key parameters. These sensitivity analyses include evaluations of:

 Number of manifests. The analysis evaluates the effect of assuming increased hazardous waste shipping frequencies and consequently more manifests in the system.
      
 Adoption rate. Because cost savings result from adoption of electronic manifests, adoption patterns drive the magnitude of cost and cost savings. 

 Materials costs. The analysis characterizes cost impacts on a more detailed level, specifically assuming that materials costs will be eliminated for manifests generated and submitted electronically.

 CROMERR. Chapter 5 of this RIA assumes that CROMERR applies only to TSDFs and transporters. If CROMERR applied to generators, a large number of additional facilities would incur costs related to this aspect of electronic manifest submission.

 Payback period. Because of the statutory requirement for the manifest fee to recover EPA's costs, the period over which these costs are recovered impacts the level of the fee, and in turn, industry costs.

6.1 Number of Manifests

In Chapter 3, the current number of manifests used in the main analysis assumes that LQG and TSDF shippers operate under a weekly pickup schedule and that SQGs and state hazardous waste generators operate under a monthly pickup schedule. That is, this RIA assumes that a minimum of one truck arrives weekly to haul away hazardous waste from LQGs and TSDF shippers, and a minimum of one truck arrives monthly to haul away hazardous waste from SQGs and state hazardous waste generators. This assumption underpins EPA's primary estimate of 3.3 million manifests annually. However, other methods and assumptions for estimating manifests yield different numbers, and can have important impacts on total costs and cost savings. 

While a number of different parameters drive the numbers of manifests, to evaluate the impact of the number of manifests on cost and cost savings, this RIA considers alternative assumptions regarding minimum shipment frequency for LQGs/TSDF shippers and SQGs/state waste shippers. The manifest count is especially sensitive to the minimum shipment frequency of SQGs and state waste shippers because of the large number of these entities relative to LQGs and TSDF shippers. For example, assuming that every shipper has waste collected at least weekly changes the total estimate from 3.3 million manifests to 10.6 million manifests annually. This jump is driven largely by an increase in state waste manifests from 1.8 million to 7.7 million, as changing the assumption from monthly to weekly increases the number of shipments and manifests fourfold.

                                  Exhibit 6-1
       Estimate of Number of Manifests By Shipping Frequency Assumption
                          Minimum Shipment Frequency
                        Number of Manifests (millions)
                        LQGs and TSDF Shipper Frequency
                                       
                                    Weekly
                                    Monthly
                                   Quarterly
                         SQGs and State Waste Shippers
                                    Weekly
                                                                           10.6
                                                                           9.94
                                                                           9.81

                                    Monthly
                                                                           3.31
                                                                           2.61
                                                                           2.47

                                   Quarterly
                                                                           1.84
                                                                           1.14
                                                                           1.01
Note: Blue highlighted value reflects the primary estimate used in this RIA.

As shown in Exhibit 6-1, estimated total annual manifests range from:

 1.0 million to 1.8 million, assuming that SQGs and state waste shippers ship at least quarterly,
 2.5 million to 3.3 million, assuming that SQGs and state waste shippers ship at least monthly, and
 9.8 million to 10.6 million, assuming that SQGs and state waste shippers ship at least weekly. 

As shown in Exhibit 6-2, cost savings increase with the number of manifests, as burden reductions to industry and states scale up proportionally. Under low shipping frequency assumptions and fewer manifests, e-Manifest system costs are still highly unlikely to outweigh per-manifest burden reductions, leading to positive net costs over the six year period. Even under an extreme assumption that all LQGs, TSDF shippers, SQGs, and state waste shippers ship only annually, net cost savings are achieved in the second year following system launch and in perpetuity thereafter.

                                  Exhibit 6-2
Total Incremental Costs (Savings) of the Final Rule by Shipping Frequency Assumptions
                   (2017$, millions of $, 7% discount rate)
                          Minimum Shipment Frequency
        Annualized Costs (Cost Savings) at 7% Discount Rate, Years 1-6
                            LQGs and TSDF Shippers
                                       
                                    Weekly
                                    Monthly
                                   Quarterly
                         SQGs and State Waste Shippers
                                    Weekly
                                                                         ($210)
                                                                         ($190)
                                                                         ($186)

                                    Monthly
                                                                        ($66.3)
                                                                        ($50.0)
                                                                        ($46.5)

                                   Quarterly
                                                                        ($36.2)
                                                                        ($21.0)
                                                                        ($18.0)
Note: Blue highlighted value reflects the primary estimate used in this RIA.

6.2 Adoption Rate of the e-Manifest System

The switch from paper to electronic manifests drives cost savings under this final rule. Therefore, e-Manifest adoption patterns drive the overall magnitude of cost and cost savings. This assumption generally encompasses additional unknown factors (e.g., the cost of switching to electronic submission, the influence of key market actors, etc.) and exhibits significant uncertainty.
To analyze the sensitivity of cost and cost savings to adoption rates, EPA considered a scenario with low adoption rates for the e-Manifest system, shown in Exhibit 6-3. These adoption patterns are based on several pessimistic assumptions:

 Lack of information, unwillingness to change systems, and/or costs associated with the adoption and use of electronic manifest systems result in an e-Manifest adoption rate that is half what the primary analysis assumes.
 Entities using capable of using XML submission in the baseline through internal electronic systems do not transition to fully electronic manifests.
 The rate at which entities transition from paper submission to scanned image submission rate is half that which the primary analysis assumes, and no entities transition from paper to XML submission. 
 EPA fee adjustments to incentivize e-Manifest adoption do not increase e-Manifest adoption. In other words, even if implemented as described in the Preferred Option, EPA's fee adjustment to highly differentiated fees does not impact the total fee revenue recovered, but places additional cost burdens on paper manifest users.

