[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28240-28318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11909]



[[Page 28239]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 260 et al.



Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste 
Manifest System; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 28240]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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

[FRL-6932-4]
RIN 2050-AE21


Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous 
Waste Manifest System

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to 
revise the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest regulations and the 
manifest form used to track hazardous waste from a generator's site to 
its site of ultimate disposition.
    EPA proposes three major revisions to the manifest system: First, 
EPA proposes to further standardize the content and appearance of the 
current manifest form (8700-22 and 22a), to make the form available 
from a greater number of sources. Second, EPA proposes manifest 
tracking procedures for the follow-up manifesting of TSDF-rejected RCRA 
hazardous waste shipment loads, and follow-on shipments of non-empty 
waste containers containing waste residues. Lastly, EPA proposes giving 
waste handlers required to use the form the option to complete, send, 
and store the manifest information electronically. For waste handlers 
choosing this option, the proposed rule would require the use of a 
standardized electronic data interchange (EDI) format that facilitates 
the exchange of data between waste handlers, the use of digital 
signature technology to sign the manifest, and the use of a standard 
set of computer security standards for the transmission and storage of 
manifest data.
    EPA proposes these changes to reduce paperwork burden related to 
the hazardous waste manifest provisions, and in response to many 
requests for a streamlined and up-to-date hazardous waste tracking 
system. If finalized, EPA also expects these proposed changes to 
improve the ``cradle-to-grave'' hazardous waste tracking system and to 
ensure that waste reaches its destination without causing harm to human 
health or the environment.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be submitted on or 
before August 20, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their 
comments referencing docket number F-2000-UWMP-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket 
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Hand deliveries of 
comments should be made to the Arlington, VA, address below. Comments 
may also be submitted electronically to: [email protected]. Comments 
in electronic format should also be identified by the docket number F-
2000-UWMP-FFFFF. All electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII 
file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 
Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential business 
information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted 
under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of 
Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Public comments and supporting 
materials are available for viewing in the RCRA Information Center 
(RIC), located at Crystal Gateway One, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson 
Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review 
docket materials, it is recommended that the public make an appointment 
by calling (703) 603-9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages 
from any regulatory document at no cost. Additional copies cost $0.15 
per page. The index and some supporting materials are available 
electronically. See the Supplementary Information section for 
information on accessing them.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the 
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 or TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing 
impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call (703) 412-
9810 or TDD (703) 412-3323. For more detailed information on specific 
aspects of this rulemaking, contact Richard Lashier (5304W), Office of 
Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308-8796, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Internet Availability

    This rule is available on the Internet. Using a World Wide Web 
(WWW) browser, type http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/manifest/index.htm
    The official record for this action is in a paper format.

Outline

I. Authority

II. Request for Comments

III. Background

A. History of manifest system
B. Problems Associated with the Uniform Manifest Form
    1. Variability
    2. State Difficulties
C. Efforts to Improve the Hazardous Waste Manifest System
D. To whom would these new regulations apply?
E. How much burden and cost reduction does EPA expect from the 
proposed manifest form revisions?
F. Effective Date of Final Rule

IV. The Revised Manifest Form

A. Manifest Form Acquisition
    1. How is EPA changing the way the manifest forms are acquired?
    2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
    3. How much burden reduction does EPA expect from the proposed 
manifest form revisions?
    4. Where would a waste handler get paper manifest forms?
    5. Must a generator still contact the state?
    6. What special requirements would apply to printers of the 
universal manifest?
    7. What is the naming convention for the different copies of the 
manifest?
    8. How would the acquisition regulation change?
    9. How would manifest tracking numbers be changed by the 
proposal?
    10. Could States still require use of only their manifests?
    11. Request for comments
B. International Shipments
    1. What is EPA proposing with respect to manifest for imports 
and exports?
    2. Why is EPA proposing this change?
    3. How would the manifest and the regulations change?
C. Bulk Packaging
    1. How is EPA changing its regulations related to bulk 
containers?
    2. Why is EPA changing its rules related to bulk packaging?
    3. How would this affect me?
    4. How would the regulations change?
D. Use of Fractions
    1. What is EPA changing with respect to the use of fractions in 
the Quantity Description on the Manifest?
    2. Why is this clarification necessary?
    3. What would change?
E. Emergency Response Phone Number
    1. What is EPA proposing related to the Emergency Response Phone 
Numbers on the Manifest?
    2. Why is EPA proposing these changes?
    3. How would this change affect the regulations?
F. Generator Certification
    1. How would the generator certification statements on the 
manifest be modified?
    2. What are the current requirements to the generator 
certification?
    3. How would EPA modify the language of the shipper's 
certification?

[[Page 28241]]

    4. How would EPA change the appearance of the waste minimization 
certification statement?
    5. Why is the Agency Proposing this Change to the appearance of 
the waste minimization certification statement?
G. Elimination of Certain State Optional Boxes
    1. Why is EPA Proposing to Reduce the Number of State Optional 
Boxes?
    2. Which boxes would be eliminated?
    3. Why is EPA proposing to remove each of these boxes?
    4. Why is EPA proposing to amend items 15 & J of the old form?
    5. What regulations would be affected by reducing the number of 
state optional boxes and combining Items J and 15 to create new Item 
14?
    6. EPA invites comment on today's proposal to reduce the number 
of state optional fields on the manifest.
H. Block K Coding System
    1. How would the requirements for the codes used in Block K 
(Handling Codes) change?
    2. What are the Biennial Report system type codes EPA proposes 
to use?
    3. What are the problems with the current coding systems used to 
complete Block K?
    4. How can the Biennial Report system type codes help resolve 
the problems?
    5. Where would I find a list of codes to be used in Block B?
    6. Who would be affected by the proposal to change Block K to 
Block B?
    7. How would Block B be filled out?
    8. How would the regulations change?
    9. EPA invites comment on today's proposal and also welcomes new 
ideas for manifest and System Type Code Burden Reduction
I. Block I Waste Code System
    1. How would the requirements for the codes used in Block I 
change?
    2. What is the problem with current Block I reporting 
procedures?
    3. Who would be affected by this proposal?
    4. How would Block A be filled out?
    5. How would the regulations change?
    6. EPA invites comment on the following questions related to the 
proposed changes to Block A

V. Unmanifested Waste Reporting

    1. How is EPA changing the way TSDFs Report unmanifested waste?
    2. What is unmanifested waste?
    3. What is the problem with the current requirements for 
unmanifested waste reporting?
    4. How do the regulations for the unmanifested waste, manifest 
discrepancies, and exception reporting compare?

VI. Residues and Rejected Loads: How Must These Shipments be 
Manifested?

    1. What are residues and rejected loads?
    2. What is EPA proposing related to residues and rejected loads?
    3. To whom do these new requirements apply?
    4. Where would the proposed requirements for tracking rejected 
wastes and residues be codified?
    5. Why is EPA proposing these changes?
    6. How long does the TSDF have to accept or reject the hazardous 
waste shipment?
    7. Who is responsible for deciding where to send a residue or 
load rejected by the TSDF?
    8. Must TSDFs who reject waste or who have a regulated residue 
prepare a new manifest for the shipment to the alternative facility?
    9. Whose facility information would go in the ``generator'' 
block of the manifest?
    10. What would you be required to do under the new regulations?
    11. What conditions would apply to a rejected waste or container 
residue shipment once the generator receives it back from the TSDF?
    12. On what issues would EPA like to receive comments?

VII. Automation of the Manifest System

A. Introduction
    1. Summary of today's electronic manifest proposal
    2. Why is EPA proposing these changes?
    3. Who would be affected by these changes?
    4. What manifest automation is already occurring?
    5. How much reduction in burden and cost would be achieved by 
automation?
    6. What other benefits would result from an electronic manifest 
system?
    7. What are the concerns associated with automated systems?
    a. Inadvertent or deliberate corruption of records
    b. Unauthorized access to systems or data
    c. Limited human involvement and speed with which transactions 
are executed
    d. Natural disasters and systems failures
    e. Software defects and interoperability issues
B. EPA's current electronic reporting policy
    1. What is EPA's current electronic reporting policy?
    2. What is Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)?
    3. How does EDI work?
    4. Why would EDI be suited to an automated manifest system?
    5. Would a Terms and Conditions Agreement be required?
    6. What alternatives to traditional EDI is EPA considering?
    7. What are the Manifest Automation Pilots?
C. Overview of manifest automation proposal
    1. What is included in today's proposal on the electronic 
manifest?
    2. Is electronic manifesting mandatory for waste handlers?
    3. Must authorized State programs adopt electronic manifesting?
    4. What happens if the transporters of my hazardous waste don't 
automate?
    5. What happens if the generator is not able to prepare an 
electronic manifest?
    6. Where would the new requirements for automated manifesting be 
codified?
D. What impediments to automation would today's proposal remove?
    1. Specific paper form designations
    2. ``By-hand'' signature requirements
    3. Physical transmission of manifests
    4. Electronic storage of manifest copies
E. What standard electronic formats would today's proposal require?
    1. Overview
    2. Proposed EDI format
    3. Proposed Internet Forms Format
    a. Background
    b. What is Extensible Markup Language (XML)?
    4. What comments would be helpful to EPA?
    a. Are the proposed EDI transactions sets appropriate?
    b. Is an XML approach feasible?
    c. Are there alternative formats that EPA should consider?
    d. Should EPA address internet EDI Distinctly?
F. What electronic record system controls and procedures would this 
proposal require?
    1. Validation of system performance and training
    2. The ability to generate accurate and complete records 
available for inspection
    3. The ability to protect records
    4. The ability to limit system access and conduct authority 
checks
    5. Use of secure audit trails
    6. Software-based work flow controls and operational system 
checks
    7. Software-based data presentation features and signature 
prompts
    8. Full interoperability of system software
    9. Controls over system documentation
    10. Policies holding individuals accountable
    11. Other system requirements
G. EPA's Proposed Electronic Signature Standard
    1. Why are signatures important to the manifest?
    2. What are the concerns with electronic signatures?
    3. How does today's proposal address electronic signatures?
    4. What is a `digital signature'?
    5. How do digital signatures work?
    6. What digital signatures algorithms and key lengths are 
acceptable?
    7. Is digital signature alone sufficient to identify individual 
signers?
    8. How would today's proposal deal with the security of private 
keys?
    9. Why is a ``trusted third party'' necessary for digital 
signatures?
    10. What digital certificates would be required under today's 
proposal?
    11. What is a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)?
    12. What PKI options are being considered for the manifest?
    A. Centralized PKI for Environmental Programs
    B. Decentralized Approach to PKI
    C. Hybrid Option
    13. Proposed ``secure digitized signature'' method
    14. Request for comments on proposed signature methods
H. Preparer Signature Proposal
    1. What is a `preparer signature'?
    2. Why is EPA proposing to allow preparers to sign electronic 
manifests for generators?
    3. How would the preparer signature feature work?

[[Page 28242]]

    4. How would a preparer-signed electronic manifest be closed 
out?
    5. Request for comments
I. Third Party Storage of Manifest Records
    1. What does EPA mean by third-party storage?
    2. What are the proposed conditions on third-party storage?
    3. Request for comments

VIII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency 
Initiatives

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
C. Environmental Justice--Applicability of Executive Order 12898
D. Protection of Children--Applicability of Executive Order 12045
E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. Federalism--Applicability of Executive Order 13132
I. Consultation with Tribal Governments

IX. How would today's proposed regulatory changes be administered and 
enforced in the States?

A. Applicability of Federal Rules in Authorized States
B. Authorization of States for Today's Proposal
    1. Would authorized States be required to the Uniform Manifest 
Form?
    2. Would authorized States be required to adopt electronic 
manifesting?
Appendix A. Extensible markup language (XML) document type definition 
for the hazardous waste manifest

I. Authority

    These regulations are proposed under the authority of sections 
2002, 3001 through 3007, and 3009 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 
1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 
(RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 
(HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6921 through 6927, 6929 and 6930.

II. Request for Comments

    The Agency requests comment on the proposed changes to the manifest 
form, the proposed procedures for using the form, and on the proposed 
option for electronic manifests, as described in this document. The 
manifest system includes both the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (EPA 
Form 8700-22) and the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Continuation 
Sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A). The continuation sheet includes many of the 
same data elements as the manifest form, and merely adds additional 
fields to identify additional transporters or waste streams which could 
not fit on the manifest. While this document, for simplicity, discusses 
the proposed manifest system revisions primarily in the context of the 
manifest form, it is EPA's intent to implement these revisions with 
respect to both the manifest and the corresponding data fields found on 
the continuation sheet. Therefore, those commenting on today's proposal 
should consider the proposed form revisions, procedures, and electronic 
manifest options as affecting both the manifest form and the 
continuation sheet.
    To assist in compiling and responding to comments, the Agency 
requests that commenters include a heading for each issue addressed in 
their comment which identifies the section(s) of this preamble in which 
the issue is discussed (and/or the regulatory citation(s) the comment 
addresses). In addition to hard copies of their comment, the Agency 
further requests that, if possible, commenters provide an electronic 
copy of their comment on disk, preferably in ASCII avoiding the use of 
special characters and any form of encryption. Please identify the 
software package used to develop the document.

III. Background

A. History of Manifest System

    Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
required to establish a manifest system to track shipments of hazardous 
waste from a generator's site to the site where the hazardous waste is 
sent to be managed (that is, cradle-to-grave). EPA published 
regulations for a manifest system on February 26, 1980. (See 45 FR 
12724, February 26, 1980.) The central element of the manifest system 
is the paper trail--a document showing who is in the control of the 
hazardous waste at a given time and where the waste is destined for its 
ultimate disposition. The manifest also identifies the waste in terms 
of its toxicity (that is, hazard potential) and quantity and therefore, 
in case of an emergency or waste release, makes the emergency response 
personnel aware of the potential for human health and environmental 
hazards the waste may pose.
    EPA's authority to establish requirements for a manifest system 
stems primarily from RCRA Section 3002(a)(5). (See also RCRA Sections 
3003(a)(3) and 3004.) Regulations are found in 40 CFR Part 262 
(Generators), Part 263 (Transporters), and Part 264 and 265 (Treatment, 
Storage and Disposal facilities).
    DOT regulations at 49 CFR 172.205 state that ``No person may offer, 
transport, transfer, or deliver a hazardous waste (waste) unless an EPA 
Form 8700-22 and 8700-22A (when necessary) hazardous waste manifest 
(manifest) is prepared in accordance with 40 CFR 262.70 and is signed, 
carried, and given as required of that person by this section.'' In the 
pre-RCRA days, the Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements for 
shipping papers were applicable for tracking the movement of industrial 
and chemical waste. (See 49 CFR 171.3 and 171.8) DOT did not require a 
specific form but required each transport vehicle to carry required 
information such as hazardous material name and hazard class. In the 
1980 manifest rule, EPA only required that certain information must 
accompany hazardous waste shipments. EPA believed that this approach 
would allow the regulated community to adapt its use of shipping papers 
which are required by DOT's Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR 
parts 171-180) to accommodate the new EPA requirements. In addition, 
any State that desired a manifest form was allowed to develop one to 
satisfy its needs, as long as the State form provided the minimum 
information requirements of the 1980 rule (45 FR 12729, February 26, 
1980). The 1980 manifest rule retained flexibility inherent to the DOT 
regulations so that the manifest would also be able to serve as the 
shipping papers required by DOT's hazardous materials transportation 
regulations. This approach, however, was short-lived.
    Soon after the 1980 regulations became effective, more than 20 
States developed and required their own manifest forms. These forms met 
the minimal Federal requirements but also required additional State 
information. Significant confusion and compliance difficulties resulted 
from the differing manifest requirements. Often, it was necessary for 
generators to prepare multiple manifests for interstate shipments to 
satisfy the requirements of the States through which the hazardous 
waste traveled. Therefore, EPA and DOT in coordinated rulemaking, with 
significant assistance from the Association of State and Territorial 
Solid Waste Management (ASTSWMO) and the Hazardous Materials Advisory 
Council (HMAC), proposed and later promulgated a Uniform Hazardous 
Waste Manifest form and procedures for its use. (See 47 FR 9336, March 
8, 1982 (proposed rule), and 49 FR 10490, March 20, 1984 (final rule)). 
This Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest system remains in place today. 
The Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest was designed to eliminate the 
burden for generators, transporters, and other waste handlers who may 
have been subject to

[[Page 28243]]

several versions of waste tracking system with duplicate information. 
It also was designed to enable generators and transporters to meet both 
DOT and EPA regulatory requirements. Under this system, generators and 
transporters are required to use the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest, 
and States may not require a different manifest in its place. However, 
the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest has State blocks which allow 
States, at their option, to require the entry of additional specific 
information to serve their State's regulatory needs. EPA expected that 
both the States and generators would benefit from this approach since 
the additional State information requirements could be met on the 
Uniform Manifest form, and the need for generators to prepare separate 
manifests for each State entered would be eliminated (49 FR 10499, 
March 20, 1984). The Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest requirements, 
however, do not preclude a State from requiring a generator to send 
other information under separate cover under the EPA rule (49 FR 10492) 
or directly to the appropriate agency of a State under the DOT rule (49 
FR 10508).
    The manifest system in place for the past 20 years has improved the 
management and enforcement of the national hazardous waste program 
where it serves several primary purposes:
    (1) To serve as a tracking device which creates clear lines of 
accountability among the participants in the hazardous waste system;
    (2) To serve, together with the other EPA and DOT requirements, to 
protect human health and the environment during the transportation of 
hazardous waste by providing information on the waste to persons 
handling the waste and to emergency response personnel; and
    (3) To provide the principal basis for EPA's recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements (45 FR 12728, February 26, 1980).
    The hazardous waste manifest was developed to meet both RCRA and 
HMTA requirements. As a form of DOT-required ``shipping paper'' the 
manifest conveys essential emergency information required during 
transportation, specifically the proper shipping name, hazard class, 
phone numbers enabling responders to obtain additional information, 
when necessary. These essential information requirements negated the 
need of having another set of separate papers, namely shipping paper.
    However, the revised form has not entirely mitigated consistency 
and uniformity problems that occurred with the old manifest 
requirements primarily because confusion about different State manifest 
requirements associated with the state optional fields still exist. 
Also, the existing regulations describe a specific, multi-copy paper 
form which must be physically carried among waste handlers, and which 
must be hand-signed as custody of waste shipment changes, making it 
difficult to integrate the form with computer technologies. (See 
section VII.D for further discussion related to impediments to 
automation of the waste tracking system.) Consequently, EPA received 
further complaints from the regulated community and States. Further 
discussion regarding these and other problems with the uniform manifest 
follow.

B. Problems Associated With Uniform Manifest Form

1. Variability
    Under the current regulations more than 20 states print the 
manifest form in accordance with the format specified in federal 
regulations. As mentioned previously, the manifest form was designed to 
allow states to continue to meet their individual information needs. 
However, the different manifest requirements among State Manifest 
programs have drawn complaints from the regulated community about 
manifest inconsistency. Most complaints have come from large generators 
and TSDFs who helped generators prepare forms as part of their 
business' service. These manifest users have expressed frustration with 
the uniform manifest because they still found it difficult to complete 
the state optional portions of the form without first collecting and 
keeping track of requirements from each state in which they did 
business. For example, some states have assigned additional generator 
identification numbers, transporter identification numbers, facility 
identification numbers, or some combination of the three, while others 
have not assigned these numbers. Under the current manifest 
requirements, a state may require any combination of these boxes to be 
completed in addition to the federally required blocks on the manifest. 
Thus, a generator who sends waste to multiple states needs keep track 
of which states require this information on the manifest and ensure 
that each manifest is filled out correctly for its destination state.
    Generators also have expressed their frustration with optional 
Blocks I ``Waste No.'' and K ``Handling Codes . . .'' because the 
inconsistencies among states can make it very labor-intensive for 
generators to complete those blocks. For example, with respect to 
completion of Block I, a generator who sends wastes to different states 
must determine which codes the states require the generator to use in 
Block I and under which circumstances the generator may use the codes 
(e.g., when a code is required for hazardous waste being sent to a 
recycler).
    Other manifest variability issues that have caused much vexation 
for manifest users are the different state manifest copy distribution 
schemes and the hierarchical manifest acquisition system (See Section 
IV.A for details on the manifest acquisition system and copy 
distribution scheme). Specifically, states that require generators to 
use their state manifest form generally use a 6-part form or an 8-part 
form. A state that receives hazardous wastes may require both the 
generator and the TSDF to submit a copy of the manifest to the state so 
that copies can be matched. In other states, only the generator is 
required to submit a copy of the form to the state. Often, a person who 
needs manifest forms from several states cannot obtain them from one 
location. As a result, a person must contact each state separately to 
request the state-specific form.
2. State Difficulties
    States that collect the manifest have also experienced difficulty 
with processing the paper manifest form. They may collect hundreds of 
forms in a month, and either place the manifests in files, or manually 
enter the information on the forms into a state database system. Manual 
data entry often results in errors and delay, which could be avoided if 
the manifest were prepared and transmitted to the states 
electronically. Also, it is difficult to exchange manifest information 
between the generator's state and the receiving facility's state 
because often, their information systems are incompatible, and unable 
to accept transfers of data from one state to another.

C. Efforts To Improve the Hazardous Waste Manifest System

    In 1985, manifest officials in several State environmental agencies 
formed an Interstate Hazardous Waste Manifest Coordinators Group 
(IHWMCG) to address manifesting issues and to increase uniformity among 
State manifest programs. During 1988, the IHWMCG served on the 
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 
(ASTSWMO) Manifest Revisions Task Force to develop regulatory 
recommendations to EPA to increase effectiveness, efficiency

[[Page 28244]]

and consistency of the national hazardous waste manifest system. The 
Task Forces's recommendations for specific modifications to the Uniform 
Hazardous Waste Manifest were submitted to EPA as a rulemaking petition 
on January 8, 1990.
    In 1992, EPA embarked upon a negotiated rulemaking effort in an 
attempt to take advantage of the near consensus already reached by 
States in the ASTSWMO petition. The Negotiated Rulemaking committee 
reached agreement on recommendations for revisions to the manifest 
form. The Negotiated Rulemaking committee recommended that essentially 
all optional fields on the current manifest form should become 
mandatory Federal fields. In addition, the Negotiated rulemaking 
committee recommended several procedures for using the manifest when 
hazardous waste shipments are rejected by the designated facility, or 
when the designated facility cannot render containers ``RCRA empty.'' 
The committee also agreed to expand requirements for imported waste 
shipments. The final agreement document can be found in the regulatory 
docket for today's action.
    However, before EPA completed the Negotiated rulemaking process, it 
implemented its reinvention strategy to fulfill the Administration's 
commitment to reinventing environmental protection. In March 1995, 
President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and the EPA Administrator put 
forth an ambitious agenda to reinvent environmental protection as part 
of the larger goal of creating a federal government that works more 
efficiently and costs less. The Administration and the Agency have been 
committed to the goal of reducing the paperwork burden resulting from 
environmental regulations by at least 25% (Current information about 
regulatory reinvention is available on EPA's World Wide Web site at 
http://www.epa.gov/reinvent/annual97/intro.htm/). In addition, the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extended the approval of the 
manifest ICR for only two years in 1994, with the expectation that EPA 
would, in the interim, adopt manifest revisions that would address 
regulatory burden issues surrounding the existing system. In 1996, OMB 
extended approval of the Manifest ICR, but with the expectation that 
EPA would explicitly address, among other things, innovative approaches 
as a way to streamline and reduce the burden of manifest reporting 
requirements. For example, OMB suggested that EPA develop and pilot 
test the electronic submission and tracking of manifests. As of 1999, 
EPA estimates that the paperwork burden (from federal requirements) of 
the manifest system is 2.92 million hours, making it one of the highest 
paperwork burdens imposed under RCRA.
    Based on the aforementioned factors, EPA reexamined its efforts on 
the Negotiated rulemaking to determine if they comported with the 
Administration and Agency's burden reduction initiative. Based on its 
review, the Agency determined that the negotiated rule, as written, 
would have increased the annual paperwork burden hours significantly, 
since the rule adopted most of the Negotiated Rulemaking committee's 
recommendations which advocated, among other things, including 
essentially all state optional fields on the current manifest form as 
mandatory Federal fields. As a result, EPA determined that the 
Negotiated Rulemaking committee's recommendations could not be 
implemented without significantly undercutting the Agency's burden 
reduction goals. In 1996, EPA established an Agency workgroup charged 
with building upon the recommendations of the negotiated rulemaking 
effort, as well as meeting the Agency's burden reduction goals. This 
proposal reflects what the Agency believes to be an appropriate balance 
between the Negotiated Rulemaking committee recommendations and the 
Agency's burden goals.

D. To Whom Would These New Regulations Apply?

    The table below identifies 45 economic sectors which would likely 
be affected by the revisions to the RCRA hazardous waste manifest 
system, as proposed today. EPA derived the list of sectors from data 
contained in the Office of Solid Waste's 1996 ``National Hazardous 
Waste Constituent Survey,'' for the sector identity of waste shippers. 
Because of the numerous sectors at the four-digit SIC level (i.e., six-
digit NAICS level), the respective two- and three-digit levels are 
presented in the table below for many sectors.

    List of Economic Sectors Which Are Likely Affected by the Proposed Revisions to the RCRA Hazardous Waste
                                                 Manifest System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Item                      SIC Code    NAICS Code               Sector description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................         1794        23593  Construction excavation work.
2........................................           20          311  Food and kindred products manufacturing.
3........................................         2295        31332  Coated fabrics manufacturing.
4........................................           24          321  Lumber and wood products manufacturing.
5........................................           25          337  Furniture and fixtures manufacturing.
6........................................           26          322  Pulp and allied products manufacturing.
7........................................           27          511  Printing and publishing.
8........................................           28          325  Chemicals and allied products
                                                                      manufacturing.
9........................................           29          324  Petroleum and coal products manufacturing.
10.......................................           30          326  Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products
                                                                      manufacturing.
11.......................................           32          327  Stone, clay and glass products
                                                                      manufacturing.
12.......................................           33          331  Primary metal manufacturing industries.
13.......................................           34          332  Fabricated metal products manufacturing.
14.......................................           35          333  Industrial machinery and equipment
                                                                      manufacturing.
15.......................................           36          335  Electronic and other electric equipment
                                                                      manufacturing.
16.......................................           37          336  Transportation equipment manufacturing.
17.......................................           38          334  Instruments and related products
                                                                      manufacturing.
18.......................................           39          339  Miscellaneous manufacturing industries.
19.......................................         4111          485  Local and suburban passenger transit.
20.......................................         4173        48849  Terminal and service facilities for vehicle
                                                                      transport.
21.......................................           42          484  Trucking and warehousing.
22.......................................         4212       562112  Hazardous waste collection services.

[[Page 28245]]

 
23.......................................         4491         4883  Marine cargo handling.
24.......................................         4512        48111  Air transportation.
25.......................................         4613        48691  Refined petroleum pipelines.
26.......................................         4789       488999  Transportation services n.e.c.
27.......................................         4813         5133  Telephone communications.
28.......................................           49         2211  Electric, gas and sanitary services.
29.......................................         4953       562211  Hazardous waste treatment and disposal.
30.......................................         4959       562910  Hazardous waste remediation services.
31.......................................           50          421  Wholesale trade (durable goods).
32.......................................           51          422  Wholesale trade (nondurable goods).
33.......................................         5912        44-45  Drugstores and proprietary retail stores.
34.......................................         6552        23311  Subdividers and developers.
35.......................................         7216        81232  Dry cleaning plants.
36.......................................           73          541  Business services.
37.......................................         7532       811121  Top, body and upholstery repair and paint
                                                                      shops.
38.......................................         7699          561  Repair shops and related services n.e.c.
39.......................................         8062        62211  General medical and surgical hospitals.
40.......................................         8221        61131  Colleges and universities.
41.......................................           87          541  Engineering and management services.
42.......................................         8999          541  Services n.e.c.
43.......................................           95      924-925  Environmental quality and housing
                                                                      administration (state government offices).
44.......................................         9661        92711  Space research and technology.
45.......................................         9711        92811  National security (e.g. military bases).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table presents EPA's estimate of more than 92,000 
entities which would potentially be affected by today's proposed rule. 
Because one of the three proposed revisions to the RCRA manifest system 
is voluntary (i.e., the proposed use of an electronic manifest form), 
EPA anticipates that facilities involved in RCRA manifesting activities 
in these sectors would be differentially affected by the proposed rule, 
depending upon voluntary adoption rate. Furthermore, affected entities 
play at least four different roles in the RCRA manifest system: (1) 
Waste generators who ship wastes off-site, (2) waste transporters 
(truck, barge, rail operators), (3) waste receivers who treat, store 
and/or dispose of shipped wastes, and (4) state governments which 
provide manifest forms, and which also may collect manifest data 
(although not required under the Federal RCRA manifest program). The 
sources of these estimates are presented in the ``Economics Background 
Document'' (dated 15 May 2000), available from the RCRA Docket.

    Number of Entities Which May Be Affected By Today's Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Entity
  Item No. and role of affected entities in manifest system      count
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Waste generators who may ship wastes off-site (shippers)..     89,826
2. Waste transporters (truck, barge, rail operators).........        500
3. Waste receivers (treatment, storage, disposal facilities).      2,024
4. State governments (which collect manifest data)...........         24
                                                              ----------
      Total..................................................     92,350
------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. How Much Burden and Cost Reduction Does EPA Expect From the Proposed 
Manifest Form Revisions?

    Although there are up-front and annual recurring costs to states 
and to the private sector associated with all three components of 
today's proposed rule, EPA designed this rule so that it would have an 
overall net savings impact on affected entities, primarily associated 
with anticipated reduction in the annual labor burden for the existing 
paper-based manifest system. While the proposed rule includes both 
``regulatory'' and ``de-regulatory'' features, the overall net impact 
should be a reduction in compliance burdens and costs.
    In order to estimate the potential burden reduction for this 
proposed rule, EPA prepared two separate, but complementary, burden and 
cost savings estimation documents: (1) An ICR document for the proposed 
rule (``Information Collection Request 801.#'', (ICR), 19 July 2000) as 
required by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for the 
purpose of officially tracking paperwork burden hours, and (2) an 
``Economics Background Document,'' (EBD), 12 May 2000), which applied a 
relatively broader, economic analysis approach to assessing potential 
burden reduction savings. (EPA also prepared a third economic study 
which examined the benefits and costs associated with the electronic 
equipment automation component of today's proposed rule, which is 
summarized elsewhere in this preamble).
    Compared to the methodology of the ICR, the EBD includes other 
types of economic costs associated with the RCRA manifest system. For 
example, the EBD includes burden and costs associated with both Federal 
and State manifest information collection

[[Page 28246]]

requirements, whereas the ICR only covers Federal manifest information 
collection requirements. Consequently, the EBD estimates a larger 
baseline annual manifest burden, but it also estimates a larger annual 
burden savings than the ICR document.
    EPA's analysis indicates that all of the components of today's 
proposed revision to the RCRA manifest system are expected to reduce 
administrative paperwork burden among all RCRA industrial hazardous 
waste handlers. The ``Information Collection Request Nr.801.#'' 
document estimates that all components of today's proposed revision to 
the RCRA manifest system, would achieve a reduction of 593,500 hours in 
national annual burden, representing 25% reduction in burden compared 
to the 2.335 million hour burden baseline as estimated in the ICR.
    In comparison, the ``Economics Background Document'' (EBD) for this 
proposed rule suggests that the resultant reduction in waste 
manifesting burden from all of the proposed revisions combined, is 
expected to reach 1.241 million hours annually, consisting of 1.162 
million hour reduction to waste handlers, and 79,000 hours to state 
agencies. Compared to the baseline annual RCRA hazardous waste manifest 
burden of 4.615 million hours as estimated in the EBD, this reduction 
in burden hours represents 27% annual burden savings. These estimates 
represent a 50% manifest adoption rate scenario in the EBD, which 
assumes for simplicity that 50% of manifests become automated in the 
first year after the today's rule is promulgated.
    However, EPA realizes that the projected savings resulting from 
this rule will more likely be phased in over several years. EPA 
estimates that the paperwork burden reduction from this rule could 
eventually be 730,000 to 1.2 million hours per year, depending on the 
requirements actually promulgated in the final rule, and on the rate of 
adoption of electronic manifest systems. The actual timing of these 
burden reductions is therefore uncertain. The burden reduction (190,000 
hours) associated with the manifest form revisions would occur over a 
two-year phase-in period for the new form after the final rule is 
promulgated. The remaining savings (540,000 to one million hours) could 
take several more years to realize. The timing of these savings would 
depend on whether or not EPA would need to issue supplemental proposals 
addressing manifest automation; the availability of the necessary 
software and hardware; and the willingness of states and waste handlers 
to adopt the electronic manifest approach.

F. Effective Date of Final Rule

    The effective date of the rule is proposed to be six months after 
promulgation of the final rule. Upon the effective date of the rule, we 
are proposing a two-year ``delayed compliance date'' to allow manifest 
users to phase-in use of the new form. That is, for that two-year 
period, manifest users would be allowed to use either the old manifest 
form or the new manifest form. The Agency is proposing this phase-in 
period to allow time for vendors, states and waste handlers to get 
approval to assign manifest tracking numbers and to print forms, as 
well as to allow time for users to use up existing stocks and find new 
supplies.
    If you use the old manifest form during this two-year period, the 
two-year delayed compliance date would also apply to proposed 
regulatory amendments that are directly related to use of the new form 
(i.e., form printing, manifest tracking numbers, and instructions for 
filling out the new manifest form) as it would be difficult for a waste 
handler to comply with these requirements if they are not using the new 
form. Waste handlers using the old form during this time period would 
have to comply with all other proposed regulatory requirements, but 
would continue to comply with the current manifest requirements 
directly related to use of the old form (i.e., acquisition hierarchy, 
manifest instructions). For example, a TSD rejecting a shipment of 
hazardous waste would have to contact the generator for a decision 
regarding an alternative facility but could use an old form (prepared 
in accordance with the current instructions for filling out the 
manifest) to manifest the rejected load.
    If you do choose to use the new manifest form during the two-year 
period, you would be required to comply with the proposed requirements 
for form printing, manifest tracking numbers, and instructions for 
filling out the new manifest form. Once the two-year period ends, all 
manifest users would be required to use only the new manifest form and 
would also be required to comply with the requirements for form 
printing, manifest tracking numbers, and instructions for filling out 
the new manifest form.
    The two-year delayed compliance date would not apply to any 
proposed regulatory amendments related to the electronic manifest 
proposal. Upon the effective date, waste handlers who opt to use an 
electronic manifest for a hazardous waste shipment would be required to 
comply with all the requirements associated with use of the electronic 
manifest at that time.\1\ This would also include the proposed 
requirements for manifest tracking numbers, and instructions for 
filling out the new manifest form. EPA does not believe that a phase-in 
period would be necessary for the electronic manifest because use of 
the electronic manifest would be optional. Waste handlers would be able 
to use the paper system until they are prepared to implement the 
electronic manifest. In addition, waste handlers would probably not opt 
to use the electronic manifest system unless they were prepared to 
implement it in accordance with the final requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In authorized states, whether or not a waste handler would 
be able to use an electronic manifest system would be determined by 
the RCRA authorized state program. We are tentatively proposing not 
to require States to adopt the proposed electronic manifest option 
as part of their authorized program. See Section IX for further 
discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA requests comment on whether a two-year delayed compliance date 
for the use of the revised uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (and the 
proposed requirements directly related to use of the revised manifest) 
is sufficient. EPA also requests comment on whether a delayed 
compliance date would be appropriate for the electronic manifest 
system.
    The Agency also requests comments from states on whether they need 
to make legislative changes to adopt the new manifest or the automation 
option and if so, how much time is necessary to complete such changes. 
See Section IX of this preamble for a detailed explanation of how the 
proposed regulatory changes would be administered and enforced in the 
States.

IV. The Revised Manifest Form

A. Manifest Form Acquisition

1. How Is EPA Changing the Way Manifest Forms Are Acquired?
    EPA proposes to allow manifest users to obtain the form from a 
greater number of sources for use in any state. In particular, EPA 
proposes to allow State agencies, waste handlers (generators, 
transporters, and TSDFs) and commercial business form printers to print 
the form. EPA is proposing to require those who would print the new 
manifest to first register with the Agency. The purpose of the registry 
would be twofold: (1) to ensure that the forms are printed according to 
the prescribed federal printing specification (i.e., the standardized 
revised form) and (2) to ensure that a unique number for each manifest 
would be preprinted on

[[Page 28247]]

the form. Thus, generators could register to print manifest forms, or 
they could obtain a manifest form from any registered source of 
manifest forms.
    Under these new proposed regulations, both the current printing 
arrangements and the acquisition requirements for manifest would 
change. Currently, authorized States are the primary source of 
manifests, and States either print these forms themselves or contract 
with printers to print the form according to the States' 
specifications. While States that currently print and distribute 
manifests are required to follow the Uniform Manifest format, the 
current regulations allow some variability among State manifests, 
particularly with respect to including and providing instructions for 
optional fields used in each State, minor formatting variations, and 
for describing copy submission and mailing requirements. As a result, 
there are now 24 different State variations of the Uniform Manifest. 
The current manifest acquisition regulation generally requires that 
generators obtain their manifests from a State agency, and determines 
which State manifest must be used. Under the procedures proposed today, 
State, waste handlers, and commercial form printers could register to 
print manifests, and the manifests printed by any registered printer 
could be used in any state.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing this Change?
    EPA is proposing a new system for obtaining manifest forms, to 
reduce the burden that waste handlers currently encounter in obtaining 
manifests from multiple States, and to reduce or eliminate the 
variability among states on what forms to use, what is printed on them, 
and how to use them.
    Under the current regulations, a hazardous waste generator must 
check at least two different State agencies' manifest requirements to 
determine how and where to obtain a manifest. The current manifest 
acquisition requirements are set forth in 40 CFR 262.21, which contains 
a hierarchical scheme for determining which state's manifest should be 
used for a particular waste shipment. EPA and DOT developed this 
approach in the 1984 Uniform Manifest Rule, in order to accommodate 
States that wished to collect and track manifest data, while avoiding 
conflicts between States' requirements. EPA explained in the 1984 
rulemaking that it did not intend to print and supply manifest forms, 
and the hierarchy approach resulted from the Agency's efforts to 
effectively arrange the distribution of manifests by the States. 49 FR 
10490 at 10495 (March 20, 1984).
    The Sec. 262.21 acquisition hierarchy requires a generator to first 
look to the manifest requirements of the consignment (i.e., the state 
in which the hazardous waste shipment will be transported to, and 
subsequently managed in that state) State. If this State supplies a 
manifest and requires its use, then the consignment State's manifest 
must be used for the waste shipment. If, however, the consignment State 
does not supply a manifest, but the generator's State does supply a 
manifest and requires its use, then the generator must use the manifest 
required by the generator's state. If neither the consignment nor 
generator State supplies a manifest, then the generator may obtain the 
manifest from any source. When EPA announced this hierarchy regulation 
in 1984, the Agency explained that this approach would serve two 
important interests: (1) It would help consignment States inform out-
of-State generators of requirements to submit manifest copies to the 
consignment States (i.e., the form would contain a notice to this 
effect); and (2) it would allow consignment States to pre-print a State 
manifest document number on each manifest, to aid in tracking the 
manifest in the States' tracking systems. 49 FR at 10496. The 
acquisition hierarchy establishes a preference for obtaining the form 
from the consignment State, as EPA determined in 1984 that a 
consignment State's interest in overseeing waste management within its 
borders outweighed any convenience that would result to generators if 
they were allowed to obtain manifests from a single source. Id.
    EPA believes that the current acquisition hierarchy puts 
unnecessary administrative burden on certain waste handlers, particular 
those who conduct business in multiple states that require the use of 
their state manifest. For example, if a waste handler conducts business 
in multiple states, then he/she must make arrangements to acquire 
manifest forms from each state or keep stocks of inventory of the 
varying manifest formats. In addition, waste handlers must become 
familiar with instructions for the different forms to ensure that they 
complete the manifests correctly. Removing the current acquisition 
system, eliminates the aforementioned inconveniences, since the form 
supplied by states and other manifest sources would be the same.
    EPA believes that the factors relied upon in 1984 to support the 
current acquisition hierarchy would not be significant under the 
revised manifest proposed today. EPA is proposing to eliminate all but 
two optional fields (waste codes and handling codes), and EPA believes 
that most manifests would include these ``optional'' data as the normal 
practice. The 6-copy form with unique, pre-printed manifest tracking 
numbers under the Federal specification would satisfy many of the needs 
States have previously identified as reasons for controlling the 
distribution of the manifest. Also, information on State-only wastes, 
use of optional fields, and State-specific copy submission requirements 
can be obtained by contacting the States directly, or through published 
or on-line sources. State contact information and telephone numbers can 
be found, for example, on the Internet at EPA's website (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/stateweb.htm).
    EPA believes that the informational purposes served by allowing 
States to distribute the manifests under the acquisition hierarchy can 
be met adequately by other means. There would be little, if any, 
variability remaining in the proposed revised manifest form, and 
information describing State-specific requirements can be obtained 
through other means than distribution of the form. In addition, EPA 
believes that the States' interest in ensuring that unique tracking 
numbers are provided for each manifest can be met by the proposed 
printing registry approach.
    The proposed change regarding the printing and distribution of the 
paper form would also be consistent with the changes proposed to 
implement the electronic manifest system. Thus, the Agency believes 
that both the electronic and paper formats would be distributed more 
efficiently and with less burden under the approach proposed today. 
While the remainder of this discussion focuses on the registry and 
acquisition requirements for the paper form, the Agency points out that 
as with the printers of paper manifests, waste handlers who originate 
an electronic manifest would have to register to get an approved 
tracking number system.
3. How Much Burden Reduction Does EPA Expect From the Proposed Manifest 
Form Revisions?
    EPA's analysis indicates that today's proposed revision to the RCRA 
hazardous waste manifest form is expected to reduce administrative 
paperwork burden among all RCRA industrial hazardous waste handlers who 
ship wastes off-site. The ``Economics Background Document'' (12 May 
2000) for this proposed rule estimates that the resultant reduction in

[[Page 28248]]

waste manifesting burden from the proposed revisions to the manifest 
form, would be 188,000 hours annually to RCRA hazardous waste handlers. 
This reduction in burden hours is expected to account for between 16% 
and 26% of the annual burden hour savings to waste handlers expected 
from all of the RCRA manifest system revisions proposed today.
4. Where Would a Waste Handler Get Paper Manifest Forms?
    Generators and other waste handlers needing the manifest would be 
able to register with EPA and print their own manifests. Generators 
could also obtain their manifests from other sources, however. The 
proposal would allow waste generators to obtain blank copies of the 
manifest from any of the following sources:
     Any state hazardous waste agency that registers as a 
printer and prints manifests;
     Commercial business forms printers who register to print 
the form; and
     Transporters and TSDFs who register to print the form. 
These companies often provide the manifest as a service to their 
generator customers.
5. Must a Generator Still Contact the State?
    Yes, you would still need to contact the consignment state 
periodically to determine which of the state-only blocks of information 
on the manifest you are required to fill out. Also, as mentioned above, 
EPA determined that while it was not necessary to impose a federal 
requirement that generators submit copies of each completed manifest 
form to a State or to EPA, the Agency recognized that states could 
impose a more stringent manifest system that could involve the 
submission by generators of copies of every completed manifest form. 
This proposal does not affect the ability of a state to require the 
submission of manifests. However, states would no longer be able to 
print a notice of such requirements on the manifest form. To continue 
to give states the ability to track manifested shipments of waste, it 
is still necessary to contact your state to see what they require in 
terms of state-required information on the manifest and in terms of 
submitting manifest copies to states.
6. What Special Requirements Would Apply to the Printers of the 
Universal Manifest?
     You would be required to register with EPA as a forms 
printer to get your manifest tracking number system approved and to 
ensure that you adhere to Federal printing specifications and 
procedures;
     No additional boxes could be added;
     No existing boxes could be deleted;
     You would be required to print a form that had at least 
the following six copies:
    --Copy 1: TSDF to destination State (if required);
    --Copy 2: TSDF to generator State (if required);
    --Copy 3: TSDF to Generator;
    --Copy 4: TSDF's signed file copy
    --Copy 5: Transporter's file copy
    --Copy 6: Generator's initial copy.
     You would be required to print the form so that the 
manifest dimensions are 8\1/2\ x 11 inches;
     You would be required to print the form in black ink so 
that it can be photocopied or faxed;
     You would be required to provide the standardized 
instructions outlined below;
     You would be required to follow the same copy naming 
structure as outlined below; and
7. What is the Naming Convention for the Different Copies of the 
Manifest?
    Page 1 (top copy): ``Designated facility to consignment State'' (if 
required);
    Page 2: ``Designated facility to generator State'' (if required);
    Page 3: ``Designated facility to generator'';
    Page 4: ``Designated facility copy'';
    Page 5: ``Transporter copy''; and
    Page 6 (bottom copy): ``Generator's initial copy.''
    If the generator is required to submit a copy of the manifest to 
the generator state, the generator should make a photocopy of the 
manifest to supply this additional copy. Also, note that a completed 
manifest may contain fewer pages if the state does not require 
submission of forms; however, the printer would be required to print a 
6-copy form. Under certain circumstances (e.g., exports, imports, 
additional transporters, exception reporting, and/or states requiring 
additional copies), more than 6 copies of a manifest may be necessary. 
In these cases, the generator or transporter should photocopy the most 
legible copy of the form available to ensure that the extra manifest 
copies are legible.
8. How Would the Acquisition Regulation Change?
    EPA is proposing to replace the current acquisition hierarchy in 
Sec. 262.21 with a simple requirement that a generator may print its 
own manifest if it has registered with EPA to do so, or a generator may 
use a manifest obtained from any commercial printer, state, or other 
waste handler that has registered with EPA to print the manifest. In 
addition to amending 40 CFR 262.21, the provisions currently found at 
40 CFR 271.10 for States that print manifests and/or require completion 
of state optional fields would be revised accordingly.
9. How Would Manifest Tracking Numbers be Changed by the Proposal?
    Under this proposal, the current fields for the generator's 
manifest document number (i.e., the generator's U.S. EPA ID number plus 
a unique 5-digit number that the generator assigns to each manifest) 
and the state manifest document number would be replaced with one 
mandatory field that would be called the manifest tracking number (Item 
3). Note, that the generator's EPA ID number would still appear on the 
form; however, it would not be part of the manifest tracking number. 
The manifest tracking number would be a unique pre-printed number that 
would be supplied by a registered manifest printer. A waste generator 
could register with EPA to print its own manifests and assign its own 
manifest tracking numbers, or, the generator could obtain manifest 
tracking numbers from other registered sources who print for the 
generator, including States, transporters, TSDFs, or commercial 
business form printers.
    An entity that wants to print manifests would register with EPA and 
demonstrate that they have a system in place to ensure that unique, 
pre-printed numbers would be assigned to each manifest. Similarly, 
entities implementing an electronic manifest system would register with 
EPA to ensure that their electronic system would apply a unique 
manifest tracking number to each electronic manifest.
    The advantage of this manifest tracking number requirement is that 
it would allow waste handlers to acquire uniquely numbered manifests 
from numerous sources, without having to obtain a different set of 
forms from each State in which it does business. The proposal would 
eliminate an ``optional'' field from the current manifest, and a new 
mandatory field would replace two existing fields on the manifest. 
Also, waste handlers with significant involvement in hazardous waste 
activities would be able to register and print their own manifests for 
use within their own sites or for use by their multi-state customers. 
Multi-state operations would benefit especially, as they would no 
longer need to stock multiple state formats of the manifest.

[[Page 28249]]

10. Could States Still Require Use of Only Their Manifests?
    When EPA adopted the acquisition hierarchy in 1984, we recognized 
the need for a regulation that would arbitrate possible conflicts 
between State manifest requirements for generators located in one 
state, but disposing of their waste in another. The acquisition 
hierarchy in current Sec. 262.21 arbitrates such conflicts by 
establishing a rule that one State manifest is always sufficient for 
any hazardous waste shipment, and by designating which state's manifest 
must be used.
    With today's proposal, it is still EPA's intent that only one 
manifest need be obtained to accompany any off-site shipment. Under the 
revised Uniform Manifest proposed today, variability in the form would 
be eliminated, and the source of the manifest form used would be 
immaterial. So, when today's proposed approach becomes effective, 
States would not be allowed to require use only of a manifest form 
printed or distributed by the State. States would, of course, be 
eligible to register and distribute manifests, but State laws which 
purport to require use only of a form distributed by the State would be 
deemed inconsistent under 40 CFR 271.4. Otherwise, waste handlers could 
be required to obtain multiple manifests to satisfy conflicting and 
duplicative State law requirements for their specific manifests. This 
result would, in EPA's view, frustrate the accomplishment of our 
objective to introduce a truly standard manifest form, and amount to an 
unreasonable burden on the free movement of waste in commerce.
11. Request for Comments
    EPA requests comments on the new approach proposed today for 
printing and obtaining manifests. Would the proposed approach be 
effective in eliminating burden and variability in the manifest system, 
or, would it more likely cause disruption to arrangements that are well 
understood and work well? Is the proposed registry approach the most 
efficient means for EPA to ensure a standard manifest with pre-printed, 
unique tracking numbers? Would many waste handlers find it advantageous 
to print manifests for their own use or the use of their customers? How 
would the proposal affect these firms' burdens, costs, and manifest 
operations? Would States that currently derive revenue from the 
distribution of manifests be disadvantaged unduly by the proposal? 
Would some States face statutory obstacles to altering their current 
manifest distribution requirements? Comments addressing these issues 
would be helpful to the Agency.
    EPA also requests comments on an alternative option that would 
retain the proposed Federal printing specification, but not the 
proposed registry. Under the alternative option, States would still be 
the primary source of manifests, and the current acquisition hierarchy 
would be retained to determine from which State the manifest must be 
obtained. This option would retain the benefits of the standard 
manifest format, without disrupting current arrangements for obtaining 
manifests from States. However, as with the current system, waste 
handlers would not generally be able to print their own manifests as 
allowed under the proposed option.

B. International Shipments

1. What is EPA Proposing With Respect to Manifests for Imports and 
Exports?
    EPA is proposing to amend slightly the manifest requirements and 
the manifest form to provide more clear information on the manifest 
about import or export shipments. Under today's proposal, the manifest 
would contain a new ``International Shipments'' Block. In this new 
block, the primary exporter or importer of a hazardous waste shipment 
would be required to check whether a shipment is an export or import 
and to note the port of exit or entry. In addition, space would be 
provided in this block for the transporter of an export shipment to 
sign and date the manifest to indicate when the shipment left the 
United States. For imports, the transporter would be required to leave 
a copy of the manifest at U.S. Customs, as is currently required for 
exports.
2. Why is EPA Proposing This Change?
    Under the current regulations for exports, transporters are 
required to leave a copy of the manifest at U.S. Customs. The current 
regulations and manifest instructions further require that export 
manifests include information in the ``Special Handling Block'' 
identifying the port of exit, as well as the transporter's signature 
attesting to the date when the export shipment left the U.S. According 
to a national transporters' association, the current rules are not well 
understood, and this has resulted in inadvertent violations by 
transporters. In part, this is because the manifest form itself is not 
sufficiently clear on how this information is to be entered. In 
addition to hindering compliance by transporters, this lack of clarity 
has also resulted in incomplete submissions that impair EPA's ability 
to accurately track exports of hazardous waste. To address these 
concerns, the Agency is proposing to make the existing export tracking 
requirements more clear in the regulations and on the manifest form 
itself, which would include an International Shipment Block for 
collecting the data.
    In addition, the Agency is proposing new requirements in connection 
with imports of hazardous waste. First, the importer would be required 
to indicate on the new International Shipment Block of the manifest 
whether a shipment is an import and the port of entry. Second, the 
transporter bringing import shipments into the U.S. would be required 
to leave a copy of the manifest with U.S. Customs. Currently, a 
manifest is required to accompany waste shipments that enter the U.S., 
but transporters are not required to leave a manifest copy with U.S. 
Customs for imports. Several ports have nevertheless encouraged the 
collection of import manifests, and all of the ports collect the export 
manifests which transporters are currently required to leave with U.S. 
Customs. Moreover, for international shipments of hazardous waste for 
recovery within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development (OECD), of which the U.S. is a member, a facility in the 
U.S. receiving an import covered by regulations at 40 CFR Part 262, 
Subpart H must send a copy of the OECD tracking form to EPA. By 
requiring that transporters leave a copy of import manifests with U.S. 
Customs, EPA would achieve better consistency with the current 
requirements in 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart H that require tracking 
information on import shipments to be provided to the Government. These 
import manifests would aid EPA's oversight of waste imports, as the 
manifests collected by Customs could be turned over to EPA's Import/
export program for tracking purposes.
3. How Would the Manifest and the Regulations Change?
    To make the requirements more clear, the Agency is proposing to add 
an International Shipment Block to the manifest. This block would 
contain checkboxes to indicate whether the shipment is an export or an 
import, and space to enter the port of exit or entry. For export 
shipments only, the block would include space for transporters to sign 
and date the manifest to indicate when a shipment has left the U.S. 
This block would provide more explicit direction for entering data with 
respect to exports and imports.
    In addition, the regulations at 40 CFR 262.54, 262.60, and 263.20 
would be

[[Page 28250]]

changed to clarify that primary exporters and importers are to fill out 
the International Shipment block on the manifest and that transporters 
of both exports and imports are to leave a copy of the manifest with 
the U.S. Customs official at the port of exit from the U.S. or at the 
port of entry to the U.S. EPA would also modify Sec. 271.11(c), since a 
waste handler who imports waste shipments into the U.S. would be 
required to leave a copy of the manifest with U.S. Customs.

