6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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

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

 [RIN 2050-AH12]

Title: 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 (83 FR 420), 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 [INSERT 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 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 [INSERT 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
 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_ADDRESS>or Tess Fields, Program Implementation and Information Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery,<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>In addition, please refer to EPA's e-Manifest webpage 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	6
A. List of Acronyms used in this action	6
B. Does this action apply to me?	8
C. What action is the Agency taking?	10
D. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?	11
E. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?	11
II. Public Participation	12
A. Written Comments	12
III. Background	13
A. e-Manifest Act and System Launch	13
B. 2014 One Year Rule	14
C. 2018 User Fee Rule	15
D. 2019 ICR	17
E. June 2019 Advisory Board Meeting	18
IV. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule	19
A. What is EPA Proposing for International Shipments of Hazardous Waste?	19
B. What is EPA proposing with respect to Exception, Discrepancy, and Unmanifested Waste Reports?	45
C. What other regulatory changes is EPA addressing in today's this action?	65
D. Summary of Requests for Public Comment	110
V. State Implementation	117
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States	117
B. Legal Authority for This Rule's Regulatory Changes and Implications	119
C. Conforming Changes to 40 CFR 271.10 and 271.12	120
D. Provisions of the Proposed Rule That Are Not Authorizable	122
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews	124
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review	125
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)	125
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)	126
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)	128
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism	128
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments	129
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks	129
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use	129
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)	130
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations	130
List of Subjects	130

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:

                               Industrial Sector

                                 NAICS Code(s)