Exhibit 6-3
Alternate Adoption Rates of Manifest Creation and Submission Systems  -  Tabular Summary
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       
                               Manifest Variant
                    Baseline (Year 0, pre- implementation)
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                       1
Paper Manifest Process
Paper submission
                                    60.00%
                                    55.125%
                                    38.125%
                                    26.875%
                                    11.25%
                                    11.25%
                                    11.25%
                                       2

Scanned image submission
                                     0.00%
                                    2.375%
                                    9.375%
                                    5.625%
                                     1.25%
                                     1.25%
                                     1.25%
                                       3

XML schema submission
                                   0.00%[a]
                                    40.00%
                                    40.00%
                                    40.00%
                                    40.00%
                                    40.00%
                                    40.00%
                                       4
e-Manifest System Process (electronic manifest)
                                      N/A
                                     2.50%
                                    12.50%
                                    27.50%
                                    47.50%
                                    47.50%
                                    47.50%
a As indicated in Section 4.1.3 and Exhibit 5-1, this RIA assumes complete use of paper manifests in the baseline. However, responses to EPA's 2014 survey of TSDFs and EPA's conversations with an industry trade group suggest that approximately 40 percent of hazardous waste generators and receiver TSDFs may already have and use electronic and/or proprietary systems to internally manage manifest-related workflow or data, and are capable of submitting manifests in the XML schema format. These entities are modeled as submitting XML variant manifests once they are allowed to do so following implementation of the final rule.

With these lower adoption rates, annualized cost savings over six years fall from $66 million to $28 million, a 58 percent reduction in cost savings (Exhibit 6-4). Industry does not experience net cost savings in the first two years. This low-adoption scenario still results in net cost savings across the economy after three years, largely driven by burden reduction to states. 

Exhibit 6-4
Summary of Costs and Cost Savings of the Final Rule under Alternate (Lower) Adoption Rate, Discounted and Annualized
(2017$, millions of $)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       I
                                       
                                   Category
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                           Total (Years 1 through 6)
                   Annualized Incremental Cost (Years 1 - 6)
                                       1
Calendar Year
                                     2018
                                     2019
                                     2020
                                     2021
                                     2022
                                     2023
                                      N/A
                                      N/A
                                       2
                Incremental Costs (Cost Savings) - Undiscounted
EPA
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                      N/A
                                       3

Industry
                                                                          $36.6
                                                                          $17.9
                                                                        ($6.43)
                                                                        ($38.9)
                                                                        ($39.0)
                                                                        ($42.5)
                                                                        ($72.4)
                                      N/A
                                       4

States
                                                                        ($18.9)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                         ($114)
                                      N/A
                                       5

                                     Total
                                                                          $17.7
                                                                          $1.09
                                                                        ($25.4)
                                                                        ($57.9)
                                                                        ($58.0)
                                                                        ($61.5)
                                                                         ($186)
                                      N/A
                                       7
Costs (Cost Savings)
7% Discount Rate*
                                                                          $16.6
                                                                         $0.954
                                                                        ($20.7)
                                                                        ($44.2)
                                                                        ($41.4)
                                                                        ($41.0)
                                                                         ($132)
                                  ($27.6)[**]
Totals may not sum due to rounding. Adoption rates corresponding to above estimates based on those portrayed in Exhibit 6-3.
[*] Figures discounted back to 2017$. That is, the value in Column B is discounted by one year (2018  -  2017), the value in Column C is discounted by two years, and so on.
** Calculated as the annual payment that would need to be made, cognizant of discounting, to reach a total value of $132 million after six years. If the period were extended to ten years (i.e., the total period over which e-Manifest system costs are incurred, including pre-launch setup costs, plus the six-year period analyzed here), the annualized cost savings would be approximately $18.7 million instead. 

As noted in Section 5.4.3, this RIA assumes that the e-Manifest system implemented under the final rule will not require any significant investment in either hardware or software by firms or facilities in the hazardous waste industry. To the extent that this is not the case, this sensitivity analysis considers the scenario in which investment costs faced by industry entities to adopt electronic manifests deter widespread adoption of the e-Manifest system. As shown in Exhibit 6-4, even under the assumption that ultimate adoption of electronic manifests is only half of what this RIA assumes in the primary analysis (Chapter 5), the final rule results in net cost savings over the six-year period following system launch and in perpetuity thereafter.

6.3 Materials Costs

The primary analysis estimates e-Manifest labor and materials cost savings by assuming that certain activities experience either an 80 percent burden reduction or five percent burden reduction. Because no data sources provide more detailed information about burden reductions, these values are used to approximate "major reductions" and "minimal reductions," respectively. These reductions do not distinguish between materials costs and labor costs. 

However, EPA expects that many materials costs (e.g., postage, filing cabinets, etc.) may be completely eliminated by electronic manifests. To assess the impact that this set of assumptions has on net costs and cost savings, EPA considered the effect of:

 Removing all materials costs in the post-rule period,
 Removing just materials costs associated with major reductions in the main analysis, and
 Removing just materials costs associated with major reductions in the main analysis but assuming all minor reductions do not enjoy any reduction in materials costs.

Overall materials costs (not including capital costs for file cabinets) are a small portion of overall baseline costs, totaling approximately $3 million in the baseline, compared to overall baseline costs of approximately $201 million (approximately one percent). Thus, the effects of alternative assumptions do not change net costs or cost savings to a large extent. Sensitivity analyses regarding materials costs find that:

 Removing all materials costs in the post-rule scenario increases annualized cost savings by approximately $1.9 million (less than three percent).
 Removing only those materials costs associated with major reductions increases cost savings by just approximately $0.3 million (less than one percent), on an annualized basis.
 Removing materials costs associated with major reductions and assigning full materials costs to activities with minor reductions reduces cost savings by approximately $1.1 million (less than two percent).

