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
Sec. Sec.  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 dated February 8, 2019
(84 FR 2854) 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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  761.207. While the proposed revisions
largely incorporate 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 Sec.  761.207(g) consists of two subparagraphs. The first
subparagraph [Sec.  761.207(g)(1)] is adapted from Sec.  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 [Sec.
761.207(g)(2)] is adapted from Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  262.24(a)(2). The final sentence in proposed
Sec.  761.209 incorporates the electronic manifest regulations at
Sec. Sec.  262.20, 262.24, and 262.25.
    Sixth, EPA is proposing to add two new paragraphs in Sec.  761.213.
The first paragraph [Sec.  761.213(d)] is adapted from Sec.  265.71(h)
and clarifies that a commercial storage or disposal facility must
follow certain manifest tracking procedures using paper manifests as
replacements for the electronic manifest, if the electronic manifest
becomes unavailable and cannot be completed. From the point at which
the electronic manifest is no longer available for tracking the PCB
shipment, the paper replacement manifest would be completed and managed
just as it would be completed and managed with the standard paper
manifest form.
    Second, EPA is proposing to add new paragraphs to Sec.  761.211 for
transporters and Sec.  761.213 for commercial storage or disposal
facilities to clarify that they must follow special manifest tracking
procedures for manifests that are initiated electronically, but, for
whatever reason, cannot be completed electronically. New paragraph (d)
[Sec.  761.211] is adapted from Sec.  263.20(a)(6) of the transporter
regulations, ``Special procedures when electronic manifest is not
available.'' In such cases, the transporter in possession of the waste
must reproduce sufficient copies of the paper copy that is carried on
the transport vehicle (which copy becomes the ``replacement'' manifest)

and complete all further tracking requirements with the replacement
manifest. This transporter should produce enough copies so that the
transporter in possession of the waste and all subsequent handlers
named on the manifest will be able to keep a paper copy for their
records. The transporter must also produce two additional copies that
will be delivered with the waste to the receiving facility.
    The new paragraph (d) [Sec.  761.213] is adapted from Sec.
265.71(h), of the designated facility regulations ``Special procedures
applicable to replacement manifests.'' When the electronic manifest is
not available, the designated facility must likewise sign the remaining
printed copies at the time the waste shipment is ultimately delivered
to the designated facility. Upon signing the remaining copies to
acknowledge the receipt of the waste (or to note discrepancies), the
designated facility must provide one copy to the delivering
transporter, must keep one copy for its records, and must, within 30
days of receipt of the waste, send one copy to the generator and submit
an additional copy to the e-Manifest system for data processing.
    Finally, EPA is proposing to add text in Sec.  761.180(b)(3) to
allow for the future use of an approved electronic system, such as the
RCRAInfo industry application, for the submission of Forms 7710-53 and
6200-025, Certificates of Disposal, and One-year Exception Reports.
Form 7710-53, the Notification of PCB Activity form, as described in
Sec.  761.205, is required for all commercial storers, transporters,
and disposers of PCB waste and generators with PCB waste subject to the
waste storage requirements of Sec.  761.65(b) or (c)(7). Form 6200-025
is required by Sec.  761.180(b)(3) for submission of annual reports by
commercial storers and disposers of PCB waste. Certificates of
disposal, as described in Sec.  761.218, are required to be sent by the
disposer to the generator for every shipment of waste disposed. The
certificate of disposal serves as confirmation to the generator that
their waste was disposed of within the one-year time frame required by
Sec.  761.65(a) and uses information required by the manifest under
Sec.  761.218(a)(1)-(2). One-year Exception Reports, as described in
Sec.  761.219, flag waste shipments that were not disposed of within
the one-year time frame required by Sec.  761.65(a). EPA is proposing
to allow the submission of these documents in the future through an
EPA-approved electronic system, such as the RCRAInfo Industry
Application. This change would not add burden to any regulated parties
and, in fact, would serve to reduce burden, as it would simply provide
an electronic method of submitting information already required by the
PCB regulations.
2. What technical corrections and other regulatory amendments is EPA
proposing under today's action?
    With today's action, EPA is revising certain regulatory
requirements that will be obsolete before promulgation of this rule,
are now obsolete, or have typographical errors in them. Specifically,
EPA is removing paragraph (a)(2)(v)(A) and revising paragraph
(a)(2)(v)(B) of 40 CFR 264.71 and 265.71. EPA is also revising the
definition of ``Paper manifest submissions'' of 40 CFR 264.1310 and
265.1310 and the ``Manifest transactions subject to fees'' regulations
of 40 CFR 264.1311 and 265.1311. Beginning June 30, 2021, EPA will no
longer accept paper manifest submissions to the PPC via postal mail and
will remove the current PPC mailing address from our e-Manifest web
page (www.epa.gov/e-manifest) prior to that sunset date to avoid
receipt of paper manifests at that time. Therefore, these regulatory
amendments are necessary to reflect the forthcoming ban on postal mail
submissions for paper manifests.
    EPA is also revising Sec.  262.20 by removing paragraph (a)(2) from
that section. This current regulation is obsolete as it provides the
delayed compliance date for use of the old 6-copy manifest form and
continuation sheet. EPA standardized the manifest forms in the March
2005 final rule and delayed requiring use of them until September 6,
2005 (70 FR 10815, Mar. 4, 2005).
    EPA is revising minor typographical misspelling errors found in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec. Sec.  264.1312 and 265.1312. These
sections provide the user fee calculation methodology for determining
the fees that receiving facilities are assessed based on their usage of
manifests in the system. Existing paragraph (a) contains a
typographical misspelling error in the Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Cost formula. Existing paragraph (b) contains typographical misspelling
errors in both the O&M Cost formulas for fully electronic manifest
usage and all other manifest usage. Specifically, ``e-Manifest'' is
misspelled as ``eManfiest'' in the O&M Cost formula in paragraphs (a)
of Parts 264 and 265 and is also similarly misspelled in both the
O&Mfully electronicCost and O&Mall otherCost
formulas in paragraphs (b) of Parts 264 and 265.
    EPA is also revising a typographical error found in paragraph (e)
of Sec.  761.60. Paragraph (e) accurately refers to ``an incinerator
approved under Sec.  761.70 or a high-efficiency boiler operating in
compliance with Sec.  761.71'' twice in the first sentence. However,
the fifth sentence uses incorrect citations in a similar reference to
``a Sec.  761.60 incinerator or a Sec.  761.61 high-efficiency
boiler.'' EPA is proposing to correct the regulatory citations in the
fifth sentence to read ``a Sec.  761.70 incinerator or a Sec.  761.71
high efficiency boiler.''
3. What is EPA proposing regarding generator access to final copies of
manifest?
    During the June 2019 Advisory Board meeting, the Advisory Board
addressed several issues limiting generator's use of fully electronic
manifests in the e-Manifest system. One issue addressed by the Board
and reaffirmed by one public commenter was generators' inability or
reluctance to register in the e-Manifest system so that they have
access to fully electronic manifest tracking. In addition, the public
commenter asserted that the low number of generators registered in the
e-Manifest system has caused continued burden to receiving facilities,
because they must continue to mail paper manifest copies to generators
who do not have access to view their manifests in the system. Thus,
receiving facilities continue to incur the cost of mailing paper
manifest copies to generators, in addition to submitting copies to
EPA's e-Manifest system. The commenter suggested that this burden could
be eliminated, if (1) EPA mandated generators to register for access to
the e-Manifest system, and (2) the Agency designed the system to
generate automated email that could notify generators that their
completed manifests are available for viewing. The Board agreed
automated email notifications could eliminate the need of receiving
facilities to mail paper copies of manifests to generators and could
incentivize generators to register in the e-Manifest system for access
to initiate fully electronic manifests or to view uploaded images of
their paper manifests if they continue to track their shipments using
paper. The Board also recommended EPA mandate generator registration.
The Board reaffirmed this position in its recommendations following the
April 2020 Board meeting.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA's background paper and related supporting materials,
Final e-Manifest Advisory Report/Meeting Minutes for the April 2020
FAC meeting (i.e., the Board's recommendations), and EPA's responses
to them are available in the public docket (www.regulations.gov,
Docket no. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0075).

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

    EPA acknowledges that generators' reluctance or inability to adopt
fully electronic manifests or register in the system for access to
uploaded images has burdened receiving facilities by requiring them to
physically mail manifest copies to generators who do not have access to
the e-Manifest system. However, as explained in the e-Manifest One Year
Rule, the e-Manifest Act did not mandate generators and other waste
handlers to use electronic manifests in the e-Manifest system.
Therefore, waste handlers may elect not to track their shipments
electronically (i.e., continue to use paper manifests). Consequently,
EPA deliberately undertook a phased approach to e-Manifest system
implementation so that the Agency could accomplish the Act's objectives
to both allow the continued use of paper manifests, while still
facilitating the adoption of electronic manifesting. For example, EPA
established a methodology to tailor user fees based on how manifests
are submitted to EPA, with electronic manifests incurring the lowest
user fees. EPA also included in the User Fee Final rule a phase-out by
June 30, 2021, of mailed paper manifest submissions by receiving
facilities. EPA also explained in the User Fee Final Rule, its goal to
phase out all paper manifest use after five years, but a decision to do
this will await a fuller evaluation of manifest use trends in several
years, and possible consultation with the e-Manifest Advisory Board on
appropriate steps to facilitate more electronic manifest use.
    While EPA continues to explore ways to improve waste handler
adoption of e-Manifest, the Agency is proposing an alternative solution
to the public commenter's and Board's recommendation. EPA accepts the
Advisory Board's recommendation to enhance ability of generators to
receive final manifest copies from the e-Manifest system, rather than
from receiving facilities. EPA also accepts the Board's recommendation
to add space on the manifest form to collect the generator's email
address and therefore is proposing to add space in Block 5 of the
manifest (i.e., the Generator's Name and Mailing Address block) and
require generators to provide an email address in that space.
Collecting generators' email addresses on the manifest form would, in
turn, allow the e-Manifest system to generate email providing final
copies of the manifest to generators, regardless of whether the
generator is ultimately registered in e-Manifest. To ensure that the
automated email is not undelivered or left unnoticed or unopened, EPA
proposes to require the generator to enter an email address associated
with the company site and shared with site employees who are directly,
or indirectly, involved with arranging the waste shipment for off-site
transportation, or who have day-to-day responsibilities of the site's
operations.
    For generators who track their wastes using a paper manifest or a
hybrid manifest but are not registered in the system, an automated
email would alert generators that their manifests have been completed
and are available in the system for viewing. In addition, the automated
email would alert generators about return manifests from receivers that
are late (Exceptions), and when materials received by the facility
designated on the manifest do not match with the quantities or types of
materials indicated as being shipped by generators (Discrepancies).
Specifically, the email would ask a generator to verify the email
addresses recorded on the paper manifest before providing them the
site's manifest activity tracked in the system. Following email
verification, the system would transmit digital copies of a generator's
manifests via the verified email address. The email would also provide
a link to EPA's e-Manifest user registration web page and encourage the
generator to register at least two Site Managers in RCRAInfo to access
their manifests in the e-Manifest system (EPA recommends each site
register two Site Managers so a back-up Site Manager is available). For
manifests containing wastes that are also listed by the Department of
Homeland Security as ``chemicals of interest,'' the generators will
only be sent a notification that the manifest was uploaded and will
need to register to see the manifests. EPA notes that once a generator
registers in e-Manifest, the site would receive a notification email
regarding the recent manifest activity tracked in the system on a
weekly basis. Under this proposed approach, receiving facilities would
no longer be required to mail paper copies of manifests to generators,
even if those generators did not yet have e-Manifest access to view
their final manifests. Thus, receiving facilities would not incur the
cost of mailing paper manifest copies to generators. Therefore, today's
proposed rule revises 40 CFR 264.71(a)(2)(iv) and 264.71(b)(4), and
265.71(a)(2)(iv) and 265.71(b)(4) by removing the existing requirement
that receiving facilities mail paper manifests to the generators and
clarifying that they submit the top copies (Page 1) to the e-Manifest
system only.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to revise the current 5-copy form to
conform with the proposed distribution requirement. Currently, the
manifest form printing specification and the distribution notation at
the bottom of the second copy (Page 2) of the five-copy set of forms
require this copy be sent by the designated facility to the generator.
Under today's proposal, this copy (Page 2) would no longer be needed
and thus would be removed from the five-copy set of forms. This
proposed rule creates a new four-copy form and eliminates the copy,
previously denoted as ``Page 2: Designated facility to generator.'' The
printing specification requirements at Sec.  262.21(f)(5), (6), and (7)
are revised to align with the proposed four-copy form. Thus, the copies
of the form would be distributed as follows:

    Page 1 (top copy): ``Designated facility to EPA's e-Manifest
system'';
    Page 2: ``Designated facility copy'';
    Page 3: ``Transporter copy''; and,
    Page 4 (bottom copy): ``Generator's initial copy.''

    The submission of the top copy to the system by the receiving
facilities will enable destination states and certain generators (i.e.,
generators who are registered and can access their final manifest in
the system) to receive the manifest final copies from the e-Manifest
system. EPA reiterates that, under this proposal, generators who are
not registered (and thus cannot access their final manifest in the
system) for the e-Manifest system would receive their manifest final
copies via email. EPA requests comment on its proposed approach.
    EPA also requests comment on whether the Agency should eliminate
the designated facility copy (Page 3) from the five-copy form. Under
existing federal manifest regulations, all manifest users can use e-
Manifest to meet their recordkeeping requirements with respect to the
image file copy of the final manifest and can also discard any
corresponding paper copy of the manifest, once the image file of the
final manifest is available in their account. Thus, designated
facilities currently retain Page 3 of the mailed paper manifest for
their records but discard it once the corresponding top copy of the
completed manifest is available in the system. However, as of June 30,
2021, a designated facility can only submit a paper manifest via an
image file of Page 1 of the manifest, and any continuation sheet, or
both a data file and the image file corresponding to Page 1 of the

manifest, and any continuation sheet, to the e-Manifest system. (As
mentioned above in Section IV.C.2 of this preamble, this action makes
regulatory amendments to 40 CFR 264.71 and 265.71 to reflect the ban on
postal mail submissions for paper manifests beginning on June 30,
2021.) In view of the fact that submission of paper manifests to the e-
Manifest system via postal mail are no longer permissible and thus
options available to receiving facilities for submission of paper
manifests are limited to either a scanned image upload or a data plus
image upload, EPA believes Page 3 of the existing manifest forms could
no longer be needed and thus, the copies of the form could be
distributed as follows:

    Page 1 (top copy): ``Designated facility to EPA's e-Manifest
system'';
    Page 2: ``Transporter facility copy'' and;
    Page 3: (bottom copy): ``Generator's initial copy''

    EPA requests comment on removing Page 3 (Designated facility copy)
from the manifest form and continuation sheet.
    EPA recognizes some generators may not have email addresses
associated with the company site and thus use personal email addresses
for their businesses. EPA requests comment on whether such sites should
record their site manager's or site contact's email address in the
proposed email entry field since site managers and site contacts should
be familiar with the general circumstances of a waste shipment and the
accompanying manifest. Thus, the site manager or site contact would be
available to respond promptly to EPA's or the relevant state regulating
Agency's requests regarding the manifest. EPA also requests comment on
the cost savings to receiving facilities under this approach since they
would no longer be expected to mail hardcopies of manifests to
unregistered generators. In addition, EPA requests comment on whether
notification emails should be sent to unregistered generators on a
periodic basis, e.g., should the notification email be sent daily,
weekly, or bi-weekly?
    EPA also acknowledges there may be internet connectivity problems
in some regional areas of the U.S. that may cause difficulty for
generators to receive the signed and dated manifests via email.
Further, some generators may not have email accounts to receive the
completed manifests. EPA, however, believes the universe of such
generators is very small and thus, if generators have unreliable
internet connection or do not have emails, these generators should make
arrangements with their receiving facilities to supply them with paper
copies of completed manifests. EPA requests comment on this approach.
    In addition, EPA acknowledges today's proposal regarding
unregistered generators receiving digital copies of completed manifests
from the e-Manifest system rather than receiving paper copies from the
receiving facilities via postal mail may not incentivize such
generators to register in the e-Manifest system for electronic manifest
use. Therefore, EPA requests comment on an alternative option to
mandate that generators register for access to the e-Manifest system.
Specifically, each generator site would be required to register at
least one Site Manager in RCRAInfo for e-Manifest system access (EPA
recommends each site register at least two Site Managers). At the time
of registration, the user would be required to provide a company email
address associated with the company site and shared with site employees
who are directly, or indirectly, involved with arranging the waste
shipment for off-site transportation, or who have day-to-day
responsibilities for the site's operations. This option would require
EPA or the states to register the initial Site Manager for a generator
site, as is done currently. Once a Site Manager is registered and
approved, however, that individual would be responsible for the user
registration of future e-Manifest system users at the company site.
Under this approach, EPA would not need to collect generator email
addresses on the manifest form. In addition, EPA would not email
digital copies of manifests to generators as they would be expected to
access their accounts to view their manifests. EPA, however, would send
notification email to generators regarding their sites' recent manifest
activity tracked in the system. Finally, under this alternate approach,
as with the proposed approach, receiving facilities would not be
required to mail hardcopies of manifests to generators as all
generators would be required to register in the system and have access
to their manifests.
4. What is EPA proposing or requesting comment on regarding the
Manifest Form and Biennial Report Integration with the e-Manifest?
4.1 Background
    EPA explained in the February 8, 2019, Federal Register notice to
renew the Information Collection Request for the manifest form (EPA
form 8700-22/22A) that the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest
Establishment Act mandates that EPA build the e-Manifest system to
provide users the ability to report hazardous waste receipt data
applicable to the biennial hazardous waste report in e-Manifest (See 84
FR 2854 at 2857). Besides recommending that EPA integrate manifested-
related reports with the e-Manifest system, as discussed in section
IV.B of today's notice, the e-Manifest Advisory Board also recommended
that EPA focus its efforts to integrate the e-Manifest system with the
Biennial Report (also known as BR or the Hazardous Waste Report). The
Board believes such integration would encourage users to transition to
fully electronic or hybrid manifests, thereby increasing the value of
the e-Manifest system and perhaps reducing regulatory recordkeeping and
reporting burden of the BR program. The BR is a set of forms (EPA form
8700-13) and instructions for sites to report to EPA and states about
their hazardous waste generation, management and final disposition.
Specifically, certain sites must submit a report covering each odd-
numbered year (called the ``collection year'' or ``reporting year'') by
March 1 of every even-numbered year (``submission year''). The report
may be submitted by paper or electronically to the state or EPA Region.
Electronic submissions can be made using the Biennial Report Module in
the RCRAInfo Industry Application or the state's own choice of BR
software.
    Sites must submit a BR if they meet its applicability requirements.
In general, sites must submit if they meet the definition of a large
quantity generator during the collection year or if they treated,
stored, recycled or disposed of RCRA hazardous wastes on-site or
shipped hazardous waste offsite to a RCRA permitted treatment, storage,
recycling, and disposal facility, or received hazardous wastes from
off-site hazardous waste generators without storing the wastes before
recycling during the reporting year. Sites that do not meet these
criteria are not required to file a report under the federal
regulations, e.g., under the federal program, most small and very small
quantity generators do not need to file a biennial report. However,
state regulations may be more stringent, for example, in requiring more
sites to report or more frequent reporting, e.g., on an annual basis.
    The BR consists of a number of forms: the RCRA Subtitle C Site
Identification Form (Site ID Form), completed by all reporting sites;
the Waste Generation and Management Form (GM Form), completed by
generators; the Waste Received from Off-site Form (WR Form), completed
by facilities that received hazardous waste shipments from off-site

