View Rule

Statement of Need: Since the adoption of the Uniform Manifest by EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 1984, the regulated community and authorized states have pressed EPA to adopt changes that would simplify and further reduce the variability among the hazardous waste manifest forms required and distributed by the states. In addition, the recent focus on electronic government has highlighted the potential advantages of an electronic manifest system in terms of reduced paperwork burdens and more timely waste tracking. This action responds to these needs with a truly universal set of manifest data elements and a manifest format that will be identical in all states, as well as standards that will allow the manifest data to be completed, signed, transmitted, and recorded electronically.

Summary of the Legal Basis: EPA's regulations implementing the manifest are based on section 3002(a)(5) of the RCRA statute, which requires that EPA include in its hazardous waste generator regulations requirements addressing the "use of a manifest system and ony other reasonable means necessary" to assure that all such hazardous waste is designated for and designated for and arrives at treatment, storage, or disposal facilities that have been permitted under RCRA subtitle C requirements. Secion 3003(a)(3) of the Act requires transporters of hazardous waste to comply with the manifest system, while section 3004(a)(2) requires compliance with the manifest system by treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Moreover, according to section 1004(12) of the Act, the manifest is defined as the "form used for identifying the quantity, composition, and the origin, routing, and destination of hazardous waste during its transportation from the point of generation to the point of disposal, treatment, or storage." The manifest also serves as teh "shipping paper" meeting DOT requirements for the transportation of hazardous materials under the Federal Hazardous Materials laws and regulations. EPA's current manifest regulations require generators to obtain manifest froms from the authorized States. The generator must complete the paper form by identifying the type and quantity of hazardous waste in off-site shipments, as well as the identities of the transporters and waste receiving facilities that will manage the waste. The regulations require waste handlers to sign the manifest form by hand when they receive a waste shipment, and to retain copies of the signed manifests that document the chain of custody of a shipment, and any discrepancies. EPA and DOT have authority to eliminate variability among state manifests, since DOT's hazardous materials laws generally call for uniformity in the use of hazardous materials shipping papers such as the manifest, and EPA must regulate transportation consistently with DOT. EPA and DOT consented in 1984 to the inclusion of several "optional" data fields, but our experience with the manifest system has demonstrated that the inclusion of optional fields introduces excessive variability and burden for waste handlers. EPA also has authority to automate the waste tracking functions of the manifest, since the Act states that EPA can employ any reasonable means necessary to track waste shipments under a manifest system. There is nothing in the statute that precludes EPA from establishing standards allowing electronic manifesting of shipments, as well as use of the traditional paper forms.

Alternatives: The form revisions part of the rulemaking examines alternatives to the current system that allows authorized states to print and distribute slightly varying manifest forms (typically for a fee) to waste handlers generating or shipping waste in a particular state. This rule would establish a precise Federal specification for the manifest that would preclude variability in manifest forms, wherever they are used. This option was proposed in May 2001, and was supported by the great preponderance of commenters who submitted written comments to the docket. The rule also examines alternative electronic formats for completing electronic manifests, and alternative methods for signing manifests electronically. Moreover, EPA has been examining in response to comments whether electronic manifest systems should be developed in a decentralized fashion by private companies in adherence with standards announced by EPA (the proposed approach), or, developed and hosted centrally in a national system. We expect that additional stakeholder outreach will be necessary to determine the appropriate design and functionality of the e-manifest approach for the final rule. Therefore, the e-manifest part of the rulemaking has been separated from the form revisions part of the rule, so that final action on the form revisions will not be delayed by future outreach and analysis conducted in connection with the e-manifest.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The baseline manifest system results in annual paperwork burdens of 4.6 million hours and annual costs of about $193 million. In developing the May 2001, proposed rule, EPA estimated that the proposed revisions to the hazardous waste manifest system (form changes and electronic manifest) would reduce the paperwork burdens impoosed by the manifest by 765,000 to 1.24 million hours annually, and would reduce annual costs by $24-$37 million. The rule should also eliminate much of the complexity that arises from having to obtain and comply with states' slightly varying manifest forms, and the burden and complexity of having to supply information to satisfy the current so-called "optional" state fields. The ability to complete and transmit manifest data electronically should improve the accuracy of manifest data, and the timeliness and effectiveness of waste shipment tracking.

Risks: This rule addresses only administrative requirements for tracking waste shipments. The rule does not address risks posed by particular substances or waste management activities, and no risk assessments have been prepared to support this action.