Materials costs are a very small component of overall costs associated with manifest activities. Altering how these costs are handled by the RIA in terms of the cost reduction calculations does not substantially impact the cost savings estimated by this RIA.

  CROMERR

The required CROMERR registration and associated activities represent a cost to both EPA and industry that is associated with the e-Manifest system. In the main analysis, CROMERR requirements apply only to TSDFs and transporters and do not apply to generators that ship waste off-site, the largest population in the affected universe. 

This RIA considers the impact of assuming that all entities in the affected universe, including generators shipping hazardous waste off-site, are be subject to CROMERR requirements upon adopting use of the e-Manifest system (i.e., use of electronic manifests). This increases the number of entities subject to CROMERR, and corresponding costs, by a factor of approximately 38 (Exhibit 6-5). For the purpose of this sensitivity analysis, all generators are assumed to have five employees that must register for CROMERR, similar to receiver TSDFs in the primary analysis. Unit costs are unchanged.

The expansion of the types of entities facing CROMERR requirements has a two-fold effect: 

 Increase in costs to industry directly from more CROMERR registrations; and
 Increase in costs to industry because of higher manifest fees to recover additional EPA CROMERR-related costs.

       Exhibit 6-5
CROMERR Costs, By Assumption of Applicable Entities 
                     (2017$, millions of $, undiscounted)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       I
                                       
                                   Analysis
                                     Cost
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                     Total
                                       1
Primary Analysis (CROMERR for Receivers and Transporters only)
EPA
                                                                        $0.0282
                                                                         $0.127
                                                                         $0.249
                                                                         $0.419
                                                                         $0.336
                                                                         $0.388
                                                                          $1.55
                                       2

Industry
                                                                        $0.0361
                                                                         $0.161
                                                                         $0.310
                                                                         $0.528
                                                                         $0.414
                                                                         $0.510
                                                                          $1.96
                                       3

                                                                          Total
                                                                        $0.0643
                                                                         $0.287
                                                                         $0.559
                                                                         $0.947
                                                                         $0.750
                                                                         $0.897
                                                                          $3.50
                                       4
Sensitivity Analysis (CROMERR for Receivers, Transporters, and Generators)
EPA
                                                                          $1.07
                                                                          $4.79
                                                                          $9.40
                                                                          $15.8
                                                                          $12.6
                                                                          $14.6
                                                                          $58.3
                                       5

Industry
                                                                          $1.38
                                                                          $6.13
                                                                          $11.8
                                                                          $20.1
                                                                          $15.7
                                                                          $19.4
                                                                          $74.6
                                       6

                                                                          Total
                                                                          $2.45
                                                                          $10.9
                                                                          $21.2
                                                                          $35.9
                                                                          $28.3
                                                                          $34.0
                                                                           $133

As shown in Exhibit 6-6, overall undiscounted costs increase by approximately $130 million over six years as a result of this change in assumptions. The overall impact is approximately a 35 percent reduction in annualized cost savings. However, the final rule remains a net cost-saving rule, as electronic manifest adoption results in burden reductions that outweigh CROMERR costs. For example, in Year 4, CROMERR costs in this analysis increase by $35 million over the primary analysis, but manifest activity-related cost savings are over $110 million in that year (per Exhibit 5-21, where Year 4 manifest activity costs to industry are approximately $88 million relative to baseline costs of $201 million). CROMERR costs are the highest in the later years, when electronic adoption is the highest.

Exhibit 6-6
Summary of Costs and Cost Savings of the Final Rule and e-Manifest System if CROMERR required for Receivers, Transporters, and Generators, Discounted and Annualized 
                            (2017$, millions of $)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       I
                                       
                                   Category
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                           Total (Years 1 through 6)
                   Annualized Incremental Cost (Years 1 - 6)
                                       1
Calendar Year
                                     2018
                                     2019
                                     2020
                                     2021
                                     2022
                                     2023
                                                                            N/A
                                      N/A
                                       2
Incremental Costs (Cost Savings) - Undiscounted
EPA
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                      N/A
                                       3

Industry
                                                                          $35.7
                                                                          $16.1
                                                                        ($22.6)
                                                                        ($62.3)
                                                                        ($70.9)
                                                                        ($68.2)
                                                                         ($172)
                                      N/A
                                       4

States
                                                                        ($18.9)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                         ($114)
                                      N/A
                                       5

Total
                                                                          $16.8
                                                                        ($2.86)
                                                                        ($41.5)
                                                                        ($81.3)
                                                                        ($89.9)
                                                                        ($87.2)
                                                                         ($286)
                                      N/A
                                       6
Costs (Cost Savings) 
7% discount rate[a]
                                                                          $15.7
                                                                        ($2.50)
                                                                        ($33.9)
                                                                        ($62.0)
                                                                        ($64.1)
                                                                        ($58.1)
                                                                         ($205)
                                                                     ($43.0)[c]
                                       7
Costs (Cost Savings)  -  Primary Analysis 
7% discount rate[b]
                                                                          $13.2
                                                                        ($13.1)
                                                                        ($53.3)
                                                                        ($92.6)
                                                                        ($86.7)
                                                                        ($83.3)
                                                                         ($316)
                                                                        ($66.3)
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
[a] Figures discounted back to 2017$. That is, the value in Column B is discounted by one year (2018  -  2017), the value in Column C is discounted by two years, and so on.
[b] Assumes that CROMERR is not required for generators. Figures in this column are consistent with those in Exhibit 5-22.
c Calculated as the annual payment that would need to be made, cognizant of discounting, to reach a total value of $203 million after six years. If the period were extended to ten years (i.e., the total period over which e-Manifest system costs are incurred, including pre-launch setup costs, plus the six-year period analyzed here), the annualized cost savings would be approximately $29.1 million instead. 

