Rule2024-14694
Integrating e-Manifest With Hazardous Waste Exports and Other Manifest-Related Reports, PCB Manifest Amendments, and Technical Corrections
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 26, 2024
Effective
January 22, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or (the Agency) is finalizing certain amendments to the hazardous waste manifest regulations, and the hazardous waste electronic manifest (e-Manifest) regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to increase utility of the e-Manifest system in delivering benefits to reduce administrative burden and improve tracking of hazardous waste shipments, and to various related regulations. Among other things, EPA is finalizing changes to manifest regulations for shipments of hazardous waste that are exported for treatment, storage, and disposal. EPA is also finalizing regulatory changes to the hazardous waste export and import shipment international movement document-related requirements to more closely link the manifest data with the international movement document (hereafter referred to as "movement document") data. In addition, EPA is finalizing regulatory amendments to three manifest-related reports (i.e., Discrepancy, Exception, and Unmanifested Waste Reports). EPA is also finalizing conforming regulatory changes to the manifest regulations under the Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA) for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) wastes to better align these requirements with the RCRA manifest regulations and the e-Manifest program. Lastly, this action makes technical corrections to fix typographical errors in the e-Manifest and movement document regulations.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 144 (Friday, July 26, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60692-60740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14694]
[[Page 60691]]
Vol. 89
Friday,
No. 144
July 26, 2024
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, et al.
Integrating e-Manifest With Hazardous Waste Exports and Other Manifest-
Related Reports, PCB Manifest Amendments, and Technical Corrections;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2024 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 60692]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, 270, 271, and 761
[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0609; FRL-7308-02-OLEM]
RIN 2050-AH12
Integrating e-Manifest With Hazardous Waste Exports and Other
Manifest-Related Reports, PCB Manifest Amendments, and Technical
Corrections
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or (the Agency) is
finalizing certain amendments to the hazardous waste manifest
regulations, and the hazardous waste electronic manifest (e-Manifest)
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to
increase utility of the e-Manifest system in delivering benefits to
reduce administrative burden and improve tracking of hazardous waste
shipments, and to various related regulations. Among other things, EPA
is finalizing changes to manifest regulations for shipments of
hazardous waste that are exported for treatment, storage, and disposal.
EPA is also finalizing regulatory changes to the hazardous waste export
and import shipment international movement document-related
requirements to more closely link the manifest data with the
international movement document (hereafter referred to as ``movement
document'') data. In addition, EPA is finalizing regulatory amendments
to three manifest-related reports (i.e., Discrepancy, Exception, and
Unmanifested Waste Reports). EPA is also finalizing conforming
regulatory changes to the manifest regulations under the Toxic
Substances and Control Act (TSCA) for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)
wastes to better align these requirements with the RCRA manifest
regulations and the e-Manifest program. Lastly, this action makes
technical corrections to fix typographical errors in the e-Manifest and
movement document regulations.
DATES: This rule is effective on January 22, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number, EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0609, is available at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> or at the Office of Land and Emergency
Management Docket (OLEM Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), William Jefferson Clinton West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OLEM Docket is (202) 566-
0270. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding
specific aspects of this document, contact Bryan Groce, Program
Implementation and Information Division, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, (202) 566-0339; email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97f0e5f8f4f2b9f5e5eef6f9d7f2e7f6b9f0f8e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fa9d8895999fd49888839b94ba9f8a9bd49d958c">[email protected]</span></a> or David Graham, Program Implementation and
Information Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
(202) 566-2847; email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f097829198919dde9491869994b0958091de979f86"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8dfcad9d0d9d596dcd9ced1dcf8ddc8d996dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>. In addition,
please refer to EPA's e-Manifest web page for further information
<a href="http://www.epa.gov/e-manifest">www.epa.gov/e-manifest</a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The hazardous waste manifest program affects approximately 106,617
federally regulated entities and almost an equal number of entities
handling State-only regulated wastes in at least 750 industries. These
industries are involved in the off-site shipping, transporting, and
receiving of several million tons of wastes that are required under
either Federal or State regulation to use the RCRA hazardous waste
manifest. EPA estimates that these entities currently use between
1,834,512 hazardous waste manifests (EPA Form 8700-22) and continuation
sheets (EPA Form 8700-22A) annually to track RCRA hazardous wastes,
TSCA polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) wastes, and State-only regulated
wastes from generation sites to destination facilities designated on a
manifest for treatment, storage, or disposal. The affected entities
include hazardous waste generators, hazardous waste transporters,
owners or operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
(TSDFs), as well as the corresponding entities that handle State-only
regulated wastes and PCB wastes subject to tracking with the RCRA
manifest.
Additionally, this final rule affects entities (including exporter,
importer, disposal facility owner/operator, or recovery facility owner/
operator) who are involved in transboundary movements of hazardous
waste for recovery or disposal that are subject to the manifest
regulations to track their import or export shipments in the United
States, or to the movement document requirements to track their import
or export shipments both inside and outside of the United States.
Finally, this final rule affects entities who are required to
complete any of the following manifest-related reports: (1) An
Exception Report when the generator has not received a final manifest
from the receiving facility; (2) a Discrepancy Report when the
materials received do not match with the quantities or types of
materials indicated as being shipped by generators; or (3) an
Unmanifested Waste Report when hazardous wastes that should have been
manifested arrive at a facility without a manifest.
Potential affected entities include, but are not limited to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS
Industrial sector code(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting.................... 11
Mining......................................................... 21
Utilities...................................................... 22
Construction................................................... 23
Manufacturing.................................................. 31-33
Wholesale Trade................................................ 42
Retail Trade................................................... 44-45
Transportation and Warehousing................................. 48-49
Information.................................................... 51
Waste Management & Remediation Services........................ 562
Public Administration.......................................... 92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities that EPA is now aware could
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your
entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria found in the title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) parts 262, 263, 264, 265, and 761. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
B. What action is the Agency taking?
EPA is finalizing regulatory amendments to the RCRA manifest
regulations, e-Manifest regulations, and other related regulations.
Among other things, EPA is finalizing regulatory amendments to require
hazardous waste exporters of manifested hazardous waste
[[Page 60693]]
shipments out of the U.S. to submit the export manifests to EPA's e-
Manifest system and pay the requisite user fee to process these export
manifests. With respect to the movement document requirements, EPA is
finalizing regulatory amendments to allow movement document
confirmations to link to RCRA manifest tracking for export and import
shipments. In addition, EPA is finalizing regulatory amendments to
integrate existing Discrepancy Reports, Exception Reports, and
Unmanifested Waste Reports into the e-Manifest system which would allow
entities to use the e-Manifest system to complete these reports
electronically. Also, the Agency is finalizing conforming changes to
the TSCA manifest regulations for PCB wastes to align them with the
RCRA manifest regulations and the e-Manifest program. Finally, this
action fixes typographical errors and makes other technical corrections
to certain e-Manifest, movement document, and PCB regulations.
Although this final rule becomes effective on January 22, 2025, EPA
needs additional time to implement e-Manifest system changes related to
the final rule and is, thus, establishing a compliance date for certain
final regulations. Specifically, EPA's final regulations associated
with the collection of hazardous waste export manifests in the e-
Manifest system, use of electronic manifests for hazardous waste export
shipments, and use of electronic Exception, Discrepancy, and
Unmanifested Waste Reports will not go into effect until December 1,
2025. Affected entities must continue to comply with the existing
manifest requirements until and on November 30, 2025, for hazardous
waste export shipments and the manifest requirements for exception,
discrepancy, and unmanifested waste reporting. EPA is implementing a
delayed compliance for these revised requirements so that the Agency
can ensure completion of the system updates and necessary preparations
for collection of hazardous waste export manifests and Exception,
Discrepancy, and Unmanifested Waste Reports in the system. The
compliance date is also needed so that EPA has adequate time to work
with State regulating agencies to ensure that these manifest related
reports are disseminated immediately to the appropriate staff (e.g.,
enforcement) in authorized State agencies.
EPA intends that the provisions of this rule be severable. In the
event that any individual provision or part of the rule is invalidated,
EPA intends that this would not render the entire rule invalid, and
that any individual provisions that can continue to operate will be
left in place.
C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
The authority to finalize this rule is found in sections 1002,
2002(a), 3001-3004, and 3017 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and as
amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 6901,
6906 et. seq., 6912, 6921-6925, 6937, and 6938, and further amended by
the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, Public Law
112-195, section 6939g, and in sections 6, 8, 12, 15, and 17 of the
Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611, 2614, and
2616.
D. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?
EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this proposed action. The Regulatory Impact
Analysis for EPA's Final Rule Integrating e- Manifest with Hazardous
Waste Exports and Other Manifest-related Reports, PCB Manifest
Amendments and Technical Corrections (RIA), is available in the docket
for this rulemaking. EPA estimates that these regulatory changes will
decrease the aggregate burden across all entities manifesting waste by
approximately $4.71 million annually. However, this rulemaking consists
of a series of provisions that affect the various regulated entity
types differently (see chapter 2 of the RIA). See RIA Exhibit 3-10 for
a summary of annual costs across all regulatory changes.
II. Detailed Discussion of the Final Rule
A. Background
On April 1, 2022, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(hereafter referred to as ``NPRM'') to revise the hazardous waste
manifest regulations.\1\ The proposed revisions aimed to increase the
utility of the e-Manifest system to reduce overall burden on the
regulated community while enhancing the effectiveness of the manifest
forms and e-Manifest system as tools to track Federal and State waste
shipments as required under Federal or State laws. EPA proposed to
accomplish this by amending the manifest regulations to: (1)
Incorporate hazardous waste export manifests into the e-Manifest
system; (2) incorporate three manifest-related reports (e.g.,
Discrepancy, Exception, and Unmanifested Waste reports) in the e-
Manifest system; (3) expand the required international shipment data
elements on the manifest form; (4) revise certain aspects of the
manifest form to improve compliance with import and export consents and
tracking requirements; (5) allow for greater precision in waste data
reported on the manifest; (6) make conforming changes to the PCB
manifest regulations under TSCA; and (7) make other technical
corrections to remove obsolete requirements, correct typographical
errors, establish definitions, and/or improve alignment with the e-
Manifest program. In addition, EPA included in the proposed rule a
discussion regarding potential future integration of the e-Manifest
system with Biennial Reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 87 FR 19290; April 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received 17 sets of public comments in response to the April
2022 NPRM from hazardous waste generators, transporters, waste
management firms, consultants, and State hazardous waste agencies.
Commenters generally supported the proposals for the collection of
export manifests in the e-Manifest system and use of electronic
exception, discrepancy, and unmanifested wastes reports to satisfy the
manifest-related reporting requirements. Commenters also generally
supported the proposals regarding conforming changes to the PCB
manifest regulations under TSCA and other technical corrections to
address obsolescence of certain RCRA and TSCA requirements and
typographical errors. Commenters had differing opinions regarding EPA's
proposed revisions to remove the requirement for the receiving facility
to transmit completed manifest paper copies to unregistered generators,
which included the addition of an email address field in the generator
block of the manifest so that the e-Manifest system can email copies of
completed paper manifests to the generator's email address.
Moreover, there were a substantial number of comments that took
issue with EPA's conceptual approach regarding integration of the
Biennial Report (BR) with the e-Manifest system, particularly with
respect to the feasibility of EPA's BR conceptual approach and BR
integration in general. EPA believes that commenters raised significant
substantive issues that merit further analysis and external outreach
prior to adopting a final approach. These issues include but are not
limited to: (1) How to address challenges and data gaps that exist
between the current approach and the BR conceptual data
[[Page 60694]]
collection approach; (2) What additional BR data elements such as form
codes, source codes, waste descriptions, etc., should be recorded on
paper manifests; (3) What quantity formats (e.g., decimals) should be
used to ensure better accuracy of manifest data; (4) What units of
measure should be required for BR so that they match those for
manifests; (5) Should EPA require large quantity generators (LQGs) and
receiving facilities to document the BR information on manifests for
each shipment every year, or for each shipment only during each odd-
numbered year (called the ``collection year'' or ``reporting year'');
(6) Should EPA establish a similar conceptual approach for e-Manifest
integration with the Generation and Management (GM) Form and would such
an approach would work for the GM Form; (7) 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; and (8) Should EPA replace the BR in its
current format with a report produced directly from the e-Manifest
system using the information currently available in e-Manifest to
satisfy the BR requirements under Sec. Sec. 264.75 and 265.75 for
permitted and interim status hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities, respectively. EPA appreciates public comments
received on its BR conceptual approach as part of the April 2022 NPRM
and will be considering these comments in developing future approaches
related to BR integration. Any further action on BR integration will be
addressed in separate action, as needed; the Agency is not further
considering BR integration in this final rulemaking.
B. Collection of Export Manifests in the e-Manifest System
1. Submission of Export Manifests and Payment of User Fees
To date, the e-Manifest system's submission and fee collection
requirements have applied to receiving facilities in the United States
that are clearly within the jurisdiction of EPA's manifest regulations.
Export manifests track wastes that are received at foreign consignees,
and EPA lacks jurisdiction to require these foreign destination
facilities to submit manifests to e-Manifest and pay user fees to EPA.
Therefore, the e-Manifest system has not previously tracked export
manifests.
What EPA Proposed on This Issue
In the April 2022 NPRM, EPA proposed regulatory changes to require
hazardous waste exporters to submit export manifests to the system and
pay the requisite manifest processing fee. EPA cited practicality and
efficiency reasons to focus fee collections and payments in the system
on exporters rather than working to allow foreign transporters who have
obtained an EPA ID number to transport manifested hazardous waste in
the U.S with access to the system. These transporters may not be
domiciled in the U.S but are allowed to transport export shipments to
and across the U.S. border; thus, these foreign transporters close out
the manifest at the U.S. port of exit. EPA also explained other EPA
programs have encountered regulatory challenges imposing Federal
regulations on foreign entities. The Agency also noted in the NPRM that
although transporters, under current regulations, close out the export
manifest at a U.S. port of exit, EPA believes the exporter is better
suited to submit the manifest and continuation sheet to the system. EPA
considered the following regulatory amendments to require an exporter
to submit the manifest form and continuation sheet (whether paper or
electronic manifests are used) to EPA and pay the requisite processing
fee for the submission.
<bullet> EPA proposed revisions to paragraph (c) under Sec. 262.83
to adopt 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.
<bullet> EPA proposed new paragraph (c)(4) under Sec. 262.83 that
would require an exporter to submit manifests (whether paper or
electronic manifests are used) to the e-Manifest system within 30 days
of receipt of the export 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.
<bullet> EPA proposed new paragraph (c)(5) under Sec. 262.83 to
adopt the fee provisions of the electronic hazardous waste manifest
program under part 265, subpart FF for hazardous waste export
shipments.
<bullet> EPA proposed new paragraphs (c)(6) through (8) under Sec.
262.83 to require electronic signature requirements in Sec. 262.25;
address special procedures applicable to replacement manifests; and
address post-receipt data corrections.
<bullet> EPA proposed to modify Sec. 263.20(g)(3) to require the
transporter who transports the hazardous waste export shipment out of
the U.S. via road or rail border crossing or delivers the export
shipment to a seaport for loading onto an international carrier to send
paper copies of the manifest and continuation sheet (or images of the
paper copies) to the exporter instead of to the generator, or transmit
the export manifest and continuation sheet electronically to the
exporter via the e-Manifest system in accordance with the existing
manifest requirement for electronic manifest use at Sec. 263.20(a)(4).
<bullet> EPA proposed to remove the current transporter requirement
in Sec. 263.20(g)(4)(i) because 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).
Description of Public Comments
Generally, EPA did not receive adverse comment on the proposals to
collect export manifests (whether paper or electronic manifests are
used) in the e-Manifest system and charge user fees for their
submission. Several commenters strongly supported the proposed
amendments to the manifest regulations that would require export
manifests to be collected in the e-Manifest system. One commenter
stated support for the proposed manifest fee and the fee formula and
methodology and fee revisions to calculate the fees based on the
exporter's manifest activities in the system.
One commenter concurred with EPA that transporters are not best
suited for submitting the export manifest to the system and paying the
requisite processing fee. Another commenter noted that exporters and
traders who export hazardous waste are fewer in number, are reasonably
expected to be more sophisticated and able to consistently manage
manifest submissions and are more knowledgeable about the hazardous
waste being exported than the transporters who currently close out
export manifests. This commenter reasoned that applying the primary
regulatory responsibility to exporters and traders who are already
required to be domiciled in the U.S. would reduce the difficulty in
communications with and regulatory oversight over entities domiciled in
a foreign country.
However, one industry commenter who supported requiring exporters
to submit export manifests to the system did not support making 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 solely accountable for returning the paper copy of the manifest to
the exporter or transmitting the electronic manifest electronically to
the exporter via the e-Manifest system. This commenter
[[Page 60695]]
recommended that, instead, EPA require the foreign receiving facility
to return the manifest to the exporter and suggested EPA incorporate
into the final rule a mandatory requirement that all export contracts
or equivalent legal arrangements established among all parties (e.g.,
exporter, foreign importer, and foreign receiving facility) require
that the foreign receiving facility return the manifest to the
exporter.
Discussion of Final Rule
EPA did not receive adverse comment on the proposals to require
exporters to submit export manifests into the e-Manifest system;
therefore, EPA is finalizing the proposed changes to the introductory
text of paragraph (c) under Sec. 262.83 to adopt 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. EPA is also finalizing the proposed export
manifest requirements under paragraphs (c)(4) through (8) to collect
export manifests (whether paper or electronic manifests are used) in
the e-Manifest system, charge user fees for their submission, and
submit manifest corrections to the EPA e-Manifest system. This final
rule codifies these proposals as revised Sec. 262.83(c)(4). EPA notes
that the new post-receipt manifest data corrections procedures for
hazardous waste export shipments are discussed under section II.H.4 of
this final rule. Finally, EPA is finalizing the proposed changes to the
transporter regulations for hazardous waste export shipments under
Sec. 263.20(g).
Although this final rule will be effective on January 22, 2025,
implementation of the revised manifest requirements for the collection
of export manifests in the e-Manifest system, use of electronic
manifests for tracking of hazardous waste export shipments, imposition
of user fees on hazardous waste exporters, and the revised transporter
manifest requirement for returned export manifest manifests and
continuation sheets to the exporter will have a delayed compliance date
that begins on December 1, 2025. As stated above, this compliance date
will provide EPA time to implement the necessary e-Manifest system
changes to incorporate these final requirements.
Prior to December 1, 2025, hazardous waste exporters will not be
required to submit paper manifests to the e-Manifest system and pay
user fees, nor will exporters be able to use electronic manifests to
track their hazardous waste export shipments. Additionally, prior to
December 1, 2025, transporters who transport hazardous waste out of the
United States must continue to return a signed copy of the manifest to
the generator. (In addition, such transporters must also submit the
continuation sheet to the generator during this period of time.)