C. Bulk Packaging

1. How is EPA Changing Its Regulations Related to Bulk Containers?
    EPA proposes to change its regulations that relate to bulk 
containers to be consistent with the DOT definition for bulk packaging 
which includes any container with a capacity greater than 119 gallons 
(0.45 cubic meters, 450 liters, or 15.9 cubic feet) or more. Because of 
this change some containers currently considered bulk under EPA's 
regulations would no longer be considered bulk. Current RCRA 
regulations treat as ``bulk'' containers which hold more than 110 
gallons. Under this proposal, a container which holds 119 gallons or 
less would no longer be considered bulk, including containers of 110 
gallons.
    The 110 gallon standard was based on DOT requirements which, at the 
time, defined bulk packaging as 110 gallons or more (47 FR 36092; 
August 18, 1982). DOT revised these standards \2\ in 1991 to make U.S. 
standards more consistent with international requirements. (See 55 FR 
52471, December 21, 1990.) Today's notice proposes to revise RCRA 
regulations pertaining to bulk containers to be consistent with the DOT 
definition of bulk packaging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In 49 CFR 171.8, DOT defines ``bulk packaging'' to mean ``a 
packaging, other than a vessel or a barge, including a transport 
vehicle or freight container, in which hazardous materials are 
loaded with no intermediate form of containment and which has: (1) A 
maximum capacity greater than 450 (119 gallons) as a receptable for 
a liquid; (2) A maximum net mass or greater than 400 kg (882 pounds) 
and a maximum capacity greater than 450 L (119 gallons) as a 
receptable for a solid; or (3) A water capacity greater than a 454 
kg (1000 pounds) as a receptable for a gas as defined in 
Sec. 173.115 of this subchapter.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Why is EPA Changing Its Rules Related to Bulk Packaging?
    This change would bring EPA into conformity with the standard 
already used by DOT and the international community, and would increase 
uniformity in manifesting practices. Generators would be able to use 
the same standard measurement for bulk containers for all shipments of 
hazardous materials.
3. How Would This Affect Me?
    If you:
    (1) handle residues of hazardous waste in containers according to 
the provisions at Sec. 261.7(b),
    (2) are a generator who sends bulk containers of hazardous wastes 
off-site (see 262.32(b)),
    (3) are a transporter who transports bulk shipments by water (see 
263.20(e)), or
    (4) are a TSDF who receives bulk shipments for management (see 
264.71(b)), then: you would have to confirm whether the containers you 
are managing would still be considered bulk. If the containers you are 
managing do not meet DOT's definition of bulk, then you would no longer 
be allowed to handle the waste as bulk under EPA regulations.
4. How Would the Regulations Change?
    First, the regulations at 40 CFR 261.7 Residues of hazardous waste 
in empty containers would change slightly to incorporate DOT's 
definition of bulk packaging. 40 CFR 261.7 discusses how much hazardous 
waste may remain in a container that is empty. Among other things, 
these regulations require that a container must be emptied using the 
practices commonly employed to remove material from that type of 
container e.g., pouring, pumping, and aspirating, and that no more than 
a specified amount of waste must be left in the container. One method 
of determining whether a container is RCRA ``empty'' is based on 
whether the container is greater or less than 110 gallons total 
capacity.
    For containers less than 110 gallons, the regulations at 40 CFR 
261.7(b)(1)(iii)(A) state that a container is empty if: ``No more than 
3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the container remains in 
the container or inner liner if the container is less than or equal to 
110 gallons in size * * *''
    If the container is greater than 110 gallons, the regulations at 40 
CFR 261.7(b)(1)(iii)(B) state that a container is empty if: ``No more 
than 0.3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the container 
remains in the container or inner liner if the container is greater 
than 110 gallons in size.''
    This proposal would modify the regulations so that 40 CFR 
261.7(b)(1)(iii) would define a container as empty if:

    (A) No more than 3 percent by weight of the total capacity of 
the container remains in the container or inner liner if the 
container is less than or equal to 119 gallons in size, or (B) No 
more than 0.3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the 
container remains in the container or inner liner if the container 
is greater than 119 gallons in size.

    Second, the regulations for generators at 40 CFR 262.32 Marking 
would change slightly to incorporate DOT's definition of bulk 
packaging. 40 CFR 262.32(b) requires a generator to mark each container 
of 110 gallons or less used in transportation with the words 
``HAZARDOUS WASTE -Federal Law prohibits Improper Disposal. If found, 
contact the nearest police or public safety authority or the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency,'' and write the generator's name, 
address, and the manifest tracking number on the container. Under the 
proposed revisions, this marking requirement would apply to containers 
of 119 gallons or less.
    Third, the regulations which refer to ``bulk shipment'' would not 
change. The term ``bulk shipment'' is used in 40 CFR 262.23, 263.20, 
and 264.71. Where the regulations use the term, these regulations would 
apply to shipments of a capacity of more than 119 gallons, rather than 
shipments of more than 110 gallons. Therefore, you would no longer be 
able to manage a container of between 110 gallons and 119 gallons as a 
bulk container.
    Please note, other than to incorporate the DOT definition for bulk 
packaging, EPA is not reconsidering, reopening, or requesting comment 
on the provisions described above.

D. Use of Fractions

1. What Is EPA Changing With Respect to the Use of Fractions in the 
Quantity Description on the Manifest?
    EPA is clarifying that generators and others completing the 
quantity description for waste being shipped (see Item 13) should use 
whole numbers to describe non-bulk shipments (less than or equal to 119 
gallons) of hazardous waste and that bulk shipments (greater than 119 
gallons) may be described using whole numbers where possible, or 
fractions if necessary.
2. Why is this clarification necessary?
    EPA's regulations are silent on the use of fractions on the 
manifest. EPA has in the past stated that no fractions or decimals 
should be used and continues to prefer that the quantity description 
should not include fractions. In March 20, 1984, EPA stated that it ``. 
. . does not believe that the quantity description should include 
fractions. Rather, the Agency believes that the quantity description 
should be the most accurate

[[Page 28251]]

possible without using fractions or decimals.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See the March 20, 1984 Federal Register (49 FR 10498) for 
this discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite this past statement, states have experienced an increase in 
the number of manifests containing descriptions with fractions. State 
databases may have difficulty accepting numbers such as 30.5 pounds, 
making the data entry process more difficult. To minimize this, states 
asked EPA to require that generators and others preparing the manifest 
only use whole numbers when indicating quantities of waste on the 
manifest.
    While this is a workable solution for non-bulk shipments, the 
Agency realizes that bulk shipments of hazardous waste may be 
transported in large containers such as tank trucks, and that fractions 
may be the best way to accurately describe the contents of the 
container. Because there would be a significant discrepancy in the 
amount of hazardous waste recorded on the manifest if one ton were used 
to describe a container with 0.5 tons of waste, EPA believes that the 
use of fractions is warranted in bulk containers. Thus, EPA is 
clarifying that whole numbers should be used for non-bulk shipments of 
hazardous waste, and that fractions may be used for bulk shipments 
where necessary.
3. What Would Change?
    EPA is proposing to include in the manifest instructions (item 12) 
a statement that generators and others completing the form must use 
whole numbers for non-bulk shipments of hazardous waste, except that 
fractions may be used for bulk shipments where necessary.

E. Emergency Response Phone Number

1. What Is EPA Proposing Related to Emergency Response Phone Numbers on 
the Manifest?
    EPA proposes to designate one space on the manifest for Emergency 
Response information. DOT currently requires you to use an Emergency 
Response phone number for most shipments of hazardous materials 
including all hazardous wastes that are manifested. (See 49 CFR 
172.604) While hazardous waste shipments must be shipped with an 
Emergency Response phone number, the current manifest does not contain 
a separate block for this information. DOT requires an emergency 
response phone number in addition to other information to identify the 
waste. This information is important in aiding emergency responders in 
dealing with an emergency involving hazardous wastes.
    The emergency response phone number must:
     be the number of the generator or the number of an agency 
or organization who is capable of and accepts responsibility for 
providing detailed information about the shipment;
     reach a phone that is monitored 24 hours a day at all 
times the waste is in transportation (including transportation related 
storage); and
     must reach someone who is either knowledgeable of the 
hazardous waste being shipped and has comprehensive emergency response 
and spill cleanup/incident mitigation information for the material 
being shipped or has immediate access to a person who has that 
knowledge and information about the shipment.
    Currently, you may place this number in the Special Handling 
Instructions and Additional Information Block (Item 15), in the 
Generator's Phone Number Block (Item 4), and in some cases in the 
margin or on the back of the form. Some generators place this 
information in the DOT description box, especially if more than one 
emergency response phone number is needed.
2. Why is EPA Proposing These Changes?
    Because there are no explicit directions on the manifest to supply 
an emergency response phone number, and because there is no designated 
space for this number, some generators may not be aware that this is a 
requirement, and emergency responders may not be able to quickly find 
this information on the form. EPA is proposing to make it more clear 
that the emergency response phone information is required on the form, 
and make this information easier to find by designating one space on 
the manifest for emergency response contact information.
    EPA expects that this additional instruction and the removal of 
other redundant or unnecessary waste handler phone numbers (see 
discussion below in Section IV.G) would reduce paperwork burden and 
facilitate the emergency response process by making it clearer which 
number is to be used in an emergency.
3. How Would This Change Affect the Regulations?
    The manifest form would be modified by adding a box specifically 
for emergency response information, and the instructions would be 
modified to reflect the addition of this box.

F. Generator Certification

1. How Would the Generator Certification Statements on the Manifest Be 
Modified?
    This proposal would modify the wording of the ``shippers 
certification'' and the appearance of the ``waste minimization 
certification'' statements. The changes proposed today, however, would 
not modify the current requirement that generators must sign these 
certifications on the manifest form each time a manifest is prepared.
2. What Are the Current Requirements to the Generator Certification?
    Generators must sign the Generator's Certification found on the 
manifest form each time a manifest is prepared. The ``Generator's 
Certification'' consists of a signature attesting to a statement that 
the shipment has been properly prepared for transportation (a shipper's 
certification) and a statement that the generator has a program in 
place to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated (the waste 
minimization certification). Today's proposal does not modify the 
requirement that generators make these certifications on the manifest 
each time a manifest is prepared
    The shipper's and waste minimization certification statements are 
found in Block 16 of the current Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest 
followed by space for a single signature (i.e., a single signature is 
used to attest to both certifications). The content of the shipper's 
certification statement is as follows:

    I hereby declare that the contents of this consignment are fully 
and accurately described above by proper shipping name and are 
classified, packed, marked, and labeled, and are in all respects in 
proper condition for transport by highway according to applicable 
international and national government regulations.

    Today's proposal would slightly modify this statement. The content 
of the waste minimization certification statement is as follows:

    If I am a large quantity generator, I certify that I have a 
program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste 
generated to the degree I have determined to be economically 
practicable and that I have selected the practicable method of 
treatment, storage, or disposal currently available to me which 
minimizes the present and future threat to human health and the 
environment; OR, if I am a small quantity generator, I have made a 
good faith effort to minimize my waste generation and select the 
best waste management method that is available to me and that I can 
afford.

    Today's proposal would not modify the waste minimization 
certification

[[Page 28252]]

statement, but the complete text of this certification statement would 
no longer appear on the manifest. The single signature in Block 16 
would still attest that the signatory certifies both statements.
3. How Would EPA Modify the Language of the Shipper's Certification?
    EPA proposes to update the first part of the shipper's 
certification statement so that it conforms to the DOT shipper's 
certification (49 CFR 172.204). On December 29, 1994 (59 FR 67487), DOT 
slightly changed the wording of the Shipper's Certification found at 49 
CFR 172.204(a). These changes appear in bold in the following text:

    I hereby declare that the contents of this consignment are fully 
and accurately described above by the proper shipping name, and are 
classified, packaged, marked and labelled/placarded, and are in all 
respects in proper condition for transport according to applicable 
international and national governmental regulations.

    In addition, EPA proposes to delete the words ``by highway'' from 
the shipper's certification statement. Currently, if a transportation 
mode other than highway would be used, generators are instructed to 
line out the words ``by highway'' and insert the appropriate mode of 
transport (i.e., rail, water, or air). EPA does not believe it 
necessary for the mode of transport to be specified as part of the 
shipper's certification (see DOT's shipper's certification which does 
not specify the mode of transport) and eliminating the words ``by 
highway'' from this certification would eliminate the need for 
generators to modify the statement when other forms of transportation 
are utilized.
    EPA currently requires primary exporters to add at the end of the 
first sentence of the shipper's certification statement the words ``and 
conforms to the terms of the EPA Acknowledgment of Consent to the 
shipment.'' EPA is not proposing to change this requirement.
    The new shipper's certification statement on the manifest would 
read as follows:

    I hereby declare that the contents of this consignment are fully 
and accurately described above by the proper shipping name, and are 
classified, packaged, marked and labelled/placarded, and are in all 
respects in proper condition for transport according to applicable 
international and national governmental regulations.

4. How Would EPA Change the Appearance of the Waste Minimization 
Certification Statement?
    EPA proposes to replace the current waste minimization 
certification statement on the manifest with the following statement of 
certification: I certify that the waste minimization statement 
identified in 40 CFR 262.27(a) (if I am a large quantity generator) or 
(b) (if I am a small quantity generator) or authorized equivalent state 
regulations is true with respect to this shipment. Section 262.27 would 
read as follows:

    A generator who initiates a shipment of hazardous waste must 
certify to one of the following statements in Item 16 of the uniform 
hazardous waste manifest:
    (a) ``I am a large quantity generator. I have a program in place 
to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated to the degree I 
have determined to be economically practicable and I have selected 
the practicable method of treatment, storage, or disposal currently 
available to me which minimizes the present and future threat to 
human health and the environment'; or
    (b) ``I am a small quantity generator. I have made a good faith 
effort to minimize my waste generation and select the best waste 
management method that is available to me and that I can afford.''
5. Why Is the Agency Proposing this Change to the Appearance of the 
Waste Minimization Certification Statement?
    EPA is proposing these changes because they are necessary to ensure 
that other proposed form changes such as the inclusion of new fields 
for rejected loads, container residues, and international shipments 
would fit on the form. The text of the generator waste minimization 
statement currently occupies a significant amount of space on the 
manifest form. Leaving the statement as is, along with the proposed 
additions to the manifest form would cause the form to exceed a single 
page. EPA would prefer to maximize the space of the current one page 
8\1/2\ by 11" form rather than make it a multiple page form, because we 
do not want to increase the volume of paper that manifest users already 
keep on file. In order to accommodate the addition of new fields to the 
8\1/2\ by 11" form (i.e., fields for rejected loads, container 
residues, and international shipments), EPA proposes to remove the full 
text of the waste minimization statement from the form. The waste 
minimization certification would still be made on the manifest form, 
with the waste minimization statements located in the regulations for 
reference.

G. Elimination of Certain State Optional Boxes

1. Why Is EPA Proposing To Reduce the Number of State Optional Boxes?
    EPA proposes to eliminate certain State Optional Boxes to (1) 
reduce the amount of time spent completing the manifest form, and (2) 
to reduce the amount of duplicate information. EPA also proposes to 
remove certain optional fields that might have some significance to 
certain States, but reportedly do not have wide use and information 
provided in these fields can be readily obtained elsewhere.
    Currently, the Manifest contains eleven Optional blocks (Block A-
K). EPA does not require that you complete these blocks. States, 
however, may require that you complete these blocks to collect 
specified additional information about the waste that is being shipped, 
and about those who handle the waste listed on the form.
2. Which Boxes Would Be Eliminated?
    EPA proposes to remove the following nine blocks from the manifest 
form:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Block No.                          Name of block
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item A..............................  State Manifest Document Number.
Item B..............................  State Generator's ID.
Item C..............................  State Transporter's ID.
Item D..............................  Transporter's Phone.
Item E..............................  State Transporter's ID.
Item F..............................  Transporters Phone.
Item G..............................  State Facility's ID.
Item H..............................  Facility's Phone.
Item J..............................  Additional Descriptions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Why Is EPA Proposing To Remove Each of These Boxes?
    When EPA promulgated the uniform hazardous waste manifest in 1984, 
it believed that the uniform manifest would reduce regulatory burden on 
generators and transporters by providing a uniform format for 
information necessary for the transportation of hazardous waste. The 
Agency also believed that inclusion of blocks A through J would provide 
states with space on the form to substantially meet the information 
needs of their hazardous waste program. In fact, the 1984 rule 
indicates that the Agency had chosen the optional spaces based on 
received comments, including recommendations from the (Hazardous 
Materials Advisory Council) HMAC and ASTSWMO joint task group. However, 
since the promulgation of the joint EPA/DOT uniform manifest rule EPA 
has received a number of complaints from the regulated community 
regarding the burden associated with variability among states manifest 
requirements. In addition, ASTSWMO created a Task Force (the Task Force 
consisted of several State hazardous waste program managers), which in 
1990 submitted a petition to EPA with recommendations to modify 
existing manifest regulations, including recommendations to remove 
certain optional fields from the manifest form entirely. The ASTSWMO 
petition indicated that the primary objective for

[[Page 28253]]

the recommended changes to the nation's hazardous waste management 
system is to increase uniformity among States. EPA agrees that the 
manifest form and certain manifest requirements should be modified and 
that the proposed revisions discussed in today's rule would increase 
the effectiveness of the manifest system, through the standardization 
of required and optional fields on the form.
    The Agency notes, however, that today's action does not reflect all 
recommendations provided in the ASTSWMO petition and some of the 
modifications proposed today conflict with some of the recommendations 
(e.g., removal of optional field H, Facility phone number). The Agency 
believes, however, these changes are necessary because, among other 
reasons, EPA has proposed to include additional blocks on the form for 
special shipment waste (i.e., emergency response information, rejected 
loads, container residues, and international shipments) to better track 
these shipments from cradle to grave. (See sections VI of this preamble 
for container residues, rejected loads, and section IV.B for 
international shipments.)
    Since the regulated community, including some of the participants 
of the ASTSWMO petition prefer a one page 8\1/2\ by 11" manifest form 
(see page 35 of the ASTSWMO petition), the inclusion of these elements 
on the proposed new form would make it extremely difficult to ensure 
that these additions, which the Agency believes needs to be added, as 
well as other proposed changes to the form would fit the one page 8\1/
2\ by 11" format. The Agency believes, however, that today's proposed 
rule is consistent with the goal of the ASTSWMO petition's recommended 
changes. Further explanations regarding the removal of blocks A through 
K from the form and combining block J with Item 15 are provided below.
    Item A--State Manifest Document Number. EPA proposes to remove the 
State Manifest Document Number and replace it with a mandatory federal 
field entitled ``Manifest Tracking Number.'' EPA understands the 
importance of a unique tracking number for States that actively track 
manifests and therefore, would provide a single block in which a unique 
number would be placed. EPA proposes to delete the old federal document 
number (which consisted of the generator's EPA ID number and a five-
digit number assigned by the generator) and the old Item A and replace 
it with a single federal block called the Manifest Tracking Number. 
Printers of the manifest would be required to preprint a unique 
tracking number on each manifest. Forms printers would register with 
EPA for approval of a unique prefix and of their (sequential) numbering 
system. Although EPA is removing the state manifest document number, 
its replacement would allow states to continue to request additional 
information about the shipment. See section IV.A for further details.
    Item B--State Generator's ID. EPA proposes to remove the State 
Generator's ID block because EPA believes that most States no longer 
use the State Generator ID number. The ASTSWMO petition supports this 
and indicates that while some states do use state ID's, the use of the 
State ID number is limited and has no meaning in other states. The 
Agency believes that those States that currently use information from 
the State ID Block can obtain equivalent information with the 
generator's EPA ID number. The two numbers provide equivalent 
information about the generators identity, presumably a State could use 
the EPA ID number to obtain generator information by linking into the 
Resource Conservation Recovery Information System \4\ (RCRIS) with the 
EPA ID. Therefore, a State that uses the State Generator ID number for 
tracking purposes should be able to use an EPA ID number as the site 
specific identifier, by converting their current database system to EPA 
ID numbers. The ASTSWMO petition also states that the ``wave of the 
future'' would be toward converting to EPA ID numbers as site specific 
identifiers.'' EPA agrees that the EPA ID number provides site-specific 
information and believes that the EPA ID should replace the State ID 
number on the manifest form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Under the Resource and Recovery Act (RCRA), generators, 
transporters, treaters, storers, and disposers of hazardous waste as 
defined by the federally recognized hazardous waste codes, are 
required to provide information concerning their activities to state 
environmental agencies, who in turn provide the information to 
Regional and National U.S. EPA office. The Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Information System (RCRIS) is a national program management 
and inventory system of RCRA hazardous waste handlers and is used by 
the EPA to support its implementation of RCRA, as amended by the 
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). The system is 
primarily used to track a handler's permit or closure status, 
compliance with Federal and State regulations, cleanup activities, 
waste handler inventory, and environmental program progress 
assessment. Handlers can be characterized as fitting one or more of 
the following categories: treatment, storage, and disposal 
facilities (TSDFs), large quantity generators, small quantity 
generators, and transporters. RCRIS information is available from 
ENVIROFACTS at EPA Headquarters Web Pages: http:/www.epa.gov/enviro/
html/rcris/rcris__overview.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Item C--State Transporter's ID and Item E--State Transporter's ID 
(for second transporter). EPA proposes to remove Items C and E (State 
Transporters ID for first and second transporters) from the form for 
the same reasons mentioned above regarding generator EPA ID numbers. 
The manifest instructions also require a transporter to enter his/her 
EPA ID number on the form. Since hazardous waste transporters are 
required also to enter EPA ID numbers on the manifest form, States 
should be able to use the EPA ID number as a transporter identifier 
instead of the State Transporter ID number.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to remove the Transporter ID number 
from the form because it believes that a large number of States use the 
State Transporter ID number field for purposes other than its original 
use. The ASTSWMO petition indicates that many States require waste 
handlers to record the license plate numbers of transporter vehicles in 
the Transporter ID. number block.
    Item D--Transporter's Phone and Item F--Transporter's Phone (for 
second transporter). EPA proposes to remove the transporter's phone 
number blocks for a few reasons. First, the generator and the TSDF both 
have direct contact with the transporter and would likely have other 
means of obtaining this information. In addition, a State could obtain 
the name and phone number of a company contact person from RCRIS. 
Third, the ASTSWMO petition indicates that the Transporter phone number 
is most important for emergency response purposes. However, the number 
typically provided in this block may not be manned 24 hours a day, and 
thus, is not appropriate as an emergency contact number. As mentioned 
in Section IV.E. of this preamble, EPA is proposing to designate one 
space on the manifest for Emergency Response information which would 
require an emergency response phone number. Therefore, the Agency 
believes that the transporter phone number is no longer needed on the 
manifest.
    Item G--State Facility ID. EPA proposes to remove the State 
Facility ID number because the number duplicates information provided 
by the federal requirement to enter the EPA ID number on the manifest. 
The TSDF's EPA ID number provides information regarding the TSDF's 
identity, location, and waste management practices and this information 
can be accessed from RCRIS by using the federal EPA ID number. The 
Agency believes that States that currently use the State Facility 
number to gather information about the TSDF

[[Page 28254]]

could get this information from RCRIS. The accessibility of information 
about receiving facility reduces the need for the State Facility ID 
number on the manifest form.
    Item H--Facility Phone. EPA proposes removing the facility phone 
number block from the manifest form. Both the ASTSWMO petition and the 
Negotiated Rulemaking committee supported keeping this phone number on 
the manifest form because the generator may need it to follow up with 
the TSDF about lost shipments, etc. However, the Agency believes that 
the phone number is not necessary on the manifest because the generator 
can easily obtain this information from company phone lists and 
business cards. The transporter is also expected to have regular 
contact with the TSDF and customarily devises a mapping plan separate 
from the manifest containing directions and telephone numbers. Further, 
by adding an emergency response information block to the form (See 
discussion in section IV.E) and retaining the generator's phone number, 
vital information about the shipment can be readily obtained, 
eliminating the need for the Facility Phone number block.
    Item J--Additional Descriptions for Materials Listed Above & Item 
15--Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information. EPA is 
proposing: (1) To remove item J and to combine information normally 
entered in Item J with the Special Handling Instructions and Additional 
Information Block (Item 15); (2) to modify the Special Handling 
Instructions and Additional Information Block by designating it as Item 
14 on the new form; and (3) to modify the manifest instructions for 
Item 15, allowing for information normally placed in Item J to be 
placed in new Item 14. The new block would be renamed Additional 
Descriptions and Special Handling Instructions are currently provided 
in the Appendix to 40 CFR Part 262. The Agency believes these changes 
are necessary because they result in a form with more space to 
accommodate new fields without significantly reducing the ability to 
provide additional information on the manifest.
    Today's proposal removes the instruction, for international 
shipments, that requires generators to enter the point of departure 
(City and State) for those shipments destined for treatment, storage, 
or disposal outside the jurisdiction of the United States. This 
requirement is no longer necessary because EPA has added separate space 
on the form, Block 16, to enter export information. (See Section IV.B 
for further detail).
    In addition, today's proposal removes the instruction that 
prohibits states from requiring additional, new, or different 
information in the old Block 15. The removal of this instruction is 
necessary since the proposal would allow information previously entered 
in Item J (a state optional block normally used for additional state 
optional information) to be entered in the new Item 14. Today's rule 
does not change the current manifest instruction under Item 15, which 
states that the space under Item 15 may be also used to indicate 
special transportation; treatment, storage, or disposal information; 
and/or bill of lading information. Today's action merely moves this 
instruction to Item 14 of the new form. This instruction would be 
applied to new Item 14, and an addition made to allow state information 
to also be entered. The proposal would restrict, however, the types of 
information that States could require generators to enter in Item 14. A 
State would only be allowed to require generators to enter into Item 
14, information relevant to the waste shipment for which there is no 
specific space on the manifest. Thus, generators may use Item 14 to 
record information such as chemical names, constituent percentages, 
physical state, and waste management method. With the exception of 
information that States might require, generators may only use Item 14 
to enter the following information:
     Universal waste shipments;
     Additional waste codes;
     Alternate facility designation;
     Name, address, and phone number of any person other than 
the person identified in Item 4 (Generator's Name, Mailing Address, and 
Phone Number) preparing the manifest;
     Name, address, phone number, and EPA identification number 
of any person who shares generator responsibilities (i.e., co-
generators) with the person identified in Item 4 (Generator's Name, 
Mailing Address, and Phone Number); and
     To reference the ``old'' manifest tracking number.
    The new Additional Descriptions and Special Handling Instructions 
block may also be used by transporters to indicate that they have 
combined or divided loads at transfer facilities and to document new or 
combined manifests and other transportation related information.
4. Why Is EPA Proposing To Amend Items 15 & J of the Old Form?
    EPA is proposing to combine Items 15 & J because the proposed 
additional elements to the form such as Item 16 (International 
Shipments), necessitate that EPA restructure the form so that it does 
not exceed the one page 8\1/2\ by 11" format. In addition, the ASTSWMO 
petition recommended that EPA combine the two optional fields into one 
block. Also, combining the two boxes reduces the number of spaces 
provided for narrative information that is not consistently entered and 
that cannot be easily entered into a computer database.
5. What Regulations Would be Affected by Reducing the Number of State 
Optional Blocks and Combining Items J and 15 To Create New Item 14?
    EPA would revise Sec. 271.10(h) to conform to the proposed 
revisions mentioned above. These revisions include:
     Modifying Sec. 271.10(h)(1);
     Incorporating paragraph Sec. 271.10(h)(1)(v) in 
Sec. 262.21(d)(5);
     Modifying and renumbering paragraphs Secs. 271.10(h)(2)(v) 
and (vi) as Secs. 271.10(h)(1)(i) and 271.10(h)(1)(ii), respectively;
     Adding new paragraph Sec. 271.10(h)(1)(iii);
     Removing paragraphs Sec. 271.10(h)(2)(i), 
Sec. 271.10(h)(2)(ii), and Sec. 271.10(h)(2)(iii);
     Removing paragraph Sec. 271.10(h)(2) (iv).
     Modifying and renumbering paragraph Sec. 271.10(h)(2)(vii) 
as Sec. 271.10(h)(2);
     Adding new paragraph Sec. 271.10(h)(4); and
     Adding new paragraph Sec. 271.10(h)(5).
    In addition, today's rule modifies 40 CFR 271.10(j)(1) to conform 
to the changes made to the Waste Minimization certification. For 
further details on this revision, please refer to section IX of this 
preamble.
6. EPA Invites Comment on Today's Proposal to Reduce the Number of 
State Optional Fields on the Manifest
    EPA is specifically requesting comment on the following issues:
     EPA has always required the generator's mailing address on 
the manifest form. Some states have expressed interest in requiring the 
physical site address of the generator on the manifest, where that 
address differs from the mailing address. However, EPA is not inclined 
to add mailing address information because of increased burden, 
redundancy with the generator's EPA identification number (i.e., states 
should be able to obtain the physical site address using the EPA 
identification number), and lack of space on the manifest form. The 
Agency is requesting comments on whether the

[[Page 28255]]

site address should be added to the manifest form and if so, whether it 
should be used in addition to or in lieu of the mailing address.
     With the elimination of most of the state optional fields, 
the only state optional fields that would continue to be included on 
the manifest are (1) federal and state waste codes (new Block A--see 
Section I below for an explanation), and (2) BRS system type codes (new 
Block B--see Section H below for an explanation). The Agency requests 
comment on whether it would be easier on the regulated community, 
states, etc. to make these two fields mandatory instead of continuing 
to use them as state optional fields. If so, would further 
standardizing the manifest in this way offset any burden increase from 
making those two fields mandatory? The Agency also requests comment on 
whether generators complete these two fields regardless of whether 
States require it as part of their State program?

H. Block K Coding System

1. How Would the Requirements for the Codes Used in Block K (Handling 
Codes) Change?
    (Note that the form would be renumbered and Block K (Handling 
Codes) become Block B (renamed Biennial Report System Type Codes) and 
be moved to the bottom of the manifest to the section that is filled 
out by the designated facility.)
    Today's rule proposes to use Biennial Report system (BRS) type for 
the completion of new Block B and to change the name of new Block B to 
Biennial Report System Type Codes (currently Block K--Handling Codes). 
This block would only be completed if required by the generation or 
receiving state. Under RCRA, large quantity generators and TSDFs are 
required to report every two years on the hazardous waste they generate 
and manage. One of the elements that generators and TSDFs report in 
this Biennial Report is the System Type Code, which describes the way 
in which a waste is managed. System type codes are mandatory data 
elements on the GM (Generation and Management) and WR (Waste Received) 
Forms, which must be submitted by Large Quantity Generators (LQGs) and 
TSDFs for each RCRA hazardous waste generated on-site in a given year. 
States or EPA regional offices enter the data from the GM Form into a 
computer database that is eventually assembled into the Hazardous Waste 
Report (also known as the Biennial Report). The EPA Regions check the 
quality of the data by comparing the system type code information on a 
GM Form to manifest data. These comparisons allow Regions to:
     Identify or resolve discrepancies;
     Target LQGs or TSDFs that did not make a BR submission;
     Identify LQGs or TSDFs that need assistance in improving 
their facility plan;
     Examine waste minimization activities.
    Block K (new Block B) is a state optional element of the manifest 
and EPA proposes that it remain so (we request comment on this issue 
below); however, the codes used in this box would no longer vary 
depending on your state, as is the case under the current manifest 
regulations. Currently, states which require the submission of 
information in this box also provide the instructions for the codes 
that should be entered, and these codes differ across the country. 
Under this proposed rule, there would be no state-specific instructions 
on how to complete Block B. Instead, only the standardized federal 
version of the instructions would be used if states require the 
submission of information in this box.
    This standardization should reduce the burden related to completing 
the manifest by selecting one set of codes that would be used in every 
state, rather than having the regulated community learn several 
different coding systems. By proposing to use the System Type Codes 
found in the Biennial Report instructions as the codes for Block B, 
this proposed change would increase consistency with the Biennial 
Report requirements, thus, aiding in the completion of the Biennial 
Report and reducing the burden associated with the Biennial Report.
    Also as part of the proposed change to the manifest, EPA is 
proposing to change the Block B heading to ``Biennial Report System 
Type Codes for Wastes Listed Above.'' This would avoid confusion that 
might arise if the old handling code heading (``Handling Codes for 
Wastes Listed Above'') were to remain with the new instructions for 
submission of BRS system type codes. The Biennial Report list is 
comprised of 65 system type codes. These codes indicate the type of 
management a waste receives (i.e., metals recovery or incineration 
sludge treatment).
2. What Are the Biennial Report System Type Codes That EPA Proposes To 
Use?
    EPA plans to develop a new list of system type codes for inclusion 
in the 2001 Biennial Report. This Biennial Report will be published 
about Fall 2000. Shown below is the full list of system type codes 
found in the 1999 Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and Forms. Any 
changes made to those codes during subsequent Biennial Report periods 
would be adopted accordingly.

List of System Type Codes

Metals Recovery (For Reuse)

M011  High temperature metals recovery
M012  Retorting
M013  Secondary smelting
M014  Other metals recovery for reuse: e.g., ion exchange, reverse 
osmosis, acid leaching
M019  Metals recovery--type unknown

Solvents Recovery

M021  Fractionation/distillation
M022  Thin film evaporation
M023  Solvent extraction
M024  Other solvent recovery
M029  Solvents recovery--type unknown

Other Recovery

M031  Acid regeneration
M032  Other recovery: e.g., waste oil recovery, nonsolvent organics 
recovery
M039  Other recovery--type unknown

Incineration Treatment

M041  Incineration--liquids
M042  Incineration--sludges
M043  Incineration--solids
M044  Incineration--gases
M049  Incineration--type unknown

Energy Recovery (Reuse as Fuel)

M051  Energy recovery--liquids
M052  Energy recovery--sludges
M053  Energy recovery--solids
M059  Energy recovery--type unknown

Fuel Blending

M061  Fuel blending

Aqueous Inorganic Treatment

M071  Chrome reduction followed by chemical precipitation
M072  Cyanide destruction followed by chemical precipitation
M073  Cyanide destruction only
M074  Chemical oxidation followed by chemical precipitation
M075  Chemical oxidation only
M076  Wet air oxidation
M077  Chemical precipitation
M078  Other aqueous inorganic treatment: e.g., ion exchange, reverse 
osmosis
M079  Aqueous inorganic treatment--type unknown

Aqueous Organic Treatment

M081  Biological treatment
M082  Carbon adsorption
M083  Air/steam stripping
M084  Wet air oxidation
M085  Other aqueous organic treatment
M089  Aqueous organic treatment--type unknown

Aqueous Organic and Inorganic Treatment

M091  Chemical precipitation in combination with biological 
treatment
M092  Chemical precipitation in combination with carbon adsorption
M093  Wet air oxidation
M094  Other organic/inorganic treatment
M099  Aqueous organic and inorganic treatment--type unknown

[[Page 28256]]

Sludge Treatment

M101  Sludge dewatering
M102  Addition of excess lime
M103  Absorption/adsorption
M104  Solvent extraction
M109  Sludge treatment--type unknown

Stabilization

M111  Stabilization/chemical fixation using cementitious and/or 
pozzolanic materials
M112  Other stabilization
M119  Stabilization--type unknown

Other Treatment

M121  Neutralization only
M122  Evaporation only
M123  Settling/clarification only
M124  Phase separation (e.g., emulsion breaking, filtration) only
M125  Other treatment
M129  Other treatment--type unknown

Disposal

M131  Land treatment/application/farming
M132  Landfill
M133  Surface impoundment (to be closed as a landfill)
M134  Deepwell/underground injection
M135  Direct discharge to sewer/POTW
M136  Direct discharge to surface water under NPDES
M137  Other disposal

Transfer Facility Storage

M141  Transfer facility storage--waste was shipped off site without 
any on-site treatment, disposal, or recycling activity
3. What are the Problems with the Current Coding Systems Used to 
Complete Block K?
    There are two main problems associated with the use of the current 
coding system:
    (1) Handling Code Information Submitted in Block K is Non-
standardized. Different States request waste handlers to complete Block 
K with different information. Some States refer to 40 CFR Parts 264 and 
265, Appendix I, Table 2 (i.e., Handling Codes for Treatment, Storage 
and Disposal Methods) and others refer to state-created codes. The 
problem of non-standardized codes submitted in Block K is compounded 
when there is interstate travel of hazardous waste. When more than one 
State has its own form, the manifest form of the destination state is 
required instead of the manifest form of the destination state. 
Generators may be required to learn and use multiple coding systems on 
the manifest on a regular basis because their wastes may cross state 
lines and their operations may be located in more than one state.
    (2) Differences in Terms Creates Problems Converting from State 
Codes to System Type Codes. There are a number of differences and 
similarities among handling codes, state-created codes and system type 
codes. Some states reference or list both handling codes and state-
created codes when they provide instructions for completing Block K. 
Although the different coding systems may be converted to system type 
codes for the completion of the Biennial Report, the conversion process 
may be difficult and labor-intensive for waste handlers and States 
because of inconsistencies between the different lists of codes and 
because numerous codes may be listed. Attempts to reconcile lists of 
codes may result in code matches that are greater than one-to-one, 
because some states may use more than one handling code to describe the 
waste management method used on a particular waste stream. The 
conversion process is further complicated when wastes travel between 
states and industry, and states are not familiar with the coding 
systems required by other states. Also, the use of different coding 
systems may impede state and federal inspections.
4. How Can the Biennial Report System Type Codes Help Resolve the 
Problems?
    The Agency believes the BRS system type codes are useful because 
the regulated community is already familiar with these codes, and that 
this familiarity should increase the accuracy of data supplied by the 
facility owner or operator. In addition, some states have indicated to 
EPA that any single coding system would be an improvement over the 
current multiple coding systems that must be converted to system type 
codes by LQGs, TSDFs and states to assist them with completion of 
Biennial Report forms. In December of 1997 and January of 1998, EPA 
held public meetings on the hazardous waste manifest proposed 
rulemaking. Industry and State participants both suggested, among other 
things, that EPA should consider combining the manifest data collection 
activities with the Biennial Reporting System (BRS) data collection 
activities. Further, some participants suggested that as a first step 
to integrate BRS and manifest data collection, EPA should consider 
requiring manifest users to use BRS system type codes to complete Block 
K on the current manifest, instead of the handling codes currently 
found in Table 2, Appendix I of Part 264. These participants further 
stated that a combination of manifest and BRS reporting requirements, 
rather than separated data collection programs, may result in 
streamlined reporting and significant burden reductions.
5. Where Would I Find a List of the Codes to be Used in Block B?
    EPA would publish the system type codes in the following places:
    --in the electronic and hard copy versions of 40 CFR Part 262 
Appendix 2-Biennial Report system type codes (full list of the system 
type codes); and
    --in the instructions for completing the Biennial Report--(full 
list).
    In addition, in the manifest instructions for completing Block B, 
EPA would refer users to the full list of system type codes in Appendix 
2 of 40 CFR Part 262 and in the Biennial Report instructions. When the 
list of system type codes change in the Biennial Report instructions, 
40 CFR 262, Appendix 2 would also be changed. This information would 
also be available on EPA manifest website.
6. Who Would Be Affected by the Proposal To Change Block K to Block B?
    States, generators and TSDFs may be affected by this proposal. The 
proposed instructions would specify who would be required to complete 
Block B. Because TSDFs are the most familiar with the processes that 
best describe the way in which a waste is managed at their facility, 
EPA is proposing that TSDFs be responsible for completing Block B. 
EPA's preference is for TSDFs to assume this role due to their 
technical expertise and because circumstances may warrant the need for 
TSDFs to change their decisions on how to store, treat or dispose of 
the hazardous wastes they receive from generators. Additionally, the 
first TSDF (sometimes referred to as the interim TSDF if the waste is 
to be stored or treated and then sent on to another TSDF) that receives 
the shipment should be responsible for filling out Block B because the 
original manifest is often terminated at this point and a new manifest 
is generated. The Agency specifically requests comment on whether the 
TSDF should be responsible for filling out Block B of the manifest 
(where required).
7. How Would Block B Be Filled Out?
    One system type code per waste is proposed to be used in Block B. 
Each system type code in Block B should be clearly linked to the waste 
it describes in Item 10, ``U.S. DOT Description (Including Proper 
Shipping Name, Hazard Class, ID Number, and Packing Group).'' 
Specifically, the BRS system type code entered in ``field a'' of Block 
B should correspond to the U.S. DOT description information provided in 
``item 10a'' of the form. Similarly, BRS system type codes entered in 
``fields b, c, and d'' of Block B should correspond to the U.S. DOT 
description information entered in ``fields 10b, c, d,'' respectively. 
If the space in Block B is insufficient for listing system type

[[Page 28257]]

codes, then new Item 14, ``Special Handling Instructions and Additional 
Information,'' may be used.
    Block B should be completed as follows:

B. Biennial Report System Type Codes for Wastes Listed Above
a. (enter system type code for first waste code listed in Block 10a)
b. (enter system type code for second waste code listed in Block10b)
c. (enter system type code for third waste code listed in Block 10c)
d. (enter system type code for fourth waste code listed in Block 10d)
8. How Would the Regulations Change?
    The manifest form would be changed to include a new box entitled 
``Biennial Report System Type Codes,'' and the manifest instructions in 
the Appendix to Part 262 would be changed to instruct the TSDF to use 
the Biennial Report system type codes. New instructions would be added 
instructing those TSDFs completing Block B to use Biennial Report codes 
and a list of the Biennial Report system type codes would be added to 
40 CFR part 262 as Appendix 2.
    The Agency is also considering two alternatives to today's 
proposal. The first alternative considers using a new list of codes 
instead of the full list of system type codes from the existing 
Biennial Report System. EPA could develop a new simplified list of 
codes that are similar to the current categories for system type codes 
found in the Biennial Report. Current BRS system type codes describe 
the type of hazardous waste management system used to treat or dispose 
a hazardous waste. One example of system type codes for a hazardous 
waste management category is ``Solvents Recovery,'' which has within 
it, a set of unique codes for fractionalization/distillation, thin film 
evaporation, solvent extraction, other solvent recovery, and solvent 
recovery. The alternative system would only include the general 
category found in the system codes list and if ``solvent recovery'' is 
taken as the example, would omit the unique codes within ``Solvent 
Recovery.'' Thus, a facility using solvent extraction to treat a 
hazardous waste, would only enter ``Solvent Recovery.''
    The second alternative approach EPA is considering would be to 
require the generator to complete new Block B of the manifest, rather 
than the TSDF. The Agency is considering whether the information 
provided by the generator is of greater use than similar information 
provided by the TSDF.
9. EPA Invites Comment on Today's Proposal and Also Welcomes New Ideas 
for Manifest and System Type Code Burden Reduction
    EPA is specifically requesting comment on the following issues
    (a) As an alternative to today's proposal of using the full list of 
system type codes from the existing Biennial Report System, would 
industry, states, and other stakeholders prefer a new list of codes 
that are similar to the current categories for system type codes? 
(Examples of categories include ``Solvents Recovery'' and 
``Incineration.'')
    (b) As an alternative to requiring the TSDFs to complete Block B of 
the manifest, should EPA require the generators to complete that 
section? If so, what are the advantages? How would generator 
accountability for wastes from ``cradle-to-grave'' and completion of 
the Biennial Report be impacted? What other impacts would be expected?
    (c) Would industry, states, and other stakeholders prefer 
standardizing the handling codes from Table 2 of Appendix I, Part 264 
and use the standardized handling codes for the completion of new Block 
B?
    (d) Should the entry of information in new Block B of the manifest 
remain an optional field as proposed, or should it be mandatory?
    (e) In looking at manifest and Biennial Report burden together, 
could an increase in manifest burden lead to or be offset by Biennial 
Report burden reduction? (For example, if Block B were to change from a 
state optional element to a mandatory federal element, would manifest 
burden increase in the short run and Biennial Report burden decrease in 
the long run?) Which areas of the manifest and Biennial Report should 
EPA consider or further analyze to achieve net burden reduction in the 
long run?

I. Block I Waste Code System

1. How Would the Requirements for the Codes Used in Block I Change?
    (Note, that the form would be renumbered and Block I (Waste No.) 
become new Block A (Waste Codes).)
    EPA proposes to provide additional space in this optional block so 
that waste handlers can enter state and federal waste codes in separate 
locations under new Block A. EPA is also proposing to change the name 
of this block.
    Block A would be divided into two sections--a section for entering 
federal waste codes and another for entering state waste codes. The top 
section of Block A would allow reporting of three federal waste codes 
and the bottom section would allow reporting of three state waste 
codes. If states require the completion of Block A, then the waste 
handler must enter Federal waste codes in the appropriate section of 
Block A according to a hierarchy, with the highest toxicity waste 
appearing first to alert users of the manifest of their presence.
    EPA believes that in most cases six waste codes would be sufficient 
to adequately describe the waste in Block A. However, it also may be 
appropriate at times to report more than six codes for a particular 
waste (for example, a lab pack could contain more than 6 waste codes). 
For these specific circumstances, the generator would use both Item 10, 
``U.S. DOT Description (Including Proper Shipping Name, Hazard Class, 
ID Number, and Packing Group)'' and proposed Item 14, ``Special 
Handling Instructions and Additional Information,'' to describe such a 
waste.
    EPA is also changing the title of Block I from Block I ``Waste 
No.'' to Block A ``Waste Codes'' to more accurately reflect what should 
be entered in this block and more commonly used terminology. This block 
would need to be completed only if a state required it.
    The proposed format for Block A is shown below:

                             A. Waste Codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Waste Code, four      Federal Waste Code,   Federal Waste Code,
 partitions.                   four partitions.      four partitions.
State Waste Code, four        State Waste Code,     State Waste Code,
 partitions.                   four partitions.      four partitions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What Is the Problem With Current Block I Reporting Procedures?
    Under the current manifest system, waste handlers can use the 
manifest form for shipments where hazardous and non-RCRA wastes are a 
part of the same shipment. This may occur because some states regulate 
non-RCRA waste as hazardous waste and prefer that generators indicate 
state regulated hazardous waste shipments on the same manifest form. 
Also, these states may

[[Page 28258]]

require that waste handlers enter the federal waste codes for the RCRA 
regulated wastes and state waste codes for the State-only regulated 
hazardous waste in Item I of the current form.
    Federal and state waste codes are important because they provide a 
range of useful information about waste shipments and assist states 
with enforcement, generators with describing a hazardous substance in 
accordance with DOT regulations, and TSDFs with determining whether a 
waste can be accepted under its permit. However, under current 
reporting procedures, such benefits are diminished due to the format of 
Block I and the lack of clear, uniform instructions. Block I does not 
distinguish between federal and state sections, nor does it make clear 
that both federal and state waste codes may be reported. Also, states 
provide varying instructions, if any, on how to fill out Block I. The 
ASTSWMO petition addressed this issue and considered, among other 
things, an option for states to create a separate manifest for 
reporting ``non-RCRA regulated waste'' but the petition did not 
recommend this option. Explanations provided in the petition for not 
creating a separate manifest rationalized that one manifest ensures 
uniformity and that a separate manifest would cause confusion for 
generators because a separate form would require a separate set of 
instructions, numbering, etc. Further, waste handlers would have to 
become familiar with several manifest forms, if states required a 
separate manifest. The Agency agrees with these reasons and also 
believes that generators would prefer completing one manifest instead 
of two for combined shipments of hazardous and state-regulated 
nonhazardous wastes.
3. Who Would Be Affected by This Proposal?
    States and waste handlers (i.e., generators) would be affected by 
this proposal. Block A is a state optional element of the manifest and 
would remain so, but there would no longer be a need for state-specific 
manifests with varying instructions on how to complete Block A. The 
federal manifest would contain standardized instructions for submission 
of federal and state waste codes in Block A. Generators would complete 
Block A when required by the generator state, the destination state or 
both states. EPA believes that this change would not reduce the state's 
ability to collect this information, and the standardized format (along 
with the elimination of state-specific manifests) would reduce the time 
required to complete this block.
4. How Would Block A Be Filled 0ut?
    When the generator state, the destination state or both states 
require completion of Block A, several reporting scenarios may apply, 
including use of Item 10 and Item 14. In general, Block A should be 
used first. Examples follow:
    Reporting Waste Codes in Item 10 of the manifest: ``US DOT 
Description (Including Proper Shipping Name, Hazard Class, and ID 
Number)'' and in Item 14: ``Special Handling Instructions and 
Additional Information''. Federal waste codes (either the listed waste 
code or the code for a hazardous waste characteristic) would be 
reported in Block A, as applicable. Federal waste codes also may be 
reported in Item 10 if the generator wants to include that information 
in Block 10. If more space is needed to report federal waste codes, 
then Item 14 may be used. Also, Item 14 may be used to report 
additional state waste codes.
    Reporting Federal Waste Codes According to Toxicity. Federal waste 
codes would be reported according to a hierarchy of the highest 
toxicity waste appearing first and less toxic wastes appearing 
thereafter. The proposed hierarchy reflects the Negotiated rulemaking 
committee's recommendation that wastes with the highest toxicity should 
be listed first (i.e., acutely hazardous wastes) to alert users of the 
manifest to their presence. The hierarchy is listed below:
     All acutely hazardous wastes, including all P listed 
wastes and all acutely hazardous F listed wastes;
     U listed wastes (toxic);
     K listed wastes (specific sources);
     Non-acute F listed wastes (non-specific sources); and
     D wastes (characteristic).
    Although today's proposal would require waste handlers to enter 
waste codes in Block A according to the proposed hierarchy, EPA 
understands that wastes that are ignitable or reactive may be better 
described (for safety reasons) if the waste codes for these 
characteristics are listed first in the hierarchy. Therefore, the 
Agency proposes that if a state requires waste handlers to complete the 
new Block A on the manifest, then waste handlers must enter Federal 
waste codes in block A in accordance with the hierarchical system, 
unless the wastes in question are ignitable or reactive. In such 
situations, the Federal waste codes for the ignitable or reactive 
wastes may be entered first in Block A, if the state allows the 
generator to do so.
    EPA notes that the proposed hierarchical system would apply to 
Federal waste codes only. EPA did not propose the hierarchical system 
for state waste codes because it had insufficient information about 
state waste codes. Therefore, the Agency believes that it would not be 
appropriate to propose a standardized coding system for state-regulated 
wastes and believes that it is more appropriate for generators to 
contact States directly, if necessary, regarding the assignment of 
state waste codes for a particular state-regulated waste. The Agency 
would place, however, a list of waste codes for each state on its EPA 
website so that waste handlers can obtain state waste code information 
quickly. EPA, however, recommends that generators contact both its 
state and the consignment state to obtain further instructions to 
complete Block A.
    Reporting Federal Waste Codes According to Toxicity. Hazardous 
waste that is described by more than one federal waste code within one 
of the P, U, K, F and D categories would be listed according to 
toxicity. EPA believes that on occasion, some hazardous waste shipments 
may contain waste codes from the same hierarchy category. In such 
cases, the waste handler should list waste codes from the same category 
in the order which he/she believes is most representative of the 
waste's attributes. The Agency requests comment on whether the 
hierarchy approach is the most appropriate method to listing wastes in 
Block A.
    Reporting State Waste Codes. EPA is proposing that the first state 
box would represent waste regulated by the generator state and the 
second state box would represent waste regulated by the destination 
state. State waste codes would be reported as follows:
     If the waste is regulated by the generator state or the 
destination state, then enter the generator state waste code in the 
state box and the destination state waste code in the second box:

                              A. Waste Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Generator State Waste Code)  (Destination State    ....................
                               Waste Code).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 28259]]

    If additional space is needed to report state waste codes, use Item 
14, ``Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information.''
5. How Would the Regulations Change?
    The instructions for the manifest found in the 40 CFR 262 Appendix 
would change to include the Federal waste code hierarchy and the 
instructions for completing Block A. Also, Block A would be relabeled 
``Waste Codes'' on the manifest form.
6. EPA Invites Comment on the Following Questions Related to the 
Proposed Changes to Block A.
     Under today's proposal, would the quality of waste code 
reporting improve, while keeping manifest burden to a minimum?
     Are the proposed format of Block A (i.e., space for 4-
digit waste codes) and new standardized procedures for reporting waste 
codes clear? Are there alternatives that EPA should consider?
     Although today's rule does not propose to establish 
generic waste codes for lab packs, spent carbon, and incinerator ash, 
EPA may pursue this in the future as resources permit and welcomes 
comment on codification of such codes.