  Payback Period
   
EPA charges manifest fees to fulfill the statutory requirement to recover all costs incurred from developing and operating the e-Manifest system. The payback period over which these costs are recovered affects the level of the fees levied on industry. A longer payback period means lower fees as costs are spread over a longer time period and more manifests, while a shorter payback period means higher manifest fees. The main analysis assumes a payback period of five years.

However, short payback periods can substantially increase the fee. Exhibit 5-14, reproduced as Exhibit 6-7, and Exhibit 6-8 illustrate the increase in manifest fees when the payback period is reduced from five years (Exhibit 6-7) to two years (Exhibit 6-8). The payback period does not impact the overall fee revenue and industry cost burden over the six year period if discounting is not considered. Rather, it redistributes the costs accruing to industry in the form of manifest fees over time. Shorter payback periods increase net annualized costs by increasing costs during early years, when costs face less discounting.

  Exhibit 6-7
Fee Option 2 (Marginal Cost Fee)  -  Payback Period = 5 years 
                             (2017$, undiscounted)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       
                               Manifest Variant
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                       1
Paper Manifest Variants
Paper Variant
                                                                         $19.48
                                                                         $19.56
                                                                         $19.81
                                                                         $20.16
                                                                         $20.13
                                                                         $19.05
                                       2

Image Variant
                                                                         $12.49
                                                                         $12.57
                                                                         $12.81
                                                                         $13.17
                                                                         $13.13
                                                                         $12.05
                                       3

XML Variant
                                                                          $6.51
                                                                          $6.59
                                                                          $6.84
                                                                          $7.19
                                                                          $7.16
                                                                          $6.08
                                       4
e-Manifest
Electronic Variant
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.72
                                                                          $3.97
                                                                          $4.32
                                                                          $4.28
                                                                          $3.20

  Exhibit 6-8
Fee Option 2 (Marginal Cost Fee)  -  Payback Period = 2 years 
                             (2017$, undiscounted)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       
                               Manifest Variant
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                       1
Paper Manifest Variants
Paper Variant
                                                                         $21.13
                                                                         $21.21
                                                                         $18.71
                                                                         $19.06
                                                                         $19.03
                                                                         $19.05
                                       2

Image Variant
                                                                         $14.14
                                                                         $14.22
                                                                         $11.71
                                                                         $12.07
                                                                         $12.03
                                                                         $12.05
                                       3

XML Variant
                                                                          $8.17
                                                                          $8.24
                                                                          $5.74
                                                                          $6.09
                                                                          $6.06
                                                                          $6.08
                                       4
e-Manifest
Electronic Variant
                                                                          $5.29
                                                                          $5.37
                                                                          $2.87
                                                                          $3.22
                                                                          $3.18
                                                                          $3.20

Under a seven percent discount rate, the payback period does not have a very substantial impact on overall cost or cost savings. For example, changing the payback period to a requirement that all setup costs be repaid in the first year decreases the annualized cost savings by less than $1 million over a six-year period. 

However, shorter payback periods would result in higher fees to industry in early years, which may potentially affect industry behavior. Higher fees would occur in years that industry may also be incurring other voluntary costs to upgrade systems in order to better use electronic manifests. Under a one-year payback "period," Year 1 manifest fees under Option 2 are $23.88 for paper, $16.89 for image, $10.92 for XML, and $8.04 for electronic manifests. This represents a 23 percent to 121 percent increase in fees, depending on the manifest type, over the primary analysis. At this time, EPA does not have enough information to determine system-wide implications from shorter payback periods, and higher fees.

                                   Chapter 7
                             Supplemental Analyses

As required by applicable statutes and Executive Orders, this chapter summarizes EPA's analysis of equity considerations and other regulatory concerns associated with the final rule. This chapter assesses potential impacts, with respect to the following issues: 

 Regulatory planning and review: requires examination and quantification of costs and benefits of regulating with and without the final rule;
 Regulatory flexibility: focuses on the potential effects of the final rule on small entities; 
 Employment impacts: assesses the potential impact of the final rule on employment; 
 Unfunded mandates: examines the implications of the final rule with respect to unfunded mandates; 
 Federalism: considers potential issues related to state sovereignty; 
 Tribal governments: extends the discussion of federal unfunded mandates to include impacts on Native American tribal governments and their communities; 
 Environmental justice: considers potential issues for minority and low-income populations; 
 Children's health protection: examines the potential impact of the final rule on the health of children; and
 Energy Impacts: examines the impacts of the final rule on energy use, supply, and distribution.
     
7.1 	Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], as amended by Executive Order 13563, the Agency, in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), must determine whether a regulatory action is "significant" and therefore subject to OMB review and the full requirements of the Executive Order. Executive Order 12866 defines "significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: 

 Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
 
 Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; 

 Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or 

 Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. 

This RIA estimates the potential costs and benefits associated with e-Manifest, described in Chapter 5. This rule is not expected to result in more than $14.1 million in incremental costs across the economy in any given year and results in net cost savings in most years. Manifest fees to industry do not exceed $44.6 million in any year, and are, even in early years with lower adoption rates, at least partially offset by industry and state government cost savings. The cost savings estimated for Year 6, prior to discounting, equal $125.1 million. However, with discounting at a seven percent discount rate, the cost savings for Year 6 are $83.3 million, and the annualized impact of this rule over the adoption period (discounted at seven percent) is $66.3 million. As a result, this RIA concludes that the e-Manifest system is not an economically significant regulatory action, though it may still be deemed significant due to the novel legal and policy issues it raises.

