[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19842-19848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-5745]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, and 271
[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0032; FRL-8159-3]
RIN 2050-AE21
Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous
Waste Manifest System
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of data availability and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of additional
information on the electronic manifest (e-manifest ) project.
Specifically, subsequent to EPA's proposal to develop a nearly
paperless electronic approach for implementing the manifest
requirements, EPA's Office of Solid Waste held a two-day public meeting
to discuss and obtain public input on a national e-manifest system. The
purpose of the meeting was to discuss with stakeholders our rulemaking
progress and to solicit their input and preferences on the development
and implementation of the e-manifest project. EPA also presented
material on alternative information technology (IT) approaches to the
e-manifest, including a centralized approach under which EPA would host
a web-based national
[[Page 19843]]
system. As a result of these discussions and subsequent analysis of
possible means to fund the development and operation of an e-manifest
system, EPA now believes that a centralized, national e-manifest system
is the preferred approach as we proceed with the rulemaking authorizing
the use of electronic manifests. EPA will consider the data obtained
from the public meeting and any new data from public comments received
on this notice in making a final decision on whether to develop a
national electronic manifest (e-manifest) system. Because the Agency
expects to go final based on the comments it receives on this notice,
as well as other comments received, any party interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 19, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2001-0032 by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected].
Fax: 202-566-0272
Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Docket, 5305T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a
total of 3 copies.
Hand Delivery: Public Reading Room, Room B102, EPA West
Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2001-0032. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be captured automatically and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Docket is (202) 566-0270. Copies cost $0.15/page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding
specific aspects of this document, contact Richard LaShier, Office of
Solid Waste, (703) 308-8796, [email protected], or Bryan Groce,
Office of Solid Waste, (703) 308-8750, [email protected]. Mail
inquiries may be directed to the Office of Solid Waste, (5304W), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Does This Rule Apply to Me?
This rule would affect up to 139,000 entities in at least 45
industries involved in shipping approximately 12 million tons of RCRA
hazardous wastes annually (non-wastewaters and wastewaters), using
between 2.4 and 5.1 million EPA Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifests (EPA
Form 8700-22 and continuation sheets EPA Form 8700-22A). These entities
include, but are not limited to: Hazardous waste generators;
transporters; treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs);
federal facilities; state governments; and governmental enforcement
personnel dealing with hazardous waste transportation issues. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this rule to a
particular entity, consult the people listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived
at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
The contents of today's notice are listed in the following outline:
I . Background of E-Manifest System
[[Page 19844]]
A. May 2001 Proposed Rule Standards and Approach
B. Comments on the Proposal
C. Stakeholder Meeting to Discuss Centralized Alternatives
D. Collaboration with GSA and Stakeholders after May 2004
II. The Agency's General Approach to a Centralized E-Manifest System
A. Conceptual Design of the E-Manifest
III . Request for Comments
I. Background of E-Manifest System
A. May 2001 Proposed Rule Standards and Approach
On May 22, 2001, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) aimed at reducing the manifest system's paperwork burden on
users, while enhancing the effectiveness of the manifest as a tool to
track hazardous waste shipments from the site of generation to
treatment, storage, or disposal facilities (TSDFs). The proposed rule
included proposed manifest system reforms of two distinct types: (1)
Revisions to the manifest form itself and the procedures for using the
form; and (2) revisions to the paper-based manifest system aimed at
replacing it with a nearly paperless electronic approach for
completing, signing, transmitting and storing manifests, and tracking
hazardous waste shipments (hereafter, e-manifest). The proposed e-
manifest regulation represented a decentralized approach in which EPA
would issue several information technology (IT) standards, and private
parties such as waste management firms and IT vendors would develop and
market their own e-manifest systems complying with EPA's standards. The
proposed standards addressed such areas as Electronic Data Interchange
(EDI) transaction sets and mapping conventions, Extensible Markup
Language (XML) representations of the manifest, electronic signature
methods, and computer security standards that were viewed as necessary
to ensure trustworthy systems and data that would be free from
tampering or corruption. Significantly, under the proposed rule
approach, EPA's role would be limited to the development of the e-
manifest standards, and the Agency would not have had any role in
developing an IT system or in collecting electronic manifests.