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting

                                      11

Mining

                                      21

Utilities

                                      22

Construction

                                      23

Manufacturing

                                     31-33

Wholesale Trade

                                      42

Retail Trade

                                     44-45

Transportation and Warehousing

                                     48-49

Information

                                      51

Waste Management & Remediation Services

                                      562

Public Administration

                                      92

      This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in the title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 262, 263, 264, 265, and 761. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
C. What action is the Agency taking?
      EPA is proposing regulatory amendments to the manifest regulations to require waste handlers who export manifested hazardous waste shipments out of the U.S. to submit the export manifests to EPA and pay the requisite user fee to process them. If the proposed regulations are finalized, export manifests would be collected in the 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). 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). Through the e-Manifest system, manifest users can create, edit, retrieve, sign, and store manifests electronically as well as retrieve status information on manifests.
B. 2014 One Year Rule
      EPA published the first e-Manifest final rule, also known as the One Year Rule, on February 7, 2014 (79 FR 7518). The One Year Rule established the legal and policy framework for the use of electronic manifests. First, that rule explained that electronic manifests obtained, completed, transmitted, and signed in the national e-Manifest system in accordance with the electronic formats announced in the rule are considered the legal equivalent of paper manifests signed with conventional ink signatures. Further, wherever the existing federal and state regulations require a RCRA paper manifest to be supplied, signed, used or carried with a hazardous waste shipment, the execution of an electronic manifest in the national e-Manifest system is deemed to comply with the requirements to obtain, sign, carry, or otherwise use the hazardous waste manifest.
      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.
      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. The primary goals of the Advisory Board meeting were to: (1) identify the main challenges generators and other waste handlers face when using fully electronic manifests; and (2) obtain advice from the Board on ways to increase adoption of electronic manifests. EPA requested input from the Board on identifying the main challenges generators, transporters, and receiving facilities face with using fully electronic manifests and possible solutions to the challenges. To incentivize greater e-Manifest adoption by waste handlers, the Board recommended EPA integrate the Biennial Reports, Discrepancy Reports, Exception Reports, and Unmanifested Waste Reports into the e-Manifest system.
IV. Detailed Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. What is EPA Proposing for International Shipments of Hazardous Waste?
      This action considers regulatory amendments to the manifest regulations for hazardous waste export shipments. The proposed amendments would require export manifests to be collected in the e-Manifest system. If finalized, the following entities involved in export shipments would be responsible for the submission of the manifest to EPA's 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 §§ 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.
      The current export and import regulations at §§ 262.83(d) and 262.84(d) require exporters and importers, respectively to record export or import data on the international movement document for all exported or imported hazardous wastes that are required to be manifested or managed under the alternate management standards of 40 CFR Parts 266 (e.g., spent lead-acid batteries (SLABs)) or 273 (i.e., universal wastes). For export hazardous waste shipments, the exporter must: enter the information listed in 40 CFR 262.83(d)(2)(i)-(xii) when initiating the international movement document; ensure through use of contract terms that the international movement document accompanies the shipment from the site in the U.S. where the export shipment is initiated to the foreign receiving facility; and ensure that appropriate signatures are entered for each custody transfer from shipment initiation to the foreign receiving facility per 40 CFR 262.83(d)(2)(xiii)-(xiv). The foreign receiving facility must send a copy of the signed international movement document within three days of shipment delivery to: the exporter, the importing country's competent authority, and any transit country(ies)'s competent authority(ies) to confirm receipt of the shipment per 40 CFR 262.83(d)(2)(xv). For shipments made after the electronic import-export reporting compliance date that EPA will establish in a future FEDERAL REGISTER notice, the exporter must have contract terms requiring the foreign facility to send an electronic copy of the signed international movement document at the same time to EPA using the Waste Import-Export Tracking System (WIETS) or its successor system.
      Lastly, the exporter must have contract terms requiring the foreign receiving facility to send a copy of the signed and dated confirmation of recovery or disposal as soon as possible, but no later than thirty days after completing recovery or disposal of the waste in the shipment and no later than one calendar year following receipt of the waste, to the exporter and to the competent authority of the country of import per 40 CFR 262.83(f)(5). If the initial foreign receiving facility performed interim operations on the waste shipment, the contract terms must also require that the initial foreign receiving facility obtain a copy of the signed and dated confirmation of recovery or disposal from the subsequent foreign facility that performed the final operation on the waste shipment and promptly forward the copy to the exporter and to the country of import, per 40 CFR 262.83(f)(6). For shipments made after the electronic import-export reporting compliance date that EPA will establish in a future FEDERAL REGISTER notice, 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 notice, 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 §§ 262.20(a)(3) and 262.24 for electronic manifest use and the electronic signature requirements at § 262.25 for export manifests. If these provisions are finalized as proposed, a person exporting a shipment out of the U.S. (i.e., a generator or a recognized trader located separate from the site initiating the shipment) may, in lieu of using a paper manifest form, use an electronic manifest to track the export shipment within the United States. These electronic manifests would be considered the legal equivalent of paper manifests signed with conventional ink signatures. EPA notes that use of electronic manifests is voluntary and therefore exporters could continue to track export shipments using the existing paper forms under the proposal. If an export shipment was initiated by the initial transporter under a hybrid manifest in accordance with § 262.24(c), then an exporter would also be required to complete and sign that manifest electronically in the system.
      Second, EPA is proposing the addition of new provisions under § 262.83. These would require an exporter to submit the top copy of a manifest form and continuation sheet (whether paper or electronic) to EPA for processing, in accordance with the proposal for export shipments described in this section of the preamble. The new provisions would also require the exporter to pay the requisite processing fee for the submission using the existing fee provisions under 40 CFR Part 265 subpart FF. Under today's rule, EPA is proposing new paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(8) under § 262.83(c). If finalized, an exporter who elects to use an electronic manifest and continuation sheet for an export shipment, would be required to complete, sign, and submit the manifest and continuation sheet electronically in the e-Manifest system for the waste shipment within 30 days of receipt of the electronic manifest signed by the last transporter who carried the export shipment to a U.S. seaport for loading onto an international carrier or to a U.S. road or rail port of exit.
      If the waste shipment was transported within and then exited the U.S. under a paper manifest and continuation sheet, the exporter would submit images of the paper forms, or uploaded data plus images of the paper forms, to EPA. Upon receipt of image files of a paper manifest and continuation sheet, EPA's paper processing center (PPC) would process the manifests, and the manifest data for the export shipment would be captured in the e-Manifest system.
      New paragraph 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) and utilizes them for domestic receiving facilities of hazardous waste and other federal or state regulated wastes. If finalized, exporters of a waste shipment subject to the manifest requirements would be expected to make payments to EPA for manifest activities conducted during the prior month per § 265.1314. Per § 265.1311, EPA would impose a per manifest fee for each manifest submitted to the system based on the type (paper or electronic) and mode of submission (data upload, image file upload, or electronic). EPA would use the fee formula and methodology and fee revisions described at §§ 265.1312 and 265.1313, respectively, to calculate the manifest fees based on exporters' manifest activities in the system.
The mathematical expression of the Marginal Cost Differentiated Fee Option (§§ 264.1312(a) and 265.1312(a)), as revised per Section V.C.2 of the preamble, is as follows:

Where:

System Setup Cost=Procurement Cost+EPA Program CostO&M Cost=Electronic System O&M Cost+Paper Center O&M Cost+
      Help Desk Cost+EPA Program Cost+CROMERR Cost +