7.2 	Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute. This analysis must be completed unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For this analysis, the final rule is not expected to result in a "significant economic impact for a substantial number of small entities" (SISNOSE) if the costs of the regulation per entity do not exceed one percent or three percent of annual revenues for 20 percent of small entities across sectors, or 100 small entities in the affected universe.

This section first discusses the likely impacts of the final rule on small entities based on the costs and cost savings estimated in Chapter 5. The section then considers a "worst case" scenario in which small entities continue to use paper manifests and do not pass through any fee-related costs to their customers (generators and transporters). This section finds that the final rule will not result in SISNOSE.

7.2.1 Small Entity Impacts based on Costs and Costs Savings Estimates in the Main Analysis

This RIA finds that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. As described in Chapter 5, this RIA estimates that industry time and material burden associated with manifest completion tasks will decrease under the e-Manifest system. Given adoption rate assumptions over a six-year period, undiscounted net cost savings to industry, accounting for burden reductions in manifest activities as well as cost increases due to manifest fees and CROMERR requirements, total approximately $286 million. On an annualized basis over the same six-year period, undiscounted, incremental cost savings are approximately $47.6 million. Approximately $100 million in annual savings to industry occurs in perpetuity assuming 95 percent adoption of electronic manifests. Additionally, industry experiences approximately $5.8 million annually in cost savings from reduced hazardous waste reporting activities. This RIA concludes that this action will likely relieve regulatory burden for all directly-regulated small entities.

7.2.2 Distribution of Small Entities Affected

This RIA finds that directly affected entities, both small and non-small, will largely adopt electronic manifests and realize cost savings. Consequently, the final rule will not result in SISNOSE. This conclusion is reflected in the adoption rates presented in Section 5.1.3, and is based on consultation with industry representatives. As described in Chapter 1, EPA also intends to adjust the manifest fee structure to incentivize adoption of electronic manifests if necessary.

To the extent that entities do not adopt electronic manifests, however, they may face incremental manifest fees. The small entities potentially affected by the rule are TSDFs who will be required to pay manifest fees. The rule does not impose any direct costs on other industrial entities that elect not to use the e-Manifest system. 

The remainder of this section provides information about potentially affected small entities, and examines whether the number of small entities potentially affected by any price increase (however unlikely) would be sufficient even in a worst case scenario to be "substantial." To develop this section, EPA:

 Identified affected entities and industries (Section 7.2.2.1). As described in Chapter 5, EPA expects to levy manifest fees on TSDFs only. Firms only face net incremental costs by continuing to submit paper manifests. 

 Estimated the number of entities that are small (Section 7.2.2.2). To identify the number of small entities in the potentially affected universe, this analysis relies on Dun & Bradstreet, Hoover's, and other publicly available data to link TSDF facilities listed in EPA's RCRAInfo database to their corporate ownership. Although small business size standards are specified for individual 6-digit NAICS codes, company-level financial or employment data were not available for most companies. Further, TSDFs do not predominantly fall under any single industry. Therefore, this analysis classifies major TSDF companies, publicly-traded companies, and multinational corporations as "non-small" entities. All other entities are considered "potentially small," and it is these entities that are evaluated. The small entities examined in this section are potentially small TSDFs that use paper manifests and pay manifest fees. At most, 70 potentially small entities may be impacted. These entities are spread across 40 sectors with at most 12 potentially small entities in a single sector (NAICS 562211  -  Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal).

7.2.2.1 Sectors with Potentially Affected Entities

This section identifies the industries (as defined by 6-digit NAICS codes) that contain potentially small businesses. The identification process uses a list of 377 facilities identified in the RCRA Biennial Report that reported receiving waste from off-site in 2015 and were not owned by government entities (federal or state). Using corporate ownership data from Hoover's, these 377 facilities were matched to 157 ultimate corporate entities (i.e., 41 companies owned multiple facilities, and 116 companies owned only one TSDF each). 

Exhibit 7-1 shows the range of industries that contain three or more TSDFs and the relevant small business size standard for each industry. Many TSDFs are associated with parent companies operating in industries other than the primary industry identified for the TSDF. Based on the establishment-specific six-digit NAICS classification from Hoover's, 89 industries are represented, with 12 percent of facilities in NAICS 562211 (Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal) and 22 percent of facilities in the broader industry of NAICS 5622 (Waste Treatment and Disposal). Forty-seven industries have only one TSDF each, and 13 industries have only two TSDFs each.

                                  Exhibit 7-1
Industries with Three or More Facilities Affected by the Final Rule and SBA Size Standards
                                  NAICS Code
                               NAICS Description
                         Small Business Size Standard
                                       
                                       
                                   Revenue 
                                 ($ Millions)
                                   Employees
                                    221118
Other Electric Power Generation
                                       
                                      250
                                    325180
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
                                       
                                     1000
                                    325199
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing  
                                       
                                     1250
                                    325211
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
                                       
                                     1250
                                    325612
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing  
                                       
                                      750
                                    327310
Cement Manufacturing
                                       
                                     1000
                                    331410
Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining
                                       
                                     1000
                                    331491
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling, Drawing and Extruding
                                       
                                      750
                                    331492
Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum)  
                                       
                                      750
                                    334512
Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential, Commercial and Appliance Use
                                       
                                      500
                                    423930
Recyclable Material Merchant Wholesalers
                                       
                                      100
                                    424690
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
                                       