Beginning on December 1, 2025, regulated entities must comply with
the revised hazardous waste export regulations discussed below.
Regarding the exporter requirements under Sec. 262.83(c)(4),
collectively, these new provisions require that exporters submit export
manifests and manifest continuation sheets (whether electronic or paper
manifests are used) to the e-Manifest system and pay the requisite fees
for those submissions. Therefore, any entity acting as the U.S.
exporter that originated the manifest for an export shipment of
hazardous waste in accordance with the manifest requirements under part
262, subpart B and Sec. 262.83(c), whether they be a generator,
receiving facility, or recognized trader, must submit the export
manifests and manifest continuation sheets to the e-Manifest system and
pay the requisite fees. Further, in accordance with Sec. 262.83(c)
(per 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), a person exporting a shipment out of the U.S. (e.g., a
generator or a recognized trader located separate from the site
initiating the shipment) may, in lieu of using a paper manifest form,
use an electronic manifest to track the export shipment within the
United States. These electronic manifests are considered the legal
equivalent of paper manifests signed with conventional ink signatures.
Therefore, per Sec. 262.83(c)(4), an exporter who elects to use an
electronic manifest and continuation sheet for an export shipment, must
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.
Revised Sec. 262.83(c)(4) also provides an exporter the same
options as a U.S. receiving facility to submit the original paper
manifests to the system. Per Sec. 265.71(a)(2)(v)(B), if the waste
shipment was transported within and then exited the U.S. under a paper
manifest and continuation sheet, the exporter must submit images of the
paper forms, or uploaded data plus images of the paper forms. EPA notes
that exporters may also use hybrid manifests to track export shipments
under this final rule. If an export shipment was initiated by the
initial transporter under a hybrid manifest in accordance with Sec.
262.24(c), then an exporter must complete and sign that manifest
electronically in the system.
To submit export manifests (whether paper or electronic manifests
are used) to the system, exporters will need a registered user with at
least Certifier level permissions in the e-Manifest module (a
permission level that requires identity proofing and an electronic
signature agreement). Exporters may also register users to view their
manifest records in the e-Manifest system. Such viewer-only users of
the e-Manifest system are only required to obtain Viewer level
permissions (or equivalent) to access the manifests for their site.
Pursuant to the new provisions under paragraph (c)(4), an exporter
must pay the requisite use fee for manifest submissions. The fee
provisions of the electronic hazardous waste manifest program are
codified under part 265, subpart FF (Sec. Sec. 265.1300, 265.1311,
265.1312, 265.1313, 265.1314, 265.1315, and 265.1316). EPA finalized
these provisions in the User Fee Final Rule (83 FR 420, January 3,
2018) and utilizes them for domestic receiving facilities of hazardous
waste and other Federal or State regulated wastes. Currently, EPA sets
user fees based on the Highly Differentiated Fee Formula (Sec. Sec.
264.1312(b) and 265.1312(b)). EPA refreshes its user fees every two
years based on the manifest usage projections and processing costs for
each manifest type.
Exporters of a waste shipment subject to the manifest requirements
must make payments to EPA for manifest activities conducted during the
prior month per Sec. 265.1314. Under Sec. 265.1311, EPA will impose a
per manifest fee for each manifest submitted to the system based on the
mode of submission (data upload, image file upload, or electronic).
Exporters will receive an electronic invoice or bill displaying their
manifest activity during the prior month and must make payments in full
within 30 days from the date of the invoice. Exporters must submit
electronic payments to the U.S. Department of Treasury through the e-
Manifest system using one of the acceptable electronic payment options,
which include commercial credit cards, commercial debit cards, and
Automated Clearinghouse (ACH) debits. An exporter's Site Managers will
be able to receive and pay invoices for their site(s). These invoices
cannot be forwarded to or paid by someone other than a Site Manager.
Therefore, exporters must
[[Page 60696]]
register a user(s) for the e-Manifest module within the RCRAInfo
Industry Application with the Site Manager permission level to submit
payment. Further information regarding e-Manifest user fees and payment
information is discussed on EPA's ``User Fees/Payments'' web page.\2\
Per the late fee and collection provisions at Sec. 265.1315, exporters
who do not pay their invoices in full and on time will be charged late
fees. Late fees begin to accrue for bills not paid in full within 30
days from the date of the invoice. The fees include a penalty
(currently 1% annualized of the billable invoice total) and a handling
charge (currently $15) for each month the bill is unpaid. A one-time
increase of this penalty is charged if a bill is not paid four months
after the invoice has been issued; currently this charge is a one-time
increase of the penalty to 6%. After four months, the unpaid invoice is
forwarded to the U.S. Treasury Department for collection and further
action. Per Sec. 265.1316, exporters can dispute an invoice using the
informal dispute process, if they believe an invoice to be in error
(e.g., the invoice does not accurately describe the numbers of
manifests submitted in the prior billing period, the types of manifests
(paper vs. electronic) submitted in the prior billing period, or,
because the invoice appears to have made a mathematical error in
generating the amount of fees due under the invoice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/e-manifest/e-manifest-user-fees-and-payment-information#upcoming">https://www.epa.gov/e-manifest/e-manifest-user-fees-and-payment-information#upcoming</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the proposed changes to the transporter provisions under
Sec. 263.20(g)(3) and (4), this final rule finalizes the proposed
changes but finalizes them with slight modifications. Specifically,
this final rule revises the proposed paragraph (g)(3) slightly to
reflect the fact that EPA will not implement the new hazardous waste
export requirements under Sec. 262.83(c)(4) until December 1, 2025. As
a result, EPA will finalize the proposed paragraph (g)(3) with a slight
modification to reflect that a transporter must submit the manifest and
continuation sheet to the generator (and not to the exporter) until
December 1, 2025. This proposed paragraph (g)(3) has also been revised
to no longer apply on December 1, 2025 (and thus will end through
November 30, 2025). Starting on December 1, 2025, revised paragraph
(g)(4) will apply, at which time the transporter must submit the
manifest and continuation sheet to the exporter.
EPA appreciates the commenter's suggestion that EPA establish a new
requirement making the foreign facility return the manifest to the
exporter and accepts the commenter's claim that foreign facilities
generally return completed manifests along with the movement document.
EPA, however, is not persuaded to establish the new requirement for a
few reasons. First, EPA believes this approach is common practice if
the foreign transporter hauls the hazardous waste out of the U.S. to a
foreign facility located in Canada or Mexico via road or rail border
crossing. However, EPA notes that waste exported to foreign facilities
in Asia or Europe generally are transported by an international
carrier. In such instances, the transporter delivers export shipments
to a seaport for loading onto an international carrier and leaves the
export manifest at the seaport. Therefore, in this instance, the
foreign facility could not return the manifest to the exporter. Second,
EPA explained in the NPRM that foreign entities have posed regulatory
challenges including challenges verifying the identity of foreign users
for electronic signatures as the current e-signature methods are
designed to be used in the United States.\3\ Third, EPA also points out
that the Agency did not provide notice and opportunity to comment on
this approach in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, this final rule modifies Sec. 263.20(g)(3) to require
that beginning on December 1, 2025, the last transporter (who
transports the hazardous waste export shipment out of the U.S. via road
or rail border crossing or delivers the export shipment to a seaport
for loading onto an international carrier) must send a signed copy of
the manifest and continuation sheet to the exporter, instead of the
generator. EPA notes that beginning on December 1, 2025, transporters
will be able to use electronic manifests in lieu of paper manifests to
transport RCRA-manifested waste shipments out of the U.S. in accordance
with Sec. 263.20(a)(4). Transporters would need to obtain a RCRAInfo
Industry Application account to access and use the e-Manifest system.
This final rule also removes the current transporter requirement
under Sec. 263.20(g)(4)(i). As explained in the NPRM, 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).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 87 FR 19290; April 1, 2022. See page 19298.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Changes to Manifest Form and Continuation Sheet and Manifest
Requirements for Hazardous Waste Export and/or Import Shipments
EPA proposed a few changes to the manifest form and manifest
continuation sheet to align the forms with the proposals to capture
export manifests in the e-Manifest system and to better track hazardous
waste export and import shipments using the manifest forms. As
mentioned previously, EPA proposed exporters submit the manifest to
EPA's e-Manifest system and pay the appropriate per manifest fee to EPA
for each export manifest submitted to the e-Manifest system. The
existing manifest requirements under Sec. 262.83(c) require a
hazardous waste exporter comply with the manifest requirements at
Sec. Sec. 262.20 through 262.23 which require the exporter use the
manifest--and if necessary, the manifest continuation sheet--when
exporting hazardous waste out of the U.S. Generally, the current
manifest form does not provide adequate space to provide the exporter's
EPA ID Number on the manifest unless the exporter is the generator or
the site from where the export manifest is initiated. In such
instances, the manifest instructions require the exporter to list its
EPA ID number in Item 1 of the manifest and its name, mailing address,
and phone number is Item 5. However, if the exporter is a recognized
trader located separate from the site initiating the export shipment,
then while the exporter must ensure that the items noted above are
recorded on the manifest, Item 1 and Item 5 will reflect the generator
or shipping site's information rather than the exporter's information.
An exporter's EPA ID number is needed to ensure that the exporter can
use electronic manifests, upload paper manifests to its site account in
the system, track its manifest activity (for both electronic and paper
manifests) in the system, and receive accurate invoices for each
billing cycle.
Regarding other manifest form changes, currently, Sec.
262.83(c)(2) requires the exporter to check the export box and enter
the U.S. port of exit (city and State) from which the hazardous waste
export shipment exits the U.S. In addition, Sec. 262.83(c)(3) requires
hazardous waste exporters to list the consent numbers for each waste
stream entered in Item 9b, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
shipping description, on the export manifest. Similarly, Sec. Sec.
264.71(a)(3)(i) and 265.71(a)(3)(i) require domestic receiving
facilities list the consent numbers on import manifests.
[[Page 60697]]
Currently, these consent numbers are recorded generally in Item 14
``Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information'' on the
paper manifest form due to the lack of dedicated fields for listing
such numbers. This is problematic for data key entry of manifest data
from paper manifests because consent numbers typically are not listed
clearly in Item 14 and often are grouped together with other manifest
information. As a result, it can be difficult for the paper processing
center (PPC) to match the relevant consent numbers with the correct
waste streams. The addition of a separate data field to the paper and
electronic manifests for consent numbers would facilitate the
electronic upload or manual data entry of data from paper export and
import manifests as the manifest would more clearly list the consent
number for each waste stream. The additional field would also
facilitate the retrieval of export and import manifest data from the e-
Manifest system for all manifested hazardous waste export and import
shipments.
What EPA Proposed on This Issue
EPA proposed changes to the manifest forms, manifest instructions,
and the hazardous waste manifest requirements corresponding to
completion of the manifest forms for international shipments. Regarding
proposed changes to the manifest forms, EPA proposed and/or requested
comment on several changes to the manifest form and continuation sheet
related to hazardous waste international shipments in a February 2019
Federal Register notice and more recently in the April 2022 NPRM.
First, EPA proposed to add a new data field on the paper and electronic
manifest so hazardous waste stream consent numbers can be recorded in a
separate, distinct field on a manifest.\5\ Second, EPA requested
comment in the February 2019 FRN whether the Agency should add space to
the International Shipment field (Item 16) on the paper manifest to
accommodate the consent numbers corresponding to each of the waste
streams listed in Item 9 of the manifest.\6\ Finally, as a second
option, EPA requested comment on whether the Agency should revise the
manifest continuation sheet so that the International Shipment Field is
removed from the paper manifest and appears instead on the manifest
continuation sheet with an expanded area that is able to more easily
accommodate four 12-digit consent numbers and the primary exporter's
EPA ID number, if the exporter is not the generator or is a recognized
trader located separate from the site initiating the export
shipment.\7\ The February 2019 FR explained in both options, the
exporter would enter its EPA ID Number in Item 1 and its name and
address on the left side of Item 5 and supply the name and address of
the generator site on the right side of Item 5, if not the same as the
primary exporter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 84 FR 2854; February 9, 2019. See pages 2855-2856.
\6\ 84 FR 2854; February 9, 2019. See page 2856.
\7\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, EPA discussed whether the Agency should modify the
instructions under both options to clarify that the exporter must enter
its EPA ID number in a separate new data field so that the generator
site's EPA ID number is retained in Item 1 of the manifest.
Except for the alternative option regarding designating a new,
distinct field in Item 16 of the manifest to accommodate the recording
of consent numbers in it, EPA requested comment in the NPRM seeking
further input on the addition of new fields for consent numbers and the
exporter's EPA ID Number on the manifest continuation sheet and
proposed re-designating Item 16 on the manifest continuation sheet as
Items 33a and 33b on the continuation sheet. In addition, EPA proposed
to add an email address to the International Shipments field. EPA
explained in the proposed rule that if these proposed form changes are
finalized, then EPA also would revise the current manifest instructions
for completing the International Shipments field to reflect these new
changes.
Regarding changes to the hazardous waste export requirements
corresponding to the proposed manifest form revisions, EPA proposed
conforming changes under Sec. 262.83(c)(2) and (3) as follows:
<bullet> Moving the existing requirements under paragraph (c)(2) to
new paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (iii). Provisions (c)(2)(i) and (iii)
would continue to require the exporter to check the export box and
enter the U.S. port of exit (city and State) from the United States,
respectively, on the manifest. However, this information would be
entered in the new International Shipments Field (Item 33a) of the
proposed Continuation Sheet.
<bullet> Revising (c)(2) to reflect the new requirement that
exporters must complete both the manifest and the International
Shipment Field of the new manifest continuation sheet for export
shipments.
<bullet> Adding a new paragraph (c)(2)(ii) to require that the
exporter enter its EPA ID number, if the exporter is not identified in
Item 5 of the manifest (EPA Form 8700-22) for the export shipment, and
email address in the new email address field in Item 33a of the
Continuation Sheet.
<bullet> Noting that the requirement under the existing manifest
instruction for the final transporter to sign the manifest on the date
the waste departs the country would be removed.
<bullet> Moving the existing paragraph (c)(3) to new paragraph
(c)(2)(iv) and revising it to require that the exporter list each
consent number from the Acknowledgment of Consent (AOC) for each waste
stream recorded on the manifest form(s) in the new designated field of
the International Shipment Field (Item 33b) of the Continuation Sheet.
EPA also proposed to move the existing requirement under Sec.
262.83(c)(4) to paragraph (c)(3). This requirement indicates that
exporters may be able to obtain paper manifest forms from any source
that is registered with the U.S. EPA as a supplier of manifests (e.g.,
States, waste handlers, and/or commercial forms printers).
Description of Public Comments
Commenters strongly supported the proposed manifest form changes
related to export and import hazardous waste shipments. EPA did not
receive adverse comment regarding moving the International Shipment
field (Item 16) from the manifest to the continuation sheet and adding
new fields for the consent number and exporter's EPA ID Number and
email address to the International Shipments field. Some of these
commenters reasoned that moving Item 16 (International Shipments field)
from the manifest to the continuation sheet would be much clearer and
easier for the regulated community and noted that one field (i.e., Item
5) would not be used for two different sets of required information
(information for waste generator and information for the waste
exporter).
One commenter suggested collecting all the export information,
including the exporter name and address in Item 5, on the manifest
continuation sheet, rather than having it on both the manifest and
continuation sheet. The commenter reasoned that using Item 5 to collect
two distinct types of information (i.e., generator and exporter name
and address) would create confusion for manifest users. This commenter
also stated that a clearly defined area for the collection of exporter
information is their preferred option. Finally, this commenter
recommended that, for
[[Page 60698]]
imports, the instructions for the manifest form and continuation sheet
should include the importer's requirements for Items 1 and 5 of EPA
Form 8700-22 that are relevant to Sec. 262.84(c)(1)(i). This commenter
stated that for hazardous waste shipments entering the U.S., the
manifest regulations for importers are similar to the requirements for
exporters. The importer must also comply with manifest requirements at
Sec. Sec. 262.20 through 262.23, and the importer is considered the
RCRA generator whose EPA ID Number will be entered in Item 1.
Additionally, the importer's information must be entered in Item 5,
except that the importer must enter the name and site address of the
foreign facility on the right side of Item 5 of the manifest in lieu of
entering its physical site address. The importer must also enter the
name, site address, and EPA ID Number of the domestic designated
facility in Item 8 of the manifest. If the domestic designated facility
is also the importer, then its information would be entered in both
locations on the manifest.
Discussion of Final Form Changes and Corresponding Manifest
Requirements
Commenters strongly supported the proposed changes to the manifest
forms, instructions, and the manifest requirements for export
shipments, and EPA did not receive adverse comment to the proposals.
Therefore, EPA is finalizing the proposed changes to the manifest forms
and instructions. EPA is also finalizing the proposed conforming
changes to the previous hazardous waste export requirements under Sec.
262.83(c) but with slight modification. EPA accepts one commenter's
suggestion that EPA should not require the exporter to enter its name
and site address on the left side of Item 5 and the generator's
information on the right side of Item 5. EPA agrees with the
commenter's suggestion that a clearly defined area on the manifest
continuation sheet for the collection of exporter information is a
better approach than entering it on the right side of Item 5. However,
like the manifest form, the manifest continuation sheet is a one-page
paper form that is already full of many data elements, and thus it does
not have adequate space left for the addition of exporter information
normally recorded in Item 5 of the manifest (i.e., the exporter's name,
mailing address, and phone number).
Therefore, in establishing a clearly defined area for exporter
information, this final rule removes the International Shipments field
(Item 16) from the manifest form, re-designates it as Items 33a and 33b
on the continuation sheet and adds new fields for consent numbers and
the exporter's EPA Identification (ID) Number to the International
Shipments field. EPA is also revising the current manifest instructions
for completing the International Shipments field to reflect these new
changes. Under the new manifest form and manifest continuation sheet,
if the exporter is the generator or is the site from where the export
manifest is initiated, then the exporter must record its information--
name, address, and phone number--in Items 1 and 5 of the manifest form.
Such exporters are not required to provide its EPA ID number on the
manifest continuation sheet. However, if the exporter is a recognized
trader located separate from the site initiating the export shipment,
then the exporter must enter its EPA ID number in the new exporter EPA
ID space in the International Shipment field (Item 33a) of the manifest
continuation sheet. However, such exporters will not be required to
enter their name, mailing address, and telephone number in Item 33a.
EPA notes that exporters must submit an export notification and the AOC
associated with the manifested export shipment to the Waste Import
Export Tracking System (WIETS) module in the RCRAInfo application. The
consent numbers recorded on the manifest are linked to the AOC document
in WIETS. Since exporters must register and obtain an account in the
RCRAInfo for access to both the e-Manifest and WIETS modules, EPA will
obtain the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the
recognized trader from the AOC using the consent numbers recorded on
the manifest. For Item 33a, the exporter must check the box indicating
an export shipment and enter the port of exit (city and State) from the
U.S. In addition, if located separate from the site initiating the
shipment, then the exporter must enter its EPA ID Number in this field.