       LifeCycle Cost to Modify or Upgrade e-Manifest System Related Services

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

Manifest Submission Type
Fee per Manifest
Scanned Image Upload
$20.00
Data + Image Upload
$13.00
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 §§ 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 §§ 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 § 265.1314, exporters would receive an electronic invoice or bill displaying their manifest activity during the prior month and would be expected to make payments in full within 30 days from the date of the invoice. Exporters would be expected to submit electronic payments to the U.S. Department of Treasury through the e-Manifest system using one of the acceptable electronic payment options, which include commercial credit cards, commercial debit cards, and Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) debits.
      Per the late fee and collection provisions at §§ 265.1315 and 265.1315, exporters who do not pay their invoices in full and on time would be charged late fees. Late fees begin to accrue for bills not paid in full within 30 days from the date of the invoice. The fees include a penalty (currently 1% annualized of the billable invoice total) and a $15 handling charge for each month the bill is unpaid. A one-time increase of this penalty to 6% is charged if a bill is not paid four months after the invoice has been issued. After four months, the unpaid invoice is forwarded to the U.S. Treasury Department for collection and further action.
      Per § 265.1316, exporters would be able to dispute an invoice using the informal dispute process, if they believe an invoice to be in error (e.g., the invoice does not accurately describe the numbers of manifests submitted in the prior billing period, the types of manifests (paper vs. electronic) submitted in the prior billing period, or, because the invoice appears to have made a mathematical error in generating the amount of fees due under the invoice).
      If finalized, the proposed amendments would require any party acting as the U.S. exporter that originated the manifest for an export shipment of hazardous waste in accordance with the manifest requirements under 40 CFR part 262 subpart B and § 262.83(c), whether they be a generator, receiving facility, or recognized trader, to submit the export manifests to the system and pay the requisite fees.
      Finally, EPA is proposing to revise § 263.20(g)(3) and remove § 263.20(g)(4)(i). Section 263.20(g)(3) currently requires the transporter to provide a copy of the export manifest to the generator. Today's proposal would allow the collection of manifest data in the e-Manifest system, making the current requirement unnecessary. Employees of a generator site registered in the RCRAInfo Industry Application for access to the e-Manifest system could view export manifests for their site in the system. Generators that elect not to register for e-Manifest, could obtain the export manifest via a 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 rule. Therefore, EPA is proposing to modify § 263.20(g)(3) to require the transporter who transports the hazardous waste export shipment out of the U.S. via road or rail border crossing or delivers the export shipment to a sea port for loading onto an international carrier to send paper copies of the manifest and continuation sheet (or images of the paper copies) to the exporter instead of to the generator, or transmit the export manifest and continuation sheet electronically in the system in accordance with the existing manifest requirement for electronic manifest use at § 263.20(a)(4).
      EPA is proposing the removal of the current transporter requirement in § 263.20(g)(4)(i).  EPA has determined that transporters are not best suited for submitting the export manifest to the system and paying the requisite processing fee based on the above modification to § 263.20(g)(3). EPA notes that transporters would be able to use electronic manifests in lieu of paper manifests to transport RCRA-manifested waste shipments out of the U.S. in accordance with § 263.20(a)(4). Transporters would need to obtain a RCRAInfo Industry Application account to access and use the e-Manifest system. Additionally, EPA is proposing to remove 40 CFR 263.20(g)(4)(ii), which lists the "AES filing compliance date" promulgated in the hazardous waste import/export final rule dated November 28, 2016 (81 FR 85696). The AES filing compliance date was specified as December 31, 2017, in a Federal Register notice dated August 28, 2017 (82 FR 41015). That compliance date has passed, and as such the requirement for the transporter to provide a paper copy of the manifest to a U.S. customs official at the point of departure for shipments initiated prior to the AES filing is now obsolete.
      EPA requests comment on all the proposed changes discussed above. In addition, EPA requests information regarding whether the proposed changes would work for foreign transporters who transport export shipments to and across the U.S. border. In addition, EPA requests information regarding how many foreign transporters currently transport such shipments within the United States.
4. What is EPA proposing with respect to manifest form changes related to export and import hazardous waste shipments?
      EPA received minimal comments on the February 2019 Federal Register notice for the proposed ICR which included adding new data fields on the manifest for consent numbers and EPA ID numbers for exporters (To view these comments, refer to Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OLEM - 2018 - 0756, www.regulations.gov). While comments from state agencies and industry organizations supported adding these new data fields, comments from hazardous waste TSDFs and their trade organizations expressed concern about the proposed additions to the International Shipments field (Item 16) on the manifest or inclusion of this field on the continuation sheet for the proposed data fields. One commenter argued modifications to the form for international shipments as well as other form changes detailed in the February 2019 public notice will have substantial implications, increase burdens on industry and result in significant costs to have facilities redesign and reprogram their IT systems. Two commenters suggested that before changing the manifest form, EPA should consider how best to upgrade the Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS) and ultimately integrate it with the 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 sea port 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) 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 §§ 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 §§ 262.83(d)(2)(xv), 262.83(f)(4)-(5) and (6)(ii), 262.84(d)(2)(xv), and 262.84(g)(1)-(2) to clarify that confirmations of receipt and confirmations of recovery or disposal for export and import shipments are only required to be sent to the competent authorities of the countries that control such shipments as exports, transits, or imports of hazardous wastes, consistent with existing text in 40 CFR 264.12(a)(2), 264.12(a)(4), 265.12(a)(2), and 265.12(a)(4). EPA is additionally proposing revisions to §§ 261.4(a)(25)(i)(A), 261.4(a)(25)(i)(H), 261.39(a)(5)(i)(A), 261.39(a)(5)(i)(F), 262.83(b)(1)(i)-(iv), 262.83(b)(3), 262.83(d)(2)(iii)-(v), 262.83(d)(2)(iii)-(v), 262.83(d)(2)(viii)-(ix), 262.84(b)(1)(i)-(iv), 262.84(b)(2), 262.84(c)(1)(i), 262.84(d)(2)(iii)-(v), 262.84(d)(2)(viii)-(ix), to specify the listing of the site address in notices, manifests and international movement documents in place of the existing requirement to list "address," to facilitate country review of the documents. EPA is also proposing revisions to 40 CFR 260.2(d)(1)  -  (2) and 261.4(a)(25)(v) to make hazardous secondary material export documents prepared, used and submitted under 40 CFR 261.4(a)(25) available to the public when these electronic documents are considered by EPA to be final documents on March 1 of the calendar year after the related hazardous secondary material exports occur. EPA is proposing this conforming change to make hazardous secondary material exports, reinstated as part of EPA's response to vacatur of certain provisions of the definition of solid waste rule effective May 30, 2018 (83 FR 24664), consistent with EPA's earlier rule regarding confidentiality determinations related to all exports, imports or transits of hazardous waste and exports of conditionally excluded materials (i.e., cathode ray tubes) subject to export, import, or transit requirements (82 FR 60894) when the final rule was published on December 26, 2017.
B. What is EPA proposing with respect to Exception, Discrepancy, and Unmanifested Waste Reports?
	While the manifest system is often regarded as consisting only of the actual manifest form and any necessary continuation sheets, the complete manifest system extends to several related written reports that are required under the existing regulations when there are specific unresolved problems or irregularities related to a waste shipment that is subject to manifesting. There are currently three additional reports under the RCRA Subtitle C regulations that complete the manifest tracking system: Exception Reports, Discrepancy Reports, and Unmanifested Waste Reports. These reports address issues that arise when return manifests from receivers are late (Exceptions), when the materials received do not match with the quantities or types of materials indicated as being shipped by generators (Discrepancies), and instances when wastes that should have been manifested arrive at a facility without a manifest (Unmanifested Wastes).
      This action proposes and solicits public comment on revisions to the manifest requirements applicable to Exception Reports, Discrepancy Reports, and Unmanifested Waste Reports at 40 CFR 262.42, 264.72, and 264.76 respectively. During past Advisory Board meetings, the e-Manifest Advisory Board recommended that EPA integrate these written reports into the e-Manifest system. Below, EPA describes each report in greater detail, and the Agency's proposal on how to leverage e-Manifest to satisfy each requirement.
1. Exception Reporting