EPA explained in the 2001 proposed rule that it did not collect
paper manifests from the public, nor did it intend in 2001 to create
either a centralized reporting system for electronic manifests, nor a
national data base for tracking manifest data. While the Agency desired
to foster the development of electronic manifest systems by issuing
national standards that would guide the system development efforts of
private parties, EPA did not envision playing a role with respect to
electronic manifesting that was any different from the standard-setting
role the Agency had played in the past with respect to the Uniform
Manifest paper form. However, public comments criticized the
decentralized approach in our proposed rule and instead stated that the
e-manifest system would be unreliable without a nationally centralized
approach under which EPA would develop a single national IT system to
host e-manifest services. Most stakeholders who attended our two-day
public meeting in May 2004 also favored a centralized system for
tracking hazardous waste shipments and transmitting/storing manifest
data.
B. Comments on the Proposal
EPA received 64 sets of public comments in response to the May 22,
2001 proposed rule from hazardous waste generators, transporters, waste
management firms, consultants, an information technology vendor and ten
state hazardous waste management agencies. Commenters generally
supported our goals of further standardizing the manifest form elements
and reducing variability among the manifests that authorized RCRA State
agencies currently distribute. However, there were a substantial number
of comments that took issue with our proposed decentralized approach to
the e-manifest, particularly with respect to the technical detail and
prescriptiveness of the proposed regulatory standards, and the proposed
rule's assumption that the regulated industry and IT vendors could or
would develop private e-manifest systems adhering to EPA's standards.
Other comments criticized the decentralized approach, because it was
not viewed as being cost-effective and, therefore, only a few entities
might be able to develop private systems, and these likely would be
inconsistent with one another. Several of these commenters expressed
the need for a nationally centralized approach, under which EPA would
take on a more ambitious role by developing a single national IT system
to host e-manifest services. The commenters believed that a national
web-based system would provide a more consistent, secure, and cost-
effective platform for e-manifest services. They also believed that a
national system would offer greater benefits to users and regulators,
such as one-stop manifest reporting, more effective oversight and
enforcement of the manifest requirements, nearly real-time tracking
services for waste shippers and receivers, and the possible
consolidation of duplicative State and Federal systems now in place to
collect and manage manifest data and similar waste receipt data
collected for biennial reporting purposes. They believed that a
centralized e-manifest approach would result in the development of a
consistent, interoperable and secure IT system that would offer more
benefits than would result from the operation of several decentralized
private systems.
The comments addressing the e-manifest proposal raised significant
substantive issues that, in our opinion, required further analysis and
stakeholder outreach prior to adopting a final approach. Therefore, in
developing final actions on the May 2001 proposed rule, EPA separated
the e-manifest from the form revisions portion of the rulemaking. We
announced our final rule approach with respect to the manifest form
revisions in the March 4, 2005 Federal Register (70 FR 10776).
C. Stakeholder Meeting To Discuss Centralized Alternatives
EPA announced in the Federal Register that the Office of Solid
Waste was holding a two-day public meeting on May 19-20, 2004, to
discuss and obtain public input on the e-manifest issue (69 FR 17145,
April 1, 2004). The purpose of this meeting was to engage interested
stakeholders in an exchange of ideas aimed at helping us identify how
best to proceed with selecting and implementing the future direction of
the e-manifest. The two-day meeting provided us with invaluable
information, all of which is available in the docket to today's notice.