and managed the waste onsite (including subsequent transfer off-site)
during the reporting year; and the Off-site Identification Form(s) (OI
Forms), completed by sites that received hazardous waste from off-site
or sent hazardous waste off-site during the reporting year; however,
the OI Form is completed only if required by the state.
    In the February 8, 2019, notice, EPA noted that the manifest and BR
forms collect several of the same data elements. For example, a WR Form
is divided into three identical parts (i.e., waste blocks), labeled
Waste 1, Waste 2, and Waste 3 that collect information on the
quantities, characteristics, and management of each hazardous waste. A
waste block has ten fields to capture this information. EPA compared
the WR Form's waste block to the manifest and concluded that the
manifest collects most of the waste block's data. The three fields of a
waste block not addressed by the manifest are the waste description
(Item A in a waste block of the WR Form), form code (Item E in a waste
block of the WR Form) and waste density (Item G in a waste block of the
WR Form). Form codes describe the general physical and chemical
characteristics of a hazardous waste and, although the manifest
captures waste quantity, waste density is not mandatory for wastes
whose quantity is reported by volume.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For some wastes, the manifest also does not capture all
applicable federal or state waste codes. Instructions indicate that
up to six federal and state waste codes must be entered to describe
each waste. Some wastes carry more than six waste codes. However,
for biennial reporting, TSDFs must report all waste codes that apply
to the waste reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GM Form collects information on the quantities and
characteristics of hazardous waste generated on-site and shipped off-
site. The GM Form is divided primarily into three blocks labeled: (1)
Waste Characteristics, (2) On-site Generation and Management of
Hazardous Waste, and (3) Off-site Shipment of Hazardous Waste. EPA
compared the GM Form's information to the manifest and concluded the
manifest contains all the data required for Item B of the Off-site
Shipment of Hazardous waste block of the GM Form (i.e., EPA ID Number
of TSDF, off-site management method code, and total quantities of waste
shipped) and some of the data elements captured in the Waste
Characteristics (WC) Block. The manifest does not address the three
data fields required for the WC Block as described above for the WR
Form [waste description (Item A in a WC block of the GM Form), form
code (Item E in a WC block of the GM Form) and waste density (Item H in
a WC block of the GM Form)]; nor does it capture the source code (Item
D in a WC block of the GM Form), management method code for a source
code G25 (Item D in a WC block of the GM Form), foreign country code
for source code G62 (Item D in a WC block of the GM Form), waste
minimization code (Item F in a WC block of the GM Form), and the
radioactive mix field (Item G in a WC block of the GM Form). Source
codes describe the type of process or activity (i.e., source) from
which a hazardous waste was generated. This code may also be useful to
formulate the waste description of a waste for both the GM and WR
Forms. In addition, the manifest does not address the BR data required
for the On-site Generation and Management of Hazardous Waste block of
the GM Form.
    To satisfy the objectives of the e-Manifest Act, EPA proposed and
requested public comment to modify the paper manifest to include form
codes and waste density as well as source codes which are collected on
the GM Form (Item D of the GM Form). Comments on EPA's proposed form
additions, as an initial step towards full integration of e-Manifest
with BR, however, were mixed. While most commenters supported BR
integration with the e-Manifest system, some commenters did not support
adding the three new BR fields to the manifest form. These commenters
asserted their companies would incur significant costs to re-program
their IT systems for the proposed form revisions, and the FR notice did
not provide adequate information regarding how BR integration would
take place.
    One commenter asked where the new additions would be placed on the
manifest form and how EPA would use the e-Manifest system to streamline
BR requirements. Other commenters stated the proposed BR additions are
insufficient and data gaps exist (e.g., density reported in lbs/gal or
specific gravity (sg)) between the proposed additional fields and what
is expected in a BR. Additionally, these commenters indicated other
data elements expected in a BR do not match data currently collected on
the manifest. For example, the waste description reported in BR does
not match the DOT shipping description reported on the manifest, the
quantities of waste reported on manifests are typically estimates and
not the actual waste amounts, the units of measure reported on the
manifest are different than those required for biennial reporting, and
the restriction of the number of waste codes reported on the manifest
is insufficient for BR. To populate the BR with manifest data, these
inconsistencies would have to be reconciled. Most commenters opposed
the proposal and suggested EPA develop a plan and schedule so that
their companies could determine the burden reduction and cost savings
for full integration of e-Manifest with BR. One state commenter who
supported the proposal also acknowledged data gaps exist between the
manifest and what is expected in a BR beyond the proposed collection of
source codes, form codes, and density information. This commenter also
reiterated the sentiments of other commenters regarding the
incompatibility of the DOT descriptions recorded on the manifest and
the waste descriptions reported for the BR. This commenter indicated
that the DOT descriptions on manifests are not a good substitute for a
waste description on a BR, because they are generally too generic and
do not provide the detail needed for regulatory purposes under the RCRA
hazardous waste program. This commenter also suggested these gaps and
other data quality issues regarding manifest data collection must be
addressed before manifest data can be utilized to populate biennial
reporting.
    EPA acknowledges the proposed BR additions on the manifest are
insufficient to fully integrate with BR and appreciates the commenters'
suggestions. Regarding generators reporting estimates of waste
quantities on the manifest instead of actual weights, EPA explained in
the March 2005 Manifest Forms Revision rule, that the e-Manifest
regulations have always required generators to enter actual quantities
of waste shipped and not merely the capacity of the containers selected
for shipment. At that time, EPA clarified this point by amending the
manifest instructions to Item 11 of the form with additional language
emphasizing the generators' responsibility to report quantities shipped
and not simply container capacities (See 70 FR 10776 at 10819).
Further, the March 2005 rule also explained that the manifest
regulations have always placed the responsibility for verifying the
actual quantities received on the designated facilities. These
facilities are required to acknowledge that the quantities of wastes
indicated as shipped were received, or otherwise report a significant
discrepancy on the manifest if the quantities received do not closely
match the generator's ``as shipped'' quantities. EPA, however,
acknowledges that DOT allows shippers (e.g., generators) to enter
either net weights or gross weights on shipping papers

depending on the mode of transportation (e.g., public highway
transportation) for the shipment, and therefore some generators often
record net or gross weights in Item 11 of the manifest. Thus, data
entries recorded in this field are often inconsistent and consequently
are not aligned with the reportable quantities reported for BR
purposes.
    Regarding a commenter's claim about the inability to list all waste
codes on the manifest for biennial reporting, EPA expanded Item 13 of
the form so that up to six waste codes could be entered in that field
as part of the standardization of the manifest form in the March 2005
rule. EPA decided to limit the number of waste codes for a few reasons.
EPA received comments stating that six waste codes normally would be
more than adequate to describe hazardous wastes commonly shipped under
the manifest. Second, at that time the Agency believed, and continues
to believe, that requiring the listing of all waste codes on the
manifest creates an unnecessary burden in completing the manifest
without improving appreciably the quality of the hazardous waste data
(See 70 FR 10776 at 10788). Finally, space on the manifest limits our
ability to allocate additional space for this purpose. The recent
addition of electronic manifests as an acceptable manifest type offers
further flexibility. While space limitations on the paper manifest
prevent the allocation of new waste codes on the paper manifest form,
manifests in the e-Manifest system do not have this problem. Therefore,
if a receiving facility believes the waste codes recorded on the paper
manifest are insufficient, it can report an additional list of waste
codes for each waste stream in the e-Manifest system along with its
submission of a manifest hardcopy plus data upload or add them after-
the-fact as part of the corrections process.
    Regarding the commenter's assertion that the units of measure
reported on the manifest are different than those required for the BR,
EPA proposed in the February 8, 2019, Federal Register notice to
improve the precision or accuracy of the waste data reported on the
manifest by amending the current units of measure (i.e., use of
decimals or fractions, or smaller units of measure) required to be
reported in the ``Total Quantity'' field of the manifest (i.e., Item 11
of the manifest and Item 29 of the continuation sheet) (See 84 FR 2584
at 2855). EPA requested comment on the proposed changes but did not
propose to reconcile them with the current units of measure required
for biennial reporting. Therefore, in today's notice, EPA is requesting
additional comment on whether the Agency should revise the manifest
instructions to allow reporting of decimals or fractions in Item 11 of
the manifest or smaller units of measure in Item 12 as detailed in the
February 2019 notice. Additionally, EPA is requesting comment on
whether EPA should also amend the units of measure currently required
for biennial reporting so that they match those for manifests and thus
would enable manifest data to be used for quantity reporting in the BR.
    Regarding one commenter's question about placement of the proposed
additions on the form, EPA requested comment in the February 2019
notice on whether EPA should expand Item 19 of the manifest to include
source code, form code, and density information, or create separate new
data fields for each. In addition, EPA mentioned in the notice that EPA
could add a BR data field in Item 16 of the manifest (EPA Form 8700-22)
if EPA removed the current International Shipment field to the
continuation sheet.
4.2 Conceptual Approach
    Based on the public's comments on the February 2019 notice, as well
as further examination of possible integration options, EPA has decided
to move forward with early steps towards integrating the e-Manifest
with biennial reporting, specifically with respect to the WR form. (EPA
may consider integrating the e-Manifest with the GM Form at a later
time.) Although EPA is still in the early stages of this integration
effort, the Agency is presenting a conceptual approach in today's
notice as an initial step toward encouraging greater conversation and
collaboration with the public and ensuring their input is incorporated
into our initial plans.
    EPA is taking public comment on the approach and the questions and
challenges raised below in this preamble. After the close of the
comment period, EPA will review the comments to identify areas of
support, opposition, concerns, and suggestions; and determine the next
steps. EPA will publish periodic updates on our work status and seek
further opportunities for collaboration. In addition, EPA will consult
with the e-Manifest Advisory Board on a final approach for BR
integration.
    EPA believes a gradual process for developing the approach is
appropriate given that the e-Manifest system is still relatively new
and evolving, having begun operation in June 2018. As the system
matures, some challenges could be abated through routine system
upgrades and increased use of the electronic manifest, which is
expected to result in better data quality than the paper form.
    The Hazardous Waste e-Manifest Establishment Act mandates that the
system provide waste receipt data for the biennial reports that
facilities must submit. EPA designed the system to serve as the
facilities' primary data source for completing the WR form and were
guided by the following additional considerations.
    (a) Data Quality. The manifest and WR Form have different purposes,
uses and reporting procedures, which result in differences in their
data. The manifest's primary purpose is to serve as a chain-of-custody
document, ensuring that the shipment arrives at the designated facility
intact. It provides essential information for emergency responders
(e.g., in case of a spill) and waste handlers. It is initially prepared
by the generator or another person acting on its behalf (e.g., broker,
transporter, or designated facility). During transit, the manifest is
transferred among waste handlers who take custody of the shipment. It
is closed out by the designated facility and uploaded to the national
system. After upload, the manifest remains largely untouched, except
for corrections by the EPA PPC or persons involved in the shipment
(i.e., post-receipt data corrections by the designated facility).
    The WR Form's primary purpose is for facilities to share
information with the public about their waste receipts (e.g., waste
characteristics, management). States may use the information for
additional purposes. In addition, facilities maintain data systems
about their wastes, which are used for a variety of purposes (e.g.,
customer accounts/billing, waste management, reporting). Facilities may
continually update, edit, and correct their in-house data even after
the manifest has been submitted to the national system.
    These and other differences between the manifest and WR Form lead
to challenges that must be resolved in our integration approach.
Examples of such challenges include the following:
    1. Data in e-Manifest may be out of sync with a facility's in-house
data. As discussed later in this preamble, facilities continually
update their in-house data when they find errors or obsolete data. For
example, after a manifest is closed out and submitted to the national
system, a facility may weigh or test the waste, which can result in
information different from what is on the manifest (e.g., revised waste
quantity or EPA waste codes).