      Exception Reporting applies to generators, and these reports are required in the federal regulations at 40 CFR 262.42 (Hazardous Waste) and 40 CFR 761.217 (PCBs). Exception reports are intended to address the situation in which the generator does not receive timely confirmation that their hazardous or PCB wastes, tracked with a manifest, arrived at the facility designated by the generator to receive its waste. For large quantity generators or LQGs (those generating 1 kg or greater of acute hazardous waste or 1,000 kg or greater of non-acute hazardous waste per month) and all PCB waste generators, Exception Reporting is a two-step process. In the first step, if the generator has not received the signed, return copy of the manifest from the designated facility within 35 days from the date the transport of the waste shipment began, the generator must contact the transporter and/or the designated facility to determine the status of the generator's waste. In the second step, if the status of that waste is not resolved within 45 days (from the start of transport), the generator must file an Exception Report with their EPA Regional Administrator (or State Director in authorized states). The Exception Report, as currently implemented by regulation, is a separate written report that consists of: (1) a legible copy of the manifest for which the generator does not have confirmation of delivery; and (2) a cover letter signed by the generator explaining its efforts to locate the waste and the results of those efforts. There is a similar Exception Reporting requirement applicable to small quantity generators (SQGs) at § 262.42(b), except that SQGs have an additional 15 days (60 days total) to reconcile the status of their waste with the other handlers, and the separate cover letter is not required as a part of their report.
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 § 262.42 by adding new paragraph (d) and (e) and amending § 761.217 by adding new paragraphs (c) and (d). EPA notes these proposed regulatory amendments do not apply to exporters of waste shipments subject to the manifest requirements. Exporters must file export Exception Reports, in lieu of the requirements of § 262.42, according to the existing requirements specified at § 262.83(h). Electronic export Exception Reports under section § 262.83(h) will be developed as part of WIETS.
      Proposed paragraphs at §§ 262.42(d) and 761.217(c) establish the legal and policy framework for the use of electronic Exception Reports for hazardous waste and PCB waste, respectively. If finalized, Exception Reports originated in the e-Manifest system would be considered the legal equivalent of paper Exception Reports signed with conventional ink signatures. Further, wherever the existing regulations require an Exception Report to be completed, signed, provided, and sent to the EPA Regional Administrator (or the State Director in authorized states), the execution of an electronic Exception Report would be deemed to comply with the requirements to complete, sign, provide, send, or otherwise use the Exception Report.
      Under paragraphs §§ 262.42(e) and 761.217(d), EPA is proposing to restrict electronic exception reporting to manifested shipments using electronic manifests (hybrid or fully electronic) pursuant to § 262.24(c). This is because to leverage the e-Manifest system to assist with exception reporting, the system must "know" the date of shipment from the generator. When electronic manifests are used, this information is readily available. Conversely, paper manifests are not submitted to the e-Manifest system until after the signed, final manifest is submitted by the receiving facility, rendering it impossible for the system to identify paper manifests initiated by the generator but not yet completed by the receiving facility. For hybrid manifests, a generator would be required to register in the RCRAInfo Industry Application for an account to take advantage of electronic exception reporting in the e-Manifest system. (Relatedly, EPA is also requesting comment in today's proposal regarding whether all generators should be required to register for access to the e-Manifest system (See Section IV.C.3).)
      The hybrid or mixed paper/electronic manifest is a manifest approach that EPA adopted in the User Fee Final rule to assist generators who are not able to fully participate in electronic manifesting. Under the hybrid manifest approach, generators are not required to obtain e-Manifest system accounts nor are they required to electronically track their wastes. The hybrid manifest approach allows the initial transporter and subsequent waste handlers to use fully electronic manifests with their non-participating generator customers. The initial transporter may print a copy of the electronic manifest for the generator, and the generator may sign the paper copy, obtain the initial transporter's ink signature on the paper copy, and then retain the paper copy 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 §§ 262.42(a)(1), 262.42(b), or 761.217(a)(1), respectively. Additionally, the system could alert the respective receiving facility on the manifest.