 What alternatives to the proposed toxicity hierarchy would 
you suggest

Unmanifested Waste Reporting

1. How Is EPA Changing the Way TSDFs Report Unmanifested Waste?
    Today's rule proposes changes in the way a TSDF may submit the 
``Unmanifested Waste Report'' to the EPA Regional Administrator, which 
is required within 15 days after accepting the waste at a TSDF. 
Currently, EPA requires TSDFs who accept unmanifested waste to prepare 
an ``Unmanifested Waste Report'' (form 8700-13B) for waste that should 
normally be shipped using a manifest. (See 40 CFR 264.76 and 265.76) 
Under this proposal, a typed, handwritten, or electronic note may be 
submitted instead of this report. The typed, handwritten, or electronic 
note must be legible, and must contain the following information:
    (a) The EPA identification number, name, and address of the 
facility;
    (b) The date the facility received the waste;
    (c) The EPA identification number, name, and address of the 
generator and the transporter, if available;
    (d) A description and the quantity of each unmanifested hazardous 
waste the facility received;
    (e) The method of treatment, storage, or disposal for each 
hazardous waste;
    (f) The certification signed by the owner or operator of the 
facility or his authorized representative; and
    (g) A brief explanation of why the waste was unmanifested, if 
known.
2. What Is Unmanifested Waste?
    Unmanifested waste is hazardous waste that a TSDF accepts from an 
off-site source without the required accompanying manifest or shipping 
paper (in the case of rail and some water shipments). Regulations 
governing unmanifested waste found at 40 CFR 264.76 and 265.76 should 
not be confused with similar reporting requirements under regulations 
for manifest discrepancies found at 40 CFR 264.72 and 265.72 and 
exception reporting found at 40 CFR 262.42.
3. What Is the Problem With Current Requirements for Unmanifested Waste 
Reporting?
    Current regulations found at 40 CFR 264.76 and 265.76 require TSDFs 
to submit EPA form 8700-13B, which must be designated ``Unmanifested 
Waste Report.'' However, EPA announced in the January 28, 1983 FR that 
it was deleting EPA form 8700-13B and its predecessor, EPA form 8700-
13, which had appeared in the May 19, 1980 FR. Although both forms were 
linked to annual reporting requirements at that time and were supposed 
to be adapted for unmanifested waste reporting, EPA deleted them due to 
the change from annual to biennial reporting. EPA never published a new 
form for unmanifested waste reporting and the form now required for 
biennial reporting, EPA form 1300-A/B, ``Hazardous Waste Report 
Instructions and Forms,'' is not adaptable for unmanifested waste 
reporting. Although EPA never published a replacement form for 
reporting unmanifested waste, the regulations still require this form 
which is generally unavailable to those seeking a copy.
4. How Do Regulations for the Unmanifested Waste, Manifest 
Discrepancies, and Exception Reporting Compare?
    Some aspects of the reporting requirements are similar. See the 
table below for a comparison.

     Comparison of Regulations--Unmanifested Waste Report, Manifest
                 Discrepancies, and Exception Reporting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Synopsis of
         Regulation                Description            reporting
                                                        requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unmanifested Waste Report 40  Unmanifested waste    Current: TSDF must
 CFR 264.76 and 265.76.        is hazardous waste    submit to the EPA
                               that a TSDF accepts   Regional
                               without an            Administrator an
                               accompanying          unmanifested waste
                               manifest or           report on EPA form
                               shipping paper, and   8700-13B within 15
                               which is not exempt   days after
                               from the manifest     receiving the
                               requirement.          waste.
                                                    Proposed: TSDF must
                                                     submit an
                                                     unmanifested waste
                                                     report using a
                                                     typed, handwritten,
                                                     or electronic note
                                                     submitted to the
                                                     EPA Regional
                                                     Administrator
                                                     within 15 days
                                                     after receiving the
                                                     waste.
Manifest Discrepancies 40     Manifest              TSDFs that receive
 CFR 264.72 and 265.72.        discrepancies are     wastes with any
                               differences between   significant
                               the quantity or       manifest
                               type of hazardous     discrepancy must
                               waste designated on   attempt to
                               the manifest or       reconcile the
                               shipping paper and    discrepancy upon
                               the quantity or       discovery and
                               type of waste         report the
                               actually received     discrepancy to the
                               at a facility. We     EPA Regional
                               are proposing to      Administrator if
                               include container     the discrepancy is
                               residues and          not resolved within
                               rejected loads as     15 days after
                               manifest              receiving the
                               discrepancies.        waste. We are
                                                     proposing that
                                                     TSDFs that reject a
                                                     load or send a
                                                     residue off-site
                                                     would have to
                                                     prepare a new
                                                     manifest as
                                                     instructed under
                                                     proposed Secs.
                                                     264.72(c-d) and
                                                     265.72(c-d).

[[Page 28260]]

 
Exception Reporting 40 CFR    Exception reporting   A LQG who does not
 262.42.                       is required of LQGs   receive the return
                               and SQGs when they    copy the manifest
                               do not receive the    signed by the TSDF
                               return copy of the    within 35 days
                               manifest signed by    after the waste was
                               the TSDF within a     accepted by the
                               specified time        initial transporter
                               after the waste was   must contact the
                               accepted by the       TSDF to inquire of
                               initial               the status of the
                               transporter.          waste. If the LQG
                                                     does not receive
                                                     the return copy of
                                                     the manifest signed
                                                     by the TSDF within
                                                     45 days of the date
                                                     the waste was
                                                     accepted by the
                                                     initial
                                                     transporter, the
                                                     LQG must submit an
                                                     exception report to
                                                     the EPA Regional
                                                     Administrator. A
                                                     SQG who does not
                                                     receive the return
                                                     copy of the
                                                     manifest signed by
                                                     the TSDF within 60
                                                     days after the
                                                     waste was date the
                                                     waste was accepted
                                                     by the initial
                                                     transporter must
                                                     also submit an
                                                     exception report to
                                                     the EPA Regional
                                                     Administrator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Residues and Rejected Loads: How Must These Shipments be 
Manifested?

1. What are Residues and Rejected Loads?

Residues
    A residue is the hazardous waste that remains in containers such as 
drums and in vehicles used for transport (such as tanker cars or box 
cars) after most of the contents of the container have been removed. 
These residues may be difficult to remove because the contents may have 
congealed and the receiving facility may not have the equipment to 
completely empty the container. As a result, the container may hold 
more than the regulatory threshold for meeting the RCRA definition of 
``empty,'' that is, more than 3% of a hazardous waste in a container 
less than or equal to 119 gallons, or more than 0.3% of a hazardous 
waste in a container greater than 119 gallons, and must be managed as 
hazardous waste. (See section IV.C of this rule for a discussion of the 
proposed changes regarding the term ``bulk packaging.'')
Rejected Loads
    A rejected load is a shipment of hazardous waste that a facility 
receives, but cannot accept, either because of restrictions in the 
facility's permit, or due to capacity limitations. A rejected load 
includes all shipments a facility rejects, in whole or in part, whether 
rejection occurs before or after the facility has signed the manifest. 
EPA does not view shipments that are undeliverable for reasons other 
than rejection by a party at the designated facility as being covered 
by the term ``rejected loads.'' At 40 CFR 263.21(b) of the current 
regulations, there is a provision that addresses hazardous waste 
shipments that cannot be delivered by the transporter. This provision 
was included in the regulations to deal with emergencies that prevented 
a delivery to a designated facility, such as a labor strike or fire 
that causes the designated facility to close. The current 
Sec. 263.21(b) allows a transporter to deal with such emergency events 
by contacting the generator for further directions and then revising 
the manifest according to the generator's instructions. These 
``undeliverable waste'' events that do not involve a rejection by the 
destination facility would continue to be addressed by the existing 
regulatory provision, which today's proposal would recodify as 40 CFR 
263.21(b)(1). EPA is not reopening or reconsidering the current 
Sec. 263.21(b) provisions for undeliverable waste; however, we are 
proposing a new section to Sec. 263.21(b) to clarify the transporter's 
responsibilities for both ``undeliverable'' waste and ``rejected loads. 
This proposal would also clarify the procedures to be followed by the 
rejecting designated facility in connection with noting the rejection 
on the original manifest, and preparing a new manifest to direct the 
rejected shipment on to its next destination.

2. What Is EPA Proposing Related to Residues and Rejected Loads?

    EPA proposes to improve the tracking of these hazardous waste 
shipments by adding new data elements on the manifest form for 
identifying rejected wastes and residues, and by clarifying the 
requirements and procedures for tracking these wastes with the 
manifest. The proposed rule addresses both the manifest procedures that 
would track rejected wastes and residues to alternative facilities, as 
well as the procedures for dealing with the rare occasions when a 
facility must return rejected wastes or container residues to the 
generator. In all such cases, the new regulations would require 
facilities to note information about the rejected waste or regulated 
residue on the original manifest, to sign the original manifest 
certification, and to issue a new manifest to continue the shipment of 
the rejected load or residue to another off-site destination. EPA is 
proposing to modify the discrepancy block on the manifest to provide 
more explicit tracking features for regulated residues and rejected 
wastes. Space would be provided to identify the material affected by 
the discrepancy and the reason for the discrepancy. In addition, the 
facility would cross-reference the manifest tracking number for the new 
shipment on a space provided for this purpose on the discrepancy block 
of the original manifest. On the new manifest, the facility would also 
reference the ``old'' manifest tracking number in the Special Handling 
Block. The discrepancy space and facility certification on the new 
manifest would be reserved for use by the next facility, if necessary 
(e.g., if the shipment is rejected a second time).

3. To Whom Do These New Requirements Apply?

    The new requirements apply to you if you are:
     A ``designated facility'' that cannot completely ``empty'' 
a container to ``RCRA empty'' standards in Sec. 261.7(a); and
     A TSDF or a hazardous waste recycler who must reject a 
shipment of hazardous waste, in full or in part; and

[[Page 28261]]

     A generator who must receive a returned shipment of a 
residue or rejected load when there is no alternate facility to which 
it may be sent.

4. Where Would the Proposed Requirements for Tracking Rejected Wastes 
and Residues Be Codified?

    Today's proposal would result in modifications to several existing 
regulatory provisions. First, the proposal would modify 40 CFR 264.71 
and 264.72 (40 CFR 265.71 and 265.72 for interim status facilities) so 
that these provisions provide more explicit requirements for tracking 
rejected wastes and regulated container residues. The proposal would 
accomplish this by clarifying in Sec. 264.71(a) that a facility must 
sign the facility owner or operator certification on the manifest for 
both waste receipts and waste rejections. EPA emphasizes that the 
facility certification attests to the receipt of the hazardous wastes 
described on the manifest, except as noted in the discrepancy space. 
This proposal would clarify that residues and rejected wastes, 
including full or partial load rejections, are discrepancies to be 
reported on the discrepancy space. So, facilities would be required to 
sign the owner or operator certification on every manifest relating to 
shipments brought to a facility for delivery, either to acknowledge 
receipt of all the materials on the manifest, or to acknowledge that 
those materials identified in the discrepancy space (including rejected 
wastes and residues) were not received for management at the facility.
    The proposal would modify Sec. 264.72 (Sec. 265.72 for interim 
status facilities) to reflect the changes proposed to the discrepancy 
space of the manifest form. The form would be revised to include new 
data fields in the discrepancy space to track rejected wastes and 
residues. So, Sec. 264.72(a) would be revised to clarify that the scope 
of the term ``manifest discrepancies'' would be broadened to include 
not only the significant differences in waste quantities or types that 
are the subject of the current discrepancy regulation, but also 
rejected wastes and regulated container residues. The current 
regulation's requirements for identifying, reconciling, and reporting 
``significant discrepancies'' would be retained in proposed 
Sec. 264.72(b) and (c), which would address these as ``significant 
differences'' in quantity or in type of wastes. The procedures for 
addressing rejected wastes or regulated container residues as manifest 
discrepancies would appear in new Sec. 264.72(d) and (e) for permitted 
facilities, and in new Sec. 265.72(d) and (e) for interim status 
facilities. For those instances where an alternative facility is not 
available to receive a rejected waste or residue shipment, proposed 
Secs. 264.72(f) and 265.72(f) would add procedure governing the return 
of these wastes to generators. These procedures are discussed below in 
greater detail.
    EPA is also proposing to amend 40 CFR 263.21(b), to add language 
clarifying the distinction between the transporter responsibilities for 
``undeliverable'' wastes that are not deliverable because of 
emergencies that prevent delivery, and for rejected wastes. As we 
discussed above, EPA would retain as Sec. 263.21(b)(1) the existing 
transporter requirements that apply to shipments that cannot be 
delivered because of an emergency, e.g., a strike, fire, or similar 
emergency event which closes the designated facility's or next 
transporter's operations or which otherwise precludes the transporter 
from delivering the waste. In such emergency cases, the transporter 
that cannot deliver the waste shipment to the designated facility, 
alternate designated facility, or next designated transporter, would 
still be required to contact the generator for further directions and 
to revise the manifest according to the generator's instructions. EPA 
is not reconsidering, reopening, or requesting comment on these 
existing requirements. The proposal would merely recodify this existing 
provision at Sec. 263.21(b)(1).
    Proposed Sec. 263.21(b)(2) would specifically address transporters' 
responsibilities respecting rejected wastes. Transporters would be 
required under this proposal to obtain the facility owner's or 
operator's signed and dated certification on the manifest identifying 
the rejection. The transporter would also be required to retain one 
copy of this manifest, and to give any remaining copies of the manifest 
to the rejecting TSDF, so that they could be processed in accordance 
with the new procedures proposed for facilities rejecting wastes at 
Sec. 264.71, 72.

5. Why Is EPA Proposing These Changes?

    EPA is proposing these changes in response to stakeholder 
recommendations made during the prior Negotiated Rulemaking and an 
audit conducted by EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) in 1995. In 
the final agreement for the RCRA Manifest Regulatory Negotiation, 
several recommendations related to residues and rejected loads were 
made. For residues, the committee recommended that residues in cargo 
tanks and tank cars that are not RCRA-empty should be manifested as 
partially rejected loads by the facility that received the shipment. 
For rejected loads, the committee came up with different 
recommendations depending on whether the rejected load was rejected in 
full or in part, and whether the TSDF had signed the manifest or not. 
Generally, the committee recommended that rejections be noted in the 
discrepancy box, that rejected waste should in some instances be 
allowed to be returned to the generator, and that the generator should 
be involved in the decisions on where rejected wastes should be sent.
    The OIG's audit identified several areas where the Agency could 
make changes to improve the manifest system so that the manifest system 
provides generators, EPA, or the states with the means to track 
hazardous waste shipments to their final destinations. The OIG audit 
provided two specific recommendations related to residues and rejected 
loads: (1) Require that original generators and manifest numbers be 
referenced on any new manifests created for reshipments of hazardous 
waste, and (2) ensure that generators be consulted when partial or full 
loads of hazardous wastes are rejected or when hazardous wastes remain 
in ``non-empty'' containers. EPA believes the changes suggested by the 
Negotiated Rulemaking stakeholders and the OIG would improve hazardous 
waste tracking. Specific reasons for making changes in these areas are 
discussed below.
Problems With Hazardous Waste Residues Left in Containers
    Hazardous waste residues are sometimes left in containers such as 
drums and in vehicles such as tanker trucks or box cars after the waste 
has been removed from the containers by the designated facility. This 
can at times represent a significant amount of material. For example, a 
6,000 gallon tank trunk that is emptied just to the 0.3% threshold for 
``empty'' would still contain about 20 gallons of hazardous waste. 
Under current regulations, a hazardous waste container is considered 
``empty,'' only if the waste has been removed so that no more than 2.5 
centimeters (1 inch) of the waste (or 3% of the waste in containers of 
less than or equal to 110 gallons (see discussion regarding ``bulk'' 
packaging in Section IV.C), or 0.3% of the waste in containers greater 
than 110 gallons) remains in the container and all waste that can be 
removed by commonly employed practices has been removed. Containers 
holding acute hazardous wastes must be triple rinsed. Acute hazardous 
wastes are those waste that are considered

[[Page 28262]]

highly toxic by EPA and are given the hazard code ``H'' in the 
hazardous waste lists at 40 CFR 261.31 and 40 CFR 261.33 (i.e., all P-
listed wastes and certain F-listed wastes).
    When a facility cannot thoroughly clean the container, and is 
unable to manage the container properly, it must send the ``RCRA-
regulated'' container to an alternate facility. Current regulations do 
not clearly define the appropriate manifest procedures for such a 
situation--i.e., it is unclear whether the facility should contact the 
generator and whether the original manifest, or a new manifest, is 
required to accompany the shipment to the next facility. States have 
developed different approaches to dealing with these situations. As a 
result, these shipments can impose significant burdens on facilities in 
terms of consulting with state regulatory authorities and sorting out 
applicable procedures. Also, a facility might complete a new manifest 
for the shipment to the alternate facility without consulting with the 
generator of the shipment. The generator might only receive the signed 
manifest returned by the first facility, but may not receive a copy of 
the second manifest indicating the ultimate disposition of the 
regulated container and residue. Thus, the generator may be left 
unaware of the final disposition of the hazardous waste. When this 
occurs, one of the main purposes of the manifest--to assist regulated 
entities and regulatory authorities in tracking hazardous waste from 
``cradle to grave''--is impaired because there is no systematic 
approach for linking information about the second shipment to the 
original manifest and generator. The current regulations require only 
that the facility shipping the waste residues to the next destination 
facility be apprised of the disposition of the waste; the original 
generator is not in the loop for obtaining such information.
    The changes to the manifest form and procedures proposed here would 
ensure that hazardous waste generators are informed of and involved in 
decisions concerning the ultimate disposition of their hazardous waste, 
so that regulated quantities of hazardous waste residues can be tracked 
from the original generating site to the site of ultimate disposition.
Problems With Rejected Loads
    In most situations involving off-site transportation of hazardous 
waste, the hazardous waste shipment arrives at the designated facility 
without incident and is accepted and ultimately is managed at the 
designated facility. However, on rare occasions, the owner or operator 
of the designated facility cannot accept a waste shipment. For example, 
the TSDF might require the waste have a certain British Thermal Units 
(BTU) level in order to accept the waste for treatment. If the shipment 
of waste does not have the required BTU level, the TSDF might reject 
the waste shipment. Other reasons why a TSDF may not accept a hazardous 
waste shipment vary, but may include capacity restrictions at the time 
the waste arrives, equipment failure, or other unanticipated 
situations. The designated facility may reject a load at the time it 
arrives at the facility. The designated facility may also reject a load 
after it has signed the manifest and accepted delivery of the waste 
shipment, because current regulations allow the facility to sign for 
receipt of the waste and then test the waste at a later time and reject 
it if necessary. Current regulations do not clearly define the 
appropriate manifest procedures for either situation. As with container 
residues, it is unclear whether the facility should contact the 
generator and whether the original manifest, or a new manifest, is 
required to accompany the shipment to the next facility. In current 
practice, if the facility rejects all or part of a load after having 
already signed the original manifest, it may prepare a new manifest for 
the rejected waste and send it to an alternate facility without 
consulting with the generator. Thus, the original generator may be left 
unaware of the final disposition of its hazardous waste, because there 
is currently no consistent approach followed for tracking these 
shipments and linking the second shipment to the original manifest and 
generator. The changes to the manifest form and procedures proposed 
here would also ensure that hazardous waste generators are involved in 
decisions concerning the ultimate disposition of their hazardous waste 
and that rejected wastes can be tracked from the generating site to the 
site of ultimate disposition.

6. How Long Does the TSDF Have To Accept or Reject the Hazardous Waste 
Shipment?

    While EPA does not intend that a TSDF must test the waste before 
signing the manifest, EPA expects that TSDFs would use good business 
practices and make a determination within a reasonable time whether to 
accept or reject all or part of a hazardous waste shipment. 
Additionally, EPA recognizes that some loads may be rejected after the 
designated facility has signed the manifest and taken delivery of the 
waste. The Agency recognizes that the facility's signature on the 
facility certification of receipt reflects the facts known to the 
facility at that time, and does not always mean that the TSDF has 
finally accepted the waste for treatment, storage or disposal.

7. Who Is Responsible for Deciding Where To Send a Residue or Load 
Rejected by the TSDF?

    Because a hazardous waste generator has the most knowledge about 
its waste and is typically responsible for decisions about the 
disposition of its hazardous waste, EPA believes it is appropriate to 
require that the designated facility must contact the generator for his 
or her decision about the next destination for a rejected load or 
residue. This approach is consistent with the current manifest system, 
which generally places the burden on hazardous waste generators to 
ensure that hazardous waste shipments arrive at their proper 
destinations. See, e.g., 40 CFR 262.42 regarding ``exception reports.''
    As part of obtaining the generator's decision, the facility should 
also work out with the generator how the waste should be transported to 
the next facility and who should be listed as the transporter on the 
new manifest. If it is not possible to locate in a timely manner an 
alternative facility that can promptly receive the waste, then the 
generator may instruct the facility to transport the hazardous waste 
shipment back to the generator. EPA expects that shipments would be 
returned to generators only on very rare occasions. The rejecting 
facility, in consultation with the generator, would first have to 
attempt to locate another facility that can appropriately manage the 
waste before resorting to a return shipment to the generator.
    The facility rejecting hazardous wastes must ensure that secure 
custody of the hazardous waste is maintained while arrangements are 
being made to forward the waste to another facility. In many such 
situations, EPA expects that the transporter who attempted to deliver 
the rejected wastes would simply remain at the facility's premises and 
retain custody of the rejected waste until transportation resumes under 
the new arrangements made by the facility and generator. The 
transporter may assist the facility with the arrangements made for 
forwarding the rejected waste and preparing it for transportation. In 
those situations, however, where the delivering transporter does not 
remain on the facility's premises, the rejecting facility must take 
temporary custody of the waste, and hold it at a secure location until 
transportation of the waste continues under the new manifest.

[[Page 28263]]

8. Must TSDFs Who Reject Waste or Who Have a Regulated Residue Prepare 
a New Manifest For the Shipment to the Alternative Facility?

    Yes. Today's rule clarifies that a TSDF who either rejects 
hazardous waste or has a regulated residue that must be sent off-site 
must prepare a new manifest for the shipment to the alternate facility. 
This clarifies conflicting policies that have arisen under the existing 
regulations. For example, differing policies have been followed in the 
past, based on distinctions between fully rejected loads and partially 
rejected loads, or on distinctions between rejections that occur at the 
time of attempted delivery of a shipment and those that occur after the 
original manifest was signed. In some instances, current policies 
allowed the original manifest to be amended, while in other instances, 
the policies suggested that a new manifest should be prepared. The work 
group developing today's proposal concluded that existing policies in 
this area were conflicting and very confusing. The work group 
recommended that one consistent approach should govern all rejected 
waste and residue shipments. Therefore, EPA is today proposing that a 
new manifest must be prepared in all cases involving a rejected waste 
or a residue shipment. The designated facility must in all cases close 
out the original manifest by noting the rejection or the regulated 
residue, and then prepare a new manifest to send the rejected waste or 
residue shipment to the alternate facility.
    The designated facility would be required to: (1) Check the 
rejected load or residue box in the discrepancy block of the original 
manifest; (2) sign the facility certification on the original manifest 
to certify that the waste shipment was received except as noted (i.e., 
the rejected waste or residue) in the discrepancy block; (3) write the 
manifest tracking number of the new manifest on the space provided for 
this purpose in the discrepancy block of the original manifest; and (4) 
complete a new manifest for the rejected waste or residue. If the 
facility rejects all or part of a shipment, or discovers regulated 
residues, after the facility has signed and returned the original 
manifest, it would send the generator and delivering transporter an 
amended copy of the original manifest, revised to show the rejected 
waste or residue information in the discrepancy space, and showing a 
new signature certifying to the facts as amended and showing the date 
of the amendment. These amended manifest procedures would be included 
in Sec. 264.72(g) and Sec. 265.72(g) of today's proposal.

9. Whose Facility Information Would Go in the ``Generator'' Block of 
the Manifest?

    Previous policies on tracking rejected loads and residues usually 
required the designated facility with rejected waste or residues to 
identify itself in the generator information block of the manifest for 
the second shipment to the alternate facility. Under this approach, the 
rejecting facility would provide its EPA ID Number in the Generator's 
EPA ID Number field, and provide its name and address information in 
the Generator information fields. When delivering the waste to the 
first transporter, the rejecting facility would also sign the 
Generator's Certification statement. However, this approach continues 
the problem of not keeping the original generator informed of the final 
disposition of its waste. This results because the alternative facility 
named as the designated facility on the second manifest would be 
required under Sec. 264.71(a)(4) to send a copy of the manifest to the 
rejecting facility, and not the actual ``generator'' of the hazardous 
waste, when closing out the second manifest. To avoid this result, EPA 
is today proposing that in those cases where rejected waste is being 
forwarded to an alternate facility, and there has been no change in the 
form of the waste--i.e., the first designated facility performs no 
treatment and does little more than hold the waste (or repackage it) 
temporarily so that it may continue in transportation--then the 
original generator must be identified in the generator information 
block on the new manifest. As long as the form of the waste has not 
changed and the waste still carries the same DOT shipping descriptions 
that it carried when it was brought to the rejecting facility's site, a 
new waste has not been generated by the rejecting designated facility. 
The designated facility must, of course, consult with the generator, 
and once authorized by the generator to ship the rejected wastes or 
residues to another facility, the rejecting facility would sign the 
generator's certification to indicate that it has offered the hazardous 
waste in transportation.
    If, however, the designated facility has treated the waste or 
otherwise managed the waste in such a way as to change its form, change 
the applicable DOT description for the waste, or generate a new waste, 
then this procedure would not apply to the second shipment. Instead, 
the designated facility would be identified on the manifest (Items 1 
and 4) as the generator, and would sign the generator's certification 
in its capacity as a waste generator shipping its waste off-site.
    In those instances where the designated facility must return a 
rejected waste or regulated residue to the generator, the proposal 
would not require the designated facility to list the actual 
generator's information in Items 1 and 4 of the manifest. In such 
instances, the proposal would require the designated facility to 
identify itself in the generator information section on the new 
manifest of the return shipment to the generator. This modification is 
important in order to ensure that the return shipment back to the 
initial generator can be verified. Under current RCRA requirements, the 
entity initiating the shipment of hazardous waste (typically the actual 
generator) is responsible for confirming that the shipment is received 
by the designated facility (see, 40 CFR 262.42). Thus, if the actual 
generator were to be identified on the new manifest as both the 
generator and the destination facility, the rejecting facility would 
not be able to verify that the waste was indeed received by the actual 
generator. By identifying the designated facility in the generator 
information section on the new manifest for the return shipment, the 
designated facility would be in a position to verify that the generator 
received the return shipment, or, file an exception report if 
verification is not received in a timely manner.
    Under RCRA regulations, a RCRA ``generator'' is defined as a person 
whose act or process produces a hazardous waste, or whose act first 
causes the waste to be subject to regulation. See 40 CFR 260.10. In the 
great majority of cases, the person completing the manifest and signing 
the generator's certification statement is in fact a RCRA ``generator'' 
who produced the hazardous waste undergoing transportation. There are 
times, however, when our Subtitle C regulations require persons other 
than generators to prepare hazardous waste shipments for 
transportation. For example, a new manifest must be prepared in cases 
where a permitted storage facility consolidates wastes from various 
incoming shipments and later ships the consolidated wastes under a new 
manifest to another facility, or, when a hazardous waste transporter 
mixes wastes of different DOT descriptions in a single container. In 
each of these situations, the consolidating TSDF or transporter is 
responsible for a limited set of what are typically generator 
responsibilities, including preparing a manifest for the

[[Page 28264]]

shipment. These entities are not considered to be RCRA ``generators'' 
(e.g., their processes do not produce the waste), but they may need to 
complete a new manifest and sign the generator's certification 
statement in the course of discharging their responsibilities and 
offering the waste in transportation.
    Similarly, today's proposal would clarify the requirements that 
designated facilities must follow when preparing a new manifest in 
order to offer rejected wastes or regulated residues in transportation. 
When a designated facility prepares a rejected waste or residue 
shipment for off-site transportation under these procedures, it would 
not assume under this proposal the role or general responsibilities of 
a RCRA ``generator.'' Rather, the rejecting facility would be 
responsible for a limited set of generator responsibilities, including 
the preparation of the new manifest in accordance with 40 CFR Part 262, 
Subpart B, and ensuring that the waste is properly packaged, marked and 
labeled in accordance with the current provisions (40 CFR 262.30-33) 
prescribing pre-transportation requirements that apply to hazardous 
wastes offered in transportation. Today's proposal would thus clarify 
how the generator information blocks (Items 1 and 4) and the 
generator's certification would be completed by a facility shipping 
these types of wastes.
    First, in every case where a designated facility offers rejected 
waste or regulated residues in transportation, the facility must sign 
the generator's certification statement. This certification statement 
includes the ``shipper's certification'' language certifying that the 
shipment has been described accurately and prepared properly in all 
respects for transportation in accordance with national and 
international laws. The designated facility offering rejected wastes or 
residues in transportation is responsible for ensuring that the pre-
transportation requirements have been complied with, and must certify 
to their proper execution as a final step in preparing the manifest and 
offering the wastes in transportation. While the generator's 
certification statement also includes a waste minimization 
certification, designated facilities that are not in fact RCRA 
``generators'' of the waste being shipped would not be bound by the 
waste minimization statements when they sign the generator's 
certification statement.
    Second, on every new manifest prepared by a designated facility for 
a rejected waste or residue shipment, the appropriate entity to receive 
back a copy of the manifest from the next designated facility must be 
identified in the generator information blocks (Items 1 and 4) of the 
manifest. For waste sent to an alternate facility, that entity would be 
the actual generator of the hazardous waste, and for waste sent back to 
the generator it would be the designated facility rejecting the waste. 
For rejected waste or residue shipments being forwarded to an alternate 
facility, EPA believes that the generator of the initial shipment 
should receive a copy of the new manifest from the alternative facility 
so that the generator would be informed of the fate of these wastes. 
For shipments being returned to the generator, EPA believes that the 
rejecting designated facility is the appropriate entity to be 
identified in Items 1 and 4 of the new manifest, so that the rejecting 
facility can verify the receipt of the returned shipment by the initial 
generator named as the designated facility on the new manifest. In this 
latter situation, EPA's goal of ensuring that the generator is informed 
of the ultimate disposition of its hazardous waste would be met because 
the generator would actually be receiving back its hazardous waste 
shipment. However, the generator is not in the ideal position to verify 
receipt of the shipment. Consistent with the current manifest 
requirements (e.g., 40 CFR 262.42), EPA would prefer that a party other 
than the party to whom the waste is being shipped be responsible for 
verifying receipt of the shipment. Thus, the proposal would require the 
rejecting facility to complete the generator information blocks on the 
new manifest. In every case, however, the proposal would require the 
rejecting facility preparing the new manifest to sign the generator's 
certification, as it would be offering the return shipment in 
transportation, and would be responsible for performing the pre-
transportation requirements and certifying to their proper performance.
    EPA requests comment on these proposed procedures for facilities to 
prepare new manifests when forwarding rejected wastes or regulated 
residues to alternate facilities or when returning such wastes to 
generators. EPA believes that TSDFs encountering rejected wastes or 
residues are in the best position to consult with generators on the 
disposition of these wastes, and to prepare the subsequent shipments in 
accordance with the generator's directions. The Agency believes that 
this proposed approach is preferable to requiring the initial generator 
or delivering transporter to complete a new manifest, since this could 
bring about unreasonable delays in shipping the waste to its next 
destination, and result in uncertain management responsibilities while 
arrangements for the next shipment are pending.
    EPA requests comment as well on the proposed approach for 
completing Items 1 and 4 (the generator information) on the new 
manifest and for signing the generator's certification. Is it 
appropriate that the initial generator should be identified as the 
generator on the new manifest for wastes being forwarded to alternate 
facilities? For return shipments to generators, do commenters agree 
with the Agency's conclusion that the interest in tracking receipt of 
the return shipment requires the rejecting TSDF to complete the 
generator information (Items 1 and 4) on the new manifest?
    Under the proposal, the rejecting facility forwarding or returning 
rejected wastes or residue shipments would always sign the generator's 
certification, since EPA believes that this facility would have 
firsthand knowledge of how the new shipment was prepared and would be 
in the best position to certify to these facts. So, the rejecting 
facility offering these wastes in transportation would sign the 
certification in its capacity as the one shipping or offering the 
wastes in transportation, and would be liable in this capacity for the 
truth of the ``shipper's certification'' language included in the 
generator's certification statement. Since the rejecting facility is 
not in fact a RCRA generator, it would not be bound by the waste 
minimization certification language, which applies only to generators 
of hazardous waste. EPA requests comment on whether the proposal 
properly allocates the liability for these pre-transportation acts to 
the rejecting facility.
    Alternatively, EPA could require the rejecting facility to consult 
with the generator on the disposition of the rejected waste, and then 
sign the generator's certification ``on behalf of'' the initial 
generator. The alternative approach would result in the manifest 
otherwise being completed in the same manner (i.e., Items 1 and 4 and 
listing the destination facilities) as under the proposed approach. 
However, by signing the generator's certification ``on behalf of'' the 
initial generator, the generator would be bound by the rejecting 
facility's signature on the certification statement. The rejecting 
facility would sign the certification only as the generator's 
authorized agent, and the facility would not be liable itself for the 
proper execution of the pre-transportation acts included in the 
certification. Does this alternative have more merit than the proposed 
approach, or, is it not fair to hold the generator

[[Page 28265]]

liable for the proper execution of the pre-transportation acts which it 
authorizes the rejecting facility to perform, but cannot really 
supervise from a distance? The Agency requests comment on how best to 
allocate the shipper/offeror responsibilities included in the 
generator's certification between the generator and the rejecting 
facility.

10. What Would You Be Required To Do Under the New Regulations?

Residues Being Sent to an Alternate Facility
    If you are a TSDF or hazardous waste recycler or other designated 
facility who cannot fully empty a container according to 40 CFR 261.7, 
and you are unable to manage the container yourself and have to send a 
container with a residue off-site to an alternate facility, you would 
be required to follow these directions:
     Sign the original manifest acknowledging receipt of the 
waste and identifying the residues in the Discrepancy block of the 
original manifest;
     Contact the generator for a decision about where and how 
to forward the hazardous waste from your facility, and for 
authorization to prepare a new manifest for the shipment;
     Write the generator's name, address and U.S. EPA ID number 
in the generator's name and mailing address box on the new manifest 
(Items 1 and 4);
     Write the name of the alternate designated facility and 
the facility's U.S. EPA ID number in the designated facility block 
(Item 9) of the new manifest;
     Copy the manifest tracking number found in Block A or Item 
3 of the new manifest to the manifest reference number line in the 
Discrepancy Block of the old manifest (Item 20);
     Write the DOT description for the residue in the Item 10 
(U.S. DOT Description) of the new manifest and write the container 
types, quantity, and volume(s) of waste;
     Indicate ``residue waste from Shipment No. * * *'' in the 
Special Handling block of the new manifest; and
     Sign the Generator's Certification to certify, as the 
offeror of the shipment, that the waste has been properly packaged, 
marked and labeled and is in proper condition for transportation.
Residues Being Sent Back to the Generator
    If you are a TSDF or a hazardous waste recycler who cannot fully 
empty a container according to 40 CFR 261.7, and you have to send the 
residue back to the generator, you would be required to follow these 
directions:
     Sign the original manifest acknowledging the waste that 
was received, and noting the residue in the Discrepancy block of the 
manifest;
     Contact the generator for a decision about where and how 
to forward the hazardous waste from your facility;
     Write your name, address and U.S. EPA ID number in the 
generator's name and mailing address box (Items 1 and 4);
     Write the initial generator's name, address and U.S. EPA 
ID number in the designated facility block (Item 9);
     Copy the manifest tracking number found in Block A or Item 
3 of the new manifest to the manifest reference number line in the 
Discrepancy Block of the old manifest (Item 20);
     Write the DOT description for the residue in Item 10 (U.S. 
DOT Description) of the new manifest and write the container types, 
quantity, and volume(s) of waste;
     Indicate ``residue waste from Shipment No. * * *'' in the 
Special Handling Block of the new manifest; and
     Sign the Generator's Certification to certify, as offeror 
of the shipment, that the waste has been properly packaged, marked and 
labeled and is in proper condition for transportation.
Rejected Loads Being Sent to an Alternate TSDF
    If you are a TSDF or a hazardous waste recycler who rejects a load 
and receives instructions from the generator to send the load to an 
alternate TSDF, either in full or in part, you would be required to 
follow these directions:
     Sign the original manifest acknowledging any received 
waste, check the rejection box in the Discrepancy block, and describe 
the quantity and type of rejected waste and the reason for the 
rejection in the description line of the Discrepancy block;
     Contact the generator for forwarding information and for 
authorization to prepare a new manifest for the rejected waste;
     Write the generator's name, address and U.S. EPA ID number 
in the generator's name and mailing address box (Items 1 and 4);
     Write the name of the alternate designated facility and 
the facility's U.S. EPA ID number in the designated facility block 
(Item 9);
     Copy the manifest tracking number found in Block A or Item 
3 of the new manifest to the manifest reference number line in the 
Discrepancy Block of the old manifest (Item 20);
     Write the DOT description for the rejected load in Item 10 
(U.S. DOT Description) of the new manifest and write the container 
types, quantity, and volume(s) of waste.
     Indicate ``rejected waste from Shipment No. * * *'' in the 
Special Handling Block of new manifest;
     Sign the Generator's Certification to certify, as offeror 
of the shipment, that the waste has been properly packaged, marked and 
labeled and is in proper condition for transportation.
Rejected Loads Being Sent Back to the Generator
    If you are a TSDF or a hazardous waste recycler who rejects a load 
and receives instructions to send the load back to the generator, 
either in full or in part, you would be required to follow these 
directions:
     Sign the original manifest acknowledging any received 
waste, check the rejection box in the Discrepancy block, and describe 
the quantity and type of rejected waste and the reason for the 
rejection in the description line of the Discrepancy block;
     Contact the generator for forwarding information;
     Write your name, address and U.S. EPA ID number in the 
generator's name and mailing address box (Items 1 and 4);
     Write the generator's name, address and U.S. EPA ID number 
in the designated facility block (Item 9);
     Copy the manifest tracking number found in Block A or Item 
3 of the new manifest to the manifest reference number line in the 
Discrepancy Block of the old manifest (Item 20);
     Write the DOT description for the rejected load in Item 10 
(U.S. DOT Description) of the new manifest and write the container 
types, quantity, and volume(s) of waste;
     Indicate ``rejected waste from Shipment No. * * *'' in the 
Special Handling Block of the new manifest; and
     Sign the Generator's Certification to certify, as offeror 
of the shipment, that the waste has been properly packaged, marked and 
labeled and is in proper condition for transportation.

11. What Conditions Would Apply to a Rejected Waste or Container 
Residue Shipment Once the Generator Receives It Back From the TSDF?

    A generator would have up to 90 or 180 days (depending on his/her 
SQG or LQG status at the time the generator sent the rejected shipment 
or container residues to the TSDF) to send the rejected shipment or 
container residue to an alternate TSDF. Generators would not be 
required to obtain a RCRA permit for the period of time that the 
returned

[[Page 28266]]

waste is on-site as long as they comply with Sec. 262.34(a) (for 
generators with 1000 kg or more on-site at time the waste is sent) or 
Sec. 262.34(d) (for generators with less than 1000 kg on-site). Because 
EPA intends and expects that hazardous waste would be returned to the 
generator infrequently (only when an alternate facility is 
unavailable), the Agency decided not to propose a new time frame, or 
other requirements, to address these rare occurrences. We believe the 
simplest approach would be for generators to manage rejected wastes and 
residues within the existing framework for on-site accumulation, since 
generators are already set up to handle hazardous waste within 90 or 
180 day time frames, and are familiar with managing waste in accordance 
with the provisions of Sec. 262.34. Please note that small quantity 
generators would not be able to accumulate greater than 6,000 kg of 
hazardous waste on-site at any time. The Agency emphasizes that it is 
not reconsidering, reopening, or requesting comment on the provisions 
of Sec. 262.34.
    In addition, it is important to note that a generator would only be 
allowed to accumulate a rejected load or residue if that hazardous 
waste was originally sent to the designated facility with the 
understanding that the designated facility could accept the waste. In 
other words, this provision only covers generators who sent the 
hazardous waste to the designated facility in good faith. EPA would 
consider a range of factors--e.g., whether a generator has repeatedly 
sent waste off-site to TSDFs, only to have it rejected and returned, or 
whether the generator knew or should have known that the TSDF could not 
accept its waste--in determining whether a given shipment was in good 
faith or a sham.

12. On What Issues Would EPA Like To Receive Comments?

    You are being asked to consider whether these proposed provisions 
for residues and rejected loads would improve hazardous waste tracking 
for these shipments. Specifically, EPA would like comments on the 
following:
     Should EPA require a TSDF to close out the original 
manifest and prepare a new manifest for all instances where waste is 
rejected or a regulated residue requires off-site management? Is it 
desirable to require facilities in all such cases to use the facility 
certification and discrepancy block to positively identify waste 
rejections and the reason for the rejection? Are there instances where 
it is more practical to revise the original manifest rather than 
generate a new manifest. Is there merit to EPA's proposal to follow one 
consistent approach (using a new manifest) for all rejection scenarios?
     Are the procedures clear on how rejecting TSDFs must 
complete the generator information spaces on the new manifest (Items 1 
and 4) and sign the generator's certification? The proposal would have 
the rejecting TSDF responsible for ensuring that the pre-transportation 
requirements are properly performed with respect to rejected wastes and 
container residues. Is this an appropriate allocation of 
responsibility?
     How would transporters be affected by the proposed 
rejected waste and residue procedures? When a waste is rejected at the 
time of attempted delivery, is the transporter or the designated 
facility better suited to contact the generator to obtain instructions 
for forwarding waste to another facility? Would transporters be delayed 
unreasonably by the proposed procedures if they must wait for the 
designated facility to prepare a new manifest?
     What should be the designated facility's responsibility 
for managing rejected waste while it is awaiting shipment to an 
alternative facility?
     Do the proposed procedures for rejected loads and residues 
ensure generator notice and decision-making with respect to the 
disposition of rejected wastes and residues? Do generators want or need 
to be involved in decisions involving such wastes?
     Are the directions clear? If not, how can they be made 
more clear?
     Should a generator be allowed to received his/her own 
rejected shipment or container residues back from a TSDF? If yes, how 
long is reasonable for a generator to hold his/her rejected waste 
before sending it to on to an alternate TSDF? Should EPA allow the 
accumulation clock to run anew (as proposed), or limit the total time 
for accumulation to 90 or 180 days? Note: EPA is not reconsidering or 
requesting comment on the current provisions of Sec. 262.34. We are 
only requesting comment on those provisions as they would apply to the 
accumulation of rejected loads or residues under this proposal.

VII. Automation of the Manifest System

A. Introduction

1. Summary of Today's Electronic Manifest Proposal
    EPA is today proposing to allow waste handlers (generators, 
transporters, and treatment, storage or disposal facilities) the option 
of preparing, transmitting, signing, and storing their manifests 
electronically. EPA believes that electronic manifesting could greatly 
reduce the paperwork burdens of the current system, while improving the 
effectiveness of tracking waste shipments and managing data. In 
addition, in those states that collect manifests and maintain databases 
to track manifest data, the proposal would foster a consistent approach 
for submitting manifest copies electronically to the states. The 
proposal includes standardized electronic data interchange (EDI) 
formats and an Internet Forms format for the electronic manifest. These 
formats should permit the exchange of electronic manifests among waste 
handlers in a manner that ensures the compatibility and 
interoperability of these files. The standardized electronic formats 
should also facilitate the management of manifest data by state 
programs, as the standard formats would minimize the need for manual 
data entry or other time-consuming processing of the data prior to its 
import into the states' tracking databases.
    The manifest automation standards in today's proposed rule include 
3 major components: (1) the proposed EDI and Internet Forms file 
standards for the electronic manifest; (2) a proposed standard for 
electronically signing the manifest with electronic signatures; and (3) 
a proposed set of computer security standards for computer systems that 
would create, process, and store electronic manifest records. EPA 
believes that standards in these 3 areas are essential to the 
successful implementation of an automated manifest.
    In addition to proposing the electronic manifest standards 
summarized above, this proposed rule would eliminate impediments to an 
electronic system in the current regulations. Thus, explicit references 
in the current regulations to the use of specific paper forms and the 
use of ``by hand'' signatures would be amended to allow for their 
electronic equivalents. Likewise, regulatory provisions that now 
require all manifest copies to be physically carried with the waste 
shipment would be expanded to allow manifest copies to be transmitted 
electronically. Moreover, the current record retention requirements 
would be amended to clarify that the storage and use of electronic 
records bearing the required electronic signatures would have the same 
legal effect under RCRA as retaining and using paper copies signed with 
conventional pen-and-ink signatures. Generally, RCRA regulations 
require that manifest records be retained for three years from the date 
of a

[[Page 28267]]

shipment, but in many cases, facilities may retain these records 
indefinitely in order to address potential liabilities for future site 
cleanups.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing These Changes?
    EPA is proposing an electronic approach for manifesting hazardous 
waste, because the Agency believes that information technologies 
present tremendous potential for reducing the significant paperwork 
burdens of the current manifest system. EPA's Regulatory Impact 
Analysis for this rulemaking estimates that the current manifest system 
imposes a total paperwork burden on waste handlers and States of more 
than 4.6 million hours annually, and results in costs of more than $193 
million. We discuss the potential burden reduction from the electronic 
manifest later in this preamble section (see heading 5). We also 
believe that electronic manifests would give rise to the exchange of 
higher quality manifest data, and to more timely and efficient access 
to this data. Data would be of a higher quality, because the direct 
import of waste shipment and receipt data between electronic manifests 
and facilities' and states' data bases would give rise to fewer data 
transposition and interpretation errors than occur now when manifest 
data must be manually processed from paper forms. As a result, both the 
tracking of hazardous waste shipments by waste handlers and the 
management of state hazardous waste programs should be more effective.
    Further, this action is consistent with the requirements of the 
Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA). GPEA generally mandates 
that agencies accept, by October 2003, electronic documents and 
electronic signatures for the transactions that agencies conduct with 
the public and with regulated parties.
    While the transition to fully electronic systems would take some 
time to implement, the Agency is motivated by a desire to transform the 
manifest system quite dramatically from its current paper-based 
approach to one that supports paperless manifest completion and 
transmission. The Agency further desires to establish an ``open'' or 
non-proprietary set of standards that would allow the information 
technology community broad latitude to develop innovative hardware and 
software solutions. We believe that our proposed approach to manifest 
automation would allow electronic options to develop for both large and 
small facilities, so that many may benefit from the greater 
efficiencies available with an electronic system. EPA emphasizes, of 
course, that the electronic manifest would be an option available to 
those who wish to use it; it is not the Agency's intent to mandate its 
use. Those entities that are more comfortable with the paper form would 
still be able to obtain and use the paper manifest form to track their 
hazardous waste shipments.
    This approach is consistent with EPA's efforts across all its 
environmental programs to promote the adoption of electronic reporting, 
and to ensure implementation in a consistent manner that is compatible 
with current practices in the private sector. EPA is evaluating all of 
its programs for regulatory and procedural barriers to the use of 
electronic records and reports. Thus, this proposal aims at both 
eliminating impediments to an electronic manifest in the current 
regulations, and at developing standards that would promote consistent 
and widespread implementation of an electronic waste tracking system.
3. Who Would Be Affected by These Changes?
    EPA anticipates that the electronic manifest would affect all types 
of hazardous waste handlers, including large and small quantity 
generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal 
facilities (TSDFs). State hazardous waste agencies that collect 
manifests would also see a large impact on the procedures and resources 
they use to process manifest copies and enter manifest data into their 
tracking systems. Currently, about 24 states collect manifests and 
track this data. States and waste handlers have also expressed support 
for using electronic manifest data for preparing more easily their 
submissions to EPA's Biennial Reporting System.
    The Agency developed this proposal to ensure that electronic 
manifesting would be accessible to all types of waste handlers. For 
example, large generators and TSDFs may find it convenient and 
economical to extend EDI systems that may already be in place for 
financial/purchasing information to their waste management departments. 
These larger facilities may adopt a traditional EDI model that involves 
transmitting the standard EDI formats across secure Value Added 
Networks or VANs, or choose to deploy a non-traditional EDI model which 
uses secure E-mail technology or Secure Socket Layer (SSL) 
transmissions to pass EDI transaction sets over the Internet. Mid-sized 
firms and some small entities may find it more practical to implement 
the electronic manifest as a web form which they access and complete 
while connected to the Internet. Finally, this proposed approach should 
also be accessible to many other small generators, who would not 
otherwise find it practical or efficient to obtain or use their own 
computer equipment to transmit only a handful of manifests. The 
proposed rule would clarify that, as with the existing paper manifest 
system, a generator may authorize another person (e.g., a contractor, 
transporter or TSDF) to complete and sign the manifest on the 
generator's behalf. Alternatively, transporter personnel picking up 
shipments could use remote, portable devices to obtain a generator's 
electronic signature on an electronic manifest.
4. What Manifest Automation Is Already Occurring?
    Existing efforts to automate the manifest can be characterized as 
limited and uncoordinated. For example, at the ``front end'' of the 
manifest system, a variety of customized as well as commercial software 
products are in place or available to assist generators in tracking 
their hazardous materials and hazardous waste inventories. Several of 
these products support the automated preparation of manifests, and the 
development of manifest templates to be completed in connection with 
commonly encountered waste streams and shipment profiles. However, 
consistent with current manifest requirements, these products generate 
a manifest document which must be printed and signed, and the paper 
copies then travel with the shipment in the conventional manner. So, 
any paperwork burden reduction achievable now is limited primarily to 
the manifest preparation effort.
    Similarly, at the ``back end'' of the manifest system, several 
states have encouraged their higher volume reporting facilities to 
submit manifest copies to states in electronic formats. Several states 
have specified ``flat file'' standards which are peculiar to each 
state's database platform and structure, and which define the content 
fields for each data element in a record strictly according to its 
physical position in the file. Other states have attempted to use 
scanners and optical character recognition (OCR) technology to convert 
paper copies they receive to electronic files that can then be more 
readily manipulated. More recently, a few states have tried in the past 
to establish pilot programs allowing their larger waste facilities to 
submit electronic copies using an EDI approach. These initial pilots 
were hampered by certain regulatory impediments to a complete

[[Page 28268]]

electronic manifest system, and by the small volume of manifests 
involved, which did not justify investment by waste handlers or state 
agencies in EDI software and infrastructure.
    These limited efforts to date at reporting manifest data 
electronically have primarily benefitted the state agency receiving the 
data, by eliminating the resource intensive process of manually re-
keying the data from the forms to the tracking system. While these 
initial efforts have led to some modest improvements in preparing and 
processing manifests, they have not been sufficiently comprehensive in 
their scope nor coordinated enough to bring about more meaningful 
paperwork burden and cost reductions. A preferred approach would be one 
that would enable a manifest to be initiated electronically, 
transmitted and signed electronically, stored electronically, and where 
necessary, reported to states electronically, without the need to 
convert between paper and electronic formats. This approach would be 
more effective, because it would eliminate (with minor exceptions) the 
inefficiency of maintaining both paper and electronic copies for the 
same shipments, and it would eliminate the manual and burden-intensive 
processes needed to convert between paper and electronic formats. In 
addition, if a standard electronic file format were specified as part 
of this approach, the regulated community could avoid a situation where 
they would be required to support multiple file formats prescribed by 
the various states. Thus, this proposal aims at establishing standards 
for electronic manifesting that could extend to nearly all aspects of 
the manifest cycle. This proposal would not, however, affect DOT's 
shipping paper requirements, including the requirement that a paper 
copy of the manifest or a shipping paper be carried on the transport 
vehicle. In other limited instances (e.g., a transporter unable to 
participate in an electronic system), additional paper copies might 
also be necessary. However, the proposal would promote as far as 
possible the elimination of paper manifest copies and their related 
paperwork burdens.
5. How Much Reduction in Burden and Cost Would Be Achieved by 
Automation?
    EPA's analysis suggests that automation of manifest activities 
would reduce paperwork burdens substantially among all waste handlers. 
The baseline paperwork burden imposed on waste handlers from all 
current Federal and State requirements is estimated to exceed 4.4 
million burden hours annually. These Federal and State requirements 
impose compliance costs on waste handlers exceeding $187 million per 
year. The Regulatory Impact Analysis for this proposal suggests that 
the reduction in waste handler burden from the electronic manifest 
would range between 488,000 hours and 938,000 hours annually, assuming 
that all States would eventually recognize the validity of electronic 
manifests. This reduction in burden hours from automation is expected 
to account for between 69% and 82% of the total savings expected from 
all the manifest system revisions proposed today. In terms of cost 
reductions, EPA projects that manifest automation could produce between 
$14.4 million and $26.6 million in cost savings to waste handlers.
    In addition, among the States that collect manifest copies and 
track manifest data, EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis estimates that 
these States collectively incur about 200,000 burden hours each year as 
a result of processing manifests. We further estimate that the 
submission of electronic copies in standardized electronic formats 
could reduce these states' manifest processing burden by as much as 
79,000 annual hours. Overall, states could realize a cost reduction of 
about $1.5 million (roughly 25% of current costs) annually in operating 
their manifest programs, because of reduced data processing costs. 
Initially, these cost reductions would be offset somewhat by costs 
which the states would incur as they establish the capability to 
receive inbound electronic manifests, revise their data bases to 
reflect the proposed form revisions, and map the electronic documents 
to their particular information systems.
6. What Other Benefits Would Result From an Electronic Manifest System?
    In addition to the significant paperwork burden and cost reductions 
summarized above, EPA believes that a successful implementation of an 
electronic manifest system would produce other benefits for waste 
handlers and state oversight agencies. First, waste handlers could 
determine in nearly ``real time'' the status of their waste shipments. 
A generator could receive nearly immediate electronic confirmation of 
the receipt of their waste at the designated waste management facility, 
rather than waiting a month or more (as the current regulations allow) 
for a written confirmation to arrive in the mail. This could afford 
waste shippers a level of tracking service that is similar to that 
already available from commercial package delivery services. This level 
of tracking is not available under the current paper-based system, 
which assumes that clerical staff would need several days or weeks to 
review, mail, and respond to paperwork related to their hazardous waste 
shipments.
    Second, both waste handlers and state agencies could receive more 
immediate notice of problems that arise during the transportation of a 
waste shipment. TSDFs could report to generators any significant 
discrepancies in waste types or amounts or rejected loads within 
moments of discovering the problem. Likewise, generators would be 
likely to spot and try to reconcile ``exceptions'' (occasions when a 
signed manifest confirming receipt of a shipment by the TSDF is 
overdue) more quickly than is possible under the current paper-based 
system, which requires a generator to wait for 35 days to pass before 
inquiring about the status of a shipment for which written confirmation 
of receipt is lacking. The current system delays notification of 
discrepancies and exceptions, because it loads into the notification 
process the time needed for facility personnel to review their paper 
files and then mail verifications or other notices to generators. 
Conceivably, an electronic system would allow this information to be 
transmitted at or near the time the problem was discovered (i.e., at 
the time the manifest was signed by a TSDF's receiving personnel), 
rather than waiting for clerical staff to catch up with several days or 
weeks of accumulated paperwork.
    Third, the proposal should produce higher quality manifest data, 
since there would be fewer data entry steps that would otherwise invite 
errors from data interpretation or transposition. State personnel and 
waste handlers receiving electronic copies would not be as likely to be 
confronted with illegible manifests, which occur with some frequency 
with handwritten manifests and carbon copies that do not print clearly. 
Since electronic forms could be entered into state tracking systems 
upon receipt at the state agency, access to this data would also be 
more timely. Many states have advised us that it may take several weeks 
or even months for data entry personnel to enter data from paper forms 
into their tracking systems. Therefore, reports generated from 
electronic systems would be based on more accurate and up-to-date 
information, and fewer resources would be required to manage the data.
    Fourth, when fully implemented, enforcement officials could conduct 
electronic record searches that would more efficiently target 
enforcement

[[Page 28269]]

activities. Not only would electronic searches of files more quickly 
focus inspection resources on transactions of interest, but it is 
conceivable that the record inspections could be conducted off-site in 
advance of on-site activities. So, on-site inspection efforts could be 
directed more closely at a discussion of significant issues disclosed 
by the records previously reviewed, rather than exhausting substantial 
time and resources examining file drawers of paper manifests at the 
facility.
7. What Are the Concerns Associated With Automated Systems?
    There are several potential concerns involved with the transition 
to an electronic waste manifest system. An emphasis of this proposed 
rule is to establish requirements for security and data integrity that 
would minimize these problems. EPA has considered each of these 
concerns in the course of developing this proposal, and has attempted 
to address them with appropriate controls. The proposed controls and 
security requirements that deal with each of these concerns are 
discussed in section VII.F. of this preamble. We request your comments 
on these and alternative options to ensure secure transactions, 
accountability, and data integrity.
    a. Inadvertent or deliberate corruption of records. Computer 
software applications manipulate data extremely efficiently, but the 
power of these programs can also pose serious consequences for data 
integrity when problems arise. By accident or by design, an individual 
operating such software could delete or substantially alter their 
files. For example, hundreds of records stored on a hard disk drive or 
on floppy disks can be lost if the operator instructs the operating 
system to format or erase the disk. Also, an original record could be 
mistakenly or purposefully overwritten by a replacement file that is 
stored under the same name. So, safeguards must be established to 
minimize the threat of data loss or corruption. With some digital 
media, data could be altered without leaving the traceable evidence of 
alteration that is commonly found with paper erasures and ``white-
outs.'' Thus, investigators and prosecutors alike are concerned that it 
may be more difficult to detect and prosecute at least some cases of 
computer fraud and forgery. These concerns are balanced, however, by 
the recognition that using properly designed and implemented electronic 
systems for processing data can also reduce the likelihood of data loss 
and the potential for fraud. This results because records can be 
authenticated electronically and more readily stored in multiple 
locations. Today's proposal would include electronic signature 
standards that preclude the alteration of documents after they are 
signed, the requirement of backup copies to deal with accidents or 
disasters that cause electronically stored documents to be lost or 
corrupted, and audit trail requirements to identify the date, time, and 
source of all operator entries that would create or alter a document. 
The digital signature method discussed later in this preamble is one 
effective way to guard against this concern, since digitally signed 
documents are much less (if at all) susceptible to data alterations 
than documents signed with other methods.
    b. Unauthorized access to systems or data. The press has publicized 
broadly tales of ``hackers,'' that is, individuals who have penetrated 
computer systems to conduct theft, sabotage, espionage, or other 
mischief. However, in many instances, the greater threat may be posed 
not by outsiders, but by insiders who should not have been granted 
access to the system. A related risk is the danger that persons who 
create electronic records may rely on the perception that electronic 
systems are vulnerable to unauthorized access to repudiate documents 
they have created. Typically, passwords and personal identification 
numbers (PINs) are employed to control access, and to limit system use 
to those with a need to know the data. Today's proposal would require 
electronic systems to use authority checks to limit system access 
(including access to input or output devices) to authorized persons. 
Electronic systems would need to be designed to detect attempts at 
unauthorized access as well as invalid or altered records.
    c. Limited human involvement and speed with which transactions are 
executed. With an automated system, information can be created and sent 
to the recipient in an instant, perhaps without adequate human 
oversight over data quality. The immediacy and irrevocability of 
electronic transactions thus require much care on the part of users. At 
the same time, computer systems are able to perform automatic quality 
control on transactions quickly, while integrating multiple sources of 
information. So, in many instances, computer systems may detect 
problems or data entry errors far more readily than is possible with 
paper-based systems.
    d. Natural disasters and system failures. Floods, fires, and 
earthquakes can quickly wipe out an information system and all its 
stored records, unless safeguards have been followed and back-up 
systems and records created. Moreover, networks may ``go down,'' and 
system crashes can interrupt electronic systems unless they are 
promptly serviced or backed up with other equipment. On the other hand, 
paper records are susceptible to many of these same problems, 
especially where natural disasters are concerned. Paper records may 
also become useless if they are not indexed or filed properly. Today's 
proposal would require electronic systems to be designed to protect 
records from intentional or accidental damage, and to produce secure 
back-up copies or provide for data recovery in the event of a loss. In 
addition, as with the current paper-based manifest system, electronic 
manifest copies would be sent to multiple entities involved with 
handling the waste or tracking the receipt of waste, including 
generators, transporters, TSDFs, and states. This redundancy in 
distributing manifest copies would provide additional protection 
against loss or undetected data alteration.
    e. Software defects and interoperability issues. Our increasing 
reliance on information technology has given rise to the development 
and use of software applications that are very complex and which are 
frequently updated or replaced. Even software products that have been 
heavily tested and widely distributed have been found to contain hidden 
defects or ``back doors'' that have hindered their use or have allowed 
security features to be overridden. As more products become available 
to support a function, concerns arise about the interoperability of 
different systems and whether data can be exchanged and processed 
consistently. As systems are replaced and upgraded, there is also the 
concern that data that were created by and accessible on the original 
system would not be accessible on the replacement system. All of these 
factors may reduce confidence in the trustworthiness of electronic 
records. Today's proposal addresses these concerns by requiring 
electronic manifest systems to be validated for their consistent 
performance and their interoperability with other systems with which 
data would be exchanged. In addition, the proposal would require 
facilities to retain prior versions of software and hardware as 
necessary to access manifest records throughout their retention period.

