Sixth, EPA is proposing to add two new paragraphs in § 761.213. The first paragraph [§ 761.213(d)] is adapted from § 265.71(h) and clarifies that a commercial storage or disposal facility must follow certain manifest tracking procedures using paper manifests as replacements for the electronic manifest, if the electronic manifest becomes unavailable and cannot be completed. From the point at which the electronic manifest is no longer available for tracking the PCB shipment, the paper replacement manifest would be completed and managed just as it would be completed and managed with the standard paper manifest form.
      Second, EPA is proposing to add new paragraphs to §§ 761.211 for transporters and 761.213 for commercial storage or disposal facilities to clarify that they must follow special manifest tracking procedures for manifests that are initiated electronically, but, for whatever reason, cannot be completed electronically. New paragraph (d) [§ 761.211] is adapted from § 263.20(a)(6) of the transporter regulations, "Special procedures when electronic manifest is not available." In such cases, the transporter in possession of the waste must reproduce sufficient copies of the paper copy that is carried on the transport vehicle (which copy becomes the "replacement" manifest) and complete all further tracking requirements with the replacement manifest. This transporter should produce enough copies so that the transporter in possession of the waste and all subsequent handlers named on the manifest will be able to keep a paper copy for their records. The transporter must also produce two additional copies that will be delivered with the waste to the receiving facility.
      The new paragraph (d) [§ 761.213] is adapted from § 265.71(h), of the designated facility regulations "Special procedures applicable to replacement manifests." When the electronic manifest is not available, the designated facility must likewise sign the remaining printed copies at the time the waste shipment is ultimately delivered to the designated facility. Upon signing the remaining copies to acknowledge the receipt of the waste (or to note discrepancies), the designated facility must provide one copy to the delivering transporter, must keep one copy for its records, and must, within 30 days of receipt of the waste, send one copy to the generator and submit an additional copy to the e-Manifest system for data processing.
      Finally, EPA is proposing to add text in § 761.180(b)(3) to allow for the future use of an approved electronic system, such as the RCRAInfo industry application, for the submission of Forms 7710-53 and 6200-025, Certificates of Disposal, and One-year Exception Reports. Form 7710-53, the Notification of PCB Activity form, as described in § 761.205, is required for all commercial storers, transporters, and disposers of PCB waste and generators with PCB waste subject to the waste storage requirements of § 761.65(b) or (c)(7). Form 6200-025 is required by § 761.180(b)(3) for submission of annual reports by commercial storers and disposers of PCB waste. Certificates of disposal, as described in § 761.218, are required to be sent by the disposer to the generator for every shipment of waste disposed. The certificate of disposal serves as confirmation to the generator that their waste was disposed of within the one-year time frame required by § 761.65(a) and uses information required by the manifest under § 761.218(a)(1) - (2). One-year Exception Reports, as described in § 761.219, flag waste shipments that were not disposed of within the one-year time frame required by § 761.65(a). EPA is proposing to allow the submission of these documents in the future through an EPA-approved electronic system, such as the RCRAInfo Industry Application. This change would not add burden to any regulated parties and, in fact, would serve to reduce burden, as it would simply provide an electronic method of submitting information already required by the PCB regulations.
2. What Technical Corrections and Other Regulatory Amendments is EPA Proposing under Today's Action?

	With today's action, EPA is revising certain regulatory requirements that will be obsolete before promulgation of this rule, are now obsolete, or have typographical errors in them. Specifically, EPA is removing paragraph (a)(2)(v)(A) and revising paragraph (a)(2)(v)(B) of 40 CFR 264.71 and 265.71. EPA is also revising the definition of "Paper manifest submissions" of 40 CFR 264.1310 and 265.1310 and the "Manifest transactions subject to fees" regulations of 40 CFR 264.1311 and 265.1311. Beginning June 30, 2021, EPA will no longer accept paper manifest submissions to the PPC via postal mail and will remove the current PPC mailing address from our e-Manifest webpage (www.epa.gov/e-manifest) prior to that sunset date to avoid receipt of paper manifests at that time. Therefore, these regulatory amendments are necessary to reflect the forthcoming ban on postal mail submissions for paper manifests.
       EPA is also revising § 262.20 by removing paragraph (a)(2) from that section. This current regulation is obsolete as it provides the delayed compliance date for use of the old 6-copy manifest form and continuation sheet. EPA standardized the manifest forms in the March 2005 final rule and delayed requiring use of them until September 6, 2005 (70 FR 10815, Mar. 4, 2005).
      EPA is revising minor typographical misspelling errors found in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sections §§ 264.1312 and 265.1312. These sections provide the user fee calculation methodology for determining the fees that receiving facilities are assessed based on their usage of manifests in the system. Existing paragraph (a) contains a typographical misspelling error in the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Cost formula. Existing paragraph (b) contains typographical misspelling errors in both the O&M Cost formulas for fully electronic manifest usage and all other manifest usage. Specifically, "e-Manifest" is misspelled as "eManfiest" in the O&M Cost formula in paragraphs (a) of Parts 264 and 265 and is also similarly misspelled in both the O&Mfully electronicCost and O&Mall otherCost formulas in paragraphs (b) of Parts 264 and 265.
       EPA is also revising a typographical error found in paragraph (e) of section § 761.60. Paragraph (e) accurately refers to "an incinerator approved under § 761.70 or a high-efficiency boiler operating in compliance with § 761.71" twice in the first sentence. However, the fifth sentence uses incorrect citations in a similar reference to "a § 761.60 incinerator or a § 761.61 high-efficiency boiler." EPA is proposing to correct the regulatory citations in the fifth sentence to read "a § 761.70 incinerator or a § 761.71 high efficiency boiler."
3. What is EPA Proposing Regarding Generator Access to Final Copies of Manifest?

      During the June 2019 Advisory Board meeting, the Advisory Board addressed several issues limiting generator's use of fully electronic manifests in the e-Manifest system. One issue addressed by the Board and reaffirmed by one public commenter was generators' inability or reluctance to register in the e-Manifest system so that they have access to fully electronic manifest tracking. In addition, the public commenter asserted that the low number of generators registered in the e-Manifest system has caused continued burden to receiving facilities, because they must continue to mail paper manifest copies to generators who do not have access to view their manifests in the system. Thus, receiving facilities continue to incur the cost of mailing paper manifest copies to generators, in addition to submitting copies to EPA's e-Manifest system. The commenter suggested that this burden could be eliminated, if 1) EPA mandated generators to register for access to the e-Manifest system, and 2) the Agency designed the system to generate automated email that could notify generators that their completed manifests are available for viewing. The Board agreed automated email notifications could eliminate the need of receiving facilities to mail paper copies of manifests to generators and could incentivize generators to register in the e-Manifest system for access to initiate fully electronic manifests or to view uploaded images of their paper manifests if they continue to track their shipments using paper. The Board also recommended EPA mandate generator registration. The Board reaffirmed this position in its recommendations following the April 2020 Board meeting.
      EPA acknowledges that generators' reluctance or inability to adopt fully electronic manifests or register in the system for access to uploaded images has burdened receiving facilities by requiring them to physically mail manifest copies to generators who do not have access to the e-Manifest system. However, as explained in the e-Manifest One Year Rule, the e-Manifest Act did not mandate generators and other waste handlers to use electronic manifests in the e-Manifest system. Therefore, waste handlers may elect not to track their shipments electronically (i.e., continue to use paper manifests). Consequently, EPA deliberately undertook a phased approach to e-Manifest system implementation so that the Agency could accomplish the Act's objectives to both allow the continued use of paper manifests, while still facilitating the adoption of electronic manifesting. For example, EPA established a methodology to tailor user fees based on how manifests are submitted to EPA, with electronic manifests incurring the lowest user fees. EPA also included in the User Fee Final rule a phase-out by June 30, 2021, of mailed paper manifest submissions by receiving facilities. EPA also explained in the User Fee Final Rule, its goal to phase out all paper manifest use after five years, but a decision to do this will await a fuller evaluation of manifest use trends in several years, and possible consultation with the e-Manifest Advisory Board on appropriate steps to facilitate more electronic manifest use.
      While EPA continues to explore ways to improve waste handler adoption of e-Manifest, the Agency is proposing an alternative solution to the public commenter's and Board's recommendation. EPA accepts the Advisory Board's recommendation to enhance ability of generators to receive final manifest copies from the e-Manifest system, rather than from receiving facilities. EPA also accepts the Board's recommendation to add space on the manifest form to collect the generator's email address and therefore is proposing to add space in Block 5 of the manifest (i.e., the Generator's Name and Mailing Address block) and require generators to provide an email address in that space. Collecting generators' email addresses on the manifest form would, in turn, allow the e-Manifest system to generate email providing final copies of the manifest to generators, regardless of whether the generator is ultimately registered in e-Manifest. To ensure that the automated email is not undelivered or left unnoticed or unopened, EPA proposes to require the generator to enter an email address associated with the company site and shared with site employees who are directly, or indirectly, involved with arranging the waste shipment for off-site transportation, or who have day-to-day responsibilities of the site's operations.
      For generators who track their wastes using a paper manifest or a hybrid manifest but are not registered in the system, an automated email would alert generators that their manifests have been completed and are available in the system for viewing. In addition, the automated email would alert generators about return manifests from receivers that are late (Exceptions), and when materials received by the facility designated on the manifest do not match with the quantities or types of materials indicated as being shipped by generators (Discrepancies). Specifically, the email would ask a generator to verify the email addresses recorded on the paper manifest before providing them the site's manifest activity tracked in the system. Following email verification, the system would transmit digital copies of a generator's manifests via the verified email address. The email would also provide a link to EPA's e-Manifest user registration webpage and encourage the generator to register at least two Site Managers in RCRAInfo to access their manifests in the e-Manifest system (EPA recommends each site register two Site Managers so a back-up Site Manager is available). For manifests containing wastes that are also listed by the Department of Homeland Security as "chemicals of interest," the generators will only be sent a notification that the manifest was uploaded and will need to register to see the manifests. EPA notes that once a generator registers in e-Manifest, the site would receive a notification email regarding the recent manifest activity tracked in the system on a weekly basis. Under this proposed approach, receiving facilities would no longer be required to mail paper copies of manifests to generators, even if those generators did not yet have e-Manifest access to view their final manifests. Thus, receiving facilities would not incur the cost of mailing paper manifest copies to generators. Therefore, today's proposed rule revises 40 CFR 264.71(a)(2)(iv) and 264.71(b)(4), and 265.71(a)(2)(iv) and 265.71(b)(4) by removing the existing requirement that receiving facilities mail paper manifests to the generators and clarifying that they submit the top copies (Page 1) to the e-Manifest system only.
      In addition, EPA is proposing to revise the current 5-copy form to conform with the proposed distribution requirement. Currently, the manifest form printing specification and the distribution notation at the bottom of the second copy (Page 2) of the five-copy set of forms require this copy be sent by the designated facility to the generator. Under today's proposal, this copy (Page 2) would no longer be needed and thus would be removed from the five-copy set of forms. This proposed rule creates a new four-copy form and eliminates the copy, previously denoted as ``Page 2: Designated facility to generator.'' The printing specification requirements at § 262.21(f)(5), (f)(6), and (f)(7) are revised to align with the proposed four-copy form. Thus, the copies of the form would be distributed as follows:
      Page 1 (top copy): "Designated facility to EPA's e-Manifest system";
      Page 2: "Designated facility copy";
      Page 3: "Transporter copy"; and,
      Page 4 (bottom copy): "Generator's initial copy."
The submission of the top copy to the system by the receiving facilities will enable destination states and certain generators (i.e., generators who are registered and can access their final manifest in the system) to receive the manifest final copies from the e-Manifest system. EPA reiterates that, under this proposal, generators who are not registered (and thus cannot access their final manifest in the system) for the e-Manifest system would receive their manifest final copies via email. EPA requests comment on its proposed approach.
      EPA also requests comment on whether the Agency should eliminate the designated facility copy (Page 3) from the five-copy form. Under existing federal manifest regulations, all manifest users can use e-Manifest to meet their recordkeeping requirements with respect to the image file copy of the final manifest, and can also discard any corresponding paper copy of the manifest, once the image file of the final manifest is available in their account. Thus, designated facilities currently retain Page 3 of the mailed paper manifest for their records but discard it once the corresponding top copy of the completed manifest is available in the system. However, as of June 30, 2021, a designated facility can only submit a paper manifest via an image file of Page 1 of the manifest, and any continuation sheet, or both a data file and the image file corresponding to Page 1 of the manifest, and any continuation sheet, to the e-Manifest system. (As mentioned above in Section IV.C.2 of this preamble, this action makes regulatory amendments to 40 CFR 264.71 and 265.71 to reflect the ban on postal mail submissions for paper manifests beginning on June 30, 2021.) In view of the fact that submission of paper manifests to the e-Manifest system via postal mail are no longer permissible and thus options available to receiving facilities for submission of paper manifests are limited to either a scanned image upload or a data plus image upload, EPA believes Page 3 of the existing manifest forms could no longer be needed and thus, the copies of the form could be distributed as follows:
      Page 1 (top copy): "Designated facility to EPA's e-Manifest system";
      Page 2: "Transporter facility copy" and;
      Page 3: (bottom copy): "Generator's initial copy"
EPA requests comment on removing Page 3 (Designated facility copy) from the manifest form and continuation sheet.
      EPA recognizes some generators may not have email addresses associated with the company site and thus use personal email addresses for their businesses. EPA requests comment on whether such sites should record their site manager's or site contact's email address in the proposed email entry field since site managers and site contacts should be familiar with the general circumstances of a waste shipment and the accompanying manifest. Thus, the site manager or site contact would be available to respond promptly to EPA's or the relevant state regulating agency's requests regarding the manifest. EPA also requests comment on the cost savings to receiving facilities under this approach since they would no longer be expected to mail hardcopies of manifests to unregistered generators. In addition, EPA requests comment on whether  notification emails should be sent to unregistered generators on a periodic basis, e.g., should the notification email be sent daily, weekly, or bi-weekly?
      EPA also acknowledges there may be internet connectivity problems in some regional areas of the U.S. that may cause difficulty for generators to receive the signed and dated manifests via email. Further, some generators may not have email accounts to receive the completed manifests. EPA, however, believes the universe of such generators is very small and thus, if generators have unreliable internet connection or do not have emails, these generators should make arrangements with their receiving facilities to supply them with paper copies of completed manifests. EPA requests comment on this approach.
	In addition, EPA acknowledges today's proposal regarding unregistered generators receiving digital copies of completed manifests from the e-Manifest system rather than receiving paper copies from the receiving facilities via postal mail may not incentivize such generators to register in the e-Manifest system for electronic manifest use. Therefore, EPA requests comment on an alternative option to mandate that generators register for access to the e-Manifest system. Specifically, each generator site would be required to register at least one Site Manager in RCRAInfo for e-Manifest system access (EPA recommends each site register at least two Site Managers). At the time of registration, the user would be required to provide a company email address associated with the company site and shared with site employees who are directly, or indirectly, involved with arranging the waste shipment for off-site transportation, or who have day-to-day responsibilities for the site's operations. This option would require EPA or the states to register the initial Site Manager for a generator site, as is done currently. Once a Site Manager is registered and approved, however, that individual would be responsible for the user registration of future e-Manifest system users at the company site. Under this approach, EPA would not need to collect generator email addresses on the manifest form. In addition, EPA would not email digital copies of manifests to generators as they would be expected to access their accounts to view their manifests. EPA, however, would send notification email to generators regarding their sites' recent manifest activity tracked in the system. Finally, under this alternate approach, as with the proposed approach, receiving facilities would not be required to mail hardcopies of manifests to generators as all generators would be required to register in the system and have access to their manifests.
4. What is EPA proposing or requesting comment on regarding the Manifest Form and Biennial Report Integration with the e-Manifest?

