[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 201 (Monday, October 19, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63283-63320]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25348]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 201

October 19, 2015

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

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

Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 201 / Monday, October 19, 2015 /
Proposed Rules

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 271 and 273

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0147; FRL-9926-94-OSWER]
RIN 2050-AG77

Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
amend our existing regulations in regards to the export and import of
hazardous wastes from and into the United States. EPA is proposing
these changes to: Provide greater protection to human health and the
environment by making existing export and import related requirements
more consistent with the current import-export requirements for
shipments between members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD); enable electronic submittal of all export and
import-related documents (e.g., export notices, export annual reports);
and enable electronic validation of consent in the Automated Export
System (AES) for export shipments subject to RCRA export consent
requirements prior to exit.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 18, 2015. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before November 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2015-0147, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Coughlan, Materials Recovery and
Waste Management Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
(5304P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. List of Acronyms Used in This Proposed Rule
    B. What are the statutory authorities for this proposed rule?
    C. Does this proposed rule apply to me?
    D. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?
    E. Incorporation by Reference (IBR)
II. Background
    A. RCRA General Hazardous Waste Export and Import Requirements
    B. RCRA OECD Regulations
    C. RCRA Hazardous Waste Export Integration With ITDS
    D. RCRA Hazardous Waste Export and Import Regulations and
Executive Order 13563 for the Retrospective Review of Existing
Regulations
III. Summary of This Proposed Rule
    A. Changes to Section 260.10
    B. Changes to Section 260.11(g)(1)
    C. Changes to Sections 261.4(d) and 261.4(e)
    D. Changes to Section 261.6(a)
    E. Changes to Section 261.39(a)(5)
    F. Changes to Section 262.10(d)
    G. Changes to Section 262.12
    H. Changes to Section 262.41(b)
    I. Changes to 40 CFR Part 262 Subpart E
    J. Changes to 40 CFR Part 262 Subpart F
    K. Changes to 40 CFR Part 262 Subpart H
    L. Changes to the Appendix to Part 262
    M. Conforming Changes to Parts 263 Through 267, 271, and 273
IV. Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule
    A. Introduction
    B. Analytical Scope
    C. Cost Impacts
    D. Benefits
V. State Authorization
    A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
    B. Effect on State Authorization
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Executive Order 13659: Streamlining the Export/Import Process
for America's Businesses
VII. 2013 CEC Report on Spent Lead Acid Batteries and Related
Analysis

I. General Information

A. List of Acronyms Used in This Proposed Rule

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Acronym                              Meaning
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACE.................................  Automated Commercial Environment.
AES.................................  Automated Export System.
AOC.................................  Acknowledgment of Consent (issued
                                       by EPA).
CBI.................................  Confidential Business Information.
CBP.................................  United States Customs and Border
                                       Protection.
CDX.................................  Central Data Exchange.
CEC.................................  Commission for Environmental
                                       Cooperation.
CERCLA..............................  Comprehensive Environmental
                                       Response, Compensation, and
                                       Liability Act.
CFR.................................  Code of Federal Regulations.
CROMERR.............................  Cross-Media Electronic Reporting
                                       Regulation.
CRT.................................  Cathode Ray Tube.
CY..................................  Calendar Year.
EPA.................................  United States Environmental
                                       Protection Agency.
FR..................................  Federal Register.
FTR.................................  U.S. Census Bureau's Foreign Trade
                                       Regulations.
HSWA................................  Hazardous and Solid Waste
                                       Amendments.
ICR.................................  Information Collection Request.
ITDS................................  International Trade Data System.
ITN.................................  Internal Transaction Number
                                       (issued by AES).
LAB.................................  Lead-Acid Battery.
NAICS...............................  North American Industrial
                                       Classification System.
NCEDE...............................  Notice and Consent Electronic Data
                                       Exchange.
NTTAA...............................  National Technology Transfer and
                                       Advancement Act.
NAFTA...............................  North American Free Trade
                                       Agreement.
OECD................................  Organization for Economic
                                       Cooperation and Development.

OMB.................................  Office of Management and Budget.
OSWER...............................  Office of Solid Waste and
                                       Emergency Response.
RCRA................................  Resource Conservation and Recovery
                                       Act.
RFA.................................  Regulatory Flexibility Act.
SIC.................................  Standard Industrial
                                       Classification.
SLAB................................  Spent Lead-Acid Battery.
SBREFA..............................  Small Business Regulatory
                                       Enforcement Fairness Act.
TRI.................................  Toxics Release Inventory.
UMRA................................  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What are the statutory authorities for this proposed rule?

    The authority to propose this rule is found in sections 1002,
2002(a), 3001-3004, and 3017 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and as
amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et.
seq., 6912, 6921-6924, and 6938.

C. Does this proposed rule apply to me?

    The revisions to export and import requirements in this proposed
rule generally affect four (4) groups: (1) All persons who export or
import (or arrange for the export or import) hazardous waste for
recycling or disposal, including those hazardous wastes subject to the
alternate management standards for (a) universal waste for recycling or
disposal, (b) spent lead-acid batteries (SLABs) being shipped for
reclamation, (c) industrial ethyl alcohol being shipped for
reclamation, (d) hazardous waste samples of more than 25 kilograms
being shipped for waste characterization or treatability studies, and
(e) hazardous recyclable materials being shipped for precious metal
recovery; (2) all recycling and disposal facilities who receive imports
of such hazardous wastes for recycling or disposal; (3) all persons who
export or arrange for the export of conditionally excluded cathode ray
tubes being shipped for recycling; and (4) all persons who transport
any export and import shipments described above. Potentially affected
entities may include, but are not limited to:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               NAICS code                       NAICS description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
211....................................  Oil and Gas Extraction.
212....................................  Mining (except Oil and Gas).
213....................................  Support Activities for Mining.
311....................................  Food Manufacturing.
324....................................  Petroleum and Coal Products
                                          Manufacturing.
325....................................  Chemical Manufacturing.
326....................................  Plastics and Rubber Products
                                          Manufacturing.
327....................................  Nonmetallic Mineral Product
                                          Manufacturing.
331....................................  Primary Metal Manufacturing.
332....................................  Fabricated Metal Product
                                          Manufacturing.
333....................................  Machinery Manufacturing.
334....................................  Computer and Electronic Product
                                          Manufacturing.
335....................................  Electrical Equipment,
                                          Appliance, and Component
                                          Manufacturing.
336....................................  Transportation Equipment
                                          Manufacturing.
339....................................  Miscellaneous Manufacturing.
423....................................  Merchant Wholesalers, Durable
                                          Goods.
424....................................  Merchant Wholesalers,
                                          Nondurable Goods.
441....................................  Motor Vehicle and Parts
                                          Dealers.
482....................................  Rail transportation.
483....................................  Water transportation.
484....................................  Truck transportation.
488....................................  Support Activities for
                                          Transportation.
531....................................  Real Estate.
541....................................  Professional, Scientific, and
                                          Technical Services.
561....................................  Administrative and Support
                                          Services.
562....................................  Waste Management and
                                          Remediation Services.
721....................................  Accommodation.
924....................................  Administration of Environmental
                                          Quality Programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The lists of potentially affected entities in the above tables may
not be exhaustive. The Agency's aim is to provide a guide for readers
regarding those entities that potentially could be affected by this
action. However, this action may affect other entities not listed in
these tables. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
proposed rule to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding section entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

D. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?

    EPA is proposing certain amendments to the current RCRA regulations
governing imports and exports of hazardous waste and certain other
materials in part 262 in order improve protection of public health and
the environment by achieving greater consistency in both procedures and
documentation. Specifically, the proposed revisions of the existing
regulations will consolidate and streamline some of the requirements
and enhance the documentation of the movement and disposition of
hazardous wastes and other materials, improving the Agency's ability to
monitor compliance with applicable legal requirements; will enable
regulated parties and the government to benefit from the electronic
submission of data; and will consolidate the notification process with
foreign governments for efficiency under a unified regulation,
consistent with the requirements of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development Council Decision (OECD) controlling
transboundary movements of hazardous waste. The proposed rule is one of
the Agency's priority actions under its plan for periodic retrospective
reviews of existing regulations, as called for by Executive Order
13563. Finally, certain other revisions to the regulations are needed
in order to fulfill the direction set forth in Executive Order 13659
concerning the electronic management of international trade data by the
U.S. Government as part of the International Trade Data System (ITDS).
    EPA's determination that some revisions to the import/export
regulations are needed is bolstered by the 2013 Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC) report and its recommendations. The CEC
report found that U.S. net exports of spent lead acid batteries (SLABs)
to Mexico for recycling had increased by an estimated 449-525 percent,
and that there were significant discrepancies between summary data on
export shipments reported to the EPA annually and individual export
shipment data collected under U.S. Census Bureau (Census) authority.
Based on its findings, the CEC report recommended that the U.S. require
the use of manifests for each international shipment of SLABs, require
exporters to obtain a certificate of recovery from foreign recycling
facilities, explore establishing an electronic export annual report,
and better share import and export data between environmental and
border agencies. For a more complete discussion of the report and EPA's
related analysis, see Section VII.
    EPA is particularly interested in input on this proposed action
from persons who import and export hazardous waste, including those
persons importing or exporting hazardous wastes managed under the
special management standards in 40 CFR part 266 (e.g., spent lead acid
batteries) and 40 CFR part 273 (e.g., universal waste batteries,
universal waste mercury lamps).

E. Incorporation by Reference (IBR)

    This action is proposing to update the IBR source material in Sec.
260.11(g)(1) for the OECD amber and green waste lists, and their
associated waste codes, which

are used to identify a waste. The OECD waste lists, entitled ``List of
Wastes Subject to the Green Control Procedures'' and ``List of Wastes
Subject to Amber Control Procedures,'' are set forth in Appendix 3 and
Appendix 4, respectively, of the OECD Decision. The waste lists from
the OECD Decision have been consolidated and incorporated in Annex B
and C of the 2009 ``Guidance Manual for the Implementation of Council
Decision C(2001)107/FINAL, as Amended, on the Control of Transboundary
Movements of Wastes Destined for Recovery Operations.'' Section
260.11(g)(1) currently references material from an old 1992 OECD
Council Decision, C(92)39/FINAL. We are proposing to update that
reference to the most current listing, which is the 2009 ``Guidance
Manual for the Implementation of Council Decision C(2001)107/FINAL, as
Amended, on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Wastes Destined
for Recovery Operations.'' Sections 262.82(a), 262.83(b)(1)(xi),
262.83(d)(2)(vi), 262.83(g)(4)(iii), 262.84(b)(1)(xi), and
262.84(d)(2)(vi) will reference the IBR material in the proposed Sec.
260.11(g)(1). EPA does not believe this proposed change will impact the
regulated community, since the regulated community was already using
the most current listings from the OECD as this IBR material is
currently in the regulations under Section 262.89(d), for which this
action proposes to redirect the citations to 260.11(g)(1). The material
is available for inspection at: The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Docket Center Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (Docket # EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2015-0147) and may be obtained from the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, Environment Directorate, 2 rue
Andr[eacute] Pascal, F-75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. The material is
also available online (for free) at http://www.oecd.org/env/waste/42262259.pdf. To contact the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. To contact the OECD, call +33 (0) 1 45 24 81 67.