[[Page 28270]]

B. EPA's Current Electronic Reporting Policy

1. What Is EPA's Current Electronic Reporting Policy?
    On September 4, 1996, EPA published a ``Notice of Agency's General 
Policy for Accepting Filing of Environmental Reports via Electronic 
Data Interchange (EDI)'' (61 FR 46684). The September 4, 1996 policy 
sets forth the basic approach for EPA to implement EDI for 
environmental reporting. The policy does not mandate the use of EDI; 
rather, it establishes a consistent framework for implementing EDI 
across EPA programs, so that the benefits of EDI may be maximized. The 
policy specifically recognizes that other methods of conducting 
electronic commerce would emerge, and that EDI may not be appropriate 
for all types of facilities and reports.
    EPA first endorsed EDI for environmental reporting in its earlier 
``Policy on Electronic Reporting,'' 55 FR 31030 (July 30, 1990). This 
initial EPA policy statement was intended to promote a uniform Agency 
approach to electronic reporting that was compatible with current 
industry and government practices. The policy advocated a standards-
based approach grounded on the use of American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) Accredited Standards Committee (ASC) X12 standard 
formats and communications protocols for EDI.
    As described in the September 4, 1996 notice, facilities would, 
under certain conditions, be able to submit required reports 
electronically to EPA using EDI. First, the 1996 policy would require 
reporting facilities to enter into a Terms and Conditions Agreement 
with the Agency (61 FR 46684). The Terms and Conditions Agreement 
includes mutual recitals under which the parties recognize the validity 
and enforceability of electronic submissions, and agree not to contest 
their validity. The Agreement also contains provisions dealing with 
when documents are considered to be received, when they should be re-
transmitted, when they must be acknowledged, and when they are 
considered to be signed. Based on EPA's assessment of technology that 
was current in 1996, as well as costs and the level of certainty 
thought to be necessary for authentication of most environmental 
reports, EPA adopted a personal identification number (PIN) based 
approach for signing and certifying electronic reports. Therefore, the 
Generic Terms and Conditions Agreement in the 1996 Policy contains 
provisions dealing with the assignment and management of PINs. The 
Policy defines a PIN as a sequence of alpha-numeric characters, and it 
specifies that the appearance of an individual's PIN on an electronic 
message shall be deemed to indicate the authenticity of the message. 61 
FR 46686. Finally, under the 1996 Policy and its Generic Agreement 
provisions, facilities would be required to adhere to certain security 
and audit/control requirements, including requirements to retain 
transmission logs and PIN records. 61 FR 46687.
    Significantly, the 1996 Policy was not intended to specify all the 
requirements applicable to electronic reporting of a specific 
environmental report. Rather, the 1996 Policy anticipated that program-
specific notices would follow, incorporating the explicit technical EDI 
implementation guidance necessary for a specific program report, as 
well as any additional security or administrative requirements required 
by specific EPA programs. Therefore, today's proposal would provide the 
implementing regulations and specific procedures that authorize the use 
of EDI for the RCRA hazardous waste manifest program. Today's proposal 
also expands on or modifies some provisions of the 1996 EDI Policy as 
it affects the manifest program, reflecting both changes in technology 
and the specific needs of the manifest program.
2. What Is Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)?
    Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) is the transmission, in a 
standard syntax, of unambiguous information between the computers of 
organizations that may be completely external to each other. It thus 
allows for the exchange of information between computer systems that 
would otherwise be incompatible with one another. It has been widely 
used by the private and public sectors for commercial transactions and 
general data transfer, particularly for transactions of a routine or 
repetitive nature. As an ``open systems'' approach to data exchange 
(i.e., data exchange is not limited to entities within a company's own 
system or closed network), EDI is largely independent of specific 
technology environments, so it provides a transparent bridge between 
various hardware and software platforms.
    From aerospace and automobile manufacturing to warehousing and wood 
products, EDI is a dominant form of electronic commerce. In the United 
States, EDI is based on standard formats and protocols developed and 
maintained by an independent organization, the ANSI Accredited 
Standards Committee X12. Supporting these standards are a wide array of 
commercial software packages and communications networks, and there is 
a growing reservoir of industry EDI experts that are available to both 
EPA and the regulated community.
3. How Does EDI Work?
    EDI is essentially a series of computer language translations. If 
two companies agree to exchange data via EDI, each translates their 
outgoing data into a common EDI ``language'' which can be read by the 
EDI translator of the other company. Each company receiving an EDI 
transmission then converts the incoming data from the common EDI 
language into a format that can be read by its computer and used in its 
data base system. Typically, the data transmissions are sent through a 
third party Value Added Network (VAN), and delivered to each company's 
mailbox on the VAN. More recently, some companies have begun to use 
secure E-mail on the Internet as an alternative to using VANs. The EDI 
standard formats, or transaction sets, are non-proprietary, and data 
can be sent or received in the standard format independently of the 
type of software or computer system used by the sender or receiver. 
Unlike a ``flat file'' format, which defines the content fields for 
each data element by its physical position in the file, an EDI 
transaction set is a relational file format, which contains predefined 
tagging structures and well defined hierarchical data file structures. 
The predefined tagging structures specify how the data should be 
formatted so that the EDI software can interpret the specific contexts 
and relationships of the data presented in a file. These tags then 
enable data in EDI files to be defined, transmitted, validated, and 
interpreted between applications and organizations, since the tagging 
structures and the data element relationships defined by the tags are 
understood by all EDI compliant software. The hierarchical data file 
structures are also significant for EDI, because they represent an 
orderly scheme for formatting and organizing related pieces of 
information in a hierarchical manner, that is, in the shape of a 
pyramid, with each row a collection of information that is linked in a 
specific way to the information presented directly beneath it. Once 
users of EDI systems complete the initial installation of EDI software 
and configure it to map the EDI transaction sets used to their specific 
information systems, both senders and receivers are free to use their 
existing information management systems to report, import or manipulate 
data. They are also spared the trouble and expense of having to develop 
and maintain their own

[[Page 28271]]

customized reporting software, or the file standards and communications 
protocols that enable data to be exchanged with others.
4. Why Would EDI Be Suited to an Automated Manifest System?
    EPA believes that an EDI approach to automating the manifest makes 
sense for several reasons. First, the EDI technology is already used 
extensively for the exchange of data in the business arena. Although 
the manifest is not a business transaction, EPA believes that the 
existing expertise and the existing commercial software products and 
networks which support the exchange of business data can be leveraged 
for use with manifest data. Second, the manifest is a high volume, 
recurring transmission for many larger generators and hazardous waste 
handlers. EDI is most appropriately applied to routine and repetitive 
transactions, such as the submission of invoices or health claims 
forms. Third, EDI is a common method for integrating electronic 
reporting with existing information systems. Currently, about 28 states 
maintain manifest tracking databases using different hardware and 
software platforms and database structures. Many waste handlers also 
have developed or purchased information systems which they use to track 
their hazardous wastes and other materials inventories. So, EDI could 
be a sensible way to accommodate the legacy systems already installed 
by industry and the states. Also, because EDI is an ``open systems'' 
approach maintained by an independent standards body, our adoption of 
an EDI standard in this proposal would not give an undue competitive 
advantage to any vendor's particular proprietary product. Further, 
neither EPA nor our authorized states would need to develop and/or 
maintain software products and standards under an EDI-based manifest 
approach.
5. Would a Terms and Conditions Agreement Be Required?
    A major component of the September 1996 Electronic Reporting Policy 
was the requirement that facilities wishing to report electronically to 
EPA enter into a Terms and Conditions Agreement with the Agency. The 
major requirements for electronic reporting programs were to be 
included in this agreement, and the parties to the Agreement would 
agree not to challenge the validity of electronic documents.
    EPA has decided that it is more practical in this rulemaking to 
specify the key terms and conditions for electronic manifesting in 
enforceable regulations rather than require entities to enter into 
Terms and Conditions Agreements. While it may be practical to require 
an agreement between EPA and individual members of the regulated 
community to govern their direct reporting to EPA, these are not the 
circumstances which operate with respect to the manifest. Most 
electronic transfers of manifests would occur between numerous waste 
handlers (i.e., EPA is not involved), and it would be very burdensome 
to require each waste handler to negotiate an agreement with all the 
entities with whom they might exchange manifests. Therefore, a Terms 
and Conditions Agreement would not be required for automated 
manifesting. Key elements of the September 1996 Policy have been 
incorporated into this proposed rule, and the Policy's content on the 
issuance and management of PINs has been replaced in this proposal by 
the proposed requirements for digital signatures and secure digitized 
signatures. Parties establishing electronic manifesting systems may 
require others to agree to terms and conditions on the use of their 
systems, but such contractual matters would not be covered by or 
affected by this proposal.
6. What Alternatives to Traditional EDI Is EPA Considering?
    The Agency is currently evaluating a number of alternative means 
for transmitting manifests electronically. This evaluation is being 
guided not only by the September 4, 1996 policy statement, but also by 
manifest automation pilot tests and other electronic reporting 
initiatives which EPA has supported in recent years. While the 
September 1996 policy was based on a traditional EDI approach involving 
the exchange of ASC X12 transaction sets across a Value Added Network 
by parties subject to Terms and Conditions Agreements, other approaches 
may also be viable and in some cases, more practical than conventional 
EDI conducted across VANs. For those companies using EDI systems, one 
alternative approach might be to offer these firms the option of 
securely transmitting EDI transaction sets using ``E-mail'' and/or File 
Transfer Protocol (FTP) provided through a third party Internet Service 
Provider (ISP), rather than a VAN. The Agency is also particularly 
interested in promoting the use of the Internet for electronic 
manifesting, as this may be a more practical medium for many facilities 
who may not be equipped to engage in traditional EDI. So, EPA is 
examining the merits of an approach under which an electronic manifest 
would be completed as a ``web form,'' and then transmitted in an 
Internet markup language known as the Extensible Markup Language or 
XML. The proposal includes a proposed Document Type Definition format 
for the manifest. Alternatively, ``web form'' manifests might be 
translated to an EDI format by a server hosting EDI translation 
services, and then transmitted as an ASC X12 compliant manifest to 
recipients using Internet data transfer protocols.
    EPA is today proposing both an EDI option and an Internet Forms 
(XML language) option for conducting electronic manifesting. We are 
also interested in taking comments on other approaches that may not be 
described in today's proposal, but which also appear to have merit 
given the purposes and workflow process associated with the manifest. 
The Agency emphasizes, however, that its preferred approach is to rely 
as much as possible on approaches that are based upon open standards, 
rather than those that depend upon specific hardware or software that 
implements proprietary standards.
7. What Are the Manifest Automation Pilots?
    In 1998, EPA began conducting the first of several manifest 
automation pilot tests. The objectives of the pilot are to:
     Demonstrate the feasibility of automating the entire 
manifest cycle, including preparation, transmission and signing of 
copies, recordkeeping, and reporting;
     Demonstrate the feasibility of using EDI and other forms 
of electronic commerce to track waste shipments in a secure and 
practical manner;
     Facilitate the development of automation standards to be 
included in this rulemaking;
     Identify and address impediments to manifest automation; 
and
     Evaluate the savings and costs associated with an 
automated approach.
    The first phase of tests demonstrated an EDI approach involving 
several waste handlers and state hazardous waste agencies in the States 
of Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota. EPA purchased EDI translator 
software and VAN services from Sterling Commerce Corporation, which 
customized its Gentran:SmartformsTM software application to 
incorporate the approved federal convention mapping the ASC X12 
Transaction Set 856 to the federal hazardous waste manifest. The 
software package featured an intuitive user interface and a customized 
data entry template with built-in edit checks and user aids to 
facilitate the preparation of EDI manifests. The 1st phase of tests 
required the 8 industry participants to send numerous manifest 
transmissions

[[Page 28272]]

to other trading partners during the period from July to December 1998. 
Some of these transmissions reflected real hazardous waste shipments, 
while others ``tracked'' simulated events. The tests were planned to 
model a variety of waste shipment events, including waste receipts, 
waste rejections, discrepancies, and intra-and inter-state shipments.
    The 1st phase of tests relied upon PIN numbers to take the place of 
handwritten manifest signatures. A 2nd phase of EDI tests was conducted 
in the Fall of 1999. The 2nd phase of tests integrated the EDI software 
and manifest formats used in the 1st phase pilot with a security 
product named ``SecurECTM'' from Sparta, Inc. The 
SecurECTM product added a digital signature authentication 
method and other security services to make the 1st phase EDI 
configuration compliant with the ASC X12.58 security protocol. A third 
phase of the pilot tests began in March 2000, and demonstrated with 
facilities in New York State, Pennsylvania, and Illinois the 
feasibility of using Internet Forms technology and digitized signatures 
to complete and transmit manifests. As these additional tests are 
completed, EPA would include reports summarizing the results and key 
lessons learned from the pilot in the record for this rulemaking. 
Current information about the Manifest Automation Pilot tests is also 
available on EPA's World Wide Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/gener/manifest/

C. Overview of the Electronic Manifest Proposal

1. What Is Included in Today's Proposal on the Electronic Manifest?
    Today's proposal includes several components which together define 
a framework for automating the hazardous waste manifest. The proposal 
includes several regulatory amendments (summarized below) that would 
eliminate impediments in the existing regulations to an electronic 
manifest. The proposal also would add new provisions that set forth 
standards for the electronic file formats that may be used as 
electronic manifests, standards for electronic signatures, and 
standards for trustworthy electronic systems, including electronic 
record storage.
    The proposed electronic manifest system requirements consist of 
technical standards and computer security controls which EPA believes 
are necessary in order to ensure system trustworthiness and data 
integrity in electronic manifests. These controls are also necessary to 
establish a sufficient foundation for the admissibility of electronic 
manifest data as evidence in civil or criminal proceedings. In 
addition, EPA believes these controls would foster commercial 
acceptance of the electronic manifest as a tool for tracking waste 
shipments.
2. Is Electronic Manifesting Mandatory for Waste Handlers?
    No. Today's proposal would only establish requirements and 
standards for those regulated hazardous waste handlers (i.e., 
generators, transporters, and TSDFs) that elect to transmit manifests 
electronically. It is not the Agency's intention to mandate the use of 
the electronic manifest by waste handlers, and the paper Uniform 
Manifest (Forms 8700-22 and 22-A) would remain available for those 
desiring to complete and transmit their manifests manually. Likewise, 
nothing in this proposal would require waste handlers to report 
manifest copies to their states, if they are not already required to do 
so as a matter of state law.
3. Must Authorized State Programs Adopt Electronic Manifesting?
    Today's proposal would not require States to adopt electronic 
manifest authorities as a part of their authorized RCRA programs. 
However, EPA is still considering whether States should be required to 
adopt such authorities in order to ensure consistency with the Federal 
program and other State programs, and we may include such a requirement 
as part of the final rule. If States elect to adopt the electronic 
manifest option, they would be required to adopt authorities addressing 
the standard electronic formats, the electronic signature standards, 
and the computer security controls described in this section. The State 
implementation issues are discussed further in section IX. of the 
preamble. EPA requests comments on whether specific electronic 
manifesting requirements are necessary components of states' programs, 
and on the potential impacts of such requirements.
4. What Happens if the Transporters of My Hazardous Waste Don't 
Automate?
    EPA recognizes that there may be times when an electronic manifest 
cannot be passed to all the waste handlers involved in a waste 
shipment. Fundamentally, a TSDF must be able to receive and process 
electronic manifests, and either the generator or transporter should 
also have the capability to create or transmit an electronic manifest.
    EPA has established these proposed standards so that generators and 
TSDFs could substantially automate their manifest programs, even if the 
transporters involved with a shipment do not participate in manifest 
automation. So, a generator may still participate in electronic 
manifesting with the designated TSDF receiving the waste shipment, as 
well as any state agencies that elect to collect manifest copies 
electronically. Even if the transporters do not participate 
electronically, the preparation function, recordkeeping and reporting 
functions, and the key function of verifying receipt by the TSDF could 
still be accomplished electronically. In such a case, the transporter 
could provide the generator with a hand-signed copy of the manifest or 
other shipping paper under 49 CFR Part 172, Subpart C, as DOT shipping 
paper requirements would not be affected by this proposal. The 
transporter could retain a hand-signed copy of this paper for its 
files, and the generator could pass an electronic manifest copy 
directly to the TSDF with a notation in the transporter signature block 
that a manual signature is on file. The TSDF could then transmit to the 
generator electronically its verification of receipt, discrepancy 
information, or other response related to the shipment. All the waste 
tracking, signature accountability, record keeping, and emergency 
response functions of the manifest system are preserved by such an 
arrangement, even though a part of the shipment record may consist of a 
signed shipping paper and another part consist of the electronic 
manifest. Where a signed shipping paper is retained as a generator's or 
transporter's record, it must also bear the manifest tracking number 
assigned to the electronic manifest for that shipment, so that the 
shipping paper records can be linked to the manifest in the event 
questions are later raised about the shipment, or in the event of an 
inspection of these records by a RCRA inspector.
5. What Happens if the Generator Is Not Able To Prepare an Electronic 
Manifest?
    While the above discussion deals with the situation where a 
transporter is not automated, EPA expects that the more frequently 
encountered issue would be that generators would not be equipped to 
prepare manifests electronically. Indeed, the electronic manifest would 
more likely be brought to generators sites by the larger transporters 
and TSDFs with integrated waste transportation and waste management 
functions. These entities deal with large numbers of hazardous waste 
shipments on a day-to-day basis and would have a greater incentive to 
automate their waste

[[Page 28273]]

tracking and data management activities.
    In those instances where the generator is not automated, the 
transporter could prepare the electronic manifest data for a particular 
shipment, and obtain the generator's electronic signature by using a 
portable device (e.g., a digitizer pad joined to a wireless unit) that 
captures the generator's signature and initiates the shipment. This 
approach would mimic closely the current procedure for the paper 
manifest, and it would not require the generator to purchase or use any 
of its own computer equipment to enter its manifests into the 
electronic system. Of course, in a case where the generator signs an 
electronic manifest using a portable device provided by a transporter, 
the transporter would need to provide the generator with a hard copy of 
the manifest for the generator's records.
    Alternatively, a non-automated generator could authorize the 
transporter personnel who come on-site and prepare the shipment for 
transportation to sign the manifest electronically on the generator's 
behalf. As with the current paper manifest system, this proposal would 
also allow a person other than the generator (e.g., a transporter or 
TSDF) to be authorized by the generator to prepare the manifest and 
sign the generator's certification on its behalf. Thus, generators that 
do not participate directly in the automated system may still 
participate through the efforts of their authorized preparer. This 
aspect of the proposal is discussed in greater detail below in section 
VII.G. of this preamble.
    EPA believes that participation in the automated system would grow 
over time, as market forces and customer relationships cause others to 
become trading partners in the electronic manifest. Companies may 
decide to offer automated manifesting to their customers to remain 
competitive with others providing this service. In addition, large 
generators with multiple sites and highly integrated commercial waste 
management companies may find it advantageous to purchase multi-site 
licenses for waste tracking software, which they would deliver to their 
various sites or generator customers so that they can maximize the 
benefits which they would realize from automating the large numbers of 
manifests that they must process.
6. Where Would the New Requirements for Automated Manifesting Be 
Codified?
    The key requirements would be codified in several proposed new 
sections of 40 CFR Part 262. First, EPA would expand existing 40 CFR 
262.20(a) to include a specification for both the paper manifest form 
and the electronic format allowed under this proposal. The proposal 
would retitle existing 40 CFR 262.23 (use of the manifest) to focus 
this section on the paper manifest, and it would add a new 40 CFR 
262.24 to discuss the procedures for using the electronic manifest. EPA 
is also proposing to add a new 40 CFR 262.26 to Subpart B of part 262. 
This new section would set forth the requirements for electronic 
manifesting systems, and clarify that electronic manifests that are 
issued by systems which meet these requirements would be considered the 
legal equivalent of paper manifests bearing handwritten signatures. 
Thus, such electronic manifests would be deemed to satisfy any Subtitle 
C requirements to complete, transmit, retain, or submit a manifest 
copy, or to produce it for inspection.
    A significant new addition to the regulations would be codified at 
Sec. 262.25, which contains definitions and requirements addressing 
electronic manifest signatures. This section would include standards 
for the electronic signatures which may be used to authenticate 
electronic manifests. Electronic manifest copies would have to be 
signed with one of the described electronic signature methods and would 
have to meet the Sec. 262.26 security standards in order to be 
recognized as the legal equivalent to a hand-signed paper manifest. The 
proposal further explains that the proposed electronic signatures would 
consist of either a specific type of electronic signature known as a 
``digital signature,'' or an electronically captured form of a 
handwritten signature, which the proposal defines as a ``secure 
digitized signature.'' In connection with the proposed ``digital 
signature'' standard, section VII.F.11 of this preamble discusses 
options for establishing a so-called Public Key Infrastructure or PKI 
to support the issuance, management, and use of the digital 
certificates that are necessary elements of digital signature systems.
    These proposed federal regulations would, however, confer no 
immediate right or privilege to anyone to begin using electronic 
manifests in ways not authorized under existing regulations. Before 
electronic manifesting can begin, a final regulation would need to be 
promulgated, and waste handlers would need to consult with their state 
regulatory agencies to determine if their state(s) would recognize the 
validity of electronic manifests. States that choose to recognize 
electronic manifests would need to revise their programs to include 
appropriate manifest automation standards. Waste handlers and state 
agencies that collect electronic manifests would also need to agree to 
send and accept electronic manifest transmissions, and would need to 
prepare themselves technically to initiate such programs. The effects 
of this regulation on state hazardous waste programs and on state 
authorization are discussed below in section IX. of this preamble.

D. What Impediments to Automation Would Today's Proposal Remove?

    This proposal would amend several current regulations which appear 
to pose obstacles to implementing an automated hazardous waste manifest 
system. The impediments arise because the existing regulations which 
describe the format for the manifest and how to use it were developed 
nearly 15 years ago, at a time when the current capabilities in 
electronic commerce were not anticipated. Therefore, the existing 
regulations describe a specific, multi-copy paper form which must be 
physically carried among waste handlers, and which must be hand-signed 
as custody of waste shipments change. These impediments, and the 
revisions to them proposed in this notice, are summarized in this 
section of the preamble.
1. Specific Paper Form Designations
    Several provisions in the current regulations require the use of 
specific paper forms for the manifest. Sections 260.10 and 262.20(a) 
each refer specifically to the use of the current federal forms, that 
is, EPA Form 8700-22 (the manifest) and, if needed, EPA Form 8700-22A 
(the continuation sheet). Today's proposal would update these form 
designations by clarifying that the approved standard EDI formats (ANSI 
ASC X12) may also be used to convey manifest data electronically. This 
proposal amends Secs. 262.10 and 262.20(a) to add the EDI and Internet 
Forms formats to the designation of acceptable hazardous waste 
manifests.
2. ``By-hand'' Signature Requirements
    Certain of the existing regulations appear to bar the use of 
anything other than a handwritten signature, that is, the traditional 
act of signing in which the signer uses a stylus or other writing 
instrument to create the signer's scripted name or other mark on the 
document. The current references to handwritten signatures are found in 
Sec. 262.23(a)(2), which requires the generator to sign the manifest by 
hand and obtain the handwritten signature of the first transporter 
accepting the waste shipment, and in Sec. 263.20(d)(1), which

[[Page 28274]]

requires the transporter to obtain the handwritten signature of the 
next transporter, or the designated facility. Today's proposal 
eliminates the restriction to only by-hand signatures, and adopts new 
language which recognizes that both by-hand signatures and the proposed 
electronic signature methods may each be used to sign manifests.
3. Physical Transmission of Manifests
    Several existing provisions in the regulations suggest that the 
manifest may only be transmitted physically with the shipment, and the 
copies manually delivered to the waste handlers involved with a 
specific shipment. Existing Sec. 263.20(a) states that a transporter 
cannot accept hazardous waste from a generator unless it is accompanied 
by a manifest. Sections 262.23(b) and 263.20(d)(3) also discuss the 
handling of the manifest, and require that the generator or transporter 
that is delivering the waste shipment to the next transporter or to the 
TSDF must keep a copy for its files, and then give the remaining paper 
copies to the waste handler receiving the shipment.
    Today's proposal would clarify that in those instances where the 
electronic manifest is being used, the manifest copies may be 
transmitted electronically among the waste handlers, and a paper copy 
of the manifest would not have to be carried with the shipment during 
transportation if, instead, a hazardous materials ``shipping paper'' is 
carried with the shipment. The currently required practice of 
physically delivering copies of the manifest to waste handlers and 
carrying a copy of the manifest during transportation would not change 
for waste handlers who continue to use the conventional paper manifest.
    RCRA requires EPA to promulgate regulations applicable to 
generators and transporters of hazardous waste, including requirements 
for the use of a manifest system, as necessary to protect human health 
and the environment (RCRA sections 3002 and 3003). As discussed 
previously, the manifest serves to protect human health and the 
environment during transportation of hazardous waste, as well as being 
a device that ensures that waste can be tracked from its origin to its 
destination site. As a form of ``shipping paper,'' the manifest conveys 
essential emergency response information required during 
transportation, specifically, the proper shipping name, hazard class, 
hazardous material ID Number, and packing group for hazardous waste 
shipments, and phone numbers enabling responders to obtain additional 
information about a shipment in the event of an emergency. EPA 
incorporated DOT's ``shipping paper'' requirements into the current 
hazardous waste form in order to ensure the protection of human health 
and the environment during the transportation of hazardous waste. In 
addition, additional waste shipment tracking elements appear on the 
current manifest, including the EPA ID Numbers identifying each waste 
handler involved with a shipment, and space for each of the handlers to 
sign the manifest when they receive custody of a shipment. These 
manifest elements are intended to ensure that the waste can be tracked 
from its site of origin to its destination site. Thus, the current 
manifest form incorporates both DOT ``shipping paper'' elements to deal 
with the transportation hazard aspects of a waste shipment, and 
additional tracking elements unique to RCRA to ensure that hazardous 
waste shipments are designated for, and in fact arrive at, facilities 
permitted to handle the hazardous waste.
    Today's proposal would clarify that when the electronic manifest is 
transmitted and signed electronically by waste handlers, a paper 
manifest would not have to be carried with the hazardous waste shipment 
during its transportation. This proposal recognizes that the waste 
tracking functions of the manifest system can be conducted entirely 
electronically, without carrying and delivering paper copies of the 
manifest with the shipment. In order to ensure that information about 
the hazardous waste shipment would be available during its 
transportation, the proposal would not affect DOT's requirement that a 
shipping paper be carried on the transportation vehicle. So, a hard 
copy of a shipping paper would be carried on transportation vehicles to 
address the transportation hazard and the needs of emergency 
responders. This requirement would be met under today's proposal by 
either a print-out of the manifest or other allowed form of DOT 
shipping paper (e.g., bill of lading) under 49 CFR Part 172, Subpart C. 
In such a case, we believe that the combination of the DOT shipping 
paper on the vehicle and the electronic manifest information 
transmitted electronically would meet all the requirements that arise 
under RCRA. Specifically, the DOT shipping paper would present all the 
critical emergency response information required about a shipment 
during its transportation, and the electronic manifest would preserve 
the waste tracking functions of the manifest. EPA requests comments on 
this aspect of the proposal.
4. Electronic Storage of Manifest Copies
    Today's proposal also specifies when manifest copies may be stored 
on electronic media and meet the record retention requirements of the 
manifest regulations. EPA has previously issued an interpretive letter 
that provided guidance on this issue, but this rulemaking provides the 
opportunity to identify more formally the standards which would govern 
electronic storage.
    In May 1996, Safety-Kleen Corporation approached EPA seeking 
clarification that the federal Subtitle C regulations would permit that 
company to store image files of signed manifests received at its 
Denton, Texas, recycling facility. The company had installed equipment 
at the Denton facility which would enable it to scan completed paper 
manifests and then store the image files of these manifests on optical 
disks. An automated index system was created for these manifests, and 
this permitted one to search for stored manifests by several data 
elements. The system could display retrieved manifests on the computer 
screen, or print them as hard copy. EPA concluded that Safety-Kleen's 
proposed electronic storage system would meet existing RCRA regulations 
for retention of manifest records. This conclusion was supported by the 
Agency's findings that the image files would bear the required 
handwritten signatures, that the electronic records would be accessible 
to RCRA inspectors, and that the system included back-ups and other 
security features that satisfied EPA that data integrity would be 
maintained and that the records would be trustworthy. Since announcing 
this interpretation in November 1996, at least 11 states have followed 
this policy in their authorized RCRA programs.
    Today's proposed standards for electronic manifest storage would 
clarify that RCRA allows additional types of manifest records to be 
stored, beyond the paper copies, image files or facsimile copies 
allowed under the current regulations. The proposal would also 
recognize the validity of electronic copies that are signed with the 
required electronic signatures and maintained by computer systems that 
meet the technical standards and security controls set forth in 
proposed Sec. 262.26. These technical standards and controls are 
discussed in detail below in section VII.E. of this preamble. The 
controls are designed to ensure the trustworthiness of the computer 
systems which generate and process the manifest records, so that the 
data stored on these electronic records may be relied upon as complete

[[Page 28275]]

and accurate, and protected against accidental or intentional 
corruption, alteration, or loss. In addition to ensuring data 
reliability and integrity, the proposed standards would also require 
reasonable inspector access to the electronic records over the entire 
record retention period, and safeguards against repudiation. EPA 
believes that the proposed electronic signature requirements, taken 
together with the computer security controls of proposed Sec. 262.26, 
provide a reasonable set of safeguards that would protect the integrity 
of the records and guard against repudiation by waste handlers who 
enter data and sign the records. These proposed standards would also 
afford RCRA inspectors reasonable access to electronic records for 
purposes of inspecting or copying facility files, or producing evidence 
for enforcement actions.

E. What Standard Electronic Formats Would Today's Proposal Require?

1. Overview
    Sections 260.10 and 262.20(a) of the Subtitle C regulations would 
be amended by today's proposal to include the standard EDI format and 
an Internet Forms format that EPA would accept as the electronic 
hazardous waste manifest. The proposed EDI format is discussed in 
preamble section E.2. that follows immediately. Section E.3. of this 
preamble discusses the proposed Internet Forms format. Specific issues 
for which EPA requests comments are presented in preamble section E.4.
    Today's proposal would require persons who choose to develop or 
participate in an electronic manifesting program to adhere strictly to 
the electronic manifest formats specified in this rulemaking. EPA has 
determined that in order to maintain consistency among Federal and 
authorized State programs, authorized States that choose to implement 
the electronic manifest options for waste handlers would not be 
permitted to require a different electronic format or to require 
additional information to be transmitted electronically in connection 
with shipments in or being offered for transportation. This is similar 
to the determination that EPA made with respect to the Uniform Manifest 
form in 1984, and the Agency believes that several of the same factors 
supporting our 1984 decision affect the electronic manifest. See 49 FR 
10490 at 10491 (March 20, 1984). The free movement of waste shipments 
would be similarly burdened if transporters and TSDFs could not read or 
sign off on a manifested waste shipment because of incompatible 
electronic formats required by one or more states. Transporters 
entering a particular state requiring another format or additional 
requirements would need to incur the cost and inefficiency of acquiring 
additional software to support the other state's format or 
requirements, or face state enforcement actions if the additional 
formats/requirements are not supported. In addition, waste handlers 
called upon to support multiple State formats and differing 
requirements would likely need to incur the additional cost and 
inconvenience of acquiring and using software to convert files between 
the various formats supported by the states. It is conceivable that 
conflicts that would arise between different states' incompatible 
formats would actually bring waste handlers' systems down, and further 
delay the progress of shipments in transportation until such problems 
could be corrected. In addition to the confusion and burdens on the 
movement of waste that would result in such cases, EPA believes that 
non-standard formats would greatly complicate enforcement by RCRA 
inspectors, since inspectors would need to be trained and perhaps 
equipped differently to inspect manifests originating from different 
states. For multi-state facilities, there would likely arise the 
additional complexity, confusion, and cost of having to obtain software 
and hardware to support non-standardized manifest formats and 
procedures, as well as the capacity to convert files between state 
formats.
    The above discussion focuses heavily on the interstate 
transportation and ``free movement of waste'' factors that EPA relied 
upon as well in 1984 when it prescribed the uniform manifest. However, 
with regard to the successful implementation of an electronic manifest 
system, EPA also believes that it is critical to recognize the 
inherently interstate nature of the electronic infrastructure that 
would need to develop to support electronic transmissions of data. That 
is, apart from the considerations noted above on how waste movements 
and transportation vehicles would be slowed or burdened by inconsistent 
electronic formats, there is the equally important consideration of how 
the interstate electronic data transmissions themselves would be 
hindered and burdened by inconsistent formats. The Agency's reliance on 
standard electronic formats is premised equally on the necessity of 
ensuring, for example, that an electronic manifest transmission 
originating with a generator in the State of New York can be readily 
received, read, and processed by a landfill operator in the State of 
Alabama, as well as by the transporters that may operate in the transit 
states that must be passed through en route to the destination 
facility. While non-uniform paper forms may entail the burden and 
inefficiency of needing to carry redundant paperwork, incompatible 
electronic formats can render the data being transmitted unreadable and 
useless. Additional costs and complexity would be incurred by system 
developers faced with having to address multiple formats. To the extent 
that the reliability and accuracy of the systems were to be impaired by 
format conflicts, the admissibility of the electronic documents in 
evidence during enforcement actions would similarly be impaired. 
Therefore, under the Part 271 authorization standards on consistency, 
any authorized States implementing electronic manifest programs must 
require only the standard electronic manifest formats promulgated in 
this rulemaking. Other formats would not be acceptable as a RCRA 
hazardous waste manifest.
2. Proposed EDI Format
    This proposed rule identifies the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) Accredited Standards Committee (ASC) X12 standard 
formats for Electronic Data Interchange as the standard EDI formats 
acceptable for electronic manifests. These X12 standard formats 
(transaction sets) present specified data elements and content in a 
strictly standardized syntax and structure, which enables these formats 
to be exchanged unambiguously among different computer systems.
    In analyzing the manifest process to determine an appropriate 
implementation of EDI, it became apparent that two distinct 
transactions support the tracking functions of the manifest. Initially, 
the manifest identifies the contents of a hazardous waste shipment as 
offered for transportation by the generator and received by the 
transporters. Upon receipt of the shipment by the TSDF, the purpose 
shifts to providing the generator with a record either verifying the 
receipt of the shipment by the TSDF, or noting any discrepancies 
connected with the shipment. During a meeting with industry and state 
agency stakeholders in April 1999, participants advised EPA that in the 
EDI setting, the dual functions of the manifest could be best 
accommodated with separate transaction sets. That is, to reduce 
potential confusion in the EDI setting, one transaction set should be 
used to

[[Page 28276]]

identify the contents of the shipment and track its transportation, 
while a distinct transaction set would be used to allow the TSDF to 
advise the generator of waste receipt or discrepancy information. Based 
on these recommendations, EPA has adapted two EDI transaction sets or 
formats to the manifest process. Under today's proposal, EPA would 
identify X12 transaction set 856 (``Ship Notice/Manifest'') for the 
manifest's waste tracking function, and X12 transaction set 861 
(``Receiving Advice/Acceptance Certificate'') to carry out the 
manifest's verification of receipt/discrepancy function. The two 
transaction sets that EPA has selected for this proposal are fully 
capable of carrying all the data presently required on the manifest. 
Also, the 861 transaction set has the added benefit of allowing TSDFs 
to tie their comments (e.g., waste receipt, rejection or discrepancy) 
to a particular waste item listed on the manifest.
    In order to conform the EDI transaction sets selected to the data 
requirements of the hazardous waste manifest, EPA developed a 
customized mapping or ``Implementation Convention'' for the 856 and 861 
EDI transaction sets. As a follow-on step to the Implementation 
Convention development, EPA submitted the two transaction sets' 
Implementation Conventions to a federal review and approval process 
which involved public notice and comment. This approval process is 
managed by the Federal Electronic Data Interchange Standards Management 
Coordinating Committee (FESMCC), under the procedures of the Federal 
Information Processing Standard (FIPS PUB) 161-2, entitled ``Electronic 
Data Interchange.'' All approved Federal Implementation Conventions are 
registered with the National Institutes of Science and Technology 
(NIST). The NIST registry of approved Implementation Conventions, 
including the hazardous waste manifest IC (856W) and the hazardous 
waste receipt IC (861W), is located at http://snad.ncsl.nist.gov/fededi/3060-ic.html. These approved federal mapping conventions would 
be revised to reflect any changes to manifest data elements or to 
designated transaction sets that result from this rulemaking. The 
revised ICs would then be resubmitted to the FESMCC for approval. EPA 
would include information on the revisions to the manifest EDI mapping 
conventions in a technical guidance document that would be prepared to 
support the final rule notice for this manifest rulemaking.
    Subsequent to the adoption of revised ICs in the final manifest 
rulemaking, EPA may from time to time decide to adopt a new version and 
release of the ASC X12 standard or to modify the conventional mapping 
for the manifest. These modifications would address minor, technical 
changes to the standard, but would not alter the content of the 
manifest. Proposed Sec. 262.20(a)(3)(i) includes a notification process 
to deal with these upgrades and modifications. After any such upgrades 
or modifications have been submitted to the FESMCC Committee and 
approved under FIPS PUB 161-2 procedures (which provides for notice and 
comment), EPA would then publish a Federal Register notice announcing 
this change to the implementation convention and establishing the 
conversion date. After the conversion date, persons using the previous 
EDI format and convention would have a minimum of 60 days to convert to 
the new version. In addition, EPA would discontinue support for the 
previous version no sooner than 90 calendar days after the conversion 
date. EPA believes that this procedure would provide for a reasonable 
transition and support period as the ASC X12 standards and 
implementation conventions are updated.
3. Proposed Internet Forms Format
    a. Background. The standard language for presenting data on the 
World Wide Web--the Hyper Text Mark-up Language (HTML)--is not alone 
well suited for completing manifests that can be signed electronically 
and preserved as intact records that can be later audited or produced 
as evidence of completed waste transactions. While web forms are 
frequently encountered on web sites, the data that is entered in the 
form fields during a typical HTML browser session are divorced during 
transmission from the form prompts that elicited the data. So, only the 
data stream supplied by the sender is sent to the host computer. This 
leaves HTML transactions open to challenges, since the person 
submitting the data can later argue that data he or she entered were in 
response to a different prompt or question, or that the browser altered 
the appearance of the form so that certain questions were not answered 
or answered out of order. This type of vulnerability is referred to as 
a repudiation challenge, and it can be avoided if the data entered are 
tied unequivocally to the form elements to which they respond. Several 
vendors have recently developed solutions designed to generate and 
preserve intact web forms which include both the fields and the 
responsive data, and which can be signed electronically as records. 
This results in a much more complete and irrefutable electronic record 
than is obtained when responding to simple HTML web forms. These 
products typically are installed as browser extensions or ``plug-ins,'' 
and they add executable programs or Java applets which modify the HTML 
language to generate the intact forms on the client computer.
    EPA tested one such product during our Manifest Automation Pilot. 
In the 3rd phase of these pilot tests, EPA and several volunteer 
partners from industry and the states tested the Internet Forms 
technology developed by a company known as UWI.Com. (The company has 
recently changed its name to PureEdge, Inc.). This company's Internet 
Forms technology is based on a mark-up language known as the Extensible 
Forms Description Language (XFDL). XFDL is itself a variant of the 
recently developed Internet language known as Extensible Markup 
Language or XML.
    During the pilot test, EPA developed considerable experience with 
UWI.Com's Internet Forms technology. The electronic manifest ``forms'' 
used in our pilot tests retained both the form structure and the 
manifest data, and were signed with digitized signatures using PenOp'' 
signature software. The electronic manifest developed for our pilot 
with the Internet Forms technology and the Action Works Metro work flow 
management software also supported these features:
     Retention of all the graphical elements familiar to the 
paper form. The manifests could be processed (prepared, signed, 
transmitted, and stored) in an entirely digital manner, or printed in 
hard copy;
     Inclusion of numerous on-line help features and edit 
checks, to assist users with the process of completing the manifest 
accurately and quickly;
     Packaging of form structure and data together in a single 
file that could be easily archived and retrieved;
     Integration with workflow or work group software so that 
the manifests could be routed to appropriate trading partners, while 
complying with organizations' specific business processes and logic 
rules; and
     Support for mapping data directly to a variety of back-end 
data bases, including Oracle, Sybase, SQL Server, and ODBC-compliant 
data bases.
    b. What is the Extensible Markup Language (XML)? The Extensible 
Markup Language or XML is a relatively new markup language that has 
been developed to aid the Internet exchange of documents that contain 
structured information. While the basic language of the World Wide Web, 
i.e., HTML, is itself a markup language that can deal

[[Page 28277]]

with how the content of a document is displayed on a computer screen, 
XML has the additional capability of ``tagging'' a document's content 
to indicate what role the content plays.
    On a more technical level, XML is defined as a series of related 
technical specifications that provide a syntax for identifying, 
exchanging, and displaying data. XML technical specifications are 
developed by the World Wide Web Consortium, and XML documents would 
facilitate data exchanges using World Wide Web transfer protocols. Its 
most significant attribute is its extensibility, a term which connotes 
the flexibility designed into XML to adapt to a variety of applications 
and computing environments that need to exchange and manipulate data. 
XML is not bound by rigid semantics, and it provides program developers 
with the alphabet and tools to define document element tags as they see 
fit, and to define the structural relationships between these tags.
    XML has recently emerged as the de facto method for defining 
business data for the business to business Internet exchange of data 
and for commerce on the Web. Recent releases of commercially 
distributed web browsers, as well as several major commercial data base 
applications, now support XML specifications. Many information 
technology experts believe that XML would ultimately become the tool 
that would extend the benefits of EDI--exchanging routine business data 
in a structured but technology neutral manner--to web-based electronic 
commerce. The hope is that XML would make electronic commerce more 
cost-effective and accessible. XML can take advantage of the openness 
of the Internet and Web architecture, while perhaps offering lower 
costs than those currently associated with EDI software and VAN 
transmission fees.
    However, XML has only recently captured significant attention among 
application developers, and it is still a maturing technology. One of 
the greatest challenges confronting the success of XML is the current 
lack of consensus on developing business standards for using the XML 
specifications. Without some agreement on how data element tags and 
their relationships would be defined for different business 
transactions, there is the potential for much fragmentation and chaos 
in the use of XML. In addition, government and international standards 
bodies generally are only beginning to examine the possibilities for 
using XML applications to support reporting data to government web 
sites. Recently, the United Nations Center for Facilitation of 
Administration, Commerce and Trade (UN/CEFACT), the international 
equivalent to the ASC X12 Committee, has chartered a work group to 
research and identify the technical basis upon which the global 
implementation of XML can be standardized. Specific subcommittees 
within the ASC X12, including the transportation committee that 
oversees transaction set 856, are now in the process of defining XML 
Document Type Definitions (DTDs) for the various X12 transaction sets.
    The use of XML entails agreement on the so-called DTDs and 
``schema'' that would define for different transactions the agreed 
document structures, the agreed tag identifiers and relationships, 
agreed data elements and document contents, and agreed exchange 
requirements. It is EPA's objective to develop in this rulemaking an 
XML-based manifest format that would establish a standard method for 
displaying and exchanging manifest data with XML enabled browsers and 
data base software. Therefore, in addition to the EDI formats discussed 
above, EPA is proposing an XML-based approach for preparing and 
transmitting manifests on the Internet. EPA has developed a draft for 
comment of the Document Type Definition (DTD) that would be used for 
transmitting the manifest data in the XML language. The draft DTD 
appears in Appendix A to this preamble. The XML-based manifest would 
capture and record the same waste shipment data as the paper form and 
the EDI formats, and would have functionality similar to EDI. The draft 
DTD for the manifest is set forth in detail in Appendix A to this 
preamble. EPA requests comment on the XML-based Internet Form manifest 
and the draft DTD that we are proposing today.
4. What Comments Would Be Helpful To EPA?
    EPA requests comments on the proposal's electronic data interchange 
(EDI) standard and the proposal to include an XML-based Internet Forms 
approach for the manifest. EPA solicits specific comments on the 
following issues.
    a. Are the proposed EDI transaction sets appropriate? EPA requests 
comment on the proposal to use both X-12 transaction set 856 (the Ship 
Notice/Manifest) and transaction set 861 (Receipt and Advice) to convey 
all the waste shipment tracking information required by the hazardous 
waste manifest. Are there significant business, technical, or practical 
issues that might arise from recording shipment tracking information 
with two transaction sets, rather than collecting the information on 
one format? Would the proposed two transaction set approach complicate 
the ability to retrieve, reconstruct, and inspect all the information 
about a waste shipment after it has been filed? Also, is EPA on target 
with its choice of transaction sets? Are there other business data that 
the regulated community would like to be able to transmit with data 
required by the manifest, and should our choice of transaction sets and 
implementation conventions be revised to reflect this?
    b. Is an XML approach feasible? EPA acknowledges that XML is a 
relatively new technology, and that industry standards are generally 
lacking or only emerging in this field of electronic commerce. Is it 
feasible for EPA to develop a Document Type Definition in this 
rulemaking that would ``standardize'' the XML usage with respect to the 
manifest, or is this not an appropriate role for EPA? Would the 
specification of a DTD accomplish our objectives of ensuring free data 
exchange and interoperability between XML-enabled systems? Is XML a 
sufficiently stable technology to support EPA's purposes?
    c. Are there alternative formats that EPA should consider? This 
proposal would adopt ASC X12 EDI formats (the X12 856 and 861 
transaction sets) and their implementation conventions as an EDI 
standard for electronic manifesting. Alternatively, the Internet Forms 
approach based on the proposed XML Document Type Definition could be 
used by those wishing to use a non-EDI solution for transmitting 
manifests on the Web. EPA selected these standards because they 
represent technology-neutral approaches that could be supported by many 
vendors' products, and because they are mappable to and can integrate 
with existing data systems.
    EPA solicits comment on the merits of the two optional electronic 
manifest approaches proposed today relative to other available options. 
The Agency recognizes that there are many attractive ``smart form'' 
types of software products and other systems available that could be 
adapted to an electronic manifest. The major shortcoming of these 
products, in EPA's view, is that they typically are designed around a 
specific vendor's proprietary product. Thus, the allowance of numerous 
proprietary formats would likely hamper the free exchange of manifest 
data and the interoperability of electronic manifesting systems. A 
variety of proprietary solutions could have the result of fragmenting 
the market among several incompatible formats, and actually might 
hamper the acceptance of electronic manifests. Nevertheless, EPA

[[Page 28278]]

requests comment on whether other formats should also be recognized, 
and if so, how the Agency might minimize the conflict between different 
formats.
    d. Should EPA Address Internet EDI Distinctly? EPA has not included 
any distinct content in the proposal to address EDI conducted over the 
Internet, such as ``Web EDI'' or EDI transmitted over the Internet by 
secure E-mail technology. The proposal assumes that Internet EDI (i.e., 
transmitting EDI transaction sets via the Internet) using the EDI 
formats proposed in Sec. 262.20(a)(4) would be an option available to 
those wishing to conduct electronic manifesting on the Internet, in 
addition to the Internet Forms standard proposed in Sec. 262.20(a)(5). 
In other words, with Internet EDI, the same EDI transactions sets (ANSI 
X12 856 and 861) would be used to transmit manifest data, but the 
Internet would replace Value Added Networks as the delivery mechanism. 
In this proposal, we are distinguishing Internet EDI from the Internet 
Forms approach, which does not use ANSI X12 transaction sets to 
exchange data.
    Several products are now emerging on the Internet that would 
perform so-called ``Web EDI.'' With Web EDI, data entered at the client 
computer in Hypertext Mark-up Language (HTML) is converted at the 
server hosting the Web EDI service to X12 standards and transmitted to 
other trading partners as EDI files. Once received in X12 format, the 
recipient can then map the incoming information to its specific data 
base application. The ``Web EDI'' products that are coming on-line 
require some initial configuration by the user, but beyond the 
requirement of browser software, there is no need for local 
installation of EDI translation software. These services typically 
charge a small sign-up fee, and charge a transmission fee per 
transaction.
    Should EPA support the availability of both the Internet EDI and 
Internet Forms methods as options for those who would conduct waste 
manifesting on the Internet, or, should EPA restrict Internet users to 
one or the other approach? Does EPA need to require the use of a VAN 
for EDI transactions, or, could a less expensive Internet-based means 
of transmitting EDI data (e.g., E-mail or File Transport Protocol) be 
allowed, provided that companies implementing this approach follow 
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) recommendations (e.g., use third 
party ISPs and deploy security to protect such transmissions from 
interception)? See Requirements for Inter-operable Internet EDI, EDIINT 
Working Group of the IETF, July 8, 1997. Are other controls beyond 
those referenced in the IETF working document necessary to ensure that 
Internet EDI is as secure and auditable as traditional EDI conducted on 
a VAN?
    Also, if web sites hosting translation services receive manifest 
data inputted from a browser, and translate it to an EDI compliant 
format, how would signatures be applied to these documents? Is it the 
HTML document or the X12 document that would be signed? Would the 
translation at the server complicate the verifiability of any digital 
signatures? Can ``Web EDI'' meet all of this proposal's requirements 
for authentication, data integrity, security and non-repudiation? 
Comments responding to these questions would be very helpful to EPA.

