[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19290-19339]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04705]

Vol. 87

Friday,

No. 63

April 1, 2022

Part IV

 Environmental Protection Agency

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

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding
specific aspects of this document, contact Bryan Groce, Program
Implementation and Information Division, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery,<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected] or Tess Fields, Program Implementation and
Information Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery,
(202) 566-0328; email address: [email protected]. In addition, please
refer to EPA's e-Manifest web page for further information,
www.epa.gov/e-manifest.

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

Table of Contents

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

I. General Information

A. List of Acronyms Used in This Action

Acronym Meaning

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

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

B. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

C. What action is the Agency taking?

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Public Participation

A. Written Comments

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

III. Background

A. e-Manifest Act and System Launch

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

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

B. 2014 One Year Rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. 2018 User Fee Rule

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

D. 2019 ICR

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

E. June 2019 Advisory Board Meeting

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

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

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

IV. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where:

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

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

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

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

FeeiYear 2 = FeeiYear1 x (CPIYear2-2/
CPIYear2-1)

Where FeeiYear2 is the Fee for each type of manifest
submission ``i'' in Year 2 of the fee cycle; FeeiYear1 is
the Fee for each type of manifest submission ``i'' in Year 1 of the fee
cycle; and CPIYear2-2/CPIYear2-1 is the ratio of
the CPI published for the year two years prior to Year 2 to the CPI for
the year one year prior to Year 2 of the cycle.
    The second fee adjuster, known as the ``revenue recapture''
adjuster, targets recapturing revenue that was lost on account of
imprecision in estimating the numbers and types of manifest submissions
that would be processed by the e-Manifest system. Unlike the inflation
adjuster, which operates to adjust fees between the first and second
years of each two-year fee cycle, the revenue recapture adjuster looks
back to the previous two-year fee cycle and attempts to recover revenue
losses from that previous cycle through adjustments to the fee
schedules for the new cycle. The revenue recaptured through this
adjuster is added to the O&M Costs in

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

Revenue Recapturei = [(NiYear1 +
NiYear2)Actual-(NiYear1 +
NiYear2)Est] x Feei(Ave)