II. Background

A. RCRA General Hazardous Waste Export and Import Requirements

    EPA's general hazardous waste export and import regulations were
originally promulgated in 1986 and are currently found in 40 CFR part
262 subparts E and F. 40 CFR part 262 subpart E established export
requirements for manifested hazardous waste. These requirements include
submitting an export notice to EPA, receiving EPA's Acknowledgement of
Consent (AOC) letter documenting consent by the country of import and
any countries of transit, RCRA manifest related requirements for export
shipments, submittal of export annual reports summarizing export
shipments made in the previous calendar year, and recordkeeping. 40 CFR
part 262 Subpart F established manifest related requirements for
hazardous waste import shipments. Conforming requirements related to
the AOC letter and the RCRA manifest were added to Parts 263 (i.e., for
transporters), 264 and 265 (i.e., for treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities). While some limited changes have been made since 1986, the
requirements related to individual shipment tracking remain solely
based on RCRA manifest requirements.

B. RCRA OECD Regulations

1. What is the OECD?
    The OECD is an international organization established in 1960 to
assist Member countries in achieving sustainable economic growth,
employment, and an increased standard of living, while simultaneously
ensuring the protection of human health and the environment. OECD
Member countries are concerned with a host of international socio-
economic and political issues, including environmental issues. To
address these issues, the OECD Council may negotiate Council Decisions,
which, except as otherwise provided, are international agreements that
create legally-binding commitments on the United States and other OECD
member countries under the terms Article 5 of the Convention on the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD
Convention). A series of Council decisions, collectively referred to
here as the ``Amended 2001 OECD Decision,'' addresses the transboundary
movement of wastes, which is the subject of this proposed rule. Of the
thirty-four Member countries of the OECD, all but Chile participate in
the Amended 2001 OECD Decision. These participating Member countries
are as follows: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak
Republic, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey,
the United Kingdom, and the United States. The OECD country Web site
for each Member country may be found at http://www.oecd.org/infobycountry/.
2. What OECD Decisions formed the basis for the existing regulations in
40 CFR part 262, subpart H?
    On March 30, 1992, the OECD Council adopted the ``Decision of the
Council C(92)39/FINAL Concerning the Control of Transfrontier Movements
of Wastes Destined for Recovery'' (hereinafter referred to as the 1992
Decision), which applied to the transboundary movements of wastes
destined for recovery operations between OECD Member countries. The
1992 Decision provided a framework for OECD Member countries to control
the transboundary movement of recoverable wastes in an environmentally
sound and economically efficient manner. These revisions were
implemented within RCRA in the April 12, 1996 direct final rule (61 FR
16290) that established 40 CFR part 262 subpart H (hereinafter referred
to as OECD regulations or Subpart H regulations), and added a section
to 40 CFR part 262 subpart E to detail when exporters and importers
needed to comply with 40 CFR part 262 subpart H in lieu of complying
with 40 CFR part 262 subpart E or F. As with the general RCRA export
and import requirements, conforming requirements for exports and
imports required to comply with 40 CFR part 262 subpart H were added to
40 CFR parts 263-265.
    On June 14, 2001, the OECD Council amended the 1992 Decision by
adopting ``Revision of Decision C(92)30/FINAL on the Control of
Transboundary Movement of Wastes Destined for Recovery
Operations''(hereafter referred to as the 2001 OECD Decision). The goal
of the 2001 OECD Decision was to harmonize the procedures and
requirements of the OECD with those of the Basel Convention \1\ and to
eliminate duplicative activities between the two international
organizations as much as practical. These changes included significant
revisions to the original established framework (such as reducing the
levels of control from a three-tiered system to a two-tiered system),
while also adding entirely new provisions (for example, the new

confirmation of recovery requirement). Subsequent to the 2001 OECD
Decision, an addendum, C(2001)107/ADD1 (hereafter referred to as the
2001 OECD Addendum), which consists of revised versions of the
notification and movement documents and the instructions to complete
them, was adopted by the OECD Council on February 28, 2002. The
addendum was incorporated into the 2001 OECD Decision as section C of
Appendix 8, and the combined version was issued in May 2002 as
C(2001)107/FINAL. On March 30, 2004, the OECD Council adopted C(2004)20
(hereafter referred to as the 2004 OECD Amendment), which updated the
OECD waste lists, entitled ``Appendix 3: List of Wastes Subject to the
Green Control Procedure'' (hereafter referred to as the Green list) and
``Appendix 4: List of Wastes Subject to the Amber Control Procedure''
(hereafter referred to as the Amber List). To the extent possible, the
Green and Amber Lists were revised based on the amendments made to
Annexes II, VIII, and IX of the Basel Convention in November 2003. The
2001 OECD Decision was further amended in November 2005 and November
2008. The OECD Council decisions are collectively referred to as the
Amended 2001 OECD Decision, and the consolidated text is in the
guidance manual for the Amended 2001 OECD Decision, available online at
http://www.oecd.org/environment/waste/42262259.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal is a comprehensive
global environmental agreement on hazardous and other wastes. The
Convention has 181 Member countries, also known as Parties, and aims
to protect human health and the environment against the adverse
effects that may result from the generation, management,
transboundary movements and disposal of hazardous and other wastes.
The United States is a signatory, but has not yet ratified the
Convention. More information on the Basel Convention may be found at
www.basel.int.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register entitled,
``Revisions to the Requirements for: Transboundary Shipments of
Hazardous Wastes Between OECD Member Countries, Export Shipments of
Spent Lead-Acid Batteries, Submitting Exception Reports for Export
Shipments of Hazardous Wastes, and Imports of Hazardous Wastes'' (75 FR
1236, January 8, 2010) amending 40 CFR part 262 subpart H and making
conforming requirements in 40 CFR parts 263-266 and 271 to implement
the specific provisions of the Amended 2001 OECD Decision. Under the
OECD regulations, all export and import shipments for recycling of RCRA
hazardous waste between the U.S. and an OECD member country other than
Canada or Mexico are required to be shipped using notice and consent
procedures, covered by contracts or equivalent arrangements that
require the parties (e.g., exporter, destination facility) to comply
with all the applicable requirements in the OECD regulations,
accompanied by an international tracking document or movement document
from the shipment's starting point in the country of export to the
destination facility in the country of import, and recycled within one
year of shipment delivery. For example, the contract with the foreign
destination facility must specify that it sends copies of the signed
movement document back to the exporter and to the competent authorities
of the countries of export, import and transit to confirm receipt of
the waste shipment. Further, the contract must specify that the foreign
destination facility will subsequently send confirmation back to the
exporter and to the competent authorities of the countries of export,
import and transit that it has completed recycling the shipment.
3. Why did EPA retain the general RCRA export and import requirements
along with the OECD regulations?
    The OECD regulations apply to shipments of RCRA hazardous waste \2\
sent for recovery between the United States and OECD member countries
other than Canada and Mexico. Although Canada and Mexico are both OECD
member countries, the U.S. has separate bilateral agreements with these
countries that cover shipments for disposal in the U.S. and Canada, in
addition to shipments for recycling in the U.S., Canada or Mexico.
Because the bilateral agreements covered shipments for disposal and
some import and export shipments occurred with non-OECD countries, EPA
kept hazardous waste shipments with those countries subject to the
general RCRA export and import requirements in 40 CFR part 262 Subparts
E and F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This includes import and export shipments of hazardous waste
subject to the alternate management standards for universal waste,
SLABs being shipped for reclamation, hazardous recyclable materials
being shipped for precious metal recovery, industrial ethyl alcohol
being shipped for reclamation, and hazardous waste samples of more
than 25 kg being shipped for characterization or treatability
studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its comments on the proposed revisions to the OECD regulations
in 2008, the Basel Action Network (BAN) commented that the U.S. had not
yet implemented the 1986 OECD Decision-Recommendation,\3\ and should do
so immediately. The 1986 OECD Decision-Recommendation stated that OECD
member countries should regulate hazardous waste movements with non-
OECD countries no differently from movements with OECD member
countries. BAN's comment was outside of the scope of the proposed
rulemaking, and was noted as such by EPA in the January 8, 2010, final
rule and the related response to comments document. EPA, at that time,
considered the regulatory requirements in 40 CFR part 262, subpart E to
be sufficiently similar to those in 40 CFR part 262, subpart H to
comply with the legally binding elements of the 1986 OECD Decision-
Recommendation. EPA concluded that this approach was reasonable as EPA
had no data indicating that there were significant exports of RCRA
hazardous waste that proceeded without consent of any kind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Decision-Recommendation of the Council on Exports of
Hazardous Wastes from the OECD area'', C(86)64/FINAL, issued June 5,
1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Why is EPA proposing to require that all exports and imports of
hazardous waste comply with OECD-based requirements?
    While EPA has updated the RCRA OECD regulations and some limited
changes have been made to the general RCRA export and import
regulations since 1996, EPA has determined that a more complete
revision is needed at this time for a number of reasons.
    First, the regulations are quite complex. Different procedures
apply depending on whether the shipment is destined for recycling or
disposal, whether the other country is a member of the OECD, and if so,
whether the U.S. has a separate bilateral agreement with the OECD
member country. In addition, the applicability of conforming
requirements in 40 CFR parts 263, 264, 265, 266 and 273 related to the
general RCRA export and import regulations and the OECD regulations are
sometimes unclear. The complexity of having two sets of export and
import requirements creates confusion for the regulated community and
leads to decreased compliance with RCRA requirements. In general, over
ninety percent of the quantity of hazardous waste that is shipped
between the United States and other countries occurs between the U.S.,
Canada and Mexico. Canada and Mexico are both OECD countries and under
the same obligation to implement the Amended 2001 OECD Decision.
Additionally, hazardous waste shipments between the United States and
OECD countries other than Canada and Mexico already follow the Amended
2001 OECD Decision. Only 137 of the 54,152 hazardous waste import and
export shipments in 2011 were between the United States and non-OECD
countries.
    Second, the general RCRA regulations in 40 CFR part 262 Subparts E
and F do not provide for complete tracking of individual shipment
transport and management. As stated previously, under the OECD
regulations an international movement document must accompany the
shipment from the