      First, the system would monitor the verification timeframe beginning at the custody exchange from the generator to the initial transporter by way of the generator's electronic signature for the fully electronic manifest or the initial transporter's electronic signature for the hybrid manifest. Second, the system would provide an alert to generators when exception reporting requirements may be triggered; and if needed, allow generators to submit required Exception Report information electronically, and disseminate the Exception Report to the relevant EPA Region or the authorized state Agency. LQGs and PCB waste generators would still be required to contact the transporter and/or the owner or designated facility per §§ 262.42(a) or 761.217(a) to determine the status of the hazardous or PCB waste and provide an explanation of their efforts to locate the hazardous or PCB waste and the results of those efforts. Such generators, however, would not be required to manually submit the report to EPA or the states.
      EPA may design the system to provide a drop-down list of explanations that an LQG or PCB generator could select from to explain its efforts to locate and reconcile their unverified shipment. The explanation from the drop-down list or text string would be used to complete the Exception Report. For example, a text string could say, "The initial transporter and/or designated facility were contacted via telephone regarding the delivery date of the waste(s) identified in 9b to the designated facility. To date, no information has been provided confirming shipment receipt by the designated facility." The drop-down list could also include an explanation of "other" which a user would select, if the options available did not accurately explain the set of circumstances or reasons why they are unable to confirm delivery by the designated facility. If a user selected this option, the system could provide a text field/pop-up box and prompt the user to enter a "text string" explaining the site's efforts to locate the shipment and reconcile the problem. Following completion of the Exception Report, the e-Manifest system would then transmit the report to the relevant EPA Region or authorized state Agency. For SQGs, the drop-down menu would not be necessary as SQGs are not required to provide a detailed explanation regarding the inability to verify delivery of their manifested shipment to the destination facility. Instead, under the proposal, the system would provide a copy of the manifest for which the SQG does not have confirmation of delivery along with a statement saying, "The return manifest copy was not received."
      Although this action considers regulatory amendments to the existing Exception Report  regulations to allow for electronic exception reporting, EPA is not proposing to collect and upload written, paper-copies of Exception Reports in the e-Manifest system. EPA believes maintaining paper Exception Report submissions would be costlier to maintain and thus would result in the need for EPA to contemplate a distinct or additional fee premium related to entering Exception Reports to ensure related costs are recovered. Therefore, to avoid incurring costs related to paper processing and data entry activities necessary to enter the Exception Report information into the e-Manifest system, EPA would require LQGs and SQGs who opt out of tracking their waste shipments electronically in the system to comply with the existing exception reporting requirements at §§ 262.42(a) and (b) respectively for written, 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 §§ 262.42(a) and (c)(2), and 761.217(a) and (b) to better conform to timeframes for submittal and processing of paper manifests in the e-Manifest system. For example, for entities using paper manifests, receiving facilities have 30 days from receipt of a generator's shipment to submit the final, signed paper manifest to EPA. In addition, EPA's PPC needs time to enter data, e.g., from image copies of paper manifests, especially if the paper manifests contain incorrect, illegible, or incomplete data. Thus, the Agency realizes that LQGs may not be able to access the final, signed paper manifest in e-Manifest until past the first 35-day exception reporting timeframe in the regulations.
      Therefore, EPA believes adjustments to the current 35/45-day timeframes for an LQG generator to verify shipment receipt by the receiving facility are needed to conform to changes related to e-Manifest submissions. To align with timeframes related to submitting and processing paper manifests in the 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 (§ 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:
 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
 Significant differences between the type of waste shown as shipped and what the designated facility received. Significant type discrepancies are defined as obvious differences which can be discovered by inspection or waste analysis, such as a solvent substituted for an acid, or toxic constituents that were not listed on the manifest.
      While five types of discrepancies can be checked off on the manifest form, only significant discrepancies in quantity and type are treated as major irregularities requiring additional, separate reporting requirements. The RCRA regulations refer to these reporting requirements as Discrepancy Reports. Under the existing federal regulation, §§ 264.72 and 265.72, and 761.215, provide a two-step process for handling significant quantity and type discrepancies in hazardous and PCB waste shipments, respectively. First, upon discovering a significant quantity or type discrepancy, the facility must attempt to reconcile the discrepancy with the generator or transporter. Second, if the significant discrepancy remains unresolved on the date 15 days after receipt of the waste, the facility must immediately send a letter to the EPA Regional Administrator or to the authorized state describing the discrepancy and attempts to reconcile it. This letter report must also include a copy of the manifest at issue.
2.1. What is EPA proposing for Discrepancy Reports?