4.1	Background

    		EPA explained in the February 8, 2019, Federal Register notice to renew the Information Collection Request for the manifest form (EPA form 8700-22/22A) that the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act mandates that EPA build the e-Manifest system to provide users the ability to report hazardous waste receipt data applicable to the biennial hazardous waste report in e-Manifest (See 84 FR 2854 at 2857). Besides recommending that EPA integrate manifested-related reports with the e-Manifest system, as discussed in section IV.B of today's notice, the e-Manifest Advisory Board also recommended that EPA focus its efforts to integrate the e-Manifest system with the Biennial Report (also known as BR or the Hazardous Waste Report). The Board believes such integration would encourage users to transition to fully electronic or hybrid manifests, thereby increasing the value of the e-Manifest system and perhaps reducing regulatory recordkeeping and reporting burden of the BR program. The BR is a set of forms (EPA form 8700-13) and instructions for sites to report to EPA and states about their hazardous waste generation, management and final disposition. Specifically, certain sites must submit a report covering each odd-numbered year (called the "collection year" or "reporting year") by March 1 of every even-numbered year ("submission year"). The report may be submitted by paper or electronically to the state or EPA Region. Electronic submissions can be made using the Biennial Report Module in the RCRAInfo Industry Application or the state's own choice of BR software.
      Sites must submit a BR if they meet its applicability requirements. In general, sites must submit if they meet the definition of a large quantity generator during the collection year or if they treated, stored, recycled or disposed of RCRA hazardous wastes on-site or shipped hazardous waste offsite to a RCRA permitted treatment, storage, recycling, and disposal facility, or received hazardous wastes from off-site hazardous waste generators without storing the wastes before recycling during the reporting year. Sites that do not meet these criteria are not required to file a report under the federal regulations, e.g., under the federal program, most small and very small quantity generators do not need to file a biennial report. However, state regulations may be more stringent, for example, in requiring more sites to report or more frequent reporting, e.g., on an annual basis.
      The BR consists of a number of forms: the RCRA Subtitle C Site Identification Form (Site ID Form), completed by all reporting sites; the Waste Generation and Management Form (GM Form), completed by generators; the Waste Received from Off-site Form (WR Form), completed by facilities that received hazardous waste shipments from off-site and managed the waste onsite (including subsequent transfer off-site) during the reporting year; and the Off-site Identification Form(s) (OI Forms), completed by sites that received hazardous waste from off-site or sent hazardous waste off-site during the reporting year; however, the OI Form is completed only if required by the state.
      In the February 8, 2019, notice, EPA noted that the manifest and BR forms collect several of the same data elements. For example, a WR Form is divided into three identical parts (i.e., waste blocks), labeled Waste 1, Waste 2, and Waste 3 that collect information on the quantities, characteristics, and management of each hazardous waste. A waste block has ten fields to capture this information. EPA compared the WR Form's waste block to the manifest and concluded that the manifest collects most of the waste block's data. The three fields of a waste block not addressed by the manifest are the waste description (Item A in a waste block of the WR Form), form code (Item E in a waste block of the WR Form) and waste density (Item G in a waste block of the WR Form). Form codes describe the general physical and chemical characteristics of a hazardous waste and, although the manifest captures waste quantity, waste density is not mandatory for wastes whose quantity is reported by volume.
      The GM Form collects information on the quantities and characteristics of hazardous waste generated on-site and shipped off-site. The GM Form is divided primarily into three blocks labeled (1) Waste Characteristics, (2) On-site Generation and Management of Hazardous Waste, and (3) Off-site Shipment of Hazardous Waste. EPA compared the GM Form's information to the manifest and concluded the manifest contains all the data required for Item B of the Off-site Shipment of Hazardous waste block of the GM Form (i.e., EPA ID Number of TSDF, off-site management method code, and total quantities of waste shipped) and some of the data elements captured in the Waste Characteristics (WC) Block. The manifest does not address the three data fields required for the WC Block as described above for the WR Form [waste description (Item A in a WC block of the GM Form), form code (Item E in a WC block of the GM Form) and waste density (Item H in a WC block of the GM Form)]; nor does it capture the source code (Item D in a WC block of the GM Form), management method code for a source code G25 (Item D in a WC block of the GM Form), foreign country code for source code G62 (Item D in a WC block of the GM Form), waste minimization code (Item F in a WC block of the GM Form), and the radioactive mix field (Item G in a WC block of the GM Form). Source codes describe the type of process or activity (i.e., source) from which a hazardous waste was generated. This code may also be useful to formulate the waste description of a waste for both the GM and WR Forms. In addition, the manifest does not address the BR data required for the On-site Generation and Management of Hazardous Waste block of the GM Form.
      To satisfy the objectives of the e-Manifest Act, EPA proposed and requested public comment to modify the paper manifest to include form codes and waste density as well as source codes which are collected on the GM Form (Item D of the GM Form). Comments on EPA's proposed form additions, as an initial step towards full integration of e-Manifest with BR, however, were mixed. While most commenters supported BR integration with the e-Manifest system, some commenters did not support adding the three new BR fields to the manifest form. These commenters asserted their companies would incur significant costs to re-program their IT systems for the proposed form revisions, and the FR notice did not provide adequate information regarding how BR integration would take place.
      One commenter asked where the new additions would be placed on the manifest form and how EPA would use the e-Manifest system to streamline BR requirements. Other commenters stated the proposed BR additions are insufficient and data gaps exist (e.g., density reported in lbs/gal or specific gravity (sg)) between the proposed additional fields and what is expected in a BR. Additionally, these commenters indicated other data elements expected in a BR do not match data currently collected on the manifest. For example, the waste description reported in BR does not match the DOT shipping description reported on the manifest, the quantities of waste reported on manifests are typically estimates and not the actual waste amounts, the units of measure reported on the manifest are different than those required for biennial reporting, and the restriction of the number of waste codes reported on the manifest is insufficient for BR. To populate the BR with manifest data, these inconsistencies would have to be reconciled. Most commenters opposed the proposal and suggested EPA develop a plan and schedule so that their companies could determine the burden reduction and cost savings for full integration of e-Manifest with BR. One state commenter who supported the proposal also acknowledged data gaps exist between the manifest and what is expected in a BR beyond the proposed collection of source codes, form codes, and density information. This commenter also reiterated the sentiments of other commenters regarding the incompatibility of the DOT descriptions recorded on the manifest and the waste descriptions reported for the BR. This commenter indicated that the DOT descriptions on manifests are not a good substitute for a waste description on a BR, because they are generally too generic and do not provide the detail needed for regulatory purposes under the RCRA hazardous waste program. This commenter also suggested these gaps and other data quality issues regarding manifest data collection must be addressed before manifest data can be utilized to populate biennial reporting.
      EPA acknowledges the proposed BR additions on the manifest are insufficient to fully integrate with BR and appreciates the commenters' suggestions. Regarding generators reporting estimates of waste quantities on the manifest instead of actual weights, EPA explained in the March 2005 Manifest Forms Revision rule, that the e-Manifest regulations have always required generators to enter actual quantities of waste shipped and not merely the capacity of the containers selected for shipment. At that time, EPA clarified this point by amending the manifest instructions to Item 11 of the form with additional language emphasizing the generators' responsibility to report quantities shipped and not simply container capacities (See 70 FR 10776 at 10819). Further, the March 2005 rule also explained that the manifest regulations have always placed the responsibility for verifying the actual quantities received on the designated facilities. These facilities are required to acknowledge that the quantities of wastes indicated as shipped were received, or otherwise report a significant discrepancy on the manifest if the quantities received do not closely match the generator's "as shipped" quantities. EPA, however, acknowledges that DOT allows shippers (e.g., generators) to enter either net weights or gross weights on shipping papers depending on the mode of transportation (e.g., public highway transportation) for the shipment, and therefore some generators often record net or gross weights in Item 11 of the manifest. Thus, data entries recorded in this field are often inconsistent and consequently are not aligned with the reportable quantities reported for BR purposes.
      Regarding a commenter's claim about the inability to list all waste codes on the manifest for biennial reporting, EPA expanded Item 13 of the form so that up to six waste codes could be entered in that field as part of the standardization of the manifest form in the March 2005 rule. EPA decided to limit the number of waste codes for a few reasons. EPA received comments stating that six waste codes normally would be more than adequate to describe hazardous wastes commonly shipped under the manifest. Second, at that time the Agency believed, and continues to believe, that requiring the listing of all waste codes on the manifest creates an unnecessary burden in completing the manifest without improving appreciably the quality of the hazardous waste data (See 70 FR 10776 at 10788). Finally, space on the manifest limits our ability to allocate additional space for this purpose. The recent addition of electronic manifests as an acceptable manifest type offers further flexibility. While space limitations on the paper manifest prevent the allocation of new waste codes on the paper manifest form, manifests in the e-Manifest system do not have this problem. Therefore, if a receiving facility believes the waste codes recorded on the paper manifest are insufficient, it can report an additional list of waste codes for each waste stream in the e-Manifest system along with its submission of a manifest hardcopy plus data upload, or add them after-the-fact as part of the corrections process.
      Regarding the commenter's assertion that the units of measure reported on the manifest are different than those required for the BR, EPA proposed in the February 8, 2019, notice to improve the precision or accuracy of the waste data reported on the manifest by amending the current units of measure (i.e., use of decimals or fractions, or smaller units of measure) required to be reported in the "Total Quantity" field of the manifest (i.e., Item 11 of the manifest and Item 29 of the continuation sheet) (See 84 FR 2584 at 2855). EPA requested comment on the proposed changes but did not propose to reconcile them with the current units of measure required for biennial reporting. Therefore, in today's notice, EPA is requesting additional comment on whether the Agency should revise the manifest instructions to allow reporting of decimals or fractions in Item 11 of the manifest or smaller units of measure in Item 12 as detailed in the February 2019 notice. Additionally, EPA is requesting comment on whether EPA should also amend the units of measure currently required for biennial reporting so that they match those for manifests and thus would enable manifest data to be used for quantity reporting in the BR.
      Regarding one commenter's question about placement of the proposed additions on the form, EPA requested comment in the February 2019 notice on whether EPA should expand Item 19 of the manifest to include source code, form code, and density information, or create separate new data fields for each. In addition, EPA mentioned in the notice that EPA could add a BR data field in Item 16 of the manifest (EPA Form 8700-22) if EPA removed the current International Shipment field to the continuation sheet.
4.2	Conceptual Approach