starting site in the country of export to the destination site in the
country of import, and copies of the signed movement document must be
sent by the foreign destination facility to the exporter and to the
countries of export, import, and transit to confirm receipt of the
shipment. Such confirmation reduces the risk of shipments being
misdirected to countries or facilities not approved to receive the
shipments for disposal or recovery. It also highlights any incidents
where the shipments are interrupted or misdirected, as the exporter and
competent authorities will not receive the confirmation from the
approved destination facility within expected timeframes.
    While shipments of RCRA hazardous waste are already required to be
accompanied by a RCRA hazardous waste manifest under the general RCRA
export and import regulations, the focus of the RCRA manifest is
domestic cradle-to-grave tracking. As a result, while it requires
listing the foreign generator and U.S. port of entry for imports, and
the foreign destination facility and U.S. port of exit for exports, it
does not capture all of the information needed to track international
shipments moving across two or more countries. For example, the RCRA
manifest does not have the capability to capture customs processing in
the countries of export, transit and import, and the RCRA manifest
requires solely listing RCRA hazardous waste codes and U.S. biennial
report management codes rather than requiring listing the applicable
domestic and internationally accepted OECD/Basel Convention waste codes
and the internationally accepted OECD/Basel Convention disposal/
recycling operation codes. Moreover, the RCRA manifest is only required
to be initiated for import shipments upon the first act of
transportation within the United States or its territories.
    Rather than try to further modify the RCRA manifest to capture all
the required international items in addition to all the domestic items
it already tracks (especially while EPA is in the midst of developing
the e-manifest system) EPA is proposing to require the use of an
international movement document for all export and import shipments of
hazardous waste. This would include universal waste, SLABs being
shipped for reclamation, hazardous recyclable materials being shipped
for precious metal recovery, industrial ethyl alcohol being shipped for
reclamation, and hazardous waste samples of more than 25 kg being
shipped for characterization or treatability studies.
    Allowing the use of any international movement document, including
but not limited to the widely accepted OECD/Basel Convention movement
document or the Canadian movement document, will reduce the incremental
burden of this requirement and prevent duplicative international
tracking requirements. As when using the RCRA manifest, the movement
document must list the name, address, telephone, fax numbers, and email
of the location from which the export shipment initiates if it is
different from that of the exporter. This is currently required in 40
CFR 262.84(b)(2).
    As listed above, management (i.e., treatment and disposal,
recovery) of each shipment will be required to be completed within one
year of shipment delivery, and the destination facility will be
required to send confirmation of completing such management back to the
exporter and to the competent authorities of the countries of export
and import. This requirement should minimize speculative accumulation
or abandonment of the waste shipments, and decrease the potential for
associated damage to human health and the environment. Destination
facilities can easily confirm completing management by signing and
dating Block 19 of the OECD/Basel movement document, but may also use
another document for this purpose, including but not limited to the
Canadian ``Confirmation of Disposal or Recycling'' form.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Available for free download at http://www.ec.gc.ca/gdd-mw/8BBB8B31-BFDD-49AA-872D-1C1E8C46CB15/Certificate%20of%20disposal-Recycling-July%202010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Taking these factors into consideration along with all the others
discussed previously leads EPA to conclude that consolidating the RCRA
import-export requirements under a unified regulation wholly consistent
with the Amended 2001 OECD Decision is the best approach in this
proposed rule. EPA is therefore proposing to make all imports and
exports of hazardous waste, whether subject to manifest requirements or
not (e.g., universal waste, SLABs being shipped for reclamation,
hazardous recyclable materials being shipped for precious metal
recovery, industrial ethyl alcohol being shipped for reclamation, and
hazardous waste samples of more than 25 kg being shipped for
characterization or treatability studies) subject to the RCRA OECD
regulations implementing the Amended 2001 OECD Decision. This will
ensure that all RCRA hazardous wastes that were previously subject to
different export and import requirements will now be subject to more
uniform procedures consistent with the 1986 OECD Decision-
Recommendation, the Amended 2001 OECD Decision, and the Basel
Convention.
    Under the proposed revisions, all export and import shipments of
RCRA hazardous waste will be required to be shipped using notice and
consent procedures, covered by contracts or equivalent arrangements
that require the parties (e.g., exporter, destination facility) to
comply with all the applicable requirements implementing the OECD
procedures, accompanied by an international tracking document or
movement document from the shipment's starting point in the country of
export to the destination facility in the country of import, and
recycled or disposed of within one year of shipment delivery.
5. Why is EPA proposing to change the text of the OECD regulations in
40 CFR part 262 subpart H rather than propose to expand the
applicability of the OECD regulations?
    EPA is proposing to reorganize the regulations in Subpart H of part
262 and clarify certain portions, such as the contract requirements, to
articulate more explicitly EPA's original intent in those regulations
and to eliminate any confusion on the part of the regulated community.
We are also deleting older import and export requirements that are
duplicative of or inconsistent with the OECD-based procedures (in the
cases of exports to non-OECD countries), and clarifying certain
definitions or requirements that are still needed.
    An example of a duplicative regulation is 40 CFR 264.12(a)(1) in
which a U.S. treatment, storage and disposal facility must submit the
one-time notice to the Regional Administrator four weeks before the
anticipated delivery of the first shipment of a hazardous waste from a
foreign source. This regulation will be deleted, as it is duplicative
with the notice and consent requirements that will now be required.
More fundamentally, under the regulations in Subpart H of part 262,
notice and consent is always required, so EPA currently receives notice
of the U.S. facility's intent to receive the hazardous waste import for
recycling for those cases where the OECD member country listed in 40
CFR 262.58(a)(1) does not control the proposed shipments as hazardous
waste exports under 40 CFR 262.82(a)(2)(ii)(B). Under the proposed
rule, U.S. importers will be required to submit an export notice
directly to EPA, requesting consent to the proposed shipments in place
of the foreign

exporter, in those instances when any country of export does not
control the proposed shipments as hazardous waste exports subject to
notice and consent requirements. Maquiladora \5\ shipments of hazardous
waste from Mexico are a good example of shipments that will be affected
by this provision. Mexico considers them to be return shipments to the
United States (and thus, not subject to any notice and consent
requirements) while the U.S. regulates them as import shipments (and
thus subject to notice and consent requirements). As with export
notices, these import notices will be able to cover multiple shipments
over a 12-month period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In general, a maquiladora is a Mexican assembly or
manufacturing operation that can be partly or wholly foreign-owned.
Maquiladora facilities typically import raw materials and equipment
under reduced or zero Mexican duties so long as the facilities
comply with special requirements under Mexican law. One such
requirement is that hazardous wastes generated during the production
process must be returned to the country of origin. U.S.-owned
maquiladoras must therefore ship hazardous wastes back to the United
States for treatment and disposal or recycling. More information is
available at http://www.bordercenter.org/mexico/mexgenreturn.htm and
http://www.borderplexalliance.org/regional-data/ciudad-juarez/twin-plant/maquiladora-faq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because under this proposed rule EPA will get notices for all
import and export shipments subject to the regulations in Subpart H of
part 262, the 264.12(a)(1) notice is no longer necessary. The
requirement for the U.S. importer to submit a notice to EPA should only
affect U.S. importers who intend to import shipments of hazardous
wastes that are not controlled in Mexico or non-OECD countries as
exports of hazardous waste. These countries do not currently submit
notices to EPA for such exports. Canadian regulations \6\ currently
require submittal of export notices (including the intended U.S.
destination facility) for all proposed exports even in cases when only
the country of import regulates the waste as hazardous. Similarly,
proposed import shipments for recycling from OECD countries other than
Canada and Mexico that are not controlled as exports of hazardous waste
by those countries are already subject to the regulations under 40 CFR
262.82(a)(2)(ii)(B) and, in those cases, the U.S. importers are already
sending notices to EPA. Based on the RCRA manifests for import
shipments from Mexico and non-OECD countries that could not be matched
to an EPA consent to a foreign notice, we estimate that U.S. importers
will need to submit roughly 28 notices per year due to this change. We
ask for comment on the accuracy of this estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See item (1)(g) in the Canadian definition of hazardous
waste and item 2(g) in the Canadian definition of hazardous
recyclable material, ``Export and Import of Hazardous Waste and
Hazardous Recyclable Material Regulations,'' Canada Gazette Part II,
Vol. 139, No. 11, June 1, 2005. More information on the Canadian
regulations are available at http://ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/eng/regulations/detailReg.cfm?intReg=84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another proposed change is to delete the requirement for an
exporter providing a copy of EPA's Acknowledgment of Consent (AOC)
letter for the transporter to carry with each shipment in 40 CFR
262.52(c). Instead, under this proposed rule the movement document will
list the notification/consent number under which the shipment is
covered and include a signed certification statement that all contracts
are in place and all necessary consents have been obtained. The
information in the movement document will therefore include all the
necessary information for the countries of export, transit and import
to match the movement documents for the individual shipments with the
relevant notification and consent documents. Because RCRA manifests
track certain domestic items (e.g., biennial reporting management
codes) that are not captured by the OECD movement document, we are not
proposing to delete the RCRA manifest requirements for import and
export shipments. However, we are proposing to replace the requirement
to attach copies of the relevant EPA import consent documentation to
RCRA manifests for import shipments in 40 CFR 264.71(a)(3) and
265.71(a)(3), with a requirement that the U.S. importer list the
relevant consent number for each waste stream in the RCRA manifest
section titled ``Special Handling Instructions and Additional
Information''. EPA should have consented in all cases, either to a
notice forwarded by the country of export or a notice submitted by the
U.S. importer/receiving facility; therefore, requiring the receiving
facility to list the consent numbers will provide the needed
information to enable EPA to match the RCRA manifest for the import
shipment with the relevant consent information. While EPA will continue
to send copies of its consent to the listed U.S. destination facility
for imports, these facilities will no longer be required to make copies
of the documentation and attach a copy to the RCRA manifest for each
import shipment.
    EPA considered proposing to limit the number of RCRA waste codes
that can be listed in an export or import notice or an export annual
report for a specific hazardous waste. Currently, the regulations do
not limit the number of RCRA hazardous waste codes that can be
submitted on a notice of intent to export or import or on an export
annual report, which means an exporter can submit an export or import
notice or an export annual report listing every RCRA hazardous waste
code for each specific hazardous waste. Of the 1,684 export notices
received by EPA in calendar year 2013, at least 200 notices were
submitted with hundreds of RCRA hazardous waste codes listed for each
of the hazardous wastes in the notice. EPA does not believe that all
(or close to all) of the RCRA hazardous waste codes could actually
apply to a single waste stream. Listing more (or all) hazardous waste
codes for a waste stream does not appreciably increase the quality of
the waste stream data or prevent the destination facility from
rejecting a poorly characterized hazardous waste. This practice does
impair EPA's oversight and tracking accuracy of exported hazardous
wastes.
    The export notices and export annual reports where EPA has observed
all (or close to all) of the RCRA waste codes have been listed for each
waste stream are associated with proposed or actual hazardous waste
export shipments to Canada. Canadian import and export regulations
require Canadian importers and exporters to list the applicable RCRA
hazardous waste code,\7\ but do not explicitly limit the number of
waste codes to list per waste stream. As already stated, EPA has
concerns over the practice of listing more (or all) hazardous waste
codes for a waste stream where the waste codes may not be applicable.
EPA asks for feedback from exporters on what waste streams would
actually require listing all (or close to all) RCRA hazardous waste
codes and why. EPA also seeks to learn what steps those exporters are
taking to review their practices in this regard in order to produce a
more limited and accurate listing of the RCRA hazardous waste codes
that actually pertain to the shipments they propose to make, for the
purposes of reducing the burden on their own operations as well as on
the operations of the governments involved in the transboundary control
process in order for the process to operate more efficiently. Based on
the feedback received, EPA may consider limiting the number of RCRA
hazardous waste codes listed for a specific hazardous waste, for
example, to a maximum of six codes consistent with the current waste
code