	During the June 2019 Advisory Board meeting, the Board recommended that EPA integrate Discrepancy Reports into the e-Manifest system. EPA accepts the Board's recommendation and believes integration of Discrepancy Reports in the e-Manifest system would reduce paperwork burden and may incentivize users to transition to fully electronic or hybrid manifests by increasing the value of the system. Therefore, EPA is proposing two changes related to Discrepancy Reports: (1) allow receiving facilities to use the e-Manifest system to satisfy discrepancy reporting requirements; and (2) adjust the discrepancy reporting timeframe to better align with timeframes required for submission and processing of manifests in the e-Manifest system. EPA is proposing changes to integrate the system with Discrepancy Reports by adding new requirements under §§ 264.72(c) and 265.72(c) (Hazardous Waste) and 761.215(c) (PCBs) that would address the legal equivalency of the electronic reports to the written, paper reports and allow for electronic discrepancy reporting for wastes shipped on electronic or hybrid and paper manifests.
      EPA is proposing new paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of §§ 264.72, 265.72, and 761.215 to establish the legal and policy framework for the use of electronic Discrepancy Reports. If finalized, Discrepancy Reports originated in the e-Manifest system would be considered the legal equivalent to paper Discrepancy Reports signed with conventional ink signatures. Further, wherever the existing regulations require a Discrepancy Report to be completed, signed, and sent to the EPA Regional Administrator (or the regulating Agency in authorized states), the execution of an electronic Discrepancy Report in the national 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. Therefore, EPA believes adjustments to the current 15-day timeframe of significant discrepancies (i.e., waste shipments having significant differences between the quantity or type of waste shown as shipped by the generator and what the designated facility received) are needed. To this end, EPA is proposing revisions to §§ 264.72(c) 265.72(c), and 761.215 to allow receiving facilities up to 20 days to reconcile a shipment with the generator and/or transporter for such discrepancies. This proposed timeframe is also consistent with the conceivable number of days passed before receiving facilities upload copies of paper manifests to the e-Manifest system. The proposed timeframe would begin at the custody exchange from the delivering transporter to the receiving facility by way of the receiving facility's signature on a manifest. The proposed 20-day timeframe would also apply to users of fully electronic and hybrid manifests. EPA describes the proposals for electronic discrepancy reporting and the reconciliation timeframe below in greater detail.
      Receiving facilities would still be expected to reconcile the discrepancy with the generator or transporter (e.g., with telephone conversations) within the proposed 20-day timeframe. After receiving facilities have certified to the receipt of hazardous wastes by signing Item 20 of the manifest, the receiving facility can resolve significant discrepancies in waste quantity or type either on the manifest prior to submission to EPA or, post-receipt by EPA, through the corrections process in e-Manifest adopted in the User Fee Final Rule. As explained in that final rule, a post-receipt correction operates as a change to the data records in the 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 sections §§ 264.76 and 265.76 for hazardous waste and 761.216 for PCB wastes. These revisions would require an electronic reporting format that would be very similar to the current electronic form for manifests, except that the receiving facility would not be expected to complete all the fields currently required on the manifest. For the electronic Unmanifested Waste Report, a receiving facility would be expected to provide information similar to the generator information currently required on manifests (i.e., Items 1, 5, and 10 thru 13), if available; the transporter information (i.e., Items 6 and 7 (if available)); and the receiving facility information (i.e., Items 8 and 19) in the e-Manifest system. In addition, a receiving facility would be required to provide the density or specific gravity information for a waste, if it is reporting volumetric measures (gallons, liters, or cubic yards). Finally, the receiving facility would be expected to provide a brief explanation of why the waste was unmanifested, if known.
      Receiving facilities would not be expected to obtain generator signatures (Item 15 of the manifest) or transporter signatures (Item 17 of the manifest), nor would they be expected to provide the DOT shipping description of the waste, which would normally appear in Items 9a and 9b (i.e., the identification number, the proper shipping name, the hazard class or division number, and the packing group). Upon completion of the electronic Unmanifested Waste Report, the e-Manifest system would distribute the electronic report to the EPA Regional Administrator (or authorized state). Thus, submission of written reports to federal or state regulatory agencies would no longer be required.