F. What Electronic Record System Controls and Procedures Would This 
Proposal Require?

    The proposal would specify at Sec. 262.26 a minimal set of controls 
and procedures applicable to computer systems that would prepare and 
process electronic manifests. The Agency believes that these system 
controls, when combined with the requirement that electronic manifest 
copies be signed with secure types of electronic signatures, would 
assure users and regulators of the authenticity and integrity of 
electronic manifest records. Specifically, EPA believes that the 
proposed electronic signature requirements and computer security 
controls address the following 5 key concerns that have been brought to 
the Agency's attention as critical to the reliability and 
enforceability of electronic documents.
    i. Identity. The proposed controls would assist in demonstrating 
who affixed their signature to the document. Specifically, such 
controls as access checks, audit trails, signature agreements, and/or 
signature verification processes should be helpful to prevent 
unauthorized use of electronic signatures.
    ii. Intent. The proposed security provisions would assist in 
showing that the signor acted with the required intent to adopt the 
document being signed or to be bound by its contents. This may also 
involve a showing that the signor understood the significance of the 
signature act, so that he or she cannot later repudiate their signature 
as unintended or mistaken. Signature procedures that include warnings 
about the consequences of affixing a signature, and an opportunity to 
review and verify the data presented for signature, should aid in 
demonstrating the requisite intent.
    iii. Tamper-resistance. The proposed security provisions would also 
assist in demonstrating that a document was not altered after 
signature, since the ability to alter data after signature would permit 
the signor to later repudiate a document as different from the one that 
he or she actually signed. Signature methods that use encryption 
processes to inextricably bind the signature to the data signed can 
safeguard electronic documents from subsequent alteration, as can 
system audit checks that would disclose any changes to a record, or 
attempts to change a record.
    iv. Availability. Copies of electronic manifests should be 
maintained in such a manner as to be accessible throughout the record 
retention period. System controls which require the retention of 
information on software and hardware versions used to create archived 
records, as well as requirements to retain and maintain previous 
versions of software, hardware, and system documentation, should ensure 
that this capability is not compromised.
    v. Interoperability and error detection. Systems that would 
exchange electronic manifests should be interoperable, so that data are 
accurately and reliably processed, signatures verified, and security 
features necessary to data integrity maintained throughout the exchange 
of the electronic documents. In addition, electronic systems should be 
able to detect errors (i.e., altered/corrupt data or invalid 
signatures), so that invalid records can be flagged and corrected. 
System security controls, validation requirements, signature 
verification requirements, and requirements to respond to detected 
errors and invalid signatures can minimize the possibility of invalid 
documents being passed by electronic systems.
1. Validation of System Performance and Training
    EPA expects that waste handlers would be able to select from 
numerous hardware and software configurations when establishing their 
electronic manifesting systems. Such systems may involve a combination 
of database software, EDI translator or Internet browser software and 
related plug-ins, work flow management software, operating system 
software, electronic signature software, communications software, and 
the related hardware that is involved in creating, processing, viewing, 
printing, and transmitting files. The Agency also expects that these 
automated systems may consist of both customized systems designed by or 
for the waste handler company, and ``off-the-shelf'' solutions 
developed by

[[Page 28279]]

commercial vendors that market products designed specifically for 
tracking hazardous wastes. In any case, the proposed rule would require 
that waste handlers establishing electronic manifest systems validate 
their systems, that is ensure that all the system components (including 
security features) operate together properly, that system performance 
ensures accuracy, reliability, and consistent, intended performance, 
that components are fully interoperable throughout the system, and that 
the system can meet the computer security requirements of this section 
and good security practices common to trusted electronic commerce 
systems, and that appropriate precautions have been taken to ensure 
that these security measures cannot be avoided or defeated. EPA 
believes that validation of automated systems is essential to 
establishing the reliability of such systems and the accuracy of the 
data they generate.
    EPA is also proposing that the system validation would be performed 
and certified to by an independent third-party with expertise in 
information systems and their security. EPA is concerned that neither 
the waste companies developing or acquiring such systems nor the EPA or 
State RCRA inspectors that would inspect facilities for compliance with 
RCRA regulations would possess the requisite skills or expertise to 
validate electronic manifest systems. In addition, the use of an 
independent and qualified information systems professional should 
ensure that there has been an objective assessment made of the system's 
security features. Since the trustworthiness and utility of electronic 
records and systems would depend heavily on the performance and success 
of this validation step, EPA is proposing that the qualified systems 
professional would prepare a written assessment with a certification 
statement attesting to the system's performance. This written 
assessment and certification statement would need to be maintained 
among the facility's records, and made available on request during any 
EPA or State inspection. Under this proposal, for an electronic system 
to be validated, the qualified professional would need to certify that 
the system generates and processes data accurately and reliably, that 
the system performs consistently and as intended, that the system's 
hardware and software are fully interoperable with the hardware and 
software of any other systems with which manifests would be exchanged, 
that the system is designed and can be operated to meet all the 
security requirements of this rule and good security practices common 
to trusted electronic data exchange systems, and that appropriate 
precautions have been taken to ensure that these security measures 
cannot be avoided or defeated.
    EPA requests comment on the proposed requirement for an independent 
written assessment of electronic manifest systems. Would validation be 
more objective and helpful if performed by independent information 
systems professionals, or would this add unnecessary burdens to the 
validation procedure? With respect to the system assessments, has EPA 
proposed a reasonable set of criteria, or, are there other information 
systems audit criteria and good security practices that we should 
require to be included in the assessment and certification? With 
respect to the independent systems professionals, is there some 
credential, training, licensing or other qualification that EPA should 
identify in the rule to ensure that only qualified individuals perform 
these validation assessments? EPA also requests comment on alternatives 
to independent third-party validation of systems. Should EPA require 
that software be developed by companies independent of the waste 
handlers that would use the systems? In the case of systems developed 
independently of waste handlers, and systems using ``off-the-shelf'' 
products, would third-party validation be necessary? Answers to these 
questions would be very helpful to the Agency.
2. The Ability to Generate Accurate and Complete Records Available for 
Inspection
    As an additional control on electronic manifest systems, this 
proposal would require that waste handlers' systems have the ability to 
generate accurate and complete records in both electronic and human 
readable formats, and which are suitable for and readily available for 
inspection and copying. In most instances, facilities would retain 
their electronic records in the electronic formats in which they were 
created and signed. However, during the course of RCRA inspection, 
federal or state inspectors may wish to have a human readable copy 
generated that they may inspect, copy, print, or remove from the 
facility. Thus, the system must have the capability of generating a 
readable copy, as well as the electronic copy that is electronically 
signed and retained as the facility record for the 3-year retention 
period required in these regulations. In either case, the system 
records must accurately and completely depict all the information that 
was entered on the record when it was created.
    EPA emphasizes that the electronic formats of records must be 
available for inspection; it is not sufficient to offer the inspector 
access only to paper copies generated by the system. Access to 
electronic records may be vital, since the electronic records may often 
be the format that would bear the electronic signatures that would 
authenticate the document and enable the inspector to verify that the 
document has not been altered. These electronic records may also bear 
the metadata or audit trail information which may have direct bearing 
on the trustworthiness and reliability of the record. The signed, 
electronic copies may also be the format required as evidence in any 
adjudicatory proceeding in which the data on an electronic manifest are 
relevant to a disputed issue. In addition, RCRA inspectors would be 
able to conduct much more efficient inspections of the electronic 
records than of paper copies. EPA and the states should be able to use 
efficient, computerized methods to search electronic records and detect 
trends, inconsistent or erroneous information, possible violations, or 
other problem areas.
    The inspector access required by this proposal must be reasonable 
access, consistent with section 3007(a) of the RCRA statute. Section 
3007(a) of the Act states that any person who generates, stores, 
treats, disposes, transports, or otherwise handles hazardous wastes 
must permit inspectors at all reasonable times to have access to and to 
copy all records relating to their hazardous wastes. EPA understands 
that RCRA inspectors would lack familiarity with all the possible 
software that may be used to store, index, and access electronic 
records. However, the use of electronic record storage systems must not 
be allowed to become a barrier to inspector access to manifest records. 
Therefore, facilities should have a knowledgeable person on the 
premises who can assist the RCRA inspector with the operation of the 
software that searches and accesses stored manifest records. The 
indexes or search engines used to search and access these records 
should be designed with a reasonably intuitive user interface, so that 
the RCRA inspector can, after a brief orientation session, effectively 
operate the system, select relevant search parameters, find responsive 
records, and validate electronic signatures on these records. 
Nevertheless, the use of new technologies compels the result that 
access to records may generally require

[[Page 28280]]

instruction from and the cooperation of the facilities undergoing 
inspection.
    The requirement to retain electronic manifest records for 
inspection over several years does raise an issue about maintaining the 
ability to authenticate these records. For example, with electronic 
documents that are digitally signed, this requires the digital 
signature to be verified and the signer's digital certificate to be 
validated as of the time of the signature. Is the long-term validation 
of such signatures feasible, given the costs and technical challenges 
of maintaining a long-term capability to validate digital certificates? 
Are there practical ways to ensure long-term enforcement capability and 
liability protection for companies using manifests without imposing the 
burden and cost of indefinite signature validation mechanisms?
3. The Ability To Protect Records
    As a third control on electronic manifest systems, the proposal 
would require that these systems be designed and operated so that they 
protect electronic records from damage or alteration, and ensure their 
accurate and ready retrieval during the entire record retention period. 
The RCRA regulations generally require that manifest records be 
retained for a 3-year period.
    This control entails more than controlling access to data and audit 
trail protections against erasures and alterations caused by accident, 
vandalism, fraud, or sabotage; it also requires that systems and 
storage media be protected against possible physical causes of damage, 
such as contact with heat, fire, magnetism, water, etc. The system must 
also create secure back-up copies of records or otherwise provide for 
data recovery in the event of damage, errors, or a disaster.
    The proposed requirements that records be protected and remain 
accessible throughout the record retention period imposes additional 
obligations with respect to system upgrades and revisions. As system 
upgrades are implemented, it is possible that the newer hardware and 
software may not be able to read or process files created with earlier 
versions of software or hardware. Therefore, facilities must either 
convert their files so that they can be accessed by the upgraded 
system, or, retain adequate hardware and software to ensure that 
electronic manifests remain accessible throughout the document 
retention period. Facilities should also retain information on which 
software version was used to create their records.
    EPA has not specified in this proposal any particular storage media 
for retaining manifest records. Concerns have been expressed that such 
records should be retained on a more permanent medium, such as a CD-
ROM. The Agency requests comments on the appropriateness and 
feasibility of a requirement that manifest records be periodically 
archived on a write-once, read-many medium.
4. The Ability To Limit System Access and Conduct Authority Checks
    Authority checks are security devices that grant access to a system 
or to specific data only when an individual seeking access can 
establish (typically, by entering a User ID or password when prompted) 
that their access has been authorized. Access controls and authority 
checks form the first line of defense of record authenticity and 
integrity, since they support user identification and authentication. 
The proposed rule would require that electronic manifest systems be 
designed and operated with controls (e.g., User ID's and passwords) 
that limit system access to only authorized individuals, that is, 
individuals who are authorized to act for and bind the organization in 
creating, signing, or processing manifests. The integrity of an 
electronic records system would be readily assailable if unauthorized 
individuals could enter the system, override security measures, and 
thereby read or alter records that they are not authorized to see or 
manipulate. Uncontrolled access could leave a system vulnerable to 
sabotage or industrial espionage, and open up opportunities for signers 
to repudiate the genuineness of signed records. Therefore, basic system 
access controls must be included in every electronic manifest system. 
Such controls would include assurances that:
     Unique identifiers (e.g., User IDs) are assigned to each 
authorized person, and the identifiers assigned uniquely identify the 
user to the system, so that the system can authenticate the user, and 
ensure individual accountability;
     User authority is defined, and users' access is limited to 
data required to perform job tasks or other user needs;
     Procedures are in place for User ID and password 
administration and termination;
     The system enforces secure password procedures and access 
controls;
     Access and authentication policies and procedures are 
documented, shared with users, and reviewed periodically; and
     Auditable logs are retained of log-on attempts, and log-on 
failures or rejections.
    The proposed rule would also require authority challenges and other 
checks to be included at critical points in the system, to ensure that 
only authorized individuals can use the system, sign records, access 
input or output devices, alter a record, or perform other discrete 
system operations. Keeping these functions confined to authorized 
persons is essential to protecting the integrity of records and 
ensuring record accuracy and reliability. While EPA believes that the 
inclusion of such authority checks is fundamental, it would be up to 
each organization to determine the nature, scope, and mechanisms for 
performing these checks.
5. Use of Secure Audit Trails
    Because it is important to know that electronic records remain 
complete and accurate during their entire retention period, the 
proposed rule would also require audit trail controls to be 
implemented. In this regard, the proposal would require the use of 
secure, computer-generated, time-stamped audit trails to independently 
record the date and time of operator entries and actions that create, 
modify, or delete any electronic records. This control would require 
that a complete and accurate history of each record be retained, and 
would preclude modifications that would overwrite or obscure previously 
recorded information. In other words, the secure, computer-generated 
audit trail would provide a lasting record of who did what to a record, 
and when it was done. These audit trail records shall be retained for 
the same period of time (generally 3 years) as the electronic manifest 
records, and they shall be made available for inspection upon the 
request of a RCRA inspector. The audit trail information may be 
retained as a part of the electronic manifest record, or as a separate 
record.
    The Agency emphasizes the need for strict objectivity in recording 
audit trail information such as date and time stamps. Therefore, EPA 
believes that it is vital that this audit trail information be created 
automatically by the computer system, independently of system 
operators. Also, the requirement that audit trails be secure means that 
operators shall not have the ability to either write or modify this 
data. The history of the record must be preserved, and individual 
accountability for record integrity maintained.
6. Software-Based Work Flow Controls and Operational System Checks
    A key component of a secure and reliable electronic manifest system

[[Page 28281]]

would be work flow management software that implements the logic rules 
and process underlying the manifest. During our Manifest Automation 
Pilot tests, EPA gained special appreciation for the significance of 
these software-based controls. The manifest work flow is very complex; 
the manifest must be routed among generators, transporters, and waste 
management facilities in the proper sequence, and specific data must be 
entered by specific waste handlers (and signatures applied) at specific 
points in the circulation of the manifest. Multiple copies must also be 
distributed at appropriate times. Unlike the current paper manifest, 
copies of the electronic manifest may not physically accompany and be 
passed with the waste itself. Therefore, it is essential that an 
electronic system not leave the routing of the manifest and its proper 
execution to chance.
    To ensure the reliability of the electronic manifest, EPA is 
proposing that electronic systems be designed with software-based work 
flow controls and operational system checks to oversee the work flow 
process. This work flow management software would ensure that the 
electronic manifest is routed to all waste handlers in the proper 
sequence, that waste handlers are prompted to sign manifests 
electronically in the proper sequence and on the appropriate signature 
blocks, that data entered by previous waste handlers cannot be altered 
once the previous handler has signed the document, and that the 
appropriate signed copies of the manifest are distributed to each waste 
handler involved with a shipment.
    Another possible work flow and operational check would address an 
electronic manifest system's response to invalid signatures. The 
proposal would require that electronic signatures (digital signatures 
and secure digitized signatures) be capable of being verified. Both of 
these signature methods include document binding features (e.g., 
encrypted hash function or checksums) which enable the recipient to 
verify that a document has not been altered or corrupted since it was 
signed. What should be the appropriate system response when an invalid 
signature is detected? Should EPA include in the work flow controls a 
requirement that users be alerted to an improperly signed manifest and 
that the software block further use or transmission of an invalid 
electronic manifest until it has been replaced with a valid manifest 
for which the electronic signature can be verified? Alternatively, 
should the system be designed only to detect invalid signatures and 
alert the recipient to the requirement to obtain a valid manifest 
before proceeding? In the latter case, the manifest use regulations 
could be revised to make it absolutely clear that one may not use an 
electronic manifest shown to be invalid, but the electronic system 
would not itself block the use. EPA requests comments on these 
alternatives, and whether the final rule should include one or the 
other of these additional work flow controls.
7. Software-Based Data Presentation Features and Signature Prompts
    Today's proposal includes two distinct electronic manifest formats, 
the proposed EDI format and the proposed Internet Form manifest in the 
XML language. While the Internet Form approach would typically present 
manifest data in a human readable form that looks like the paper form, 
the proposed EDI format includes codes and headings that may complicate 
the viewing of the embedded manifest data. This could be a concern, if 
the result were that a user wishing to sign the EDI manifest could not 
readily recognize and verify the data entered prior to signing the 
document. EPA believes that it is important to the accuracy and 
trustworthiness of electronic records that those using the EDI formats 
to satisfy regulatory requirements have a meaningful opportunity to 
verify data before applying their electronic signatures. Therefore, EPA 
is proposing that systems using the EDI formats must be able to display 
the manifest data to those signing manifests in a human readable format 
that permits the user to readily verify the entered manifest data prior 
to applying a signature. In practice, this would require that the data 
be displayed for the signor with the form's predetermined field labels, 
so that there could be little doubt that the data entered relates to a 
specific data field of the manifest. EPA requests comment on the 
feasibility of including these data presentation and verification 
features as system design requirements, particularly with respect to 
EDI systems. Typically, EDI systems are designed to minimize human 
involvement in data exchanges between automated systems. However, when 
an EDI system is used in a business process such as the completion of 
manifests, the affixing of electronic signatures is by nature an 
interactive process. Today's proposal would only require that the data 
presentation presented to the signor at the time of signature include 
the human readable display with the field labels. The proposal would 
not require these display features to be included as a part of the EDI 
document itself, which would, of course, comply with ANSI X12 structure 
and syntax requirements.
    Moreover, there is a concern that electronic signature methods that 
deviate significantly from the traditional signature ceremony may not 
seem as formal or ``official'' as conventional handwritten signatures. 
For example, a digital signature may be executed by a mouse click on an 
item displayed on the computer screen. Therefore, EPA is proposing that 
electronic manifest systems display a warning message when users are 
prompted to electronically sign manifests. The warning should appear 
clearly and conspicuously, and should advise the signer that their 
electronic signature constitutes a signature for all legal purposes. 
This message would also remind the signer of the possible civil and 
criminal sanctions for the misuse of an electronic signature. For 
digital signatures, the warning message would remind signers that 
digital signatures can only be used by the person identified as the 
subscriber in the digital certificate, and that the right to use one's 
private key to execute digital signatures cannot be delegated to 
another. The proposed form of the signature prompt warnings is set out 
at proposed Sec. 262.26(c)(7). EPA requests comment whether these 
warnings should be displayed for all electronic manifest systems. For 
example, the ``secure digitized signature'' method discussed later in 
this preamble would require the signer to execute their hand signature 
on a digitizer pad. Is it necessary to display the proposed warning 
messages for this method of signature, or should the warnings be 
included only in systems that incorporate the digital signature method, 
which does not involve a conventional signing ceremony? Also, for 
digital signature systems, should a warning be displayed prior to 
executing each signature, or could the same warning be conveyed more 
effectively at the time a user receives a digital certificate?
8. Full Interoperability of System Software
    The quality and reliability of electronic manifest systems and data 
depend heavily on system developers using software that consistently 
supports and executes the standard electronic formats, electronic 
signatures and their verification, the work flow processes that ensure 
that manifests are routed, signed, and copied appropriately, and the 
audit trail and other security features of proposed Sec. 262.26. If the 
software used within an entity, or between entities that exchange 
manifests, cannot consistently implement these features, then the

[[Page 28282]]

reliability and integrity of electronic manifests would be impaired. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing today that electronic manifests systems 
shall be designed and tested to ensure full interoperability of the 
software components, so that the above features are supported and 
executed consistently throughout the period that a manifest record 
resides on a system or is exchanged among waste handlers participating 
in an electronic system. If a person or entity wishes to exchange 
electronic manifests with another's system, the other system's software 
must also be fully interoperable with the software of the first system. 
EPA cannot designate a particular software configuration or specific 
vendors' products as required or recommended to meet the standards 
proposed today. However, consistent implementation and software 
interoperability are essential requirements for trustworthy electronic 
systems, and system software must be tested and validated for such 
performance as a part of the system validation assessment that would be 
required under proposed Sec. 262.26(c)(1). One may not exchange 
manifests between system components, or between other systems, if 
interoperability and consistent performance have not been assured. EPA 
requests comments on this proposal.
    Some have suggested that EPA should do more to ensure the quality, 
reliability, and interoperability of the software that entities adopt 
to implement the electronic manifest. Apart from the system validation 
assessments discussed above, there is a concern that available software 
components that companies might select for their systems should be 
evaluated more closely at the outset (i.e., prior to its being 
available for use in a manifest system) to ensure that it is properly 
designed and shown to be able to meet this rule's security and other 
performance standards. If software is not closely evaluated for 
quality, reliability, and interoperability, greater risks might arise 
that software used by different entities (or even within the same 
entity) would not perform consistently. Thus, the risks become greater 
that a software product on one system would be unable to prevent or 
detect data alteration or corruption, unable to recognize the processes 
used by other software to validate signatures or to bind signatures to 
record content, unable to route manifests correctly, and unable to 
maintain auditability of transaction events. Similarly, if software is 
not evaluated closely for quality and performance, there is the risk 
that software may include unnoticed flaws that undermine its security 
features. Such flaws could later be seized upon by those challenging 
the accuracy of electronic data, and could be a basis for invalidating 
manifests that were processed using the defective software.
    While EPA believes that the system validation and certification 
requirements proposed above can diminish these risks, EPA requests 
comment on whether additional software evaluation mechanisms are 
necessary. If additional measures are warranted, how would they be 
structured and implemented? How would such additional evaluation 
measures enable EPA to ensure that the criteria of this rule are being 
met and applied consistently? What would be the benefits and adverse 
consequences of establishing additional evaluation steps?
    A separate issue relates to how EPA and the States can know that 
new electronic manifest systems are being implemented. EPA is taking 
comment on one additional measure, which would require system sponsors 
to notify EPA on a one-time basis that they have developed and would be 
implementing an electronic manifest system. With such information, EPA 
would be able to gauge the timing and scope of the use of electronic 
manifests, aiding the Agency's training and outreach efforts and 
providing the basis for future data collections to evaluate electronic 
manifests. Notification would not be required from every waste handler 
using such a system, but only from the entity sponsoring or operating 
the electronic manifest system. EPA requests comments on whether such a 
one-time notification requirement would act as a disincentive to the 
adoption of electronic manifests.
9. Controls Over System Documentation
    Errors in conducting system procedures and system maintenance are 
likely to occur unless controls are applied to the systems 
documentation that describes how a system operates or is maintained, 
including standard operating procedures. System documentation should 
fully and accurately describe the procedural controls employed in 
creating and maintaining records, and account for each link in the 
chain of events that produce records and preserve their integrity. This 
proposal would require the establishment of controls over this system 
documentation, including adequate controls over the distribution of, 
access to, and use of the documentation. This requirement would extend 
to revision and change control procedures as well.
10. Policies Holding Individuals Accountable
    Any falsification of a signature or record is a serious matter, 
regardless of whether the falsification occurs with a paper or 
electronic record. In this regard, EPA emphasizes that the 
falsification of an electronic signature or the making of false 
representations in connection with an electronic manifest would be 
punishable by law and would carry the same penalties as similar acts 
done with paper manifests and ink signatures. Under RCRA Section 
3008(d)(3), for example, any person who knowingly omits material 
information or makes false material statements or representations in 
any manifest, record, or other document prepared for purposes of 
compliance with RCRA regulations may be subject, upon conviction, to 
criminal sanctions that may include a fine of not more than $50,000 for 
each day of violation, or, imprisonment not to exceed two years, or 
both. In addition, 18 U.S.C. 1001 states more generally that false, 
fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations to the 
government may subject a person to criminal penalties.
    Despite these strong sanctions that are well understood in the 
paper environment, there may be a perception that electronic signatures 
are less formal than handwritten signatures, and this may cause some to 
believe that errors or falsifications associated with their use are not 
as serious as errors or falsifications in signing paper records. 
Therefore, the proposed rule would require organizations using 
electronically signed electronic manifests to establish and adhere to 
written policies that hold individuals accountable and responsible for 
actions initiated under their electronic signatures. These policies are 
intended as a further deterrent of record and signature falsification. 
The individual employees who are subject to such policies would better 
understand the seriousness and consequences of signature or record 
falsification. Of course, a broad range of disciplinary measures would 
be available to organizations under their written policies, and 
organizations should have appropriate discretion to tailor their 
disciplinary actions so that they provide reasonable sanctions that 
address the level of employee complicity and intent, while deterring 
the more serious acts. The intent is that such policies would be 
implemented and enforced in a way that promotes a strong security 
environment.

[[Page 28283]]

    In addition, EPA believes that the proposed digital signature and 
secure digitized signature methods discussed in section VII.H. of this 
preamble provide a reasonable basis for applying strict accountability 
policies. Digital signatures are not trustworthy if the ``private key'' 
of the signer is compromised. The compromise of a private key would 
likely involve either the complicity of or serious negligence of the 
owner of the key, such as allowing access to one's smartcard or hard 
disk where the private key is kept, along with the password or PIN 
necessary to use the private key. Likewise, one should be accountable 
if they allow others access to their signing devices (e.g., a digitizer 
pad) in such a way as to provide them the opportunity to ``forge'' an 
electronic signature.
    EPA requests comments on this proposed set of system controls and 
procedures. Do these measures define an adequate computer security 
program that would ensure data integrity and record authenticity? Do 
these proposed controls provide sufficient flexibility? Can these 
controls be incorporated practically into commercially available 
products, and included in waste handlers' operations? How might EPA 
improve on these controls to make them more understandable and easier 
to implement?
11. Other System Requirements
    In addition to the security and operational controls discussed 
above, today's proposal also includes several definitions of terms that 
are intended to provide greater certainty insofar as when an electronic 
manifest transmission has been received, and when there may be an 
obligation to retransmit an electronic manifest. Proposed 
Sec. 262.26(e) would define an electronic manifest to be received by 
the recipient when it is accessible to the recipient in a format that 
the recipient can read. Should a recipient receive an unreadable 
transmission, or one bearing evidence of data corruption (e.g., garbled 
text or hash functions that do not calculate correctly), he or she 
would be required to request that the sender re-transmit a proper copy. 
Moreover, proposed paragraphs (f) and (g) of Sec. 262.26 would aid the 
sender in establishing the fact of receipt by the recipient. 
Sec. 262.26(f) would require recipient's systems to send promptly 
(typically, an automated, immediate response) an acknowledgment of 
receipt to the sender to acknowledge that a readable record was 
received by the recipient's system. According to proposed 
Sec. 262.26(g), the acknowledgment of receipt from the recipient would 
establish conclusively the fact of receipt and the date of receipt. 
These proposals should provide assurances to the sender that their 
electronic transmissions were received in good order, and minimize the 
possibility of repudiation of the fact of receipt at a later date. 
Finally, proposed Sec. 262.26(h) would create an obligation on the part 
of the sender to re-transmit an electronic manifest for which a 
positive acknowledgment of receipt was not received by the sender 
within 12 hours of the original transmission, while proposed 
Sec. 262.26(i) would clarify that the inability of one to transmit a 
valid electronic manifest does not excuse that person from the 
obligation to initiate a hazardous waste manifest for their shipment. 
If a system is not operating properly and would not transmit valid 
manifests, the person responsible for providing a manifest must then 
use a paper manifest to accompany and track the progress of the waste 
shipment.
    Similar proposals regarding receipt, acknowledgment of receipt, 
establishing date of receipt, retransmission, and inability to transmit 
are included for transporters and TSDFs. The similar transporter 
proposals are included at proposed Sec. 263.23(d)-(g), while the 
proposed provisions applicable to facilities are set out at proposed 
Secs. 264.78(f)-(j) and 265.78 (f)-(j). EPA requests comment on the 
appropriateness of these proposed terms, and whether they would meet 
our objective of establishing with certainty when electronic manifests 
are received and when they must be re-transmitted or replaced.

G. EPA's Proposed Electronic Signature Standard

1. Why Are Signatures Important to the Manifest?
    A significant issue in this rulemaking is the designation of an 
electronic signature method that would be at least as secure and 
trustworthy as the conventional handwritten signature that has been in 
use for hundreds of years to authenticate paper documents. As a general 
matter, a signature is used to bind an individual signer uniquely to 
the text of a signed document, so that the source of the document can 
be clearly established, and so that the signer cannot later repudiate 
the transaction. Thus, signatures aid the authentication of a document.
    In the context of the hazardous waste manifest, signatures also 
play more specific roles. The required manifest signatures are used to 
support certifications by waste handlers to specific facts, and more 
generally, to show the change of custody of waste shipments during 
their transportation to off-site treatment, storage, or disposal 
facilities. The hazardous waste generator initiates the manifest with 
its signature certifying that the contents of the shipment are fully 
and accurately described on the manifest by proper shipping name, that 
the contents are properly classified, packed, marked, and labeled, and 
that the shipment has been prepared properly for highway 
transportation. When the shipment arrives at the designated waste 
management facility, the TSDF signs the manifest as well, and this 
signature acts as its acknowledgment of the receipt of the shipment, 
except as specifically noted in the discrepancy space (current Block 
19) of the manifest. In addition, as hazardous waste transporters 
accept custody of the shipment, they also sign off on the manifest form 
in the designated transporter blocks, and thus acknowledge with their 
signatures that they have received the materials.
    Since the inception of the manifest in 1980, EPA's manifest 
regulations have required the hand-signed signatures of waste handlers 
to demonstrate the chain of custody, and to certify that the shipment 
was prepared properly by the generator or received by the TSDF. During 
public meetings conducted by EPA in December 1997 and January 1998, 
nearly all stakeholders attending voiced their support for retaining 
the role of signatures in the manifest. EPA believes that signatures 
are an effective means of demonstrating custody and acknowledging 
accountability. Therefore, this proposal would retain the role of 
manifest signatures, while authorizing the use of certain electronic 
signatures in automated systems.
2. What Are the Concerns With Electronic Signatures?
    Hand-signed signatures are not perfect, and it is not uncommon for 
handwritten signatures to be the subject of crude or sophisticated 
forgery attempts. Nevertheless, the characteristic signature of each 
individual is an attribute that follows the individual and identifies 
him or her fairly uniquely to those who are familiar with and can 
recognize such a signature. When disputes arise, the courts are also 
familiar with the methods for using hand-signed records as evidence, 
and the types of expert testimony that can help resolve issues 
surrounding a disputed signature.
    Electronic signatures are relatively new, and there are numerous 
technologies which purport to provide signature solutions that equal or 
exceed the level of assurance provided by

[[Page 28284]]

handwritten signatures. The technologies tend to be complex, and there 
is some concern that these technologies have not undergone the kind of 
review which conventional handwritten signatures have over many 
centuries of use.
    The Agency understands the basis for this concern, and believes 
that over time, experience with the available signature methods would 
mitigate much of the concern. EPA believes that the electronic 
signature approaches proposed today can be made reliable and 
verifiable, so that they would identify individual signers of manifests 
to a very high legal and technical standard.
3. How Does Today's Proposal Address Electronic Signatures?
    Today's proposal would require that electronic manifests be 
electronically signed with either a ``digital signature'' or a ``secure 
digitized signature.'' The proposal clarifies that electronic manifest 
copies bearing proper electronic signatures are the legal equivalent of 
paper manifests bearing handwritten signatures, insofar as meeting any 
requirement in these regulations to sign a manifest, to use a manifest, 
or to retain a copy of a manifest as a record.
    The proposed amendments recognizing electronically signed manifests 
are found in proposed Sec. 262.25, entitled Manifest Electronic 
Signatures, and in proposed Sec. 262.26, which addresses electronic 
manifest systems and their security. These new provisions would 
together clarify that a manifest may be signed by either affixing a 
handwritten signature to a manifest form, or by signing an electronic 
manifest with a digital signature or secure digitized signature. Each 
mode of signature would be a valid method for a signer to authenticate 
the manifest. In this context, the term ``authenticate'' means simply 
that the signer is acknowledging that he or she is the source of the 
document that is signed, and that he or she approves or adopts the 
statements to which the signature relates. For electronic copies, 
Sec. 262.26(a) states that electronic copies which are initiated and 
stored in computer systems which meet the Sec. 262.26(c) procedures and 
controls, and which are electronically signed with signatures that meet 
the proposed Sec. 262.25 electronic signature standards, may be used in 
lieu of hand-signed paper manifest copies to meet the manifest 
initiation, use, and retention requirements in the RCRA regulations.
    Proposed Sec. 262.25 includes at Sec. 262.25(a) a definition of 
``electronic signature.'' This term is defined generally to mean a 
method of signing an electronic document with a computer generated 
symbol or series of symbols in a way that indicates that a particular 
person as the source of the document, and indicates such person's 
approval of the content of the document, or an intent to be bound by 
the document. While this definition is technology neutral, paragraphs 
(b) through (f) would clarify that electronic manifests must be signed 
with one of two types of electronic signatures, the ``digital'' 
signature method proposed in Sec. 262.25(c)-(f), or, the ``secure 
digitized signature method'' proposed in Sec. 262.25(g). Proposed 
Sec. 262.25(h) would establish a rebuttable legal presumption that may 
be of evidentiary value in adjudications that might arise surrounding 
electronically signed manifests. Under this proposal, proof that a 
particular individual's electronic signature was affixed to an 
electronic manifest would be evidence, and could suffice to establish 
that the individual identified as the signor affixed the signature and 
did so with the intent to sign the electronic manifest to give it 
effect.
4. What Is a ``Digital Signature?''
    Section 262.25(b) of today's proposal would clarify that one type 
of electronic signature that may be used to authenticate the electronic 
manifest is a ``digital signature.'' Section 262.25(c) contains a 
definition of ``digital signature'' which explains that this is a 
specific form of electronic signature which is based on asymmetric 
cryptography. This type of cryptographic method is also known as 
private key/public key cryptography, since it relies on the 
mathematical relationship between a pair of ``keys'' (which are very 
long numbers) to execute and verify a signature. The technical basis 
for this signature technology is described below in greater detail.
    This digital signature method proposed today in Sec. 262.25(c)-(f) 
offers several performance advantages which ensure both reliable 
authentication and data integrity for electronic documents. Digital 
signatures are powerful authentication devices, because they are:
     Unique to the signer,
     Under the signer's sole control,
     Capable of being verified, and
     Linked to the data, so that any change to the data would 
cause the invalidation of the signature.
    Thus, in addition to identifying the signer of a document, a 
digital signature has the additional advantage of providing positive 
verification that the electronic document has not been altered since it 
was signed. Thus, digital signatures provide enhanced security and data 
integrity when compared with personal identification numbers (PINs) and 
other types of electronic signatures. This also makes the digital 
signature approach more suitable for use in open systems such as the 
Internet. While the open network may itself be difficult to secure, the 
digital signature makes it possible to secure the individual signed 
documents, thereby ensuring the authenticity and integrity of records 
that are transmitted and received.
    5. How Do Digital Signatures Work?
    A digital signature is based on cryptography, which is an area of 
applied mathematics that is more commonly associated with scrambling 
and unscrambling transmitted messages so that they remain confidential. 
In creating and verifying digital signatures, however, there is no 
encryption of data. Instead, the cryptographic process is used only for 
authentication purposes.
    Digital signatures rely on asymmetric or public key cryptography. 
In a public key system, each user would have two distinct keys known as 
the ``public key'' and the ``private key.'' The two keys in each key 
pair are mathematically related in such a way that: (1) the public key, 
and only the public key, can authenticate a message that was digitally 
signed with the related private key; and (2) one cannot feasibly 
determine or calculate the private key from knowledge of the public 
key. Once a user has a key pair, he or she must keep the private key 
secure from disclosure and never transmit it. On the other hand, the 
public key is distributed freely to all those with whom the user 
corresponds. Messages digitally signed with party A's private key can 
be authenticated by party B using A's public key which A has 
distributed or published. The great advantage of asymmetric 
cryptography is that communications can be secured across open 
networks, without the need to share or distribute any secret keys.
    Digital signatures are possible because of the key pair 
relationship in asymmetric cryptography. This follows from the fact 
that if A's public key is able to validate the digital signature on a 
message received by B, then B knows with reasonable certainty that the 
message could only have been digitally signed with the corresponding 
private key that is held only by A. So, a digital signature created by 
party A when he ``signs'' an electronic message using A's private key 
can be verified by party B with A's public key, and this validation

[[Page 28285]]

would authenticate A as the source of the document.
    The creation and validation of digital signatures is an involved 
process that involves complex mathematical operations known as 
encryption algorithms. However, the computations that create and 
validate digital signatures are conducted by signature system software, 
and occur transparently to the user. The complexity of the calculations 
is also what ensures the strength and security of the digital signature 
method.
    To create a digital signature, the signer of a document first uses 
his or her signature software to create a digital ``fingerprint'' of 
the document or message that is being signed. A ``hash function'' is 
applied to the message, and the hash function acts on all the binary 
data in the document to produce a numerical result that is unique to 
the document. If even one character or punctuation mark in the document 
is changed, the hash function would compute a different numerical 
result for the document. This unique calculated number thus represents 
the entire document, and is called the ``hash'' or ``message digest.'' 
The signer's software then uses the message digest value and the 
signer's private key to generate the digital signature value. This 
value is forwarded to the recipient along with the text of the 
document. Upon receipt, the recipient's software verifies the message 
digest with the sender's public key, and also runs the hash function on 
the text of the received message. If the sender's public key 
successfully recovers the message digest, and the numerical result of 
the recovered digest matches the number calculated by the recipient's 
hash of the received text, then the digital signature is verified. 
Verification thus indicates that the digital signature was created with 
the signer's private key, and secondly, that the document was not 
altered since it was signed.
    6. What Digital Signature Algorithms and Key Lengths Are 
Acceptable?
    This proposal would require that electronic manifesting systems 
include application support for creating and validating digital 
signatures that comply with existing standards. Currently, there are 
several algorithms which can be used to generate a digital signature. 
In December 1994, the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) adopted the Digital Signature Standard (DSS) as Federal 
Information Processing Standard 186. The 1994 DSS referenced the Secure 
Hash Algorithm (SHA) as the required method for calculating message 
digests. The SHA is a Federal Information Processing Standard that was 
published by the NIST in April 1995 as FIPS PUB 180-1. According to the 
Federal DSS, the message digest calculated under the SHA is then input 
to the DSS's Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA), and the resulting 
encryption of the message digest creates the digital signature. The DSS 
was developed to be a standard for federal information systems, in 
order to improve the utilization and management of computer and related 
telecommunications systems in the Federal Government.
    Despite the specification by NIST of a specific DSS for federal 
systems, few signature software products were developed that supported 
the 1994 DSS. Instead, many of the commercial signature products have 
tended to embrace the algorithm developed by RSA Data Security. Because 
the RSA algorithm has been demonstrated to be strong and effective, and 
also because of its widespread commercial acceptance, the NIST 
determined in December 1998 to include the RSA algorithm in the Federal 
DSS. Thus, either the earlier DSA announced in 1994 by NIST or the RSA 
algorithm described in ANSI standard X9.31 may now be used for 
generating digital signatures in federal information systems. See NIST 
FIPS PUB 186-1, December 15, 1998.
    In light of NIST's recent acceptance of the RSA algorithm, EPA is 
today proposing that digital signature products used in connection with 
the hazardous waste manifest must support the Secure Hash Algorithm 
(for creating message digests) described in FIPS PUB 180-1, and the RSA 
digital signature algorithm (see ANSI X9.31), in accordance with FIPS 
PUB 186-1, December 1998. The RSA algorithm is well understood and has 
been carefully tested, and should provide adequate strength and 
security for the foreseeable future. EPA believes it is appropriate to 
standardize manifest digital signatures around the RSA signature 
algorithm, to facilitate the use and ready verification of digital 
signatures generated by various commercial signature products.
    Digital signature products used in connection with the manifest 
shall support ANSI X9.31 key generation methods. The modulus, which 
reflects the strength of the encryption used in creating a digital 
signature, shall not be less than 1024 bits.
    EPA requests comment on the designation of the RSA algorithm and 
FIPS PUB 186-1 as the standard for manifest digital signatures.
7. Is a Digital Signature Alone Sufficient to Identify Individual 
Signers?
    No. It must be emphasized that, unlike a handwritten signature, a 
digital signature is not a personal attribute or characteristic of the 
signer. When a recipient validates a digital signature with the 
sender's public key, the validation only establishes the fact that the 
public key and private key are mathematically related. The relationship 
of the keys to the individual signer is not certain, without additional 
safeguards that help to bind the signer to the use of the private key.
    To ensure the reliability of digital signatures, two potential 
weaknesses must be safeguarded. First, it is essential that the holder 
or ``owner'' of the private key maintains the security of the private 
key. If one's private key is stolen, lost, or otherwise compromised, 
then the digital signature system may be compromised. An imposter could 
then use a stolen private key to sign documents that would appear to be 
signed by and bind the owner of the key, and unless recipients were 
made aware of the theft, the public key would appear to validate the 
imposter's signature. Second, there must be involved a ``trusted third 
party'' to ensure that the identity of the individual and his or her 
public key are securely bound together in the form of a digital 
certificate, and that all such certificates are properly issued and 
managed.
8. How Would Today's Proposal Deal With the Security of Private Keys?
    Today's proposal would require that individuals protect their 
private signature keys from disclosure or other compromise. As 
discussed below, the discovery that a private key has been compromised 
creates obligations to notify appropriate authorities, who would then 
provide notice that the certificate associated with that key has been 
revoked. In addition, the electronic manifest system controls discussed 
above in section VII.F. of this preamble would require that 
organizations using electronic manifest systems have policies in place 
that hold individuals accountable for actions initiated under their 
electronic signatures. Since employees would be aware of this 
accountability and the sanctions that their employer may impose for 
intentional or careless conduct involving their private keys and 
digital signatures, EPA believes that such controls would provide a 
reasonable deterrent against signers compromising the security of their 
private keys. These requirements are no more demanding

[[Page 28286]]

than those generally accepted by the public in connection with lost 
credit cards. When EPA publishes its supplemental notice detailing the 
manifest PKI, we will provide more information on the proposed security 
requirements for digital signatures.
    Today's proposal would not, however, require that digital signature 
systems used for signing manifests employ a tokenized digital 
signature. With tokenized digital signatures, the private key that 
creates the digital signature resides on a ``smart card'' or other 
hardware token, which is carried on the person of an individual signer 
and accessed with a password or PIN that only the individual would 
know. Such a hardware-based implementation of a digital signature 
system can enhance the security of the system beyond that attainable 
under a system where the private key resides on software stored on 
one's hard drive or network server. Hardware-based systems provide 
greater security because the hardware token ties the signature act more 
closely to the individual holder of the token. A hardware-based system 
also protects the private encryption key from attacks by hackers or 
saboteurs. EPA is not proposing the use of the hardware-based approach, 
because we believe that manifest digital signatures would be 
sufficiently secure when implemented with software, and because the use 
of hardware tokens adds additional cost and complexity (installation of 
card readers) which are not warranted in this application. 
Organizations desiring higher levels of signature security would of 
course have the option of implementing a ``smart card'' or other token-
based approach. The Agency requests comment on this issue.
9. Why Is a ``Trusted Third Party'' Necessary for Digital Signatures?
    Beyond the problems presented by loss or theft of private keys, 
there is a more fundamental issue associated with the creation and use 
of a digital signature. Validation of a signature with a public key 
only verifies the relationship between the keys in a given private key/
public key pair. As an initial matter, therefore, one must have some 
objective means of validating that the person who subscribes to or 
``owns'' a given key pair is who they say they are. This need goes to 
the issue of establishing the bond between the individual signer and 
the key pair that was generated arbitrarily by the digital signature 
system.
    In digital signature systems, the role of the ``trusted third 
party'' that would vouch for the bond between a particular individual 
and a private key/public key pair is played by Certification 
Authorities. The Certification Authority (CA) must obtain from 
individual subscribers some type of proof (e.g., a driver's license or 
Social Security Number) to establish the identity of the subscriber. In 
this sense, the CA functions like an electronic notary that certifies 
that an individual is who they claim to be. When the CA is satisfied 
with the subscriber's identity proof, it issues a digital certificate 
that identifies the individual subscriber and their associated public 
key. The CA signs the subscriber's digital certificate with its private 
key, so that recipients can (with the CA's public key) validate that 
the certificate is authentic and in fact originated from the CA. Then, 
when the subscriber uses its private key to sign a document, he or she 
could also send a copy of the CA's certificate with the transmission to 
the recipient. The recipient's application could then verify that the 
document was signed with the subscriber's private key, and also verify 
that the certificate is a valid certificate. Enabling the validation of 
certificates is an essential function of the CA, which must track 
certificates that have been revoked (e.g., a key was compromised or an 
employee terminated) or that have expired. So, by checking the CA's on-
line registry or data base of revoked certificates, or lists of revoked 
certificates published in other places, the recipient of a digitally 
signed document can determine whether it should rely on a given 
certificate and digital signature.
10. What Digital Certificates Would Be Required Under Today's Proposal?
    An international, standardized format has been established for 
digital certificates, so that digital signature systems may efficiently 
automate the validation of certificates. To maintain consistency with 
the international standard, EPA would require in this proposal that 
digital certificates meeting the current X.509 standard be obtained by 
subscribers who would use digital signatures to sign electronic 
manifests. This standard is well established, and has been implemented 
in numerous signature products that are now available and in use. The 
current version of the standard is X.509v3, and this certificate 
standard specifies several data fields, including the name and 
signature algorithm of the Certificate Authority, the serial number of 
the certificate in the CA's domain of public key certificates, the name 
of the subscriber, the public key value and signature algorithm of the 
subscriber, and period of validity for the particular certificate. 
Other data fields for unique identifier information and optional 
extensions are also included in Version 3 of the X.509 certificate 
standard and are included in a standard Federal profile established by 
the Federal PKI Steering Committee Technical Working Group chaired by 
the National Institute Standards and Technology. Information about this 
standard Federal profile is available at http://gits-sec.treas.gov. EPA 
requests comment on the inclusion of these X.509 certificate standards 
in the digital signature approach proposed today for electronic 
manifests.
11. What Is a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)?
    The entities and services that support the issuance and use of 
digital certificates make up the so-called public key infrastructure, 
or PKI. To be fully functional, a PKI must be able to provide the 
following services to those that would subscribe to or rely on digital 
certificates:
     Certificate registration or enrollment,
     Certificate issuance and delivery,
     Maintenance of a directory of valid certificates,
     Maintenance of a list of revoked certificates, and
     Maintenance of long-term archives of certificate records.
    At the heart of a PKI is a Certificate Authority (CA), which serves 
as the trusted third party to oversee the certificate enrollment, 
issuance, validation, and revocation processes. Typically, subscribers 
(those applying for certificates) would look to CAs to conduct a proper 
identify proofing inquiry and then issue them digital certificates that 
accurately convey the subscribers' identity information and public 
keys. Relying parties (those who would rely on the certificate as proof 
that they are dealing with the named subscriber) would look to CAs to 
maintain accurate and timely information to validate certificates, 
including the maintenance of on-line certificate repositories or data 
bases that may be queried by relying parties. These services can all be 
provided by a Certification Authority, but in some instances, a CA may 
delegate to others specific tasks such as certificate enrollment, 
collecting identity proofing information, certificate production, or 
processing validation requests. The CA's identify proofing procedures 
and the standards that it follows for issuing and managing certificates 
are typically spelled out in the CA's detailed Certification Practices 
Statement.
    PKIs can be developed for ``closed'' and ``open'' user communities. 
For example, one might wish to authorize

[[Page 28287]]

the use of digital certificates in the context of a very narrow user 
community (e.g., those signing and transmitting health claims forms), 
or, one might wish to use certificates broadly to support all manner of 
on-line transactions or dealings with public and private entities. The 
more ``open'' models for establishing PKIs may involve multiple CAs 
issuing certificates and processing certificate validation requests. In 
such cases, issues may arise about the interoperability of the 
different CAs' certificates, as well as issues about the similarity of 
their proofing standards and procedures, and whether the different CAs 
can ``cross-certify'' and recognize each others'' certificates.
    There is currently much discussion underway within federal and 
state governments on the standards and procedures that should govern 
the issuance and use of digital certificates in government information 
systems. Significantly, EPA is participating in the Federal Public Key 
Infrastructure Steering Committee, which includes representatives from 
more than two dozen federal agencies. This Federal PKI Steering 
Committee is now developing a Certificate Policy for a Federal Bridge 
Certification Authority (FBCA) that would establish a framework of 
minimum requirements for the issuance and management of interoperable 
digital certificates within the federal government. The FBCA 
Certificate Policy is currently being developed as a high level 
statement of the legal aspects of agency CA's operations, rather than 
the detailed technical aspects. The FBCA Certificate Policy could then 
be adopted by participating agencies to cover the use of digital 
certificate services, and fine-tuned to meet the security needs of 
specific programs. Other public and private sector groups are 
attempting to address the issue of certificate interoperability, by 
developing certificate content and processing standards that would 
facilitate the reliable exchange of digital certificates and their 
automated validation.
    Recently, the General Services Administration (GSA) has established 
its ``Access Certificates for Electronic Services'' (ACES) program for 
issuing digital certificates to support the public's access to federal 
information systems. The ACES model was conceived as a government-wide 
PKI structure to be administered under GSA contracts, with certificate 
services being provided by multiple, commercial vendors awarded ACES 
contracts. The ACES approach offers these beneficial features:
     A unified, consistent approach to obtaining PKI services 
from the government, thus avoiding the creation of many, limited scope 
PKIs for numerous government programs;
     Increased efficiencies and reduced costs to certificate 
users, through the aggregation of the government's certificate needs 
across many participating agencies;
     On-line subscriber registration and certificate issuance, 
with identify proofing of subscribers drawing on several, independent-
sourced databases;
     On-line and nearly real-time certificate validation for 
relying parties;
     A common Certificate Policy to govern all parties' 
responsibilities and the CAs' operations;
     Assured interoperability of certificate processing by the 
several ACES contractors (CAs), through the design and operation of the 
so-called ``Certificate Arbitrator Module'' that would be developed for 
the ACES program; and
     Several pricing options for certificate services, the cost 
of which would be borne by the participating government agencies 
relying on the certificates issued to the public.
    While EPA believes that the ACES program offered by GSA has much to 
offer, it is not entirely suited to the hazardous waste manifest 
program. The current ACES model was designed primarily to support those 
Federal applications (e.g. websites) where members of the public would 
be reporting data directly to or requesting information from the 
federal agency. In this model, the federal agency would always be the 
``relying party'' that would be validating the identity of those 
members of the public dealing with the agency's information system. 
However, EPA does not now collect manifests from the public, nor does 
it intend to create a centralized reporting system or national data 
base for tracking manifest data. Numerous states collect manifests, but 
ACES is not currently authorized to contract with State agencies for 
certificate services. In addition, most of the electronic manifest 
transmissions contemplated by today's proposal would be transmissions 
among the commercial firms handling hazardous waste shipments, rather 
than transactions with government agencies. So, the PKI for the 
manifest system would need to address the fact that the waste handlers 
would be the typical ``relying parties'' that would need to validate 
the certificates of other waste handlers involved in their waste 
transactions. The PKI would therefore need to provide for certificate 
services in the context of these routine manifest transmissions between 
waste handlers, and apportion the cost of certificate issuance and 
validation services equitably among these entities.
    EPA believes that digital signatures and certificates will play a 
vital role in the near term in bolstering the level of trust accorded 
electronic transactions. The development of PKIs is at an early stage 
and very much in flux, and many of the details about how and when EPA 
would establish PKIs for RCRA and its other environmental programs will 
not become clear until later in the development of this rulemaking.
    For example, EPA's Office of Environmental Information is 
addressing more generally EPA's efforts to implement the GPEA statute, 
and issues across EPA's programs for submitting electronic reports to 
EPA. EPA expects that digital signatures will play in important role in 
electronic reporting. Currently, EPA is testing a prototype approach 
for a Central Data Exchange, and is testing the use of ACES 
certificates in connection with the prototype system. As a part of a 
submitter registration process, EPA is considering whether to require 
that those applying for digital certificates execute a hand-signed 
electronic signature agreement that would contain terms and 
certifications addressing, among other things, the signer's 
responsibility to protect its private key from compromise, unauthorized 
use, or delegation to others. EPA is also considering whether 
registrants should be required to periodically re-certify that he or 
she has done nothing in violation of the signature agreement.
    The details of EPA's PKI approach are evolving. However, the Agency 
is today providing notice that it is proposing a digital signature 
option for electronically signing manifests, and this would necessitate 
some form of PKI to be established as well. EPA is looking at several 
approaches for establishing a PKI for the manifest. Commenters are 
advised to look to future proposals for more detailed information on 
the PKI topic. Policies developed for PKI in other rules would likely 
be relevant to and perhaps incorporated into this rulemaking. For 
example, should EPA conclude that signature agreements with 
certifications addressing subscribers' responsibilities to protect 
their private keys are necessary to ensure accountability and 
enforceability in connection with digital signatures, EPA would likely 
include similar signature agreement terms for the manifest PKI. Once 
EPA has established a more comprehensive PKI policy, we will issue a 
supplemental notice in this rulemaking identifying a more specific