limit for the RCRA hazardous waste manifest in the instructions for
Item 13 in the Appendix to 40 CFR part 262, or may consider requiring
the conditional submittal of information justifying the listing of all
(or close to all) RCRA hazardous waste codes for a waste stream at the
time the export notice, import notice, or export annual report is
submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See item 8(j)(v) under Part 1 of the Canadian regulations,
``Export and Import of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Recyclable
Material Regulations,'' Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 139, No. 11,
June 1, 2005. More information on the Canadian regulations are
available at http://ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/eng/regulations/detailReg.cfm?intReg=84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also considered proposing to limit the number of notice
amendments that an exporter could submit within the one-year period of
consent established by EPA's AOC letter. Under the existing notice
requirements in 40 CFR 262.53, exporters are required to submit a
notice amendment and obtain an amended consent concerning any changes
to information listed in the notice other than changes to the
exporter's contact phone number, changes to the means of
transportation, or decreases to the planned export quantity. Under
existing notice requirements in 40 CFR part 262 subpart H and the
proposed revisions, the ports of exit and transporter companies the
exporter plans to use during the consent period are required to be
listed in the export notice, and exporters will have to submit a notice
amendment requesting consent before using any additional ports or
transporters not listed in the original notice and EPA AOC letter.
Because amendments may be necessary, and even multiple amendments may
be unavoidable, EPA decided not to propose limiting the number of
amendments that an exporter can submit to request changes to the terms
of an issued AOC letter during the one-year consent period. However, it
is important to note that EPA must prioritize export documents it
receives to help ensure that the system continues to operate
efficiently and avoid delays in shipments. Because having consent to
ship is most critical, processing by EPA of initial export notices to
obtain consent to ship is the highest priority, and processing
amendments to add ports or transporters to an issued AOC is a much
lower priority. EPA therefore encourages exporters to submit notices
that contain all potential ports and transporters reasonably expected
to be used, to avoid the need to request amendments to add ports or
transporters, particularly because there is no limit to the number of
transporters or ports that can be listed in the export notice.
    EPA is not proposing to expand the applicability of the revised
regulations in subpart H of part 262 beyond those RCRA hazardous wastes
already subject to the current export requirements in 40 CFR part 262.
Under RCRA Section 3017, EPA's authority to prohibit exports and
establish regulatory requirements to implement international waste
agreements is limited to waste regulated as hazardous under RCRA. This
proposed rule does not affect wastes that are not regulated as RCRA
hazardous waste (i.e., not subject to 40 CFR part 262), but that may
still be considered amber wastes (i.e., internationally hazardous)
under the Amended 2001 OECD Decision, such as municipal solid waste or
medical waste. The 1992 OECD Decision and the Amended 2001 OECD
Decision both include provisions that make allowances for individual
member countries controlling various OECD amber wastes as green (i.e.,
internationally non-hazardous) wastes. This was discussed in more
detail in the April 12, 1996, preamble to the original rule
implementing the 1992 OECD Decision (61 FR 16290-16316).
    EPA is also not proposing to address requirements for shipments
that transit through the United States beyond what is currently
required for return of shipments transiting the United States in 40 CFR
part 262 subpart H. The OECD Decision (see Chapter II, Section
(D)(2)(Case 1)(j)) and the Basel Convention (see Article 4, Section
(7)(c)) both require movement documents from the starting point in the
country of export to the recycling or disposal facility in the country
of import. Shipments that transit the United States may therefore be
accompanied by an international movement document while in transit in
the United States under requirements established by the country of
export and/or the country of import if those countries are OECD
countries or party to the Basel Convention. However, the EPA does not
require such transits to be accompanied by an international movement
document.
    Lastly, EPA would like to note that the existing U.S.-Canada
bilateral agreement, the U.S.-Mexico bilateral agreement, and the three
import-only bilateral agreements between the United States and
Malaysia, Costa Rica, and the Philippines remain in place and are not
affected by these proposed revisions. While the proposed revisions, if
finalized, would change the applicable requirements for hazardous waste
shipments with these countries, the additional requirements being
proposed are fully consistent with the bilateral agreements.
6. Why is EPA proposing to require electronic submittal of nine major
export and import documents?
    Currently all import and export submittals to EPA are paper-based.
As part of EPA's Next Generation Compliance initiative and electronic
reporting policy,\8\ EPA is working to convert paper submittals to EPA
with electronic submittals that comply with the applicable requirements
in EPA's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR).\9\
Under 40 CFR parts 261, 262, 264 through 266, and 273, the following
paper documents are required to be submitted to EPA related to imports
and exports:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/next-generation-compliance-delivering-benefits-environmental-laws.
    \9\ http://www.epa.gov/cromerr/epa.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Export notices for hazardous waste (40 CFR 262.53 and 262.83)
or CRTs being shipped for recycling (40 CFR 261.39(a)(5));
    (b) Import notices for cases where country of export does not
control as hazardous waste export and EPA has not received notice from
country of export (40 CFR 262.82(a)(2)(ii)(B));
    (c) Export annual reports for hazardous waste (40 CFR 262.56 and
262.87(a)) or CRTs being shipped for recycling (40 CFR
261.39(a)(5)(x));
    (d) Export exception reports (40 CFR 262.55 and 262.87(b), in lieu
of exception reporting required under 40 CFR 262.42);
    (e) Export confirmations of receipt (submittal by foreign recycling
facility required in 40 CFR 262.54(f), 262. 84(e), and required
implicitly by 40 CFR 262.85);
    (f) Export confirmations of completing recovery (submittal by
foreign recycling facility required implicitly by 40 CFR 262.85);
    (g) Import confirmations of receipt (40 CFR 262.60(e), 262.84(e),
264.12(a)(2), 265.12(a)(2), 264.71(a)(3), 265.71(a)(3), 264.71(d),
265.71(d));
    (h) Import confirmations of completing recovery (40 CFR 262.83,
264.12(a)(2), 265.12(a)(2));
    (i) Import notifications regarding need to make alternate
arrangements or need to return waste shipment (40 CFR 262.82(d)(1),
262.85(c)(1));
    (j) Import notifications of expected initial import shipment of a
specific hazardous waste from a specific foreign source (40 CFR
264.12(a)(1)); and
    (k) Transporter notifications regarding need to return shipment
transiting U.S. to country of export (40 CFR 262.83(e)(1)).
    Not all of the items listed above occur in sufficient numbers to
justify

converting to electronic submittal. For example, EPA has never received
a transporter notification listed in item (k) regarding the need to
return a shipment transiting the United States to the country of
export, likely because there are so few transboundary shipments that
solely transit the United States. Additionally, EPA is proposing to
delete the one-time import notification requirement listed in item (j).
We are therefore not proposing to require electronic submittal of items
(j) and (k). But the remaining nine submittals do occur regularly, and
for these nine existing submittals EPA is proposing a mandatory
requirement that submittal be made electronically on or after the
effective date of the final rule. As part of this proposal, EPA will
consider exemptions to this requirement if most regulated entities
impacted by this rule are expected to be located in areas with limited
broadband access as defined by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) or there are unique circumstances that make paper submittals more
efficient.
    EPA's waste import/export database is currently used to process and
track all import notices annually transmitted to EPA by foreign
governments or U.S. importers (when the country of export does not
regulate as hazardous waste export subject to notice and consent
requirements), and all export notices submitted annually to EPA by U.S.
exporters. EPA received 769 import notices and 1,684 export notices in
Calendar Year (CY) 2013. When EPA receives a paper export or import
notice, an EPA notice officer must first review it for completeness,
and then once it is deemed complete, manually enter the data from the
notice into the tracking system. The 718 import notices transmitted by
Canada and Mexico in CY2013 were received electronically through the
Notice and Consent Electronic Data Exchange (NCEDE) using EPA's Central
Data Exchange (CDX),\10\ but all other import notices and all export
notices must be manually entered by an EPA notice officer. Export
notices often are missing required information, and require lengthy
communications with the exporter via phone, email or fax to correct
missing or invalid entries. Converting to an electronic web-based
notice entry will enable automating checks for all required information
and the use of drop down lists (i.e., a list of valid entries from
which the submitter will be able to choose one or more entries) to
reduce invalid entries. Assuming a web-based notice entry process, EPA
estimates that the submitter will need to enter the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ http://www.epa.gov/cdx/about/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Three initial fields for receiving country, disposal or
recovery, and general waste material type, using radio buttons and drop
down lists, to determine the required fields for the notice;
    (b) Eight required fields on the notice page: First departure date
(calendar); last departure date (calendar); technology employed (open
text); name of notice signer (open text); signature date (calendar);
import, exporter, and receiving facility (drop down list from type
ahead feature or open text for facilities not already in the system--
open text has roughly nine required fields for each: Company name,
address, EPA ID number, zip code, country, city, phone, fax, email);
    (c) Six required fields on the transportation page: Mode of
transport (drop down list); packaging type (drop down list), shipment
frequency (number field); ports of entry (drop down list), ports of
exit (drop down list); transporter (drop down list--but allows for
manual entry of the nine required fields for transporters not already
in the system);
    (d) Nine fields (eight required) for each waste stream: Waste
material type (drop down list); management method code (drop down
list); DOT/UN ID, shipping name, and hazard class (drop down list--one
entry selected populates all three); EPA waste codes (drop down list);
Basel Convention codes (optional entry, uses drop down list); OECD
codes (drop down list); waste description (open text); waste quantity
(number); unit of measure for waste quantity (drop down list); and
    (e) Three required fields on the transit country page: Transit
country (drop down list); port of entry (drop down list); and port of
exit (drop down list).
    Reduced errors and electronic submittal of notice data will
substantially decrease the time needed for EPA to review and process
the notices, and the time needed for the U.S. submitter to correct the
notice deficiencies, which will make the notice process more efficient
for the U.S. exporter and U.S. importer submitting notices to EPA.
Additionally, U.S. exporters and importers submitting notices
electronically will be able to duplicate previous notices when seeking
to renew consent to export with a minimum of changes, and then simply
edit the fields which would change. EPA estimates that as many as 60
percent of submitted export notices would benefit from the duplication
feature, which would reduce the required data entry down to editing
roughly 2 to 14 fields. Additional benefits to the U.S. submitter will
be the elimination of mailing or courier fees needed to submit the
notices, the elimination of the risk of losing the submittal in the
mail, and the ability for the U.S. submitter to log in and obtain
information on the status of all submitted notices without needing to
request the information from EPA via phone or email. Lastly, electronic
export notices will enable the transmittal of all EPA reference data
needed to validate consent for each shipment under ITDS (see Section
II.C. for more information on ITDS). EPA requests comment on this
potential notice entry process, and further requests comment on how
many exporters currently use an automated system to generate notices
and the estimated burden reduction if EPA developed an option to submit
notices electronically using a system-to-system based approach using
XML through EPA's CDX.
    Export annual reports must be submitted to EPA by March 1 of each
year and detail all export shipments made under consent during the
previous calendar year. Currently, exporters must generate these
reports and submit them in paper form. In order to conduct any
meaningful analysis of the quantity and types of waste exported, EPA
must review the export annual reports submitted each year for
completeness and manually enter the data from the export annual
reports. EPA received 378 export annual reports concerning shipments
made in CY2011. Converting to electronic submittal of the data will
again reduce EPA's review time and manual entry time, and will reduce
the time needed for U.S. exporters to correct any export annual report
deficiencies. An additional benefit to converting to electronic
submittal of the export annual report would be that the tracking system
could build a draft report listing the required information regarding
all wastes under consent that were approved to ship during the previous
calendar year. The exporter could then simply enter the total
quantities for each waste using the same reporting units of measurement
listed in the notice. The tracking system could potentially also build
a draft report listing the total quantities exported for each waste
based on the data EPA will receive from the AES on successfully
validated export shipments that were cleared for departure during the
previous calendar year. The exporter would still need to review the
draft report, and either edit it to reflect any returns or corrections
needed, or electronically confirm that the generated draft report was
accurate