EPA is not finalizing the proposed form change to add an exporter
email address field in Item 33a of the Continuation Sheet. In addition,
EPA is not finalizing the removal of the requirement under the existing
manifest instruction for the final transporter to sign the manifest on
the date the waste departs the country. EPA has decided that these form
changes are not needed. Thus, in this final rule, the final transporter
must sign and date Item 33a to indicate the day the shipment left the
U.S. via a road or rail border crossing or the date the shipment was
delivered to a seaport of exit for loading onto an international
carrier. The exporter will not be required to record its email address
in Item 33a. For import shipments, the importer must check the box
indicating an import shipment and enter the port of entry (city and
State) into the U.S. in new Item 33a of the continuation sheet. For
Item 33b, destination facilities of import shipments and exporters must
record the consent numbers on the manifest for each waste stream listed
in Items 9b and 27b of the manifest and continuation sheet.
However, based on the Agency's final decision not to include the
generator email address field on the manifest, EPA is not finalizing
the proposed requirement that exporters must enter their email address
in the International Shipment Field (Item 33a) of the manifest
continuation sheet. Finally, EPA accepts the one commenter's
recommendation about revising the manifest instructions of Items 1 and
5 of the manifest form for hazardous waste import shipments. EPA agrees
that the manifest instructions for these fields should align with the
existing importer requirement at Sec. 262.84(c)(1)(i) and has revised
the manifest instructions accordingly.
3. Other Changes to Manifest Requirements for Hazardous Waste
International Shipments
EPA is finalizing its proposal to remove the requirement in Sec.
262.84(c)(4) that the importer must provide an additional copy of the
manifest to the transporter to be submitted by the receiving facility
to EPA. EPA explained in the proposed rule that 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. EPA did not receive
adverse comment to this proposal.
C. Removal of Requirement for Receiving Facility To Return Final Copy
of Manifest to Unregistered Generators
4. What EPA Proposed on This Issue: Mailing Back Final Copies of
Manifests
EPA proposed to revise Sec. Sec. 264.71(a)(2)(iv) and
265.71(a)(2)(iv) so that, rather than mailing generator copies of
completed manifests (Page 2) to generators, receiving facilities would
only need to submit the top copies (Page 1) of manifests to the e-
Manifest system. Generators would thus receive their completed
manifests directly from the e-Manifest system via email, or they
[[Page 60699]]
would access them directly in the e-Manifest system.
EPA proposed to add an email address field to Item 5 of the
generator block of the paper manifest (i.e., the Generator's Name and
Mailing Address block). This would allow the e-Manifest system to send
automated emails to unregistered generators containing copies of
completed paper manifests in lieu of receiving facilities having to
mail final copies back to generators. Thus, generators who track their
wastes using a paper manifest or a hybrid manifest but are not
registered for the e-Manifest system would be required to record an
email address in the email address field. The e-Manifest system would
also send automated emails alerting generators about manifests from
receiving facilities 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). (See sections II.D and II.E, respectively,
for further details).
To ensure that the automated email is not undelivered or left
unnoticed or unopened, EPA proposed to require the generator to enter
an email address associated with the company site and shared among 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. In addition, the system-
generated email to the generator 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 also requested comment on an alternative option to the proposed
email approach. Under the alternative option, EPA would mandate that
generators register for access to the e-Manifest system so that
generators could receive completed manifests in their registered
accounts in e-Manifest rather than from system-generated emails. Under
the alternative approach, EPA would not need to collect generator email
addresses on the manifest form because individual personnel for the
generator would be providing a verifiable email address upon
registration. Registered generators would then access final copies of
manifests from e-Manifest and receive notification emails from e-
Manifest regarding their sites' recent manifest activity. Finally,
under this alternative approach, as with the proposed approach,
receiving facilities would not be required to mail hard copies of
manifests to generators as all generators would be required to register
in the system and have access to their manifests.
Finally, EPA proposed conforming changes to requirements for
printing paper manifests at Sec. 262.21(f)(6). The printing
distribution of the five-copy form is as follows:
Page 1 (top copy): ``Designated facility to EPA's e-Manifest
system;'';
Page 2: ``Designated facility to generator;'';
Page 3: ``Designated facility copy;'';
Page 4: ``Transporter copy;''; and,
Page 5 (bottom copy): ``Generator's initial copy.''
Under EPA's proposal, Page 2 (Designated facility to generator)
would no longer be needed and thus would be removed from the five-copy
set of forms. As a result, the proposed rule would create a new four-
copy form 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.''
EPA also requested comment on removing Page 3 (Designated facility
copy) from the manifest form and continuation sheet since submission of
paper manifests to the e-Manifest system via postal mail are no longer
permissible. The manifest form could then be a new three-copy form 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.''
5. Description of Public Comments: Mailing Back Final Copies of
Manifests
Commenters supported the removal of the requirement that receiving
facilities mail paper manifests to generators. One commenter stated
that removing the existing requirement that receiving facilities mail
paper manifests to the generators would improve e-Manifest
functionality by allowing generators to receive final manifest copies
from the system, rather than continuing to impose costs on receiving
facilities to mail or email paper manifest copies back to their
customers. Another commenter stated that this proposal would facilitate
lowering receiving facilities' burden by allowing the elimination of
any need to mail or otherwise return final signed manifest copies to
generators.
Most commenters supported EPA's proposed approach to add a new
generator email address field to the manifest form; however, some
expressed concerns about the part of the proposal in which the e-
Manifest system would email copies of completed paper manifests to the
generator's email address. One commenter stated that the collection of
a generator email address on manifest forms is beneficial as it creates
another avenue for ensuring generator receipt of final manifest copies
via the e-Manifest system, assists generators with accessing these
forms electronically, and reinforces the electronic copy as the primary
source of information for all parties involved. Another commenter wrote
that requiring an email address to be entered each time a generator
initiates a shipment of hazardous waste would be a de minimis burden on
generators and result in a significant benefit for both the regulated
generators and relevant regulatory agencies alike.
Some commenters expressed concerns about requiring generators to
use an email address, including allowing generators to use a shared
email box associated with the company site, as an option for completing
the generator email address field citing that there is a possibility
that email addresses could be entered on the manifest or into the e-
Manifest system incorrectly, leading to manifests being sent to the
wrong entity or sent to email addresses that do not exist. One
commenter indicated that hand-written email addresses on paper
manifests can be of poor quality and may result in frequent errors when
uploaded to the e-Manifest system and that generator personnel may not
know the correct email address to write on the manifest. A few opposing
commenters stated that providing copies of the final manifests directly
to generators without requiring them to register for e-Manifest will
run directly counter to EPA's goal of increasing the adoption of e-
Manifest by the regulated community. These commenters further stated if
copies of the manifests are provided directly to generators, then it
will remove the main incentive for generators to register for e-
Manifest.
Several commenters supported EPA's alternative option that would
mandate that generators register with the e-Manifest system. One
commenter stated that requiring all generators (including very small
quantity generators (VSQGs)) to register in the e-Manifest system would
aid in finding and evaluating manifests for a particular generator. The
commenter also stated that doing so would make it easier to use the
data in the e-Manifest system to replace State systems used for
generator reporting.
One commenter who supported the idea of requiring all generators to
register with the e-Manifest system
[[Page 60700]]
indicated that it had some concerns with the option because: (1) It
would require VSQGs to have EPA ID Numbers, which is a major departure
from the current Federal program that extends beyond the scope of e-
Manifest, and (2) the description of how it would work seems to be
inconsistent with the RCRAInfo Industry Application's user account
requirement. RCRAInfo restricts user accounts to one person; a
registered account cannot be shared or transferred. One supporting
commenter stated that, if EPA decides to not require generators to
register with e-Manifest, then a very simple method should be developed
for unregistered generators to view their manifests. This commenter
described providing generators `one-button' access to their manifests,
such as a web page that functions much like checking into an airline
reservation. This website would request simple information, such as the
manifest number, generator ID number, and/or zip code, to allow the
generator to see the completed manifest. If the generator wanted to do
more than simply see the manifest, then the website can direct the
generator to register for e-Manifest.
One commenter stated that they oppose any element of the proposed
rule that would require generators (whether under the RCRA or TSCA PCB
program) to register and obtain an account in the e-Manifest system.
This commenter indicated that this does not address the fundamental
concern that waste handlers, particularly generators, are not able to
universally adopt the e-Manifest program and thus should not be
compelled to do so under any final rule.
One commenter supported elimination of only the designated facility
copy (Page 3) of the manifest forms, but most commenters supported
elimination of both the designated facility to generator copy (Page 2)
and the designated facility copy (Page 3). One commenter stated that it
makes sense to eliminate the designated facility copy of the manifest
form because designated facilities who want to keep a paper copy can
(and should) keep the top copy (Page 1), which is the copy scanned and
uploaded to the e-Manifest system. This commenter stated that it is
good business practice to keep this paper copy (Page 1) in case there
is any problem with the data upload and/or scan and upload of the PDF.
One commenter supported removal of the designated facility copy of
the manifest forms urging EPA to adopt a 3-page form that eliminates
the copy sent by the receiving facility to the generator (Page 2), as
well as the designated facility copy (Page 3). This commenter stated
that the generator copy is not needed because EPA intends to revise the
regulations to remove the requirement that receiving facilities mail a
paper copy back to the generator, and instead would provide generators
with electronic access to all completed manifests. Further, receiving
facilities do not need the designated facility copy which is routinely
discarded when the image copy of the final manifest is uploaded to the
e-Manifest database. The receiving facility only needs the top copy to
submit the image file to the system, and that data file is then the
manifest of record.
A few commenters who supported electronic manifest adoption favored
removal of the generator and designated facility copy of the manifest
form. One commenter stated that removal of the generator and designated
facility copies (Pages 2 and 3, respectively) of the paper manifest is
sound and will further encourage generators to use the e-Manifest
system. This commenter also stated removing these obsolete pages
reduces the administrative costs of managing the paper pages and
reduces the costs and paper material resources associated with printing
manifests. Furthermore, removing these obsolete pages in no way impedes
the usability of the paper manifest nor impacts hazard communication.
Another supporting commenter stated that the removal of manifest copy
Pages 2 and 3 is logical and justified by EPA's proposal to make
manifest final copies available electronically in the e-Manifest
system. Further, this paper copy reduction would continue to
incentivize e-Manifest adoption due to the ease of accessing manifest
copies electronically, as well as a presumption that final manifest
copies would likely be available for viewing sooner than by current
methods. Finally, one commenter indicated that beyond the reduction in
printing burden, unnecessary paperwork, and simplicity, each sufficient
reasons on their own for making this change, reducing the copies in a
multi-part `carbon copy' form consistently results in increased
transfer and legibility of handwritten and even impact-printed
information on sheets below the top.
In addition to comments discussed above, EPA received
recommendations on the following issues:
<bullet> Recordkeeping of original paper manifest. One commenter
stated that, considering the massive data quality problems that state
regulators have documented, EPA should take into account adding a
regulatory requirement for receiving facilities to retain the original
paper manifest for three years. If generators receive completed
manifests only by email or through the e-Manifest system, it will be
even more important for receiving facilities to be required to retain
the original paper manifest to deal with any data errors or other
manifest corrections because they will be the only party with access to
the original.
<bullet> Arrangements between receiving facilities and generators
that have unreliable internet connection. One commenter stated that
generators without on-site internet can plan to visit a nearby facility
that has internet, such as a local business, municipal building, or
community library.
<bullet> Burden and costs to waste handlers. Three State commenters
provided comment on the proposal's burden impact. One State commenter
stated that the proposed changes would provide a process efficiency and
cost savings for the receiving facility. Another State commenter stated
that the receiving facility's burden of providing a manifest copy to
generators would be exchanged for a large burden on generators (to
figure out how to properly set up individual user accounts from a very
confusing starting point of being required to provide a shared email
address that cannot be used to set up those accounts) and on State
regulators (to help generators navigate the account setup problem to
handle assigning EPA ID Numbers to VSQGs) or at the expense of EPA's
ability to incentivize generators to register for the e-Manifest
system. Finally, one State commenter stated that elimination of Pages 2
and 3 of the manifest form would facilitate lowering receiving
facilities' burden by allowing the elimination of any need to mail or
otherwise return final signed manifest copies to generators.
1. Background: Mailing Back Final Copies of Manifests
The current manifest requirements under Sec. Sec. 264.71(a)(2)(iv)
and 265.71(a)(2)(iv) require permitted and interim status treatment and
storage facilities to mail final copies of paper manifests to
generators if those generators do not yet have access (i.e., are not
registered) to view their final manifests in the e-Manifest system.\8\
In
[[Page 60701]]
the NPRM, EPA cited that the e-Manifest Advisory Board stated in their
2019 meeting and reiterated in their 2020 meeting that the inability or
reluctance of generators to register in the e-Manifest system has
caused lasting burden to receiving facilities because they must
continue to incur the cost of mailing paper manifest copies to
generators, in addition to submitting copies to EPA's e-Manifest
system. To mitigate this problem, the Advisory Board recommended that
EPA: (1) Mandate generators register for access to the e-Manifest
system, and (2) design the system to generate automated emails that
could notify and encourage generators to register for e-Manifest so
that they can access their completed manifests in the system. The
Advisory Board asserted 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. EPA accepts the Advisory Board's
recommendations and considered proposals and requested comment on
approaches in the NPRM that could reduce receiving facilities' burden
and possibly increase electronic manifest adoption. The sections below
detail the options considered in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Currently, Sec. Sec. 264.71(a)(2)(iv) and 265.71(a)(2)(iv)
can be satisfied if a generator initiates the manifest
electronically in the e-Manifest system and thus will automatically
receive the completed electronic manifest in its account once the
designated facility electronically signs and submits the electronic
manifest in the system. Generators who elect to use paper or hybrid
manifests to track their hazardous waste may also register with the
e-Manifest system and use their e-Manifest account to store and
retrieve scanned copies of paper manifests in the system. In such
instances, the generator will receive a scanned copy of the
completed manifest in its account once the designated facility
uploads the top copy (Page 1) of the paper manifest in the e-
Manifest system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Discussion of Final Rule: Mailing Back Final Copies of Manifests
EPA appreciates the numerous comments favoring the removal of the
existing requirement under Sec. Sec. 264.71(a) and 265.71(a) that
receiving facilities must mail the completed manifests to generators.
EPA agrees with comments asserting that removal of the existing
paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of these sections would improve e-Manifest
functionality by allowing generators to receive final manifest copies
from the system. Therefore, this final rule removes the existing final
copy transmittal requirements at Sec. Sec. 264.71(a)(2)(iv) and
265.71(a)(2)(iv) for designated receiving facilities and commercial
storage and disposal facilities, respectively, to send paper copies of
manifests to the generator.
EPA is also making conforming changes to the manifest discrepancy
requirements for hazardous waste rejected shipments and container
residues at Sec. Sec. 264.72 and 265.72. EPA overlooked proposing
changes in the NPRM for paragraph (g) of those sections. These manifest
discrepancy regulations require a receiving facility to send signed
copies of amended manifests for rejected waste or container residues to
the generator or transporter, if a facility rejects a waste--or
identifies a container residue that exceeds the quantity limits for
``empty'' containers set forth in Sec. 261.7--after it has signed,
dated, and returned a copy of the manifest to the delivering
transporter or to the generator. This final rule makes conforming
changes to Sec. Sec. 264.72(g) and 265.72(g) so that these sections
are consistent with EPA's decision to finalize the proposed changes to
paragraph (a)(2)(iv) under Sec. Sec. 264.71 and 265.71. The final rule
also revises paragraph (g) to clarify that facilities must continue to
send hazardous waste transporters amended copies of manifests for
rejected waste shipments or container residues unless the transporter
is registered with EPA's e-Manifest system. Registered transporters may
obtain the signed and dated copy of an amended completed manifests from
the EPA e-Manifest system in lieu of receiving the manifest through
U.S. postal mail.
In this final rule, the Agency is not finalizing its proposal to
use generator email addresses collected on paper manifests to send
completed copies of manifests to generators. Rather, in Sec.
262.20(a), EPA is requiring large and small quantity generators (LQGs
and SQGs) to register for the e-Manifest module in the RCRAInfo
Industry Application to access completed copies of manifests.
EPA is not requiring VSQG and PCB generators to register for the e-
Manifest module. VSQGs are generally exempt from the Federal manifest
requirements and the EPA identification numbers and re-notification
requirements, provided certain conditions described in Sec. 262.14 are
met. EPA notes, however, a few RCRA authorized States administer their
hazardous waste programs more stringently than the Federal program;
thus, these States require VSQGs use manifests and obtain EPA ID
numbers. PCB generators are required to use manifests under Federal law
but are not required to obtain EPA ID numbers. If the VSQG or PCB
generator has a registered user, receiving facilities may use the e-
Manifest system to send completed copies in lieu of sending completed
manifest copies via postal mail. Otherwise, receiving facilities must
continue to send completed manifests copies to unregistered VSQGs and
PCB generators via postal mail. However, EPA notes that VSQGs and PCB
generators can voluntarily register with e-Manifest. VSQG and PCB
generators that have registered with e-Manifest can use their e-
Manifest account to store and retrieve their completed manifest copies
from the EPA e-Manifest system; thus, receiving facilities would not be
required to send completed manifest copies to registered VSQG and PCB
generators via postal mail.
EPA is not removing Page 2 (``Designated Facility to Generator''
Copy) of the manifest forms in this final rule because VSQGs and PCB
generators who elect to not register with e-Manifest must continue to
receive Page 2 of the manifest form or manifest continuation sheet to
verify shipment receipt by the designated facility. EPA is, however,
removing Page 3 (``Designated Facility'' Copy) in Sec. 262.21(f)(6) as
this copy is redundant with the top copy that can be retained by the
receiving facility, if needed.
EPA's decision not to implement its proposed approach to use
generator email addresses collected on paper manifests to send
completed copies of manifests to generators is based on two factors.
First, EPA is persuaded by several State and/or industry commenters
asserting use of a recorded email address on the paper manifest may
cause completed manifests to be misdirected or undelivered due to
incorrect entry of the email addresses. Further, illegible handwritten
email addresses recorded on manifests may prevent the EPA's paper
processing center (PPC) from processing this recorded data properly in
the system. Thus, causal effects of the generators' inability to verify
receipt of their waste by the designated receiving facility may result
in generators overreporting unverified shipments via exception
reporting. Second, EPA accepts and agrees with opposing State
commenters' viewpoint that providing copies of the final manifests
directly to generators without requiring them to register for e-
Manifest will disincentivize generators to register for e-Manifest,
thus reducing the likelihood or delaying the transition to electronic
manifest adoption in the future.