Although EPA has established procedures for facilities to address
discrepancies and corrections in the e-Manifest system, it is not clear
that all facilities are conducting these procedures in all cases. If
they fail to do so, this causes data in the e-Manifest system to be
obsolete or incorrect. As such, the manifest data would need to be
corrected before it can be used to populate the waste block of the WR
Form. Otherwise, BR data quality and its usefulness to the public and
regulators would be adversely impacted.
    2. Data in the manifest may have errors. Generators and others
occasionally make errors (e.g., typographical mistakes, incorrect ID
numbers) when completing the manifest form. If an error is unnoticed,
the manifest may be uploaded to the national system without the error
being resolved.
    3. The manifest is designed to describe a specific waste shipment
and provide information to particular types of personnel (e.g., spill
responders, waste handlers). Some of the manifest's information, such
as the DOT shipping description, can require regulatory or other
expertise to understand. On the other hand, the WR Form is designed to
be readily understood by the general public. For example, the WR Form
gives facilities discretion to consolidate and summarize multiple,
similar waste receipts into a single WR Form. This enables facilities
to provide a clear and understandable summary-level description of its
annual waste receipts in comparison with the per-shipment data offered
by the manifests.
    (b) Burden reduction and ease of use. EPA believes Congress's
intent under the Act is for the Agency to develop an approach that
minimizes burden and causes minimal disruption to facilities' and
states' existing reporting practices and systems. This is consistent
with the overall goal of the e-Manifest, i.e., to streamline facility
reporting activities by leveraging electronic technology. Further, the
Act states that facilities should have the ability to report e-Manifest
data in the BR. This mandate suggests that Congress was contemplating
an approach that streamlines reporting activities by eliminating
redundancies between the manifest and WR Form.
    In designing the approach, EPA began with the premise that the most
streamlined approach for facilities would be enabling the direct and
seamless transfer of data from e-Manifest to the waste blocks of the WR
Form. Because of the data quality challenges discussed above, however,
a process of direct and seamless transfer may not be possible. It is
evident that facilities would need to review, edit, and correct e-
Manifest data before it can be transferred to the WR Form.
    To this end, our conceptual approach would establish an
intermediate step for the facility to perform these activities before
transferring the data to the WR Form. EPA recognizes this step would
impose some facility burden, some of which would be offset through
automated assistance to facilities in completing the waste description
field of the WR Form.
    (c) Transparency. Currently there is limited transparency in how
facilities review, edit, correct, consolidate and report their waste
receipts in the WR Form. Facility in-house data are not generally
shared with regulators or the public; as such, it is difficult to
confirm the accuracy and completeness of the reported data.
    In response to the February 8, 2019, notice, a state commenter
asked for the ability to cross check data between the e-Manifest system
and WR Form to verify the WR Form data. EPA agrees with this commenter
on the importance of having e-Manifest data available as a cross-check
tool. In addition, EPA believes regulators should be able to examine
how the facility edited, corrected, consolidated, and otherwise
modified the e-Manifest data in preparing the WR Form. These
capabilities are provided in this approach.
    The approach involves three elements, as discussed below. EPA
requests comment on the overall approach and any aspects of it. In
addition, throughout the discussion, EPA raises questions about
specific issues for public comments.
4.2.1 Manifest Form Changes
BR Codes
    In our February 2019 notice, EPA compared the data collected on the
manifest and BR forms (i.e., GM Form and WR Form) and requested comment
on whether BR source codes and form codes should be added to the
manifest. Since then, EPA decided to defer integration of the e-
Manifest and GM Form and thus would defer adding source codes to the
manifest. However, EPA has continued to evaluate form codes.
    This approach would be to add form codes to the DESIGNATED FACILITY
field of the manifest, such as in Item 19. Item 19 has four boxes for
entering a BR management method code for each waste described in Item
9b. EPA could divide each box in two, allowing a form code and
management method code for each waste. The designated facility would
choose the code that best corresponds to the physical form or chemical
composition of the waste.
    EPA believes that collecting form codes on each manifest could make
it easier for TSDFs to complete the WR Form. The form code plays an
important role in the completion of the WR Form for many facilities.
The BR instructions require that a separate waste block of the WR Form
be completed for each waste received from each off-site generator.
However, as described in the BR Instructions, hazardous waste from the
same off-site handler may be aggregated as long as a single form code
describes the physical form or chemical composition and all of the
waste is managed in a single process system (i.e., same management
method code). In other words, multiple wastes may be aggregated in the
same waste block of a WR Form as specified, reducing the overall number
of WR Form blocks that must be completed and submitted. This is
discussed further in Section IV.C.4.2.2 of this preamble.
    Under this approach, facilities would record form codes on every
manifest. By contrast, a facility's BR is submitted every other year
under the federal program. For example, a facility's 2017 BR submission
describes activities that occurred in 2017 (odd-numbered years are
``reporting years'' or ``collection years'') and was due by March 2018
(even-numbered years are ``submission years''). The next reporting year
under the federal program was 2019. Under this approach, form codes
recorded on manifests in reporting years would be captured in the BR,
but codes recorded in submission (non-reporting) years would not.
    EPA requests comment on whether form codes should be added to the
manifest. Would facilities experience significant burden or
inconvenience completing them? If they are added to the form, should
receiving facilities be required to record them in both reporting and
submission years or should the codes be required only in reporting
years? In this latter option, manifests received by the receiving
facility from January 1 through December 31 of each reporting year
would require form codes. During submission years, form codes would be
optional. Alternatively, EPA could make form codes completely optional
and then only facilities that opt to use this approach described today
would record them during the reporting year.
Waste Quantity
    Instructions to Item 11 of the manifest directs the generator to
enter the total

quantity of waste. A generator may enter waste quantity based on actual
measurements or reasonably accurate estimates of actual quantities
shipped. Container capacities are not acceptable as estimates.
    Further, the DOT regulations allow shippers (e.g., generators) to
enter either net weights or gross weights (i.e., gross weight is the
weight of the waste and container) on shipping papers depending on the
mode of transportation (e.g., public highway transportation) for the
shipment. Therefore, some generators may record net or gross weights in
Item 11.
    Although it has been routine for generators to record gross weights
in Item 11 of the manifest and as a result some designated facilities
submit the affected manifests to the e-Manifest system without
correcting the inaccurate quantity amount, EPA is considering whether
this is appropriate for purposes of manifest completion. For some
wastes, the container is intended only as a device in which the waste
is stored and transported before being emptied fully and used again.
Such containers are not waste and should not be reflected in the
reported weight.
    EPA is requesting comment on whether a clarification should be
added to the manifest's instructions that designated facilities must
report all waste quantities in Item 11 of the manifest by net weight.
Should this clarification also be extended to generators when they
complete the manifest form?
4.2.2 Integration of e-Manifest Data With Biennial Report Module in
RCRAInfo Industry Application
    As mentioned earlier, the RCRAInfo Industry Application provides
the mechanism by which a site may submit information to their state
regulator. The application contains the following modules:
     myRCRAid pertains to Site Identification submissions (EPA
Form 8700-12)
     Biennial Report pertains to BR submissions (EPA Form 8700-
13A/B)
     e-Manifest pertains to manifest submissions (EPA Form
8700-22/22A)
    For several reasons, EPA believes the RCRAInfo Industry Application
is the appropriate mechanism for sharing e-Manifest data with receiving
facilities for completion of WR Forms. As an initial point, a number of
designated facilities are using both the Biennial Report and e-Manifest
modules for their reporting responsibilities and are therefore already
set up and familiar with their functions. For example, all receiving
facilities are required to register with the e-Manifest system to
receive and pay invoices. Further, EPA is encouraging BR users to
prepare and submit reports electronically, such as via the Biennial
Report module.\13\ More than 60% of receiving facilities are in states
that allow registration with the module.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Biennial Report Module is optional. Regulators may
choose to use it to collect BR data for sites in their state or may
opt to use other software or mechanisms. For a site to submit their
BR in the module, its state regulator must indicate that they will
accept BR data from the module.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Biennial Report module would be a useful interface
for users to review, sort and transfer manifest data from the e-
Manifest module for completion of WR Forms. Users obtain permission to
use the Biennial Report module, and various types of permission are
granted based on each person's role and level of responsibility over
the report (e.g., preparer, certifier, site manager).\14\ Receiving
facilities can select their desired form to complete (e.g., GM Form, WR
Form), and the module offers various system tools and controls to
assist users with completing them. For example, users have the option
of reviewing tables of previously reported data to compare how their
current waste quantities compare to previous cycles. They also have the
option of retrieving and copying GM Form data from their most recent
submission (excluding quantity) into their new GM Form submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Permission to use a module is granted on a module-by-module
basis, except as otherwise specified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, under the approach described today, a receiving facility
in the BR module would be given the option of accessing its manifest
data from e-Manifest for completing its WR Forms. The information would
be retrieved in a tabular format (called the ``e-Manifest Data Transfer
Table''). The table would present all the wastes received by the
receiving facility during the biennial reporting year. Each waste would
be presented in a row of the table. The rows would be organized by off-
site shipper EPA ID number.
    For example, if a receiving facility received 20 manifests from
Off-site Shipper 1 and 10 manifests from Off-Site Shipper 2 during the
year and each manifest contained four wastes in Item 9b, the table
would have 120 rows of wastes. The 80 rows of Off-Site Shipper 1 waste
would be presented in the ``Off-Site Shipper 1 EPA ID #'' field of the
table and the 40 rows of Off-Site Shipper 2 waste would be presented in
the ``Off-Site Shipper 2 EPA ID #'' field.
    The table would have 11 columns of data about the wastes. Of these,
nine would contain data needed to complete a waste block of the WR
Form. This includes EPA hazardous waste codes, state hazardous waste
codes, EPA ID number of the off-site shipper, form code, management
method code, waste quantity, unit of measure, waste density, and
density description (i.e., ``lbs/gal'' or ``specific gravity''). There
also would be columns for the DOT shipping description and manifest
tracking number (MTN).
    As such, each row would have 11 data fields. The nine fields
described above would be mapped electronically to their corresponding
fields of the waste block of a WR Form, enabling data to transfer
automatically when prompted by the receiving facility. The two other
data fields of the row--DOT shipping description and MTN--are not
requested in the waste block and therefore would not be mapped or
transferred. However, both fields would be available as a reference. In
addition, the table would maintain records (e.g., an audit trail)
enabling a person (e.g., a facility or regulator) to determine the MTN
of the waste entered into each waste block of a WR Form.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01AP22.005

    Above is an illustration of the e-Manifest Data Transfer Table.
Please note, EPA has considered that this could be done via a system-
to-system approach as well. Under our conceptual approach, a receiving
facility would transfer the table to one block of a WR Form. To
transfer the nine data fields to the corresponding fields of a WR Form,
a receiving facility would click on the ``Transfer row contents''
button. To use the table, a receiving facility would log in to the
RCRAInfo Industry Application, access the Biennial Report module, and
select the WR Form tab. The facility would then have the option of
retrieving the table for completion of its current WR Forms.\15\ The
facility would be able to add to, delete and otherwise modify the
table's contents so that the data are suitable for the BR. This
includes, for example, reviewing the table's contents for omissions and
performing data quality reviews and corrections to eliminate errors.
See the discussion later in this section on data reviews and
corrections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The table could be used in the Biennial Report module or
downloaded as a flat file. The discussion in this preamble describes
how the table would be used in the module.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA expects the facility to supplement the manifest
data, as needed, to ensure all of the information requested on a WR
Form is provided. As pointed out by several commenters on the 2019
notice, some manifests do not contain sufficient information on a
waste's EPA and state waste codes and density. These issues and the
approach for addressing them are as follows:
     Waste Codes. The manifest instructions require that, for
each waste in Item 9b, preparers provide up to six EPA and state waste
codes in Item 13. State waste codes that are not redundant with federal
codes also must be entered. The BR, on the other hand, does not limit
the number of EPA waste codes reported on a WR Form.\16\ State waste
codes must be reported as specified. As such, a manifest may not
include all of a waste's federal and state waste codes required for
biennial reporting (e.g., a waste with seven or more EPA waste codes).
Under this approach, the table would have sufficient space for the
facility to add EPA and state waste codes to meet the requirements of
the BR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A WR Form waste block has 12 boxes for EPA waste codes and
six boxes for state waste codes. Additional codes can be entered in
a ``Comments'' box.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Waste Density. For each waste in Item 9b of the manifest,
preparers must provide the waste quantity in Item 11 and the unit
weight or volume in Item 12. If the quantity is reported by volume, the
preparer may enter additional descriptive information, such as the
waste's specific gravity, in Item 14 ``Special Handling Instructions
and Additional Information.'' However, the specific gravity is not
mandatory, and some manifests lack this information. Item G of a WR
Form waste block requires a waste's quantity and unit of measure to be
provided. For a waste reported by volume, its density in lbs/gal or
specific gravity must be entered in all cases. As such, a manifest may
not include the waste density data needed to complete Item G of a WR
Form for wastes reported by volume. Under this approach, the table
would include columns for waste density in lbs/gal or specific gravity,
allowing the facility to enter this information if missing from the
manifest. Currently, density is an optional field in e-Manifest, so it
could be entered in advance of this process or when the manifest is
entered in the system. In addition, the table could offer a drop-down
list for densities. As an initial step, the facility would set up the
drop-down list by pre-populating it with generic densities applicable
to specific waste types commonly reported by volume. Then, when the
facility discovers a waste's density is missing, it could use the drop-
down list to make the appropriate selection. The list could be saved
for future biennial reporting cycles.
    When the facility decides that a row is complete and free of
errors, it would select the row and transfer its data to a WR Form
waste block. After transfer, all fields of the block would be complete,
except for Item A, waste description. The facility would have to
complete Item A subsequently. (See Section IV.C.4.2.3 of this preamble
for a discussion of waste descriptions.) The facility would conduct a
comprehensive review of all WR Forms as usual before submittal.
    EPA notes that a receiving facility might receive multiple
shipments of the same or similar wastes from the same off-site shipper
during the reporting year. As discussed earlier, the facility could
transfer these wastes to the same WR Form waste block if they have the
same form code and management method code and if it is otherwise
appropriate to do. To this end, the table could offer tools to sort the
rows in an off-site shipper's field based on specified criteria (e.g.,
BR codes), making it easier to identify and group rows with similar
wastes. The receiving facility would select the relevant rows and
consolidate their data into a single waste block. The table would
prevent consolidating dissimilar wastes (e.g.,