and complete. Either approach would also require the exporter to enter
a description of the efforts undertaken during the year to reduce the
volume and toxicity of the waste generated in an open text field, and a
description of the changes in volume and toxicity of the waste actually
achieved during the year (in comparison to previous years to the extent
such information is available for years prior to 1984) in an open text
field, consistent with the biennial reporting requirements in 40 CFR
262.41(a)(6) and (7), and required for export annual reports in 40 CFR
262.56(a)(5) and 262.87(a)(5). The electronic process should save the
exporter considerable time by creating the draft report for the
exporter, and should additionally eliminate the cost of sending the
report via U.S. mail or courier service and the risk of losing the
report in the mail. With respect to EPA, electronic reporting will
reduce the time currently needed to review and manually enter the
export annual report data. EPA asks for feedback from exporters on the
hours and costs they currently incur to prepare paper export annual
reports.
    Export exception reports occur less frequently, but the roughly 20
reports submitted to EPA each year must still be matched to the
relevant consent and filed by EPA. Converting this submittal to
electronic assuming a web-based entry would require entry of the
following data fields: (i) Manifest tracking number, (ii) EPA consent
number, (iii) check box for one of the three exception report types
(see 40 CFR 262.87(b)(1) through (3)), and (iv) an open text field for
the exporter to describe the situation. Electronic submittal should
save EPA the time needed to match the exception report to the relevant
consent and file the paper report, and for the exporter would again
save at a minimum the costs of mailing the exception report to EPA, and
eliminate the risk of losing the exception report in the mail. EPA asks
for comment on the accuracy of the estimated number of exception
reports submitted annually, and the expected benefits.
    Under the Amended 2001 OECD Decision and the current contract
provisions of subpart H in 40 CFR 262.85, the exporter is required to
have contract terms with all other parties involved in the transaction
to ensure that the OECD procedures are carried out. With respect to
export shipments, the contract should therefore require the foreign
facility to submit copies of export confirmations of receipt and
confirmations of completing recycling to EPA and the U.S. exporter. The
foreign facility is supposed to submit the confirmation of receipt
within three days of shipment delivery, and submit the confirmation of
completing recycling as soon as possible, but no later than thirty (30)
days after the completion of recovery and no later than one (1)
calendar year following shipment delivery. Based on export annual
reports on 2011 export shipments, 2,466 export shipments were subject
to part 262 subpart H requirements, and 48,752 export shipments were
subject to part 262 subpart E requirements. Under this proposal, EPA
expects to receive one confirmation of receipt and one confirmation of
completing disposal or recycling for each of the 48,752 shipments that
would now be subject to the OECD regulations. Converting submittals to
electronic, and assuming a web-based approach, foreign facilities would
simply enter the EPA consent number and then upload a PDF copy of the
confirmation of receipt or confirmation of completing recycling/
disposal. Given that the likelihood that the facility would wish to
submit multiple confirmations at a single time, the planned design
would include the option to upload multiple confirmations of receipt
and multiple confirmations of completing recycling/disposal in one
action. Benefits to electronic submittal for EPA would be the reduced
time needed to match incoming paper confirmations with the relevant
consents and file the paper documents. Benefits to the foreign facility
would be more timely submittals to EPA, elimination of the costs for
mailing the confirmations to EPA, and elimination of the risk of losing
the exception report in the international mail. Importantly, exporters
would be able to view all submitted confirmations submitted under their
consents, improving their oversight of the foreign facility's
compliance with the terms of the contract or equivalent arrangements.
EPA asks for comment on the planned approach and expected benefits, and
on foreign facilities submitting these confirmations system-to-system
using XML through EPA's CDX.
    U.S. importers/recycling facilities are similarly required to
submit confirmations of receipt and completing recycling to EPA under
the current OECD regulations. Based on the RCRA manifests submitted to
EPA for import shipments received in CY2011, 62 import shipments were
subject to part 262 subpart H requirements, and 2,872 import shipments
were subject to part 262 subpart F requirements. Under this proposal,
U.S. importers/receiving facilities for all hazardous waste import
shipments would become subject to these requirements, resulting in the
submittal of confirmations of receipt and completing recycling or
disposal for an additional 2,872 shipments. Converting these submittals
to electronic would use the same data entry-upload approach as for the
export confirmations. Expected benefits to EPA of electronic submittal
would be the reduced time needed to match the incoming paper
confirmations with the relevant consent and file the documents.
Expected benefits to the importer/receiving facility would be more
timely submittals to EPA, elimination of the costs for mailing the
confirmations to EPA via U.S. mail or courier service, and elimination
of the risk of losing the exception report in the mail. EPA asks for
comment on the accuracy of the estimated increase in confirmations, the
expected benefits, and the possibility of the facilities submitting
these confirmations system-to-system using XML through EPA's CDX.
    U.S. importers/recycling facilities are required under current
subpart H regulations to notify EPA in writing of the need to make
alternate arrangements to manage a given shipment of waste or to return
the shipment to the country of export when it cannot be managed per the
terms of the notice and consent. Based on the three notifications
submitted to EPA between 2011 and 2013 concerning the need to make
alternate arrangements for a shipment, and the lack of such
notifications concerning the need to return a shipment to the country
of export, EPA estimates that one such notification will be made each
year. Converting this submittal to electronic means would, assuming a
web-based approach, require the entry of the following data fields: (i)
Manifest tracking number, (ii) EPA consent number, (iii) check box for
one of the two notification types (i.e., need for return or alternate
arrangements), and (iv) an open text field for the importer/receiving
facility to describe the situation. Electronic submittal should enable
sharing of the notification with the relevant EPA regional office
import-export personnel, and would enable forwarding to the relevant
state agency contacts. Expected benefits for the importer/receiving
facility would again be eliminating the costs of mailing the import
notification to EPA, and eliminating the risk of losing the
notification in the mail. EPA asks for comment on the accuracy of the
estimated number of notifications submitted annually, and the expected
benefits.

    Electronic submittal would require that all submitters register
within EPA's CDX system. Doing so would then register them for any
subsequent electronic submittal under any EPA program office's e-
reporting requirement. The registration is done for the individual
submitting the electronic documents, so any change in the employee
submitting the information would require CDX registration for the new
submitting employee. But any employee already registered in CDX to
submit other program office's e-reporting (e.g., Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) e-reporting) would not need to re-register to submit
RCRA export and import documents electronically. When contact
information for U.S. RCRA exporters and importers was compared with
contact information for current CDX registrants, 84 out of the total
423 current exporters and importers appeared to be already registered
in CDX. All others would need to become registered within CDX, which
can be done via a fully online registration and identity verification
process, or via a paper process if/when the online process is unable to
verify identity (according to the Office of Environmental Information,
roughly 80% of U.S. submitters successfully registered via the online
process). In order to be able to submit confirmations electronically
per their contract requirements with the U.S. exporter, foreign
submitters might also need to register in CDX, probably using the paper
process. EPA asks for comment on the number of exporter and importer
submitters that are currently registered in CDX due to e-reporting for
another EPA program office (e.g., TRI e-reporting, Chemical Data
Reporting under Section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act).
    EPA is proposing to require electronic submittal of the nine major
import and export documents on or after the effective date of the final
rule. This assumes that the necessary system changes will be able to be
completed in 2015 and tested by volunteer companies before the issuance
of the final rule. Electronic submittals established in the final rule
will be compliant with CROMERR to the extent that it applies. Other EPA
e-reporting rulemakings, such as the July 30, 2013, proposed rule
concerning e-reporting under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) \11\ proposed a two-year transition period,
and EPA requests comment on the need for any transition period, and the
appropriate length of such a transition period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/proposed-national-pollutant-discharge-elimination-system-npdes-electronic-reporting-rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA estimates that all exporters and almost all importers have
broadband Internet access, given that exporters or U.S. authorized
agents currently file data electronically into the AES, and many
exporters and importers currently file electronic data under another
EPA program such as TRI. But in case there are RCRA exporters or
importers that do not have broadband Internet access, or have other
unique circumstances that would prevent them from being able to submit
RCRA import and export data electronically, or would experience an
unreasonable burden or economic impact to their company if required to
submit the data electronically after the transition period, EPA is
proposing to allow these companies to request a temporary waiver from
the electronic reporting requirements being proposed.
    Similar to the process established by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) [17 CFR 232.202(a)] to its (rare) granting of
continued hardship exemptions for electronic filing, EPA could grant
temporary waivers from e-reporting for each exporter or importer that
meets criteria demonstrating that such electronic reporting of RCRA
export or import information would pose an unreasonable burden or
expense to the exporter or importer. The SEC process requires the
submission of a written request made at least ten business days before
the required due date of the submission. As identified in 17 CFR
232.202(b), this written request shall include, but not be limited to:
(i) The reason(s) that the necessary hardware and software are not
available without unreasonable burden and expense; (ii) the burden and
expense associated with using alternative means to make the electronic
submission or posting, as applicable; and/or (iii) the reasons for not
submitting the document, group of documents or Interactive Data File
electronically, or not posting the Interactive Data File, as well as
the justification for the requested time period. Under the SEC process,
the temporary exemption is not deemed granted until the SEC notifies
the applicant. Although the SEC has successfully required electronic
reporting from various sized companies for the majority of its reports
since 1993, it is still possible that a small number of RCRA exporters
or importers might claim that they either do not have computers on-
site, do not have computer-savvy individuals available, or are a
considerable distance away from a location where they could get
computer access. EPA is therefore considering the possible use of
temporary waivers from electronic reporting of RCRA import and export
information for such entities, although technological advances and
computer access are such that there may be few valid instances of such
situations. EPA may consider establishing a similar procedure for such
temporary waivers if the criteria for such temporary waivers are
broadened, in response to comments, beyond that in the proposed rule.
    In addition to these possible temporary ``continued hardship''
waivers for RCRA exporters and importers from electronic reporting, EPA
also recognizes that there may be a need for incident-specific one-time
waivers or other adjustments for situations that are beyond the control
of the reporting facility (e.g., tornados, floods, EPA or state data
system disruptions). In 17 CFR 232.201, the possibility of a temporary
hardship exemption from electronic reporting to the SEC is described.
In the SEC regulations, under this temporary hardship exemption, the
electronic filer may instead file a written copy of the report or,
preferably, be granted the use of a one-time change to the filing due
date rather than rely upon a temporary hardship exemption where the
situation is beyond the control of the filer. EPA proposes to utilize
one-time changes to due dates rather than waivers from electronic
reporting in these types of emergency situations.
    EPA requests comment on the need for such temporary waivers or
exemptions, as well as which criteria should apply for the granting of
such temporary exemptions. For comparison, while EPA's August 13, 2010
proposed rule (75 FR 49656) regarding Toxic Substance Control Act
(TSCA) Inventory Update Reporting Modifications requested comment on
whether there were any circumstances in which a company may not have
Internet access to report the required data electronically, the August
16, 2011 final rule (76 FR 50815) required electronic reporting with no
exceptions or process for requesting a waiver from electronic
reporting.
7. Why is EPA proposing to require that recognized traders obtain EPA
ID Numbers before arranging for import or export?
    Recognized traders are those persons that only arrange for the
import or export of RCRA waste subject to notice and consent
requirements and do not otherwise physically generate, transport,
store, treat or dispose of the waste. As

such, a recognized trader is not required or even typically able to
obtain EPA ID numbers under current RCRA regulations, even though he or
she is subject to existing RCRA export and import requirements and
plays a central role in the transboundary movement of the waste. EPA is
proposing to require that such persons notify EPA of their hazardous
waste activity as recognized traders and obtain EPA ID numbers to
better track recognized trader activities and their compliance with the
hazardous waste import and export process.
    EPA ID numbers are issued by authorized state agencies and EPA
Regional Offices, and provide a consistent, reliable way for state
agencies and EPA to track companies or individuals based on their site
(or business) address and activities declared in EPA's Notification of
Regulated Waste Activity (EPA Form 8700-12). Matching company names and
addresses in an electronic system is difficult due to the multiple ways
a given company's name or address can be entered (e.g., ``INC'' vs.
``Inc.'') or address (e.g., ``123 Main ST'' vs ``123 Main Street'').
EPA proposes to require that all such persons, known as ``recognized
traders'' under the Amended 2001 OECD Decision, obtain an EPA ID number
before arranging for the export or import of hazardous waste. Exporters
and importers that otherwise physically handle (e.g., generate,
transport, recycle) hazardous wastes should already have an EPA ID
number issued by their authorized state agency or EPA Regional Office.
We have estimated that roughly one percent of all exporters and
importers are recognized traders as defined under the Amended 2001 OECD
Decision, and that four of the current exporters and importers will
need to request an EPA ID number using EPA Form 8700-12 under this
proposed change; EPA requests comment on the accuracy of this estimate.
    EPA Form 8700-12 and its associated instructions and information
collection request (ICR) \12\ will have to be revised to enable
recognized traders to request an EPA ID number based solely on
arranging for export or import.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/data/form8700/8700-12.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. RCRA Hazardous Waste Export Integration With ITDS