      Based on the public's comments on the February 2019 notice, as well as further examination of possible integration options, EPA has decided to move forward with early steps towards integrating the e-Manifest with biennial reporting, specifically with respect to the WR form. (EPA may consider integrating the e-Manifest with the GM Form at a later time.) Although EPA is still in the early stages of this integration effort, the Agency is presenting a conceptual approach in today's notice as an initial step toward encouraging greater conversation and collaboration with the public and ensuring their input is incorporated into our initial plans.
      EPA is taking public comment on the approach and the questions and challenges raised below in this preamble. After the close of the comment period, EPA will review the comments to identify areas of support, opposition, concerns, and suggestions; and determine the next steps. EPA will publish periodic updates on our work status and seek further opportunities for collaboration. In addition, EPA will consult with the e-Manifest Advisory Board on a final approach for BR integration.
      EPA believes a gradual process for developing the approach is appropriate given that the e-Manifest system is still relatively new and evolving, having begun operation in June 2018. As the system matures, some challenges could be abated through routine system upgrades and increased use of the electronic manifest, which is expected to result in better data quality than the paper form.
      The Hazardous Waste e-Manifest Establishment Act mandates that the system provide waste receipt data for the biennial reports that facilities must submit. EPA designed the system to serve as the facilities' primary data source for completing the WR form and were guided by the following additional considerations.
      (a)  Data Quality. The manifest and WR Form have different purposes, uses and reporting procedures, which result in differences in their data. The manifest's primary purpose is to serve as a chain-of-custody document, ensuring that the shipment arrives at the designated facility intact. It provides essential information for emergency responders (e.g., in case of a spill) and waste handlers. It is initially prepared by the generator or another person acting on its behalf (e.g., broker, transporter, or designated facility). During transit, the manifest is transferred among waste handlers who take custody of the shipment. It is closed out by the designated facility and uploaded to the national system. After upload, the manifest remains largely untouched, except for corrections by the EPA PPC or persons involved in the shipment (i.e., post-receipt data corrections by the designated facility).
      The WR Form's primary purpose is for facilities to share information with the public about their waste receipts (e.g., waste characteristics, management). States may use the information for additional purposes. In addition, facilities maintain data systems about their wastes, which are used for a variety of purposes (e.g., customer accounts/billing, waste management, reporting). Facilities may continually update, edit, and correct their in-house data even after the manifest has been submitted to the national system.
      These and other differences between the manifest and WR Form lead to challenges that must be resolved in our integration approach. Examples of such challenges include the following:
 Data in e-Manifest may be out of sync with a facility's in-house data. As discussed later in this preamble, facilities continually update their in-house data when they find errors or obsolete data. For example, after a manifest is closed out and submitted to the national system, a facility may weigh or test the waste, which can result in information different from what is on the manifest (e.g., revised waste quantity or EPA waste codes). Although EPA has established procedures for facilities to address discrepancies and corrections in the e-Manifest system, it is not clear that all facilities are conducting these procedures in all cases. If they fail to do so, this causes data in the e-Manifest system to be obsolete or incorrect. As such, the manifest data would need to be corrected before it can be used to populate the waste block of the WR Form. Otherwise, BR data quality and its usefulness to the public and regulators would be adversely impacted.
 Data in the manifest may have errors. Generators and others occasionally make errors (e.g., typographical mistakes, incorrect ID numbers) when completing the manifest form. If an error is unnoticed, the manifest may be uploaded to the national system without the error being resolved.
 The manifest is designed to describe a specific waste shipment and provide information to particular types of personnel (e.g., spill responders, waste handlers). Some of the manifest's information, such as the DOT shipping description, can require regulatory or other expertise to understand. On the other hand, the WR Form is designed to be readily understood by the general public. For example, the WR Form gives facilities discretion to consolidate and summarize multiple, similar waste receipts into a single WR Form. This enables facilities to provide a clear and understandable summary-level description of its annual waste receipts in comparison with the per-shipment data offered by the manifests.
      (b) Burden reduction and ease of use. EPA believes Congress's intent under the Act is for the Agency to develop an approach that minimizes burden and causes minimal disruption to facilities' and states' existing reporting practices and systems. This is consistent with the overall goal of the e-Manifest, i.e., to streamline facility reporting activities by leveraging electronic technology. Further, the Act states that facilities should have the ability to report e-Manifest data in the BR. This mandate suggests that Congress was contemplating an approach that streamlines reporting activities by eliminating redundancies between the manifest and WR Form.
      In designing the approach, EPA began with the premise that the most streamlined approach for facilities would be enabling the direct and seamless transfer of data from e-Manifest to the waste blocks of the WR Form. Because of the data quality challenges discussed above, however, a process of direct and seamless transfer may not be possible. It is evident that facilities would need to review, edit, and correct e-Manifest data before it can be transferred to the WR Form.
      To this end, our conceptual approach would establish an intermediate step for the facility to perform these activities before transferring the data to the WR Form. EPA recognizes this step would impose some facility burden, some of which would be offset through automated assistance to facilities in completing the waste description field of the WR Form.
      (c) Transparency. Currently there is limited transparency in how facilities review, edit, correct, consolidate and report their waste receipts in the WR Form. Facility in-house data are not generally shared with regulators or the public; as such, it is difficult to confirm the accuracy and completeness of the reported data.
      In response to the February 8, 2019, notice, a state commenter asked for the ability to cross check data between the e-Manifest system and WR Form to verify the WR Form data. EPA agrees with this commenter on the importance of having e-Manifest data available as a cross-check tool. In addition, EPA believes regulators should be able to examine how the facility edited, corrected, consolidated, and otherwise modified the e-Manifest data in preparing the WR Form. These capabilities are provided in this approach.
      The approach involves three elements, as discussed below. EPA requests comment on the overall approach and any aspects of it. In addition, throughout the discussion, EPA raises questions about specific issues for public comments.
4.2.1	 Manifest Form Changes