In lieu of its proposed approach, EPA is instead implementing its
alternative approach in the NPRM to require LGQs and SQGs to register
for e-Manifest. EPA is revising Sec. 262.20(a)(1) to reflect that LQGs
and SQGs must obtain their manifests from the e-Manifest system rather
than receive them from designated receiving facilities identified in
Item 8 of manifests. The final rule also revises paragraph (a)(2) to
indicate
[[Page 60702]]
that LQGs and SQGs, transporters, and receiving facilities must
electronically submit manifest data corrections for their manifest
records if they receive correction notifications from EPA or States
requesting that manifest records must be corrected. The new post-
receipt manifest data correction requirements for generators are
discussed in preamble section II.H.4.
To obtain completed and signed manifests in the e-Manifest system,
generators need to register personnel to access the manifest records
for their site. EPA recommends that each generator site register at
least two employees as Site Managers. The ``Site Manager'' permission
level enables LQGs and SQGs to verify shipment receipts per Sec.
262.42(a)(1) and (b), respectively, as well as satisfy the other
electronic exception reporting and other mandatory reporting
requirements (i.e., post-receipt manifest data corrections) established
in this final rule. Generators should also designate a limited number
of personnel with only ``Viewer'' permission levels in the e-Manifest
module. Unlike the Site Manager permission level, persons with
``Viewer'' permissions would be restricted to only accessing manifests
in their registered accounts to verify that shipments arrived at
designated facilities.\9\ In other words, the ``Viewer'' permission
level would ensure LQGs and SQGs can verify shipment receipts by the
receiving facility but would not afford them the ability to prepare and
submit electronic Exception Reports (whether for electronic or paper
manifests) in the event that a shipment cannot be verified. LQGs and
SQGs must still verify receipt of their shipments by the designated
receiving facilities per the exception reporting requirements under
Sec. 262.42.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Ibid.
\10\ For explanations regarding how to register and the
different permissions available to users of the e-Manifest system,
please refer to the EPA's e-Manifest user registration web page;
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/e-manifest/e-manifest-user-registration">https://www.epa.gov/e-manifest/e-manifest-user-registration</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned previously, the EPA is not requiring registration for
VSQGs and PCB generators who are required under Federal or State law to
track their hazardous waste or PCB wastes, respectively, under a
manifest. The EPA agrees with one commenter's claim that mandating all
generators to register for access to their manifests in e-Manifest
would also require VSQGs and PCB generators to obtain EPA ID numbers;
these generators are not currently required to obtain EPA ID numbers,
and they would not be able to access manifests for their site without
one. VSQGs and PCB generators without EPA ID numbers generally record
the generic identification number ``VSQG,'' or ``CESQG,'' or ``40 CFR
PART 761'' on paper or hybrid electronic manifests, but this
identification number is not suitable for locating manifests within e-
Manifest for a specific site. The EPA accepts the commenter's concern
that such a requirement is a major departure from the current Federal
program and extends beyond the scope of e-Manifest.
Since VSQGs and PCB generators currently are not federally required
to obtain EPA ID numbers, and the EPA has not provided VSQGs nor PCB
generators adequate notice and opportunity to comment on a new
notification requirement to obtain EPA ID numbers for e-Manifest
purposes, this final rule does not require VSQGs nor PCB generators to
register in the system to monitor manifest activity for their site. As
mentioned previously, this final rule removes the existing final copy
transmittal requirements at Sec. Sec. 264.71(a)(2)(iv) and
265.71(a)(2)(iv). However, the EPA is not removing the existing
requirement at section Sec. 761.213(a)(2)(iv) for designated receiving
facilities and commercial storage and disposal facilities to send paper
copies of manifests to PCB generators via postal mail; however, this
final rule makes conforming changes to paragraph (a)(2)(iv) under Sec.
761.213 for PCB manifest shipments. These Commercial storage and
disposal facilities must continue to send signed and dated copies of
(Page 2) of completed manifests and any continuation sheets to PCB
generators who are exempt from obtaining an EPA ID number under the
TSCA PCB manifest regulations. The changes also clarify that commercial
storage and disposal facilities would not be required to send completed
manifests to a PCB generator if the generator is registered in the
EPA's e-Manifest system.
Although the EPA is not requiring PCB generators register in the
EPA's e-Manifest system, the EPA encourages those generators to
register with e-Manifest so that receiving facilities and commercial
storage and disposal facilities may transmit completed copies of
manifests to them via the e-Manifest system. The EPA notes that while
the final manifest return requirement is unchanged for VSQG and PCB
generators, EPA may consider in a separate rulemaking whether to
require them to obtain EPA ID numbers and thus register in the e-
Manifest system so that their manifest records can be accessed in their
registered system accounts.
The EPA is implementing the alternative approach to require LQGs
and SQGs to register to receive completed manifests rather than
implementing the proposed email option for several reasons. First, like
the proposed email option, the alternate option ensures that LQGs and
SQGs receive final manifest copies via the e-Manifest system, enables
generators to access their manifests, and reinforces that images of
paper manifests uploaded in the system are the primary source of
information for all parties involved with the shipment. However, unlike
the proposed option, completed manifests would not be misdirected or
undelivered due to incorrect email addresses nor would paper manifest
uploads be prevented due to illegible handwritten emails recorded on
the manifests. In this final rule, LQGs and SQGs must register with the
e-Manifest system and maintain an accurate email address in their
registered accounts. Further, commenter's concerns regarding
uncertainty of appropriate email use are unlikely under the alternative
approach. Under the alternative approach, the generator companies'
personnel who register in e-Manifest must use an individual email
address to access their site's completed manifests in the system. The
registered emails should not be shared with others. In other words, a
person could not use a shared email address to register in the e-
Manifest system. Thus, commenter's concerns regarding receipt of the
completed copy under the proposed email option are improbable under the
alternative approach.
Second, the EPA finds that mandating registration for LQGs and SQGs
assists in implementing its final rule regarding integration of
exception reporting in the e-Manifest system (see section II.D.4).
Third, the EPA is persuaded by commenters' recommendation that entities
(e.g., generators and designated receiving facilities) on a paper
manifest must correct errors to the manifests, if the EPA or States
identify and require corrections. Generators must be registered in e-
Manifest to make post-receipt corrections in the e-Manifest system; and
thus, mandating registration for LQGs and SQGs enables implementation
of this requirement.
Fourth, the EPA is not persuaded by commenters' concerns about this
alternative approach. Some opposing commenters indicated that some
generators do not have adequate internet connections to register in e-
Manifest. The EPA believes it is nearly impossible to operate modern
business in the U.S.--taking payments, reaching customers and/vendors,
and otherwise
[[Page 60703]]
facilitating commerce--without internet service. The EPA accepts one
industry commenter's recommendation that generators who do not have
reliable internet connections or email accounts should plan to visit a
nearby facility that has internet capabilities (e.g., a local business,
municipal building, or community library) to access their manifests in
e-Manifest. In addition, the EPA notes that email accounts are free,
easy to establish, and nearly universal for businesses and commercial
enterprises. However, to the extent that there are actually some
generators who do not have adequate internet access, the EPA points to
the Biden-Harris administration's announcement of the Broadband Equity
Access and Deployment (BEAD) program in June 2023--a $42.45 billion
grant program created in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and
administered by the Department of Commerce--which was established to
connect small businesses and families in the U.S. with reliable,
affordable high-speed internet by the end of 2029. As part of the
program announcement, the Biden-Harris Administration stated that with
these allocations and other Biden administration investments, all 50
States, DC, and the territories now have the resources to connect every
resident and small business to reliable, affordable high-speed internet
by 2030.\11\ Thus, the EPA finds that high-speed internet access should
be more accessible in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
releases/2023/06/26/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-
announces-over-40-billion-to-connect-everyone-in-america-to-
affordable-reliable-high-speed-internet/
#:~:text=President%20Biden's%20American%20Rescue%20Plan,internet%20is
%20an%20eligible%20use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the EPA is not persuaded by the one opposing industry
commenter's assertion that the alternative approach does not address
the fundamental concern that waste handlers, particularly generators,
are not able to universally adopt the e-Manifest program and thus
should not be compelled to do so under any final rule. The EPA also is
not persuaded by the State commenter stating receiving facilities'
burden of providing a manifest copy to generators would be exchanged
for a large burden on generators (to figure out how to properly set up
individual user accounts from a very confusing starting point of being
required to provide a shared email address that cannot be used to set
up those accounts). The EPA points out that the current registration
process for e-Manifest is similar to the current notification process
for obtaining an EPA ID number, which LQGs and SQGs already must do
according to the existing RCRA regulations under Sec. 262.18.
The registration requirement established in this final rule only
requires LQGs and SQGs to obtain accounts in the RCRAInfo application
so that the generators can access their completed manifests in the e-
Manifest system using their registered accounts. Therefore, the new
registration requirement is not intended to mandate generators use
electronic manifests to track their waste shipments. In fact,
registered generators may continue to opt out of completing and
transmitting electronic manifests via the e-Manifest system and may
continue to track their hazardous waste shipments using the paper
manifest forms. The EPA acknowledges obtaining registered accounts with
the e-Manifest system may cause incremental burden to generators.
However, the EPA notes that approximately 63% and 50% of LQGs and SQGs,
respectively, have registered users with access to the e-Manifest
system and thus already satisfy the final rule requirement. Thus, the
EPA believes that the benefits of registration for e-Manifest--
including receiving and retrieving manifests, electronic manifest-
related reporting, and post-receipt manifest data corrections--outweigh
the costs of registering for access to the e-Manifest system. Regarding
this commenter's concern about the shared email approach, the EPA notes
its proposed shared email was not intended for user registration with
e-Manifest and was only intended to provide manifest copies back to
unregistered generators. However, as explained above in this preamble
section, the EPA is not finalizing this approach.
In response to other comments on this issue, the EPA does not
accept one State commenter's recommendation that the EPA consider the
addition of a new recordkeeping requirement that designated facilities
retain the original paper manifest for three years if generators
receive completed manifests by email or through accessing the e-
Manifest system. The EPA believes addition of such a requirement would
significantly increase receiving facilities' regulatory recordkeeping
burden, substantially reduce cost savings to receiving facilities, and
would not move the needle towards improving the quality of manifest
data captured in the system. Therefore, the EPA is sustaining its
current policy that receiving facilities need only retain their on-site
paper copy, which is now Page 1, until such time as a legible scanned
image of the manifest is entered in the system and accessible to the
facility in e-Manifest.
The EPA acknowledges that the poor quality of paper manifest data
captured in the system has adversely impacted compliance monitoring of
waste shipments by the EPA and State regulators. However, the EPA
continues to believe the best approach to dramatically improve data
quality and compliance monitoring is use of electronic manifests rather
than the continual use of paper manifests. However, the EPA appreciates
the commenter's concern about manifest errors/omissions of data
currently recorded on paper manifests and ultimately captured in the e-
Manifest system. Therefore, through this final rulemaking, the EPA has
codified new manifest data correction requirements for paper and
electronic manifests under parts 262, 263, 264, and 265 for generators,
transporters, and permitted or interim status treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities, respectively. The EPA has also made conforming
changes to the proposed manifest data corrections requirements for PCB
manifests under part 761, subpart K to align with the new manifest
corrections requirements under the RCRA manifest regulations. The EPA
believes these regulatory additions will significantly improve the data
quality of paper manifests. The new manifest data corrections process
and requirements are discussed in this final rule under preamble
sections II.H.4 for hazardous waste and II.I.2 for PCB waste.
Finally, the EPA appreciates one industry commenter's support for
an alternative approach for an EPA website for unregistered generators
to view their manifests if the EPA decides not to implement the
proposed alternative option (required generator registration). However,
the EPA is not persuaded to adopt this approach for a few reasons.
First, the EPA did not provide generators adequate notice and
opportunity to comment on using a website to verify shipment receipt by
designated facilities. Second, the EPA believes this approach may have
unintended consequences such as enabling access for entities not named
on a manifest before the EPA's existing 90-day public release policy.
Lastly, this approach would require system amendments that would bypass
necessary security related to 90-day manifest information restrictions.
Instead, the EPA is implementing the alternative approach to require
LQGs and SQGs to register with e-Manifest to access completed manifests
for their site.
[[Page 60704]]
The EPA is not finalizing its proposal to remove Page 2
(``Designated Facility to Generator'' Copy) of the manifest forms in
this final rule. As explained above, the EPA is not requiring that
VSQGs, nor certain PCB generators, register with e-Manifest to access
completed manifests for their site. Therefore, VSQGs and PCB generators
who elect to not register with e-Manifest must continue to receive Page
2 of the manifest form or manifest continuation sheet to verify
shipment receipt by the designated facility. Regarding the designated
facility copy (Page 3), the EPA is persuaded by commenters favoring
removal of Page 3 (``Designated Facility'' copy). The EPA agrees with
commenters that this copy is no longer needed since a completed, top
paper copy of the manifest which is uploaded to the e-Manifest system
by the receiving facility can just be retained, if needed, by the
receiving facility. Therefore, the EPA is revising Sec. 262.21(f)(5)
through (7) in this final rule to align these provisions with the
removal of the designated facility copy of the manifest form and
manifest continuation sheet. The EPA is also revising the marginal
words pre-printed in the bottom margins of Page 1 to read as follows:
``Designated facility or U.S. Exporter to the EPA's e-Manifest
system.'' These marginal words indicate copy distribution for Page 1 of
the paper manifest form and reflect that an exporter is now required to
supply the EPA the top copy via the e-Manifest system. Therefore, these
provisions together announce the revised printing specification for the
now 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. Specifically, the
new four-copy manifest form (EPA Form 8700-22) and manifest
continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A) will be distributed as follows:
Page 1 (top copy): ``Designated facility or U.S. Exporter to the
EPA's e-Manifest system'';
Page 2: ``Designated Facility to Generator'';
Page 3: ``Transporter facility copy;'' and;
Page 4: (bottom copy): ``Generator's initial copy.''
The EPA is also revising paragraph (f)(7) by removing the words
``and published to the e-Manifest program's website'' from the end of
the first sentence of the paragraph. The EPA does not publish the
manifest forms to its website. Therefore, the statement that the EPA
publishes them on our website is inaccurate and misleading. Paper
manifests must be obtained from an EPA authorized printing source and
cannot be obtained from the EPA's Manifest Registry nor e-Manifest
website.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The four-copy paper manifest and manifest continuation
sheet may be obtained from one of the EPA approved sources
authorized by the EPA to produce and sell the forms. See the EPA's
web page at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/hwgenerators/approved-registered-printers-epas-manifest-registry">https://www.epa.gov/hwgenerators/approved-registered-printers-epas-manifest-registry</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Exception Report Requirements
1. Background: Exception Reports
Exception Reports are intended to address the situation in which
the generator does not receive timely confirmation that their hazardous
or PCB wastes, tracked with a manifest, arrived at the facility
designated by the generator to receive its waste. Exception Reports are
required in the Federal regulations at Sec. 262.42 (Hazardous Waste)
and Sec. 761.217 (PCBs). For LQGs and all PCB waste generators,
exception reporting is a two-step process under the existing
regulations. In the first step, if the generator has not received the
signed, returned copy of the manifest from the designated facility
within 35 days from the date the transport of the waste shipment began,
the generator must contact the transporter and/or the designated
facility to determine the status of the generator's waste and document
their efforts. In the second step, if the status of that waste is not
resolved within 45 days (from the start of transport), the generator
must file an Exception Report with their EPA Regional Administrator (or
State Director in authorized States). The Exception Report, as
currently implemented by regulation, is a written report that consists
of: (1) A legible copy of the manifest for which the generator does not
have confirmation of delivery; and (2) a cover letter signed by the
generator explaining its efforts to locate the waste and the results of
those efforts. There is a similar exception reporting requirement
applicable to SQGs at Sec. 262.42(b), except that SQGs do not have to
initiate contact before 35 days and have an additional 15 days (60 days
total) to reconcile the status of their waste before an Exception
Report must be submitted. SQGs must provide a legible copy of the
manifest with some indication that the generator has not received
confirmation of delivery (a separate cover letter is not required for
SQGs).
2. What EPA Proposed on This Issue: Exception Reports
During the e-Manifest Advisory Board meeting in June 2019, titled
``Increasing Adoption of the e-Manifest system,'' the Advisory Board
recommended that EPA integrate Exception Reports into the e-Manifest
system. EPA accepted the Advisory Board's recommendation and proposed
in the NPRM regulatory amendments to the existing Exception Report
requirements in Sec. 262.42 by adding new paragraphs (d) and (e) and
amending Sec. 761.217 by adding new paragraphs (c) and (d). The
proposed paragraph (d) under Sec. 262.42 and paragraph (c) under Sec.
761.217 establish the legal and policy framework for the use of
electronic Exception Reports for hazardous waste and PCB waste,
respectively. Under the proposal, Exception Reports originating in the
e-Manifest system would be considered the legal equivalent of paper
Exception Reports signed with conventional ink signatures. Further,
wherever the existing regulations require an Exception Report to be
completed, signed, provided, and sent to the EPA Regional Administrator
(or the State Director in authorized States), the execution of an
electronic Exception Report would be deemed to comply with the
requirements to complete, sign, provide, send, or otherwise use the
Exception Report.
The proposed regulatory amendments would not apply to exporters of
waste shipments subject to the manifest requirements. Exporters must
file export Exception Reports, in lieu of the requirements of Sec.
262.42, according to the existing requirements specified at Sec.
262.83(h). Electronic export Exception Reports under Sec. 262.83(h)
will be developed as part of the WIETS module in the RCRAInfo Industry
Application (see section below on changes to related international
shipment requirements for further details).
Under Sec. Sec. 262.42(e) and 761.217(d), EPA proposed to restrict
electronic exception reporting to manifested shipments using electronic
manifests (hybrid or fully electronic) pursuant to Sec. 262.24(c).
This was proposed because in order to leverage the e-Manifest system to
assist with exception reporting, the system must ``know'' the date of
shipment from the generator. When an electronic manifest is used, this
information is readily available. Conversely, paper manifests are not
submitted to the e-Manifest system until after the signed, final
manifest is uploaded and submitted by the receiving facility, rendering
it impossible for the system to identify
[[Page 60705]]
paper manifests initiated by the generator but not yet completed by the
receiving facility.
For hybrid manifests, a generator would be required to register for
e-Manifest to take advantage of electronic exception reporting in the
e-Manifest system. EPA also requested comment on whether all generators
should be required to register for access to the e-Manifest system (see
preamble section II.C for a discussion of requiring generators to
register).
EPA explained in the proposed rule that that Agency was not
proposing to collect, and upload written, paper-copies of Exception
Reports in the e-Manifest system. EPA stated that maintaining paper
Exception Report submissions would be more expensive and thus would
result in the need for EPA to contemplate a distinct or additional fee
premium related to entering Exception Reports into e-Manifest to ensure
related costs are recovered. Therefore, to avoid incurring costs
related to paper processing and data entry activities necessary to
enter the Exception Report information into the e-Manifest system, EPA
would require LQGs and SQGs who use paper manifests to comply with the
existing exception reporting requirements at Sec. 262.42(a) and (b)
respectively for written, hard copy Exception Reports sent to EPA or
the authorized State.