1. What is ITDS and how does it impact RCRA hazardous waste imports and
exports?
    In 2006, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) began automating
processes for the import and export of goods to improve the control of
what enters and leaves the US, as well as to become much more
efficient. Launched under the Security and Accountability for Every
Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act, Pub. L. 109-347) and the 2007 Import
Safety Executive Order 13439, the multi-agency program called the
International Trade Data System (ITDS) \13\ assists the 48 Federal
agencies with import/export responsibilities in their efforts to
integrate import and export cargo processing with CBP's Automated
Commercial Environment (ACE) for imports, and the Automated Export
System \14\ (AES) for exports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ http://www.itds.gov/xp/itds/home.html.
    \14\ On April 5, 2014, the Automated Export System (AES) was re-
engineered under the umbrella of the Automated Commercial
Environment (ACE) trade processing system, but is still referred to
as AES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under ITDS, agencies with existing paper-based import and export
clearance procedures at the port of exit or entry are working with CBP
to enable electronic filing and processing of the export or import
shipments based on one set of submitted data that can then be checked
against all relevant U.S. agency requirements.
    While RCRA regulates hazardous waste imports, there is no analogous
provision in RCRA explicitly prohibiting import of hazardous waste
absent consent that would enable EPA to stop entry of possible
hazardous waste shipments at the port unless there is an imminent and
substantial risk of damage to human health and the environment. As a
result, EPA does not currently have paper-based entry procedures for
hazardous waste import shipments. Because there are no entry procedures
to automate, EPA's import-related ITDS work does not include automating
entry procedures for hazardous waste import shipments. However, EPA
does have clear authority under RCRA Section 3017 to stop export
shipments of RCRA waste subject to notice and consent requirements at
the port and we are working with CBP to establish automated checks in
the Automated Export System (AES) against EPA consent-based reference
data for all shipments declared by the exporter to be subject to RCRA
notice and consent requirements.
    On February 19, 2014, the White House issued Executive Order 13659
titled ``Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's
Businesses''. Under Executive Order 13659, participating agencies must
have all requirements in place and in effect to utilize the ITDS and
supporting systems like the ACE and the AES for receiving documentation
required for the release of imported cargo and the clearance of cargo
for export no later than December 31, 2016.
2. How is EPA proposing to integrate RCRA hazardous waste export
requirements with ITDS?
    First, EPA proposes to require that exporters or U.S. authorized
agents additionally file key export consent data into the Automated
Export System (AES) to validate EPA's consent covering each export
shipment before each shipment exits the country. (The term ``EPA's
consent,'' in the context of these proposed requirements for exporters
to validate key data in the AES, means EPA's AOC letter.) Second, EPA
proposes to require that exporters submit electronic export notices
into EPA's waste import/export database to enable transmittal of all
reference data needed for validation from EPA to AES (for more
information on electronic export notices, see Section II.B.6).
    As discussed previously, the CEC recommended that the U.S. border
and environmental agencies coordinate more closely on export shipments.
Part of the difficulty in sharing data with U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) has been that CBP has typically based any export
filing errors or flags on information linked to the Commodity
classification number, while EPA's authority to prohibit export absent
consent under Section 3017 of RCRA is based on RCRA waste type (e.g.,
RCRA hazardous waste codes) and intended management. In addition to the
differing basis for prohibiting or flagging export shipments, rail
cars, truckloads, or shipping containers of hazardous waste do not
typically look like containers of hazardous waste needing EPA's consent
from the outside. Absent some obvious hazard (e.g., fire, leaking
contents), CBP has not had an express basis to check shipments for EPA
consent. Under current RCRA transporter regulations in 40 CFR
263.20(g), the transporter carrying a RCRA manifested hazardous waste
export shipment to the port of exit must sign and date the RCRA
manifest to indicate the date the shipment is leaving the country, keep
one copy, send one copy back to the generator, and give one copy to the
CBP official at the ``. . . point of departure from the United
States.'' But this requirement has not enabled meaningful checks for
EPA consent at the border.
    Per the Census Bureau's Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR) in 15 CFR
part 30, all exporters (or their authorized filers) that ship goods
subject to an export license, defined in FTR section

30.1,\15\ are currently required to file Electronic Export Information
(EEI) in the AES for each export shipment regardless of value or
country of ultimate destination. EPA's AOC letter meets the FTR
definition of an export license,\16\ so all exporters shipping waste
subject to RCRA notice and consent conditions (i.e., cathode ray tubes
being shipped for recycling) or requirements (e.g., RCRA manifested
hazardous waste, SLABs being shipped for recovery of lead) are already
required to file export data in the AES. The AES has over 100 elements
\17\ that potentially apply to an export shipment. In place of the
transporter requirement in 40 CFR 263.20(g)(4), EPA is proposing to
require exporters or U.S. authorized agent to file the following EPA
data in the AES:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Export license. A controlling agency's document authorizing
export of particular goods in specific quantities or values to a
particular destination. Issuing agencies include, but are not
limited to, the U.S. Department of State; the U.S. Department of
Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security; the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms; and the Drug Enforcement Administration
permit to export.
    \16\ Per email dated April 11, 2014 from Joe Cortez, chief of
regulations outreach and education branch in the Foreign Trade
Division of the U.S. Census Bureau, EPA's AOC letter meets the
regulatory definition of an export license in 15 CFR 30.1.
    \17\ https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/aes/documentlibrary/aesparticipantsdata.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) EPA license code (to declare shipment is subject to RCRA export
notice and consent requirements).
    (b) Commodity classification code (10 digit, numeric description of
the commodity).
    (c) EPA consent number (specific to waste).
    (d) Country of ultimate destination.
    (e) Date of export.
    (f) RCRA hazardous waste manifest tracking number (if required;
universal waste, CRTs being shipped for recycling, industrial ethyl
alcohol being shipped for reclamation, and SLABs being shipped for
recovery of lead are exempt from RCRA manifest requirements under
existing RCRA regulations).
    (g) Quantity of waste in shipment and units for reported quantity
(units established by commodity classification number).
    (h) EPA net quantity and units for reported quantity (if required,
must be reported in kilograms if solid waste, and in liters if liquid
waste; only required if commodity classification number does not
require quantity to be reported in weight or volume units).
    Of the items listed above, only the ``EPA license code'', ``EPA
consent number'', ``RCRA hazardous waste manifest tracking number'',
``EPA net quantity'', and ``EPA net quantity units of measurement'' are
not already required to be filed in the AES under the FTR. Of these
five items, one item is only required if the waste is subject to RCRA
manifesting requirements and the remaining two items are only required
in cases where the commodity classification number-based quantity
reporting does not require that the quantity of the commodity in the
shipment be reported in weight or volumetric units (e.g., kg or L).
Because an EPA license, or an EPA consent number, is required, AES will
require the five additional items to be filed, and will validate the
import country code and expected date of shipment departure against
EPA-supplied reference data for the entered EPA consent number. If the
consent number is not in the correct format, AES will provide a fatal
error message for the filer that specifies the error in the filing. The
filer will then need to correct and resubmit the filing to correct it.
If the import country does not match the country of import for the
consent number, AES will provide a fatal error message for the filer
that specifies the error in the filing. The filer will then need to
correct and resubmit the filing. If the expected date of shipment
departure does not fall within the start date and end date for the
consent number, AES will provide a fatal error message for the filer
that specifies the error in the filing. The filer will then need to
correct and resubmit the filing. If a RCRA manifest is required for the
consent number and the filer does not enter a correctly formatted RCRA
manifest number (i.e., nine digits followed by three letters), AES will
provide a fatal error message for the filer that specifies the error in
the filing. The filer will then need to correct and resubmit the
filing. Lastly, if the EPA net shipping quantity is required to be
entered based on the commodity classification number entered and the
filer does not enter that quantity, the AES will provide a fatal error
message for the filer that specifies the error in the filing. The filer
will then need to correct and resubmit the filing. AES will not issue
an Internal Transaction Number (ITN) to indicate successful completion
until the filing passes all validations. The exporter and transporter
will be in violation of the FTR if the shipment is exported without a
valid ITN. When the shipment is validated and the ITN issued, the
shipment will be cleared to leave the port of exit. The AES will
transmit the EPA data listed above to EPA's hazardous waste import/
export database, so that EPA will get shipment data for each consent
number and will be able to track total quantity exported against the
approved total quantity for that waste stream level consent number. In
addition, EPA will be able to use the shipment data from AES to build
draft export annual reports that are required in Section 3017 of the
statute (for more information on electronic export annual reports, see
Section II.B.6). Exporters with valid consents will be able to
efficiently validate their EPA consent with CBP as part of their
regular AES filing, and any typographical errors should be able to be
quickly corrected and the entry resubmitted. Exporters with expiring or
expired consent numbers, or exporters that have already met or exceeded
their approved total export quantity for the consent number, will need
to submit an export notice or export notice amendment to EPA to renew
their consent under a new consent number or increase their approved
total export quantity for the current consent number. EPA plans to
modify its AOC letter to include guidance on how to enter the EPA-only
items in the AES once the regulations are effective to reduce
inadvertent AES filing errors. CBP and EPA have already made changes to
the AES that reflect this validation, changes that were reflected in
the AES instructions updated on October 3, 2014.\18\ However, these
changes will remain optional until the AES changes have been fully
tested, and EPA's proposed regulations become final and are effective.
Two SLAB exporters are working with EPA and CBP to pilot test the
validation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ http://www.cbp.gov/trade/aes/aestir/introduction-and-guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA considered attempting to validate exporter names and addresses,
but ultimately decided against doing so because of the previously
discussed problem of trying to match highly variable text fields for
exporter name and address from EPA export notice data with data filed
in AES. EPA also considered validating against the commodity
classification number expected for the waste stream linked to the
consent number, but decided against it due to the difficulty in
uniquely mapping the one waste to one commodity classification number
in all cases. As discussed in Section VII, the commodity classification
numbers may not contain sufficient detail to match with the RCRA waste
codes and intended management. If commenters know of ways to reliably
match commodity classification numbers with the combination of EPA
waste type and intended management, please provide

this information, and EPA may consider this in the final rule.
    Requiring electronic export notices and filing the additional items
in the AES will ensure that export shipments of declared RCRA wastes
subject to RCRA notice and consent requirements only depart the country
when going to the approved country within the approved window of
export, with a minimum of additional burden to the exporter. It should
therefore further reduce illegal exports of hazardous waste and the
potential risk to human health and the environment that may result. It
will also ensure compliance with Executive Order 13659 that requires
implementation of all ITDS requirements by December 31, 2016.

D. RCRA Hazardous Waste Export and Import Regulations and Executive
Order 13563 for the Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    On January 18, 2011, President Obama issued Executive Order 13563,
which directed all federal agencies to perform periodic retrospective
reviews of existing regulations to determine whether any should be
modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed.\19\ EPA made its
preliminary plan available for public review and comment during the
spring of 2011 and released the final version of the plan in August
2011.\20\ Though EPA and its partners have made great progress in
protecting the environment, the Agency is committed to continual
improvement. EPA has a long history of thoughtfully examining its
existing regulations to make sure they are effectively and efficiently
meeting the needs of the American people. Both statutory and judicial
obligations have compelled some of our reviews. Others arise from
independent EPA decisions to improve upon existing regulations. Just as
EPA intends to apply the principles and directives of Executive Order
13563 to the priority actions listed in the plan, we intend to likewise
apply the Executive Order's principles and directives to the regulatory
reviews that appear in the Regulatory Agenda. This proposed rule is one
of the priority actions included in EPA's July 2015 progress report to
OMB.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For a copy of Executive Order 13563, please see: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf.
    \20\ U.S. EPA. Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan for
Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations. http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/retrospective/documents/eparetroreviewplan-aug2011.pdf.
    \21\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/regreform/retroplans/july-2015/epa-retrospective-review.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of This Proposed Rule

A. Changes to Section 260.10

    In order to require that anyone acting as an exporter or importer,
who does not otherwise physically handle hazardous waste, obtain an EPA
ID number prior to arranging for export or import, it is necessary to
add a definition that EPA Form 8700-12 can then reference. EPA is
therefore proposing to define such persons as recognized traders,
specifically as ``a person domiciled in the United States, by site of
business, who acts to arrange and facilitate transboundary movements of
wastes destined for recovery or disposal operations, either by
purchasing from and subsequently selling to U.S. and foreign facilities
or by acting under arrangements with a U.S. waste facility to arrange
for the export or import of the wastes.'' EPA believes that this
definition is consistent with the Amended 2001 OECD Decision's
recognized trader definition of ``a person who, with appropriate
authorization of countries concerned, acts in the role of principal to
purchase and subsequently sell wastes; this person has legal control of
such wastes from time of purchase to time of sale; such a person may
act to arrange and facilitate transboundary movements of wastes.'' EPA
had originally considered establishing a definition for ``brokers,''
but decided to use ``recognized trader'' to minimize confusion as there
are brokers who make manifest-related arrangements for wholly domestic
shipments of hazardous waste.
    EPA requests comment on these changes and what definitions would be
clearest to U.S. stakeholders.