      BR Codes
      In our February 2019 notice, EPA compared the data collected on the manifest and BR forms (i.e., GM Form and WR Form) and requested comment on whether BR source codes and form codes should be added to the manifest. Since then, EPA decided to defer integration of the e-Manifest and GM Form and thus would defer adding source codes to the manifest. However, EPA has continued to evaluate form codes.
      This approach would be to add form codes to the DESIGNATED FACILITY field of the manifest, such as in Item 19. Item 19 has four boxes for entering a BR management method code for each waste described in Item 9b. EPA could divide each box in two, allowing a form code and management method code for each waste. The designated facility would choose the code that best corresponds to the physical form or chemical composition of the waste.
      EPA believes that collecting form codes on each manifest could make it easier for TSDFs to complete the WR Form. The form code plays an important role in the completion of the WR Form for many facilities. The BR instructions require that a separate waste block of the WR Form be completed for each waste received from each off-site generator. However, as described in the BR Instructions, hazardous waste from the same off-site handler may be aggregated as long as a single form code describes the physical form or chemical composition and all of the waste is managed in a single process system (i.e., same management method code). In other words, multiple wastes may be aggregated in the same waste block of a WR Form as specified, reducing the overall number of WR Form blocks that must be completed and submitted. This is discussed further in Section IV.C.4.2.2 of this preamble.
      Under this approach, facilities would record form codes on every manifest. By contrast, a facility's BR is submitted every other year under the federal program. For example, a facility's 2017 BR submission describes activities that occurred in 2017 (odd-numbered years are "reporting years" or "collection years") and was due by March 2018 (even-numbered years are "submission years"). The next reporting year under the federal program was 2019. Under this approach, form codes recorded on manifests in reporting years would be captured in the BR, but codes recorded in submission (non-reporting) years would not.
      EPA requests comment on whether form codes should be added to the manifest. Would facilities experience significant burden or inconvenience completing them? If they are added to the form, should receiving facilities be required to record them in both reporting and submission years or should the codes be required only in reporting years? In this latter option, manifests received by the receiving facility from January 1 through December 31 of each reporting year would require form codes. During submission years, form codes would be optional. Alternatively, EPA could make form codes completely optional and then only facilities that opt to use this approach described today would record them during the reporting year.
      Waste Quantity
      Instructions to Item 11 of the manifest directs the generator to enter the total quantity of waste. A generator may enter waste quantity based on actual measurements or reasonably accurate estimates of actual quantities shipped. Container capacities are not acceptable as estimates.
      Further, the DOT regulations allow shippers (e.g., generators) to enter either net weights or gross weights (i.e., gross weight is the weight of the waste and container) on shipping papers depending on the mode of transportation (e.g., public highway transportation) for the shipment. Therefore, some generators may record net or gross weights in Item 11.
      Although it has been routine for generators to record gross weights in Item 11 of the manifest and as a result some designated facilities submit the affected manifests to the e-Manifest system without correcting the inaccurate quantity amount, EPA is considering whether this is appropriate for purposes of manifest completion. For some wastes, the container is intended only as a device in which the waste is stored and transported before being emptied fully and used again. Such containers are not waste and should not be reflected in the reported weight.
      EPA is requesting comment on whether a clarification should be added to the manifest's instructions that designated facilities must report all waste quantities in Item 11 of the manifest by net weight. Should this clarification also be extended to generators when they complete the manifest form?
4.2.2	Integration of e-Manifest Data with Biennial Report Module in RCRAInfo Industry Application
      As mentioned earlier, the RCRAInfo Industry Application provides the mechanism by which a site may submit information to their state regulator. The application contains the following modules:
 myRCRAid pertains to Site Identification submissions (EPA Form 8700-12)
 Biennial Report pertains to BR submissions (EPA Form 8700-13A/B)
 e-Manifest pertains to manifest submissions (EPA Form 8700-22/22A)
      For several reasons, EPA believes the RCRAInfo Industry Application is the appropriate mechanism for sharing e-Manifest data with receiving facilities for completion of WR Forms. As an initial point, a number of designated facilities are using both the Biennial Report and e-Manifest modules for their reporting responsibilities and are therefore already set up and familiar with their functions. For example, all receiving facilities are required to register with the e-Manifest system to receive and pay invoices. Further, EPA is encouraging BR users to prepare and submit reports electronically, such as via the Biennial Report module. More than 60% of receiving facilities are in states that allow registration with the module.
      In addition, the Biennial Report module would be a useful interface for users to review, sort and transfer manifest data from the e-Manifest module for completion of WR Forms. Users obtain permission to use the Biennial Report module, and various types of permission are granted based on each person's role and level of responsibility over the report (e.g., preparer, certifier, site manager). Receiving facilities can select their desired form to complete (e.g., GM Form, WR Form), and the module offers various system tools and controls to assist users with completing them. For example, users have the option of reviewing tables of previously reported data to compare how their current waste quantities compare to previous cycles. They also have the option of retrieving and copying GM Form data from their most recent submission (excluding quantity) into their new GM Form submission.
      Similarly, under the approach described today, a receiving facility in the BR module would be given the option of accessing its manifest data from e-Manifest for completing its WR Forms. The information would be retrieved in a tabular format (called the "e-Manifest Data Transfer Table"). The table would present all the wastes received by the receiving facility during the biennial reporting year. Each waste would be presented in a row of the table. The rows would be organized by off-site shipper EPA ID number.
      For example, if a receiving facility received 20 manifests from Off-site Shipper 1 and 10 manifests from Off-Site Shipper 2 during the year and each manifest contained four wastes in Item 9b, the table would have 120 rows of wastes. The 80 rows of Off-Site Shipper 1 waste would be presented in the "Off-Site Shipper 1 EPA ID #" field of the table and the 40 rows of Off-Site Shipper 2 waste would be presented in the "Off-Site Shipper 2 EPA ID #" field.
      The table would have 11 columns of data about the wastes. Of these, nine would contain data needed to complete a waste block of the WR Form. This includes EPA hazardous waste codes, state hazardous waste codes, EPA ID number of the off-site shipper, form code, management method code, waste quantity, unit of measure, waste density, and density description (i.e., "lbs/gal" or "specific gravity"). There also would be columns for the DOT shipping description and manifest tracking number (MTN).
      As such, each row would have 11 data fields. The nine fields described above would be mapped electronically to their corresponding fields of the waste block of a WR Form, enabling data to transfer automatically when prompted by the receiving facility. The two other data fields of the row  -  DOT shipping description and MTN  -  are not requested in the waste block and therefore would not be mapped or transferred. However, both fields would be available as a reference. In addition, the table would maintain records (e.g., an audit trail) enabling a person (e.g., a facility or regulator) to determine the MTN of the waste entered into each waste block of a WR Form.
      Above is an illustration of the e-Manifest Data Transfer Table.  Please note, EPA has considered that this could be done via a system-to-system approach as well. Under our conceptual approach, a receiving facility would transfer the table to one block of a WR Form. To transfer the nine data fields to the corresponding fields of a WR Form, a receiving facility would click on the "Transfer row contents" button. To use the table, a receiving facility would log in to the RCRAInfo Industry Application, access the Biennial Report module, and select the WR Form tab. The facility would then have the option of retrieving the table for completion of its current WR Forms. The facility would be able to add to, delete and otherwise modify the table's contents so that the data are suitable for the BR. This includes, for example, reviewing the table's contents for omissions and performing data quality reviews and corrections to eliminate errors. See the discussion later in this section on data reviews and corrections.
      In addition, EPA expects the facility to supplement the manifest data, as needed, to ensure all of the information requested on a WR Form is provided. As pointed out by several commenters on the 2019 notice, some manifests do not contain sufficient information on a waste's EPA and state waste codes and density. These issues and the approach for addressing them are as follows:
 Waste Codes. The manifest instructions require that, for each waste in Item 9b, preparers provide up to six EPA and state waste codes in Item 13. State waste codes that are not redundant with federal codes also must be entered. The BR, on the other hand, does not limit the number of EPA waste codes reported on a WR Form. State waste codes must be reported as specified. As such, a manifest may not include all of a waste's federal and state waste codes required for biennial reporting (e.g., a waste with seven or more EPA waste codes). Under this approach, the table would have sufficient space for the facility to add EPA and state waste codes to meet the requirements of the BR.
 Waste Density. For each waste in Item 9b of the manifest, preparers must provide the waste quantity in Item 11 and the unit weight or volume in Item 12. If the quantity is reported by volume, the preparer may enter additional descriptive information, such as the waste's specific gravity, in Item 14 "Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information." However, the specific gravity is not mandatory, and some manifests lack this information. Item G of a WR Form waste block requires a waste's quantity and unit of measure to be provided. For a waste reported by volume, its density in lbs/gal or specific gravity must be entered in all cases. As such, a manifest may not include the waste density data needed to complete Item G of a WR Form for wastes reported by volume. Under this approach, the table would include columns for waste density in lbs/gal or specific gravity, allowing the facility to enter this information if missing from the manifest. Currently, density is an optional field in e-Manifest, so it could be entered in advance of this process or when the manifest is entered in the system. In addition, the table could offer a drop-down list for densities. As an initial step, the facility would set up the drop-down list by pre-populating it with generic densities applicable to specific waste types commonly reported by volume. Then, when the facility discovers a waste's density is missing, it could use the drop-down list to make the appropriate selection. The list could be saved for future biennial reporting cycles.
      When the facility decides that a row is complete and free of errors, it would select the row and transfer its data to a WR Form waste block. After transfer, all fields of the block would be complete, except for Item A, waste description. The facility would have to complete Item A subsequently. (See Section IV.C.4.2.3 of this preamble for a discussion of waste descriptions.) The facility would conduct a comprehensive review of all WR Forms as usual before submittal.
      EPA notes that a receiving facility might receive multiple shipments of the same or similar wastes from the same off-site shipper during the reporting year. As discussed earlier, the facility could transfer these wastes to the same WR Form waste block if they have the same form code and management method code and if it is otherwise appropriate to do. To this end, the table could offer tools to sort the rows in an off-site shipper's field based on specified criteria (e.g., BR codes), making it easier to identify and group rows with similar wastes. The receiving facility would select the relevant rows and consolidate their data into a single waste block. The table would prevent consolidating dissimilar wastes (e.g., wastes with different form codes or wastes from two or more off-site shippers).
      The above paragraphs describe our general conceptual approach for using manifest data to pre-populate WR Form waste blocks. As part of this approach, EPA envisions a process for reviewing and correcting errors in the manifest data before the data are transferred to the waste blocks. EPA understands that completing the manifest can be a complex and fluid process and errors cannot always be avoided. Data requested on the manifest may not be known with full certainty when it is entered. In addition, clerical and other errors inevitably occur, particularly in completing the paper manifest.
      The following are the manifest data review and correction activities that would take place after the manifest is submitted to the national system, but before the data are transferred to a WR Form.,  The first two activities are currently taking place:
 Corrections by the EPA PPC. 40 CFR 264.71 requires designated facilities to submit the top copy of each paper-based manifest and continuation sheet to the e-Manifest system. For image only submissions, the PPC enters the manifest data into the e-Manifest system. As part of this process, the PPC may identify and resolve basic errors in the data (e.g., invalid generator or transporter EPA ID number). The PPC follows procedures to contact the designated facility via email, then a phone call. In some cases, the PPC also may contact the generator if the designated facility could not answer the questions.
      The e-Manifest system validates uploads for missing and invalid image plus data manifest entries. For example, the system will compare a site's address and EPA ID Number on the manifest to the site's corresponding information in RCRAInfo. If an error is found (e.g., a state-issued ID number that is not included in RCRAInfo's Handler module), EPA will follow up with the site to request correct information.
      2.	Post-Receipt Manifest Data Corrections. Section 264/265.71(l) establishes procedures for facilities and others to correct manifest data after the manifest has been closed out. Post-receipt data corrections may be submitted at any time. Each correction submission must be electronic and describe the correction in sufficient detail. Other interested persons will be notified and given an opportunity to comment before the correction is finalized.
      3.	Corrections by the Facility within the e-Manifest Data Transfer Table. Under EPA's conceptual approach, after the facility enters the Biennial Report module and pulls up the table to complete its WR Forms, the facility would be expected to conduct two types of data review and correction activities:
 Review and correct errors identified by the table. EPA envisions that the table would offer basic data validation tools and flag fields containing possible errors. For example, specific fields of the table could be compared to EPA's official data sources to find errors. This could include comparing EPA and state hazardous waste codes in the table to EPA's official list of waste codes. If a code in the table does not match any code in the list, its field would be flagged. The same could be done for EPA ID numbers and BR codes. The table could also include cross-checks within the same row (e.g., between a waste's form code and management method code). Both fields would be flagged if the management method is not compatible with the form code. Fields with missing data also would be flagged.
 Review and correct all other errors. EPA expects that many errors would remain in the table notwithstanding the above activities. Facilities would be expected to conduct a thorough review based on their in-house knowledge and information (e.g., waste profiles, waste analysis results, in-house data systems).
      The facility is responsible for ensuring full compliance with the BR requirements and instructions, regardless of the data and user tools provided.
4.2.3 Issues for Public Comment Regarding Biennial Report Integration