Under the proposed approach for electronic exception reporting, the
NPRM explained that EPA would upgrade the e-Manifest system's
functionality to alert LQGs and SQGs based on their notified Federal
generator category, as well as PCB waste generators, if a receiving
facility designated on their manifests had not submitted final, signed
manifests to the system for confirmation of delivery within the
required timeframes at Sec. Sec. 262.42(a)(1), 262.42(b), or
761.217(a)(1), respectively. Additionally, the system could alert the
respective receiving facility on the manifest. The system would allow
generators to submit Exception Reports electronically (for hybrid and
fully electronic manifests) and disseminate the Exception Report to the
relevant EPA Region or the authorized State Agency. LQGs and PCB waste
generators would still be required to contact the transporter and/or
the owner or designated facility per Sec. Sec. 262.42(a) or 761.217(a)
to determine the status of the hazardous or PCB waste and provide an
explanation of their efforts to locate the hazardous or PCB waste and
the results of those efforts. Such generators, however, would not be
required to mail the report to EPA or the States, but instead would be
required to submit the report electronically to the e-Manifest system
(to which EPA and States have access).
EPA also proposed to revise the current 35/45-day timeframes for
LQGs in Sec. Sec. 262.42(a) and (c)(2), and 761.217(a) and (b) to
better conform to timeframes for submittal and processing of paper
manifests in the e-Manifest system. For example, for entities using
paper manifests, receiving facilities have 30 days from receipt of a
generator's shipment to submit the final, signed paper manifest to EPA.
In addition, EPA's PPC needs time to enter data, e.g., from image
copies of paper manifests, especially if the paper manifests contain
incorrect, illegible, or incomplete data. Thus, the Agency realized
that LQGs may not be able to access the final, signed paper manifest in
e-Manifest until past the first 35-day exception reporting timeframe in
the regulations.
Therefore, EPA proposed that all LQGs have five additional days to
verify receipt of the shipment, reconcile the late manifests with the
transporter and/or destination facility, and complete and submit
Exception Reports to the EPA Regional Administrator or authorized
State. Under the proposed amendments, LQGs and PCB waste generators
would have up to 40 days to verify that their waste was received by the
facility designated on the manifest. The 40-day timeframe would begin
from the date the manifest was accepted by the initial transporter for
off-site transportation; if an LQG did not receive notification from
the e-Manifest system that the final, signed manifest was received
within this timeframe, then the LQG would be required to contact the
transporter and/or the designated facility to determine the status of
the waste. If the status of the shipment is not resolved within 50 days
(from the start of transport), then the LQG must file an Exception
Report with the EPA Regional Administrator or authorized State. EPA did
not propose any changes to the timeframe for SQGs to verify receipt of
their shipments by the destination facility (Sec. 262.42(b)).
3. Description of Public Comments: Exception Reports
Commenters unanimously supported the idea of integrating exception
reporting into the e-Manifest system; however, some commenters did not
fully agree with or support certain aspects of EPA's proposed approach
for the implementation of electronic exception reporting. One commenter
supported the proposal because it would allow for a uniform submission
format that is efficient and quick to process and allow for greater
transparency between all impacted parties. Another commenter noted that
use of electronic exception reporting would both eliminate paper
processing and consolidate all manifest-related communications within
the e-Manifest system, thereby enhancing utility to the regulated
community and allowing for easier access to these records for
regulators.
Commenters were not in agreement on EPA's proposal to restrict
electronic exception reporting to manifested shipments using electronic
manifests (hybrid or fully electronic). Some commenters noted that
requiring offline submission (i.e., paper submission) of Exception
Reports for paper manifests was counter to the e-Manifest Program's
goal of burden reduction. They also noted that, currently, electronic
manifests comprise a very small fraction of all manifests and that
limiting exception reporting to only electronic manifests would not
incentivize generators to register and use the e-Manifest system. EPA,
instead, should, require generators to register with the e-Manifest
system. The commenter further stated that EPA should amend the
regulations to require registered generators to submit electronic
Exception Reports whenever they do not receive a notification from the
e-Manifest system of a completed manifest within the required
timeframe. The commenter asserted that the responsibility should
clearly be on the generator to monitor the manifests and determine if,
and when, an Exception Report should be electronically filed.
Three commenters generally agreed with EPA's proposal to adjust the
exception reporting timeframes; however, these commenters also
suggested that EPA consider aligning the exception reporting timeframe
for both LQGs and SQGs to make the timeframes the same. One commenter
added that the risk presented by each shipment cannot be assumed by the
`size' of the generator, and the exception reporting timeframe
differential serves only to add unnecessary complexity to generators
attempting to understand if, and when, they must file an Exception
Report.
Two commenters stated that they do not believe that modifying the
exception reporting timeframe is necessary. One commenter noted that as
more handlers adopt electronic manifesting, the time to identify issues
with shipments should decrease, not increase. Another commenter
asserted that increasing the timeframe would disincentivize receiving
facilities to complete data
[[Page 60706]]
entry in a timely manner and add to existing e-Manifest data quality
issues.
4. Discussion of Final Rule: Exception Reports
EPA appreciates the numerous comments favoring integration of
exception reporting into e-Manifest to allow generators to submit
Exception Reports electronically. EPA also appreciates comments
recommending that EPA not restrict usage of electronic exception
reporting to electronic manifests that originate in the system. The
Agency agrees with commenters who assert that allowing users of paper
manifests to submit electronic Exception Reports would decrease the
amount of paper processing required by States and provide a unified
format for reporting regardless of the manifest type (i.e., paper or
electronic). Therefore, EPA is not finalizing the proposed addition of
new paragraph (e) to Sec. 262.42 to restrict electronic exception
reporting to manifested shipments using electronic manifests. EPA is
finalizing revisions to allow LQGs and SQGs to submit electronic
exception reporting in e-Manifest for both paper and electronic
manifests. However, EPA is delaying implementation of the electronic
exception reporting requirements under Sec. 262.42(a) and (b) until
December 1, 2025. Prior to December 1, 2025, LQGs and SQGs must
continue to supply Exception Reports directly to EPA Regional
Administrators or authorized States via postal mail. However, beginning
on December 1, 2025, LQGs and SQGs must comply with the electronic
reporting requirements discussed below, including the requirement that
LQGs and SQGs must submit Exception Reports directly in EPA's e-
Manifest system. Beginning December 1, 2025, LQGs and SQGs will no
longer have the option to supply written, paper Exception Reports to
the EPA Regional Administrators or authorized States via postal mail.
EPA is modifying existing Sec. 262.42(a)(2) and (b) to require
LQGs and SQGs to submit Exception Reports to the e-Manifest system in
lieu of supplying them directly to Federal or State regulatory
agencies. The final rule also revises paragraph (a) by removing the
existing requirement that LQGs must sign the cover letter of an
Exception Report ``by hand''. A separate cover letter is no longer
necessary since an explanation of the efforts taken to locate the
hazardous waste and the results of those efforts will be prepared
directly in EPA's e-Manifest system as part of the electronic Exception
Report. The final rule also revises paragraph (b) to clarify that VSQGs
that meet the conditions under Sec. 262.232(a) for managing hazardous
waste from an episodic event may continue to submit the Exception
Reports directly to EPA or the States in lieu of submitting them via
the e-Manifest system. The final rule also finalizes the proposed
additions of Sec. 262.42(d)(3) and (4) in this final rule. However,
these new requirements are codified under Sec. 262.42(d) as new
paragraphs (d)(1) and (2). New paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) clarify that:
(1) Retention of electronic Exception Reports in the e-Manifest system
satisfy any requirement for a generator to keep or retain a copy of an
Exception Report; and (2) Generators may not be held liable for the
inability to produce an Exception Report through the e-Manifest system
for inspection if the report is inaccessible due to the system being
down and thus a denial of services occurs.
For shipments accompanied by paper manifests, LQGs and SQGs must
prepare the Exception Reports according to Sec. 262.42(a)(2) and (b),
respectively, by uploading an image file of their initial copy of the
manifest (Page 4 of the new manifest form) for which the generator does
not have confirmation of delivery and entering select information from
the manifest. LQGs must also provide an explanation in the e-Manifest
system describing the efforts the LQG has taken to locate the waste
shipment and the results of those efforts. Per revised Sec. 262.42(b),
SQGs only need to upload an image file of their initial copy of the
manifest along with a statement that the return copy was not received.
EPA notes that the PPC will not process the image file of the manifest
uploaded by the generator for the Exception Reports as these manifests
are not the final, completed copies that receiving facilities must
submit to the system to satisfy the paper manifest submission
requirements under Sec. Sec. 264.71(a)(2)(v)(B) and 265.71(a)(2)(v)(B)
for hazardous waste and Sec. 761.213(a)(2)(v) for PCB waste. For fully
electronic and hybrid manifests, the generator will be able to use the
information already in the e-Manifest system to fill out the electronic
Exception Report. EPA will provide access to Exception Reports to EPA
and State personnel through the e-Manifest system.
EPA notes that only generators with an EPA ID number and a
registered user for access to e-Manifest will be able to submit an
Exception Report electronically. Federally, EPA only requires LQGs and
SQGs to submit Exception Reports, and these generators are already
required to have an EPA ID number and, with today's rule, are now
required to have a registered user (see section II.C for further
discussion on the requirements for generators to register). To submit
electronic Exception Reports, generators will need a registered user
with at least Certifier level permissions in the e-Manifest module (a
permission level that currently requires identity proofing and an
electronic signature agreement).
PCB generators are subject to exception reporting requirements
under Sec. 761.217; however, PCB generators are not currently required
to obtain an EPA ID number or register for access to e-Manifest. PCB
generators, however, who choose to obtain an EPA ID number and register
for e-Manifest can also choose to submit electronic Exception Reports
through the e-Manifest system. In lieu of having an EPA ID number and a
registered user, a PCB generator must continue to submit paper reports
to the EPA Regional Administrator.
EPA is persuaded by comments asserting that EPA should take this
opportunity to streamline the exception reporting timeframes and remove
unnecessary complexity in the regulations. The Agency believes that a
uniform exception reporting timeframe for all generators, regardless of
their status (i.e., LQG, SQG), would benefit all parties. Therefore,
EPA is amending the proposed timeframes for which an LQG or PCB
generator must initiate contact with other parties on a manifest to
determine the status of the waste shipment. The finalized revisions
under Sec. Sec. 262.42(a)(1) and 761.217(a)(1) for LQG and PCB
generators, respectively, state that the generator must contact the
transporter and/or the owner or operator of the designated facility
within 45 days to determine the status of the hazardous waste after not
receiving a final copy of the manifest. This is an additional 10 days
beyond the proposed 35-day requirement. (SQGs are not subject to this
requirement in the existing regulations.) The final 45/60-day
timeframes for LQGs and PCB generators provide additional time for the
receiving facility to submit final copies of the manifest to the e-
Manifest system and for the EPA paper processing center to enter the
paper manifest, if necessary, in order for the generator to receive its
final copy. The 45/60-day timeframes also serve to simplify the
exception reporting regulations for generators: all generators must
submit an Exception Report after 60 days. EPA has also made a
conforming change to Sec. Sec. 262.42(c)(2) and 761.217(b)(2) to
reflect the 45/60-day timeframe. EPA notes that the Agency is not
delaying compliance of the new 45/60-day exception reporting timeframes
for LQGs and PCB
[[Page 60707]]
generators to submit Exception Reports. Thus, these new timeframes
shall apply on the final rule's effective date, January 22, 2025.
E. Discrepancy Report Requirements
1. Background
The regulations governing manifest discrepancies are at Sec. Sec.
264.72, 265.72, and 761.215. The manifest form enables the receiving
facility to flag several types of ``discrepancy'' events on the
manifest. Under the existing regulations and on the manifest form, the
designated facility must check boxes in the discrepancy field (Item 18)
when the designated facility finds or produces one of these shipment
irregularities:
[ssquf] Significant differences in the quantity of waste shown on
the manifest as having been shipped, and what the designated facility
determines to have been received. By regulation, significant quantity
discrepancies occur when there is any variation in piece count (e.g.,
four drums received instead of five), as well as when there is a
variance of 10% or more by weight for any bulk or batch wastes shipped
on a manifest.
[ssquf] Significant differences between the type of waste shown as
shipped and what the designated facility received. Significant type
discrepancies are defined as obvious differences which can be
discovered by inspection or waste analysis, such as a solvent
substituted for an acid, or toxic constituents that were not listed on
the manifest.
[ssquf] A full rejection by the designated facility of an entire
waste shipment, which typically occurs when the materials received do
not meet the facility's waste acceptance criteria, or, when the
facility lacks the capacity to manage the waste.
[ssquf] A partial rejection of waste, which occurs when a facility
rejects some portion of the wastes shipped to it on the manifest but
accepts some other portion at its facility.
[ssquf] Container residues, meaning that the facility could not
remove all the waste from a container (e.g., drum or rail car), and the
amount that remains in the container is sufficient to cause the residue
to be considered a regulated hazardous waste.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Federal RCRA regulation at 40 CFR 261.7 specifies
criteria for determining when a container is ``empty'' or when the
residues are sufficient to render them non-empty and thus regulated
hazardous wastes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While five types of discrepancies can be checked off on the
manifest form, only significant discrepancies in quantity and type are
treated as major irregularities requiring additional, separate
reporting requirements. The RCRA regulations refer to these reporting
requirements as Discrepancy Reports. Under the existing Federal
regulation, Sec. Sec. 264.72, 265.72, and 761.215 provide a two-step
process for handling significant quantity and type discrepancies in
hazardous and PCB waste shipments, respectively. First, upon
discovering a significant quantity or type discrepancy, the receiving
facility must attempt to reconcile the discrepancy with the generator
or transporter. Second, if the significant discrepancy remains
unresolved on the date 15 days after receipt of the waste, the
receiving facility must immediately send a letter to the EPA Regional
Administrator or to the authorized State describing the discrepancy and
attempts to reconcile it. This letter report must also include a copy
of the manifest at issue.
During the June 2019 Advisory Board meeting, the Advisory Board
recommended that EPA integrate Discrepancy Reports into the e-Manifest
system. EPA accepts the Advisory Board's recommendation and believes
integration of Discrepancy Reports in the e-Manifest system would
reduce paperwork burden and may incentivize users to transition to
fully electronic or hybrid manifests by increasing the value of the
system. Accordingly, in the NPRM, EPA proposed two changes related to
Discrepancy Reports.
2. What EPA Proposed on This Issue: Discrepancy Reports
In the NPRM, EPA proposed changes to integrate Discrepancy Reports
with the e-Manifest system by adding requirements under Sec. Sec.
264.72(c) and 265.72(c) (Hazardous Waste) and 761.215(c) (PCBs) that
would address the legal equivalency of the electronic reports to the
written, paper reports and allow for electronic discrepancy reporting
for wastes shipped on electronic or hybrid manifests. The proposed new
Sec. Sec. 264.72(c)(1) and (2), 265.72(c)(1) and (2), and
761.215(c)(1) and (2) establish that wherever the existing regulations
require a Discrepancy Report to be completed, signed, and sent to the
EPA Regional Administrator (or the authorized State), the execution of
an electronic Discrepancy Report in the national e-Manifest system
would be deemed to comply with the requirements to complete, sign,
provide, send, or otherwise use the Discrepancy Report.
EPA proposed to allow electronic reporting of Discrepancy Reports
to all manifest types, including paper manifests (which are submitted
to the system as image only or image plus data) and electronic
manifests. EPA believes this approach is appropriate for discrepancy
reporting because Discrepancy Reports must be completed by receiving
facilities, and receiving facilities already are registered in the e-
Manifest system, e.g., for billing purposes.
However, EPA acknowledged in the NPRM the challenges with
electronic discrepancy reporting for paper manifests. The existing
regulations currently require receiving facilities to submit final,
signed manifests to EPA, or the authorized State, within 30 days after
a shipment is received. In addition, time is needed for EPA's PPC to
process paper manifests, which can be extended due to data quality and
submission errors. Consequently, facilities may be unable to submit the
final, signed paper manifests to the e-Manifest system until past the
15-day discrepancy reporting timeframe in the existing regulations. A
receiving facility then would be required to submit a written report to
the EPA or State. To mitigate this issue, EPA proposed revisions to
Sec. Sec. 264.72(c) and 265.72(c) to adjust the current 15-day
reporting timeframe for significant discrepancies to allow receiving
facilities up to 20 days to reconcile a shipment with the generator
and/or transporter for such discrepancies. EPA's proposed timeframe is
also consistent with the average number of days that pass before
receiving facilities upload copies of paper manifests to the e-Manifest
system. The proposed 20-day timeframe would begin at the date of
receipt of the shipment by the receiving facility and would apply to
users of both paper and electronic manifests.
EPA requested comment on whether EPA should limit electronic
discrepancy reporting only to electronic manifests (i.e., fully
electronic or hybrid). EPA also requested comment on other approaches
that should be considered for electronic discrepancy reporting
associated with digital copies of paper manifests.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 87 FR 19290 at page 19305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also requested comment on an alternate approach that would
eliminate the requirement to submit 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 would
receive alerts regarding Item 18 discrepancies, review the final
manifest in e-Manifest, and submit post-receipt manifest corrections.
Thus, disagreements would be worked out by handlers via the current e-
Manifest
[[Page 60708]]
corrections process in lieu of a formal Discrepancy Report to Federal
or State regulators. All manifest corrections would be available to
regulators through e-Manifest.
3. Description of Public Comments: Discrepancy Reports
Most commenters supported the Agency proposal to integrate
Discrepancy Reports with the e-Manifest system to allow receiving
facilities to fulfill their discrepancy reporting requirement
electronically. Commenters stated that such changes would help to
facilitate more effective communication between the receiving facility
and the generator. Another commenter remarked that electronic
Discrepancy Reports would be more efficient and fulfill all the
environmental protection needs currently met by hard copy reports. Most
commenters opposed limiting electronic Discrepancy Reports to only
manifests that originated in the e-Manifest system (fully electronic
and hybrid manifests). Commenters reasoned that receiving facilities
have all the necessary information available in their systems,
regardless of the manifest submission type, and should be able to file
Discrepancy Reports electronically.
Two commenters supported the alternate proposed approach of
eliminating formal Discrepancy Reports and, instead, relying solely on
the e-Manifest corrections process to address discrepancies. These
commenters reasoned that such an approach would reduce reporting
burdens, and the corrections process is well suited to track and
resolve discrepancies as receiving facilities already use the
corrections process to address most discrepancies. The commenter also
remarked that eliminating the Discrepancy Reports underscores the need
for EPA to require generators to register with the e-Manifest system
and delivers benefits to both State agencies and the regulated
community. One of the two commenters that generally supported the
alternate approach to eliminate formal discrepancy reporting also
concluded that the approach does not address scenarios in which
disagreements cannot be resolved by the relevant waste handlers.