Where Revenue Recapturei is the amount of fee revenue
recaptured for each type of manifest submission ``i;''
(NiYear1 + NiYear2)Actual-
(NiYear1 + NiYear2)Est is the
difference between actual manifest numbers submitted to the system for
each manifest type during the previous 2-year cycle, and the numbers
estimated when we developed the previous cycle's fee schedule; and
Feei(Ave) is the average fee charged per manifest type over
the previous two-year cycle.
    Per Sec.  265.1314, exporters would receive an electronic invoice
or bill displaying their manifest activity during the prior month and
would be expected to make payments in full within 30 days from the date
of the invoice. Exporters would be expected to submit electronic
payments to the U.S. Department of Treasury through the e-Manifest
system using one of the acceptable electronic payment options, which
include commercial credit cards, commercial debit cards, and Automated
Clearinghouse (ACH) debits.
    Per the late fee and collection provisions at Sec. Sec.  265.1315
and 265.1315, exporters who do not pay their invoices in full and on
time would be charged late fees. Late fees begin to accrue for bills
not paid in full within 30 days from the date of the invoice. The fees
include a penalty (currently 1% annualized of the billable invoice
total) and a $15 handling charge for each month the bill is unpaid. A
one-time increase of this penalty to 6% is charged if a bill is not
paid four months after the invoice has been issued. After four months,
the unpaid invoice is forwarded to the U.S. Treasury Department for
collection and further action.
    Per Sec.  265.1316, exporters would be able to dispute an invoice
using the informal dispute process, if they believe an invoice to be in
error (e.g., the invoice does not accurately describe the numbers of
manifests submitted in the prior billing period, the types of manifests
(paper vs. electronic) submitted in the prior billing period, or,
because the invoice appears to have made a mathematical error in
generating the amount of fees due under the invoice).
    If finalized, the proposed amendments would require any party
acting as the U.S. exporter that originated the manifest for an export
shipment of hazardous waste in accordance with the manifest
requirements under 40 CFR part 262 subpart B and Sec.  262.83(c),
whether they be a generator, receiving facility, or recognized trader,
to submit the export manifests to the system and pay the requisite
fees.
    Finally, EPA is proposing to revise Sec.  263.20(g)(3) and remove
Sec.  263.20(g)(4)(i). Section 263.20(g)(3) currently requires the
transporter to provide a copy of the export manifest to the generator.
Today's proposal would allow the collection of manifest data in the e-
Manifest system, making the current requirement unnecessary. Employees
of a generator site registered in the RCRAInfo Industry Application for
access to the e-Manifest system could view export manifests for their
site in the system. Generators that elect not to register for e-
Manifest, could obtain the export manifest via a system-generated
email, using the generator's email address, which EPA is proposing to
add to the manifest form. For further details regarding the addition of
the generator's email address on the paper manifest, please refer to
Section IV.C.3. of today's proposed rule. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to modify Sec.  263.20(g)(3) to require the transporter who transports
the hazardous waste export shipment out of the U.S. via road or rail
border crossing or delivers the export shipment to a seaport for
loading onto an international carrier to send paper copies of the
manifest and continuation sheet (or images of the paper copies) to the
exporter instead of to the generator, or transmit the export manifest
and continuation sheet electronically in the system in accordance with
the existing manifest requirement for electronic manifest use at Sec.
263.20(a)(4).
    EPA is proposing the removal of the current transporter requirement
in Sec.  263.20(g)(4)(i). EPA has determined that transporters are not
best suited for submitting the export manifest to the system and paying
the requisite processing fee based on the above modification to Sec.
263.20(g)(3). EPA notes that transporters would be able to use
electronic manifests in lieu of paper manifests to transport RCRA-
manifested waste shipments out of the U.S. in accordance with Sec.
263.20(a)(4). Transporters would need to obtain a RCRAInfo Industry
Application account to access and use the e-Manifest system.
Additionally, EPA is proposing to remove 40 CFR 263.20(g)(4)(ii), which
lists the ``AES filing compliance date'' promulgated in the hazardous
waste import/export final rule dated November 28, 2016 (81 FR 85696).
The AES filing compliance date was specified as December 31, 2017, in a
Federal Register notice dated August 28, 2017 (82 FR 41015). That
compliance date has passed, and as such the requirement for the
transporter to provide a paper copy of the manifest to a U.S. customs
official at the point of departure for shipments initiated prior to the
AES filing is now obsolete.
    EPA requests comment on all the proposed changes discussed above.
In addition, EPA requests information regarding whether the proposed
changes would work for foreign transporters who transport export
shipments to and across the U.S. border. In addition, EPA requests
information regarding how many foreign transporters currently transport
such shipments within the United States.
4. What is EPA proposing with respect to manifest form changes related
to export and import hazardous waste shipments?
    EPA received minimal comments on the February 2019 Federal Register
notice for the proposed ICR which included adding new data fields on
the manifest for consent numbers and EPA ID numbers for exporters (To
view these comments, refer to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0756,
www.regulations.gov). While comments from state agencies and industry
organizations supported adding these new data fields, comments from
hazardous waste TSDFs and their trade organizations expressed concern
about the proposed additions to the International Shipments field (Item
16) on the manifest or inclusion of this field on the continuation
sheet for the proposed data fields. One commenter argued modifications
to the form for international shipments as well as other form changes
detailed in the February 2019 public notice will have substantial
implications, increase burdens on industry and result in significant
costs to have facilities redesign and reprogram their IT systems. Two
commenters suggested that before changing the manifest form, EPA should
consider how best to upgrade the Waste Import Export Tracking System
(WIETS) and ultimately integrate it with the e-Manifest system. These
commenters also stressed that if the Agency continues to require AOC
numbers on the manifest, Agency information about an international
shipment, including an exporter's EPA ID, are available via WIETS. All
commenters opposed to the February 2019 proposal for international

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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