wastes with different form codes or wastes from two or more off-site
shippers).
    The above paragraphs describe our general conceptual approach for
using manifest data to pre-populate WR Form waste blocks. As part of
this approach, EPA envisions a process for reviewing and correcting
errors in the manifest data before the data are transferred to the
waste blocks. EPA understands that completing the manifest can be a
complex and fluid process and errors cannot always be avoided. Data
requested on the manifest may not be known with full certainty when it
is entered. In addition, clerical and other errors inevitably occur,
particularly in completing the paper manifest.
    The following are the manifest data review and correction
activities that would take place after the manifest is submitted to the
national system, but before the data are transferred to a WR
Form.17 18 The first two activities are currently taking
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In addition to these activities, Sec. Sec.  264/265.71 and
264/265.72 require facilities to address manifest discrepancies.
This includes, for example, noting on the manifest and attempting to
resolve significant differences between the quantity or type of
hazardous waste designated on the manifest or shipping paper, and
the quantity and type of hazardous waste a facility actually
receives. If the discrepancy is not resolved within 15 days after
receiving the waste, the facility must immediately submit a letter
to EPA describing the discrepancy and attempts to reconcile it and a
copy of the manifest or shipping paper at issue.
    \18\ States have access to e-Manifest and may also make
corrections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Corrections by the EPA PPC. 40 CFR 264.71 requires designated
facilities to submit the top copy of each paper-based manifest and
continuation sheet to the e-Manifest system. For image only
submissions, the PPC enters the manifest data into the e-Manifest
system. As part of this process, the PPC may identify and resolve basic
errors in the data (e.g., invalid generator or transporter EPA ID
number). The PPC follows procedures to contact the designated facility
via email, then a phone call. In some cases, the PPC also may contact
the generator if the designated facility could not answer the
questions.
    The e-Manifest system validates uploads for missing and invalid
image plus data manifest entries. For example, the system will compare
a site's address and EPA ID Number on the manifest to the site's
corresponding information in RCRAInfo. If an error is found (e.g., a
state-issued ID number that is not included in RCRAInfo's Handler
module), EPA will follow up with the site to request correct
information.
    2. Post-Receipt Manifest Data Corrections. Section 264/265.71(l)
establishes procedures for facilities and others to correct manifest
data after the manifest has been closed out. Post-receipt data
corrections may be submitted at any time. Each correction submission
must be electronic and describe the correction in sufficient detail.
Other interested persons will be notified and given an opportunity to
comment before the correction is finalized.
    3. Corrections by the Facility within the e-Manifest Data Transfer
Table. Under EPA's conceptual approach, after the facility enters the
Biennial Report module and pulls up the table to complete its WR Forms,
the facility would be expected to conduct two types of data review and
correction activities:
     Review and correct errors identified by the table. EPA
envisions that the table would offer basic data validation tools and
flag fields containing possible errors. For example, specific fields of
the table could be compared to EPA's official data sources to find
errors. This could include comparing EPA and state hazardous waste
codes in the table to EPA's official list of waste codes. If a code in
the table does not match any code in the list, its field would be
flagged. The same could be done for EPA ID numbers and BR codes. The
table could also include cross-checks within the same row (e.g.,
between a waste's form code and management method code). Both fields
would be flagged if the management method is not compatible with the
form code. Fields with missing data also would be flagged.
     Review and correct all other errors. EPA expects that many
errors would remain in the table notwithstanding the above activities.
Facilities would be expected to conduct a thorough review based on
their in-house knowledge and information (e.g., waste profiles, waste
analysis results, in-house data systems).
    The facility is responsible for ensuring full compliance with the
BR requirements and instructions, regardless of the data and user tools
provided.
4.2.3 Issues for Public Comment Regarding Biennial Report Integration
    EPA is requesting comment on the following issues:
    (a) EPA realizes that the data in the e-Manifest system may contain
numerous errors and other issues that must be resolved before the data
can be used for BR purposes. Examples include data omissions, invalid
EPA ID numbers, state-issued ID numbers that do not show up in EPA's
data system, incorrect generator addresses, and typographical errors
such as transposed digits in an EPA ID number or BR code. How can EPA
improve the conceptual approach to resolve these issues more
effectively? How can EPA ensure that the facility has actually reviewed
and corrected the data thoroughly before pre-populating the waste block
of the WR Form? Should a facility be prevented from pre-populating the
waste block until all flagged errors have been addressed?
    (b) Closely related to this, some facilities may not have up-to-
date information in the e-Manifest system. For example, after a
manifest is closed out and submitted to the national system, a facility
may perform weighing, testing or treatment that results in information
different from what is on the manifest (e.g., revised EPA waste codes,
different management method code). The facility may update its in-house
systems but not enter these updates in e-Manifest using the post-
receipt data correction procedures at Sec.  264/265.71(l). How
extensive is this issue in e-Manifest (i.e., outdated, inaccurate
data)? How should EPA revise the conceptual approach to better
integrate facility workflows and data management to minimize
differences between facility in-house systems and the e-Manifest
system?
    EPA notes that the post-receipt data correction procedures do not
mandate that facilities update the e-Manifest system whenever they find
an error. Rather, the regulations state that post-receipt data
corrections ``may'' be submitted at any time by any interested person
shown on the manifest. Should EPA revise this language to make post-
receipt data corrections mandatory and, if so, for what types of
errors? EPA believes the manifest discrepancy procedures at Sec. Sec.
264/265.71 and 264/265.72 help to clarify this issue. If a designated
facility discovers significant differences between the quantity or type
of hazardous waste designated on the manifest or shipping paper and the
quantity and type of hazardous waste it actually receives, it must note
the discrepancy on the manifest and attempt to resolve it. For bulk
wastes, significant differences in quantity are variations greater than
10 percent in weight. For batch waste, significant differences in
quantity are any variation in piece count (e.g., one drum in a
truckload). Significant differences in type are obvious differences
which can be discovered by inspection or waste analysis (e.g., toxic
constituents not reported on the manifest).
    Since the facility must record these differences on the manifest if
they are discovered during waste receipt, it is worth considering
whether they should be recorded in the e-Manifest system if they are
discovered any time after

receipt? If so, should they be subject to mandatory data correction
procedures? Should other types of errors be brought under mandatory
correction procedures, such as missing or invalid EPA ID numbers? If
not, how can EPA more effectively encourage facilities to correct them?
More broadly, is it necessary for data in the e-Manifest system to be
up to date if not used to complete the BR? Or should data in the e-
Manifest system generally be viewed as a snapshot of a shipment
received by the facility without an expectation that it be current?
    (c) Under EPA's approach, the facility would be able to add to,
delete and otherwise modify the transfer table's data before pre-
populating a WR Form. The data in the table and ultimately reported in
the BR should correspond closely to the data stored in e-Manifest. The
post-receipt data correction process was established to ensure that e-
Manifest data remain accurate and up to date. However, the approach
does not extend the data correction process to the transfer table after
it has been retrieved in the Biennial Report module at the end of the
reporting year.
    Essentially, EPA sees a trade-off between closely guarding the
table's manifest data against undocumented edits versus creating a
system that encourages facilities to make all necessary corrections.
EPA does not want to establish an onerous correction process that
discourages facilities from making all corrections. Should the transfer
table allow the facility to add to, delete and otherwise modify all of
the table's contents, or should the table protect some or all of the
data from such modifications? Should the table create an audit trail of
all of the facility's data modifications? What other user controls and
data validations should the table provide?
    (d) Aside from the data issues discussed above, would the table
provide a relatively straightforward way of completing the waste blocks
of the WR Form? Is it reasonable to expect a facility to review, edit,
correct, and transfer potentially thousands of rows of wastes to the
waste blocks as described in this approach?
4.2.4 Waste Descriptions on WR Form
    The instructions for the waste description (Item A) of the WR Form
recommend that a short narrative description of the waste be provided,
such as general type; source; type of hazard; and generic chemical name
or primary hazardous constituents. Several commenters on the February
2019 notice stated that the waste description is burdensome. We also
reviewed data from past WR Form submittals and noticed a wide variation
in the information provided. Some forms include a one- or two-word
description (e.g., ``aerosols,'' ``hypochlorite solutions''), whereas
others include the DOT shipping description. These descriptions are not
acceptable because they do not respond to the instructions fully.
    EPA has begun considering options for assisting receiving
facilities in preparing waste descriptions in the Biennial Report
module. Our objective is to improve the quality of the descriptions
while streamlining receiving facility activities where possible. To
this end, a possible option is to provide automated assistance to
receiving facilities in completing the waste description comparable to
the ``e-Manifest'' module's assistance for preparers of the electronic
manifest.
    The e-Manifest module offers several types of assistance to
preparers of the electronic manifest, such as completing the DOT
shipping description in Item 9b of the form. Completion of a DOT
shipping description requires knowledge of the DOT regulations, and
therefore, assistance may be warranted for some preparers. For example,
in the e-Manifest module, if a user wants to enter a DOT ID and proper
shipping name into the manifest, the user begins typing this
information and a drop-down list will display the proper shipping names
that contain the values the user provided. If the user types
``fireworks,'' the drop-down list will show ``UN0333/Fireworks,''
``UN0334/Fireworks,'' ``UN0335/Fireworks,'' ``UN0336/Fireworks,'' and
``UN0337/Fireworks.'' The user can select the appropriate ID and name.
The Hazard Class and Packing Group will be pre-populated based on the
user's selection.
    A similar approach could be used for the waste description field of
a WR Form waste block in the Biennial Report module. If form codes are
added to the manifest, EPA would like to take comment on whether
sufficient data would be available to build satisfactory waste
descriptions using automated methods. For example, suppose EPA
programmed the waste description field to build waste descriptions
based on form code, management method code and EPA hazardous waste
codes. If a waste were entered into a WR Form waste block with form
code W103 (``Spent concentrated acid (5% or more)''), management method
code H070 (``Chemical treatment'') and EPA hazardous waste codes D002
and D007, Item A could be pre-populated with ``Spent concentrated acid
(5% or more) managed by chemical treatment; RCRA characteristic for
corrosivity and toxicity.'' If a waste were entered with form code W203
(``Concentrated non-halogenated (e.g., non-chlorinated) solvent''),
management method code H061 (``Fuel blending prior to energy recovery
at another site'') and EPA hazardous waste codes D001 and F003, Item A
could be pre-populated with ``Concentrated non-halogenated solvent
managed by fuel blending prior to energy recovery at another site; RCRA
characteristic for ignitability and listed spent solvent waste.''
    The receiving facility could reject the system's suggestion and
develop its own description. Alternatively, the facility could edit the
suggestion as desired. For example, a pop-up box could prompt the
facility to indicate the source of the waste, if known, or chemical
names. The receiving facility is ultimately responsible for ensuring a
full and accurate waste description regardless of the assistance
provided.
    A number of issues, however, would need to be resolved for this
approach to work. For example, some BR code descriptions are too long
to be added to a waste description and need to be shortened to a few
words. In addition, some wastes have too many EPA and state waste codes
to fit in the waste description field. For these wastes, the system
could describe the codes by category (``listed spent solvent waste''
for EPA waste codes F001 to F005, ``listed wood preserving waste'' for
EPA waste codes F032, F034 and F035, etc.). For P- and U-listed wastes,
the module could give the chemical's name in addition to the category.
For example, the module could say ``acute hazardous waste: Fluorine''
for waste code P056. If a waste code represents multiple chemicals, the
module could present them in a drop-down list and the facility could
select the correct one. Finally, this approach does not tell us all the
relevant information about the waste and thus EPA would like to take
comment on how to improve this option to meet the needs of the Biennial
Report waste description field. For example, D001 ignitable waste for
H040 incineration, from W001 lab packs do not describe the ignitable
waste that is being incinerated. The waste could be gasoline, ethanol,
or something else. EPA is requesting comment on ways to improve data
quality in the waste description field.
    There are two additional options EPA would like to take comment on
for generating waste descriptions, but these were not expounded
previously by the Agency due to the perceived complexity of them. The
first is comparing the previous BR cycle's submission of the