                                      150
                                    523910
Miscellaneous Intermediation
                                     38.5
                                       
                                    532490
Other Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing
                                     32.5
                                       
                                    541330
Engineering Services
                                      15
                                       
                                    541380
Testing Laboratories
                                      15
                                       
                                    541620
Environmental Consulting Services
                                      15
                                       
                                    561990
All Other Support Services
                                      11
                                       
                                    562111
Solid Waste Collection
                                     38.5
                                       
                                    562112
Hazardous Waste Collection
                                     38.5
                                       
                                    562119
Other Waste Collection
                                     38.5
                                       
                                    562211
Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
                                     38.5
                                       
                                    562212
Solid Waste Landfill
                                     38.5
                                       
                                    562219
Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal  
                                     38.5
                                       
                                    562910
Remediation Services
                                     20.5
                                       
                                    562920
Materials Recovery Facilities
                                     20.5
                                       
                                    562991
Septic Tank and Related Services
                                      7.5
                                       
                                    562998
All Other Miscellaneous Waste Management Services
                                      7.5
                                      250

Ideally, this assessment of the rule's small entity impacts would identify specific entities affected by the rule as small and assess impacts for these entities. However, detailed revenue and employment data necessary for the assessment of regulatory impacts for individual entities are not available. Financial data on the potentially affected universe are limited because (1) for many industries, entities managing hazardous waste represent a small percentage of all entities in their respective industries (thus, industry-wide data may not be generally representative of these particular entities) and (2) many of these entities are privately-held, so financial data are not available. 

7.2.2.2 Count of Potentially Small Business Impacted by the Final Rule

This RIA relies on information from D&B, Hoover's, and other online financial data sources, including SEC annual reports and company websites, to determine which entities might be small. In the absence of entity-specific revenue or employment data for all entities, this analysis considers any entity to be potentially small if it is not publicly traded, does not have multinational operations, and does not report confirmed financial data to Hoover's (i.e., if it cannot be verified as large). This analysis also assumes that the six hazardous waste management companies responding to the 2015 EPA questionnaire described in Chapter 3 are not small businesses, as these companies were identified to be the among largest in their industry. These assumptions provide a highly conservative (upper bound) estimate of 70 potentially small entities (approximately 45 percent of entities), corresponding to 79 facilities (approximately 21 percent of facilities). These entities span 40 industries, with only 14 industries having more than one potentially small entity. Exhibit 7-2 shows, by industry, the distribution of potentially small entities. Within each of these industries, only between one and 12 entities are potentially small. 

                                  Exhibit 7-2
      Industries of Potentially Small Entities Affected by the Final Rule
                                  NAICS Code
                               NAICS Description
                       Number of Potentially Small Firms
                                    237110
Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction
                                       1
                                    325180
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
                                       1
                                    325211
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
                                       1
                                    325212
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
                                       1
                                    325612
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing  
                                       2
                                    325998
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
                                       1
                                    326113
Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing
                                       1
                                    326199
All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
                                       1
                                    331410
Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining
                                       6
                                    331491
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling, Drawing and Extruding
                                       1
                                    331492
Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum)  
                                       4
                                    332618
Other Fabricated Wire Product Manufacturing
                                       1
                                    332813
Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing and Coloring
                                       1
                                    332999
All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
                                       1
                                    333249
Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
                                       1
                                    334512
Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential, Commercial and Appliance Use
                                       1
                                    335911
Storage Battery Manufacturing
                                       1
                                    423450
Medical, Dental, and Hospital Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
                                       1
                                    423830
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
                                       2
                                    423930
Recyclable Material Merchant Wholesalers
                                       2
                                    423940
Jewelry, Watch, Precious Stone, and Precious Metal Merchant Wholesalers
                                       1
                                    424690
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
                                       1
                                    424720
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals)
                                       1
                                    488190
Other Support Activities for Air Transportation
                                       1
                                    488999
All Other Support Activities for Transportation
                                       1
                                    493110
General Warehousing and Storage
                                       1
                                    493190
Other Warehousing and Storage
                                       1
                                    523910
Miscellaneous Intermediation
                                       3
                                    541380
Testing Laboratories
                                       2
                                    541620
Environmental Consulting Services
                                       2
                                    561990
All Other Support Services
                                       2
                                    562112
Hazardous Waste Collection
                                       2
                                    562119
Other Waste Collection
                                       1
                                    562211
Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
                                      12
                                    562212
Solid Waste Landfill
                                       2
                                    562219
Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal  
                                       3
                                    562920
Materials Recovery Facilities
                                       7
                                    562998
All Other Miscellaneous Waste Management Services
                                       1
                                    621111
Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists)
                                       1
                                    Unknown
Unknown
                                       1
                                                                          Total
                                      70
*Rows do not sum because some potentially small firms own multiple facilities corresponding to different NAICS codes.

The count of 70 firms in Exhibit 7-2 represents a worst-case, upper bound estimate of potentially small firms that may be impacted by e-Manifest. However, several aspects of this analysis and of the examined industry should be noted to properly contextualize the results in Exhibit 7-2. The count of 70 entities likely includes large, privately-held firms which could not be verified to be small, as well as a number of firms whose primary line of business does not appear to be hazardous waste treatment. The impact of e-Manifest on these large firms is already found in Chapter 5, where it is shown to relieve burden.

Additionally, this analysis assumes that small firms will not be sophisticated enough to transition away from paper manifests to any of the lower-cost options provided by the rule. Hazardous waste treatment and disposal is an inherently technical field. These 70 potentially small firms are therefore likely more sophisticated, and thus more able to adopt electronic manifests, than assumed within this analysis. Finally, this analysis focuses solely on firms that may be adversely impacted by the rule; the many thousands of small firms that will likely be beneficially affected by the rule are not examined in detail here. 