Two commenters opposed the alternate approach to eliminate
discrepancy reporting. One opposing commenter reasoned that discrepancy
corrections must be easily identified, tracked, investigated, and
evaluated by State and EPA enforcement personnel and a requirement for
a formal acknowledgement of discrepancies should be retained. The other
commenter urged EPA not to adopt the alternate approach stating that
Discrepancy Reports serve a vital function of indicating critical
compliance issue(s) with the generator or receiving facility and often
serve as a clue of improper waste management or shipment of hazardous
waste to facilities that cannot safely handle it. This commenter also
stated that the alternate approach would cause regulatory agencies to
spend considerable time and effort searching the e-Manifest system for
numerous manifest corrections to determine if any indicate a larger
compliance or systemic issues and could result in many hazardous waste
management problems going unresolved.
Commenters generally supported the Agency's proposal to allow
receiving facilities an additional 5 days to submit electronic
Discrepancy Reports to the e-Manifest system. One commenter supported
EPA's proposal to allow up to 20 days to reconcile discrepancies
stating that the extra 5 days would allow for much needed extra time to
resolve issues with unresponsive generators. The commenter requested
that EPA clarify that the requirement is measured in calendar days, not
business days.
Another commenter stated concern that some TSDF permits have a 15-
day timeline incorporated into the permit conditions, potentially
creating a reporting conflict with the proposed 20-day timeline. The
commenter requested a transition period be created requiring permitted
facilities to adhere to their current permit requirements until such
time as the permit is modified or renewed to incorporate the new
manifest discrepancy reporting timeframe.
4. Discussion of Final Rule: Discrepancy Reports
EPA appreciates the numerous comments favoring integration of
Discrepancy Reports into e-Manifest to allow receiving facilities to
submit reports electronically. In this final rule, EPA is finalizing
most of the proposed revisions and additions to Sec. Sec. 264.72(c),
265.72(c) (Hazardous Waste) and 761.215(c) (PCB Waste). This final rule
modifies existing paragraph (c) of those sections by requiring that a
receiving facility must submit a Discrepancy Report to the e-Manifest
system in lieu of submitting written reports to Federal or State
regulatory agencies. This requirement applies to both paper and
electronic manifests. EPA is delaying implementation of the electronic
discrepancy requirements under Sec. Sec. 264.72(c) and 265.72(c) for
Federal or State-regulated hazardous waste and under 761.215(c) for
TSCA PCBs for electronic discrepancy reporting until December 1, 2025.
Prior to December 1, 2025, receiving facilities of Federal or State-
regulated hazardous waste and commercial disposal or storage facilities
of TSCA PCB waste must continue to supply Discrepancy Reports directly
to EPA Regional Administrators or authorized States via postal mail.,
Beginning on December 1, 2025, however, TSDFs must comply with the
electronic reporting requirements in this final rule. Beginning
December 1, 2025, receiving facilities of RCRA Federal or State-
regulated hazardous waste and commercial disposal or storage facilities
of TSCA PCB waste must submit Discrepancy Reports directly in EPA's e-
Manifest system. Beginning December 1, 2025, these facilities will no
longer have the option to supply written, paper Discrepancy Reports to
the EPA Regional Administrators or authorized States via postal mail.
EPA is also revising the timeframe requirement under paragraph (c)
from 15 days to 20 days after receipt of shipment for when Discrepancy
Reports must be submitted by the receiving facility. EPA agrees with
commenters who support the proposed extension in timing to more align
with typical timeframes needed by receiving facilities to upload final
paper manifests to EPA's e-Manifest system. In response to a comment
requesting that EPA clarify whether we mean 20 calendar days or
business days, EPA confirms that the 20-day period in this regulation
means 20 calendar days. The 20-day timeframe would begin at the date of
receipt of the shipment by the receiving facility. This timeframe
applies to users of both paper and electronic manifests. EPA notes that
the Agency is not delaying compliance of the new 20-day timeframe for
receiving facilities to submit Discrepancy Reports. Thus, this new
discrepancy reporting timeframe will apply on the final rule's
effective date, January 22, 2025.
Receiving facilities that are required in their permit to submit
Discrepancy Reports 15 days after receipt of shipment must continue to
comply with that 15-day timeframe unless or until their permit is
modified.
EPA notes that the revisions and additions to paragraph (c) do not
change the manifest discrepancy reconciliation procedures specified in
paragraph (c). Thus, upon discovering a significant difference in
quantity or type for Federal hazardous and PCB waste and State-only
regulated waste shipments, the owner or operator of the receiving
facility must attempt to reconcile the discrepancy with the generator
or
[[Page 60709]]
transporter by the timeframe specified under Sec. Sec. 264.72(c) and
265.72(c) for hazardous waste shipments and 761.215 for PCB shipments.
If a facility must prepare a Discrepancy Report for an irregular
shipment using a paper manifest, the facility must upload the image
file of the top copy of the manifest (Page 1 of the new manifest form)
and must provide an explanation in EPA's e-Manifest system detailing
the efforts taken to reconcile the manifest discrepancy(s). The
Discrepancy Report will include the manifest tracking number so that
the report can be connected to the manifest when submitted prior to the
paper manifest submission deadline. EPA notes that Discrepancy Reports
submitted in this manner satisfy the discrepancy reporting requirements
under Sec. Sec. 264.72(c), 265.72(c), and 761.215(c). However, the e-
Manifest PPC will not process the image file of the paper manifest used
for the Discrepancy Report. To satisfy the paper submission requirement
for hazardous waste and PCB waste under sections Sec. Sec.
264.71(a)(2)(v)(B), 265.71(a)(2)(v)(B), and 761.213(a)(2)(v),
respectively, facilities must still upload the image file of the
manifest and any continuation sheet, or upload both a data file and the
image file corresponding to the manifest and any continuation sheet
within 30 days of delivery of the waste shipment. For fully electronic
and hybrid manifests, the receiving facility will be able to use the
information already in the e-Manifest system to fill out the electronic
Discrepancy Report. The e-Manifest system will make Discrepancy Reports
available to State and EPA personnel through RCRAInfo upon completion.
This final rule does not codify the proposed addition of paragraphs
(c)(1) through (4) under Sec. Sec. 264.72 and 265.72. These proposed
provisions prescribed the conditions under which electronic Discrepancy
Reports are the full legal equivalent of written, paper Discrepancy
Reports and satisfy record retention requirements for all RCRA
purposes. As explained above, this final rule removes the existing
requirements under which receiving facilities can supply Discrepancy
Reports directly to EPA or States via postal mail. However, unlike
Exception Reports, there is no separate recordkeeping requirement for
receiving facilities to keep these reports. Therefore, the proposed
additions of paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) are no longer needed. EPA
notes that the revisions to paragraph (c) do not change the manifest
discrepancy reconciliation procedures specified in paragraph (c).
EPA is also making conforming changes to the discrepancy reporting
requirement under part 270, subpart C regarding RCRA permits (40 CFR
270.30(l)(7)). EPA did not propose changes to Sec. 27.30(l)(7) in the
NPRM. However, as explained above, this final rule revises the manifest
discrepancy requirements under Sec. 264.72. Therefore, this final rule
makes conforming changes to the manifest discrepancy requirements under
Sec. 270.30(l)(7) so that they are consistent with the revisions to
Sec. 264.72(c) regarding the conditions under which the permitted
facility must submit Discrepancy Reports to EPA via the EPA e-Manifest
system in lieu of supplying hard copy reports to Federal or State
regulatory agencies via postal mail.
In the final rule, EPA is not persuaded by comments supporting
adoption of the alternative approach that would eliminate the
requirement for Discrepancy Reports altogether. As mentioned
previously, the alternative approach would address/resolve significant
discrepancy events through the current e-Manifest manifest data
corrections process in lieu of a formal Discrepancy Report to Federal
or State regulators. EPA accepts State commenters' opposition to the
alternative particularly the one State commenter who asserted that the
e-Manifest corrections process does not fulfill the necessary
requirements for all scenarios that the Discrepancy Report supports,
such as when the generator and receiving facility cannot come to an
agreement through the e-Manifest corrections process. EPA agrees with
State commenters that asserted, in these instances, the Discrepancy
Report acts as a crucial piece of evidence for State and Federal
regulators. EPA also accepts one State commenter's concern that
superseding the Discrepancy Report with the alternative approach would
cause regulatory agencies to spend considerable time and effort
searching the e-Manifest system for numerous manifest corrections to
determine if any indicate a larger compliance or systemic issue and may
result in many hazardous waste management problems going unresolved.
Therefore, EPA is not eliminating the manifest Discrepancy Report.
F. Unmanifested Waste Report Requirements
1. Background: Unmanifested Waste Reports
If a receiving facility accepts for treatment, storage, or disposal
any hazardous waste from an off-site source without an accompanying
manifest, or without an accompanying shipping paper, and is not
excluded from the manifest requirements, then the owner or operator
must prepare and submit an Unmanifested Waste Report to EPA. Under the
existing regulations, the Unmanifested Waste Report must be submitted
within 15 days of receipt and contain all the information required
under Sec. Sec. 264.76(a)(1) through (7) and 265.76(a)(1) through (7).
In their recommendations from the June 2019 Advisory Board meeting,
the Advisory Board recommended that the Agency also integrate
Unmanifested Waste Reports into the e-Manifest system, in addition to
the previously discussed Exception and Discrepancy Reports, as a method
to incentivize electronic manifest adoption. The Discrepancy,
Exception, and Unmanifested Waste Reports generally serve similar
purposes and are all required when specific, unresolved problems or
irregularities occur to waste shipments that are subject to
manifesting. However, electronic reporting in the e-Manifest system for
unmanifested waste shipments presents unique implementation issues that
do not arise with the other reports.
Unlike manifested shipments that require Discrepancy or Exception
Reports, there is no existing manifest in the system, or on paper, when
an unmanifested report is required. The system cannot readily
accommodate electronic Unmanifested Waste Reports, like it can
Discrepancy Reports and Exception Reports, because there is no existing
manifest data captured in the e-Manifest system that can support
flagging, tracking, and follow-up actions. In addition, EPA must
determine whether a user fee is required for the manifest that was
required for the unmanifested shipments.
2. What EPA Proposed on This Issue: Unmanifested Waste Reports
EPA proposed to revise Sec. Sec. 264.76 and 265.76 for hazardous
waste and 761.216 for PCB waste submissions of Unmanifested Waste
Reports by the receiving facility. Under the proposed regulations, EPA
would accept only electronic submissions of Unmanifested Waste Reports;
written, hard copy reports would no longer be accepted. These proposed
revisions would require an electronic reporting format that would be
very similar to the current electronic form for manifests, except that
the receiving facility would not be expected to complete all the fields
currently required on the manifest.
For the electronic Unmanifested Waste Report, receiving facilities
would submit the generator information,
[[Page 60710]]
similar to what is currently required on manifests (i.e., Items 1, 5,
and 10 thru 13), if available; the transporter information (i.e., Items
6 and 7), if available; and the receiving facility information (i.e.,
Items 8 and 19) to the e-Manifest system. The receiving facility would
be required to provide the density or specific gravity information for
a waste if it is reporting volumetric measures (gallons, liters, or
cubic yards). Finally, the receiving facility must provide a brief
explanation of why the waste was unmanifested, if known, as well as a
certification by the owner/operator of the facility or authorized
representative. Receiving facilities would not be expected to obtain
generator signatures (Item 15 of the manifest) nor transporter
signatures (Item 17 of the manifest), nor would they be expected to
provide the DOT shipping description of the waste, which would normally
appear in Items 9a and 9b (i.e., the identification number, the proper
shipping name, the hazard class or division number, and the packing
group). Upon completion of the electronic Unmanifested Waste Report,
the e-Manifest system would distribute the electronic report to the
appropriate EPA Regional Administrator (or appropriate authorized
State). Thus, submission of the Unmanifested Waste Report would be
completed electronically in lieu of written reports to Federal or State
regulatory agencies; hard copy reports would no longer be an option for
submission to EPA or the States.
EPA requested comment on whether Unmanifested Waste Reports should
incur a user fee, equivalent to the user fees for electronic manifests,
that would be applicable to receiving facilities for each submission of
an Unmanifested Waste Report. Specifically, EPA proposed to modify
Sec. Sec. 264.76, 265.76, and 761.216 by adding new paragraph (b) to
assess a user fee on a per report basis that is electronically signed
and submitted to the e-Manifest system by receiving facilities. The
Agency noted that receiving facilities are already required to register
and set up a billing account for the submission of manifests to the e-
Manifest system. The Agency also noted 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.
3. Description of Public Comments: Unmanifested Waste Reports
Commenters generally agreed with the Agency's proposal to accept
only electronic submissions of Unmanifested Waste Reports; however,
some did not agree with the Agency's approach to completely eliminate a
paper version of the report. Commenters who favored electronic report
submission believed that the integration would aid the accuracy and
completeness of the e-Manifest system's data. Commenters that did not
support the Agency's proposal noted that confining the submission of
Unmanifested Waste Reports to electronic format would likely not
support all edge cases (scenarios outside normal use cases where
problems may arise), such as instances where an unmanifested shipment
was sent to a destination that was not a permitted receiving facility
(and therefore would not be registered in the RCRAInfo Industry
Application with a billing account).
Commenters provided varying support for implementing a user fee for
the electronic submissions of Unmanifested Waste Reports. Two
commenters stated that a user fee would disincentivize receiving
facilities from submitting reports, and reports would often simply go
unmade. One commenter stated that the receiving facility should be
allowed, but not required, to create a manifest, identifying the
generator and transporter(s) if known instead of a submitting a report.
Another commenter opposed a user fee requirement, stating that many of
the incurred user fee costs to the receiving facility are often passed
onto the generator, often at a marked-up rate.
4. Discussion of Final Rule: Unmanifested Waste Reports
EPA appreciates input it has received on whether the Agency should
integrate the Unmanifested Waste Report into the e-Manifest system in
lieu of written, hard copy reports. EPA believes that eliminating
written, hard copy Unmanifested Waste Reports will alleviate the burden
associated with processing and will aid e-Manifest users by providing a
more accurate and complete picture of hazardous waste shipments.
Therefore, the Agency is finalizing revisions in section Sec. Sec.
264.76 and 265.76 for hazardous waste and 761.216 for PCB wastes that
will require all Unmanifested Waste Reports to be submitted
electronically through the e-Manifest system, as proposed in the NPRM.
However, like the electronic exception and discrepancy reporting
requirements, EPA is delaying implementation of the electronic
unmanifested waste discrepancy requirements under Sec. Sec. 264.76(b)
and 265.76(b) for Federal or State-regulated hazardous waste and under
761.216(b) until December 1, 2025. Prior December 1, 2025, receiving
facilities of Federal or State-regulated hazardous waste and commercial
disposal or storage facilities of TSCA PCB waste must continue to
supply Unmanifested Waste Reports directly to EPA Regional
Administrators or authorized States via postal mail. On December 1,
2025, regulated entities must comply with the electronic reporting
requirements in this final rule. Beginning December 1, 2025, receiving
facilities of RCRA Federal or State-regulated hazardous waste and
commercial disposal or storage facilities of TSCA PCB waste must submit
Unmanifested Waste Reports directly in EPA's e-Manifest system.
Beginning December 1, 2025, these facilities will no longer have the
option to supply written, paper Unmanifested Waste Reports to the EPA
Regional Administrators or authorized States via postal mail.
EPA acknowledges comments that did not support eliminating paper
versions of the Unmanifested Waste Reports, but EPA believes that the
commenters' concerns are addressable. Regarding one commenter's concern
for unsupported edge cases, the Agency expects that the number of edge
case instances will represent a small portion of the unmanifested
shipments. EPA estimates that approximately 491 Unmanifested Waste
Reports need to be filed every two years. The Agency believes that the
number of Unmanifested Waste Reports that cannot be submitted
electronically, for example, the edge case scenario described by the
commenter, can be directly managed by EPA.
EPA is finalizing the procedures for submitting electronic
Unmanifested Waste Reports through the e-Manifest system under
Sec. Sec. 264.76(a), 265.76(a) and 761.216(a) for hazardous waste and
PCB waste shipments, respectively. As explained in the NPRM, the
electronic Unmanifested Waste Report requires an electronic reporting
format that is very similar to the current electronic form for
manifests. The report includes information on the handlers involved
(generator, transporter, receiving facility), the date the waste was
received, management method, in addition to a brief explanation of why
the waste was unmanifested, if known, and a certification by the owner
or operator of the receiving facility.
The Agency is persuaded by comments that assessing a user fee for
the electronic submission of Unmanifested Waste Reports would
disincentivize receiving facilities from submitting these reports.
Based on the
[[Page 60711]]
FY2024/2025 manifest usage projections, EPA estimates the e-Manifest
system will process 4,909,578 manifests during the two-year fee cycle.
EPA also estimates that approximately 0.01% of waste shipments will
require an Unmanifested Waste Report (approximately 491 reports for the
FY2024/2025 fee cycle). In the NPRM, EPA proposed requiring user fees
that are equivalent to the user fees for electronic manifests; the
FY2024/2025 user fee for an electronic manifest is $6 per manifest. As
a result, the EPA projects that approximately $2,946 would be collected
in revenue over two years if the Agency finalized the proposal to
collect user fees for electronic Unmanifested Waste Reports. The
relatively small number of unmanifested shipments and the resulting
negligible impact on revenue will not affect the Agency's ability to
recover the full cost of operating the e-Manifest System. The Agency
also believes that incentivizing the submission of Unmanifested Waste
Reports, and the resulting benefits for the quality of e-Manifest data,
far outweigh the small potential uncovered costs. Therefore, EPA is not
finalizing a user fee for Unmanifested Waste Reports.
EPA is also making conforming changes to the unmanifested waste
reporting requirement under part 270, subpart C regarding RCRA permits
(40 CFR 270.30(l)(8)). EPA did not propose changes to Sec.
270.30(l)(8) in the NPRM. However, as explained above, this final rule
revises the Unmanifested Waste Report requirements under Sec. 264.76.
Therefore, this final rule makes conforming changes to the manifest
unmanifested waste report requirements under Sec. 270.30(l)(8) so that
they are consistent with the revisions to Sec. 264.76(a) regarding the
conditions under which the permitted facility must prepare an
electronic Unmanifested Waste Report in the EPA e-Manifest system for
submission to the EPA within 15 days after receiving the waste.