[[Page 28288]]

PKI proposal for the manifest. Additional public comments on this topic 
will be solicited at that time.
12. What PKI Options Are Being Considered for the Manifest?
    EPA is evaluating several distinct options for establishing a 
manifest system PKI. These options differ primarily on the level of 
centralization of PKI services, and whether government agencies (EPA or 
authorized state agencies) or commercial waste firms would establish 
these PKIs to support their digital certificate activities
    a. Centralized PKI for Environmental Programs. Under this option, 
EPA would establish a centralized PKI structure to service the manifest 
program and other environmental programs. This ``environmental 
community PKI'' could then deal centrally and efficiently with 
supplying certificate services to the various entities subject to the 
reporting and record keeping mandates of the environmental programs 
administered by EPA or by authorized state programs. This model would 
appear to be fit well with the ``Central Data Exchange'' role that the 
Agency's new Information Office has identified as one of its electronic 
reporting initiatives. The Central Data Exchange would act as a central 
hub for receiving, processing, and routing to recipients the many in-
bound records and reports that external stakeholders would send 
electronically to EPA or participating state agencies. Under this 
option, the central receiving facility role would extend also to 
providing digital certificate services for the environmental community.
    Under this option, EPA would likely leverage existing expertise, 
and contract with one or more commercial CA vendors to supply 
certificate issuance and processing services. A fairly generic 
Certificate Policy could be developed to define user roles, 
responsibilities, and required CA operations. Interoperability 
requirements could be included in the event that multiple CA vendors 
are awarded contracts, and links to the CAs' on-line sites for 
obtaining certificate enrollment and certificate validation services 
would be provided. A centralized on-line registry or data base of 
revoked certificates would be maintained by the CAs for the 
environmental community, so that the status of certificates could be 
readily determined. The commercial CAs could then bill users directly 
for the enrollment or validation services provided to subscribers and 
relying parties.
    EPA believes that a centralized PKI approach offers the advantages 
of greater efficiencies and economies of scale, when compared to models 
under which each environmental program or commercial enterprise (e.g., 
a waste disposal company and its customers) would establish its own 
PKI. Also, a centralized approach appears to offer greater prospects 
for avoiding interoperability issues in connection with validating the 
certificates that would be issued to a great number of commercial 
entities engaging in interstate transactions. The ability to quickly 
and reliably validate certificates is critical to fostering trust in 
digitally signed communications.
    However, there may be difficulties as well in establishing such a 
centralized PKI. State electronic signature laws may impose additional 
controls or licensing requirements on CAs, and an EPA-led PKI would 
need to yield to or comport with any additional or different standards 
required under state law. Also, this option is dependent on the 
participation by many commercial entities and state agencies in a 
centralized system, and some may prefer to establish their own systems, 
rather than defer to EPA. Also, the potential liability of contractors 
performing CA services could also be an issue, and provisions limiting 
the CAs' liability may need to be included in their contracts, or the 
vendors may not wish to participate.
    b. Decentralized Approach to PKI. Under this option, each waste 
management or other environmental community would establish and operate 
its own PKI, or obtain the services of commercial vendors who would 
obtain the certificates and manage them. So, waste management firms 
might establish PKIs for their networks of facilities and customers. 
Alternatively, states could be the organizations that establish 
localized PKIs to deal with the submissions they receive from their 
regulated communities. EPA would not issue a generic Certificate Policy 
under this option. Rather, EPA's role in a decentralized approach would 
be limited to establishing in this rulemaking some minimal criteria 
which these PKIs should meet, such as minimally acceptable identity 
proofing by CAs, minimally acceptable key lengths and encryption 
algorithms, the definition of those events that would necessitate 
certificate revocation, the maintenance of certificate revocation 
lists, a determination of the frequency with which certificate status 
data must be updated, and minimal archiving and auditability criteria 
for CAs' records of certificates.
    This option would appear to offer several benefits. Certificate 
policies and CA practices could be tailored closely to the needs of the 
PKI community at hand, as well as the local laws and procedures 
applicable in the states where the users operate. EPA would be 
minimally involved in creating ``national'' PKI policy, or in 
administering the PKI-related contracts and ``central receiving 
facility'' types of support network for PKI services. Also, this 
rulemaking would only need to address PKI issues minimally.
    EPA believes that this option would also pose significant 
drawbacks. First, anecdotal evidence suggests that setting up a PKI can 
be an expensive proposition. Establishing a PKI can involve either 
contracting with vendors to provide these services, or the expenditure 
of considerable resources on-site to provide the skilled personnel, the 
technical hardware and software, and the certificate processing data 
bases needed to provide enrollment and validation services. Some 
entities would likely not proceed at all with PKIs if they were 
required to incur these costs alone, and it would appear to be 
extremely inefficient to have these expenditures duplicated many times 
over so that numerous PKIs could be established for more narrowly 
defined communities. Moreover, in the decentralized model, there would 
be greater likelihood that the certificates that would be issued by 
numerous CAs operating under disparate Certificate Policies would not 
be interoperable or recognized by the other CAs.
    c. Hybrid Option. Under a hybrid approach, EPA would establish a 
standard Certificate Policy similar to the ACES Program Certificate 
Policy for the ``environmental reporting community'' and define the 
required structure of the X.509 v.3 certificates that would be issued 
in connection with EPA's environmental programs. EPA would contract 
with commercial CAs to provide the certificate services for the 
manifest and other EPA programs. For example, the Agency could contract 
with one or more of the CAs selected under the ACES procurement 
process, in order to foster the interoperability of the certificates 
that these vendors would issue. The Certificate Policy could, for 
example, allow the State environmental agencies to function as the 
local registration authorities (LRAs) that would gather certificate 
enrollment information from subscribers and confirm through local 
program data bases the content of certificates. Once adequate 
information is obtained and confirmed by the LRA, it then would direct 
the CA to issue or renew certificates. The contracts with EPA would 
provide that CAs would charge

[[Page 28289]]

the participating commercial entities directly for certificate 
subscription and validation services. This hybrid option offers many of 
the advantages of the centralized option, while permitting states to 
exercise their prerogatives in controlling access to certificates by 
their regulated community.
    EPA requests comments on these three options for establishing a 
PKI. Comments addressing their relative advantages and disadvantages, 
as well as suggestions for implementing them effectively would be 
especially helpful. EPA will address these comments and identify a more 
specific PKI proposal in the supplemental notice that we will later 
publish for comment.
13. Proposed ``Secure Digitized Signature'' Method
    EPA recognizes that the digital signature approach discussed above 
may not be suited to many manifest users. The digital signature 
technology is clearly a reliable and proven method for authenticating 
electronic documents, but managing encryption keys and working within a 
PKI may introduce a level of complexity that some users may find 
objectionable. In addition, some may find the digital signature method 
objectionable because it deviates too far from the more familiar 
signing ceremony that one associates with handwritten signatures. For 
these users, an electronic signature method that more closely mimics 
handwritten signatures may be more desirable, especially for use in the 
field where manifests are typically signed.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing ``secure digitized signatures'' as 
another signature alternative for the manifest. This alternative would 
allow electronic manifesting systems to incorporate software, digitizer 
pads, and electronic pens that create a graphical representation of a 
signer's handwritten signature. The electronic manifest copies would be 
signed with the digitizer/pen device, and the manifest records would 
retain the graphical image of the hand-signed electronic signature. The 
software would be required to store the signature as a ``signature 
object'' that contains the graphical image of the signature, signature 
capture data, and document binding data. The document binding data 
required here would be data which show that the signature is 
cryptographically and inextricably bound to the signed document. In 
addition, the software would be required to display the graphical 
signature image in an industry-standard bitmap format (e.g., TIFF or 
BMP) for viewing or printing. Customers and business partners would 
therefore be able to recognize such an electronic signature image as 
the likeness of the signer's signature. In this respect, the digitized 
signature can be applied and ``verified'' in the field nearly as easily 
as a handwritten pen-and-ink type signature.
    A key feature of the proposed ``secure digitized signature'' 
standard is the inclusion of additional security measures and signature 
object data beyond the basic signature bitmap image. These additional 
measures would be required because standard bitmap images alone present 
security risks that would mitigate their reliability as a means of 
authenticating electronic records. Standard bitmap files can be readily 
copied between documents, such that a non-original signature could be 
applied to a document using conventional ``cut-and-paste'' editing 
tools. Without additional safeguards, an imposter could conceivably 
obtain a bitmap image of another's signature, and apply it to a new 
document in such a way as to create the impression that the other 
person signed the document. This would create many opportunities for 
forging electronic signatures and present plausible scenarios for 
repudiation of electronic documents.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing that electronic manifest systems using 
this signature method must adopt certain measures that would secure 
this signature method against the unbridled copying of signature 
bitmaps. Under today's proposal, ``secure digitized signatures'' must 
incorporate these additional features to enhance their authentication 
and data integrity capabilities:
     The signature software must block access to ``cut-and-
paste'' editing functions;
     The signature software must only accept ``real time'' 
signature data input from the digitizer/pen device;
     The signature software shall record the signature data as 
a ``signature object'' that contains:
     The graphical image of the signature for display and print 
operations, in industry-standard bitmap format (e.g., TIFF or BMP),
     Signature capture information, particularly, the claimed 
identity of the signer (e.g., a user ID) and the date and time of 
signing, and
     Document binding data, particularly, an encrypted checksum 
or hash function of the data to which the signature relates.
     The signature software shall allow for verification of 
signature objects, to establish if data has been changed since the 
signature was captured.
    These features are intended to address signature authenticity and 
data integrity. EPA has had some experience with the digitized 
signature method in its Manifest Automation Pilot tests, and based on 
early results from the 3rd phase of Internet tests, this method appears 
to be practical and reliable . There are several signature products 
that are now commercially available which appear to meet the standard 
proposed here.
14. Request for Comments on Proposed Signature Methods
    Today's proposal would require electronic manifests to be 
electronically signed with either digital signatures meeting the 
Sec. 262.25(c)-(f) standards or with secure digitized signatures 
meeting the standards of Sec. 262.25(g). EPA believes that the proposed 
signature approaches would provide sufficient assurance that a signed 
manifest is authentic, and that it has not been altered since being 
signed by a waste handler. EPA believes that the proposed electronic 
signature methods represent effective ways to bind an individual to his 
or her unique electronic signature. We believe that these types of 
electronic signatures can establish a bond as reliable as the bond 
between an individual and their handwritten signature. Also, we believe 
that these signature technologies are more practical and proven than 
other authentication technologies that rely on biometrics (e.g., 
fingerprint readers or retina scans), as the biometric methods 
identified to date tend to have significant error rates which hamper 
their utility. Biometric methods also are not typically implemented in 
ways that link the biometric parameters being measured to the data 
being signed, so they are not as helpful in assuring data integrity as 
the methods proposed here.
    The proposed methods do entail some additional cost to users. For 
example, the digital signature method requires the establishment of a 
PKI, and in addition, Certification Authorities typically would charge 
subscribers and relying parties fees to issue and validate digital 
certificates. Software integrating the signature method with the other 
manifest preparation and transmission functions would need to be 
acquired, and depending on the method selected, there may be additional 
costs associated with digitizers or other peripherals. The Agency is 
proposing these signature methods in spite of these incremental costs, 
because we believe that these methods would be instrumental in making 
electronically signed manifests trustworthy and legally enforceable. 
Thus, the additional security and

[[Page 28290]]

trustworthiness that should result under the proposed approaches 
balance the cost considerations. EPA requests comment on the electronic 
signature methods proposed here for the manifest. In particular, 
comments addressing the following issues would be very helpful to EPA.
     Do manifest signatures require the level of security 
offered by the digital signature technology?
     Is the proposed software-based implementation of the 
private signature key a reasonable accommodation of signature security, 
practical implementation considerations, and cost?
     Would the administrative complexity and cost of 
establishing or participating in PKIs deter waste handlers from 
implementing digital signature-based electronic manifest systems?
     Is it practical for waste handlers and their employees to 
sign manifests using digitizers or digital signature products? Are 
there human factors or other issues involved that would make such 
signature methods impractical for hazardous waste shipments?
     For digital signatures, would individuals and sponsoring 
firms be willing and able to maintain the confidentiality of their 
private keys, and accept accountability if private keys are 
compromised? Should EPA require registrants to enter into signature 
agreements that contain certifications that the private key would be 
protected from disclosure, unauthorized use, or delegation? Should 
registrants also be required to periodically re-certify that they have 
not violated their signature agreements, and if so, what would be the 
appropriate frequency of such re-certifications? Should the signature 
agreements and re-certifications be signed by hand?
     What types and quantity of proof of identity should be 
required to support the issuance of a digital certificate for use in 
the manifest program? Should applicants be required to present 
themselves in person to the Certificate or Registration Authority, or 
should less formal proof be acceptable?
     Is it practical to verify digital signatures on a document 
such as the manifest, which is signed sequentially by multiple waste 
handlers, and occasionally edited while it is being transmitted among 
handlers? Must multiple versions of each manifest document be 
maintained by the software so that the complete history of the document 
is preserved?
     How susceptible are digitally signed and electronically 
stored media to deterioration over time, such that a digital signature 
might become corrupted during storage and thus fail to validate? Are 
there practical solutions to this problem?
     Is it feasible to require validation of digital signatures 
and certificates over the long term? Are there practical ways to ensure 
long-term authentication and enforcement capability, without requiring 
indefinite signature validation mechanisms?
     With respect to the secure digitized signature method, 
does the proposed standard provide adequate security for manifest 
signatures? Does the similarity of digitized signature images to 
handwritten signatures offer advantages that manifest users would find 
attractive? Does software implementing this approach support open 
standards, rather than proprietary algorithms and standards?
     Is the secure digitized signature approach proposed here 
adequate to prevent ``replay attacks'' by which a digitized signature 
could be appended to another document and thus forged? Are there other 
practical measures that should be included to guard against copies 
being substituted for original digitized signatures? Are the algorithms 
that are used to bind these signatures to record data sufficiently 
strong to prevent attacks or misuse?
     Should the Agency require that there also be some visual 
feedback provided to signers during the digitized signature act, so 
that signers can clearly see how the system is capturing their 
signatures and thereby enter more accurate signature data? What 
additional cost would be incurred if digitizer pads were required to 
provide such feedback?
     Should the proposed secure digitized signature method also 
require that these systems capture dynamic signature parameters, e.g., 
speed of signature, pressure applied to the pad, and pen stroke 
measurements? Should the proposal also require that the captured 
dynamic signature information be used in real time to validate the 
digitized signature? Would such data significantly enhance the ability 
to establish the genuineness of a signature? Are the current products 
which provide this capability accurate and reliable? Would the forensic 
evidence produced by these products provide a sufficient and reliable 
basis for civil and criminal litigation? Which dynamic signature 
parameters are most relevant and reliable insofar as being helpful to 
verify an electronic signature as genuine?
     Should EPA be concerned that users of digitized signature 
systems might be more inclined to enter null or nonsense signatures on 
a digitizer pad than they would if they were signing a paper document?
     As an additional measure to enhance the security and 
authenticity of digitized signatures, should EPA require that digitized 
signatures also be digitally signed? EPA has not included this 
requirement in the proposed rule option, as it was the Agency's intent 
to establish the secure digitized signature method as a distinct 
alternative to the digital signature method. Specifically, we developed 
the proposed digitized signature method to allow hand signed electronic 
signatures to be verified without the administrative complexity of a 
public key infrastructure. While it is technically feasible to 
digitally sign a digitized signature, EPA is concerned that the 
additional security gains would be outweighed by the additional cost 
and complexity associated with implementing this approach.
     Is the proposed secure digitized method practical and 
cost-effective when compared to hand-signed forms or to the digital 
signature/PKI alternative?
     Is the Agency being too prescriptive in proposing only the 
``digital signature'' and ``secure digitized signature'' methods, 
rather than authorizing the use of ``electronic signatures'' more 
broadly? If the Agency adopted a broader approach, what performance or 
technical criteria would be appropriate for authorizing the use of 
additional signature methods? What approval process would be followed 
to authorize any additional methods, and who would be responsible for 
reviewing and approving such methods? If numerous methods were to be 
authorized, how would EPA ensure that the manifest's multiple 
signatures could be readable and readily verifiable by all those who 
might encounter and wish to rely on the electronic manifests?
     Is it appropriate for the Agency to propose two 
alternative signature approaches? Would the two alternative methods 
conflict in practice, and if so, how can EPA minimize this problem? 
Does the interstate nature of waste transactions and the need for 
multiple signatures on the manifest provide justification for adopting 
one uniform method or standard for signatures? If only one signature 
approach makes sense for the manifest, should EPA adopt the digital 
signature or the secure digitized method?
     Is there merit to a Personal Identification Number (PIN) 
system, in which individuals would enter a unique sequence of alpha-
numeric characters which they have adopted as their electronic 
signature. A PIN system may be less costly to implement than other 
electronic signature alternatives,

[[Page 28291]]

although such systems can require considerable company and agency 
oversight in order to issue, manage, and revoke PINs as appropriate. A 
PIN-based signature system may be appropriate for electronic 
transactions for which there is not as critical a need for security or 
strong authentication. However, in the context of developing electronic 
reporting standards for the Discharge Monitoring Report (a Clean Water 
Act requirement), EPA concluded that, in order to satisfy standards of 
proof for criminal prosecutions, it was preferable to require more than 
simply a PIN for authentication of a record. So, in the Discharge 
Monitoring Report rulemaking, EPA proposed the use of a PIN signature 
backed up with a follow-up certification that would be hand-signed and 
mailed to the Agency. This approach seems impractical for the manifest, 
and therefore, EPA has not included a PIN approach in today's proposal. 
However, we solicit comments on the practicality and security of PIN-
based methods in the context of the manifest system, and how such an 
approach could be implemented securely and efficiently.

H. Preparer Signature Proposal

1. What is a ``Preparer Signature''?
    The manifest is completed when the generator signs the Generator's 
Certification contained in Block 16 of the Uniform Hazardous Waste 
Manifest. The generator makes this certification before turning custody 
of the shipment over to the transporter, and the certification 
statement attests that the waste shipment is fully and accurately 
described on the manifest, and that the shipment is in all respects in 
proper condition for highway transportation according to applicable 
national and international laws. In addition, the certification 
includes statements regarding a generator's waste minimization program 
or, for SQGs, efforts to minimize waste. Currently, the generator's 
certification requires the hand signature of the generator or an 
authorized representative of the generator.
    Today's proposal would allow an electronic manifest ``preparer'' to 
sign a generator's manifest. For purposes of the automated manifest, 
the proposal would enable such a preparer to sign the generator's 
certification on behalf of the generator with the preparer's electronic 
signature.
2. Why Is EPA Proposing To Allow Preparers To Sign Electronic Manifests 
for Generators?
    EPA is aware that it is a common practice for an entity or 
individual other than the generator (e.g., employee or contractor) 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 TSDF prepare the 
manifest paperwork as a part of the service it provides to its 
generator customers. EPA has already clarified, through an amendment to 
Item 16 of the manifest instructions, that the handwritten signature on 
paper manifests may be made by employees or other individuals on behalf 
of the generator. 51 FR 35190 at 35192 (October 1, 1986). Because the 
electronic manifest may also be prepared by entities or individuals 
other than the generator, it is appropriate to provide similar 
flexibility for the preparation and signing of the electronic manifest. 
Please note, however, that EPA is not reconsidering, reopening, or 
requesting comment on the existing rule allowing employees or other 
individuals to sign the paper manifest on behalf of a generator.
    EPA believes that allowing preparers to sign an electronic manifest 
on behalf of a generator would be particularly important in ensuring 
that small generators may take advantage of the electronic manifest 
option. Hazardous waste transporters and TSDFs frequently prepare 
manifests as a service to smaller generators. While the small or 
infrequent generator would not be expected to obtain computer equipment 
or software to conduct automated manifesting, the transporters and 
TSDFs that deal in larger volumes of manifests would likely find 
automated manifesting more advantageous. Thus, allowing the preparer to 
sign the electronic manifest provides a way for small or infrequent 
generators to participate in the automated system. EPA estimates that 
small generator manifests may account for about 66% of the manifests 
circulated annually. So, providing a means to include these manifests 
would extend the burden reduction effects of manifest automation to 
these manifests as well, particularly, as they are received and 
processed by transporters, TSDFs, and State agencies.
3. How Would the Preparer Signature Feature Work?
    Under today's proposal, a preparer may initiate electronic 
manifests for its generator customers only if the preparer has been 
authorized by the generator to prepare and sign the generator's 
manifests on behalf of the generator. EPA is further clarifying that 
the authorization need not be in any specific form, but there must be 
clear evidence of intent that the preparer is authorized to prepare and 
sign manifests on behalf of the generator. The generator can limit this 
authorization to a specific term, or to specific waste types, as 
appropriate. The generator can also revoke the authorization at any 
time.
    Today's proposal would provide that electronic manifests may be 
signed electronically by preparers who have been authorized to prepare 
and sign electronic manifests on behalf of the generator. So, a 
transporter or TSDF under contract with the generator could arrive on-
site for a waste shipment pick-up and have authorization from the 
generator to prepare the shipment and sign the manifest electronically 
on behalf of the generator. A person signing a manifest (paper or 
electronic) on behalf of a generator would not become liable as a RCRA 
``generator'' simply by signing the manifest. The question of whether 
such a person might also be held responsible for complying with the 
generator requirements would depend on the facts and circumstances of 
individual cases. For example, a contractor can under other 
circumstances be a co-generator of a waste, and in such instances, may 
in fact assume generator responsibilities for completing the manifest. 
See 45 FR 72024 at 72026 (October 30, 1980).
    Since an authorized preparer does not assume generator 
responsibilities simply by signing an electronic manifest on behalf of 
a generator, the generator would in all such cases still be identified 
on the manifest as the generator of the shipment. Today's proposal 
would only affect who might perform the physical act of signing the 
generator's certification in the course of initiating the electronic 
manifest. Once signed by the preparer, the electronic manifest would 
then be transmitted electronically to subsequent transporters and the 
TSDF, and any copies required by generation or destination states could 
also be supplied electronically, if the states involved allow 
electronic submission of manifest copies.
4. How Would a Preparer-Signed Electronic Manifest Be Closed Out?
    Under today's proposal, the generator would remain responsible for 
overseeing that its off-site shipments are in fact received by the 
designated facility or TSDF. So, a preparer authorized to transmit 
manifests electronically must, at the time the

[[Page 28292]]

shipment is initiated, leave a manifest copy (hard copy) with the 
generator. The generator copy would include a notation that the 
manifest was initiated electronically by the preparer, and it would 
indicate the date that the manifest was initiated, and the date that 
the shipment was delivered to the first transporter. Upon receipt or 
rejection of the shipment by the designated TSDF, the TSDF would 
likewise communicate to the generator the fact of receipt, rejection, 
or any discrepancies. This communication could be provided in the form 
of a hard copy of the manifest, or a memorandum signed by the TSDF 
which references the manifest number for the shipment, which states 
that the waste shipment was received or rejected, and which describes 
any discrepancies. Thus, the generator would retain these records of 
receipt, rejection, or discrepancies among its records, just as it now 
retains a manifest copy signed by the TSDF. The generator would still 
be expected to reconcile or report any discrepancies or exceptions that 
might arise. So, under this proposal, the generator's role would not 
change with respect to close-out of the manifest and reconciling 
problems.
5. Request for Comments
    EPA requests comments on the proposal to allow preparer signatures 
as a means of initiating generators' electronic manifests. Comments 
responding to these issues would be useful:
     Should the preparer approach for electronic manifests 
include additional safeguards to ensure accountability, particularly 
where preparers allied with transporters or TSDFs are allowed to 
perform these activities on the generator's behalf?
     Should the preparer signature approach be limited to 
digital signature systems only? With the secure digitized signature 
method, it should not be difficult for transporters to obtain digitized 
signatures from small or medium sized generators using remote, portable 
devices (with signature pads) that the transporter would bring to the 
generator's site. Should the rule require generator's signatures to be 
obtained when this is practical, or, should the preparer signature 
approach be more widely available regardless of the signature method 
used?
     Should preparers of electronic manifests be required to 
have written, hand-signed authorizations from generators authorizing 
the preparer to sign manifests electronically on behalf of the 
generator? While written authorization is not required to enable 
another person to sign one's paper manifest on their behalf, are there 
reasons unique to the activities of electronic preparers that warrant 
written authorization to sign an electronic manifest on the generator's 
behalf?
     Is there an effective alternative to the proposed approach 
for closing out preparer-initiated electronic manifests that would not 
require hard copies of manifests to be issued and retained by 
generators? Could the preparer receive verification of receipt or 
notice of rejections or discrepancies electronically on behalf of the 
generator? How would the generator's interests be preserved in such a 
case, particularly where the preparer is employed by the same entity 
that operates the receiving facility?

I. Third Party Storage of Manifest Records

1. What Does EPA Mean by Third-Party Storage?
    Currently, RCRA facilities are required to maintain manifest 
records on-site for inspection by RCRA inspectors. Section 3007(a) of 
the RCRA statute requires that all hazardous waste facilities shall 
afford RCRA inspectors access at reasonable times to facilities that 
manage hazardous waste. This section also requires that RCRA inspectors 
shall be permitted reasonable access to facility records for 
examination or copying. Significantly, the Act only requires access to 
records such as manifests; it does not prescribe how that access must 
be provided.
    As document storage methods undergo the transition from retention 
of paper files to storage or records on electronic media, it becomes 
less essential where the storage media resides. As long as there is 
reasonable access to electronic records at a RCRA facility, it should 
not matter whether the specific document actually resides on a disk at 
the facility, or whether it is downloaded from a network or server for 
which the storage media is physically located out of state. As long as 
the required reasonable access to the file is ensured, and electronic 
records can be called up, examined, printed, and copied at the 
facility, EPA does not believe that the Act or policy considerations 
preclude storage by such ``third-party'' storers (e.g., commercial 
network services or record archive services). Indeed, today's proposed 
rule would impose specific obligations on those storing records 
electronically to comply with computer security controls, and those 
that offer electronic storage services commercially may be in a better 
position than some RCRA waste handlers to bring their systems into 
compliance with these controls. So, it seems sensible to the Agency 
that our automated manifesting rules and policy allow flexibility on 
this issue.
    Current facility standards for permitted TSDFs (40 CFR 
264.71(a)(5)) and for interim status facilities (40 CFR 265.71(a)(5)) 
include the direction that manifest copies must be retained ``at the 
facility'' for 3 years. EPA believes that this requirement is met if an 
electronic copy can be produced and accessed at the facility, even 
though the physical device on which the record may be stored is in fact 
external to the facility.
2. What Are the Proposed Conditions on Third-Party Storage?
    Today's proposal would permit facilities to engage commercial 
record storage services or networks to provide for electronic storage 
of manifest copies. This proposal would be conditioned on the records 
being readily retrievable during the full record retention period, on 
reasonable inspector access for examination and copying of manifest 
copies being ensured, and on compliance with this proposal's electronic 
record system controls. EPA emphasizes that RCRA facilities remain 
responsible for providing inspectors access to all electronic records; 
they cannot contract away their responsibility by engaging the services 
of a commercial storage service provider. Firms would be required to 
include terms in their contracts with third-party storers providing 
that records must remain readily accessible during the full record 
retention period, that reasonable inspector access for examination and 
copying of manifest records must be available, and that the third-party 
storage provider must comply with this rule's electronic record system 
controls.
3. Request for Comments
    EPA requests comments on this proposal to permit third-party 
storage services to aid RCRA facilities in implementing electronic 
storage programs, by providing off-site storage and archiving media 
that would be accessible electronically from the RCRA facilities. Is 
this flexibility desirable to the regulated community, and would it 
provide an incentive for RCRA facilities to engage in automated 
manifesting? Would facilities object to sharing custody of their 
records with off-site vendors, or would they be more agreeable to 
allowing the off-site vendors to assume this proposal's computer and 
record security controls? If controversies arise with facilities over 
record access, would the Agency be frustrated in efforts to obtain 
records

[[Page 28293]]

from the third-party service provider? What, if any, RCRA liability 
should be assumed by the third-party vendor? What, if any, safeguards 
should EPA include to protect against the possibility that third-party 
storers may leave the business? EPA seeks comments on these issues 
related to third-party electronic storage.

VIII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, and Agency 
Initiatives

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order No. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect, in a 
material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of recipients; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues 
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the 
principles set forth in the Executive Order.''
    It has been determined that today's proposed rule is a 
``significant regulatory action,'' because it may raise novel legal or 
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. As 
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in 
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in 
the public record. However, today's proposed rule is not ``economically 
significant'', because we expect that it would result in net reductions 
in compliance burdens and costs. The proposal would standardize the 
manifest form, streamlines certain manifest requirements, and would 
provide hazardous waste handlers with the option to prepare, transmit, 
sign, and store their manifests electronically. In those states that 
collect manifests and maintain databases to track manifest data, 
today's proposal would also enable the electronic submission of 
manifest copies to the states. These features are expected to reduce 
the paperwork burden and other hazardous waste manifesting costs on the 
regulated community (i.e. waste handlers and states).
    In order to quantify and monetize the anticipated economic effects 
of today's proposed rule, the Agency conducted three separate 
evaluations of different levels of potential effects of this rule on 
hazardous waste handlers and on State government regulatory agencies. 
These three studies are briefly summarized below in this section of the 
Preamble. They have the following titles and analytic scope, and are 
available for public review and comment from the RCRA Docket:

--``Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number 
801.#'', 19 July 2000: This study represents the narrowest scope of the 
three studies, focused primarily on estimating the annual burden hour 
reduction (and associated reduction in annual labor cost) for today's 
proposed rule, as it affects 1.76 million annual Federal RCRA 
manifests. This first study estimates burden hour reduction assuming 
that 50% of all annual manifests become electronic after promulgation 
of today's proposed rule.
--``Economics Background Document: Economic Analysis of the USEPA's 
Proposed Modifications to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System'', 
12 May 2000: Building upon the burden hour reduction findings of the 
ICR, this second study expanded the scope of the economic impact 
analysis to include potential impacts of the rule on both Federal RCRA 
and state hazardous waste manifests (2.43 million annual manifests), as 
well as a cursory estimate of annualized electronic automation 
equipment costs (to states and to waste handlers) for implementing 
today's proposed rule. Consequently this study presents a relatively 
larger baseline estimate of annual manifest activity compared to the 
ICR study. This second study applies two alternative electronic 
manifest adoption rate scenarios: 25% and 50% of all annual manifests 
become electronic, applied to a future three-year time-span. No attempt 
was made in this study to project quantitatively the future trend in 
the number of manifests issued, or the effects of future technological 
changes in electronic data transmission or other costing factors, since 
this study was designed only to formulate a fairly simplistic analysis 
to support the proposed rule.
--``Hazardous Waste Manifest Cost Benefit Analysis'', October 2000: 
Building upon the second economic study, this third study is the 
broadest in scope, as it includes electronic manifest equipment costs 
associated with existing computerized systems in some companies, as 
well as includes a more extensive and detailed estimate of both initial 
and annually recurring costs (to states, to waste handlers, and to EPA) 
for implementing different, alternative versions (``models'') of the 
proposed electronic manifest automation system. This third study adopts 
the 2.43 million annual manifest baseline from the second study, but 
expands the estimated annual manifest activity to 3.01 million 
manifests, to include additional manifest transmissions for purpose of 
repeats and continuation sheets, applied to a future ten-year time-
span. This study also expands the assumed number of manifests 
transmitted electronically, in relation to numbers of entities assumed 
adopting electronic manifests, which include 100% of large quantity 
waste generators, 25% of small quantity generators, 90% of 
transporters, and approximately 25% of the hazardous waste treatment, 
storage and disposal facilities involved in manifest activities. This 
study estimated costs and potential burden reduction benefits according 
to multiple alternative implementation scenarios (``models'').

    Consequently, because each is unique in scope and units of 
analysis, EPA presents them in the RCRA Docket separately for public 
review and comment, rather than consolidating them into a single 
document in support of today's proposed rule. On the other hand, the 
basic approach of all three studies in estimating their respective 
different levels of economic effects is similar; to compare current 
(i.e. 1997-99) baseline manifesting burden hour and other cost 
requirements, against the burden and cost under today's proposed 
revisions to the manifest system. The calculations in each study were 
performed using a series of comparative spreadsheets, incorporating 
detailed unit labor and other cost estimates for carrying out numerous 
manifest-related tasks. It is important to indicate that all studies 
did not attempt to forecast the future trend in the number of manifests 
issued, or to forecast the effects of future technological changes in 
electronic data transmission equipment or other costing factors. 
Consequently, it is important that each study be interpreted as a 
relatively simple estimate of impacts,

[[Page 28294]]

subject to future annual variability, and to other potential sources of 
uncertainty.
Regulatory Burden Savings Estimates
    Based on the findings of the first and second economic study listed 
above--which focused on estimating burden hours and cost reduction for 
today's proposed rule--under current Federal and State baseline 
regulations, the Agency estimates that about 92,350 individual 
hazardous waste generators and other handlers produce and manifest 
about 2.433 million hazardous waste shipments for off-site management 
annually, requiring about 4.416 million waste handler labor hours, 
costing about $187.0 million annually. State government waste 
management programs spend an additional 199,000 hours and $6.3 million 
annually to administer their current waste manifesting programs.
    The manifest reform proposal projects an overall net regulatory 
burden reduction of between 765,000 (low adoption scenario) and 1.241 
million (high adoption scenario) labor hours (a baseline savings of 17 
to 27 percent), and a corresponding annual reduction in total 
nationwide manifesting costs of about $23.4 to $37.2 million (a 13 to 
19 percent reduction in baseline cost). The major part (i.e. 96 to 99 
percent) of these total nationwide savings would accrue to the private 
sector (waste handlers), but State regulatory agencies would also 
experience substantial reductions--on the order of 18 to 40 percent in 
annual burden hours, and 3 to 25 percent in cost--relative to State-
level baseline administrative burdens for hazardous waste manifesting.
    In terms of basic proposal elements, the manifest form change 
requirements alone appear to produce potentially a relatively small 
burden reduction of only about four to 13 percent cost savings from 
current practices. In addition, as described earlier in this Preamble, 
the requirement for a uniform nationwide form is an essential 
prerequisite for efficient electronic automation which is projected to 
result in quite substantial potential burden reductions for the private 
sector. The potential incremental benefits from electronic automation 
of the manifest system are estimated at 87 to 96 percent of current 
cost. Higher automation adoption rates than those assumed here are 
possible, given the national trends in internet communications, the 
potentials for commercial waste transporters and TSD companies to 
centralize the manifesting functions as an added service to generators, 
and the scale economies involved in doing so.
    In contrast with electronic automation, the additional savings from 
the telefax option are in the one to two percent range. Labor and cost 
reductions from faxing would vary inversely with the degree of 
automation, i.e., the greater the use of electronic manifesting, the 
less is the need for the faxing of manifests.
    In the present proposal, the actual savings resulting from both the 
automation and fax options depend on the adoption of these options by 
States as part of their authorized RCRA programs, including both States 
of origin and States of destination for interstate shipments, and, in 
some cases, intervening States as well. The Agency's benefit estimates 
assume that most if not all States would ultimately revise their 
regulations to allow for both electronic automation and the faxing of 
manifests within their borders. To the extent that this does not occur 
or does not take place reasonably quickly, the regulatory burden 
reductions projected here would either not transpire or would be 
postponed.
    Based on the third economic study which was more expansive in scope 
by including electronic automation implementation costs, in addition to 
burden affects, the average annualized implementation cost for the 
proposed rule is estimated to range between $10.8 to $26.0 million. 
This range in implementation cost reflects two alternative 
implementation approaches considered in the study. EPA anticipates that 
today's proposed rule would offset this implementation cost, by 
reducing the national annual burden associated with the manifest 
system, resulting in a net, average annualized national burden cost 
savings of $82.2 to $86.8 million.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant adverse 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA 
further requires Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual 
basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agency is 
certifying that there will not be an adverse impact on small business 
populations as a result of today's rule proposals, and therefore no 
regulatory flexibility analysis or other SBREFA requirements are 
necessitated. This certification is based on the following reasons.
    With respect to the manifest form changes and automation options, 
today's proposals include both regulatory and deregulatory features. 
However, the net effect of these changes should reduce, and not 
increase, the paperwork and related burdens of the RCRA hazardous waste 
manifest system. For businesses in general, including all small 
businesses, the form changes, although required, are designed to reduce 
the labor time and other costs of acquiring, completing, and submitting 
hazardous waste manifests. The Agency's proposals regarding the 
optional use of telefaxed forms and the electronic automation of form 
preparation and tracking are also designed to facilitate and encourage 
increased efficiency and reduced costs through the use of modern 
communications technologies. These possibilities were not available 
under existing manifest regulations. Although most small businesses 
waste generators would not be expected to initiate or acquire the 
automation technology directly, many or most would be expected to share 
in the savings due to automation undertaken by the waste 
transportation, treatment and disposal sectors which service the many 
waste generating sectors. Since these proposals are offered as options 
to the regulated community, they are unlikely to be employed in 
situations that do not involve cost savings to waste handlers and 
generators.
    For the reasons discussed above, I hereby certify that this rule 
will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require a 
regulatory flexibility analysis.

C. Environmental Justice--Applicability of Executive Order 12898

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, the Agency's goals are to ensure 
that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national 
origin, or income bears disproportionately high and adverse human 
health and environmental impacts as a result of EPA's policies, 
programs, and activities. The Agency conducted an analysis to identify 
whether environmental justice concerns might result from today's 
proposed modifications to the hazardous waste manifest system. To

[[Page 28295]]

conduct the analysis, we used two criteria, both of which would have to 
be met in order to flag an environmental justice concern: (i) Are there 
any adverse impacts from the proposed action, and if so, (ii) would the 
adverse impacts on minority populations and low-income populations be 
disproportionately high? We applied both criteria to each rule 
component: Manifest form changes, automation, use of fax, annual waste 
minimization certification, and special procedures for problem 
shipments. We found no adverse impact, and thus no disproportionately 
high adverse impact, on minority populations and low-income 
populations, for each component of the proposed rule.
    The basic reason for the above finding is that the current features 
of the manifest system that protect human health and the environment 
are preserved or enhanced under today's proposed rule. For example, 
neither the proposed form changes nor the automation proposals would 
detract from the manifests basic ``cradle-to-grave'' tracking features 
that protect human health and the environment. The information 
essential to identifying the materials involved in shipments and aiding 
emergency responders would be retained. Manifest automation and faxing 
may be more convenient for some waste handlers than using regular mail 
and may result in increased compliance, as well as enable closer real-
time tracking of shipments, improved data quality for recipients and 
better enforcement opportunities. Regarding the change for the waste 
minimization certification from a per manifest basis to annual basis, 
this is not expected to alter hazardous waste generation, handling or 
disposal practices, nor pose an incremental risk to human health and 
the environment. Similarly, clarification on the manifest of the 
special procedures for problem loads are designed to improve tracking 
and therefore would not have adverse effects on human health and the 
environment.

D. Protection of Children--Applicability of Executive Order 13045

    The Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) is determined to be 
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, 
and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has 
reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If 
the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the 
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children; 
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered.
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 
this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by 
Executive Order 12866. In addition, the Agency does not have reason to 
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this 
action present a disproportionate risk to children, because the 
manifest system does not itself give rise to environmental media 
transfer issues. The manifest serves as a tracking device which creates 
clear lines of accountability among the participants in the hazardous 
waste system. It also serves to protect human health and the 
environment during the transportation of hazardous waste by providing 
information about the waste to persons handling the waste and to 
emergency response personnel.

E. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in 
its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The manifest automation component of this rulemaking involves 
information technology standards for electronic manifest formats and 
for electronic signatures. Today's proposal includes an electronic 
format for the manifest based upon the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) Accredited Standards Committee's (ASC) X12 standard 
format for Electronic Data Interchange or EDI. EPA is also proposing an 
Internet Forms document definition for the manifest based on the 
Extensible Mark-up Language (XML) Specifications developed by the World 
Wide Web Consortium. The World Wide Web Consortium, however, is not a 
voluntary consensus standards body within the meaning of the NTTAA, and 
EPA could not identify an applicable consensus standard for creating 
and transmitting Internet Forms. Therefore, EPA has decided to propose 
an XML document definition for Internet transmissions of the manifest, 
as an alternative to the ANSI ASC X12 formats that are customarily 
transmitted across Value Added Networks. It is possible that the ANSI 
ASC X12 standards body will develop standards for XML document 
definitions in the future, and EPA will monitor this situation as we 
develop a final rulemaking.
    The rulemaking also proposes a digital signature method for signing 
electronic manifests, based on the Digital Signature Standard adopted 
by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and published in 
Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS PUB) 186-1. The proposed 
digital signature method would require the use of the RSA digital 
signature algorithm discussed in ANSI X9.31. EPA has also proposed a 
``secure digitized signature'' method for signing manifests 
electronically, since this method may be a cost-effective alternative 
to the digital signature method. The Agency could not identify an 
applicable consensus standard for digitized signatures.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially 
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such 
standards should be used in this regulation.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written analysis, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative 
other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an 
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before promulgating 
an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the 
UMRA requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome

[[Page 28296]]

alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials to have 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals, 
and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance 
with the regulatory requirements.
    This rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more to State, local, or tribal 
governments in the aggregate, because the UMRA generally excludes from 
the definition of ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' duties that 
arise from participation in a voluntary federal program. States are not 
legally required to have or maintain a RCRA authorized program. 
Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. In addition, EPA has also determined that 
this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments under section 203 of UMRA. Small 
governments would be affected only to the extent that they generate or 
otherwise handle hazardous wastes, and the net effect of today's 
proposal should be to reduce paperwork burdens and compliance costs for 
hazardous waste handlers. Therefore, EPA does not believe that this 
proposal would have a significant or unique effect on small 
governments.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
information collection request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR No. 801.#, 19 July 2000), copies of which are available to the 
public from Sandy Farmer, OP Regulatory Information Division; U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (MC 2137); Ariel Rios Building; 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    According to the estimates provided in the ICR for this proposed 
rule, the average annual burden \5\ to RCRA hazardous waste handlers as 
a result of the proposed revisions to the RCRA manifest system, 
represents a net reduction in burden of about 590,000 hours per year. 
These burden reductions represent 20% reduction in annual burden hours 
compared to the baseline burden of 2.920 million hours per year, as 
estimated in the RCRA manifest system baseline ICR No.801 (22 October 
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This includes the 
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and 
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, 
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining 
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the 
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions 
and requirements; train personnel to respond to a collection of 
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection 
of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The public should send comments regarding the burden estimate, or 
any other aspect of this collection of information, including 
suggestions for reducing burden to EPA (at the address given above) and 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20460, marked ``Attention: Desk 
Officer for EPA.''

H. Federalism--Applicability of Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
The Executive Order defines ``policies that have federalism 
implications'' to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It would 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132.
    The proposed rule would alter the information that a State may 
require a generator or transporter to submit on the Uniform Manifest, 
and it would also alter the States' current role in distributing 
manifests. However, these changes represent relatively minor 
adjustments to the current manifest system, and they do not alter 
substantially the relationship between the Federal government and the 
States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. The manifest would remain a tracking 
document and shipping paper that is primarily based on Federal 
requirements found in RCRA and in the hazardous materials 
transportation laws administered by DOT. As with existing hazardous 
waste manifest requirements, States would retain the authority to 
require generators and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to 
provide information included in the remaining optional fields on the 
manifest and to require the submission of additional information 
related to the hazardous waste shipment under separate cover, so long 
as such requirements are not inconsistent with the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Act (HMTA) or HMTA regulations.
    In addition, the proposed rule would not impose substantial direct 
costs on States and localities. Although states with manifest data 
tracking programs may incur some start-up costs in converting their 
tracking systems to accept the revised paper manifest and/or electronic 
manifests, the proposal neither mandates that States collect manifests, 
nor mandates that States adopt the electronic manifest option as a part 
of their programs. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 
rule.
    Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 
rule, EPA consulted substantially with representatives of State 
government in developing this proposal. The Agency invited State 
representatives to participate in two public meetings during which we 
presented our rulemaking objectives and strategies, and solicited 
comments and concerns. These public meetings were conducted on December 
10-11, 1997, and on January 7-8, 1998. Representatives of 23 States and 
Territories participated in these meetings. In addition, State 
representatives were invited to participate in the meetings of the EPA 
work group which developed this proposed rule. Representatives from 4 
States (Indiana, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island) were 
selected to participate in the work group meetings, and these States 
discussed proposed rule options and draft rule language extensively 
with EPA throughout the development of the proposal.
    During our consultations with States on this proposal, the State

[[Page 28297]]

representatives identified several concerns about: (1) The reductions 
in the optional fields which States have used to require additional 
information from facilities; (2) the changes proposed for printing and 
acquiring manifests; (3) the costs to States of converting to an 
electronic system, and whether electronic manifesting would be 
mandatory for States to adopt in their programs; and (4) the lack of 
court precedents upholding electronic signatures as a means to sign 
records. A summary of the concerns raised during consultations with the 
States, and EPA's response to those concerns, is provided below.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposal from 
State and local officials.
State Concerns and EPA's Responses
    1. Reductions in Optional Fields. The proposed rule would eliminate 
several optional fields from the current manifest, particularly, those 
optional fields that require State ID Numbers (in addition to EPA ID 
numbers) for generators, transporters, and facilities. The proposal 
would also eliminate the optional fields for entering transporters' 
phone numbers and the facility's phone number on the manifest, and 
replace these with the requirement that there be one emergency response 
phone number entered on all manifests. The State Manifest Document 
Number optional field would be replaced with the requirement that all 
manifests have a unique manifest tracking number.
    Several State participants identified the concern that the proposed 
manifest would hinder States that wish to collect this information. In 
particular, State representatives indicated to EPA that several States 
use the State Generator ID field to list a generator's site address, 
since this may be a distinct address from the mailing address which 
generators are required to supply on the current form. EPA considered 
the points raised by State participants with regard to the optional 
fields during work group meetings. The Agency concluded that the 
benefits of reducing manifest variability and paperwork burden 
outweighed the interests States identified in continuing to collect 
these data on the manifest.
    2. Changes in printing and acquiring manifests. Currently, 
generators obtain most of their manifests from State agencies. There 
are currently 24 States that print and distribute their own manifests 
for shipments generated in or designated for facilities in these 
States. The manifests printed by the states reflect the optional fields 
required to be used in these states, as well as copy submission 
requirements, mailing addresses for submitting copies, and a pre-
printed manifest number that would track the manifest uniquely in the 
States' data bases. The proposal would adopt a standard Federal 
printing specification for the manifest, and allow States, waste 
handlers, and business form printers to register to print manifests 
according to this specification. There would be less variability among 
manifests, but the form could be obtained from more sources.
    During the work group meetings, State participants discussed their 
interests in printing and distributing manifests. For several States, 
selling blank manifests is a source of revenue. In all States that 
print manifests, there is a concern that manifest document numbers must 
be assured of being unique and accurate. We were advised that this can 
be best accomplished by having manifest numbers pre-printed on the 
forms by the printer. The proposed registry system and Federal printing 
specification were developed based on State representatives' advice and 
recommendations. There was substantial discussion of this issue by the 
States, and their representatives indicated that the proposal would 
meet most of their concerns. The revenue issue is more difficult to 
resolve. Some States charge manifest fees only to defray their printing 
costs, while others collect program revenue beyond that required to 
recoup costs of supplying manifests. In some instances, manifest fees 
charged by States are required by legislation.
    3. Costs to States of Converting to Electronic Systems. During the 
public meetings on the manifest revisions, State participants voiced 
concerns that States would incur significant costs in converting to 
electronic systems for collecting manifests. This issue would be more 
of a concern if EPA mandated use of the electronic manifest by the 
States.
    Our economic analysis for today's proposal reveals that States that 
adopt electronic systems for collecting manifests would in fact 
experience significant cost reductions compared to the current 
baseline. While each State may incur about $100,000 initially in start-
up costs ($38,000 in annualized costs) for automating their systems, we 
expect that States would realize between $213,000 and $1.58 million in 
cost savings from the proposed revisions. The electronic manifest 
accounts for most of these savings, which would more than offset the 
start-up costs. In addition, EPA has proposed that States would not be 
required to adopt the electronic manifest option. So, no State would be 
required to incur these start-up costs, and those States that choose to 
convert would presumably do so as a matter of self-interest.
    4. Lack of court precedents supporting electronic signatures. 
During the development of this proposal, several States commented that 
the inclusion of the electronic manifest in the proposal was premature, 
since there are no court precedents upholding the use of electronic 
signatures. EPA appreciates this concern, which is not unique to this 
proposed rulemaking on the manifest. However, the Congress has recently 
enacted legislation which establishes that electronic records and 
electronic signatures should generally be accorded the same treatment 
under the law as documents signed by hand. See the Government Paperwork 
Elimination Act (GPEA), Public Law 105-277, Title XVII (1998). The 
Agency believes that this statute supplies the authority lacking in 
prior court decisions supporting the use of electronic signatures. The 
proposal also includes security controls aimed at ensuring that 
electronic signatures cannot be repudiated or misused. For example, 
``digital signatures'' would be supported by a Public Key 
Infrastructure (PKI), including digital certificates (from a trusted 
Certificate Authority) binding an individual to their signature keys, 
password protection and non-disclosure obligations for the private 
signature key, and policies holding individuals accountable for acts 
taken under their signature.

I. Consultation With Tribal Governments

    On November 6, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249) entitled, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments.'' Executive Order 13175 takes effect on January 6, 2001, 
and revokes Executive Order 13084 (Tribal Consultation) as of that 
date. EPA developed this proposed rule, however, during the period when 
Executive Order 13084 was in effect; thus, EPA addressed tribal 
considerations under Executive Order 13084. EPA will analyze and fully 
comply with the requirements of Executive Order 13175 before 
promulgating the final rule. Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not 
issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly 
or uniquely affects the communities of Indian Tribal governments, and 
that imposes substantial direct compliance

[[Page 28298]]

costs on those communities of Indian Tribal governments, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults 
with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 
13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, 
in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's proposal would not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, nor would it impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on them. This proposal does not 
create a mandate for tribal governments, nor does it impose any 
enforceable duties on these entities. Therefore, EPA has determined 
that no communities of Indian tribal governments would be affected by 
this proposed rule. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of 
Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

IX. How Would Today's Proposed Regulatory Changes Be Administered 
and Enforced in the States?

A. Applicability of Federal Rules in Authorized States

    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to 
administer the RCRA hazardous waste program within the State. Following 
authorization, the State requirements authorized by EPA apply in lieu 
of equivalent Federal requirements and become Federally enforceable as 
requirements of RCRA. EPA maintains independent authority to bring 
enforcement actions under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003. 
Authorized States also have independent authority to bring enforcement 
actions under State law. A State may receive authorization by following 
the approval process described under 40 CFR part 271. See 40 CFR part 
271 for the overall standards and requirements for authorization.
    After a State receives initial authorization, new Federal 
requirements promulgated under RCRA authority existing prior to the 
1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) do not apply in that 
State until the State adopts and receives authorization for equivalent 
State requirements. The State must adopt such requirements to maintain 
authorization.
    In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new 
Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed pursuant to HSWA 
provisions take effect in authorized States at the same time that they 
take effect in unauthorized States. Although authorized States are 
still required to update their hazardous waste programs to remain 
equivalent to the Federal program, EPA carries out HSWA requirements 
and prohibitions in authorized States, including the issuance of new 
permits implementing those requirements, until EPA authorizes the State 
to do so.
    Authorized States are required to modify their programs only when 
EPA promulgates Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader 
in scope than existing Federal requirements. RCRA section 3009 allows 
the States to impose standards more stringent than those in the Federal 
program. See also 40 CFR 271.1(i). Therefore, authorized States are not 
required to adopt Federal regulations, both HSWA and non-HSWA, that are 
considered less stringent.