B. Changes to Section 260.11(g)(1)

    EPA is proposing to replace the obsolete reference to the 1992 OECD
Decision waste lists with the correct reference to the Amended 2001
OECD Decision waste lists. This is a necessary technical correction.

C. Changes to Sections 261.4(d) and 261.4(e)

    EPA is proposing to add an additional condition for samples being
exported to a foreign laboratory or imported from a foreign source that
the exporter or importer wishes to manage under the waste
characterization exclusion of Sec.  261.4(d) or the treatability study
exclusion of Sec.  261.4(e). Specifically, EPA is proposing to require
that any such samples being exported or imported be limited to a
maximum quantity of 25 kilograms in addition to the other conditions
already required. This change is being proposed to match the 25 kg
limit for samples being excluded from the export and import
requirements currently in Sec.  262.82(g) of the OECD regulations, and
is thus a clarification and not a new requirement for sample export and
import shipments currently subject to 40 CFR part 262 subpart H. It
will be a new requirement for sample export and import shipments being
exchanged with Canada, Mexico, and any non-OECD country under RCRA
regulations. While Canada currently reflects the 25 kg sample exclusion
in its exclusion to the definition for hazardous waste recyclables in
Section 2(2)(d) of the Canadian regulations \22\ when being shipped
between Canada and a country that is party to the Amended 2001 OECD
Decision ``. . . for the purpose of conducting measurements, tests or
research with respect to the recycling of that material,'' it is
unclear to what extent the Canadian limits have impacted U.S. exporters
and importers of such samples. EPA requests comments on the number of
such samples that were exchanged with Canada, Mexico, or a non-OECD
country for such testing in the last three years, and how many were
over 25 kg and thus would be required to comply with the OECD
regulations for exports or imports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ ``Export and Import of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous
Recyclable Material Regulations (SOR/2005-149),'' issued in Canada
Gazette on June 5, 2005, available online at http://ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/eng/regulations/detailReg.cfm?intReg=84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Changes to Section 261.6(a)

    EPA is proposing to revise the text in Sec.  261.6(a)(3)(i)
concerning imports and exports of industrial ethyl alcohol being
shipped for reclamation to reflect the proposed removal of regulations
in 40 CFR part 262 subpart E, and the proposal to require all export
and import shipments of RCRA hazardous waste and recyclable materials
currently subject to export and import requirements to comply with
regulations in 40 CFR part 262 subpart H. This is a conforming
amendment.
    Similarly, EPA is proposing conforming changes to the text in Sec.
261.6(a)(5) concerning the applicability of 40 CFR part 262 subpart H
requirements to all exports and imports of hazardous wastes being
shipped for recycling.

E. Changes to Section 261.39(a)(5)

    EPA is proposing changes to Sec.  261.39(a)(5)(ii), (vi) and (xi)
to reflect that export notifications, export renotifications and export
annual reports concerning CRTs being shipped for recycling being
submitted to EPA

must be submitted electronically using EPA's hazardous waste import/
export database on or after the effective date of the final rule. This
proposed requirement assumes that the system changes can be completed
in 2015 and tested by volunteer companies before issuance of the final
rule. EPA requests comments on whether any transition period for
electronic submittal into EPA's system is needed, an appropriate length
for a transition period if one is needed, and whether any exporter
would need a waiver from electronic filing requirements due to lack of
broadband access or other unique circumstances that would make
electronic filing an undue financial burden.
    Additionally, EPA is proposing to add the requirement in Sec.
261.39(a)(5)(v) that exporters or U.S. authorized agents must file EPA-
required information into the AES prior to departure in accordance with
the deadlines specified in 15 CFR 30.4 (e.g., for truck shipments, no
less than one hour prior to the arrival of the truck at the U.S. border
to go foreign) and provide the ITN documenting the successful filing to
the outgoing transporter. The same U.S. authorized agents that
currently file in the AES are intended to be allowed to continue such
filings, but the RCRA exporter is ultimately responsible for ensuring
that such filing occurs and that the ITN is provided to the outgoing
transporter. AES system changes were made and posted in October 2014
and testing should be completed in 2015. Exporters or U.S. authorized
agents using the AES will need to modify their filing software to
incorporate the filing changes that will remain optional until EPA's
final regulations become effective, but should be able to do so in the
months between issuance of the final rule and the effective date of
December 31, 2016 required to comply with Executive Order 13659. EPA is
therefore proposing to require filing of EPA-specific information into
the AES from the effective date of the final rule without any
transition period. EPA requests comment on whether exporters currently
file shipment data into the AES prior to departure, whether they or
their U.S. authorized agents use the AES or AESDirect to file their
shipment data, and whether a transition period would still be
appropriate.

F. Changes to Section 262.10(d)

    EPA is proposing conforming amendments to Sec.  262.10(d)
concerning the applicability of 40 CFR part 262 subpart H requirements
to all exports and imports of hazardous wastes.
    Additionally, EPA is proposing to add the requirement that all such
importers and exporters comply with the EPA ID number requirements in
Sec.  262.12. Currently importers and exporters who also generate,
transport, treat, store or dispose of hazardous wastes are already
required to obtain an EPA ID number because they generate, transport,
treat, store or dispose of hazardous wastes. All importers, even those
who do not also generate, transport, treat, store or dispose of
hazardous wastes, are required to obtain EPA ID numbers because Sec.
262.10(e) explicitly requires all importers to comply with the
generator requirements. But it is unclear how many recognized traders
arranging for import actually obtain an EPA ID number from the
authorized state or EPA Regional office where their place of business
is located. Moreover, recognized traders arranging for export that do
not otherwise generate, transport, treat, store or dispose of hazardous
wastes have no way to obtain an EPA ID number, as EPA Form 8700-12 does
not cover such persons. This requirement will therefore impact such
persons. EPA requests comment on how many persons arranging for import
or export of hazardous wastes, including those wastes under the
management standards of 40 CFR parts 266 and 273, do not currently have
EPA ID numbers issued by their authorized state or EPA Regional office.

G. Changes to Section 262.12

    EPA is proposing to add new paragraph (d) to Sec.  262.12 to
require that recognized traders arranging for export and import obtain
an EPA ID number from their authorized state or EPA Regional office
before arranging for export or import. As discussed above, it is
unclear how many persons will be affected by this requirement. EPA has
assumed 1% of all current exporters and importers are recognized
traders, and requests comment on the number of recognized traders that
do not currently have EPA ID numbers. EPA further requests comment on
how best to include such recognized traders in EPA Form 8700-12 and its
associated instructions, and how or whether to reflect the recognized
trader role in the EPA ID number itself (e.g., disposal facility
numbers typically have a ``D'' in the EPA ID number).

H. Changes to Section 262.41(b)

    EPA is proposing conforming amendments to Sec.  262.41(b) replacing
the current citation to export annual report requirements in Sec.
262.56 with the new location for export annual report requirements in
Sec.  262.83(g).

I. Changes to 40 CFR Part 262 Subpart E

    EPA is proposing to remove 40 CFR part 262 subpart E and reserve
for future use. The export requirements that are currently in 40 CFR
part 262 subpart E that are still needed but not already covered under
the current 40 CFR part 262 subpart H regulations are proposed to be
moved to, and integrated in, the new 40 CFR part 262 subpart H
regulations. For example, the definition in Sec.  262.51 for EPA's AOC
letter has been revised to more accurately reflect that the letter
documents the consent of the importing country and any transit
countries and moved to Sec.  262.81 definitions. While the text of the
Amended OECD 2001 Decision and the OECD regulations established in 1996
and amended in 2010 included exporters potentially receiving responses
directly back from the countries of import and transit, in practice the
notice and consent process under both 40 CFR part 262 subpart E and 40
CFR part 262 subpart H is solely a government to government process and
all country responses are sent to EPA, which then documents those
consents in the EPA AOC letter to the exporter. To more accurately
reflect the actual process currently followed for both 40 CFR part 262
subparts E and H, Sections 262.53(e) and (f) detailing how EPA will
forward complete notifications in conjunction with the Department of
State as appropriate, address any claims of confidentiality made
concerning any of the information listed in the notification, send the
AOC letter to the exporter, and similarly send any country's objection
or withdrawal of previous consent have been moved to Sec.  262.83(b)(5)
and (6). The text was modified slightly to reflect that the Amended
2001 OECD Decision requires that the country of import and the
countries of transit all consent to the notification before shipment
occurs. The older 40 CFR part 262 subpart E procedures technically
allowed for issuance of the AOC letter based solely on the country of
import's consent (see Section III.B.1 51 FR 28664 issued August 8,
1986). These changes reflect the actual process that currently takes
place and should have no impact on exporters.
    In addition, the list of OECD member countries that are party to
the Amended 2001 OECD Decision in Sec.  262.58(a)(1) has been moved to
a new definition for ``OECD Member countries'' in Sec.  262.81. The
implicit requirement in Sec.  262.52(c) that the exporter obtain an EPA
AOC letter prior to shipment has been made explicit and moved to Sec.
262.83(a)(3).

    Renotification requirements originally listed in Sec.  262.53(c)
have been modified and moved to Sec.  262.83(b)(4) to reflect that OECD
notification procedures under the Amended 2001 OECD Decision do not
exempt any changes to the original notification from needing consent to
the changes. Under 40 CFR part 262 subpart E, changes to the exporter's
phone number, decreases to the maximum requested export quantity and
changes to the means of transport for the shipment were exempted from
requiring renotification so long as nothing else in the notification
changed. It is unclear how many such changes would be impacted by this
requirement (i.e., would be required to renotify and obtain consent to
the renotification before shipping). EPA assumed zero additional
renotifications due to this change and requests comment on the number
of such exempted changes under 40 CFR part 262 subpart E that have
occurred in the last three years and would be subject to renotification
requirements under the proposed revisions.
    Currently, Sec.  262.84(c) requires exporters to comply with Sec.
262.54(a), (b), (c), (e) and (i) of the 40 CFR part 262 subpart E
manifest requirements. Section Sec.  262.54 has been moved to Sec.
262.83(c) with some modifications to reflect that (1) the requirement
to attach a copy of the EPA AOC letter has been replaced with the
requirement to list the consent number specified in the EPA AOC letter
for each waste listed on the RCRA manifest; (2) in cases where the
exporter must instruct the transporter to return the waste to a
facility in the United States and modify the manifest, such
instructions must be made via email, fax or mail so that a written
record of the instructions exist; and (3) the exporter needs to supply
an extra copy of the RCRA manifest to the transporter only for cases
where the exporter has chosen to use paper manifests rather than use
the e-manifest system, as the requirement for the transporter to give a
copy of the paper RCRA manifest to the CBP officer at the port of exit
is being replaced with a requirement for the exporter to electronically
file EPA-specific data in the AES to validate consent data prior to
exit. The extra copy of the paper manifest is needed so that the
transporter can send a copy of the manifest to the e-Manifest system
using the allowable methods listed in 40 CFR 264.71(a)(2)(v), thus
ensuring that the data from the paper manifest is captured in the e-
manifest system.
    The exception reporting, annual reporting and recordkeeping
sections of 40 CFR part 262 subpart E are duplicative of current 40 CFR
part 262 subpart H requirements, and so did not additionally need to be
moved to the new 40 CFR part 262 subpart H requirements.
    EPA requests comments on these proposed changes.