G. International Shipment Requirements
1. What EPA Proposed on This Issue: International Shipment Requirements
EPA proposed revisions to the export and import shipment movement
document-related requirements to more closely link the manifest data
with the movement document data (see 87 FR 19290; April 1, 2022. See
pages 19300-19301). The proposed changes would also enable future
linking of the manifest data with the confirmation of receipt and
confirmation of recovery or disposal for an individual export or import
shipment. On January 18, 2022, EPA transitioned WIETS to a module
integrated within the RCRAInfo Industry Application (RCRAInfo WIETS)
that allows more efficient data sharing between WIETS and the other
modules and improved access by State agencies and the public to export
and import final data. The RCRAInfo WIETS module currently includes
industry-created and submitted export notices, import notices, and
export annual reports; allows for EPA review and processing of such
submittals; and an Application Programing Interface-based electronic
exchange of notice and response data with Mexico and Canada. The next
stage of RCRAInfo WIETS development intends to add functionality to
enable the establishment of an electronic import-export reporting
compliance date discussed in the November 28, 2016, final rule revising
hazardous waste import and export requirements (81 FR 85700). Once the
second stage is fully completed, EPA intends RCRAInfo WIETS to include
the additional electronic documents such as: export confirmations of
receipt, export Exception Reports, export confirmations of recovery or
disposal, import confirmations of receipt, receiving facility
notifications of the need to arrange alternate management or the return
of an import shipment, and import confirmations of recovery or
disposal. Lastly, EPA proposed revisions that reflect potential future
electronic data exchange of movement document data, confirmation of
receipt data, and confirmation of recovery or disposal data between the
U.S. and another country such as Canada. Should such an electronic data
exchange agreement be established, facilities in both countries could
utilize the exchange to transmit required data more efficiently (see 87
FR 19290; April 1, 2022. See page 19301).
2. Description of Public Comments: International Shipment Requirements
Two commenters expressed support for EPA's proposed revisions to
the export and import shipment movement document-related requirements
to more closely link the manifest data with the movement document data.
No commenters opposed the proposed requirements.
One of the commenters expressed support for EPA's proposal to
capture international shipment information and to assign roles and
responsibilities, reasoning that incorporating this information into
the system would complete the shipment records for both industry and
regulatory users of the system and simultaneously increase its utility
for both groups. The other commenter stated support for: (1) Revisions
to require the movement document to list the RCRA manifest tracking
number from Item 4 of the manifest form if the shipment is required to
be manifested while being transported in the U.S. and (2) revisions to
add the unique movement document tracking number as an acceptable
alternative to listing the shipment number and total number of
shipments for the EPA AOC or the foreign export permit number on the
generic movement document. This commenter, however, suggested EPA
provide industry with a reasonable amount of time to make changes in
their data management systems. The commenter also requested that
industry be allowed to use their current paper forms until the supplies
are exhausted. The same commenter stated that the bulk of imports and
exports of hazardous wastes occurs between Canada and the United
States, and therefore recommended that the Canadian system be
responsible for submitting the confirmation of receipt and confirmation
of recovery or disposal for each export shipment after a data exchange
was established. The commenter supported establishing a data exchange
for shipments between the U.S. and Canada. Lastly, the commenter
supported requiring U.S. receiving facilities to submit confirmations
of receipt and confirmations of recovery or disposal to EPA using
RCRAInfo WIETS but cautioned that this will only be possible if EPA
ensures that the compliance dates do not go into effect until the
industry application in RCRAInfo for submittal of such confirmations
and the data exchange are operational.
3. Discussion of Final Rule: International Shipment Requirements
In today's action, EPA is finalizing the proposed revisions to
Sec. Sec. 262.83(d)(2)(i) and 262.84(d)(2)(i) to require the movement
document to list the RCRA manifest tracking number from Item 4 of the
manifest if the shipment is required to be manifested while being
transported in the United States. Additionally, since Canadian movement
documents have unique tracking numbers similar to manifest tracking
numbers, EPA is finalizing its proposed revisions to Sec. Sec.
262.83(d)(2)(ii) and 262.84(d)(2)(ii) to add the unique movement
document tracking number as an acceptable alternative to listing the
shipment number and total number of shipments from the EPA
Acknowledgement of Consent (AOC) or
[[Page 60712]]
the foreign export permit on the generic movement document available at
<a href="https://www.basel.int/Procedures/NotificationMovementDocuments/tabid/1327/Default.aspx">https://www.basel.int/Procedures/NotificationMovementDocuments/tabid/1327/Default.aspx</a>.
Parallel to the manifest submittal requirements, EPA is also
finalizing the proposed revisions to Sec. Sec. 262.83(d)(2)(xv) and
262.84(d)(2)(xv) to require the exporter and U.S. receiving facility to
submit a copy of the signed movement document to WIETS. Exporters are
required to submit the copy to WIETS within three days of receiving the
copy from the foreign facility, and U.S. receiving facilities would be
required to submit the copy to WIETS within three days of shipment
delivery to confirm receipt of the shipment for shipments occurring on
or after the electronic import-export reporting compliance date.
Revised Sec. 262.83(d)(2)(xvi) requires exporters to submit a copy of
the signed confirmations of recovery or disposal that it receives from
the foreign receiving facility to WIETS within three days of the
exporter's receiving the copy of the signed confirmation of recovery or
disposal for shipments occurring on or after the electronic import-
export reporting compliance date. To reflect the possible establishment
of an electronic exchange of shipment tracking data with another
country like Canada, The EPA is also finalizing the proposed revisions
to Sec. Sec. 262.83(f)(4) and (5), 262.83(f)(6)(ii), 262.84(d)(2)(xv),
262.84(g)(1) and (2), and new Sec. 262.83(d)(2)(xvii) to allow an
established data exchange to be used to comply with the transmittal of
shipment confirmations for export and import shipments between the
exporter or receiving facility and the foreign receiving facility or
foreign exporter, respectively, and between the receiving facility and
the competent authority for the country of export for import shipments.
In parallel, the EPA is finalizing the proposed new requirements
Sec. Sec. 262.83(f)(3)(iii) and 262.84(f)(4)(iii) to allow the use of
an established data exchange to comply with the transmittal of
notifications across borders concerning the need to arrange for the
alternate management or return of an individual shipment for export and
import shipments per Sec. Sec. 262.83(f)(3)(i) and 262.84(f)(4)(i).
Lastly, the EPA is finalizing the following proposed technical
corrections and conforming amendment to import and export requirements.
First, the EPA is finalizing the proposed revisions to Sec. Sec.
261.39(a)(5)(v)(B) and (a)(5)(xi), 262.83(a)(6) and (g), and
263.20(g)(4) to reflect that the AES compliance date of December 31,
2017 (which was specified in an announcement in a Federal Register
notice dated August 28, 2017 (82 FR 41015)) has passed and requirements
concerning shipments made prior to that date no longer apply. Next, the
EPA is finalizing the proposed revisions to Sec. 262.84(b)(1) to
reflect that all import notices are submitted electronically using
WIETS at this time. Electronic import notices have made EPA's
processing more efficient and allows importers and receiving facilities
to store and download EPA AOC letters and import consent documentation
within WIETS rather than keeping paper copies for recordkeeping on
site. Additionally, the EPA is finalizing the proposed revisions to the
text in Sec. Sec. 261.6(a)(3)(i)(A) and (B) and 262.20(a)(2) to
reflect that part 262, subparts E and F no longer exist as of December
31, 2016, and part 262, subpart H now applies. The EPA is also
finalizing the proposed revisions to Sec. Sec. 262.83(d)(2)(xv),
(f)(4) and (5), (f)(6)(ii), and 262.84(d)(2)(xv), (g)(1) and (2) to
clarify that confirmations of receipt and confirmations of recovery or
disposal for export and import shipments are only required to be sent
to the competent authorities of the countries that control such
shipments as exports, transits, or imports of hazardous wastes,
consistent with existing text in Sec. Sec. 264.12(a)(2) and (4) and
265.12(a)(2) and (4). EPA is also finalizing the proposed revisions to
Sec. Sec. 261.4(a)(25)(i)(A) and (H), 261.39(a)(5)(i)(A) and (F),
262.83(b)(1)(i) through (iv), (b)(3), (d)(2)(iii) through (v), (viii)
and (ix), 262.84(b)(1)(i) through (iv), (b)(2), (c)(1)(i), (d)(2)(iii)
through (v), (viii) and (ix), to specify the listing of the site
address in notices, manifests and movement documents in place of the
existing requirement to list ``address'' in order to facilitate country
review of the documents. The EPA also finalizing the proposed revisions
to Sec. Sec. 260.2(d)(1) and (2) and 261.4(a)(25)(v) to make hazardous
secondary material export documents prepared, used, and submitted under
Sec. 261.4(a)(25) available to the public when these electronic
documents are considered by the EPA to be final documents which is
March 1 of the calendar year after the related hazardous secondary
material exports occur. The EPA is finalizing this conforming change to
make hazardous secondary material exports, reinstated as part of the
EPA's response to vacatur of certain provisions of the definition of
solid waste rule effective May 30, 2018 (83 FR 24664), consistent with
the EPA's earlier rule regarding confidentiality determinations related
to all exports, imports or transits of hazardous waste and exports of
conditionally excluded materials (i.e., cathode ray tubes) subject to
export, import, or transit requirements (82 FR 60894) when the final
rule was published on December 26, 2017.
The compliance date for the electronic submittal of confirmations
of receipt and confirmations of recovery or disposal to the EPA by the
U.S. exporter for completed export shipments and by the U.S. receiving
facility for completed import shipments is defined in the regulations
as the ``electronic import-export reporting compliance date'' that will
be established in a future Federal Register document. The date will not
be established until the industry application in RCRAInfo for such
submittals is operational. The electronic import-export reporting
compliance date is separate from the future establishment of a data
exchange with Canada, although such an exchange would facilitate future
submittals related to shipments with Canada. Since December 31, 2016,
U.S. exporters have been required to receive confirmations of receipt
and confirmations of recovery or disposal from the foreign receiving
facilities, and U.S. receiving facilities have been required to send
out confirmations of receipt and confirmations of recovery or disposal
to the foreign exporter and relevant countries of export and transit.
Additionally, while many exports are shipped to Canada, exports of
hazardous waste are also shipped to other countries, so the
requirements need to be implementable regardless of the destination
country. The U.S. exporter and U.S. receiving facility will therefore
need to submit the confirmations into RCRAInfo WIETS on the electronic
import-export reporting compliance date once it has been established.
If, and when, a country-to-country data exchange is established for
shipment tracking, the regulations will allow use of the exchange to
meet the transmittal requirements more efficiently between the two
countries. Lastly, there is no required movement document form, so use
of older forms is not prohibited so long as all the required data items
are included.
H. Manifest Data Corrections
1. Background: Manifest Data Corrections
Since launching the e-Manifest system in June 2018, the EPA has
collected more than 9,000,000 manifests in e-Manifest. Since that time,
EPA has identified data quality issues associated
[[Page 60713]]
with paper manifests submitted to the EPA that reduce the overall
effectiveness of the system. Paper manifests submitted to the e-
Manifest system often have inaccurate or missing EPA ID numbers and
errors in the manifest tracking number. Manifest errors also occur
during the paper digitization process while converting the paper
manifests to digital format for submission. These errors may be due to
typographical errors or illegible information on the paper manifest
that result in major discrepancies between the hazardous waste shipment
and what is reflected in the e-Manifest system. Other data issues arise
when industry systems upload manifest data that do not match the image
file of the paper manifest; in this case, it's difficult to tell if
there is an error or not and whether the error lies with the data
upload or image file.
EPA established post-receipt manifest data correction requirements
in the January 2018 User Fee Final Rule.\15\ The post-receipt data
correction procedures for generators, transporters, and permitted and
interim treatment, storage, and disposal facilities are found in
Sec. Sec. 262.24(h), 263.20(a)(9), 264.71(l), and 265.71(l),
respectively. Based on certain revisions made under this final action,
these regulations state that, after facilities have certified that the
manifest is complete, by signing it at the time of submission to the e-
Manifest system, any post-receipt corrections may be submitted at any
time by any interested handler (e.g., waste handler) shown on the
manifest. These regulations also require that post-receipt corrections
be submitted electronically via e-Manifest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 83 FR 420; January 3, 2018. See page 434.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although EPA established a post-receipt manifest data corrections
process, these regulations do not actually require that waste handlers
make corrections when errors are identified (i.e., the regulations
state corrections ``may be'' submitted). Consequently, waste handlers
have often refused requests from EPA or States to correct errors. As a
result, the quality of manifest data captured in the system has been
adversely impacted to some extent.
EPA believes that several of these types of data errors pre-date
the e-Manifest system and that use of e-Manifest has simply shone a
light on errors that have been associated with paper manifests all
along. However, ensuring high data quality is important to EPA and
State regulators who rely on e-Manifest for compliance monitoring of
waste shipments. EPA continues to believe that widespread adoption of
electronic manifests would be the surest way to improve data quality;
however, in the meantime, EPA is focused on addressing errors
associated with paper manifests.
2. What EPA Proposed on This Issue: Manifest Data Corrections
EPA requested comment on several issues regarding improvement of
the quality of data collected in the e-Manifest system and
establishment of mandatory data correction procedures to ensure such
improvement. Specifically, the EPA requested comment on whether the
post-receipt data corrections procedures should be mandatory. In
addition, EPA requested comment on: (1) What types of errors should be
required for correction; (2) Should the manifest discrepancies
regulated under Sec. Sec. 264.71, 265.71, 264.72, and 265.72 be
subject to mandatory data correction procedures; and (3) Should other
types of errors be brought under mandatory correction procedures, such
as missing or invalid EPA ID numbers, and, if not, how can EPA more
effectively encourage facilities to correct these errors.
EPA also proposed post-receipt manifest data procedures for export
manifests and PCB manifests under Sec. Sec. 262.83(c)(8) and
761.207(g)(2)(v), respectively. These proposed procedures are
equivalent to the manifest data corrections procedures for generators,
transporters, and receiving facilities established in the 2018 User Fee
Final Rule, described above.\16\ In addition, EPA proposed and
requested comments in the February 2019 Federal Register notice and
information to improve the precision of waste quantities and units of
measure reported in Items 11 and 12 of the hazardous waste manifests
(both paper and electronic), respectively.\17\ EPA sought additional
input and requested comment in the NPRM on these proposals and/or
suggestions and also requested comment on whether additional
clarification should be added to the manifest's instructions that
generators and/or designated facilities must report all waste
quantities in Item 11 of the manifest by net weight when they complete
the manifest form.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Ibid.
\17\ 84 FR 2854; February 8, 2019. See page 2855.
\18\ 87 FR 19290; April 1, 2022. See page 19314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Description of Public Comments: Manifest Data Corrections
A few State agencies and one State association raised concerns
about data quality in the e-Manifest system stating that inaccurately
entered data is pervasive in e-Manifest and inconsistencies between
scanned paper manifests and uploaded/entered manifest data are common.
These State commenters further asserted that they support the e-
Manifest program but have found that its implementation is much more
burdensome than initially anticipated. In addition, these commenters
stated that State programs have had to invest considerable staff
resources in areas including account administration, end user training,
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) and corrections of the e-
Manifest data, work which is not covered by any former task or funding
source. They also point out that many State RCRA programs have
experienced significant cuts in Federal funding in recent years and
have fewer staff resources than ever to conduct the activities that are
needed to support an effective hazardous waste management program.
According to these commenters, the added work on e-Manifest has
stretched limited program resources and may not be sustainable without
revisiting funding levels. These commenters stated that EPA should
continue to work on fixing the known data quality issues with the
current e-Manifest system, reporting and participation issues at some
receiving facilities, and other complex cross-state/Region enforcement
issues before implementing many of the changes outlined in EPA's
proposal (e.g., electronic reporting functions, notifications, BR
integration). One industry commenter, however, stated that all data
quality concerns would go away if the e-Manifest database is used to
produce the BR. This commenter, however, did not elaborate on this
viewpoint.
Several State commenters and State associations strongly supported
EPA mandating that waste handlers use the post-receipt data corrections
process to correct manifest errors. However, one trade association
affiliated with the waste management industry opposed making post-
receipt data corrections mandatory asserting mandatory post-receipt
data corrections should not be required because quality data should be
submitted the first time and should not have to be reviewed line-by-
line. This commenter further stated that, if there were questions about
the manifest, then the EPA PPC should contact the facility.
A few State commenters generally supported making post-receipt
corrections mandatory for all errors and inconsistencies between
scanned paper manifests and uploaded/entered manifest data,
particularly generator and waste information (essentially, everything
on a manifest other than
[[Page 60714]]
transporter information). Some State commenters recommended using
manifest data corrections procedures for discrepancies in quantities
and units of measure, to the extent possible. A few State commenters
supported mandatory data corrections procedures for generator EPA ID
numbers by the receiving facility to the extent possible. A subset of
these commenters suggested an on-screen warning when there is not a
valid EPA ID number entered in the generator EPA ID field of a
manifest. One State commenter expressed support for mandating
corrections process procedures and suggested EPA conduct outreach to
the data entry staff of receiving facilities to improve e-Manifest data
quality (e.g., training data entry staff to look in Items 1, 14 and 18
on the paper manifest for manifest correction information).
State commenters and State associations overwhelmingly supported
making the post-receipt data corrections process mandatory for
discrepancy requirements specified under Sec. Sec. 264.71 and 265.71
(e.g., significant differences in waste quantities or waste types). One
State commenter recommended that EPA promulgate data quality
requirements for receiving facilities that include making updates and
corrections. One trade association representing industry that did not
support mandatory use of the post-receipt data corrections process
conceded that this manifest discrepancy process should be used for
manifest discrepancies of weight or waste type as specified in the
regulations.
Commenters were divided on EPA's proposed or alternative changes to
the manifest form related to improving precision of waste quantities
reported on the manifest. For example, regarding reporting waste
quantities using decimals (e.g., allowing use of tenths and
hundredths), one State and State association supported the addition of
decimals or fractions. These commenters stated use of decimals or
fractions would significantly improve the accuracy of data reported,
particularly for acute hazardous wastes. These commenters further
stated that this improved data quality would save time and reduce
workload for both regulators and the regulated community related to
manifest corrections, generator category disputes, and the
administration of State fee programs. Two commenters (one State and one
industry commenter), however, did not support reporting waste
quantities using decimals. The industry commenter stated use of
decimals or fractions would lead to more data errors, mistaken
interpretations of waste quantities, conflicts with biennial report
protocols, and additional programming and quality control costs to
States, generators, and receiving facilities. The State commenter
stated mandating decimal or fractional reporting, or even allowing it
on the manifest, would not bring any further relevant accuracy to the
data. Instead, the commenter expressed support for EPA's alternative
option to amend the units of measure currently required for the
Biennial Report so that they match those for manifests.
Regarding using smaller units of measure, a few industry and State
commenters support using smaller units of measure on manifests. These
commenters also support amending the units of measure currently
required for BR so that the e-Manifest can be used to populate the
corresponding fields of the WR Form as part of the Biennial Report.