      Since receiving facilities should already have access to the e-Manifest system to submit manifests and pay fees, they would readily be able to submit Unmanifested Waste Reports to the system. Notably, generators would not need to participate in these report submissions, so their lack of electronic access is not as important as with today's proposed changes to exceptions. However, such generators could still receive a system-generated email as described in section IV.C.3 of this preamble alerting them of their unmanifested hazardous waste shipment. At that time, the generators would be asked to register and obtain a RCRAInfo account for e-Manifest system access.
   Unlike electronic discrepancy and exception reporting, EPA proposes to impose a user fee, equivalent to the user fees for electronic manifests, on receiving facilities for each submission of an Unmanifested Waste Report. Specifically, EPA is proposing to modify §§ 264.76, 265.76, and 761.216 by adding new paragraph (b) to assess a user fee on a per Unmanifested Waste Report basis for the submission of each electronic Unmanifested Waste Report that is electronically signed and submitted to the e-Manifest system by receiving facilities. The fee would be assessed at the applicable rate for electronic manifest submissions. Under this proposed option, unmanifested waste reports would be collected electronically in the system and thus share marginal costs like those for electronic manifests. Additionally, the Agency notes that unmanifested waste shipments would have incurred a user fee had the shipment used a manifest in compliance with the RCRA regulations and thus imposing a user fee for unmanifested wastes would not impose any new burden. Receiving facilities' monthly invoices would reflect both manifest and unmanifested waste reporting activities for the prior month's activities. EPA requests comment on its proposed approach to integrate Unmanifested Waste Reports into the e-Manifest system and charge the electronic manifest fee rate for these submissions. EPA also requests comment on whether a separate, distinct user fee should be imposed for these reports.
C. What other regulatory changes is EPA addressing in today's this action?
      This action proposes changes or regulatory amendments to the manifest requirements under 40 CFR parts 262, 264, 265, and 761. First, this section details technical corrections and conforming changes to certain RCRA and TSCA PCB regulations under 40 CFR parts 262, 264, 265, and 761. These corrections and conforming changes are necessary to remove obsolete requirements, correct typographical errors, and/or improve alignment with the e-Manifest program. The proposed changes to the TSCA PCB regulations are discussed in greater detail below in preamble section IV.C.1. Conforming changes and technical corrections to the RCRA regulations are discussed in greater detail below in Section IV.C.2.
      Second, this action considers certain aspects of the e-Manifest Advisory Board's recommendations about final paper manifest copies returned to generators who do not have access to view copies of completed manifests in the system. Specifically, this section proposes and solicits public comment on adding an email address field to Item 5 of the generator block of the paper manifest so that the e-Manifest system can email copies of completed paper manifests to the generator's email address recorded in that field in lieu of receiving facilities having to mail copies to the generators' postal mail address. Under the proposal, the e-Manifest system would also send notifications to unregistered generators via the email address requesting that they register and obtain an account in e-Manifest for their site. This section also requests comment on mandating that generators register and obtain e-Manifest accounts for access to the e-Manifest system to view their copies of completed manifests. Detailed discussions about the addition of the generator's email address to the manifest form and generator access to final copies of manifests stored in the system are discussed under preamble section IV.C.3.
      Third, this action requests additional comment on proposals detailed in the February 2019 Federal Register ICR renewal notice regarding modification of the manifest form and instructions to improve the accuracy and precision of waste data reported in the manifest fields at Items 11 (Total Quantity) and 12 (Units of Measure) of the manifest. These proposed form changes would facilitate receiving facilities leveraging the e-Manifest system to populate the corresponding fields of the Waste Received from Off-site (WR) Form as part of the biennial report.
      Finally, this action considers a conceptual approach for e-Manifest integration with the biennial report and requests comment on it. The conceptual approach discussion detailed below considers public comments on the February 2019 Federal Register ICR notice regarding data accuracy and precision as well as the addition of certain BR data fields (e.g., form codes) of the WR Form to the manifest form. The e-Manifest Advisory Board also recommended that EPA integrate the e-Manifest system with the BR. Detailed discussions about the accuracy and precision of data reported in Items 11 and 12 of the manifest as well as EPA's conceptual approach for BR integration are discussed under preamble section IV.C.4.
1. What is EPA proposing for the TSCA PCB regulations?