J. Changes to 40 CFR Part 262 Subpart F

    EPA is proposing to remove 40 CFR part 262 subpart F and reserve
for future use. The import RCRA manifest requirements in 40 CFR part
262 subpart F are required under the current 40 CFR part 262 subpart H
requirements, and are therefore proposed to be moved to Sec.  262.84(c)
in the new 40 CFR part 262 subpart H requirements, with the added
requirement for the importer to note that the shipment is an import and
the shipment's point of entry (i.e., port of entry and state) into the
United States. While this requirement was not listed in 40 CFR part 262
subpart F, this is an existing requirement listed in the manifest
instructions in the Appendix to Part 262 for item 16 of the RCRA
manifest, and therefore should not result in any new burden. It has
been added to the manifest requirements for import shipments in the new
40 CFR part 262 subpart H for clarity.
    EPA requests comments on these proposed changes.

K. Changes to 40 CFR Part 262 Subpart H

    In general, EPA has reorganized and clarified exporter, importer,
transporter and receiving facility requirements under 40 CFR part 262
subpart H. EPA's intent was to more accurately reflect the current
procedures, expand applicability to all exports and imports of RCRA
hazardous waste, and clearly spell out existing requirements for
exports and imports. When the OECD procedures were originally
incorporated into RCRA in 1996 and then updated in 2008, EPA largely
used the text from the OECD Decision in the 40 CFR part 262 subpart H
regulations. While this ensured that OECD procedures required under the
1992 OECD Decision and the Amended 2001 OECD Decision were fully
reflected in the 40 CFR part 262 subpart H regulations, the resulting
regulatory text made very generic references to country of export and
country of import, without always clearly spelling out U.S. exporter
and U.S. importer obligations and procedures. For example, under the
current Sec.  262.82(a)(2)(ii)(B), U.S. importers are required to
assume the duties of the foreign exporter if the proposed waste
shipment is RCRA hazardous waste but the country of export does not
control the shipment as an export of hazardous waste. But the current
40 CFR part 262 subpart H requirements do not explicitly spell out what
the U.S. importer would be required to comply with in such cases.
Renotifications are not explicitly prohibited but neither are they
explicitly allowed in the current 40 CFR part 262 subpart H, unlike the
current 40 CFR part 262 subpart E. In practice, such renotifications
have been done for exports subject to 40 CFR part 262 subpart H. EPA's
intent in these changes and the others previously discussed is to
clarify existing responsibilities for exports and imports, and not to
increase requirements beyond that which is currently required in 40 CFR
part 262 subpart H.
    In the new 40 CFR part 262 subpart H, retitled to reflect covering
all transboundary shipments of hazardous waste for recovery or
disposal, the sections for general applicability, definitions, and
general conditions not specific to exports or imports remain in Sec.
262.80, Sec.  262.81, and Sec.  262.82 respectively. But EPA proposes
to amend Sec.  262.83 from covering generic notification and consent to
covering exports of hazardous waste, and to amend Sec.  262.84 from
covering generic movement document requirements to covering imports of
hazardous waste. Within the new Sec.  262.83 are subsections for (a)
general export requirements, (b) notification requirements, including
renotifications and notifications for re-export to a third country, (c)
RCRA manifest instructions for export shipments, (d) OECD movement
document requirements for export shipments, (e) the exporter's duty to
return or re-export (to a third country) export shipments of waste that
cannot be managed in accordance with the terms of the contract or
consent and cannot be managed at an alternate facility in the country
of import, (f) contract requirements, (g) annual reporting
requirements, (h) exception reporting requirements, and (i)
recordkeeping requirements. Within the new Sec.  262.84 are subsections
for (a) general import requirements, (b) notification requirements that
apply only when the country of export does not control the proposed
shipment as an export of hazardous waste, (c) RCRA manifest
instructions for import shipments, (d) OECD movement document
requirements for import shipments, (e) duty to return or re-export (to
a third country) import shipments of waste that cannot be managed in
accordance with the terms of the contract or consent and cannot be

managed at an alternate facility in the United States, (f) contract
requirements, (g) requirements for U.S. recycling or disposal
facilities to issue confirmations of recovery or disposal for each
import shipment, and (h) recordkeeping requirements for import
shipments. Sections 262.85, 262.86, 262.87 and 262.88 are reserved for
future use. Section 262.89 is amended from covering the OECD waste
lists and the incorporation by reference of the OECD waste lists to
also being reserved for future use. The incorporation by reference of
the OECD waste lists will be covered under Sec.  260.11(g).
    Under the revised definitions section, the older 40 CFR part 262
subpart H ``exporter'' definition has been broken into [U.S.]
``exporter'' and ``foreign exporter''. Similarly, the ``importer''
definition has been split into [U.S.] importer and foreign importer, as
has receiving facility. As under the current 40 CFR part 262 subpart H,
exporters must be domiciled in the United States. To reflect that
Canadian regulations uses wording for several recovery and disposal
operation codes that differ from the description used in the OECD
recovery and disposal codes, the list of operation codes included in
the definitions for recovery and disposal codes have been revised to
reflect that such Canada-only codes will start with a ``RC'' or a
``DC''.
    For export and import notifications, the use of (1) the ISO
standard 3166 country name 2-digit code and (2) OECD/Basel competent
authority code are required to be listed for the relevant country of
import or export and their respective competent authorities. Use of
these codes is widely accepted internationally and the ISO standard
3166 country name 2-digit code is consistent with the country codes
required in the AES.
    In cases where shipments cannot be delivered to the foreign
receiving facility for any reason, the exporter is currently required
to submit an exception report to EPA. Under the proposed revisions, the
exporter is now required to submit the exception report to EPA within
30 days of the transporter missing the 45-day deadline to confirm the
departure of the shipment from the United States or the foreign
receiving facility missing the 90-day deadline to confirm receipt of
the shipment, and required to submit the exception report to EPA within
30 days of being notified of the need to return the shipment, or one
day prior to the initiation of the return shipment, whichever is
sooner. EPA requests comments on whether the 30-day period is
sufficient to ascertain what has happened to the export shipment.
    EPA requests comments on the reorganization and text changes, and
whether additional revisions are needed to further clarify requirements
for exports and imports while still ensuring compliance with procedures
equivalent to those required for shipments currently subject to 40 CFR
part 262 subpart H.
    As with the proposed changes to part 261 sections, EPA is proposing
changes to export and import requirements in 40 CFR part 262 subpart H
to reflect that export notifications, export renotifications, export
annual reports, export exception reports, export confirmations of
receipt, export certifications of recovery or disposal, import
notifications, import confirmations of receipt, and import
certifications of recovery or disposal being submitted to EPA must be
submitted electronically using EPA's hazardous waste import/export
database on or after the effective date of the final rule. EPA requests
comments on whether any transition period for electronic submittal into
EPA's system is needed, an appropriate length for a transition period
if one is needed, and whether any exporter would need a waiver from
electronic filing requirements due to lack of broadband access or other
unique circumstances that would make electronic filing an undue
financial burden.
    Additionally, EPA is similarly proposing to add the requirement in
Sec.  262.83(a)(6) that exporters or U.S. authorized agents must file
EPA-required information into the AES prior to departure in accordance
with the deadlines specified in 15 CFR 30.4 (e.g., for truck shipments,
no less than one hour prior to the arrival of the truck at the U.S.
border to go foreign) and provide the ITN documenting the successful
filing to the outgoing transporter. The same U.S. authorized agents
that currently file in AES are intended to be allowed to continue such
filings, but the RCRA exporter is ultimately responsible for ensuring
that such filing occurs and that the ITN is provided to the outgoing
transporter. AES system changes were made and posted in October 2014
and testing should be completed in 2015. Exporters or U.S. authorized
agents using the AES will need to modify their filing software to
incorporate the filing changes that will remain optional until EPA's
final regulations become effective, but should be able to do so in the
months between issuance of the final rule and the effective date of
December 31, 2016 required to comply with Executive Order 13659. EPA is
therefore proposing to require filing of EPA-specific information into
the AES from the effective date of the final rule without any
transition period. EPA requests comment on whether exporters currently
file shipment data in the AES prior to departure, whether they or their
U.S. authorized filing agents use the AES or AESDirect to file their
shipment data, and whether a transition period would still be
appropriate.

L. Changes to the Appendix to Part 262

    EPA is proposing conforming amendments to revise the instructions
for Item 16 of the RCRA manifest instructions to reflect that
transporters carrying export shipments will no longer be required to
deliver a signed and dated copy of the RCRA manifest to CBP at the port
of exit. This requirement is being replaced with the exporter
requirement to file EPA consent-specific information as part of their
Electronic Export Information filing in the AES so that the consent can
be validated within the AES prior to departure.

M. Conforming Changes to Parts 263 Through 267, 271, and 273

1. Conforming Changes to Standards Applicable to Transporters of
Hazardous Waste in Part 263
    EPA proposes to delete the last paragraph in the note to Sec.
263.10(a). The last paragraph was included as part of the note in the
original 1980 RCRA rulemaking to ease compliance, but was not removed
or revised during the 1986 regulation amendments to reflect additional
requirements in part 263, such as the export provisions in Sec.
263.20(a). Additionally, the last paragraph cites obsolete regulatory
sections in U.S Department of Transportation regulations. EPA consulted
with U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and DOT approves deleting
the last paragraph in the note.\23\ EPA does not anticipate any change
in burden due to this change, and requests comment on this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ April 22, 2014 email from Dirk DerKinderen of U.S.
Department of Transportation to Bryan Groce of EPA's Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, EPA proposes conforming amendments to Sec.  263.10(d)
to reflect the expanded and clarified applicability of 40 CFR part 262
subpart H requirements and the new 40 CFR part 262 subpart H sections
for OECD movement document requirements for export and import
shipments. EPA also proposes conforming amendments to Sec.
263.20(a)(2), (c), (e)(2), (f)(2), and (g) to reflect that transporters
will only be

required to carry the OECD movement document and RCRA manifest for
export and import shipments, will not be required to carry the EPA AOC
letter with export shipments, and will not be required to give a copy
of the RCRA manifest to CBP at the port of exit prior to departure.
Transporters carrying a paper RCRA manifest for an export shipment will
however be required to send a copy of the paper manifest to the e-
manifest system using the allowable methods listed in 40 CFR
264.71(a)(2)(v) to ensure that data from export shipments using paper
RCRA manifests are captured in the e-manifest system.
    EPA requests comments on these changes and whether any additional
clarification is needed.
2. Conforming Changes to Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities in Part 264
    EPA proposes conforming amendments to Sec.  264.12 to reflect the
expanded and clarified applicability of 40 CFR part 262 subpart H
requirements, and the importer requirements in Sec.  262.84.
Additionally, EPA proposes deleting the requirement in Sec.
264.12(a)(1) as it will be duplicative of notifications submitted by
either the foreign exporter or the U.S. importer in cases where the
country of export does not control the shipment as a hazardous waste