Specifically, we heard from the attendees at the meeting that there is
a strong consensus in favor of implementing a centralized e-manifest
system. However, views varied on whether a national system should be
privately or publicly hosted and funded or developed as a joint public/
private venture. For instance, some stakeholders suggested that EPA
design and operate both the e-manifest ``front end'' interface that
would supply and process manifests during the movement of waste
shipments in transportation, as well as the ``back end'' repository
component of the system that would collect and archive official copies
of completed manifests. Others favored an approach where the e-manifest
``front end'' interface might be designed, funded, and operated by a
private consortium. The consortium then would look to EPA to clarify
what is necessary
[[Page 19845]]
to constitute a valid electronic manifest transaction (e.g., by
defining the legal and performance standards for such a system, as well
as the auditing requirements) and perhaps to develop and operate the
``back end'' repository.
Second, all the attendees of the meeting believed that a central
service provider, whether it be EPA, a private entity, or a public/
private combination, must be reliable and trusted if a centralized e-
manifest system is to be successful. The stakeholders expect a
trustworthy system operated with minimal downtime so that it would not
disrupt or inconvenience waste handler operations. They also noted that
a governance structure enabling regular interactions between the user
community, the IT vendor, and government interests would be necessary
to ensure that the system is developed and operated in a manner that
meets the needs and expectations of all affected interests.
Third, stakeholders from the user community who attended the
meeting emphasized that a centralized e-manifest system should be
optional and, thus, able to accommodate those manifest users who want
to continue to use paper manifests in the future. On the other hand,
the IT vendor community would prefer to have EPA mandate that users
access the centralized e-manifest system to complete and transmit all
their manifests, particularly if the vendor community will be asked to
bid on a centralized e-manifest system development contract, so that
there would be greater certainty for the vendor attempting to price e-
manifest services, based on the size of the e-manifest market and
expected volumes of use. (Note: See discussion in Section I.D for
further explanation of this.) EPA, at this time, believes that the
savings to be realized by those users who complete significant
quantities of manifests will provide sufficient incentives for these
users to commit to the e-manifest voluntarily, without a mandate from
EPA that might be disruptive to or cause hardship for other users. EPA
recognizes that a key ingredient in any procurement process where the
vendor community will be bidding on such a task that leads to the
development and successful operation of the centralized e-manifest
system will be a dialogue between the user community and the vendors
bidding on the task. This dialogue is necessary to develop mutual
understandings about likely levels of usage and likely e-manifest
transmission volumes, so that the vendor may accurately project these
parameters and price its services accordingly. Nevertheless, the Agency
specifically solicits comments on whether the use of the e-manifest
should be mandatory or voluntary. In providing comments, we ask that
you include your rationale and any supporting data regarding this
matter. In addition, we also solicit comment from the states, as well
as other stakeholders, as to whether a centralized e-manifest system
that is voluntary will require the states to maintain two separate
manifest systems, and, if so, what concerns or problems this may raise.
Finally, and most significantly, the user community indicated at
the May 2004 stakeholder meeting that it is willing to help fund the
establishment and operation of an e-manifest system through the payment
of reasonable service or transactional fees for e-manifest services.
Stakeholders stated that they would be willing to pay reasonable
service fees as the means to fund the establishment of a national e-
manifest system, if they could be assured that the collected fees would
be earmarked to the payment of the e-manifest system costs only, and
not deflected to other program accounts or costs. Stakeholders also
stated that they expect service fee arrangements, including the
collection of any such fees and the reporting of expenditures, to be
handled in a very transparent manner so that stakeholders can be
assured that they are receiving value for the fees they contribute to
the system. The full proceedings for this meeting have been posted on
our EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/manifest/e-man.htm. Comments from stakeholders about a centralized e-
manifest system have been submitted to the RCRA docket (EPA Docket
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0032)), which can be found at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.
Since the May 2004 stakeholder meeting, we have been exploring
whether there is a way for EPA to proceed with the development of a
nationally-centralized e-manifest system, as well as exploring in more
detail the design and performance requirements of any such system.