submitting receiving facility to the manifest data it signed for in the
system. The other is adding the waste description to the manifest.
    In terms of comparing the waste descriptions to the previous BR
submission, the system would compare the previous cycle to the waste
codes, form codes, management method codes, and Generators IDs against
what was submitted in e-Manifest during the previous year and any
additional manifests brought in due to when the waste was generated. If
the fields match, then the waste description would be provided with a
dropdown or an array of possible waste descriptions (if requested over
e-Manifest web services). The receiving facility would choose the
appropriate waste description and if necessary, edit it, and submit it
with their BR submission. If there is not a match, then the waste
description would need to be provided.
    There are several issues with this approach. First is how to
properly identify CESQGs/VSQGs and slight variations in how their
addresses were entered into the system. Other issues revolve around the
number of WR forms submitted by receiving facilities. Receiving
facilities would still need to analyze each waste stream to determine
the appropriate waste description. Further, from a systems approach,
compiling this list based on the criteria provided over the entire
universe of WR Forms would require a significant computational effort.
    The other option for comment is adding the waste description to the
manifest form either on the form itself or in the system as an optional
field. This option would provide automation at the time of report
compilation for the waste description field, but it would also add
another element to the manifest form and if the receiving facility was
inconsistent in describing the waste, such inconsistencies could cause
confusion when the receiving facility completed its biennial report.
4.2.5 Final BR Integration Questions for Commenters
    EPA requests comments on the following:
    (a) Earlier in this preamble, it was explained that our conceptual
approach for e-Manifest integration with the biennial report does not
fully account for the fact that facilities may revise their in-house
waste-related data after the manifest has been submitted to the
national system, but they may not reflect the revisions in the e-
Manifest system. For example, facilities periodically update, and
correct data based on waste testing, weighing, management and disposal.
Facilities normally reflect these changes in their in-house systems but
might not follow the post-receipt data correction procedures to enter
them in the e-Manifest system. EPA also discussed that the e-Manifest
system contains other data errors and problems, such as missing data,
invalid EPA ID numbers, and incorrect management method codes, which
must be resolved before the data can be reported in the WR Form. EPA
asked for comments on how this approach could address these problems
more effectively.
    EPA is now raising these challenges again in the larger context of
evaluating whether they can be overcome in developing an approach that
is beneficial to facilities and states. In other words, can the data
problems in e-Manifest be addressed effectively (e.g., through
mandatory post-receipt data corrections, additional data reviews)
without placing unnecessary burden on facilities and states and
discouraging them from adopting the overall approach?
    (b) Currently, facilities preparing the WR Form at the end of a
reporting year may evaluate, consolidate, and summarize a year's worth
of shipment-level data, to thereby report it in a consistent, uniform
manner. Should EPA enhance the approach to provide a better ability for
facilities to evaluate, consolidate and summarize e-Manifest data when
pre-populating the WR Form? What additional capabilities do facilities'
in-house systems provide for reviewing, correcting, consolidating, and
summarizing data that should be offered by the table in this approach?
    (c) Would BR data quality and usefulness be impacted under this
approach, and if so, how?
    (d) Would this approach increase burden and complexity to
facilities or regulators under the manifest or BR program? For example,
some facilities could experience significant incremental burden in
reviewing, editing, correcting, and transferring manifest data to the
waste blocks of the WR Form. However, would their incremental burden be
offset if the module pre-populates the waste description field of each
block?
    (e) After a facility's WR Forms are submitted to the state or EPA
Region, the module could offer these completed forms (without waste
quantity) to the facility for the next BR cycle. The facility would
have the option of completing these pre-populated forms or preparing
new ones. Would these pre-populated forms streamline the facility's
activities without compromising data quality?
    (f) As discussed earlier in this preamble, the PPC has experienced
difficulty in entering image files and hardcopies of paper copies of
manifests into the e-Manifest system due to incorrect, illegible or
incomplete data. This has slowed the PPC's data entry, resulting in
tens of thousands of paper manifests not being entered into the system
in a timely manner. If a form is not entered into the system, it would
not be included in the e-Manifest Data Transfer Table in this approach.
How should these forms be addressed under the approach? At the end of
the reporting year, should facilities receive a list of manifests that
have not been entered into e-Manifest so they can incorporate the
wastes into WR Forms using other data?
    (g) As stated previously in this preamble, EPA may consider
integrating the e-Manifest system with the GM Form at a later time.
EPA, however, believes the Agency could also establish an approach to
integrate the e-Manifest system with the GM Form that is analogous to
our conceptual approach for e-Manifest integration with the WR Form.
For instance, EPA could: (1) Use eight of the nine data fields
described above (i.e., EPA hazardous waste codes, state hazardous waste
codes, form code, management method code for off-site shipments, waste
quantity shipped off-site, unit of measure, waste density, and density
description (i.e., ``lbs/gal'' or ``specific gravity'')); (2) use the
EPA ID number of the designated facility receiving the off-site
shipment; and (3) add the source code and waste minimization code to
the manifest to map these manifest data electronically to their
corresponding blocks of the GM Form for e-Manifest integration. These
manifest data could be transferred automatically from a table to the WC
block and the Off-site Shipment of Hazardous Waste block of the GM Form
when prompted by the LQG. EPA requests comment on whether the Agency
should establish a similar conceptual approach for e-Manifest
integration with the GM Form. Would such an approach work for the GM
Form? Please consider the relevant issues and questions addressed above
in this section of the preamble as well as other issues and questions
detailed throughout section IV.C.4 to provide comment.
    (h) As stated in section IV.C.4.2.1, EPA would require the
receiving facility to report the form code on the manifest for each
waste stream reported in Item 9b. Given that both the GM Form and the
WR Form require the form code, would LQGs be amenable to EPA requiring
the receiving facility to report

the form code on the manifest on their behalf and ultimately using it
for the GM Form? Would receiving facilities be amenable to reporting
the form code on the manifest in lieu of the LQG reporting it?

D. Summary of Requests for Public Comment

    EPA requests comments on various aspects of this proposed rule
throughout the preamble. This section summarizes each request at a high
level. Please refer to the relevant sections for more in-depth
discussion of the relevant issues for public comment.
    Regarding submitting export manifests to EPA's e-Manifest system
(discussed in preamble section IV.A.3), EPA requests comment on the
following:
     EPA's proposal to revise 40 CFR 262.83(c) by adopting the
existing manifest provisions at Sec. Sec.  262.20(a)(3) and 262.24 for
electronic manifest use and the electronic signature requirements at
Sec.  262.25 for export manifests. If these provisions are finalized as
proposed, a person exporting a shipment out of the U.S. (i.e., a
generator or a recognized trader located separate from the site
initiating the shipment) may, in lieu of using a paper manifest form,
use an electronic manifest to track the export shipment within the
United States.
     EPA's proposal to add new provisions under Sec.  262.83.
These would require an exporter to submit the top copy of a manifest
form and continuation sheet (whether paper or electronic) to EPA for
processing, in accordance with the proposal for export shipments
described in this section of the preamble. The new provisions would
also require the exporter to pay the requisite processing fee for the
submission using the existing fee provisions under 40 CFR part 265
subpart FF. EPA is proposing new paragraphs (c)(4) through (c)(8) under
Sec.  262.83(c). If finalized, an exporter who elects to use an
electronic manifest and continuation sheet for an export shipment,
would be required to complete, sign, and submit the manifest and
continuation sheet electronically in the e-Manifest system for the
waste shipment within 30 days of receipt of the electronic manifest
signed by the last transporter who carried the export shipment to a
U.S. seaport for loading onto an international carrier or to a U.S.
road or rail port of exit.
     EPA's proposal to adopt the fee provisions of the
electronic hazardous waste manifest program under 40 CFR part 265
subpart FF (40 CFR 265.1300, 265.1311, 265.1312, 265.1313, 265.1314,
265.1315, and 265.1316) for hazardous waste export shipments. If
finalized, exporters of a waste shipment subject to the manifest
requirements would be expected to make payments to EPA for manifest
activities conducted during the prior month per Sec.  265.1314.
Additionally, the proposed amendments would require any party acting as
the U.S. exporter that originated the manifest for an export shipment
of hazardous waste in accordance with the manifest requirements under
40 CFR part 262 subpart B and Sec.  262.83(c), whether they be a
generator, receiving facility, or recognized trader, to submit the
export manifests to the system and pay the requisite fees.
     EPA's proposal to revise Sec.  263.20(g)(3), which
currently requires the transporter to provide a copy of the export
manifest to the generator. Today's proposal would allow the collection
of manifest data in the e-Manifest system, making the current
requirement unnecessary.
     EPA's proposal to remove the current transporter
requirement in Sec.  263.20(g)(4)(i). EPA has determined that
transporters are not best suited for submitting the export manifest to
the system and paying the requisite processing fee based on the above
modification to Sec.  263.20(g)(3).
     EPA's proposal to remove 40 CFR 263.20(g)(4)(ii), which
lists the ``AES filing compliance date'' promulgated in the hazardous
waste import/export final rule dated November 28, 2016 (81 FR 85696).
The AES filing compliance date was specified as December 31, 2017, in a
Federal Register notice dated August 28, 2017 (82 FR 41015). That
compliance date has passed, and as such the requirement for the
transporter to provide a paper copy of the manifest to a U.S. customs
official at the point of departure for shipments initiated prior to the
AES filing is now obsolete.
    In addition, EPA requests information regarding whether the
proposed changes would work for foreign transporters who transport
export shipments to and across the U.S. border. EPA also requests
information regarding how many foreign transporters currently transport
such shipments within the United States.
    Regarding manifest form changes related to export and import
hazardous waste shipments (discussed in preamble section IV.A.4), EPA
requests comment on the following:
     EPA's proposal to move the International Shipments field
(i.e., Item 16) from the manifest to the continuation sheet and add new
fields for consent numbers and the exporter's EPA Identification number
and email address to the International Shipments field. If finalized,
EPA would remove the International Shipments field from the manifest
and re-designate it as Items 33a and 33b on the continuation sheet as
shown on the draft form. EPA would also revise the current manifest
instructions for completing the International Shipments field to
reflect these new changes. A proposed revised version of the
continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A) reflecting these proposed
changes is available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Regarding proposals that only impact import shipments (discussed in
preamble section IV.A.5), EPA requests comment on the following:
     EPA's proposal to delete the requirement in 40 CFR
262.84(c)(4) that the importer provide an additional copy of the
manifest to the transporter to be submitted by the receiving facility
to EPA per Sec. Sec.  264.71(a)(3) and 265.71(a)(3). This additional
copy of the manifest is no longer necessary because the receiving
facility is now required to always submit the top copy of the paper
manifest and any continuation sheets to the e-Manifest system.
    Regarding additional proposed changes to international shipment
requirements (discussed in preamble section IV.A.6), EPA requests
comment on the following:
     EPA's proposal to revise the export and import shipment
international movement document-related requirements to more closely
link the manifest data with the international movement document data.
    Regarding proposals to revise manifest requirements applicable to
Exception Reports, Discrepancy Reports, and Unmanifested Waste Reports
(discussed in preamble section IV.B.1-3), EPA requests comment on the
following:
     EPA's proposal to allow generators using electronic or
hybrid manifests to use the e-Manifest system to satisfy exception
reporting requirements. EPA is proposing to restrict electronic
exception reporting to manifested shipments using electronic manifests
(hybrid or fully electronic) pursuant to Sec.  262.24(c).
     EPA's proposal to revise the current 35/45-day LQG
exception reporting timeframes in Sec.  262.42(a) and (c)(2), and Sec.
761.217(a) and (b) to better conform to timeframes for submittal and
processing of paper manifests in the e-Manifest system, thus adjusting
it to a 40/50-day timeframe. EPA is not proposing additional time for
SQGs to verify receipt of their shipments by the destination facility.
The current SQG