B. Authorization of States for Today's Proposal

    Except for one provision, we would promulgate today's proposal 
mainly under non-HSWA statutory authority. The section of today's 
proposal that would be promulgated under HSWA authority (specifically, 
RCRA section 3002(b)) is proposed Sec. 262.27, which would consist of 
the waste minimization certification statement. Therefore, when 
promulgated, the Agency would add this section of the rule to Table 1 
in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which identifies the Federal program requirements 
that are promulgated pursuant to the statutory authority that was added 
by HSWA. States may apply for final authorization for the HSWA 
provisions in Table 1, as discussed in the following section of this 
preamble. The proposed regulatory provision would contain the language 
which is in the current manifest form, but would not be in the proposed 
revised form except by reference to proposed Sec. 262.27. Generators 
would still be required to certify to waste minimization statements on 
the manifest each time a manifest is initiated. Therefore, proposed 
Sec. 262.27 would be effective under Federal authority before States 
receive authorization only when the revised manifest form is used in 
these States.
    All the other parts of today's proposal would become effective 
under RCRA authority in authorized States only when they revise their 
programs and receive authorization for the final rule.
1. Would Authorized States Be Required To Adopt the New Uniform 
Manifest Form?
    Under today's proposal, authorized States would be required to 
adopt the new Uniform Manifest form. To obtain and maintain 
authorization, States and territories are required to be consistent 
with the federal program and other State programs. Although sections 
3006 and 3009 of RCRA allow States to have regulations that are 
different than the Federal requirements, as long as they are equivalent 
to or more stringent than or broader in scope, section 3006(b) also 
requires States to have regulations that are consistent with the 
federal regulations. The requirements of this statutory provision are 
codified in 40 CFR 271.4, which specifically applies the consistency 
requirement to the manifest system under 40 CFR 271.4(c). When EPA 
originally promulgated the Uniform Manifest in 1984, we found that 
consistency was extremely important where requirements addressing 
transportation are concerned. We found during the early years of 
implementing the RCRA program that a proliferation of many State-
specific manifest forms could hamper the movement of hazardous waste to 
waste management facilities, and that differing manifest use and 
information requirements between States caused added burdens and 
confusion among those trying to comply with the Subtitle C regulations. 
See 49 FR 10490 at 10491 (March 20, 1984). Therefore, in 1984, EPA 
announced that consistency in the use of the Uniform Manifest would be 
required from authorized States, and that, with the exception of the 
limited information allowed in the optional fields, authorized States 
could not require any other manifest or information to accompany a 
waste shipment. Id. Based on 16 years of experience with the Uniform 
Manifest, EPA concludes that variability in the current manifest system 
should be reduced further, since the current level of variability 
continues to produce excessive burden, confusion, and compliance 
problems. Moreover, EPA restates that program consistency

[[Page 28299]]

under RCRA section 3006 and 40 CFR 271.4(c) would demand that 
authorized States must require the use of the Uniform Manifest as 
revised by today's proposals.
    Under 40 CFR 271.4(c) and 271.10(f) and (h), in order to be 
consistent with the federal program, and receive approval from EPA, 
States must have a manifest system that includes a manifest format that 
follows the Federal format required in 40 CFR 262.20(a) and 262.21. 
Today's proposal would amend Sec. 271.10(h) to correspond with the 
proposed changes to the manifest format. These amendments are discussed 
in detail in section IV of today's proposal. Key among these amendments 
are form revisions that would eliminate most optional fields and 
establish a new procedure for obtaining a standard manifest form from 
registered printers. The new, standard manifest format would present 
authorized states with fewer areas of potential variability than arise 
under existing regulations. For example, existing Sec. 271.10(h)(1) 
allows authorized states to supplement the Uniform Manifest format with 
several pre-printed items, such as a State manifest number, light 
organizational marks to indicate proper placement of characters, 
information and instructions in the margins or on the back of the form, 
and references to specific State laws or regulations following the 
generator's certification language. The proposed amendments to 
Sec. 271.10(h) would eliminate provisions addressing States' ability to 
supplement the form. However, proposed Sec. 271.10(h) would retain 
language clarifying that States could require information to be 
supplied to address the two proposed optional fields--Waste Codes 
(Block A) and Biennial Reporting system type codes (Block B)--and to 
provide additional waste descriptions in Block 14 of the proposed form.
    Because the new uniform manifest would (except for proposed 
Sec. 262.27 as explained above) be promulgated pursuant to non-HSWA 
authority, it would not become effective as a RCRA requirement in 
authorized States until those States revise their programs and receive 
authorization. However, federal hazardous material transportation law 
preempts any State, local or Indian tribe requirement on ``the 
preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to 
hazardous materials and requirements related to the number, contents, 
and placement of those documents'' that is not substantively the same 
as requirements in the hazardous materials regulations. 49 U.S.C. 
5125(b)(1)(C). The Department of Transportation currently requires the 
use of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest for shipments of hazardous 
waste (which is also a hazardous material). 49 CFR 172.205. Thus, waste 
handlers would be required, under 49 CFR 172.205, to use the revised 
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest upon the two-year delayed compliance 
date of the final rule (see Section III.E. for further discussion 
regarding the two-year delayed compliance date).
    EPA has involved the authorized States, as co-implementers of the 
RCRA program, in the development of today's proposal. We believe that 
there is support among the States for the manifest revisions. EPA also 
believes that the States would generally be able to revise their RCRA 
programs to include this amended manifest form within the proposed 
transition period, although some States may need to enact legislative 
changes to effect this change.
2. Would Authorized States Be Required To Adopt Electronic Manifesting?
    A significant issue presented by today's proposal is whether the 
final rule should require that authorized States adopt the electronic 
manifest option as a part of their approved programs, in order to be 
consistent. Under RCRA section 3006, authorized State programs must be 
consistent with the Federal program and other State programs, and EPA's 
authorization regulations state that State manifest systems that do not 
meet EPA's requirements or that unreasonably impede the free movement 
of waste shall be deemed inconsistent. See 40 CFR 271.4(a) and (e).
    We are tentatively proposing not to require States to adopt the 
electronic manifest option. However, we are considering whether States 
should be required to adopt the electronic manifest option in order to 
ensure consistency with the Federal program and other State programs. 
For example, EPA could require States to adopt the electronic manifest 
option if we were to conclude that the free movement of waste in 
commerce may be burdened unreasonably if individual States choose not 
to allow electronic manifests. Similarly, we may require State adoption 
of the electronic manifest option if we determine that the cumulative 
effect of a patchwork of States--some recognizing and others not 
recognizing electronic manifests--may itself unduly burden the free 
movement of waste. This result may render the State program 
inconsistent with the federal program under the provisions of 40 CFR 
271.4(a). Other reasons that could support EPA's determination under 
Sec. 271.4(a) to deem State programs that do not provide for electronic 
manifests to be inconsistent include the concern that the development 
of electronic manifesting systems by waste handlers would be frustrated 
significantly if States elected not to adopt the option, and that 
market forces and consensus processes would not be sufficient to 
promote and implement the electronic manifest option.
    At this time, EPA believes that there are strong practical and 
business influences that would promote the adoption of electronic 
manifesting. Many States are in the forefront of efforts to provide 
electronic access to government services and to encourage electronic 
commerce, so requiring State programs to adopt the electronic manifest 
standards may not be necessary to accomplish progress in this area. 
Moreover, during the public meetings which EPA conducted as we 
developed this proposal, we stressed the voluntary and optional nature 
of the manifest automation component of the proposed rule. States 
likely understood that manifest automation would be optional for state 
programs as well as for the waste handlers who use the manifest.
    Thus, EPA is tentatively proposing that authorized States would not 
be required to adopt the electronic manifest system as part of their 
state programs. Under today's proposal, the electronic manifest system 
would not be effective under RCRA in authorized States unless an 
authorized State revises its program and receives authorization for the 
final electronic manifest system requirements. In addition, under 
today's proposal, an electronic manifest would not be considered a 
``shipping document'' under 49 U.S.C. 5125(b) and thus, hazardous 
materials transportation law would not preempt state programs that do 
not allow the use of an electronic manifest.
    Although States could choose not to adopt the electronic manifest 
system, those that do would have to adopt the standards for the 
electronic formats, electronic signature standards, and computer 
security controls that we would promulgate when we finalize this 
proposal. In addition, State programs electing to adopt the electronic 
manifest option would need to adopt State counterparts to the final 
regulations that address the use of the electronic manifest by 
generators, transporters, and TSDFs. As explained in section VII.E.1. 
of this preamble, the need for a uniform manifest to allow the free 
movement of waste applies to the electronic manifest as well as the 
paper manifest, if not more. The state authorization

[[Page 28300]]

regulations addressing generator requirements, 40 CFR 271.10(f) and 
(h), already refer to the manifest regulations, which would impose on 
states that adopt the electronic manifest option the requirement that 
their programs be revised to require waste handlers to use the 
electronic manifest formats, electronic signature standards, and 
computer security controls described in today's proposal. These areas 
require a consistent implementation if electronic manifests are to be 
freely exchanged between waste handlers and state agencies located in 
various jurisdictions.
    However, States would retain the latitude to either adopt or not 
adopt the preparer signature or third-party storage features of today's 
proposal. Thus, a state that did not adopt one or both of these 
features could choose to operate a more stringent program in these 
areas. The Agency requests comment on how electronic manifesting should 
be implemented among the various authorized States, how today's 
proposed standards would impact states that may already have 
requirements in place or efforts underway to address electronic records 
and electronic signatures, and how any adverse impacts on State 
programs might be mitigated.

Appendix A to the Preamble--Extensible Markup Language (XML) Document 
Type Definition for the Hazardous Waste Manifest

!--This document represents the Document Type Definition for the 
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest-->
!--Signature blocks are represented as #PCDATA until final 
recommendations are adopted for representing electronic signatures 
in XML documents-->
!--References for the W3C Digital Signature Working Group:
    XML Signature Syntax and Processing--
    http://www.w3.org/2000/02/xmldsig#
    DTD for Digital Signatures--http://www/w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/xmldsig-core-schema.dtd-->
!ELEMENT manifest (title, manifest_tracking_number, generator_info, 
transporter_info+, tsdf_info, waste_description+, 
special_handling_instructions, generator_certification, 
international_shipments, transporter_certification+, 
tsdf_discrepancy, tsdf_certification, tsdf_brs_codes*)>
!ELEMENT title (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST title fname CDATA #FIXED ``UNIFORM HAZARDOUS WASTE 
MANIFEST''>
!ELEMENT manifest_tracking_number (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST manifest_tracking_number tno NMTOKEN #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT generator_info (generator_name, generator_us_epa_id, 
generator_street, generator_city, generator_state, 
generator_zip_code, generator_telephone_number, generator_emergency_ 
response_telephone)>
!ELEMENT generator_name (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST generator_name gname CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT generator_us_epa_id (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST generator_us_epa_id genepaid NMTOKEN #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT generator_street (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST generator_street gstreet CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT generator_city (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST generator_city gcity CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT generator_state (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST generator_state gstatecode NMTOKEN #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT generator_zip_code (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST generator_zip_code gzip CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT generator_telephone_number (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST generator_telephone_number gtel NMTOKEN #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT generator_emergency_response_ telephone (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST generator_emergency_response_ telephone gemr NMTOKEN 
#REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT transporter_info (transporter_name, 
transporter_us_epa_id)+>
!ELEMENT transporter_name (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST transporter_name tname CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT transporter_us_epa_id (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST transporter_us_epa_id transepaid NMTOKEN #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT tsdf_info (tsdf_name, tsdf_us_epa_id, tsdf_street, 
tsdf_city, tsdf_state, tsdf_zip_code)>
!ELEMENT tsdf_name (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST tsdf_name tsname CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT tsdf_us_epa_id (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST tsdf_us_epa_id tsdfepaid NMTOKEN #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT tsdf_street (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST tsdf_street tstreet CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT tsdf_city (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST tsdf_city tcity CDATA #REQUIRED
!ELEMENT tsdf_state (#PCDATA)
!ATTLIST tsdf_state tstatecode NMTOKEN #REQUIRED
!ELEMENT tsdf_zip_code (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST tsdf_zip_code tzip CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT waste_description (proper_shipping_name, hazard_class, 
dot_id_no, packing_group, no_of_containers, container_type, 
total_quantity, unit_wt_vol, waste_codes+)+>
!ELEMENT proper_shipping_name (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST proper_shipping_name pname CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT hazard_class (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST hazard_class hclass NMTOKEN #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT dot_id_no (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST dot_id_no dotid NMTOKEN #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT packing_group (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST packing_group pgroup CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT no_of_containers (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST no_of_containers nocon NMTOKEN #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT container_type (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST container_type code CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT total_quantity (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST total_quantity totquan CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT unit_wt_vol (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST unit_wt_vol volcode CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT waste_codes (#PCDATA)
!ATTLIST waste_codes wcode NMTOKEN #IMPLIED>
!ELEMENT special_handling_instructions (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST special_handling_instructions instr CDATA #IMPLIED>
!ELEMENT generator_certification (generator_signature, 
generator_printed_name, generator_date)>
!ELEMENT generator_signature (#PCDATA)>
!ELEMENT generator_printed_name (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST generator_printed_name gpname CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT generator_date (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST generator_date gendate CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT international_shipments (intl_import, intl_export, 
port_of_entry_exit, intl_date,
intl_signature)>
!ELEMENT intl_import (#PCDATA)>
!ELEMENT intl_export (#PCDATA)>
!ELEMENT port_of_entry_exit (#PCDATA)>
!ELEMENT intl_date (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST intl_date intldate CDATA #IMPLIED>
!ELEMENT intl_signature (#PCDATA)>
!ELEMENT transporter_certification (transporter_signature, 
transporter_printed_name, transporter_date)+>
!ELEMENT transporter_signature (#PCDATA)>
!ELEMENT transporter_printed_name (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST transporter_printed_name tpname CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT transporter_date (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST transporter_date transpdate CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT tsdf_discrepancy (discrepancy_quantity_type, 
container_residue, rejected_waste, manifest_reference_no, 
description)>
!ELEMENT discrepancy_quantity_type (#PCDATA)>
!ELEMENT container_residue (#PCDATA)>
!ELEMENT rejected_waste (#PCDATA)>
!ELEMENT manifest_reference_no (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST manifest_reference_no mrno NMTOKEN #IMPLIED>
!ELEMENT description (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST description desc CDATA #IMPLIED>

[[Page 28301]]

!ELEMENT tsdf_certification (tsdf_signature, tsdf_printed_name, 
tsdf_date)>
!ELEMENT tsdf_signature (#PCDATA)>
!ELEMENT tsdf_printed_name (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST tsdf_printed_name tspname CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT tsdf_date (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST tsdf_date tsdfdate CDATA #REQUIRED>
!ELEMENT tsdf_brs_codes (tsdf_a, tsdf_b, tsdf_c, tsdf_d)>
!ELEMENT tsdf_a (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST tsdf_a codea NMTOKEN #IMPLIED>
!ELEMENT tsdf_b (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST tsdf_b codeb NMTOKEN #IMPLIED>
!ELEMENT tsdf_c (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST tsdf_c codec NMTOKEN #IMPLIED>
!ELEMENT tsdf__d (#PCDATA)>
!ATTLIST tsdf__d coded NMTOKEN #IMPLIED>

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 260

    Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedure, 
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste.

40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 262

    Environmental protection, Exports, Hazardous materials 
transportation, Hazardous waste.

40 CFR Part 263

    Environmental protection, Hazardous materials transportation, 
Hazardous waste.

40 CFR Part 264

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, 
Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds.

40 CFR Part 265

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, 
Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation, 
Hazardous waste, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, 
Water supply.

    Dated: January 4, 2001.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 260--HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

    1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 
6937, 6938, 6939, and 6974.

Subpart B--Definitions

    2. Section 260.10 is amended by removing the definition of 
``Manifest Document Number'', revising the definition of ``manifest'' 
and adding in alphabetical order the definition of ``Manifest tracking 
number'' and ``Preparer'' to read as follows.


Sec. 260.10  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Manifest means the shipping document EPA Form 8700-22 (including, 
if necessary, EPA Form 8700-22A), or an electronic format identified in 
Sec. 262.20(a)(3), originated and signed in accordance with the 
applicable requirements of parts 262 through 265.
    Manifest tracking number means the alphanumeric identification 
number (i.e., a unique three letter prefix followed by eight numerical 
digits), which is pre-printed in Item 3 of the Manifest by a registered 
source.
* * * * *
    Preparer means someone authorized by the generator to prepare, 
complete, and/or sign the generator's Manifest on behalf of the 
generator.
* * * * *

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    3. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and 
6938.

Subpart A--General

    4. Section 261.7 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1)(iii) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 261.7  Residues of hazardous waste in empty containers.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) * * *
    (iii)(A) No more than 3 percent by weight of the total capacity of 
the container remains in the container or inner liner if the container 
is less than or equal to 119 gallons in size; or
    (B) No more than 0.3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the 
container remains in the container or inner liner if the container is 
greater than 119 gallons in size.
* * * * *

PART 262--STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    5. The authority citation for part 262 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912(a), 6922-6925, 6937, and 6938.

    6. In Sec. 262.20 the heading and paragraph (a) are revised to read 
as follows:


Sec. 262.20  Manifest Formats and General Requirements

    (a)(1) Manifest Requirement. A generator who transports, or offers 
for transportation, hazardous waste for offsite treatment, storage, or 
disposal must prepare a manifest to describe the hazardous waste being 
shipped offsite and its routing to a designated facility.
    (2) Paper format. Generators using a paper manifest form must 
prepare their manifest on EPA Form 8700-22 and, if necessary, Form 
8700-22A, and must prepare their manifest according to the instructions 
in the appendix to this part 262.
    (3) Electronic formats. Generators using an electronic format must 
use either the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) format described in 
paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, or the Internet Forms format 
described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section. All electronic 
manifests must be used in accordance with the electronic manifest use 
requirements of Sec. 262.24, signed in accordance with the electronic 
signature requirements of Sec. 262.25, and generated and maintained on 
electronic systems which meet the security requirements of Sec. 262.26. 
Generators using the electronic manifest must prepare the manifest 
according to the instructions included in the appendix to part 262.
    (i) EDI format. The EDI format for the manifest must conform to the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Accredited Standards 
Committee (ASC) X12 standards for Electronic Data Interchange and the 
requirements and mapping conventions promulgated by the Federal 
Electronic Data Interchange Standards Management Coordinating Committee 
(FESMCC) for the ANSI X12 Transaction Sets 856 (Ship Notice/

[[Page 28302]]

Manifest) and 861 (Receipt and Advice). When EPA decides to adopt a new 
version and release of the ANSI X12 standard or to modify the 
conventional mapping, EPA will publish a Federal Register notice 
announcing this change to the implementation convention and 
establishing a conversion date. Those persons using the EDI format 
would have a minimum of 60 days to conform to the new version or 
mapping. EPA would discontinue support for the previous implementation 
convention no sooner than 90 calendar days after the conversion date.
    (ii) Internet forms format. The Internet Forms format for the 
manifest must conform to the EPA Approved Document Type Definition, 
which defines the data elements, tag identifiers, data element 
relationships, contents, and structure of the Hazardous Waste Manifest, 
in accordance with the Extensible Markup Language (XML) specifications 
maintained by the World Wide Web Consortium.
* * * * *
    7. Section 262.21 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 262.21  Manifest tracking numbers, manifest printing, and 
obtaining manifests.

    (a) Manifest tracking numbers. (1) Paper and electronic manifests 
may not be transmitted without a manifest tracking number assigned in 
accordance with a numbering system approved by EPA.
    (2) A person may not assign manifest tracking numbers without 
submitting an application to EPA and receiving approval of their 
manifest tracking number system. The application to EPA must contain 
the following information:
    (i) Name of applicant's organization (e.g., name of state and 
department or name of company);
    (ii) Name of contact person and telephone number;
    (iii) Mailing address;
    (iv) EPA identification number, if applicable;
    (v) Brief description of applicant's government or business 
activity;
    (vi) Applicant's proposed, unique three-letter prefix for its 
manifest tracking numbers, including an explanation of any limitations 
to the use of such a prefix, if any (e.g., historic numbers to avoid); 
and
    (vii) Signed certification that the applicant will ensure that no 
tracking number will be intentionally duplicated and, if applicable, 
that all manifest printing specifications in paragraph (b) will be 
followed.
    (b) Manifest printing. (1) Paper manifest forms must be printed 
according to the following specifications:
    (i) The form must be printed in the same format as EPA Form 8700-
22a and b;
    (ii) A Manifest Tracking Number assigned in accordance with a 
numbering system approved by EPA under paragraph (a) of this section 
must be preprinted in Item Three of the form;
    (iii) Boxes cannot be added to the form;
    (iv) Boxes cannot be deleted from the form;
    (v) The form must be printed in the dimensions of 8\1/2\ x 11 
inches;
    (vi) The form must be printed in black ink that can be photocopied 
or faxed;
    (vii) The instructions in 40 CFR part 262, appendix 1 must be 
printed on the back of the form;
    (viii) Follow the same copy naming structure as outlined below in 
Sec. 262.21(c)(3);
    (ix) The form must be printed as a 6 copy form and it must be 
indicated on the form that copies of the form must be distributed as 
follows:
    (A) Page 1 (top copy): ``Designated facility to destination State'' 
(if required);
    (B) Page 2: ``Designated facility to generator State'' (if 
required);
    (C) Page 3: ``Designated facility to generator'';
    (D) Page 4: ``Designated facility copy''
    (E) Page 5: ``Transporter copy''; and
    (F) Page 6 (bottom copy): ``Generator to generator State'' (if 
required).
    (2) Information required to complete the manifest may be preprinted 
on the manifest form. In addition, the following may also be printed on 
the manifest form:
    (i) In items 10 and 28 (DOT description), a hazardous materials 
(HM) column for use in distinguishing between federally regulated 
wastes and other materials according to 49 CFR 172.201(a)(1);
    (ii) Anywhere on the form, light organizational marks to indicate 
proper placement of characters or to facilitate data entry; and/or
    (iii) The State optional boxes may be lightly shaded in the 
optional boxes;
    (iv) In the Generator's Certification box, reference to State laws 
or regulations following the Federal certification;
    (3) Electronic manifests must meet the electronic format 
requirements described in Sec. 262.20.
    (c) Obtaining manifests. (1) A generator using a paper manifest may 
use manifest forms printed by any of the following sources so long as 
the source of the printed form has registered and received approval 
from EPA to assign manifest tracking numbers under paragraph (a) of 
this section, and the form is printed in accordance with the 
specifications in paragraph (b) of this section:
    (i) Any state agency that prints the manifest;
    (ii) Commercial Form Printers;
    (iii) Any hazardous waste generator, transporter, or TSDF; and
    (iv) Brokers or other preparers who prepare or arrange shipments of 
hazardous waste for transportation.
    (2) A generator must contact the consignment state to determine 
whether that state requires generators to enter optional state 
information on the manifest. Generators must also contact the 
consignment state to determine whether they are required to submit a 
copy of the manifest to the state.
    8. Section 262.23 is amended by revising the heading to read as 
follows:


Sec. 262.23  Use of the paper manifest.

* * * * *
    9. Subpart B is amended by adding new Sec. 262.24;


Sec. 262.24  Use of the electronic manifest.

    (a) Optional use. In lieu of using the paper manifest, generators 
may use an electronic manifest format identified in Sec. 262.20(a)(3). 
A generator may only use an electronic manifest if:
    (1) At least the generator and the designated facility for the 
shipment are both able to send and receive electronic manifest 
transmissions using electronic systems that meet the security 
requirements of Sec. 262.26, or the generator is able to access such an 
electronic system operated by the transporter who receives the waste 
shipment from the generator for off-site transportation,
    (2) Both the generator (or authorized preparer) and designated 
facility for the shipment are able to electronically sign their 
electronic manifests with an electronic signature that meets the 
requirements of Sec. 262.25, and
    (3) If manifest copies are collected by any authorized state(s), 
the state(s) is able to accept electronic manifest copies in lieu of 
paper copies, or, the state(s) is provided with suitable paper copies 
of the manifest.
    (b) Manifest preparation and signature by authorized preparer. A 
person who in fact prepares a generator's hazardous waste shipment for 
off-site transportation may sign the generator's certification on 
behalf of the generator. Such a preparer may sign the generator's 
certification on the manifest if:
    (1) The generator has authorized the preparer to prepare shipments 
and

[[Page 28303]]

initiate manifests on behalf of the generator; and
    (2) The preparer provides the generator with a copy of the manifest 
for the generator's records. In those cases where the preparer signs 
the generator's certification electronically but the generator is not 
able to retain an electronic copy of the manifest, the preparer must 
provide the generator with a paper copy of the manifest, with a 
notation in the generator's certification block indicating that the 
manifest was signed electronically by the preparer on behalf of the 
generator.
    (c) Manifest origination procedures. A generator originating an 
electronic manifest must:
    (1) Electronically sign the manifest certification in accordance 
with Sec. 262.25;
    (2) Transmit the manifest to the initial transporter and obtain 
back from this transporter a copy of the manifest bearing the signature 
of the initial transporter and the date of acceptance of the shipment. 
If the transporter is not able to accept and sign an electronic 
manifest, the generator must instead obtain from the transporter a 
handwritten signature and date of acceptance on a paper copy of the 
manifest or other shipping paper under 49 CFR part 272, subpart C. If a 
shipping paper is used to meet this requirement, it must bear the 
manifest tracking number assigned to the electronic manifest used for 
tracking the waste shipment.
    (3) Retain one electronic copy in accordance with the retention 
period described in Sec. 262.40(a). If the initial transporter is not 
able to accept and sign an electronic manifest, or if the generator 
signs an electronic manifest using the initial transporter's electronic 
system but is not able to take back an electronic copy, then the 
generator must retain a hard copy of the manifest or shipping paper 
signed by the initial transporter. The hard copy retained by the 
generator must display the manifest tracking number assigned to the 
shipment.
    (4) Provide the initial transporter with one hard copy of the 
manifest or other hazardous materials shipping paper as defined in 49 
CFR 171.8. This hard copy of the manifest or other shipping paper must 
be carried on the vehicle in accordance with 40 CFR 263.20(c) and the 
accessibility requirements of 49 CFR 177.817(e), and it must display 
the manifest tracking number assigned to the shipment.
    (d) If any transporter listed on the manifest is not able to 
accept, sign, and transmit electronic manifest copies, then the 
generator must also send an electronic manifest copy to the designated 
facility. The copy transmitted to the designated facility must bear the 
generator's electronically signed certification, and either the initial 
transporter's electronic signature and date of acceptance, or a 
notation indicating that the transporter signed a manifest copy or 
other shipping paper by hand and the date that the shipment was 
received by the initial transporter.
    (e) For shipments of hazardous waste within the United States 
solely by water (bulk shipments only), the generator must send an 
electronic copy of the manifest, dated and signed in accordance with 
this section, to the owner or operator of the designated facility or 
the last water (bulk shipment) transporter to handle the waste in the 
United States if exported by water. Copies of the electronic manifest 
are not required for each transporter.
    (f) For rail shipments of hazardous waste within the United States 
which originate at the site of generation, the generator must send an 
electronic copy of the manifest, dated and signed in accordance with 
this section, to:
    (1) The next non-rail transporter, if any; or
    (2) The designated facility, if transported solely by rail; or
    (3) The last rail transporter to handle the waste in the United 
States if exported by rail.
    (g) For shipments of hazardous waste to a designated facility in an 
authorized State which has not yet obtained authorization to regulate 
that particular waste as hazardous, the generator must assure that the 
designated facility agrees to sign and return the manifest to the 
generator, and that any out-of-state transporter signs and forwards the 
manifest to the designated facility.
    10. Subpart B is amended by adding new Sec. 262.25;


Sec. 262.25  Electronic manifest signatures.

    (a) An ``electronic signature'' means a method of signing an 
electronic document with a computer generated symbol or series of 
symbols in a way that indicates a particular person as the source of 
the document, and indicates such person's approval of the content of 
the document, or an intent to be bound by the document.
    (b) All electronic manifests must be signed with electronic 
signatures which meet either the digital signature standard described 
in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section, or the secure digitized 
signature standard described in paragraph (g) of this section.
    (c) Digital signatures. A ``digital signature'' means an electronic 
signature that is based on private key/public key cryptography, and 
which allows both the identity of the signer and the integrity of the 
data to be verified.
    (d) Digital signature generation. (1) The generation of digital 
signatures must conform to the Digital Signature Standard adopted by 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Federal 
Information Processing Standard (FIPS PUB) 186-1, December 15, 1998. In 
accordance with FIPS PUB 186-1, the Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA) 
described in FIPS PUB 180-1 (NIST, April, 1995) and the RSA digital 
signature algorithm described in ANSI X9.31 must be used to generate 
and verify digital signatures for the hazardous waste manifest.
    (2) Key lengths for encryption keys must be not less than 1024 
bits.
    (e) Private key security. (1) The private encryption key used to 
generate a manifest digital signature may reside on either software or 
hardware, e.g., a ``smart'' card or other hardware token. Access to the 
private key must be protected by at least one authority challenge, such 
as a PIN or password. The subscriber must keep the PIN or password 
confidential at all times.
    (2) Individuals are responsible at all times for maintaining the 
confidentiality of their private keys. The private key must be 
protected at all times by the subscriber against disclosure, misuse, or 
compromise. An individual who uses a private key to sign electronic 
manifests must not delegate the use of their private key to another 
person.
    (f) Digital Certificate Requirements. [Reserved]
    (g) Secure digitized signatures. A ``secure digitized signature'' 
means an electronic signature that is created with a system which 
includes a digitizer device that collects signature data from a stylus 
that the signer moves across the surface of the device, and which 
includes software which can process signature input in the following 
manner:
    (1) The signature software must block access to any editing or 
copying features that might otherwise allow a non-original signature 
image to be inserted in or copied to a document.
    (2) The signature software must be designed to accept only original 
signature input created dynamically with the digitizer device.
    (3) The signature software must record the signature input data as 
a signature object that contains:
    (i) The graphical image of the signer's handwritten signature,
    (ii) Signature capture information, including the claimed identity 
of the signer, and the date and time of the signature.

[[Page 28304]]

    (iii) Document binding data, particularly, an encrypted checksum or 
hash function of the data to which the signature relates.
    (4) The signature software must allow interrogation and 
verification of signature objects, to establish whether any data has 
been changed since a signature was captured. The software must alert 
the user if an invalid signature is detected.
    (5) The signature software must be capable of presenting the 
graphical image of the captured signature in an industry standard 
bitmap format (e.g., TIFF or BMP), for display or print operations.
    (h) Proof that an individual's electronic signature was affixed to 
an electronic manifest is evidence, and may suffice to establish, that 
the individual identified as the signor affixed the signature and did 
so with the intent to sign the electronic document to give it effect.
    11. Subpart B is amended by adding new Sec. 262.26;


Sec. 262.26  Electronic manifest systems and security.

    (a) Electronic manifests must be generated and maintained by 
electronic systems that comply with paragraph (c) of this section. 
Electronic copies of manifests, which are electronically signed in 
accordance with Sec. 262.25, and which are generated or maintained by 
electronic systems that meet the security requirements of paragraph (c) 
of this section, will be considered the legal equivalent to paper 
manifest copies bearing handwritten signatures, for purposes of 
satisfying any requirement in these regulations to initiate, use, or 
transmit a manifest, or to retain a record of a manifest copy or 
produce it for inspection.
    (b) Electronic manifest copies as well as any computer systems 
(hardware and software), controls, and related documentation maintained 
under this section, must be readily available for, and subject to 
inspection by any EPA or authorized State inspector.
    (c) Electronic systems used to satisfy the requirements in these 
regulations to initiate, use, transmit, or retain records of manifests, 
must employ controls and procedures to ensure the authenticity and 
integrity of their electronic records, and to ensure that the signer of 
these records cannot readily repudiate the signature and associated 
records as genuine. Such procedures and controls must include:
    (1) Validation of computer systems by an independent, qualified 
information systems security professional who has prepared a written 
assessment of the system and has certified that the system generates 
and processes data accurately and reliably, that the system performs 
consistently and as intended, that the system is fully interoperable 
with any other electronic manifest system with which the system 
exchanges electronic manifests, that the system is designed and can be 
operated to meet the computer security standards of this section and 
good security practices common to trusted electronic commerce systems, 
and that appropriate precautions have been taken to ensure that these 
security measures cannot be avoided or defeated.
    (2) The ability to generate accurate and complete records in both 
electronic (i.e, EDI and XML) formats and human readable formats, which 
can be made readily available for inspection, printing, or copying by 
EPA or State inspectors during the required record retention period.
    (3) The ability to protect electronic records from all reasonably 
foreseeable causes of damage or corruption (including accidental or 
intentional erasures and alterations, and physical causes such as fire, 
heat, magnetism or water damage), to ensure their accurate and ready 
retrieval during the entire record retention period, including the 
retention of prior versions of hardware and software needed to access 
electronic records, and to create secure back-up copies of records or 
otherwise provide for data recovery in the event of damage or errors.
    (4) The ability to limit system access to only authorized 
individuals, and to use authority checks (i.e., user IDs and passwords 
that uniquely identify each user to the system) to ensure that only 
authorized individuals can use the system, sign records, access input 
or output devices, alter a record, or perform discrete system 
operations,
    (5) The ability to provide and maintain a secure computer-generated 
and time-stamped audit trail for independently recording the date and 
time of any operator entries and actions that create, modify, or delete 
records, and for establishing a complete and accurate history of each 
record in the system.
    (6) Software-based operational system checks and work flow controls 
which implement and oversee the process for routing electronic 
manifests to waste handlers in the proper sequence, for prompting waste 
handlers to sign manifests electronically in the proper sequence and on 
the appropriate signature blocks, for ensuring that data entered by 
previous waste handlers cannot be altered once they have electronically 
signed the manifest, and for ensuring that electronic copies bearing 
the appropriate electronic signatures are distributed to all waste 
handlers involved with the waste shipment.
    (7) Software-based features which ensure that manifest data appear 
on computer displays in a human readable format (including field 
labels) which waste handlers can readily verify before they apply their 
electronic signatures, and that at the time the system prompts a user 
to sign a manifest electronically, the signature prompt is accompanied 
by the following warning notice, which must be displayed clearly and 
conspicuously on the system display:

WARNING: Your electronic signature, when applied to this document, 
will constitute a signature for all legal purposes. The unauthorized 
use of an electronic signature, or the making of false statements in 
connection with an electronic signature, may be subject to civil 
penalties under State and Federal law, and to Federal criminal 
penalties under RCRA 3008(d)(3). Where a digital signature is used, 
only the person named as the subscriber on the digital certificate 
may apply the digital signature, and the right to use the digital 
signature cannot be delegated to another person. By using a digital 
signature, you are certifying that you have not compromised your 
private key or any password associated with your private key or 
signature device.

    (8) Full interoperability of electronic manifest system features 
throughout the period that a manifest record resides on a system or is 
exchanged among waste handlers participating in an electronic system. 
Full interoperability of system features includes the ability to 
consistently process and present the required electronic manifest 
formats, the ability to consistently and reliably route manifests 
according to the software-based work flow and process controls, the 
ability to consistently generate and preserve audit trail data for each 
manifest record created by or received by the system, the ability to 
detect records that appear to have been altered, and the ability to 
consistently process and validate electronic signatures. You may 
exchange electronic manifests with another person's electronic system 
only if the other system has been assessed under paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section, and validated as fully interoperable with your system.
    (9) Establishment of controls on distribution of, access to, and 
use of systems documentation that describes how the system operates, 
how the system components must be installed and configured, how system 
security features are implemented, or how the system is maintained. 
These controls extend as well to changes or revisions

[[Page 28305]]

to system documentation or operating procedures.
    (10) Establishment of, and adherence to, written policies that hold 
individuals accountable and responsible for actions initiated under 
their electronic signatures, in order to deter record and signature 
falsification.
    (d) Third-party storage of manifest records. (1) A generator's 
electronic manifest records may be stored by a networking service, 
record archiving service, or other commercial vendor of electronic 
record storage services provided that such records are maintained in a 
system that complies with the requirements of this section, including 
the requirement for reasonable inspector access to records during the 
entire record retention period, and the requirement for validation of 
the third-party system's operation by a qualified, independent 
information systems security professional.
    (2) A generator who uses a third-party vendor of electronic record 
storage services to meet their record retention requirements remains 
responsible for the proper performance of their record retention 
requirements, including the requirement to provide reasonable inspector 
access to the records during the entire record retention period.
    (e) Receipt. An electronic manifest is deemed to have been received 
by the recipient when it is accessible to the recipient in a format 
that can be read by the recipient. If a recipient receives a manifest 
record for which there is evidence that the data has been corrupted 
(e.g., garbled text, or hash functions or checksums that do not 
calculate correctly), the recipient must request that the sender re-
transmit a corrected version of the record.
    (f) Acknowledgment of receipt. When an electronic manifest 
transmission is received, the recipient must promptly generate and 
transmit to the sender an acknowledgment that confirms the receipt of 
data that can be translated by the recipient's system.
    (g) Date of receipt. The acknowledgment generated by the recipient 
to confirm the receipt of translatable data will constitute conclusive 
evidence of receipt of the electronic manifest and will establish the 
date of receipt. An electronic transmission will not be considered 
complete until the sender receives the acknowledgment of receipt.
    (h) Retransmission. If a positive acknowledgment is not received 
within 12 hours of a transmission, then the person who initiated the 
transmission must promptly re-transmit the electronic manifest.
    (i) Inability to transmit. No person will be excused from the 
requirement to initiate or use a manifest because of a foreseeable or 
unforeseeable system failure that prevents the transmission of a valid 
electronic manifest. If a person is unable to initiate or transmit a 
valid manifest electronically, it must use the paper manifest required 
to be used in accordance with Sec. 262.20(a)(2) and Sec. 263.20 of this 
chapter.
    (j) Transmission log. Each generator who operates an electronic 
manifest system to transmit or receive electronic manifests must 
maintain a transmission log covering all electronic manifests sent or 
received. This log must include for each manifest transmission sent or 
received, the date, time, and destination/source. The transmission log 
must also document who had access to the generator's sending or 
receiving system during the creation, transmission, or receipt of data. 
The transmission log must be maintained without modification and 
retained for three years among the generator's manifest records, in 
accordance with Sec. 262.40(a).
    12. Subpart B is amended by adding new Sec. 262.27;


Sec. 262.27  Waste minimization certification.

    A generator who initiates a shipment of hazardous waste must 
certify to one of the following statements in Item 16 of the uniform 
hazardous waste manifest:
    (a) ``I am a large quantity generator. I have a program in place to 
reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated to the degree I have 
determined to be economically practicable and I have selected the 
practicable method of treatment, storage, or disposal currently 
available to me which minimizes the present and future threat to human 
health and the environment;'' or
    (b) ``I am a small quantity generator. I have made a good faith 
effort to minimize my waste generation and select the best waste 
management method that is available to me and that I can afford.''
    13. Section 262.32 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 262.32  Marking.

* * * * *
    (b) Before transporting hazardous waste or offering hazardous waste 
for transportation off-site, a generator must mark each container of 
119 gallons or less used in such transportation with the following 
words and information in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 
172.304:

HAZARDOUS WASTE--Federal Law Prohibits Improper Disposal. If found, 
contact the nearest police or public safety authority or the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency.
Generator's Name and Address-------------------------------------------
Generator's EPA Identification Number----------------------------------
Manifest Tracking Number-----------------------------------------------

    14. Section 262.33 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 262.33  Placarding.

    Before transporting hazardous waste or offering hazardous waste for 
transportation off-site, a generator must placard or offer the initial 
transporter the appropriate placards according to Department of 
Transportation regulations for hazardous materials under 49 CFR part 
172, subpart F. If placards are not required, a generator must mark 
each motor vehicle according to 49 CFR 171.3(b)(1).
    15. Section 262.34 is amended by adding new paragraph (j) to read 
as follows.


Sec. 262.34  Accumulation time.

* * * * *
    (j) A generator who sends a shipment of hazardous waste to a 
designated facility with the understanding that the designated facility 
can accept and manage the waste and then receives that shipment back as 
a rejected load or residue in accordance with the manifest discrepancy 
provisions of Sec. 264.72 or Sec. 265.72 of this chapter may accumulate 
the returned waste on-site in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) or 
(d), (e) and (f) of this section, depending on the amount of hazardous 
waste on-site in that calendar month, except that a small quantity 
generator can never accumulate more than 6,000 kg on site at any given 
time.

Subpart E--Exports of Hazardous Waste

    16. Section 262.54 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (e) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 262.54  Special manifest requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) In the International Shipments block, the primary exporter must 
check the export box and enter the point of exit (city and State) from 
the United States.
* * * * *
    (e) The primary exporter may obtain the manifest 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).
* * * * *

[[Page 28306]]

Subpart F--Imports of Hazardous Waste

    17. Section 262.60 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and by 
adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:


Sec. 262.60  Imports of hazardous waste.

* * * * *
    (c) A person who imports hazardous waste may obtain the manifest 
form 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).
    (d) In the International Shipments block, the importer must check 
the import box and enter the point of entry (city and State) into the 
United States.
    (e) The importer must provide the transporter with an additional 
copy of the manifest for delivery to the U.S. Customs official at the 
point the hazardous waste enters the United States in accordance with 
Sec. 263.20(g)(4) of this chapter.
    18. The Appendix to Part 262 is redesignated as appendix 1 to part 
262 and revised to read as follows:

Appendix 1 to Part 262--Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest and 
Instructions (EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A and Their Instructions) 
U.S. EPA Form 8700-22

    Read all instructions before completing this form.
    This form has been designed for use on a 12-pitch (elite) 
typewriter which is also compatible with standard computer printers; 
a firm point pen may also be used--press down hard.
    Federal regulations require generators and transporters of 
hazardous waste and owners or operators of hazardous waste 
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to complete this form 
(8700-22) and, if necessary, the continuation sheet (8700-22A) for 
both inter-and intrastate transportation of hazardous waste.
    The following statement must be included with each Uniform 
Hazardous Waste Manifest, either on the form, in the instructions to 
the form, or accompanying the form:
    Public reporting burden for this collection of information is 
estimated to average: 17 minutes for generators, 10 minutes for 
transporters, and 16 minutes for owners or operators of treatment, 
storage, and disposal facilities. This includes time for reviewing 
instructions, gathering data, completing and reviewing the form, and 
transmitting the form. Send comments regarding the burden estimate, 
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Chief, 
Information Policy Branch (2136), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Ariel Rios Building; 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, 
D.C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503.

Copies and Copy Distribution

    Original forms, carbon copies, carbonless copies, and 
photocopies of the manifest may be used. All copies must be legible. 
The top copy of the manifest must accompany the waste in 
transportation.
    Paper manifest must be printed according to the following 
specifications:
     use the federal manifest format;
     register with EPA as a forms printer to ensure that you 
adhere to federal printing specifications and procedures subsequent 
to the registration process;
     preprint an eleven digit alphanumeric number (i.e., the 
three letter prefix followed by eight digits) under Item Three of 
the manifest as the Manifest Tracking Number.
     not add additional boxes to the form;
     not delete boxes from the form;
     print the form so that the manifest dimensions are 8\1/
2\  x  11 inches;
     print the form in black ink so that it can be 
photocopied or faxed;
     print the standardized instructions outlined in 40 CFR 
part 262, appendix 1;
     follow the same copy naming structure as outlined below 
in Sec. 262.21(c)(3);
     print the state optional boxes so that information in 
them is readable when the form is photocopied or faxed; and
     printer must print a 6 copy form.
    Copies of the manifest shall be distributed as follows:
    Page 1 (top copy): Designated facility to consignment State (if 
required);
    Page 2: Designated facility to generator State (if required);
    Page 3: Designated facility to generator;
    Page 4: Designated facility retains
    Page 5: Transporter retains; and
    Page 6 (bottom copy): Generator to generator State (if 
required).

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 28307]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22MY01.016

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 28308]]

I. INSTRUCTIONS FOR GENERATORS

Item 1. Generator's U.S. EPA Identification Number

    Enter the generator's U.S. EPA twelve digit identification 
number.

Item 2. Page 1 of ____

    Enter the total number of pages used to complete this Manifest 
(i.e., the first page (EPA Form 8700-22) plus the number of 
Continuation Sheets (EPA Form 8700-22A), if any).

Item 3. Manifest Tracking Number

    For paper manifests, this number must be pre-printed on the 
manifest by the forms printer.

Item 4. Generator's Mailing Address and Phone Number

    Enter the name of the generator, the address to which the 
manifest signed by the designated facility should be mailed, and the 
generator's telephone number. Note, the telephone number (including 
area code) should be the number where the generator or his 
authorized agent may be reached to provide instructions in the event 
of an emergency or if the designated and/or alternate (if any) 
facility rejects some or all of the shipment. The emergency response 
phone number must:
    1. be the number of the generator or the number of an agency or 
organization who is capable of and accepts responsibility for 
providing detailed information about the shipment;
    2. reach a phone that is monitored 24 hours a day at all times 
the waste is in transportation (including transportation related 
storage); and
    3. must reach someone who is either knowledgeable of the 
hazardous waste being shipped and has comprehensive emergency 
response and spill cleanup/incident mitigation information for the 
material being shipped or has immediate access to a person who has 
that knowledge and information about the shipment.

Item 5. Emergency Response Phone Number

    Enter the number of the generator or the number of a party 
responsible for providing information about the shipment 24 hours a 
day.

Item 6. Transporter 1 Company Name, and U.S. EPA ID Number

    Enter the company name and U.S. EPA ID number of the first 
transporter who will transport the waste.

Item 7. Transporter 2 Company Name, U.S. EPA ID Number

    If applicable, enter the company name and U.S. EPA ID number of 
the second transporter who will transport the waste.

Item 8. Transporter 3 Company Name, U.S. EPA ID Number

    If applicable, enter the company name and U.S. EPA ID number of 
the third transporter who will transport the waste.
    If more than three transporters are needed, use a Continuation 
Sheet(s) (EPA Form 8700--22A).

Item 9. Designated Facility Name, Site Address, and U.S. EPA ID 
Number

    Enter the company name and site address of the facility 
designated to receive the waste listed on this manifest and enter 
the U.S. EPA twelve digit identification number of the facility.

Item 10. U.S. DOT Description (Including Proper Shipping Name, 
Hazard Class or Division, Identification Number, and Packing Group)

    Enter the U.S. DOT Proper Shipping Name, Hazard Class or 
Division, Identification Number (UN/NA) and Packing Group for each 
waste as identified in 49 CFR part 172. Include technical name(s) 
and reportable quantity references, if applicable. Any additional 
waste codes may be entered in Item 14 (special handling and 
additional information block), or if necessary, in Item 32 on the 
Continuation Sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A).


    Note: If additional space is needed for waste descriptions, 
enter these additional descriptions in Item 28 on the Continuation 
Sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A).

Item 11. Containers (Number and Type)

    Enter the number of containers for each waste and the 
appropriate abbreviation from Table I (below) for the type of 
container.

Table I. Types of Containers

BA = Burlap, cloth, paper, or plastic bags
CF = Fiber or plastic boxes, cartons, cases
CM = Metal boxes, cartons, cases (including roll-offs)
CW = Wooden boxes, cartons, cases
CY = Cylinders
DF = Fiberboard or plastic drums, barrels, kegs
DM = Metal drums, barrels, kegs
DT = Dump truck
DW = Wooden drums, barrels, kegs
HG = Hopper or gondola cars
TC = Tank cars
TP = Portable tanks
TT = Cargo tanks (tank trucks)

Item 12. Total Quantity

    Enter, in designated boxes, the total quantity of waste. Round 
partial units to the nearest whole unit; do not enter decimals or 
fractions (unless appropriate for bulk shipments).

Item 13. Units of Measure (Weight/Volume)

    Enter, in designated boxes, the appropriate abbreviation from 
Table II (below) for the unit of measure.

Table II. Units of Measure

G = Gallons (liquids only)
K = Kilograms
L = Liters (liquids only)
M = Metric Tons (1000 kilograms)
N = Cubic Meters
P = Pounds
T = Tons (2000 pounds)
Y = Cubic Yards

Item 14. Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information.

    Note: This space may be used to record other information 
relevant to the waste shipment for which there is no specific space 
on the Manifest. These items are: universal waste shipments; 
additional waste codes; alternate facility designation; name, 
address, and phone number of any person other than the person 
identified in Item 4 (Generator's Name, Mailing Address, and Phone 
Number) preparing the manifest; and name, address, phone number, and 
EPA identification number of any person who shares generator 
responsibilities (i.e., co-generators) with the person identified in 
Item 4 (Generator's Name, Mailing Address, and Phone Number). This 
space may be also used to indicate special transportation; 
treatment, storage, or disposal information; bill of lading 
information, and/or the manifest tracking number of the original 
manifest for rejected loads and residues. If space is available, 
then generators can use this space for information relevant to their 
tracks. States may also require additional waste description 
associated with particular hazardous wastes listed on the Manifest. 
States cannot require information in this box other than information 
such as chemical names, constituent percentages, and physical state.

Item 15. Generator's Statement and Preparer's Certification

    The generator must read, sign, and date the waste minimization 
certification statement. In signing the waste minimization 
certification statement, those generators who have not been exempted 
by statute or regulation from the duty to make a waste minimization 
certification under section 3002(b) of RCRA are also certifying that 
they have complied with the waste minimization requirements.
    Generators may preprint the words, ``On behalf of'' in the 
signature block or may hand write this statement in the signature 
block prior to signing the generator certifications.

    Note: For paper manifests, all of the above information except 
the handwritten signature required in item 15 may be pre-printed.

II. Instructions for International Shipment Block

Item 16. International Shipments

    For export shipments, the primary exporter must check the export 
box, and enter the point of exit (city and state) from the United 
States. For import shipments, the importer must check the import box 
and enter the point of entry (city and state) into the United 
States. For exports, the transporter must sign and date the manifest 
to indicate the day the shipment left the United States. 
Transporters of hazardous waste shipments must deliver a copy of the 
manifest to the U.S. Customs when importing or exporting the waste 
across U.S. borders.

III. Instructions for Transporters

Item 17. Transporter 1 Acknowledgment of Receipt

    Enter the name of the person accepting the waste on behalf of 
the first transporter. That person must acknowledge acceptance of 
the waste described on the Manifest by signing and entering the date 
of receipt. Only one signature per transportation company is 
required.

[[Page 28309]]

Item 18. Transporter 2 Acknowledgment of Receipt

    If applicable, enter the name of the person accepting the waste 
on behalf of the second transporter. That person must acknowledge 
acceptance of the waste described on the Manifest by signing and 
entering the date of receipt.

Item 19. Transporter 3 Acknowledgment of Receipt

    If applicable, enter the name of the person accepting the waste 
on behalf of the third transporter. That person must acknowledge 
acceptance of the waste described on the Manifest by signing and 
entering the date of receipt.

    Note: Transporters carrying imports or exports of hazardous 
waste may also have responsibilities to enter information in the 
International Shipments Block. See above instructions for Item 16.

IV. Instructions for Owners and Operators of Treatment, Storage, and 
Disposal Facilities

Item 20. Discrepancy Indication Space

    The authorized representative of the designated (or alternate) 
facility's owner or operator must note in this space any 
discrepancies between the waste described on the Manifest and the 
waste actually received at the facility. Manifest discrepancies are: 
significant differences (as defined by Sec. Sec. 264.72(b) and 
265.72(b)) between the quantity or type of hazardous waste 
designated on the manifest or shipping paper, and the quantity and 
type of hazardous waste a facility actually receives; rejected 
wastes, which may be a full or partial shipment of hazardous waste 
that the TSDF cannot accept; or container residues, which are 
residues that exceed the quantity limits for ``empty'' containers 
set forth in 40 CFR 261.7(b).
    For rejected loads and residues (40 CFR 264.72(d), (e), and (f), 
or 40 CFR 265.72(d), (e), or (f)), check the appropriate box if the 
shipment is a rejected load (i.e., rejected by the designated and/or 
alternate facility and is sent to an alternate facility or returned 
to the generator) or a regulated residue that cannot be removed from 
a container. Enter the reason for the rejection or the inability to 
remove the residue and a description of the waste. Also, reference 
the manifest tracking number for the new manifest being used to 
track the rejected waste or residue shipment on the original 
manifest. Indicate the original manifest tracking number in Item 14, 
the Special Handling Block of the new manifest.
    Owners or operators of facilities located in unauthorized States 
(i.e., states in which the U.S. EPA administers the hazardous waste 
management program) who cannot resolve significant differences in 
quantity or type within 15 days of receiving the waste must submit 
to their Regional Administrator (see list below) a letter with a 
copy of the Manifest at issue describing the discrepancy and 
attempts to reconcile it (40 CFR 264.72(c) and 265.72(c)).
    Owners or operators of facilities located in authorized States 
(i.e., those States that have received authorization from the U.S. 
EPA to administer the hazardous waste management program) should 
contact their State agency for information on State Discrepancy 
Report requirements.