      EPA is requesting comment on the following issues:
      (a) EPA realizes that the data in the e-Manifest system may contain numerous errors and other issues that must be resolved before the data can be used for BR purposes. Examples include data omissions, invalid EPA ID numbers, state-issued ID numbers that do not show up in EPA's data system, incorrect generator addresses, and typographical errors such as transposed digits in an EPA ID number or BR code. How can EPA improve the conceptual approach to resolve these issues more effectively? How can EPA ensure that the facility has actually reviewed and corrected the data thoroughly before pre-populating the waste block of the WR Form? Should a facility be prevented from pre-populating the waste block until all flagged errors have been addressed?
      (b) Closely related to this, some facilities may not have up-to-date information in the e-Manifest system. For example, after a manifest is closed out and submitted to the national system, a facility may perform weighing, testing or treatment that results in information different from what is on the manifest (e.g., revised EPA waste codes, different management method code). The facility may update its in-house systems but not enter these updates in e-Manifest using the post-receipt data correction procedures at § 264/265.71(l). How extensive is this issue in e-Manifest (i.e., outdated, inaccurate data)? How should EPA revise the conceptual approach to better integrate facility workflows and data management to minimize differences between facility in-house systems and the e-Manifest system?
      EPA notes that the post-receipt data correction procedures do not mandate that facilities update the e-Manifest system whenever they find an error. Rather, the regulations state that post-receipt data corrections "may" be submitted at any time by any interested person shown on the manifest. Should EPA revise this language to make post-receipt data corrections mandatory and, if so, for what types of errors? EPA believes the manifest discrepancy procedures at §§ 264/265.71 and 264/265.72 help to clarify this issue. If a designated facility discovers significant differences between the quantity or type of hazardous waste designated on the manifest or shipping paper and the quantity and type of hazardous waste it actually receives, it must note the discrepancy on the manifest and attempt to resolve it. For bulk wastes, significant differences in quantity are variations greater than 10 percent in weight. For batch waste, significant differences in quantity are any variation in piece count (e.g., one drum in a truckload). Significant differences in type are obvious differences which can be discovered by inspection or waste analysis (e.g., toxic constituents not reported on the manifest).
      Since the facility must record these differences on the manifest if they are discovered during waste receipt, it is worth considering whether they should be recorded in the e-Manifest system if they are discovered any time after receipt? If so, should they be subject to mandatory data correction procedures? Should other types of errors be brought under mandatory correction procedures, such as missing or invalid EPA ID numbers? If not, how can EPA more effectively encourage facilities to correct them? More broadly, is it necessary for data in the e-Manifest system to be up to date if not used to complete the BR? Or, should data in the e-Manifest system generally be viewed as a snapshot of a shipment received by the facility without an expectation that it be current?
      (c) Under EPA's approach, the facility would be able to add to, delete and otherwise modify the transfer table's data before pre-populating a WR Form. The data in the table and ultimately reported in the BR should correspond closely to the data stored in e-Manifest. The post-receipt data correction process was established to ensure that e-Manifest data remain accurate and up to date. However, the approach does not extend the data correction process to the transfer table after it has been retrieved in the Biennial Report module at the end of the reporting year.
      Essentially, EPA sees a trade-off between closely guarding the table's manifest data against undocumented edits versus creating a system that encourages facilities to make all necessary corrections. EPA does not want to establish an onerous correction process that discourages facilities from making all corrections. Should the transfer table allow the facility to add to, delete and otherwise modify all of the table's contents, or should the table protect some or all of the data from such modifications? Should the table create an audit trail of all of the facility's data modifications? What other user controls and data validations should the table provide?
      (d) Aside from the data issues discussed above, would the table provide a relatively straightforward way of completing the waste blocks of the WR Form? Is it reasonable to expect a facility to review, edit, correct, and transfer potentially thousands of rows of wastes to the waste blocks as described in this approach?
4.2.4	Waste Descriptions on WR Form

      The instructions for the waste description (Item A) of the WR Form recommend that a short narrative description of the waste be provided, such as general type; source; type of hazard; and generic chemical name or primary hazardous constituents. Several commenters on the February 2019 notice stated that the waste description is burdensome. We also reviewed data from past WR Form submittals and noticed a wide variation in the information provided. Some forms include a one- or two-word description (e.g., "aerosols," "hypochlorite solutions"), whereas others include the DOT shipping description. These descriptions are not acceptable because they do not respond to the instructions fully.
      EPA has begun considering options for assisting receiving facilities in preparing waste descriptions in the Biennial Report module. Our objective is to improve the quality of the descriptions while streamlining receiving facility activities where possible. To this end, a possible option is to provide automated assistance to receiving facilities in completing the waste description comparable to the "e-Manifest" module's assistance for preparers of the electronic manifest.
      The e-Manifest module offers several types of assistance to preparers of the electronic manifest, such as completing the DOT shipping description in Item 9b of the form. Completion of a DOT shipping description requires knowledge of the DOT regulations, and therefore, assistance may be warranted for some preparers. For example, in the e-Manifest module, if a user wants to enter a DOT ID and proper shipping name into the manifest, the user begins typing this information and a drop-down list will display the proper shipping names that contain the values the user provided. If the user types "fireworks," the drop-down list will show "UN0333 / Fireworks," "UN0334 / Fireworks," "UN0335 / Fireworks," "UN0336 / Fireworks," and "UN0337 / Fireworks." The user can select the appropriate ID and name. The Hazard Class and Packing Group will be pre-populated based on the user's selection.
      A similar approach could be used for the waste description field of a WR Form waste block in the Biennial Report module. If form codes are added to the manifest, EPA would like to take comment on whether sufficient data would be available to build satisfactory waste descriptions using automated methods. For example, suppose EPA programmed the waste description field to build waste descriptions based on form code, management method code and EPA hazardous waste codes. If a waste were entered into a WR Form waste block with form code W103 ("Spent concentrated acid (5% or more)"), management method code H070 ("Chemical treatment") and EPA hazardous waste codes D002 and D007, Item A could be pre-populated with "Spent concentrated acid (5% or more) managed by chemical treatment; RCRA characteristic for corrosivity and toxicity." If a waste were entered with form code W203 ("Concentrated non-halogenated (e.g., non-chlorinated) solvent"), management method code H061 ("Fuel blending prior to energy recovery at another site") and EPA hazardous waste codes D001 and F003, Item A could be pre-populated with "Concentrated non-halogenated solvent managed by fuel blending prior to energy recovery at another site; RCRA characteristic for ignitability and listed spent solvent waste."
      The receiving facility could reject the system's suggestion and develop its own description. Alternatively, the facility could edit the suggestion as desired. For example, a pop-up box could prompt the facility to indicate the source of the waste, if known, or chemical names. The receiving facility is ultimately responsible for ensuring a full and accurate waste description regardless of the assistance provided.
      A number of issues, however, would need to be resolved for this approach to work. For example, some BR code descriptions are too long to be added to a waste description and need to be shortened to a few words. In addition, some wastes have too many EPA and state waste codes to fit in the waste description field. For these wastes, the system could describe the codes by category ("listed spent solvent waste" for EPA waste codes F001 to F005, "listed wood preserving waste" for EPA waste codes F032, F034 and F035, etc.). For P- and U-listed wastes, the module could give the chemical's name in addition to the category. For example, the module could say "acute hazardous waste: fluorine" for waste code P056. If a waste code represents multiple chemicals, the module could present them in a drop-down list and the facility could select the correct one. Finally, this approach does not tell us all the relevant information about the waste and thus EPA would like to take comment on how to improve this option to meet the needs of the Biennial Report waste description field. For example, D001 ignitable waste for H040 incineration, from W001 lab packs do not describe the ignitable waste that is being incinerated. The waste could be gasoline, ethanol, or something else. EPA is requesting comment on ways to improve data quality in the waste description field.
      There are two additional options EPA would like to take comment on for generating waste descriptions, but these were not expounded previously by the Agency due to the perceived complexity of them. The first is comparing the previous BR cycle's submission of the submitting receiving facility to the manifest data it signed for in the system. The other is adding the waste description to the manifest.
      In terms of comparing the waste descriptions to the previous BR submission, the system would compare the previous cycle to the waste codes, form codes, management method codes, and Generators IDs against what was submitted in e-Manifest during the previous year and any additional manifests brought in due to when the waste was generated. If the fields match, then the waste description would be provided with a dropdown or an array of possible waste descriptions (if requested over e-Manifest web services). The receiving facility would choose the appropriate waste description and if necessary, edit it, and submit it with their BR submission. If there is not a match, then the waste description would need to be provided.
      There are several issues with this approach. First is how to properly identify CESQGs/VSQGs and slight variations in how their addresses were entered into the system. Other issues revolve around the number of WR forms submitted by receiving facilities. Receiving facilities would still need to analyze each waste stream to determine the appropriate waste description. Further, from a systems approach, compiling this list based on the criteria provided over the entire universe of WR Forms would require a significant computational effort.
      The other option for comment is adding the waste description to the manifest form either on the form itself or in the system as an optional field. This option would provide automation at the time of report compilation for the waste description field, but it would also add another element to the manifest form and if the receiving facility was inconsistent in describing the waste, such inconsistencies could cause confusion when the receiving facility completed its biennial report.
4.2.5	Final BR Integration Questions for Commenters