timeframe for verification of shipment delivery is 60 days (Sec.
262.42(b)).
     EPA's proposal to integrate Discrepancy Reports into the
e-Manifest system, which includes four elements: (1) A copy of the
manifest at issue; (2) the significant discrepancy type (i.e.,
significant difference in quantity or type); (3) date of signature of
the receiving facility; and (4) a description explaining the
discrepancy and attempts to reconcile it.
     EPA's proposal to allow receiving facilities to use the e-
Manifest system to satisfy discrepancy reporting requirements and its
proposal to adjust the discrepancy reporting timeframe to allow
receiving facilities up to 20 days to reconcile a shipment with the
generator and/or transporter for such discrepancies. Unlike our
proposed restriction to limit electronic exception reporting to
electronic manifests, EPA is proposing to extend electronic reporting
of Discrepancy Reports to all manifest submission types, including
paper.
     Whether or not there should be a limit on our discrepancy
reporting proposal to manifests that originated electronically (i.e.,
fully electronic or hybrid) in the e-Manifest system, as well as if
there are other approaches EPA should consider for electronic
discrepancy reporting associated with digital copies of paper
manifests.
     EPA's consideration of an alternate approach that would
eliminate the requirement for Discrepancy Reports altogether, and
instead, address discrepancy events through the e-Manifest corrections
process. Under this approach, receiving facilities or EPA's PPC would
upload/enter discrepancies identified under Item 18. Generators who had
e-Manifest system access would receive email alerts regarding Item 18
discrepancies, review the final manifest in e-Manifest, and submit
post-receipt manifest corrections.
     EPA's proposal to accept only electronic submissions of
Unmanifested Waste Reports to the system by the receiving facility,
with the goal of integrating Unmanifested Waste Reports into the e-
Manifest system. EPA would not accept Unmanifested Waste Reports
through a written, hard copy report. EPA would revise the reporting
content specified in Sec. Sec.  264.76 and 265.76 for hazardous waste
and Sec.  761.216 for PCB wastes. Unlike electronic discrepancy and
exception reporting, EPA proposes to impose a user fee, equivalent to
the user fees for electronic manifests, on receiving facilities for
each submission of an Unmanifested Waste Report.
     EPA's proposed approach to integrate Unmanifested Waste
Reports into the e-Manifest system (by only accepting electronic
submissions of Unmanifested Waste Reports to the system by the
receiving facility and revising the reporting content specified in
Sec. Sec.  264.76 and 265.76 for hazardous waste and Sec.  761.216 for
PCB wastes) and charge the electronic manifest fee rate for these
submissions. EPA also requests comment on whether a separate, distinct
user fee should be imposed for these reports.
    Regarding other proposals (discussed in preamble section IV.C), EPA
requests comment on the following:
     Technical corrections and conforming changes to certain
RCRA and TSCA PCB regulations under 40 CFR parts 262, 264, 265, and
761. These corrections and conforming changes are necessary to remove
obsolete requirements, correct typographical errors, and/or improve
alignment with the e-Manifest program.
     EPA's proposal to add an email address field to Item 5 of
the generator block of the paper manifest so that the e-Manifest system
can email copies of completed paper manifests to the generator's email
address in lieu of receiving facilities having to mail copies to the
generators' postal mail address. Under the proposal, the e-Manifest
system would also send notifications to unregistered generators via the
email address requesting that they register and obtain an account in e-
Manifest for their site.
     EPA's request for comment on whether to mandate that
generators register and obtain e-Manifest accounts for access to the e-
Manifest system to view their copies of completed manifests.
     Proposals detailed in the February 2019 Federal Register
ICR renewal notice regarding modification of the manifest form and
instructions to improve the accuracy and precision of waste data
reported in the manifest fields at Items 11 (Total Quantity) and 12
(Units of Measure) of the manifest. These proposed form changes would
facilitate receiving facilities leveraging the e-Manifest system to
populate the corresponding fields of the Waste Received from Off-site
(WR) Form as part of the biennial report.
     EPA's consideration of a conceptual approach for e-
Manifest integration with the biennial report, particularly regarding
data accuracy and precision as well as the addition of certain BR data
fields (e.g., form codes) of the WR Form to the manifest form. There
are specific questions raised in preamble section IV.C.4.2.3 and
IV.C.4.2.5.
     Potential ways to improve data quality in the waste
description field (see preamble section IV.C.4.2.4).
     EPA's proposal to compare the previous BR cycle's
submission of the submitting receiving facility to the manifest data it
signed for in the system.
     EPA's proposal to add the waste description to the
manifest.
     Whether or not EPA should establish a similar conceptual
approach for e-Manifest integration with the GM Form. Would such an
approach work for the GM Form?

V. State Implementation

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States

    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified states to
administer their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of the federal
program within the state. Following authorization, EPA retains
enforcement authority under section 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA,
although authorized states have primary enforcement responsibility. The
standards and requirements for state authorization are found at 40 CFR
part 271.
    Prior to the enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA) and of the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest
Establishment Act, a state with final RCRA authorization administered
its hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of EPA administering the
federal program in that state. The federal requirements no longer
applied in the authorized state, and EPA could not issue permits for
any facilities in that state, since only the state was authorized to
administer the program and issue RCRA permits. When new, more stringent
federal requirements were promulgated, the state was obligated to enact
equivalent authorities within specified time frames. However, the new
federal requirements did not take effect in an authorized state until
the state adopted the federal requirements as state law.
    In contrast, with the adoption of RCRA section 3006(g), which was
added by HSWA, new requirements and prohibitions imposed under the HSWA
authority take effect in authorized states at the same time that they
take effect in unauthorized states. EPA is directed by section 3006(g)
to implement HSWA-based requirements and prohibitions in authorized
states until the state is granted authorization to do so. While states
must still adopt HSWA related provisions as state law to retain final
authorization, EPA implements the HSWA provisions in authorized states
until the states do so.
    The e-Manifest Act contains similar authority to HSWA with respect
to

federal and state implementation responsibilities in RCRA authorized
states. Section 2(g)(3) of the e-Manifest Act, entitled Administration,
provides that EPA shall carry out regulations promulgated under the Act
in each state unless the state program is fully authorized to carry out
such regulations in lieu of EPA. Also, section 2(g)(2) of the Act
provides that any regulation promulgated by EPA under the e-Manifest
Act shall take effect in each state (under federal authority) on the
same effective date that EPA specifies in its promulgating regulation.
Thus, the result is that regulations promulgated by EPA under the e-
Manifest Act, like HSWA-based regulations, are implemented and enforced
by EPA until the states are authorized to carry them out.
    Authorized states generally are required to modify their programs
when EPA promulgates federal requirements that are more stringent or
broader in scope than existing federal requirements. However, as EPA
explained previously when adopting manifest form revisions to fully
standardize the RCRA manifest, the hazardous waste manifest is not
governed by this authorization policy. Rather, the RCRA manifest
requires strict consistency in its implementation, so that EPA changes
to federal manifest form requirements must be implemented consistently
in the states. See 70 FR 10776 at 10810 (March 4, 2005). This is so,
whether the manifest program change is based on base RCRA or on e-
Manifest Act authority.
    TSCA does not grant EPA authority to authorize states to administer
the program. EPA directly implements the federal PCB regulations in all
states and territories.