EPA Regional Administrators

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region I, John F. Kennedy Federal 
Building, One Congress St., Boston, MA 02203
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region II, Jacob K. Javits Federal 
Building, 26 Federal Pl., New York, NY 10278
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, 
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IV, 345 Courtland St, NE, 
Atlanta, GA 30365
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region VI, First Interstate Bank 
Tower at Fountain Place, 1445 Ross Ave, 12th Floor, Suite 1200, 
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region VII, 726 Minnesota Ave., 
Kansas City, KS 66101
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region VIII, 999 18th St., Suite 
500, Denver, CO 80202-2405
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San 
Francisco, CA 94105
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region X, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, 
WA 98101

Item 21. Facility Owner or Operator Certification of Receipt 
(Except As Noted in Item 20)

    Enter the name of the person accepting the waste on behalf of 
the owner or operator of the facility. That person must acknowledge 
receipt or rejection of the waste described on the Manifest by 
signing and entering the date of receipt or rejection where 
indicated. Since the Facility Certification acknowledges receipt of 
the waste except as noted in the Discrepancy Space in Item 20, the 
certification should be signed for both waste receipt and waste 
rejection, with the rejection being explained in the space in Item 
20.

Optional State Information

    Blocks A and B are not required by Federal regulations for 
intra- or interstate transportation. However, States may require 
generators and owners or operators of treatment, storage, or 
disposal facilities to complete some or all of Blocks A or B as part 
of State manifest reporting requirements. Generators and owners and 
operators of treatment, storage, or disposal facilities should 
contact State officials to determine whether they must enter 
information in blocks A and B.

Block A--Waste Codes

    Enter up to 3 Federal waste codes in the top part of Block A for 
wastes described in Item 10. Enter the federal waste codes in 
accordance with the following hierarchy: all acutely hazardous 
wastes, including all P listed wastes and all acutely hazardous F 
listed wastes; all U listed wastes (toxic); all K listed wastes 
(specific sources); all non-acute F listed wastes (non-specific 
sources); and all D wastes (characteristic). The use of this 
hierarchy is required except for ignitable or reactive wastes, which 
may be better described (for safety reasons) if the waste codes for 
these characteristics are listed first.
    The bottom half of Block A is reserved for entering up to three 
state-specific waste codes. In general, the first state waste code 
listed should be the generator state waste code (if applicable) and 
the second state waste code listed should be the destination state 
waste code (if applicable).
    If additional federal or state waste codes need to be reported, 
the generator should use Item 14 ``Special Handling Instructions and 
Additional Information.''

Block B--Biennial Report System Type Codes

    Enter the most appropriate Biennial Report system type code for 
each waste listed in Item 10. The system type code is to be entered 
by the first treatment, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF) that 
receives the waste and is the code that best describes the way in 
which the waste is managed when shipped to the TSDF. The full list 
of the Biennial Report system type codes can be found in the 
electronic and hard copy versions of 40 CFR Part 262 Appendix 2-
Biennial Report system type codes (full list of the system type 
codes) and in the instructions for completing the Biennial Report.
    19. Add a new appendix 2 to part 262 to read as follows:

Appendix 2 to Part 262--Biennial Report System Type Codes for Block B 
of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest

    Shown below is the full list of Biennial Report system type 
codes found in the 1999 Hazardous Waste Report Instructions and 
Forms. These codes are to be used by the designated facility in 
completing Block B of the hazardous waste manifest where an 
authorized state required it. Any changes made to those codes during 
subsequent Biennial Report periods will be automatically adopted.

List of System Type Codes

Metals Recovery (for Reuse)

M011  High temperature metals recovery
M012  Retorting
M013  Secondary smelting
M014  Other metals recovery for reuse: e.g., ion exchange, reverse 
osmosis, acid leaching
M019 Metals recovery--type unknown

Solvents Recovery

M021  Fractionation/distillation
M022  Thin film evaporation
M023  Solvent extraction
M024  Other solvent recovery
M029  Solvents recovery--type unknown

Other Recovery

M031  Acid regeneration
M032  Other recovery: e.g., waste oil recovery, nonsolvent organics 
recovery
M039  Other recovery--type unknown

Incineration Treatment

M041  Incineration--liquids
M042  Incineration--sludges
M043  Incineration--solids

[[Page 28310]]

M044  Incineration--gases
M049  Incineration--type unknown

Energy Recovery (Reuse as Fuel)

M051  Energy recovery--liquids
M052  Energy recovery--sludges
M053  Energy recovery--solids
M059  Energy recovery--type unknown

Fuel Blending

M061  Fuel blending

Aqueous Inorganic Treatment

M071  Chrome reduction followed by chemical precipitation
M072  Cyanide destruction followed by chemical precipitation
M073  Cyanide destruction only
M074  Chemical oxidation followed by chemical precipitation
M075  Chemical oxidation only
M076  Wet air oxidation
M077  Chemical precipitation
M078  Other aqueous inorganic treatment: e.g., ion exchange, reverse 
osmosis
M079  Aqueous inorganic treatment--type unknown

Aqueous Organic Treatment

M081  Biological treatment
M082  Carbon adsorption
M083  Air/steam stripping
M084  Wet air oxidation
M085  Other aqueous organic treatment
M089  Aqueous organic treatment--type unknown

Aqueous Organic and Inorganic Treatment

M091  Chemical precipitation in combination with biological 
treatment
M092  Chemical precipitation in combination with carbon adsorption
M093  Wet air oxidation
M094  Other organic/inorganic treatment
M099  Aqueous organic and inorganic treatment--type unknown

Sludge Treatment

M101  Sludge dewatering
M102  Addition of excess lime
M103  Absorption/adsorption
M104  Solvent extraction
M109  Sludge treatment--type unknown

Stabilization

M111  Stabilization/chemical fixation using cementitious and/or 
pozzolanic materials
M112  Other stabilization
M119  Stabilization--type unknown

Other Treatment

M121  Neutralization only
M122  Evaporation only
M123  Settling/clarification only
M124  Phase separation (e.g., emulsion breaking, filtration) only
M125  Other treatment
M129  Other treatment--type unknown

Disposal

M131  Land treatment/application/farming
M132  Landfill
M133  Surface impoundment (to be closed as a landfill)
M134  Deepwell/underground injection
M135  Direct discharge to sewer/POTW
M136  Direct discharge to surface water under NPDES
M137  Other disposal

Transfer Facility Storage

M141  Transfer facility storage--waste was shipped off site without 
any on-site treatment, disposal, or recycling activity

PART 263--STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    20. The authority citation for part 263 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922-6925, 6937, and 6938.

    21-23. Section 263.20 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through 
(g) and adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec. 263.20  The manifest system.

    (a)(1) Manifest Requirement. A transporter may not accept hazardous 
waste from a generator unless the transporter is also provided with a 
manifest signed in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 262.23, or, 
for electronic manifests, the requirements of 40 CFR 262.24 and 262.25.
    (2) Exports. In the case of exports other than those subject to 
subpart H of 40 CFR part 262, a transporter may not accept such waste 
from a primary exporter or other person if he knows the shipment does 
not conform to the EPA Acknowledgment of Consent; and unless, in 
addition to a manifest signed by the generator as provided in this 
section, the transporter shall also be provided with an EPA 
Acknowledgment of Consent which, except for shipments by rail, is 
attached to the manifest (or shipping paper for shipments using an 
electronic manifest or for exports by water (bulk shipment)). For 
exports of hazardous waste subject to the requirements of subpart H of 
40 CFR part 262, a transporter may not accept hazardous waste without a 
tracking document that includes all information required by 40 CFR 
262.84.
    (b)(1) Transporter signature requirement when paper manifest 
supplied. Before transporting the hazardous waste, the transporter must 
sign by hand and date the manifest acknowledging acceptance of the 
hazardous waste from the generator. Before leaving the generator's 
property, the transporter must return a signed paper copy of the 
manifest to the generator.
    (2) Transporter signature requirement when electronic manifest 
supplied.--(i) Transporters participating in electronic manifest 
systems. Before transporting the hazardous waste, a transporter 
participating with the generator in an electronic manifest system must 
sign electronically and date the manifest acknowledging acceptance of 
the hazardous waste from the generator, using an electronic signature 
in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 262.25 of this chapter. 
Before leaving the generator's property, the transporter must return a 
signed electronic copy of the manifest to the generator.
    (ii) Transporters unable to participate in electronic systems. If 
the generator participates in an electronic manifest system, but the 
transporter is not able to accept or sign electronic manifests, then 
the transporter must acknowledge acceptance of the hazardous waste from 
the generator by signing by-hand and dating a paper copy of the 
manifest or other shipping paper under 49 CFR part 172, subpart C. 
Before leaving the generator's property, the transporter must return a 
copy of this signed manifest or other shipping paper to the generator.
    (iii) Transporter signing electronic manifest on behalf of 
generator. If a transporter acts as an authorized preparer of a 
generator's manifest and signs the generator's certification on behalf 
of the generator as provided under Sec. 262.24(b) of this chapter, the 
transporter must, before transporting the hazardous waste, sign 
electronically and date the manifest acknowledging acceptance of the 
hazardous waste from the generator. The transporter must return a 
signed electronic copy to the generator before leaving the generator's 
property. If the generator is not able to accept an electronic copy 
from the transporter, the transporter must provide the generator with a 
signed paper copy of the manifest or other shipping paper, with a 
notation in the generator's certification block indicating that the 
manifest was signed electronically on behalf of the generator.
    (c)(1) For shipments tracked with a paper manifest, the transporter 
must ensure that the manifest accompanies the hazardous waste shipment 
and is readily available to, and recognized by, authorities in the 
event of accident or inspection.
    (2) For shipments tracked with an electronic manifest, the 
transporter must ensure that the electronic manifest is transmitted to 
the next transporter or to the designated facility prior to or at the 
time of the delivery of the shipment. In addition, the transporter must 
ensure that a paper copy of the manifest or other shipping paper as 
defined under 49 CFR part 172, subpart C accompanies the shipment, and 
is readily available to, and recognized by, authorities in the event of 
inspection or accident.
    (3) In the case of exports, the transporter must ensure that a copy 
of the EPA Acknowledgment of Consent also accompanies the waste.

[[Page 28311]]

    (d)(1) Transporter delivery of waste for shipments covered by paper 
manifest. A transporter who delivers a hazardous waste covered by a 
paper manifest to another transporter or to the designated facility 
must:
    (i) Obtain the date of delivery and the handwritten signature of 
that transporter or of the owner or operator of the designated facility 
on the manifest;
    (ii) Retain one copy of the manifest in accordance with 
Sec. 263.22; and
    (iii) Give the remaining paper copies of the manifest to the 
accepting transporter or designated facility.
    (2) Transporter delivery of waste for shipments covered by 
electronic manifest. A transporter who delivers a hazardous waste 
covered by an electronic manifest to another transporter or to the 
designated facility must:
    (i) If the delivering transporter participates in the electronic 
manifest system:
    (A) Obtain the date of delivery and the electronic signature of 
that transporter or of the owner or operator of the designated facility 
on the manifest;
    (B) Retain an electronic copy of the manifest in accordance with 
Sec. 263.22; and
    (C) Transmit the electronic manifest to the accepting transporter 
or designated facility.
    (ii) If the delivering transporter does not participate in the 
electronic system on which the manifest has been transmitted to the 
accepting transporter or designated facility:
    (A) Obtain the date of delivery and the handwritten signature of 
the accepting transporter or the owner or operator of the designated 
facility, on a paper copy of the manifest or other shipping paper under 
49 CFR part 272, subpart C, and which bears the manifest tracking 
number assigned to the shipment by the electronic system; and
    (B) Retain this signed copy of the manifest or other shipping paper 
in accordance with Sec. 263.22.
    (e) For shipments involving water (bulk shipment) transportation, 
the requirements of paragraphs (c), (d), and (f) of this section do not 
apply if:
    (1) The hazardous waste is delivered by water (bulk shipment) to 
the designated facility;
    (2) A shipping paper containing all the information required on the 
manifest (excluding the EPA Identification numbers, generator 
certification, and signatures) and, for exports, and EPA Acknowledgment 
of Consent accompanies the hazardous waste;
    (3) The person delivering the hazardous waste to the initial water 
(bulk shipment) transporter obtains the date of delivery and signature 
of the water (bulk shipment) transporter on a paper or electronic 
manifest and forwards it to the designated facility;
    (4) The delivering water transporter obtains the date of delivery 
and handwritten signature of the owner or operator of the designated 
facility on either a paper copy of the manifest or on the shipping 
paper; and
    (5) A copy of the shipping paper or manifest is retained by each 
water (bulk shipment) transporter in accordance with Sec. 263.22.
    (f) For shipments involving rail transportation, the requirements 
of paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section do not apply, and the 
following requirements do apply:
    (1) When accepting hazardous waste from a non-rail transporter, the 
initial rail transporter must:
    (i) Sign (by-hand or with an electronic signature) and date the 
manifest acknowledging acceptance of the hazardous waste;
    (ii) Return or transmit a signed copy of the manifest to the non-
rail transporter;
    (iii) Forward at least three paper copies or an electronic copy of 
the manifest to:
    (A) The next non-rail transporter, if any; or
    (B) The designated facility, if the shipment is delivered to that 
facility by rail; or
    (C) The last rail transporter designated to handle the waste in the 
United States; and
    (iv) Retain one copy of the manifest and rail shipping paper in 
accordance with Sec. 263.22.
    (2) Rail transporters must ensure that a shipping paper containing 
all the information required on the manifest (excluding the EPA 
identification numbers, generator certification, and signatures) and, 
for exports, an EPA acknowledgment of Consent accompanies the hazardous 
waste at all times.
    (3)(i) When delivering hazardous waste covered by a paper manifest 
to the designated facility, a rail transporter must:
    (A) Obtain the date of delivery and the handwritten signature of 
the owner or operator of the designated facility on the manifest, or a 
handwritten signature on the shipping paper (if the manifest has not 
been received by the facility); and
    (B) Retain a copy of the manifest or signed shipping paper in 
accordance with Sec. 263.22.
    (ii) When delivering hazardous waste covered by an electronic 
manifest to the designated facility, a rail transporter participating 
in the electronic manifest system must:
    (A) Obtain the date of delivery and the electronic signature of the 
owner or operator of the designated facility on the manifest; and
    (B) Retain an electronic copy of the signed manifest in accordance 
with Sec. 263.22.
    (iii) When delivering hazardous waste covered by an electronic 
manifest to the designated facility, a rail transporter not 
participating in the electronic manifest system must:
    (A) Obtain the date of delivery and handwritten signature of the 
owner or operator of the designated facility on a paper copy of the 
manifest or shipping paper, which must bear the manifest tracking 
number assigned to the shipment by the electronic system; and
    (B) Retain a copy of the signed manifest or shipping paper in 
accordance with Sec. 263.22.
    (4)(i) When delivering hazardous waste covered by a paper manifest 
to a non-rail transporter, a rail transporter must:
    (A) Obtain the date of delivery and the handwritten signature of 
the next non-rail transporter on the manifest; and
    (B) Retain a paper copy of the manifest in accordance with 
Sec. 263.22.
    (ii) When delivering hazardous waste covered by an electronic 
manifest to a non-rail transporter, a rail transporter participating in 
the electronic manifest system must:
    (A) Obtain the date of delivery and the electronic signature of the 
next non-rail transporter on the electronic manifest; and
    (B) Retain an electronic copy of the signed manifest in accordance 
with Sec. 263.22.
    (iii) When delivering hazardous waste covered by an electronic 
manifest to a non-rail transporter, a rail transporter not 
participating in the electronic manifest system must:
    (A) Obtain the date of delivery and handwritten signature of the 
next non-rail transporter on a paper copy of the manifest or shipping 
paper, which must bear the manifest tracking number assigned to the 
shipment by the electronic system; and
    (B) Retain a copy of the signed manifest or shipping paper in 
accordance with Sec. 263.22.
    (5) Before accepting hazardous waste from a rail transporter, a 
non-rail transporter must sign (by hand or with an electronic 
signature) and date the manifest and provide a copy to the rail 
transporter.

[[Page 28312]]

    (g) Transporters who transport hazardous waste out of the United 
States must:
    (1) Sign and date the manifest in the International Shipments block 
to indicate the date that the shipment left the United States;
    (2) Retain one copy in accordance with Sec. 263.22(d);
    (3) Return a signed copy of the manifest to the generator; and
    (4) Give a copy of the manifest to a U.S. Customs official at the 
point of departure from the United States.
* * * * *
    (i) Transporters who transport hazardous waste into the United 
States must give a copy of the manifest to a U.S. Customs official at 
the point of entry into the United States.
    24. Section 263.21 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 263.21  Compliance with the manifest.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) If the hazardous waste cannot be delivered in accordance 
with paragraph (a) of this section because of an emergency condition 
other than rejection of the waste by the designated facility, then the 
transporter must contact the generator for further directions and must 
revise the manifest according to the generator's instructions.
    (2) If hazardous waste is rejected by the designated facility 
listed on the manifest while the transporter is there, then the 
transporter must obtain the date of rejection and signature of the 
owner or operator of the designated facility on the manifest, retain 
one copy of the manifest in accordance with Sec. 263.22, and give the 
remaining copies of the manifest to the rejecting designated facility. 
When the transporter is taking back a full or partial shipment, that 
load must be accompanied by a new manifest.
    25. Section 263.22 is amended by revising paragraph (a), and by 
adding new paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as follows:


Sec. 263.22  Recordkeeping.

    (a)(1) A transporter of hazardous waste must keep a copy of each 
paper or electronic manifest signed by the generator, himself, and the 
next designated transporter or the owner or operator of the designated 
facility for a period of three years from the date the hazardous waste 
was accepted by the initial transporter.
    (2) For shipments covered by an electronic manifest, if a provision 
of this subpart authorizes a transporter to obtain, in lieu of a signed 
electronic copy of the manifest, a hand-signed paper copy of the 
manifest or other shipping paper under 49 CFR part 172, subpart C, the 
transporter must keep a copy of each such manifest or shipping paper 
for a period of three years from the date the hazardous waste was 
accepted by the initial transporter.
* * * * *
    (f) Transmission log. Each transporter who operates an electronic 
manifest system and transmits or receives electronic manifests must 
maintain a transmission log covering all electronic manifests sent or 
received. This log must include for each manifest transmission sent or 
received, the date, time, and destination/source. The transmission log 
must also document who had access to the transporter's sending or 
receiving system during the creation, transmission, or receipt of data. 
The transmission log covering each calendar year's transmissions must 
be maintained without modification and retained with the transporter's 
manifest records for a period of three years from their creation.
    (g) Third-party storage of electronic manifest records. (1) 
Electronic manifest records may be stored by a networking service, 
record archiving service, or other commercial vendor of electronic 
record storage services provided that such records are maintained in a 
system that complies with the requirements of Sec. 262.26 of this 
chapter, including the requirement for reasonable inspector access to 
records during their retention period, and the requirement for 
validation of the third-party system's operation by a qualified, 
independent information systems security professional.
    (2) A transporter who uses a third-party vendor of electronic 
record storage services to meet their record retention requirements 
remains responsible for the proper performance of their record 
retention requirements, including the requirement to provide reasonable 
inspector access during the entire record retention period.
    26. Subpart B is amended by adding new Sec. 263.23 to read as 
follows:


Sec. 263.23  Electronic manifest systems.

    (a) If a transporter of hazardous waste participates in an 
electronic manifest system, the electronic system used by the 
transporter to originate, use, sign, transmit, or store electronic 
manifests shall be designed and operated in accordance with the 
electronic format standards described in 40 CFR 262.20(a)(3), the 
electronic signature standards in 40 CFR 262.25, and the system 
controls and computer security requirements described in 40 CFR 262.26.
    (b) Except where a provision of this part specifically requires a 
paper copy of a manifest or a handwritten signature, manifest copies 
which are electronically signed in accordance with 40 CFR 262.25 and 
which are originated, transmitted, or maintained by electronic systems 
that comply with paragraph (a) of this section, will be considered the 
legal equivalent to paper manifest copies bearing handwritten 
signatures.
    (c) All computer systems (hardware and software), controls, and 
related documentation maintained under this section, shall be readily 
available for, and subject to inspection by any EPA or authorized state 
inspector.
    (d) Receipt. An electronic manifest is deemed to have been properly 
received by the recipient when it is accessible to the recipient in a 
format that can be read by the recipient. If a recipient receives a 
manifest record for which there is evidence that the data has been 
corrupted (e.g., garbled text, or hash functions or checksums that do 
not calculate correctly), the recipient must request that the sender 
re-transmit a corrected version of the record.
    (e) Acknowledgment of receipt. When an electronic manifest 
transmission is received, the recipient must promptly generate and 
transmit to the sender an acknowledgment that confirms the receipt of 
data that can be translated by the recipient's system.
    (f) Date of receipt. The acknowledgment generated by the recipient 
to confirm the receipt of translatable data will constitute conclusive 
evidence of receipt of the electronic manifest and will establish the 
date of receipt. An electronic transmission will not be considered 
complete until the sender receives the acknowledgment of receipt.
    (g) Retransmission. If a positive acknowledgment is not received 
within 12 hours of a transmission, then the person who initiated the 
transmission must promptly re-transmit the electronic manifest.
    (h) Inability to transmit. No person will be excused from the 
requirement to initiate or use a manifest because of a foreseeable or 
unforeseeable system failure that prevents the transmission of a valid 
electronic manifest. If a person is unable to initiate or transmit a 
valid manifest electronically, it must use the paper manifest required 
to be used in accordance with 40 CFR 262.20(a)(2) and 40 CFR 263.20.

[[Page 28313]]

PART 264--STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

    27. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and 6925.

Subpart E--Manifest System, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

    28-29. Section 264.71 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and 
(b)(4) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec. 264.71  Use of manifest system.

    (a)(1) If a facility receives hazardous waste with a manifest, the 
owner or operator, or his agent, must sign and date the manifest, as 
indicated in paragraphs (a)(2), (3), or (4) of this section to certify 
that the hazardous waste covered by the manifest was received, that the 
hazardous waste was received except as noted in the discrepancy space 
of the manifest, or that the hazardous waste was fully rejected as 
noted in the manifest discrepancy space.
    (2) If a facility receives a hazardous waste shipment accompanied 
by a paper manifest, the owner or operator, or his agent must:
    (i) Sign and date, by hand, each copy of the manifest;
    (ii) Note any discrepancies (as defined in Sec. 264.72(a)) on each 
copy of the manifest;
    (iii) Immediately give the transporter at least one paper copy of 
the manifest;
    (iv) Within 30 days of delivery, send a copy of the paper manifest 
to the generator; and
    (v) Retain at the facility a paper copy of each manifest for at 
least three years from the date of delivery.
    (3) If a facility receives a hazardous waste shipment covered by an 
electronic manifest, and the generator, transporter, and facility all 
participate in the electronic manifest system, the owner or operator, 
or his agent, must:
    (i) Electronically sign and date the manifest, using an electronic 
signature in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 262.25, to 
certify that the hazardous waste covered by the manifest was received;
    (ii) Note any discrepancies (as defined in Sec. 264.72(a)) on the 
electronic manifest;
    (iii) Immediately provide the transporter with one electronic copy 
of the signed manifest;
    (iv) Immediately send an electronic copy of the signed manifest to 
the generator; and
    (v) Retain at the facility an electronic copy of each manifest for 
at least three years from the date of delivery.
    (4) If an owner or operator participates with a generator in an 
electronic manifest system, but receives a hazardous waste shipment 
from a transporter that does not participate in the electronic system, 
the owner or operator must:
    (i) Hand-sign and date a paper copy of the manifest (or other 
shipping paper under 49 CFR part 172, subpart C) provided by the 
delivering transporter, and immediately give the transporter the copy 
of the hand-signed manifest or shipping paper;
    (ii) Electronically sign (using an electronic signature in 
accordance with Sec. 262.25) and date the electronic manifest covering 
the shipment that was forwarded to the facility by the generator, to 
certify that the hazardous waste covered by the manifest was received;
    (iii) Note any significant discrepancies in the manifest (as 
defined in Sec. 264.72(a)) on the electronic manifest;
    (iv) Immediately return the electronically signed electronic copy 
of the manifest to the generator; and
    (v) Retain at the facility an electronic copy the manifest for at 
least three years from the date of delivery.
    (b) * * *
    (4) Within 30 days after the delivery, send a copy of the signed 
and dated manifest or shipping paper (if the manifest has not been 
received within 30 days after delivery) to the generator. However, if 
the generator and the facility participate in an electronic manifest 
system, the owner or operator, or his agent, shall electronically sign 
and date (and note any discrepancies) the electronic manifest provided 
by the generator, and immediately send the signed electronic copy to 
the generator in lieu of a paper copy.
* * * * *
    (e) A facility must contact the consignment state to determine 
whether that state requires facilities to enter optional state 
information on the manifest. Facilities must also contact the 
consignment state to determine whether they are required to submit a 
copy of the manifest to the state.
    30. Section 264.72 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 264.72  Manifest discrepancies.

    (a) Manifest discrepancies are: Significant differences (as defined 
by paragraph (b) of this section) between the quantity or type of 
hazardous waste designated on the manifest or shipping paper, and the 
quantity and type of hazardous waste a facility actually receives; 
Rejected wastes, which may be a full or partial shipment of hazardous 
waste that the TSDF cannot accept; or Container residues, which are 
residues that exceed the quantity limits for ``empty'' containers set 
forth in 40 CFR 261.7(b).
    (b) Significant differences in quantity are: For bulk waste, 
variations greater than 10 percent in weight; and for batch waste, any 
variation in piece count, such as a discrepancy of one drum in a 
truckload. Significant differences in type are obvious differences 
which can be discovered by inspection or waste analysis, such as waste 
solvent substituted for waste acid, or toxic constituents not reported 
on the manifest or shipping paper.
    (c) Upon discovering a significant difference in quantity or type, 
the owner or operator must attempt to reconcile the discrepancy with 
the waste generator or transporter (e.g., with telephone 
conversations). If the discrepancy is not resolved within 15 days after 
receiving the waste, the owner or operator must immediately submit to 
the Regional Administrator a letter describing the discrepancy and 
attempts to reconcile it, and a copy of the manifest or shipping paper 
at issue.
    (d)(1) Upon rejecting waste or identifying a container residue that 
exceeds the quantity limits for ``empty'' containers set forth in 40 
CFR 261.7(b), the facility must contact the generator to obtain the 
generator's instructions for forwarding the waste to another facility 
that can manage the waste. The facility must send the waste according 
to the generator's instructions. If it is impossible to locate in a 
timely manner an alternative facility that can promptly receive the 
waste, the facility may, with permission of the generator, return the 
rejected waste or residue to the generator.
    (2) While the facility is making arrangements for forwarding 
rejected wastes or residues to another facility under this section, it 
must ensure that either the delivering transporter retains custody of 
the waste, or, the facility must provide for secure, temporary custody 
of the waste pending delivery of the waste to the first transporter 
designated on the new manifest prepared under paragraph (e) or (f) of 
this section.
    (e) For rejected loads and residues that are to be sent off-site to 
an alternate facility, the facility is required to prepare a new 
manifest in accordance with Sec. 262.20(a) of this chapter and the 
following instructions:
    (1) Write the generator's name, address and U.S. EPA ID number in 
the

[[Page 28314]]

generator's name and mailing address box (Items 1 and 4) of a new 
manifest.
    (2) Write the name of the alternate designated facility and the 
facility's U.S. EPA ID number in the designated facility block (Item 9) 
of a new manifest.
    (3) Copy the manifest tracking number found in Block A or Item 3 of 
the old manifest to the Special Handling and Additional Information 
Block of the new manifest, and indicate that the shipment is a residue 
or rejected waste from the previous shipment,
    (4) Copy the manifest tracking number found in Item 3 of the new 
manifest to the manifest reference number line in the Discrepancy Block 
of the old manifest (Item 20) of this chapter.
    (5) Write the DOT description for the rejected load or the residue 
in the Item 10 (U.S. DOT Description) of the new manifest and write the 
container types, quantity, and volume(s) of waste.
    (6) Sign the Generator's Certification to certify, as the offeror 
of the shipment, that the waste has been properly packaged, marked and 
labeled and is in proper condition for transportation.
    (f) For rejected wastes and residues that must be sent back to the 
generator, the facility is required to prepare a new manifest in 
accordance with Sec. 262.20(a) of this chapter and the following 
instructions:
    (1) Write the facility's name, address and U.S. EPA ID number in 
the generator's name and mailing address box (Items 1 and 4) of a new 
manifest.
    (2) Write the name of the initial generator and the generator's 
U.S. EPA ID number in the designated facility block (Item 9) of the new 
manifest.
    (3) Copy the manifest tracking number found in Block A or Item 3 of 
the old manifest to the Special Handling and Additional Information 
Block of the new manifest, and indicate that the shipment is a residue 
or rejected waste from the previous shipment,
    (4) Copy the manifest tracking number found in Item 3 of the new 
manifest to the manifest reference number line in the Discrepancy Block 
of the old manifest (Item 20),
    (5) Write the DOT description for the rejected load or the residue 
in the Item 10 (U.S. DOT Description) of the new manifest and write the 
container types, quantity, and volume(s) of waste.
    (6) Sign the Generator's Certification to certify, as offeror of 
the shipment, that the waste has been properly packaged, marked and 
labeled and is in proper condition for transportation,
    (g) If a facility rejects a waste or identifies a container residue 
that exceeds the quantity limits for ``empty'' containers set forth in 
40 CFR 261.7(b) after it has already signed a manifest or shipping 
paper to certify to the receipt of the materials under 40 CFR 264.71(a) 
or (b), the facility must amend its copy of the manifest to indicate 
the rejected wastes or residues in the discrepancy space of the amended 
manifest. The facility must also copy the manifest tracking number from 
Item 3 of the new manifest to the discrepancy space of the amended 
manifest, and must re-sign and date the manifest to certify to the 
information as amended. The facility must retain the amended manifest 
for at least three years from the date of amendment, and must within 30 
days, send a copy of the amended manifest to the delivering transporter 
and to the generator.
    31. Section 264.76 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 264.76  Unmanifested waste report.

    (a) If a 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 as described by 
Sec. 263.20(e) of this chapter, and if the waste is not excluded from 
the manifest requirement by this chapter, then the owner or operator 
must prepare and submit a letter to the Regional Administrator within 
fifteen days after receiving the waste. The unmanifested waste report 
must contain the following information:
    (1) The EPA identification number, name and address of the 
facility;
    (2) The date the facility received the waste;
    (3) The EPA identification number, name and address of the 
generator and the transporter, if available;
    (4) A description and the quantity of each unmanifested hazardous 
waste the facility received;
    (5) The method of treatment, storage, or disposal for each 
hazardous waste;
    (6) The certification signed by the owner or operator of the 
facility or his authorized representative; and
    (7) A brief explanation of why the waste was unmanifested, if 
known.
    (b) [Reserved]
    32. Subpart E is amended by adding new Sec. 264.78 to read as 
follows:


Sec. 264.78  Electronic manifest systems.

    (a) If an owner or operator of a facility that treats, stores, or 
disposes of hazardous waste participates in an electronic manifest 
system, the electronic system used by the owner or operator to 
originate, use, sign, transmit, or store electronic manifests must be 
designed and operated in accordance with the electronic format 
standards described in 40 CFR 262.20(a)(3), the electronic signature 
standards in 40 CFR 262.25, and the system controls and computer 
security requirements described in 40 CFR 262.26.
    (b) Except where a provision of this part specifically requires a 
paper copy of a manifest or a handwritten signature, manifest copies 
which are electronically signed in accordance with the provisions on 
electronic manifest signatures in 40 CFR 262.25, and which are 
originated, transmitted, or maintained by electronic systems that 
comply with paragraph (a) of this section, will be considered the legal 
equivalent to paper manifest copies bearing handwritten signatures.
    (c) Electronic manifest copies as well as any computer systems 
(hardware and software), controls, and related documentation maintained 
under this section, must be readily available for, and subject to 
inspection by any EPA or authorized state inspector.
    (d) Transmission log. An owner or operator of a facility which 
transmits or receives electronic manifests must maintain a transmission 
log covering all electronic manifests sent or received. This log must 
include for each manifest transmission sent or received, the date, 
time, and destination/source identity. The transmission log must also 
identify who had access to the facility's system during the creation, 
transmission, or receipt of data. This transmission log must be 
maintained without modification and retained for 3 years among the 
facility's manifest records.
    (e) Third-party storage of electronic manifest records. (1) 
Electronic manifest records may be stored by a networking service, 
record archiving service, or other commercial vendor of electronic 
record storage services provided that such records are maintained in a 
system that complies with the requirements of 40 CFR 262.26, including 
the requirement for reasonable inspector access to records during their 
retention period, and the requirement for validation of the third-party 
system's operation by a qualified, independent information systems 
security professional.
    (2) A facility owner or operator who uses a third-party vendor of 
electronic record storage services to meet their record retention 
requirements remains responsible for the proper performance of their 
record retention requirements, including the requirement to provide 
reasonable inspector access during the entire record retention period.
    (f) Receipt. An electronic manifest is deemed to have been received 
by the recipient when it is accessible to the recipient in a format 
that can be read by the recipient. If a recipient receives a manifest 
record for which there is

[[Page 28315]]

evidence that the data has been corrupted (e.g., garbled text, or hash 
functions or checksums that do not calculate correctly), the recipient 
must request that the sender re-transmit a corrected version of the 
record.
    (g) Acknowledgment of receipt. When an electronic manifest 
transmission is received, the recipient must promptly generate and 
transmit to the sender an acknowledgment that confirms the receipt of 
data that can be translated by the recipient's system.
    (h) Date of receipt. The acknowledgment generated by the recipient 
to confirm the receipt of translatable data will constitute conclusive 
evidence of receipt of the electronic manifest and will establish the 
date of receipt. An electronic transmission will not be considered 
complete until the sender receives the acknowledgment of receipt.
    (i) Retransmission. If a positive acknowledgment is not received 
within 12 hours of a transmission, then the person who initiated the 
transmission must promptly re-transmit the electronic manifest.
    (j) Inability to transmit. No person will be excused from the 
requirement to initiate or use a manifest because of a foreseeable or 
unforeseeable system failure that prevents the transmission of a valid 
electronic manifest. If a person is unable to initiate or transmit a 
valid manifest electronically, it must use the paper manifest required 
to be used in accordance with Sec. 262.20(a)(2) and Sec. 263.20 of this 
chapter.

PART 265--INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF 
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

    33. The authority citation for part 265 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6906, 6912(a), 6922, 6923, 6924, 
6925, 6935, 6936, and 6937, unless otherwise noted.

Subpart E--MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING

    34-35. Section 265.71 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and 
(b)(4) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec. 265.71  Use of manifest system.

    (a)(1) If a facility receives hazardous waste with a manifest, the 
owner or operator, or his agent, must sign and date the manifest, as 
indicated in paragraphs (a)(2), (3), or (4) of this section to certify 
that the hazardous waste covered by the manifest was received, that the 
hazardous waste was received except as noted in the discrepancy space 
of the manifest, or that the hazardous waste was fully rejected as 
noted in the manifest discrepancy space.
    (2) If a facility receives a hazardous waste shipment accompanied 
by a paper manifest, the owner or operator, or his agent must:
    (i) Sign and date, by hand, each copy of the manifest;
    (ii) Note any discrepancies (as defined in Sec. 265.72(a)) on each 
copy of the manifest;
    (iii) Immediately give the transporter at least one paper copy of 
the manifest;
    (iv) Within 30 days of delivery, send a copy of the paper manifest 
to the generator; and
    (v) Retain at the facility a paper copy of each manifest for at 
least three years from the date of delivery.
    (3) If a facility receives a hazardous waste shipment covered by an 
electronic manifest, and the generator, transporter, and facility all 
participate in the electronic manifest system, the owner or operator, 
or his agent, must:
    (i) Electronically sign and date the manifest, using an electronic 
signature in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 262.25, to 
certify that the hazardous waste covered by the manifest was received;
    (ii) Note any discrepancies (as defined in Sec. 265.72(a)) on the 
electronic manifest;
    (iii) Immediately provide the transporter with one electronic copy 
of the signed manifest;
    (iv) Immediately send an electronic copy of the signed manifest to 
the generator; and
    (v) Retain at the facility an electronic copy of each manifest for 
at least three years from the date of delivery.
    (4) If an owner or operator participates with a generator in an 
electronic manifest system, but receives a hazardous waste shipment 
from a transporter that does not participate in the electronic system, 
the owner or operator must:
    (i) Hand-sign and date a paper copy of the manifest (or other 
shipping paper under 49 CFR part 172, subpart C) provided by the 
delivering transporter, and immediately give the transporter the copy 
of the hand-signed manifest or shipping paper;
    (ii) Electronically sign (using an electronic signature in 
accordance with Sec. 262.25) and date the electronic manifest covering 
the shipment that was forwarded to the facility by the generator, to 
certify that the hazardous waste covered by the manifest was received;
    (iii) Note any significant discrepancies in the manifest (as 
defined in Sec. 265.72(a)) on the electronic manifest;
    (iv) Immediately return the electronically signed electronic copy 
of the manifest to the generator; and
    (v) Retain at the facility an electronic copy the manifest for at 
least three years from the date of delivery.
    (b) * * *
    (4) Within 30 days after the delivery, send a copy of the signed 
and dated manifest or shipping paper (if the manifest has not been 
received within 30 days after delivery) to the generator. However, if 
the generator and the facility participate in an electronic manifest 
system, the owner or operator, or his agent, shall electronically sign 
and date (and note any discrepancies) the electronic manifest provided 
by the generator, and immediately send the signed electronic copy to 
the generator in lieu of a paper copy.
* * * * *
    (e) A facility must contact the consignment state to determine 
whether that state requires facilities to enter optional state 
information on the manifest. Facilities must also contact the 
consignment state to determine whether they are required to submit a 
copy of the manifest to the state.
    36. Section 265.72 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 265.72  Manifest discrepancies.

    (a) Manifest discrepancies are: Significant differences (as defined 
by paragraph (b) of this section) between the quantity or type of 
hazardous waste designated on the manifest or shipping paper, and the 
quantity and type of hazardous waste a facility actually receives; 
Rejected wastes, which may be a full or partial shipment of hazardous 
waste that the TSDF cannot accept; or Container residues, which are 
residues that exceed the quantity limits for ``empty'' containers set 
forth in 40 CFR 261.7(b).
    (b) Significant differences in quantity are: For bulk waste, 
variations greater than 10 percent in weight; and for batch waste, any 
variation in piece count, such as a discrepancy of one drum in a 
truckload. Significant differences in type are obvious differences 
which can be discovered by inspection or waste analysis, such as waste 
solvent substituted for waste acid, or toxic constituents not reported 
on the manifest or shipping paper.
    (c) Upon discovering a significant difference in quantity or type, 
the owner or operator must attempt to reconcile the discrepancy with 
the waste generator or transporter (e.g., with telephone 
conversations). If the discrepancy is not resolved within 15

[[Page 28316]]

days after receiving the waste, the owner or operator must immediately 
submit to the Regional Administrator a letter describing the 
discrepancy and attempts to reconcile it, and a copy of the manifest or 
shipping paper at issue.
    (d)(1) Upon rejecting waste or identifying a container residue that 
exceeds the quantity limits for ``empty'' containers set forth in 40 
CFR 261.7(b), the facility must contact the generator to obtain the 
generator's instructions for forwarding the waste to another facility 
that can manage the waste. The facility must send the waste according 
to the generator's instructions. If it is impossible to locate in a 
timely manner an alternative facility that can promptly receive the 
waste, the facility may, with permission of the generator, return the 
rejected waste or residue to the generator.
    (2) While the facility is making arrangements for forwarding 
rejected wastes or residues to another facility under this section, it 
must ensure that either the delivering transporter retains custody of 
the waste, or, the facility must provide for secure, temporary custody 
of the waste pending delivery of the waste to the first transporter 
designated on the new manifest prepared under paragraph (e) or (f) of 
this section.
    (e) For rejected loads and residues that are to be sent off-site to 
an alternate facility, the facility is required to prepare a new 
manifest in accordance with Sec. 262.20(a) of this chapter and the 
following instructions:
    (1) Write the generator's name, address and U.S. EPA ID number in 
the generator's name and mailing address box (Items 1 and 4) of a new 
manifest.
    (2) Write the name of the alternate designated facility and the 
facility's U.S. EPA ID number in the designated facility block (Item 9) 
of a new manifest.
    (3) Copy the manifest tracking number found in Block A or Item 3 of 
the old manifest to the Special Handling and Additional Information 
Block of the new manifest, and indicate that the shipment is a residue 
or rejected waste from the previous shipment,
    (4) Copy the manifest tracking number found in Item 3 of the new 
manifest to the manifest reference number line in the Discrepancy Block 
of the old manifest (Item 20) of this chapter.
    (5) Write the DOT description for the rejected load or the residue 
in the Item 10 (U.S. DOT Description) of the new manifest and write the 
container types, quantity, and volume(s) of waste.
    (6) Sign the Generator's Certification to certify, as the offeror 
of the shipment, that the waste has been properly packaged, marked and 
labeled and is in proper condition for transportation.
    (f) For rejected wastes and residues that must be sent back to the 
generator, the facility is required to prepare a new manifest in 
accordance with Sec. 262.20(a) of this chapter and the following 
instructions:
    (1) Write the facility's name, address and U.S. EPA ID number in 
the generator's name and mailing address box (Items 1 and 4) of a new 
manifest.
    (2) Write the name of the initial generator and the generator's 
U.S. EPA ID number in the designated facility block (Item 9) of the new 
manifest.
    (3) Copy the manifest tracking number found in Block A or Item 3 of 
the old manifest to the Special Handling and Additional Information 
Block of the new manifest, and indicate that the shipment is a residue 
or rejected waste from the previous shipment,
    (4) Copy the manifest tracking number found in Item 3 of the new 
manifest to the manifest reference number line in the Discrepancy Block 
of the old manifest (Item 20),
    (5) Write the DOT description for the rejected load or the residue 
in the Item 10 (U.S. DOT Description) of the new manifest and write the 
container types, quantity, and volume(s) of waste.
    (6) Sign the Generator's Certification to certify, as offeror of 
the shipment, that the waste has been properly packaged, marked and 
labeled and is in proper condition for transportation,
    (g) If a facility rejects a waste or identifies a container residue 
that exceeds the quantity limits for ``empty'' containers set forth in 
40 CFR 261.7(b) after it has already signed a manifest or shipping 
paper to certify to the receipt of the materials under 40 CFR 265.71(a) 
or (b), the facility must amend its copy of the manifest to indicate 
the rejected wastes or residues in the discrepancy space of the amended 
manifest. The facility must also copy the manifest tracking number from 
Item 3 of the new manifest to the discrepancy space of the amended 
manifest, and must re-sign and date the manifest to certify to the 
information as amended. The facility must retain the amended manifest 
for at least three years from the date of amendment, and must within 30 
days, send a copy of the amended manifest to the delivering transporter 
and to the generator.
    37. Section 265.76 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 265.76  Unmanifested waste report.

    (a) If a 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 as described by 
Sec. 263.20(e) of this chapter, and if the waste is not excluded from 
the manifest requirement by this chapter, then the owner or operator 
must prepare and submit a letter to the Regional Administrator within 
fifteen days after receiving the waste. The unmanifested waste report 
must contain the following information:
    (1) The EPA identification number, name and address of the 
facility;
    (2) The date the facility received the waste;
    (3) The EPA identification number, name and address of the 
generator and the transporter, if available;
    (4) A description and the quantity of each unmanifested hazardous 
waste the facility received;
    (5) The method of treatment, storage, or disposal for each 
hazardous waste;
    (6) The certification signed by the owner or operator of the 
facility or his authorized representative; and
    (7) A brief explanation of why the waste was unmanifested, if 
known.
    (b) [Reserved]
    38. Subpart E is amended by adding new Sec. 265.78;


Sec. 265.78  Electronic manifest systems.

    (a) If an owner or operator of a facility that treats, stores, or 
disposes of hazardous waste participates in an electronic manifest 
system, the electronic system used by the owner or operator to 
originate, use, sign, transmit, or store electronic manifests must be 
designed and operated in accordance with the electronic format 
standards described in 40 CFR 262.20(a)(3), the electronic signature 
standards in 40 CFR 262.25, and the system controls and computer 
security requirements described in 40 CFR 262.26.
    (b) Except where a provision of this Part specifically requires a 
paper copy of a manifest or a handwritten signature, manifest copies 
which are electronically signed in accordance with the provisions on 
electronic manifest signatures in 40 CFR 262.25, and which are 
originated, transmitted, or maintained by electronic systems that 
comply with paragraph (a) of this section, will be considered the legal 
equivalent to paper manifest copies bearing handwritten signatures.
    (c) Electronic manifest copies as well as any computer systems 
(hardware and software), controls, and related documentation maintained 
under this section, must be readily available for, and subject to 
inspection by any EPA or authorized state inspector.
    (d) Transmission log. An owner or operator of a facility which 
transmits or receives electronic manifests must

[[Page 28317]]

maintain a transmission log covering all electronic manifests sent or 
received. This log must include for each manifest transmission sent or 
received, the date, time, and destination/source identity. The 
transmission log must also identify who had access to the facility's 
system during the creation, transmission, or receipt of data. This 
transmission log must be maintained without modification and retained 
for 3 years among the facility's manifest records.
    (e) Third-party storage of electronic manifest records. (1) 
Electronic manifest records may be stored by a networking service, 
record archiving service, or other commercial vendor of electronic 
record storage services provided that such records are maintained in a 
system that complies with the requirements of 40 CFR 262.26, including 
the requirement for reasonable inspector access to records during their 
retention period, and the requirement for validation of the third-party 
system's operation by a qualified, independent information systems 
security professional.
    (2) A facility owner or operator who uses a third-party vendor of 
electronic record storage services to meet their record retention 
requirements remains responsible for the proper performance of their 
record retention requirements, including the requirement to provide 
reasonable inspector access during the entire record retention period.
    (f) Receipt. An electronic manifest is deemed to have been received 
by the recipient when it is accessible to the recipient in a format 
that can be read by the recipient. If a recipient receives a manifest 
record for which there is evidence that the data has been corrupted 
(e.g., garbled text, or hash functions or checksums that do not 
calculate correctly), the recipient must request that the sender re-
transmit a corrected version of the record.
    (g) Acknowledgment of receipt. When an electronic manifest 
transmission is received, the recipient must promptly generate and 
transmit to the sender an acknowledgment that confirms the receipt of 
data that can be translated by the recipient's system.
    (h) Date of receipt. The acknowledgment generated by the recipient 
to confirm the receipt of translatable data will constitute conclusive 
evidence of receipt of the electronic manifest and will establish the 
date of receipt. An electronic transmission will not be considered 
complete until the sender receives the acknowledgment of receipt.
    (i) Retransmission. If a positive acknowledgment is not received 
within 12 hours of a transmission, then the person who initiated the 
transmission must promptly re-transmit the electronic manifest.
    (j) Inability to transmit. No person will be excused from the 
requirement to initiate or use a manifest because of a foreseeable or 
unforeseeable system failure that prevents the transmission of a valid 
electronic manifest. If a person is unable to initiate or transmit a 
valid manifest electronically, it must use the paper manifest required 
to be used in accordance with Sec. 262.20(a)(2) and Sec. 263.20 of this 
chapter.

PART 271--REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE 
PROGRAMS

    39. The authority citation for part 271 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and 6926.

    40. Section 271.1(j) is amended by adding the following entries to 
Table 1 in chronological order by date of publication in the Federal 
Register, to read as follows:


Sec. 271.1  Purpose and scope.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *

               Table 1.--Regulations Implementing the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Federal Register
          Promulgation date              Title of regulation           reference              Effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                               *
[Insert date of publication of final   Waste Minimization       [Insert FR page          [Insert date of X
 rule in the Federal Register (FR)].    Certification in the     numbers].                months from date of
                                        Revised Manifest Rule.                            publication of final
                                                                                          rule].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    41. Section 271.10 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (h) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 271.10  Requirements for generators of hazardous wastes.

* * * * *
    (f) The State must require that all generators of hazardous waste 
who transport (or offer for transport) such hazardous waste off-site:
    (1) Use a manifest system that ensures that interstate and 
intrastate shipments of hazardous waste are designated for delivery, 
and, in the case of intrastate shipments, are delivered to facilities 
that are authorized to operate under an approved State program or the 
federal program.
    (i) The manifest system must include, in the case of shipments 
covered by a paper manifest, the use of the paper manifest format as 
required by Sec. 262.20(a)(2), Sec. 262.21 and Sec. 262.23. No other 
manifest form, shipping document, or information, other than that 
required by federal law, may be required by the State to travel with 
the shipment.
    (ii) If the state chooses to allow electronic manifesting, then the 
manifest system must include, in the case of shipments covered by an 
electronic manifest, the use of the electronic manifest formats as 
required by Sec. 262.20(a)(3), Sec. 262.21 and Sec. 262.24. No other 
electronic manifest format or information, other than that required by 
federal law, may be required by the state as a means to identify 
electronically the quantity, composition, origin, routing, and 
destination of a hazardous waste shipment during its transportation 
from the point of generation to the point of storage, treatment, or 
disposal.
    (iii) If the state chooses to allow electronic manifesting, then 
the manifest system must also include the electronic signature 
requirements in Sec. 262.25 and the electronic manifest systems and 
security provisions in Sec. 262.26.
    (2) Initiate the manifest and designate on the manifest the 
storage, treatment, or disposal facility to which the waste is to be 
shipped.
    (3) Ensure that all wastes offered for transportation are 
accompanied by a paper manifest, except:
    (i) Shipments subject to Sec. 262.20(e) or (f),
    (ii) Shipments by rail or water that are covered by a paper 
manifest, as specified in 40 CFR 262.23(c) and (d),

[[Page 28318]]

    (iii) Shipments by rail or water that are covered by an electronic 
manifest, as specified in 40 CFR 262.24(e) and (f), or
    (iv) Shipments covered by an electronic manifest, as specified in 
40 CFR 262.24(c).
* * * * *
    (h) The State must follow the Federal manifest format for the form 
and instructions (40 CFR 262.20 and Appendix 1) and may implement 
certain optional fields to the limited extent described below.
    (1) In addition to the federally required information, either the 
State in which the generator is located or the State in which the 
designated facility is located may require completion of the following 
items:
    (i) Waste codes (either federal or state codes associated with 
particular wastes) (Block A), and/or
    (ii) Biennial Report system type codes (codes associated with 
particular waste treatment, or disposal methods) (Block B).
    (iii) The additional waste code or Biennial Report system type code 
information required by the State must fit within the space of Blocks A 
and B on the form (and, if a continuation sheet is used, Blocks C and 
D) using normal 12-point pitch. The additional information must be 
required by state statute or regulation. The State may not require any 
information that duplicates information required elsewhere on the form.
    (2) A state may require additional waste descriptions associated 
with the particular hazardous wastes listed on the Manifest to be 
entered in Item 14. This information is limited to information such as 
chemical names, constituent percentages, physical state, and waste 
management method. A state may not require information other than 
information as described in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (3) No State may impose enforcement sanctions on a transporter 
during transportation of the shipment for failure of the form to 
include optional State information items.
    (4) Either the State to which a shipment is manifested (consignment 
State) or the State in which the generator is located (generator 
State), or both, may require that copies of the manifest form be 
submitted to the State.
    (i) Unless otherwise provided in part 271, the state program shall 
have standards for generators which are at least as stringent as any 
amendment to 40 CFR Part 262 which is promulgated after July 1, 1984.
    42. Section 271.11 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 271.11  Requirements for transporters of hazardous waste.

* * * * *
    (c)(1) The State must require transporters to carry the manifest 
during transport, except:
    (i) In the case of shipments by rail or water, transporters may 
carry a shipping paper, as specified in 40 CFR 263.20(e) and (f);
    (ii) If the State chooses to allow electronic manifesting, 
transporters must carry either a paper copy of the manifest, or other 
shipping paper as specified in 40 CFR 263.20(b), (c), (d), and (f).
    (2) The State must require the transporter to deliver waste only to 
the facility designated on the manifest.
    (3) The State program must provide requirements for shipments by 
rail or water equivalent to those under 40 CFR 263.20(e) and (f).
    (4) If the State chooses to allow electronic manifesting, the State 
program must include requirements equivalent to those provisions 
contained in 40 CFR 263.20(b), (c), (d), and
    (f) which address transporters' use of the electronic manifest, 
requirements equivalent to the provisions in 40 CFR 263.22(a), (f), and 
(g) which address recordkeeping of electronic manifest records, and 
requirements equivalent to those under 40 CFR 263.23 which address 
electronic manifest systems.
    (5) For exports of hazardous waste, the state must require the 
transporter to refuse to accept hazardous waste for export if he knows 
the shipment does not conform to the EPA Acknowledgment of Consent, to 
carry an EPA Acknowledgment of Consent to the shipment, and to provide 
a copy of the manifest to the U.S. Customs official at the point the 
waste leaves the United States.
    (6) For imports of hazardous waste, the State must require the 
transporter to provide a copy of the manifest to the U.S. customs 
official at the point the waste enters the United States.
* * * * *
    43. Section 271.12 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 271.12  Requirements for hazardous waste management facilities.

* * * * *
    (i) Compliance with the manifest system, including:
    (1) The requirement that facility owners or operators return a 
signed copy of the manifest to the generator to certify delivery of the 
hazardous waste shipment or to identify discrepancies;
    (2) If the State chooses to allow electronic manifesting, 
requirements equivalent to those provisions in 40 CFR 264.71 addressing 
the use of the electronic manifest, and requirements equivalent to 
those in 40 CFR 264.78 addressing electronic manifest systems; and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-11909 Filed 5-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P