7.2.2.3 Screening Assessment Confirming Finding of No SISNOSE

For this analysis, EPA considers estimates of greater than 20 percent of total small entities or 100 small entities in the affected universe as indications that a substantial number of small entities may be affected by the rule. The worst-case, upper bound estimate of small entities that will be required to pay manifest fees (and could therefore potentially experience cost increases) under the rule is 70, as shown in Exhibit 7-2. Exhibit 2-15 summarizes the universe of entities affected by the rule; EPA anticipates that many of these entities (especially generators and transporters) are small entities. EPA also anticipates that a large majority of these small entities will experience cost reductions under the rule by using the e-Manifest system (see Section 5.4.1). Therefore, the 70 TSDF entities potentially adversely affected by the rule do not represent 20 percent of affected small entities.

EPA conducted a screening-level assessment of these 70 potentially small TSDF entities. To estimate revenues and potential impacts for these 70 potentially small entities, EPA used the following assumptions and steps:  

 Since EPA does not have revenue data for these 70 potentially small entities, the Agency uses the conservative assumption that all of them are small.
         
 EPA assumed that these entities would only use paper manifests, and would incur the entire cost of the paper manifest fee.
         
 For entities that report NAICS codes with revenue-based small business thresholds, EPA assumes that revenues equal the midpoint of the revenue range for small entities.  For example, for facilities in a NAICS code with a $15 million per-firm revenue SBA threshold, EPA assumed these entities had average revenues of $7.5 million.
         
 For facilities whose NAICS codes have employment-based small business thresholds, EPA examined 2012 Economic Census data (which lists total revenues for facilities within a range of employment) to identify revenues associated with the mid-point range of employees under the small business threshold, using the method documented in the following example of NAICS 325612 (Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing):
                  
          NAICS 325612 has an SBA threshold for small entities of 750 employees. The midpoint of this threshold is 375 employees. 
          Based on employment size categories used by the Economic Census, the midpoint employment size falls within the "100 to 499 employees" category.
          Average per-firm revenues within this employment size category for NAICS 325612 are approximately $43 million. Therefore, EPA uses $43 million as the estimate of annual revenues received by a small entity that reports this NAICS code.

 For each entity, EPA then calculated a upper-bound cost by multiplying the paper manifest fee by an estimated number of manifests completed by the entity, and compared it to the estimated annual revenues for small entities in that sector.  
         
Using this method, EPA found that paper manifest costs exceed one percent of midpoint-derived revenues only for 11 of the 70 potentially small entities (16 percent). This confirms the finding of no SISNOSE.

7.3 Employment Impact Analysis

Executive Order 13563 "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review" (76 FR 3821; January 18, 2011) requires Federal agencies to consider the employment impacts of regulatory policy. Specifically, Executive Order 13563 states, "Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation." Consistent with the requirements of the Executive Order, this RIA considers the employment impacts of the final rule. For this rule, EPA presents a qualitative assessment of the potential for employment impacts at regulated facilities. 

This section first describes the theoretical framework used to analyze regulation-induced employment impacts, discussing how economic theory alone cannot predict whether such impacts are positive or negative, and concludes with a qualitative description of some labor changes that might occur as a result of the final rule.

7.3.1 Economic Theory and Employment
	
Regulatory employment impacts are difficult to disentangle from other economic changes affecting employment decisions over time and across regions and industries. Labor market responses to regulation are complex, and reflect labor demand and supply elasticities, decisions at a firm and industry level to adopt technologies and realign products, and possible labor market imperfections (e.g., wage stickiness, long-term unemployment, etc.). The unit of measurement (e.g., number of jobs, types of jobs, hours worked, and earnings) may affect observability of that response. 
      
Microeconomic theory describes how firms adapt their operations in response to changes in economic conditions. Labor is one aspect of operations, along with capital, energy, and materials; all of these are affected by technology.
      
In competitive markets, firms choose inputs and outputs to maximize profit as a function of market prices and technological constraints.[,] Berman and Bui (2001) adapt this model to analyze how environmental regulations affect labor demand. They model environmental regulation as effectively requiring certain factors of production, such as pollution abatement capital, at levels that firms would not otherwise choose. Berman and Bui (2001) model two components that drive changes in firm-level labor demand: output effects and substitution effects. Regulation affects the profit-maximizing quantity of output by changing the marginal cost of production. If a regulation causes marginal production costs to increase, it will place upward pressure on output prices, leading to a decrease in demand, and resulting in a decrease in production. The output effect describes how, holding labor intensity constant, a decrease in production causes a decrease in labor demand. As noted by Berman and Bui, although many assume that regulations must increase marginal cost, in cases such as the final rule, they may decrease it. The rule gives firms the option of converting to a more efficient technology for meeting the same regulatory requirements. Firms may then optimize their internal operations to focus on more profitable operations, or to reduce the costs paid by generators of hazardous wastes. For state governments, the reduction in requirements also allows realignment of labor toward other activities; this is offset nationally by EPA's costs to operate the e-Manifest system.
      
The substitution effect describes how, holding output constant, regulation affects the labor-intensity of production. Berman and Bui (2001) model the substitution effect as the effect of regulation on pollution control equipment and expenditures required by the regulation and the corresponding change in the labor-intensity of production. Under the final rule, moving from paper to electronic manifests is expected to reduce the labor intensity of manifest activities of industries generating and handling hazardous wastes. The cost savings could lead affected firms to realign labor toward other production activities.
      