      EPA requests comments on the following:
      (a) Earlier in this preamble, it was explained that our conceptual approach for e-Manifest integration with the biennial report does not fully account for the fact that facilities may revise their in-house waste-related data after the manifest has been submitted to the national system but they may not reflect the revisions in the e-Manifest system. For example, facilities periodically update and correct data based on waste testing, weighing, management and disposal. Facilities normally reflect these changes in their in-house systems but might not follow the post-receipt data correction procedures to enter them in the e-Manifest system. EPA also discussed that the e-Manifest system contains other data errors and problems, such as missing data, invalid EPA ID numbers, and incorrect management method codes, which must be resolved before the data can be reported in the WR Form. EPA asked for comments on how this approach could address these problems more effectively.
      EPA is now raising these challenges again in the larger context of evaluating whether they can be overcome in developing an approach that is beneficial to facilities and states. In other words, can the data problems in e-Manifest be addressed effectively (e.g., through mandatory post-receipt data corrections, additional data reviews) without placing unnecessary burden on facilities and states and discouraging them from adopting the overall approach?
      (b) Currently, facilities preparing the WR Form at the end of a reporting year may evaluate, consolidate, and summarize a year's worth of shipment-level data, to thereby report it in a consistent, uniform manner. Should EPA enhance the approach to provide a better ability for facilities to evaluate, consolidate and summarize e-Manifest data when pre-populating the WR Form? What additional capabilities do facilities' in-house systems provide for reviewing, correcting, consolidating, and summarizing data that should be offered by the table in this approach?
      (c) Would BR data quality and usefulness be impacted under this approach, and if so, how?
      (d) Would this approach increase burden and complexity to facilities or regulators under the manifest or BR program? For example, some facilities could experience significant incremental burden in reviewing, editing, correcting, and transferring manifest data to the waste blocks of the WR Form. However, would their incremental burden be offset if the module pre-populates the waste description field of each block?
      (e) After a facility's WR Forms are submitted to the state or EPA Region, the module could offer these completed forms (without waste quantity) to the facility for the next BR cycle. The facility would have the option of completing these pre-populated forms or preparing new ones. Would these pre-populated forms streamline the facility's activities without compromising data quality?
      (f) As discussed earlier in this preamble, the PPC has experienced difficulty in entering image files and hardcopies of paper copies of manifests into the e-Manifest system due to incorrect, illegible or incomplete data. This has slowed the PPC's data entry, resulting in tens of thousands of paper manifests not being entered into the system in a timely manner. If a form is not entered into the system, it would not be included in the e-Manifest Data Transfer Table in this approach. How should these forms be addressed under the approach? At the end of the reporting year, should facilities receive a list of manifests that have not been entered into e-Manifest so they can incorporate the wastes into WR Forms using other data?
      (g) As stated previously in this preamble, EPA may consider integrating the e-Manifest system with the GM Form at a later time. EPA, however, believes the Agency could also establish an approach to integrate the e-Manifest system with the GM Form that is analogous to our conceptual approach for e-Manifest integration with the WR Form. For instance, EPA could: (1) use eight of the nine data fields described above (i.e., EPA hazardous waste codes, state hazardous waste codes, form code, management method code for off-site shipments, waste quantity shipped off-site, unit of measure, waste density, and density description (i.e., "lbs/gal" or "specific gravity")); (2) use the EPA ID number of the designated facility receiving the off-site shipment; and (3) add the source code and waste minimization code to the manifest to map these manifest data electronically to their corresponding blocks of the GM Form for e-Manifest integration. These manifest data could be transferred automatically from a table to the WC block and the Off-site Shipment of Hazardous Waste block of the GM Form when prompted by the LQG. EPA requests comment on whether the Agency should establish a similar conceptual approach for e-Manifest integration with the GM Form. Would such an approach work for the GM Form? Please consider the relevant issues and questions addressed above in this section of the preamble as well as other issues and questions detailed throughout section IV.C.4 to provide comment.
      (h) As stated in section IV.C.4.2.1, EPA would require the receiving facility to report the form code on the manifest for each waste stream reported in Item 9b. Given that both the GM Form and the WR Form require the form code, would LQGs be amenable to EPA requiring the receiving facility to report the form code on the manifest on their behalf and ultimately using it for the GM Form? Would receiving facilities be amenable to reporting the form code on the manifest in lieu of the LQG reporting it?
D. Summary of Requests for Public Comment
      EPA requests comments on various aspects of this proposed rule throughout the preamble. This section summarizes each request at a high level. Please refer to the relevant sections for more in depth discussion of the relevant issues for public comment.
      Regarding submitting export manifests to EPA's e-Manifest system (discussed in preamble section IV.A.3), EPA requests comment on the following:
 EPA's proposal to revise 40 CFR 262.83(c) by adopting the existing manifest provisions at §§ 262.20(a)(3) and 262.24 for electronic manifest use and the electronic signature requirements at § 262.25 for export manifests. If these provisions are finalized as proposed, a person exporting a shipment out of the U.S. (i.e., a generator or a recognized trader located separate from the site initiating the shipment) may, in lieu of using a paper manifest form, use an electronic manifest to track the export shipment within the United States.
 EPA's proposal to add new provisions under § 262.83. These would require an exporter to submit the top copy of a manifest form and continuation sheet (whether paper or electronic) to EPA for processing, in accordance with the proposal for export shipments described in this section of the preamble. The new provisions would also require the exporter to pay the requisite processing fee for the submission using the existing fee provisions under 40 CFR part 265 subpart FF. EPA is proposing new paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(8) under § 262.83(c). If finalized, an exporter who elects to use an electronic manifest and continuation sheet for an export shipment, would be required to complete, sign, and submit the manifest and continuation sheet electronically in the e-Manifest system for the waste shipment within 30 days of receipt of the electronic manifest signed by the last transporter who carried the export shipment to a U.S. seaport for loading onto an international carrier or to a U.S. road or rail port of exit.
 EPA's proposal to adopt the fee provisions of the electronic hazardous waste manifest program under 40 CFR part 265 subpart FF (40 CFR 265.1300, 265.1311, 265.1312, 265.1313, 265.1314, 265.1315, and 265.1316) for hazardous waste export shipments. If finalized, exporters of a waste shipment subject to the manifest requirements would be expected to make payments to EPA for manifest activities conducted during the prior month per § 265.1314. Additionally, the proposed amendments would require any party acting as the U.S. exporter that originated the manifest for an export shipment of hazardous waste in accordance with the manifest requirements under 40 CFR part 262 subpart B and § 262.83(c), whether they be a generator, receiving facility, or recognized trader, to submit the export manifests to the system and pay the requisite fees.
 EPA's proposal to revise § 263.20(g)(3), which currently requires the transporter to provide a copy of the export manifest to the generator. Today's proposal would allow the collection of manifest data in the e-Manifest system, making the current requirement unnecessary.
 EPA's proposal to remove the current transporter requirement in § 263.20(g)(4)(i). EPA has determined that transporters are not best suited for submitting the export manifest to the system and paying the requisite processing fee based on the above modification to § 263.20(g)(3).
 EPA's proposal to remove 40 CFR 263.20(g)(4)(ii), which lists the "AES filing compliance date" promulgated in the hazardous waste import/export final rule dated November 28, 2016 (81 FR 85696). The AES filing compliance date was specified as December 31, 2017, in a Federal Register notice dated August 28, 2017 (82 FR 41015). That compliance date has passed, and as such the requirement for the transporter to provide a paper copy of the manifest to a U.S. customs official at the point of departure for shipments initiated prior to the AES filing is now obsolete.
In addition, EPA requests information regarding whether the proposed changes would work for foreign transporters who transport export shipments to and across the U.S. border. EPA also requests information regarding how many foreign transporters currently transport such shipments within the United States.
      Regarding manifest form changes related to export and import hazardous waste shipments (discussed in preamble section IV.A.4), EPA requests comment on the following:
 EPA's proposal to move the International Shipments field (i.e., Item 16) from the manifest to the continuation sheet and add new fields for consent numbers and the exporter's EPA Identification number and email address to the International Shipments field. If finalized, EPA would remove the International Shipments field from the manifest and re-designate it as Items 33a and 33b on the continuation sheet as shown on the draft form. EPA would also revise the current manifest instructions for completing the International Shipments field to reflect these new changes. A proposed revised version of the continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A) reflecting these proposed changes is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
      Regarding proposals that only impact import shipments (discussed in preamble section IV.A.5), EPA requests comment on the following:
 EPA's proposal to delete the requirement in 40 CFR 262.84(c)(4) that the importer provide an additional copy of the manifest to the transporter to be submitted by the receiving facility to EPA per §§ 264.71(a)(3) and 265.71(a)(3). This additional copy of the manifest is no longer necessary because the receiving facility is now required to always submit the top copy of the paper manifest and any continuation sheets to the e-Manifest system.
      Regarding additional proposed changes to international shipment requirements (discussed in preamble section IV.A.6), EPA requests comment on the following:
 EPA's proposal to revise the export and import shipment international movement document-related requirements to more closely link the manifest data with the international movement document data.
      Regarding proposals to revise manifest requirements applicable to Exception Reports, Discrepancy Reports, and Unmanifested Waste Reports (discussed in preamble section IV.B.1-3), EPA requests comment on the following:
 EPA's proposal to allow generators using electronic or hybrid manifests to use the e-Manifest system to satisfy exception reporting requirements. EPA is proposing to restrict electronic exception reporting to manifested shipments using electronic manifests (hybrid or fully electronic) pursuant to § 262.24(c).
 EPA's proposal to revise the current 35/45-day LQG exception reporting timeframes in §§ 262.42(a) and (c)(2), and 761.217(a) and (b) to better conform to timeframes for submittal and processing of paper manifests in the e-Manifest system, thus adjusting it to a 40/50-day timeframe. EPA is not proposing additional time for SQGs to verify receipt of their shipments by the destination facility. The current SQG timeframe for verification of shipment delivery is 60 days (§ 262.42(b)).
 EPA's proposal to integrate Discrepancy Reports into the e-Manifest system, which includes four elements: 1) a copy of the manifest at issue; 2) the significant discrepancy type (i.e., significant difference in quantity or type); 3) date of signature of the receiving facility; and 4) a description explaining the discrepancy and attempts to reconcile it.
 EPA's proposal to allow receiving facilities to use the e-Manifest system to satisfy discrepancy reporting requirements and its proposal to adjust the discrepancy reporting timeframe to allow receiving facilities up to 20 days to reconcile a shipment with the generator and/or transporter for such discrepancies. Unlike our proposed restriction to limit electronic exception reporting to electronic manifests, EPA is proposing to extend electronic reporting of Discrepancy Reports to all manifest submission types, including paper.
 Whether or not there should be a limit on our discrepancy reporting proposal to manifests that originated electronically (i.e., fully electronic or hybrid) in the e-Manifest system, as well as if there are other approaches EPA should consider for electronic discrepancy reporting associated with digital copies of paper manifests.
 EPA's consideration of an alternate approach that would eliminate the requirement for Discrepancy Reports altogether, and instead, address discrepancy events through the e-Manifest corrections process. Under this approach, receiving facilities or EPA's PPC would upload/enter discrepancies identified under Item 18. Generators who had e-Manifest system access would receive email alerts regarding Item 18 discrepancies, review the final manifest in e-Manifest, and submit post-receipt manifest corrections.
 EPA's proposal to accept only electronic submissions of Unmanifested Waste Reports to the system by the receiving facility, with the goal of integrating Unmanifested Waste Reports into the e-Manifest system. EPA would not accept Unmanifested Waste Reports through a written, hard copy report. EPA would revise the reporting content specified in sections §§ 264.76 and 265.76 for hazardous waste and 761.216 for PCB wastes. Unlike electronic discrepancy and exception reporting, EPA proposes to impose a user fee, equivalent to the user fees for electronic manifests, on receiving facilities for each submission of an Unmanifested Waste Report.
 EPA's proposed approach to integrate Unmanifested Waste Reports into the e-Manifest system (by only accepting electronic submissions of Unmanifested Waste Reports to the system by the receiving facility and revising the reporting content specified in sections §§ 264.76 and 265.76 for hazardous waste and 761.216 for PCB wastes) and charge the electronic manifest fee rate for these submissions. EPA also requests comment on whether a separate, distinct user fee should be imposed for these reports.
      Regarding other proposals (discussed in preamble section IV.C), EPA requests comment on the following:
 Technical corrections and conforming changes to certain RCRA and TSCA PCB regulations under 40 CFR parts 262, 264, 265, and 761. These corrections and conforming changes are necessary to remove obsolete requirements, correct typographical errors, and/or improve alignment with the e-Manifest program.
 EPA's proposal to add an email address field to Item 5 of the generator block of the paper manifest so that the e-Manifest system can email copies of completed paper manifests to the generator's email address in lieu of receiving facilities having to mail copies to the generators' postal mail address. Under the proposal, the e-Manifest system would also send notifications to unregistered generators via the email address requesting that they register and obtain an account in e-Manifest for their site.
 EPA's request for comment on whether to mandate that generators register and obtain e-Manifest accounts for access to the e-Manifest system to view their copies of completed manifests.
 Proposals detailed in the February 2019 Federal Register ICR renewal notice regarding modification of the manifest form and instructions to improve the accuracy and precision of waste data reported in the manifest fields at Items 11 (Total Quantity) and 12 (Units of Measure) of the manifest. These proposed form changes would facilitate receiving facilities leveraging the e-Manifest system to populate the corresponding fields of the Waste Received from Off-site (WR) Form as part of the biennial report.
 EPA's consideration of a conceptual approach for e-Manifest integration with the biennial report, particularly regarding data accuracy and precision as well as the addition of certain BR data fields (e.g., form codes) of the WR Form to the manifest form. There are specific questions raised in preamble section IV.C.4.2.3 and IV.C.4.2.5.
 Potential ways to improve data quality in the waste description field (see preamble section IV.C.4.2.4).
 EPA's proposal to compare the previous BR cycle's submission of the submitting receiving facility to the manifest data it signed for in the system.
 EPA's proposal to add the waste description to the manifest.
 Whether or not EPA should establish a similar conceptual approach for e-Manifest integration with the GM Form. Would such an approach work for the GM Form?
V. State Implementation