B. Legal Authority for This Rule's Regulatory Changes and Implications

    Several of the provisions in this proposed rule are based on the
authority of the e-Manifest Act and are listed in the table below.
These provisions (if finalized) would be implemented and enforced by
EPA in all states consistently on the effective date of the final rule.
States must adopt the authorizable e-Manifest Act-based provisions of
this final rule in order to enforce them under state law, and to
maintain manifest program consistency. However, EPA will continue to
implement and enforce these provisions until such time as the state
modifies its authorized program to adopt these provisions and receives
authorization from EPA for the program modification.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Regulation                            Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   262.42(d)-(e)...................  Submission of Electronic
                                          Exception Reports to the e-
                                          Manifest system.
Sec.   262.83(c)(4)....................  Exporters required electronic
                                          or paper manifest to the
                                          system.
Sec.   262.83(c)(5)....................  Imposition of fees on exporters
                                          for their manifest submission.
Sec.   262.83(c)(7)....................  Exporters' replacement
                                          manifests.
Sec.   262.83(c)(8)....................  Exporters' post receipt data
                                          corrections.
Sec.   264.72(c)(1)-(4), Sec.            Submission of Electronic
 265.72(c)(1)-(c)(4).                     Discrepancy Reports to the e-
                                          Manifest System.
Sec.   264.76(a), Sec.   265.76(a).....  Submission of Electronic
                                          Unmanifested Waste Reports to
                                          the e-Manifest system.
Sec.   264.76(b), Sec.   265.76(b).....  Imposition of fees to receiving
                                          facilities for their
                                          Electronic Unmanifested Waste
                                          Report submission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, the manifest-related report provisions at 40 CFR
262.42 (a)(1)-(2), 262.42(c)(2), 264.72(c), and 265.72(c) are based on
the base RCRA statutory authority. Because these provisions would be
finalized under RCRA base program authority, these regulatory changes
would not become effective in authorized states until the regulatory
changes are adopted under state law and EPA authorizes the state
program modification. States must adopt the regulatory changes in their
authorized programs to maintain manifest program consistency. In
unauthorized states, these regulations would become effective on the
effective date of this final rule. Because TSCA is not administered by
state programs, all proposed changes to 40 CFR part 761 would become
effective in all states and territories on the effective date of the
rule.

C. Conforming Changes to 40 CFR 271.10 and 271.12

    This proposed rule also includes conforming changes to 40 CFR
271.10 and 271.12, addressing the requirements for hazardous waste
generators and exporters, and receiving facilities, respectively, that
must be included in authorized state programs to maintain consistency
with the federal program. Other conforming changes to Sec.  271.10
regarding regulatory amendments to the hazardous waste export and
import regulations are discussed in preamble section V.D. The first
change at Sec.  271.10(j)(i) clarifies that authorized state programs
must include requirements for electronic Exception Reports in the EPA's
e-Manifest system, in lieu of sending signed copies to the EPA Regional
Administrator or the states. The second change at Sec.  271.10(j)(ii)
clarifies that authorized state programs must include a requirement
that hazardous waste exporters submit a signed copy of each paper
manifest and continuation sheet (or the data from paper manifests) to
the EPA's e-Manifest system, in lieu of providing additional copies of
the manifest to the hazardous waste transporters. These modifications
are necessary to effectuate the intent of Congress that under the e-
Manifest Act, the e-Manifest system will operate as a national, one-
stop reporting hub for manifests and data. When electronic Exception
Reports are implemented in the e-Manifest system, EPA expects that the
states with such tracking programs will obtain their manifest copies
(and data) and electronic Exception Reports from e-Manifest, rather
than requiring regulated entities to mail their manifests or exception
reports to these states.
    Finally, the e-Manifest-related amendments at Sec.  271.12(i) and
(k) must be included in authorized state programs for electronic
Discrepancy Reports and Unmanifested Waste Reports to maintain
consistency with the federal program. The amendments to Sec.  271.12(i)
clarify that authorized programs must include requirements that
designated or receiving facilities submit electronic Discrepancy
Reports and Unmanifested Waste Reports in the EPA's e-Manifest system,
in lieu of sending signed copies to the states. The amendment at Sec.
271.12(k) clarifies that authorized state programs must include
requirements for hazardous waste management facilities and facilities
submitting electronic Unmanifested Waste Reports in the e-Manifest
system to pay user fees to EPA to recover all

costs related to the development and operation of an electronic
hazardous waste manifest system (e-Manifest system).
    Several of these states with manifest tracking programs assess
their own fees to offset the costs of administering their state
manifest tracking programs, or they may assess waste generation or
management fees to support state programs, based on manifest data in
their state tracking systems. It is likely that many of these state
manifest tracking programs and related fees may continue to operate for
the foreseeable future. EPA emphasizes that the federal user fees that
are proposed in this regulation are solely to offset EPA's costs in
developing and operating the e-Manifest system. It is not the purpose
of this regulation to suspend, reduce, or otherwise impact the existing
state fees that support states' manifest tracking programs, or the fees
levied by state programs on waste generation or management. EPA is not
now in a position to predict what, if any, impact this federal user fee
regulation may have on any such state fee collection programs.

D. Provisions of the Proposed Rule That Are Not Authorizable

    There are some provisions in this proposed rule that can be
administered and enforced only by EPA, and not by authorized states.
First, the group of non-authorizable requirements included in this
proposed rule are Sec.  262.21(f)(5), (6), and (7). These provisions
together announce the revised printing specification for the proposed
four-copy paper manifest and continuation sheet paper forms, the
revised copy distribution requirements to be printed on each copy of
the form, and the revised specification for printing the appropriate
manifest instructions on the back of the form copies. If finalized,
state programs are not required to take any action respecting these
regulatory changes to the printing specifications, and they will take
effect in all states on the effective date of this rule. The RCRA
manifest requires strict consistency in its implementation, so that an
EPA change to federal manifest form requirements must be implemented
consistently in the states. See generally 70 FR 10776 at 10810 (March
4, 2005).
    The second group of non-authorizable requirements in this proposed
rule are regulatory amendments to certain fee methodology and related
fee implementation provisions set forth in subpart FF of 40 CFR parts
264 and 265. These requirements include definitions relevant to the
program's fee calculations (Sec. Sec.  264.1311, 265.1311), and the
user fee calculation methodology (Sec. Sec.  264.1312, 265.1312). These
user fee provisions in subpart FF are based on the authority of the e-
Manifest Act, and (if finalized) would be implemented and enforced by
EPA on the effective date of the final rule and perpetually thereafter.
The user fee provisions of subpart FF describe the methods and
processes that EPA alone will use in setting fees to recover its
program costs, and in administering and enforcing the user fee
requirements. Therefore, states cannot be authorized to implement or
enforce any of the subpart FF provisions.
    Although states cannot receive authorization to administer or
enforce the federal government's e-Manifest program user fees,
authorized state programs must still include the content of or
references to the subpart FF requirements. This is necessary to ensure
that members of their regulated communities will be on notice of their
responsibilities to pay user fees to the EPA e-Manifest system when
they utilize the system. Authorized state programs must either adopt or
reference appropriately the user fee requirements of this final rule.13
However, when a state adopts the user fee provisions of this rule, the
state must not replace federal or EPA references with state references
or terms that would suggest the collection or implementation of these
user fees by the state.
    The last group of non-authorizable provisions in this proposed rule
are regulatory amendments to certain export and import regulations
detailed in preamble sections IV.A.4, IV.A.5, and IV.A.6 are not
authorizable. Because of the federal government's special role in
matters of foreign policy, EPA does not authorize states to administer
federal import/export functions in the regulations discussed in those
preamble sections. This approach of having federal, rather than state,
administering of the import/export functions promotes national
coordination, uniformity, and the expeditious transmission of
information between the United States and foreign countries.
    Although states do not receive authorization to administer the
federal government's import/export functions in 40 CFR part 262 subpart
H, or the import/export relation functions in certain other RCRA
hazardous waste regulations, state programs are still required to adopt
the provisions in this rule to maintain their equivalency with the
federal program (see 40 CFR 271.10(a) and (d) which will also be
amended in this rule).
    This rule contains many amendments to the export and import
shipment international movement document-related requirements under 40
CFR part 262 subpart H to more closely link the manifest data with the
international movement document data. The rule also contains conforming
import and export-related amendments to 40 CFR parts 260, 261, 262,
263, 264, 265, 267, and 271, almost all of which are more stringent.
    The states that have already adopted 40 CFR part 262 subparts H, 40
CFR part 263, 40 CFR part 264, 40 CFR part 265, and any other import/
export related regulations discussed in this rule must adopt the
revisions to those provisions in this final rule. When a state adopts
the import/export provisions in this rule (if final), they must not
replace federal or international references or terms with state
references or terms.

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review because it: (1)
Materially alters the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; and (2) may raise novel legal or policy issues. Budgetary
impacts of the e-Manifest user fee program may be altered by this
rulemaking as it establishes fees for hazardous waste exporters. Any
changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in
the docket for this action. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of
the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This
analysis (titled ``The Regulatory Impact Analysis for EPA's Proposed
Rule Integrating e-Manifest with Hazardous Waste Exports and Other
Manifest-related Reports, PCB Manifest Amendments and Technical
Corrections'') is available in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2712.01. You can
find a copy of

the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    Implementation of this e-Manifest rule will impose new information
collection requirements on the regulated community who must use the
manifest for tracking hazardous waste export shipments, and who must
prepare manifest-related reports such as exception, discrepancy, and
unmanifested waste reports to address specific problems that arise in
the use of the manifest. The rule also consists of a series of
clarifications to the manifest regulations under RCRA and TSCA that are
not expected to result in behavior changes by the regulated community,
and therefore do not have associated costs.
    Generally, the generators, transporters, designated facilities, and
emergency response teams (in the case of accidents) are the primary
users of manifests. However, EPA may review these documents during a
facility inspection to make sure proper records are being kept and
regulations are complied with. EPA also reviews and responds to
exception reports, discrepancy reports, and un-manifested waste
reports. The public will also have access to data in the e-Manifest
system.
    Although the primary effect of this proposed rule will be to
replace current paper-based information requirements with electronic-
based requirements to submit or retain the same shipment information,
there could be minor additions or changes to the information collection
requirements, such as information that may be provided to establish
user accounts and fee payment accounts, information submitted for
identity management, as well as waste profile or other information that
may be useful for the creation and submission of electronic manifests
and manifest-related reports.
    Respondents/affected entities: Business or other for-profit.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: The recordkeeping and
notification requirements are required for parties performing relevant
manifest activities (e.g., submitting export manifests). These
requirements are described in detail in the ICR Supporting Statement.
    Estimated number of respondents: 203,936.
    Frequency of response: Per Shipment.
    Total estimated burden: 2,458,568 hours.
    Total estimated cost: $121,690,615, includes $27,400,688 annualized
capital costs or O&M costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the
interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB must receive
comments no later than May 31, 2022.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, EPA concludes that the impact of concern for
this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities,
and that the Agency is certifying that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the rule relieves burden on the small entities subject to the
rule. All entities that manifest waste domestically are expected to
benefit from cost savings. However, the proposed rule does result in
net costs for hazardous waste exporters. In section 4.2 of the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for EPA's Proposed Rule Integrating e-
Manifest with Hazardous Waste Exports and Other Manifest-related
Reports, PCB Manifest Amendments and Technical Corrections, EPA
considers two ``worst-case'' scenarios to analyze the upper bounds of
net costs to 111 small exporter entities. Under both scenarios, the
proposed rule would not result in significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities with respect to exporter small
entities because the upper bound of costs for the regulation per entity
does not exceed one percent or three percent of annual revenues for 20
percent of small entities in a sector, or 100 small entities total.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As documented in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis for EPA's Proposed Rule Integrating e-
Manifest with Exports and Other Manifest-related Reports, PCB Manifest
Amendments and Technical Corrections found in the docket, EPA finds
that the rule would not result in annual expenditures exceeding $100
million annually and therefore would not be subject to requirements of
section 202 of UMRA as listed above.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not impose any new requirements on
tribal officials, nor will it impose substantial direct compliance
costs on them. This action will not create a mandate for tribal
governments, i.e., there are no authorized tribal programs that will
require revision and reauthorization on account of the e-Manifest