State and industry commenters support use of net weights on
manifest forms. However, a State and State association each noted that
they support the use of net weights without the weight of the container
in box Item 11 if it is supported by the U.S. Department of
Transportation requirements. Another supporting State commenter stated
that use of net weight should be mandatory if EPA integrates manifest
data into BR reporting. However, this commenter acknowledged that use
of net weight should not be required for generators because they
typically do not have the capability to measure waste quantities
accurately at their sites. One industry commenter recommended that
receiving facilities be given the option of reporting the net weight
for the final manifest information in the e-Manifest system. This
commenter noted that, for bulk shipments, receiving facilities weigh
bulk transfer containers upon receipt and subtract the container weight
to determine net weight of the hazardous waste. The commenter stated
that adding a clarification that when units of weight are used on the
manifest for bulk shipments, that the quantity must be net weight is
consistent with current practice. However, this commenter noted that,
for drum shipments, it is not feasible to weigh each drum and then
subtract the weight of the drum which can be metal, fiber, composite,
etc. Therefore, for drum shipments it is not possible to report net
weight. Finally, one commenter representing the retail industry did not
support use of net weight for generators. This commenter noted
switching from gross weight to net weight could present challenges for
retailers. The commenter further stated that the weight of lab pack
drums used to store and transport waste will vary. Therefore, it would
be difficult to determine net weight in many instances. This commenter
also recommended that EPA consult with the waste hauling industry for a
better understanding of the implications of reporting net or gross
weight amounts.
4. Discussion of Final Rule: Manifest Data Corrections
EPA appreciates States' concerns regarding the quality of data
currently in the e-Manifest system and agrees that inaccuracy of
manifest data reduces overall system effectiveness and prevents proper
identification of mismanaged waste. Accurate e-Manifest data allows
handlers to easily store and retrieve records, receive automatically
updated manifest information, and reduces the time spent producing
reports. In addition, accurate data assists EPA and States to make
important resource decisions about hazardous waste management.
Unfortunately, the effect of tracking Federal and State hazardous
wastes using paper manifests will invariably have data quality problems
due to varying QA/QC practices of the regulated community. Therefore,
EPA strongly encourages handlers to transition from paper manifests to
electronic manifests, which are faster, easier, space-saving, and more
convenient than paper submissions. Unlike paper manifests, electronic
manifests already exist in digital format with built-in data quality
checks. Users of the e-Manifest system have immediate access to up-to-
date information that can be used when completing electronic manifests.
EPA, however, acknowledges that scant use of electronic manifests
causes EPA to require generators, transporters, and receiving
facilities using paper manifests to correct data errors/omissions via
the post-receipt data corrections process to satisfy manifest
completion requirements under Sec. Sec. 262.20(a), 263.20(a),
264.71(a), and 265.71(a) for generators, transporters, permitted and
interim status facilities, respectively, as well as the manifest
instructions corresponding to their copy of the manifest form and, if
necessary, the manifest continuation sheet. Therefore, EPA accepts
State commenters' recommendations to establish requirements that
handlers must correct manifest errors when requested by State
regulatory agencies, EPA and/or the EPA PPC.
EPA is not finalizing its proposal or alternative options to
improve the precision of waste quantities listed in Items 11 (Total
Quantity) and 12 (Units
[[Page 60715]]
of Measure) of the manifest form \19\ to allow the reporting of
decimals or fractions in Item 11 or using smaller units of measure in
Item 12 for both paper and electronic manifests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 84 FR 2854; February 8, 2019. See page 2855.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA, however, is not persuaded by some State commenters'
recommendations to require receiving facilities to make all corrections
to errors/omissions recorded on manifests, including in the generator
portion of the manifest form. Generators, transporters, and receiving
facilities are all responsible for completing certain portions of the
manifest. In fact, the manifest requirements under Sec. Sec. 264.71(a)
and 265.71(a) and/or the instructions for receiving facilities require
receiving facilities to complete Items 18-20 of the manifests form and,
if necessary, the corresponding data fields of the manifest
continuation sheet. The manifest instructions for generators and
transporters require them to complete Items 1-15 and Item 17,
respectively, of the manifest and if necessary, the corresponding
fields of the manifest continuation sheet. For these reasons, this
final rule requires receiving facilities to correct errors specified
under the manifest discrepancy regulations and manifest instructions.
For manifest errors specified by the manifest discrepancy regulations,
such errors are found in Items 10-13 of the manifest and per the
manifest instructions for receiving facilities are noted under Item 18a
and if necessary, under Item 14 (Special Handling Instructions and
Additional Information Block) of the manifest. Other errors are found
in Item 19 of the manifest. Receiving facilities must also make
corrections to errors in this field.
This final rule generally maintains the current post-receipt
manifest data corrections process. In fact, after facilities have
certified that the manifest is complete, by signing it at the time of
submission to the e-Manifest system, any interested persons (e.g.,
waste handler) named on the manifest may continue to submit voluntarily
any post-receipt data corrections at any time, except as described
below in this preamble section. Further, there is no limit to the
number of corrections that may be entered, and the last submitted
correction is presumed valid and accurate unless corrected by a
subsequent data correction. The correction submission may relate to an
individual record or to an identified batch of records and must be
accompanied by a CROMERR-compliant certification that to the person's
knowledge and belief, the data as corrected will cause the affected
data records to be true, accurate, and complete. Further, the
correction submissions must indicate the record being corrected by its
Manifest Tracking Number, the Item Number of the manifest data fields
affected by the correction, and for each data field corrected, must
show the previously entered data and the data as corrected.
The final rule, however, revises the post-receipt data manifest
corrections requirements by adding new provisions under the existing
requirements under Sec. Sec. 262.20(a), 263.20(a)(9), 264.71(l), and
265.71(l) and making conforming changes to the proposed manifest
corrections requirements for PCB manifested shipments. (Post-receipt
manifest data corrections for PCB manifests under Sec.
761.207(g)(2)(v) are discussed in the next section.) These new
provisions require generators, transporters, and receiving facilities
to make data correction submissions within 30 days from receipt of a
corrections request from EPA or a State. These data correction
submissions must be made electronically in the system via the post-
receipt data corrections process by following the corrections process
described in Sec. 264.71(l). This requirement applies to corrections
made to either paper or electronic manifest records. This final rule
also revises Sec. Sec. 262.20(h), 263.20(a)(9), 264.71(l), 265.71(l),
and 761.207(g)(2)(v) to clarify that receiving facilities must make
mandatory/voluntary post-receipt manifest corrections via the e-
Manifest system after they sign the manifest, and any manifest
continuation sheet, for purposes of submitting the final manifest to
the EPA e-Manifest system. The previous language of the existing
requirements incorrectly stated that facilities could make post-receipt
manifest corrections after the facility signed Item 20 of the manifest.
The signature in Item 20 of a manifest (whether paper or electronic
manifests are used) applies to signatures for initial receipt of
shipments by receiving facilities and occurs prior to manifest
submission to the system. Manifest correction submissions must be
transacted using a CROMERR-compliant certification that to the person's
knowledge and belief, the data as corrected will cause the affected
data records to be true, accurate, and complete.
This final rule also makes conforming changes to the proposed
manifest data corrections requirement for exporters under Sec.
262.83(c)(8). Like the manifest data corrections process for domestic
and import manifests, post-receipt data corrections for export
manifests may be submitted at any time by any interested person (e.g.,
domestic waste handler) shown on the manifest. The distinction between
export and domestic and imports shipments is the voluntary corrections
for export shipments must be made after foreign facilities have
certified to the receipt of hazardous wastes by sending a copy of the
movement document to the exporter per paragraph (d)(2)(xvii) unless
corrections are requested by the EPA or a State for export manifests.
EPA notes that for hazardous waste export shipments, data correction
submissions must be made electronically in the e-Manifest system via
the post-receipt data corrections process by following the corrections
process described in Sec. 265.71(l).
For generators, the EPA is revising the post-receipt manifest data
corrections requirements by moving previous Sec. 262.24(h) into Sec.
262.20, specifically replacing Sec. 262.20(a)(2). (Section
262.20(a)(2) previously referred to a compliance deadline that has long
passed relating to the March 2005 uniform hazardous waste manifest
forms rule. Thus, this previous language is no longer needed); also,
since the EPA is moving Sec. 262.24(h) into Sec. 262.20, this final
rule removes Sec. 262.24(h). The EPA is also revising the previous
language by removing the reference to the 40 CFR 264.71(l) citation and
adding, in its place, the more appropriate citation of 40 CFR
265.71(l). the EPA is also revising Sec. 262.20(a)(2) to reflect
revisions to the post-receipt manifest corrections requirements under
Sec. 264.71(l); please see changes to paragraph (l) below for further
discussion.
First, the final rule in paragraph (a)(2) indicates that after
facilities have certified that the manifest is complete, by signing it
at the time of submission to the e-Manifest system, any post-receipt
data corrections may be submitted at any time by LQGs and SQGs. In
addition, the final rule requires LQGs and SQGs to address data
correction requests by the EPA or States within 30 days of the date of
the request. Further, paragraph (a)(2) states that data correction
submissions must be made electronically in the post-receipt data
corrections process by following the process described in Sec.
264.71(l) of this chapter, which applies to corrections made to either
paper or electronic manifest records.
As explained previously, VSQGs subject to the manifest requirements
are not required under today's action to register in the e-Manifest
system. (However, if a State requires VSQGs to manifest and requires
them to register in the e-Manifest system, those VSQGs
[[Page 60716]]
must do so. Those VSQGs must also correct errors if requested by
States.) Therefore, VSQGs who do not choose to register for e-Manifest
should arrange with other waste handlers named on the manifest to make
corrections to manifest data on their behalf. LQGs and SQGs, on the
other hand, are required to register under today's action and must make
and submit data corrections electronically in the e-Manifest system for
generator information recorded in Items 1-15, except as noted below,
and if necessary, the corresponding items of a continuation sheet, of
their manifest records.
Finally, any waste handler named on a manifest must submit
corrections to Item 14 of the manifest. Although this field is
contained in the generator information block of the manifest, typically
all waste handlers involved with a waste shipment and named on the
manifest record information in it. EPA points out that LQGs and SQGs
may continue to make and submit corrections to manifest data
electronically without prior notification from the EPA or States as an
interested party of the manifest data.
The EPA is aware that it is a common practice for an entity or
individual other than the generator to perform the steps necessary to
prepare a waste shipment for transportation, including the steps
associated with preparing the manifest paperwork. Often, the
transporter or the facility designated on the manifest by the generator
to manage their waste shipment prepares the manifest paperwork as a
part of the service it provides to its generator customers. In these
situations, the EPA and the States will still require LQGs and SQGs to
correct errors/omissions to the portions of the manifest requiring
their completion. Therefore, if there is transporter or designated
facility that prepared the manifest for the LQGs and SQGs, or prepared
and signed the generator's certification on behalf of the LQG or SQG,
the EPA strongly recommends that LQGs and SQGs arrange through
contracts or other legal arrangements to have the transporter or
designated facility make and submit post-receipt manifest data
correction submissions to the EPA or a State on their behalf. The EPA
is aware that e-Manifest brokers also prepare paper manifests or
electronic manifests in the e-Manifest system for its generator
clients. However, brokers cannot submit data corrections to the EPA on
behalf of their generator clients, unless the broker is operating at
the generator site and can sign the manifest as an offeror of the waste
shipment.
For transporters, the EPA is revising the existing post-receipt
manifest data correction requirements in Sec. 263.20(a)(9) to reflect
the conforming changes to Sec. Sec. 264.71(l) and 265.71(l); please
refer to the preamble discussion below regarding post-receipt data
correction requirements for receiving facilities. Like generators,
transporters must follow the data corrections process described in
Sec. 264.71(l). Thus, after receiving facilities have certified that
the manifest is complete, by signing it at the time of submission to
the e-Manifest system, any post-receipt data corrections may be
submitted at any time by the transporter. If the EPA or a State request
a data correction to manifests, then the transporter must make and
electronically submit manifest data corrections to transporter
information recorded in Items 14 and 17 of manifest records and
corresponding data of manifest continuation sheets via the post-receipt
manifest data correction process within 30 days from the date of the
corrections request. Further, transporters who changed the routing of
the shipment per Sec. 263.21(b)(2) and (3), must submit manifest data
corrections to Items 6 and 7, and if necessary, the corresponding items
of the manifest continuation sheet, if requested by the EPA or a State.
Transporters, of course, may continue to make and submit corrections to
manifest data electronically without prior notification from the EPA or
States as an interested party of the manifest data. Such transporters
must also follow the data corrections process described in Sec.
264.71(l).
The EPA explained previously that the current e-signature methods
are designed to be used in the United States. The headquarters of
foreign transporters of hazardous waste import shipments are located
outside the U.S. These transporters generally have EPA ID numbers, and
therefore, can register as users in the e-Manifest system, allowing
them to prepare, view, and store import manifests (whether paper or
electronic) in their registered accounts. However, these foreign
transporters cannot electronically sign manifests in the system nor
electronically submit the corrections to the system. Therefore, a
registered user named on the import manifest other than the foreign
transporter must submit manifest data corrections to the system.
Similarly, foreign transporters exporting hazardous waste shipments out
of the country will not be able to submit manifest data corrections for
export manifests to the system. Manifest data corrections for export
manifests are discussed below.
For receiving facilities, the EPA is making conforming changes to
the existing manifest data corrections requirements under Sec. Sec.
264.72(l) and 265.72(l) for receiving facilities. Like generators and
transporters, receiving facilities may continue to voluntarily submit
post-manifest data corrections electronically via the e-Manifest system
at any time as described in revised Sec. Sec. 264.71(l) and 265.71(l)
for permitted and interim status treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities, respectively. This final rule makes regulatory amendments
to Sec. Sec. 264.71(l) and 265.71(l) by adding a new provision under
paragraph (l) which requires receiving facilities to submit manifest
data corrections electronically to the system within 30 days from
receipt of the corrections request by the EPA or a State. Receiving
facilities must electronically submit manifest data corrections to
manifest data recorded in Items 14 (as previously discussed) and 18-20
of the manifest records as well as to the corresponding manifest
continuation sheet and data file, if applicable.
Regarding Item 18 of the manifest, the existing manifest
requirements at Sec. Sec. 264.71(a)(2)(ii) and 265.71(a)(2)(ii) and
manifest instructions require receiving facilities to note manifest
discrepancies (as defined in Sec. Sec. 264.72(a) and 265.72(a)) on the
manifest (Item 18a of the manifest). The EPA notes that neither the
existing Federal regulations under these sections nor Item 18 of the
current manifest form instructions require receiving facilities to make
corresponding changes to Items 10-13 of the manifest when facilities
note discrepancies in Item 18a. However, unlike the Federal manifest
program, authorized States may require generators or receiving
facilities to correct Items 10 and 13 of manifests as part of a
manifest discrepancy resolution. Therefore, under this final rule
receiving facilities must also submit corrections electronically to the
e-Manifest system for Items 10-13 of the manifest if an authorized
State requests such corrections to address the discrepancy information
recorded in Item 18a.
For exporters, the EPA is finalizing the proposed post-receipt
manifest data correction requirements for exporters under Sec.
262.83(c)(8) with slight modification. The revisions to the proposed
changes align with the existing post-receipt data correction
requirements for generators, transporters, receiving facilities, and
PCB commercial storage and disposal
[[Page 60717]]
facilities. Like other waste handlers, exporters may voluntarily make
manifest data corrections at any time using the post-receipt
corrections process. Further, exporters also must make manifest data
corrections within 30 days from receipt of a correction request
notification from the EPA or a State. An exporter must make corrections
to any manifest data recorded on the export manifest so that the data
matches manifest information recorded on the completed movement
document submitted to the WIETS module in RCRAInfo by the foreign
facility. This final rule modifies the proposed post-receipt manifest
data corrections requirements to reflect these changes.
The EPA believes it is appropriate to require that the exporter
correct all manifest data of an export manifest for several reasons.
First, exporters are required to be domiciled in the U.S. Therefore,
the EPA has jurisdiction to require exporters make corrections to
export manifest data and submit the corrections electronically to e-
Manifest system. Second, exporters are responsible for ensuring that
the export shipments are accompanied by the movement document and the
RCRA manifest unless the exported waste is exempted from RCRA manifest
requirements (e.g., universal waste). Third, exporters are additionally
required to have a contract with the foreign facility that requires it
to send to the exporter either: (1) A copy of the signed movement
document to confirm the foreign facility's acceptance of the export
shipment per Sec. 262.83(f)(4), or (2) documentation from the foreign
facility informing the exporter of the foreign facility's rejection of
the waste in the export shipment and the need to arrange alternate
management or the return of the waste in the export shipment per Sec.
262.83(f)(3)(i). In cases where the foreign facility rejects waste from
an export shipment or if the shipment status cannot be confirmed within
certain timeframes, the exporter is required to submit an export
Exception Report per Sec. 262.83(h).
Lastly, by March 1st of every year, the exporter is required to
submit an export annual report detailing the actual amounts of
hazardous waste exported the previous calendar year per Sec.
262.83(g). Based on the documentation that the foreign facility is
required to send back to the exporter, the exporter is in the best
position to make any necessary corrections to the RCRA manifest data in
the e-Manifest system. If the foreign facility notes significant
differences in the movement document or other documentation concerning
the waste they received or rejected with respect to data elements
required in both the movement document and the RCRA manifest, then the
exporter will be required to make those corrections. Examples of such
corrections include but are not limited to changes to waste quantity,
applicable RCRA hazardous waste code(s), applicable DOT/UN
identification number, waste stream consent number, or exporter's EPA
identification number.
The EPA appreciates comments and recommendations on its proposals
and suggestions regarding improving the accuracy and precision of waste
quantities and units of measure recorded in Items 11 and 12,
respectively, on manifests. Based on comments, the EPA has decided at
this time to not finalize these proposals or suggestions in this final
rule. The EPA agrees with commenters that matching the units of measure
in the BR with the manifest and requiring use of net weight for bulk
shipments would make for a more streamlined process and would make it
easier to transfer information from the manifest to the BR. However,
revisions to the units of measure currently required for the BR are
beyond the scope of this final rule and require a separate Agency
action. The EPA also accepts one commenter's concern about the possible
causal effects to States, generators, and receiving facilities if the
EPA mandates use of decimals or fractions for reporting of waste
quantities on manifests. The EPA also accepts the comment from the
trade association, representing the retail, industry, suggesting that
the EPA should consult with the waste hauling industry prior to making
a final determination about reporting net or gross weight amounts on
manifests. As mentioned previously, the EPA believes that comments
addressing BR raised significant substantive issues that merit further
analysis and outreach prior to adopting a final approach. The EPA also
believes comments to the Agency's proposals considering data accuracy
and precision improvements of waste quantities merit further analysis.
For these reasons, the EPA is not finalizing the proposals and/or
requested comment on alternative suggestions in this final rule.
I. PCB Manifests
1. Background and What the EPA Proposed on This Issue: PCB Manifests
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)-regulated Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) waste is subject to the disposal requirements under
part 761, subpart D and must be manifested unless it is specifically
exempted from the requirements in part 761, subpart K. Therefore, like
RCRA and State-only hazardous wastes, TSCA-regulated PCB waste subje
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on July 26, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.