The final rule aims to reduce the effects of regulation on production. In response to the rule, if it is cost effective to do so, entities may undertake a number of labor changes, depending on the type of entity (generator, TSDF, transporter, state) and their use of systems to generate and process manifests in the baseline and post-rule scenarios. Appendix C provides the complete set of activities comprising the manifest process; as described in Chapter 5, this RIA assumes that under an electronic manifest system, these activities take less time (i.e., fewer labor hours) to complete, with the extent of the reduction varying by the specific activity in question. These activities must be completed regardless of an entity's use of electronic manifests; the effect of using electronic manifests, from the entity's perspective, is to reduce the costs associated with completing these activities. Entities that save labor hours as a result of the transition to electronic manifests can allocate these hours to other productive uses within their organization.

This RIA estimates a reduction in labor hours (approximately 22.8 million over six years) and labor costs faced by all affected entities, including states, hazardous waste generators, transporters, and TSDFs. The RIA does not reflect a complete analysis of labor market effects related to the rule, as the effects are spread across hundreds of thousands of firms in different sectors, and responses to cost reductions are likely to be sector- and firm-specific. Neither the data nor methods were available to conduct such an analysis. 

7.4 Unfunded Mandates Analysis

Among its other purposes and federal agency rulemaking requirements, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) requires federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector, to determine whether any proposed rulemaking may result in "any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year."

Section 202 of UMRA requires federal agencies that proposed rules that are likely to exceed this expenditure threshold to prepare a "Written Statement" containing the following five components, supply the statement to OMB, and summarize it in the Federal Register: 

   1.	Identification of the applicable authorizing federal law;

   2.	Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of the rule including the costs and benefits to state, local, and tribal governments or the private sector, and an analysis of whether federal resources may be available to pay these costs;

   3.	Estimates of future compliance costs and any disproportionate budgetary effects;

   4.	Estimates of effects on the national economy such as productivity, economic growth, employment, job creation, international competitiveness; and

   5.	Description and summary of agency's prior consultation with elected representatives of the affected state, local, and tribal governments.

The e-Manifest final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. As described in Chapter 5, this RIA estimates that the net impact of e-Manifest will be to reduce costs to state governments. The e-Manifest rule will not impose any burden on local or tribal governments as they are not stakeholders in the hazardous waste manifest system. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
      
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The current hazardous waste paper manifest system imposes no burden or requirements on small governments.

7.5 Federalism Analysis

The 1999 Federalism Executive Order 13132 furthers the policies of UMRA by establishing federalism principles, federalism policymaking criteria, and a state and local government consultation process for the development of federal regulations with implications for federalism. These include regulations and other federal policies and actions that have substantial direct effects on states, on the relationship between the federal government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
Pursuant to the consultation process of Executive Order 13132, this section evaluates whether the final rule may "impose substantial direct compliance costs" on state and local governments. EPA's 2008 guidance for compliance with Executive Order 13132 describes two numerical methods for evaluating whether an EPA rule may have federalism implications with respect to "substantial direct compliance costs":

 The $25 million test. Annualized direct compliance cost expenditures to state and local governments in aggregate of $25 million or more.
      
 The one percent test. Annualized direct compliance costs faced by state and local governments are likely to equal or exceed 1percent of their annual revenues.
As indicated in the UMRA discussion above, this RIA estimates cost savings for state agencies. Thus, the final rule would not result in substantial direct compliance costs, as defined in the EPA guidance, for entities owned by state and local governments. 

EPA does not estimate that the final rule would affect the relationship between the federal government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

7.6 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications." As indicated in the UMRA discussion above, EPA does not estimate any costs of the final rule for state and local governments. Based on these results, the final rule is not expected to impose a substantial burden on tribal governments.

7.7 Environmental Justice Analysis

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Among other actions, the Order directs agencies to improve research and data collection regarding health and environmental effects in minority and low-income communities.

EPA does not anticipate that the proposed rule would result in disproportionately high or adverse impacts for minority or low-income populations. Overall, the Agency anticipates that the rule will support the safe shipment and management of hazardous waste, which benefits all communities. As the rule encourages environmentally sound recordkeeping of hazardous wastes, it will likely reduce the risks associated with treatment, disposal, and recovery. 

7.8 Children's Health Protection Analysis

Executive Order 13045, entitled "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR. 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be "economically significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866, or (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. 

EPA does not anticipate that the final rule would lead to a disproportionate negative impact on children. As described in the Environmental Justice section above, the rule improves the information available to EPA through notification, tracking, and reporting requirements, and provides for environmentally sound disposal and recovery.

7.9 Energy Impact Analysis

Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations that Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (May 18, 2001), addresses the need for regulators to more fully consider the potential energy impacts of regulatory action. Under this Executive Order, agencies are required to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects when a regulatory action may have significant adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use, including impacts on price and foreign supplies. Additionally, the requirements obligate agencies to consider reasonable alternatives to regulatory actions with adverse effects and the impacts that such alternatives might have on energy supply, distribution, or use.

The final rule would not directly regulate energy production or consumption. In addition, with undiscounted net costs of no more than $15.3 million per year (including both industry and government net costs), this rule is not considered an economically significant action under Executive Order 12866. 

Changes in the management of hazardous waste resulting from the final rule are not expected to significantly impact energy production or distribution, as these changes relate only to reporting, though the reduction in material (paper) use anticipated under the rule is likely associated with reduced energy demand to manufacture and transport paper. Changes in hazardous waste manifest practices may lead to changes in the management practices of hazardous waste, although the effect of these changes on energy use and generation is uncertain and likely to be minimal. Aside from the potential change in paper use and waste management practices described above, the requirements of the rule would have minimal impact on energy consumption; therefore, the rule is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use.