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
	Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified states to administer their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of the federal program within the state. Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority under section 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized states have primary enforcement responsibility. The standards and requirements for state authorization are found at 40 CFR part 271.
      Prior to the enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) and of the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, a state with final RCRA authorization administered its hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of EPA administering the federal program in that state. The federal requirements no longer applied in the authorized state, and EPA could not issue permits for any facilities in that state, since only the state was authorized to administer the program and issue RCRA permits. When new, more stringent federal requirements were promulgated, the state was obligated to enact equivalent authorities within specified time frames. However, the new federal requirements did not take effect in an authorized state until the state adopted the federal requirements as state law.
      In contrast, with the adoption of RCRA section 3006(g), which was added by HSWA, new requirements and prohibitions imposed under the HSWA authority take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. EPA is directed by section 3006(g) to implement HSWA-based requirements and prohibitions in authorized states until the state is granted authorization to do so. While states must still adopt HSWA related provisions as state law to retain final authorization, EPA implements the HSWA provisions in authorized states until the states do so.
      The e-Manifest Act contains similar authority to HSWA with respect to federal and state implementation responsibilities in RCRA authorized states. Section 2(g)(3) of the e-Manifest Act, entitled Administration, provides that EPA shall carry out regulations promulgated under the Act in each state unless the state program is fully authorized to carry out such regulations in lieu of EPA. Also, section 2(g)(2) of the Act provides that any regulation promulgated by EPA under the e-Manifest Act shall take effect in each state (under federal authority) on the same effective date that EPA specifies in its promulgating regulation. Thus, the result is that regulations promulgated by EPA under the e-Manifest Act, like HSWA-based regulations, are implemented and enforced by EPA until the states are authorized to carry them out.
      Authorized states generally are required to modify their programs when EPA promulgates federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in scope than existing federal requirements. However, as EPA explained previously when adopting manifest form revisions to fully standardize the RCRA manifest, the hazardous waste manifest is not governed by this authorization policy. Rather, the RCRA manifest requires strict consistency in its implementation, so that EPA changes to federal manifest form requirements must be implemented consistently in the states. See 70 FR 10776 at 10810 (March 4, 2005). This is so, whether the manifest program change is based on base RCRA or on e-Manifest Act authority.
      TSCA does not grant EPA authority to authorize states to administer the program. EPA directly implements the federal PCB regulations in all states and territories.
B. Legal Authority for This Rule's Regulatory Changes and Implications
      Several of the provisions in this proposed rule are based on the authority of the e-Manifest Act and are listed in the table below. These provisions (if finalized) would be implemented and enforced by EPA in all states consistently on the effective date of the final rule. States must adopt the authorizable e-Manifest Act-based provisions of this final rule in order to enforce them under state law, and to maintain manifest program consistency. However, EPA will continue to implement and enforce these provisions until such time as the state modifies its authorized program to adopt these provisions and receives authorization from EPA for the program modification.
Regulation
Subject
§ 262.42(d)  -  (e)
Submission of Electronic Exception Reports to the e-Manifest system
§ 262.83(c)(4)
Exporters' required electronic or paper manifest to the system
§ 262.83(c)(5)
Imposition of fees on exporters for their manifest submission
§ 262.83(c)(7)
Exporters' replacement manifests
§ 262.83(c)(8)
Exporters' post receipt data corrections
§§ 264.72(c)(1)  -  (c)(4), §§ 265.72(c)(1)  -  (c)(4),
Submission of Electronic Discrepancy Reports to the e-Manifest System
§ 264.76(a), § 265.76(a)
Submission of Electronic Unmanifested Waste Reports to the e-Manifest system
§ 264.76(b), § 265.76(b)
Imposition of fees to receiving facilities for their Electronic Unmanifested Waste Report submission

      In contrast, the manifest-related report provisions at 40 CFR §§ 262.42 (a)(1)  -  (a)(2), 262.42(c)(2), 264.72(c), and 265.72(c) are based on the base RCRA statutory authority. Because these provisions would be finalized under RCRA base program authority, these regulatory changes would not become effective in authorized states until the regulatory changes are adopted under state law and EPA authorizes the state program modification. States must adopt the regulatory changes in their authorized programs to maintain manifest program consistency. In unauthorized states, these regulations would become effective on the effective date of this final rule. Because TSCA is not administered by state programs, all proposed changes to 40 CFR part 761 would become effective in all states and territories on the effective date of the rule.
C. Conforming Changes to 40 CFR 271.10 and 271.12
      This proposed rule also includes conforming changes to 40 CFR 271.10 and 271.12, addressing the requirements for hazardous waste generators and exporters, and receiving facilities, respectively, that must be included in authorized state programs to maintain consistency with the federal program. Other conforming changes to § 271.10 regarding regulatory amendments to the hazardous waste export and import regulations are discussed in preamble section V.D. The first change at § 271.10(j)(i) clarifies that authorized state programs must include requirements for electronic Exception Reports in the EPA's e-Manifest system, in lieu of sending signed copies to the EPA Regional Administrator or the states. The second change at § 271.10(j)(ii) clarifies that authorized state programs must include a requirement that hazardous waste exporters submit a signed copy of each paper manifest and continuation sheet (or the data from paper manifests) to the EPA's e-Manifest system, in lieu of providing additional copies of the manifest to the hazardous waste transporters. These modifications are necessary to effectuate the intent of Congress that under the e-Manifest Act, the e-Manifest system will operate as a national, one-stop reporting hub for manifests and data. When electronic Exception Reports are implemented in the e-Manifest system, EPA expects that the states with such tracking programs will obtain their manifest copies (and data) and electronic Exception Reports from e-Manifest, rather than requiring regulated entities to mail their manifests or exception reports to these states.
Finally, the e-Manifest-related amendments at §§ 271.12(i) and (k) must be included in authorized state programs for electronic Discrepancy Reports and Unmanifested Waste Reports to maintain consistency with the federal program. The amendments to § 271.12(i) clarify that authorized programs must include requirements that designated or receiving facilities submit electronic Discrepancy Reports and Unmanifested Waste Reports in the EPA's e-Manifest system, in lieu of sending signed copies to the states. The amendment at § 271.12(k) clarifies that authorized state programs must include requirements for hazardous waste management facilities and facilities submitting electronic Unmanifested Waste Reports in the e-Manifest system to pay user fees to EPA to recover all costs related to the development and operation of an electronic hazardous waste manifest system (e-Manifest system).
      Several of these states with manifest tracking programs assess their own fees to offset the costs of administering their state manifest tracking programs, or they may assess waste generation or management fees to support state programs, based on manifest data in their state tracking systems. It is likely that many of these state manifest tracking programs and related fees may continue to operate for the foreseeable future. EPA emphasizes that the federal user fees that are proposed in this regulation are solely to offset EPA's costs in developing and operating the e-Manifest system. It is not the purpose of this regulation to suspend, reduce, or otherwise impact the existing state fees that support states' manifest tracking programs, or the fees levied by state programs on waste generation or management. EPA is not now in a position to predict what, if any, impact this federal user fee regulation may have on any such state fee collection programs.
D. Provisions of the Proposed Rule That Are Not Authorizable
      There are some provisions in this proposed rule that can be administered and enforced only by EPA, and not by authorized states. First, the group of non-authorizable requirements included in this proposed rule are § 262.21(f)(5), (6), and (7). These provisions together announce the revised printing specification for the proposed four-copy paper manifest and continuation sheet paper forms, the revised copy distribution requirements to be printed on each copy of the form, and the revised specification for printing the appropriate manifest instructions on the back of the form copies. If finalized, state programs are not required to take any action respecting these regulatory changes to the printing specifications, and they will take effect in all states on the effective date of this rule. The RCRA manifest requires strict consistency in its implementation, so that an EPA change to federal manifest form requirements must be implemented consistently in the states. See generally 70 FR 10776 at 10810 (March 4, 2005).
      The second group of non-authorizable requirements in this proposed rule are regulatory amendments to certain fee methodology and related fee implementation provisions set forth in subpart FF of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265. These requirements include definitions relevant to the program's fee calculations (§ 264.1311, § 265.1311), and the user fee calculation methodology (§ 264.1312, § 265.1312). These user fee provisions in subpart FF are based on the authority of the e-Manifest Act, and (if finalized) would be implemented and enforced by EPA on the effective date of the final rule and perpetually thereafter. The user fee provisions of subpart FF describe the methods and processes that EPA alone will use in setting fees to recover its
program costs, and in administering and enforcing the user fee requirements. Therefore, states cannot be authorized to implement or enforce any of the subpart FF provisions.
      Although states cannot receive authorization to administer or enforce the federal government's e-Manifest program user fees, authorized state programs must still include the content of or references to the subpart FF requirements. This is necessary to ensure that members of their regulated communities will be on notice of their responsibilities to pay user fees to the EPA e-Manifest system when they utilize the system. Authorized state programs must either adopt or reference appropriately the user fee requirements of this final rule.13 However, when a state adopts the user fee provisions of this rule, the state must not replace federal or EPA references with state references or terms that would suggest the collection or implementation of these user fees by the state.
      The last group of non-authorizable provisions in this proposed rule are regulatory amendments to certain export and import regulations detailed in preamble sections IV.A.4, IV.A.5, and IV.A.6 are not authorizable. Because of the federal government's special role in matters of foreign policy, EPA does not authorize states to administer federal import/export functions in the regulations discussed in those preamble sections. This approach of having federal, rather than state, administering of the import/export functions promotes national coordination, uniformity, and the expeditious transmission of information between the United States and foreign countries.
      Although states do not receive authorization to administer the federal government's  import/export functions in 40 CFR part 262 subpart H, or the import/export relation functions in certain other RCRA hazardous waste regulations, state programs are still required to adopt the provisions in this rule to maintain their equivalency with the federal program (see 40 CFR 271.10(a) and (d) which will also be amended in this rule).
      This rule contains many amendments to the export and import shipment international movement document- related requirements under 40 CFR part 262 subpart H to more closely link the manifest data with the international movement document data. The rule also contains conforming import and export-related amendments to 40 CFR parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, and 271, almost all of which are more stringent.
      The states that have already adopted 40 CFR part 262 subparts H, 40 CFR part 263, 40 CFR part 264, 40 CFR part 265, and any other import/export related regulations discussed in this rule must adopt the revisions to those provisions in this final rule. When a state adopts the import/export provisions in this rule (if final), they must not replace federal or international references or terms with state references or terms.
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews

       Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
      This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review because it: 1) materially alters the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; and 2) may raise novel legal or policy issues. Budgetary impacts of the e-Manifest user fee program may be altered by this rulemaking as it establishes fees for hazardous waste exporters. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis (titled "The Regulatory Impact Analysis for EPA's Proposed Rule Integrating e-Manifest with Hazardous Waste Exports and Other Manifest-related Reports, PCB Manifest Amendments and Technical Corrections") is available in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
       The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 0801.26. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
 Respondents/affected entities: Business or other for-profit.
 Respondent's obligation to respond: The recordkeeping and notification requirements are required for parties performing relevant manifest activities (e.g., submitting export manifests). These requirements are described in detail in the ICR Supporting Statement.
 Estimated number of respondents: 203,936.
 Frequency of response: Per Shipment.
 Total estimated burden: 2,458,568 hours.
 Total estimated cost: $121,690,615, includes $27,400,688 annualized capital costs and O&M costs.
       An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
       Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
      I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, and that the Agency is certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule relieves burden on the small entities subject to the rule.  All entities that manifest waste domestically are expected to benefit from cost savings.  However, the proposed rule does result in net costs for hazardous waste exporters. In section 4.2 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for EPA's Proposed Rule Integrating e-Manifest with Hazardous Waste Exports and Other Manifest-related Reports, PCB Manifest Amendments and Technical Corrections , EPA considers two "worst-case" scenarios to analyze the upper bounds of net costs to 111 small exporter entities.  Under both scenarios, the proposed rule would not result in significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities with respect to exporter small entities because the upper bound of costs for the regulation per entity does not exceed one percent or three percent of annual revenues for 20 percent of small entities in a sector, or 100 small entities total.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
       This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531 - 1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As documented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for EPA's Proposed Rule Integrating e-Manifest with Exports and Other Manifest-related Reports, PCB Manifest Amendments and Technical Corrections found in the docket, EPA finds that the rule would not result in annual expenditures exceeding $100 million annually and therefore would not be subject to requirements of section 202 of UMRA as listed above.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
       This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
 	This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 because the action is expected to result in net cost savings and otherwise is not expected to result in any adverse impacts on tribal entities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. However, consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA did engage in tribal coordination on this proposed rulemaking.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
 	This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. In addition, because the rule would not increase risk related to exposure to hazardous materials, the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
       This action is not a "significant energy action" under Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations that Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (May 18, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. The proposed rule would not directly regulate energy production or consumption and is expected to result in net cost savings.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
 	This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
      EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Findings are documented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for EPA's Proposed Rule Integrating e-Manifest with Hazardous Waste Exports and Other Manifest-related Reports, PCB Manifest Amendments and Technical Corrections found in the docket. Proposed changes in this rule, however, will serve to increase public transparency of hazardous waste activity in communities, including greater access to information regarding hazardous waste shipments exported out of the U.S. and information regarding irregularities in the manifest process, e.g., manifest exception, discrepancy, and unmanifested waste reporting.
List of Subjects

 40 CFR Part 260
 Environmental protection, Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Imports, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
 40 CFR Part 262
 Environmental protection, Electronic reporting requirements, Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Imports, Labeling,
 Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
 40 CFR Part 263
 Environmental protection, Electronic reporting requirements, Exports, Hazardous
 materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Imports.
 40 CFR Part 264
 Environmental protection, Electronic reporting requirements, Hazardous
 waste, Imports, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
 40 CFR Part 265
 Environmental protection, Electronic reporting requirements, Hazardous
 waste, Imports, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
 requirements.
 40 CFR 267
 Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Facilities Operating Under a Standardized Permit
 40 CFR Part 271
 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
 Confidential business information, Electronic reporting requirements,
 Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Reporting and
 recordkeeping requirements.
 40 CFR Part 761
 Environmental protection, Manifest, Polychlorinated biphenyls.