      The PCB regulations at 40 CFR part 761 subpart K require the use of the manifest, EPA Form 8700-22. EPA is proposing several conforming changes to the TSCA PCB regulations at 40 CFR part 761 to clarify the ability to use electronic manifests and the e-Manifest system to fulfill waste tracking and recordkeeping requirements. EPA is proposing to clarify the regulatory text to make it clear that electronic manifests, when used in accordance with 40 CFR part 262 subpart B and the PCB regulations, are legally equivalent to paper manifests. The proposed changes to Exception, Discrepancy, and Unmanifested Waste Reporting outlined in Section B would also apply to the PCB regulations.
      First, EPA is proposing to add the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act to the Authority section for 40 CFR part 761. The e-Manifest Act was signed into law in 2012 and authorizes the EPA to implement a national electronic manifest system and requires that the costs of developing and operating the new e-Manifest system be recovered from user fees charged to those who use hazardous waste manifests to track off-site shipments of their wastes. Through the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, EPA became responsible for developing an electronic manifest system and publishing regulations to allow for the use of electronic manifests. The e-Manifest Act and current manifest regulations have always applied to all hazardous waste manifests as well as manifests for PCB waste, but the PCB regulations had not been updated to reflect this. EPA is proposing this conforming change in the regulation as a clarification that the e-Manifest Act applies to manifests for PCB waste.
       Second, EPA is proposing to add a definition for "electronic manifest" to § 761.3. The proposed definition is similar to the existing definition of "manifest." In addition to being used in accordance with the instructions included with the manifest form and Subpart K, the electronic manifest must also be used in a manner that complies with §§ 262.20, 262.24, and 262.25. Establishing a definition for electronic manifest is consistent with the structure of the PCB regulations and allows for more streamlined regulatory text in Subpart K.
       Third, EPA is proposing to remove some phrases to clarify that electronic signatures are acceptable. EPA proposes to strike several instances of the words "written," "handwritten," and "by hand" from the PCB regulations at 40 CFR part 761 subpart K that could be interpreted to require the use of paper manifests. See revised language at §§ 761.210(a)(1), 761.210(a)(2), 761.211(d)(1), 761.211(e)(3), 761.211(f)(3)(i), 761.211(f)(4)(i), 761.213(a)(2), and 761.217(a)(1).
       Fourth, EPA is proposing to add a brief overview of the electronic manifest requirements to § 761.207. While the proposed revisions largely incorporate by reference parts of Part 262 subpart B, EPA felt it would improve the clarity and readability of Part 761 subpart K to include two of the most directly applicable subsections, adapted for the PCB context. New section 761.207(g) consists of two subparagraphs. The first subparagraph [§ 761.207(g)(1)] is adapted from § 262.20(a)(3) and clarifies that any person required to prepare a manifest may use an electronic manifest as long as the electronic manifest complies with specific EPA requirements. The second subparagraph [§ 761.207(g)(2)] is adapted from § 262.24(a) and establishes the legal equivalence of electronic manifests to paper manifests. The proposed approach is in line with the other text of Subpart K.
      Fifth, in § 761.209, EPA is proposing to clarify how the requirement to provide copies of the manifest to each of the regulated parties is fulfilled by EPA's e-Manifest system. The proposed language was adapted from § 262.24(a)(2). The final sentence in proposed § 761.209 incorporates by reference the electronic manifest regulations at §§ 262.20, 262.24, and 262.25.