Dated:

Michael S. Regan,

Administrator.

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

 The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921- 27, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939, and
6974.
 Sections 260.2(d)(1)  -  (2) are appended to add text related to hazardous
secondary material exports under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(25) to read as follows:
§260.2 Availability of information; confidentiality of information
    (d)(1) *** After [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE], no claim of business confidentiality may be asserted by any person with respect to information contained in hazardous secondary material export documents prepared, used and submitted under 261.4(a)(25), whether submitted electronically into EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System or in paper format.
    (2) *** After [INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE], EPA will make available to the public under this section any hazardous secondary material export documents prepared, used and submitted under 261.4(a)(25) on March 1 of the calendar year after the related hazardous secondary material exports occur, when these documents are considered by EPA to be final documents.
    * * * * *
PART 261  -  IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
         3. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y), and 6938.
  Section 261.4(a)(25)(i)(A) is amended by replacing "mailing address" with "site address," Section 261.4(a)(25)(i)(H) is amended by replacing "address" with "site address," and Section 261.4(a)(25)(v) is amended by deleting the last sentence in paragraph (v) to read as follows:
§261.4 Exclusions

      (i) ***
      (A) Name, site address, telephone number and EPA ID number (if applicable) of the hazardous secondary material generator;
***
      (H) The name and site address of the reclaimer, any intermediate facility and any alternate reclaimer and intermediate facilities; and
***
    (v) EPA will provide a complete notification to the country of import and any countries of transit. A notification is complete when EPA receives a notification which EPA determines satisfies the requirements of paragraph (a)(25)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
    5. Section 261.6(a)(3)(i)(A)  -  (B) is amended by removing references to previously deleted requirements in 262.53, 262.56, 262.57 and 263.20, and replacing such references to current requirements in 262.83 and international movement document related requirements in 263.20(a)(2) and 263.20(c) to read as follows:
§261.6   Requirements for recyclable materials
      (a) ***
      (3) ***
      (i) ***
      (A) The person initiating a shipment for reclamation in a foreign country, and any intermediary arranging for the shipment, must comply with the requirements applicable to an exporter in §262.83 with the exception of §262.83(c);
      (B) Transporters transporting a shipment for export or import must comply with the movement document requirements listed in §§263.20(a)(2) and 263.20(c).
* * * * * 6. Section 261.39(a)(5)(i)(A) is amended by replacing "mailing address" with "site address", Section 261.39(a)(5)(i)(F) is amended by replacing "address" with "site address", Section 261.39(a)(5)(v)(B) is amended by deleting the first clause in the first sentence in paragraph (B), and revising Section 261.39(a)(5)(xi) to read as follows:
§261.39   Conditional Exclusion for Used, Broken Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) and Processed CRT Glass Undergoing Recycling.
(a)(5)(i) ***
(A) Name, site address, telephone number and EPA ID number (if applicable) of the exporter of the CRTs.
***
(F) The name and site address of the recycler or recyclers and the estimated quantity of used CRTs to be sent to each facility, as well as the names of any alternate recyclers.
***
(a) ***
(5) ***
(v) ***
(B) The exporter or a U.S. authorized agent must:
***
(xi) Annual reports must be submitted to EPA using the allowable methods specified in paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of this section. Exporters must keep copies of each annual report for a period of at least three years from the due date of the report. Exporters may satisfy this recordkeeping requirement by retaining electronically submitted annual reports in the CRT exporter's account on EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS), or its successor system, provided that a copy is readily available for viewing and production if requested by any EPA or authorized state inspector. No CRT exporter may be held liable for the inability to produce an annual report for inspection under this section if the CRT exporter can demonstrate that the inability to produce the annual report is due exclusively to technical difficulty with EPA's Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS), or its successor system for which the CRT exporter bears no responsibility.
****
PART 262 -- STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

      7. 40 CFR Part 262 is amended by removing paragraph (a)(2) of Section 262.20; revising paragraphs (f)(5), (f)(6), and (f)(7) of Section 262.21; revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(2), and adding new paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 262.42 to read as follows:

§262.20   General requirements
    (a) ***
    (2) [Reserved]
    * * * * *
§ 262.21   Manifest tracking numbers, manifest printing, and obtaining manifests.
      *****
      (f) ***
      (5) The manifest and continuation sheet must be printed as four-copy forms. Copy-to-copy registration must be exact within 1/32nd of an inch. Handwritten and typed impressions on the form must be legible on all four copies. Copies must be bound together by one or more common stubs that reasonably ensure that they will not become detached inadvertently during normal use.
      (6) Each copy of the manifest and continuation sheet must indicate how the copy must be distributed, as follows:
(i) Page 1 (top copy): "Designated facility to EPA's e-Manifest system";
(ii) Page 2: "Designated facility copy";
(iii) Page 3: "Transporter copy"; and
(iv) Page 4 (bottom copy): "Generator's initial copy."
      (7) The instructions for the manifest form (EPA Form 8700-22) and the manifest continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A) shall be printed in accordance with the content that is currently approved under OMB Control Number 2050-0039 and published to the e-Manifest program's website. The instructions must appear legibly on the back of the copies of the manifest and continuation sheet as provided in this paragraph (f). The instructions must not be visible through the front of the copies when photocopied or faxed.
(i) Manifest Form 8700-22.
(A) The "Instructions for Generators" on Copy 4;
(B) The "Instructions for Transporters" on Copy 3; and
(C) The "Instructions for Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities" on Copy 2.
(ii) Manifest Form 8700-22A.
(A) The "Instructions for Generators" on Copy 4;
(B) The "Instructions for International Shipment Block" and "Instructions for Transporters" on Copy 3; and
(C) The "Instructions for Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities" on Copy 2.
*****
§ 262.42 Exception Reporting.
      (a)(1) A generator of 1,000 kilograms or greater of hazardous waste in a calendar month, or greater than 1 kg of acute hazardous waste listed in §261.31 or §261.33(e) in a calendar month, who does not receive a copy of the manifest with the signature of the owner or operator of the designated facility within 40 days of the date the waste was accepted by the initial transporter must contact the transporter and/or the owner or operator of the designated facility to determine the status of the hazardous waste.
      (2) A generator of 1,000 kilograms or greater of hazardous waste in a calendar month, or greater than 1 kg of acute hazardous waste listed in §261.31or §261.33(e) in a calendar month, must submit an Exception Report to the EPA Regional Administrator for the Region in which the generator is located if the generator has not received a copy of the manifest with the  signature of the owner or operator of the designated facility within 50 days of the date the waste was accepted by the initial transporter. The Exception Report must include:
      (i) A legible copy of the manifest for which the generator does not have confirmation of delivery;
      (ii) A cover letter signed by the generator or his authorized representative explaining the efforts taken to locate the hazardous waste and the results of those efforts.
      (b) A generator of greater than 100 kilograms but less than 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a calendar month who does not receive a copy of the manifest with the signature of the owner or operator of the designated facility within 60 days of the date the waste was accepted by the initial transporter must submit a legible copy of the manifest, with some indication that the generator has not received confirmation of delivery, to the EPA Regional Administrator for the Region in which the generator is located.
*****
      (c) ***
      (2) The 40/50/60-day timeframes begin the date the waste was accepted by the initial transporter forwarding the hazardous waste shipment from the designated facility to the alternate facility.
      (d) Legal equivalence to paper Exception Reports. Electronic Exception Reports that are prepared in accordance with § 262.42(a)(2) for large quantity generators or § 262.42(b) for small quantity generators and used in accordance with this section in lieu of paper Exception Reports are the legal equivalent of paper Exception Reports bearing handwritten signatures, and satisfy for all purposes any requirement in these regulations to complete, sign, provide, and retain an exception report.
      (1) Any requirement in these regulations to sign an Exception Report certification by hand is satisfied by signing with a valid and enforceable electronic signature within the meaning of § 262.25.
      (2) Any requirement in these regulations to give, provide or send an Exception Report to the EPA Regional Administrator is satisfied when an electronic Exception Report is distributed to the EPA Regional Administrator by submission to the e-Manifest system.
      (3) Any requirement in these regulations for a generator to keep or retain a copy of an Exception Report is satisfied by retention of a signed electronic Exception Report in the generator's account on the national e-Manifest system, provided that the Exception Report is readily available for viewing and production if requested by any EPA or authorized state inspector.
      (4) No generator may be held liable for the inability to produce an electronic Exception Report for inspection under this section if the generator can demonstrate that the inability to produce the electronic Exception Report is due exclusively to a technical difficulty with the e-Manifest system for which the generator bears no responsibility.
    (e) Restriction on use of electronic exception reporting. A generator may participate in electronic exception reporting if:
      (1) the manifest at issue is an electronic manifest or a hybrid manifest (mixed paper and electronic manifest) in accordance with §§ 262.24(c) and 262.25 of this part; and
      (2) for mixed paper and electronic manifests (i.e., hybrid manifests), the generator has registered with EPA and has access to the electronic manifests for the site.
      8. Section 262.83 is amended by deleting paragraph (a)(6)(i), renumbering remaining paragraph (a)(6)(ii) as paragraph (a)(6) and revising its introductory text, replacing "address" with "site address" in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)-(iv) and (b)(3), revising paragraphs (c), (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii), replacing "address" with "site address" in paragraphs (d)(2)(iii)-(v) and (d)(2)(viii), revising paragraphs (d)(2)(ix), (d)(2)(xv), adding paragraph (d)(2)(xvi), revising paragraphs (f)(4), (f)(5), (f)(6)(ii), (g), and (i)(1)(v) and adding paragraph (i)(1)(vi) to read as follows:
§ 262.83   Exports of hazardous waste.
*****

(a) ***
***
(6) The exporter or a U.S. authorized agent submits Electronic Export Information (EEI) for each shipment to the Automated Export System (AES) or its successor system, under the International Trade Data System (ITDS) platform, in accordance with 15 CFR 30.4(b), and includes the following items in the EEI, along with the other information required under 15 CFR 30.6:
****
(b) ***
(1) ***
(i) Exporter name and EPA identification number, site address, telephone, fax numbers, and email address;
(ii) Foreign receiving facility name, site address, telephone, fax numbers, email address, technologies employed, and the applicable recovery or disposal operations as defined in §262.81;
(iii) Foreign importer name (if not the owner or operator of the foreign receiving facility), site address, telephone, fax numbers, and email address;