While the notion of a centralized e-manifest system has strong appeal
to states and industry, it would require adequate funding to build and
operate.
In 2000 to 2002, we estimated the initial start-up cost for the
design, development and installation, plus the future annual operating
and maintenance (O&M) cost, for a ``centralized'' e-manifest IT system
procurement. This cost estimate is based on a benefit-cost analysis
conducted by Logistics Management Institute, Inc. (LMI). LMI's study is
dated September 20, 2002, and is available for public review (with
accompanying spreadsheet file) in the docket cited above in the
ADDRESSES section. This study is an expansion of LMI's October 2000
initial benefit-cost study in support of our May 22, 2001 proposed rule
for the e-manifest (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/manifest/pdf/cba-rprt.pdf). The 2002 LMI study estimated the benefits
and costs associated with three alternative e-manifest data flow
configurations (i.e., electronic system options), all involving hosting
the e-manifest on EPA's existing CDX computer hub (http://www.epa.gov/cdx), and connecting the central e-manifest system electronically to
industrial facilities and to state governments via EPA's partnership
National Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN; http://www.exchangenetwork.net), which is operational in 38 states as of
October 2005. The estimated cost for e-manifest system start-up ranges
from $2.0 million to $7.0 million in the initial year, plus $0.8
million to $3.2 million per year for future annual operation and
maintenance (O&M). In addition to this system cost, industrial
facilities are expected to spend upwards of $60.2 million to $68.8
million, and state governments upwards of $2.3 million to $3.1 million,
in start-up costs for modifying existing IT systems to process e-
manifests (assuming 100% participation in the centralized e-manifest
system). Industrial facilities and state governments also may spend
upwards of $32.2 million to $37.0 million in annual future costs for
apportionment of a fraction of existing business IT system costs for e-
manifesting purposes. Although there appear to be substantial initial
and recurring annual costs associated with e-manifesting, the expected
average annual reduction in paperwork burden for handling the current
paper manifest forms that e-manifest will provide industrial facilities
and state governments is expected to offset these costs by a net annual
savings upwards of $103 million per year.
While an e-manifest would lead to significant savings, EPA
recognizes, as described above, that startup and maintenance costs of a
centralized e-manifest system could require considerable funds. EPA
believes that the costs of this system should be shared by entities
that will benefit from it. Therefore, EPA has been examining various
user-fee and other IT funding alternatives within the context of OSW's
May 2004 stakeholder meeting (http://
[[Page 19846]]
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/manifest/present/funding.pdf).
D. Collaboration With GSA and Stakeholders After May 2004
One approach the Agency explored closely as a means to fund and
implement the centralized e-manifest system was the Share-in-Savings
(SiS) contract approach that was authorized under the E-Government Act
of 2002 (E-Gov Act). We consulted with the General Services
Administration (GSA), which managed the E-Gov Act Share-in-Savings
program, on a possible procurement action that might have enabled the
centralized e-manifest system to be developed and operated for EPA by
an IT vendor under a ``Share-in-Savings'' (SiS) type contract (http://www.gsa.gov/shareinsavings). The SiS IT contracting mechanism was
authorized under the E-Gov Act of 2002 on a provisional basis as an
innovative tool for Federal agencies to develop new IT systems with
little direct Federal investment. The premise of the SiS contracting
approach was that the IT vendor awarded an SiS contract would build the
IT system at the vendor's initial expense, and then recover its costs
and profit from the cost savings or enhanced revenue that results to
the sponsoring agency from the new IT system. With this approach, for
example, the successful e-manifest IT contractor would have incurred
the initial financial risk and outlay to build the centralized e-
manifest system to meet EPA's performance objectives, and then would
have recovered its costs and earned its agreed profit from the revenue
stream generated by the service fees paid by the users for manifest
transactions.
GSA established an SiS contract vehicle (i.e., blanket purchase
agreement or BPA) under which GSA qualified six IT vendors to compete
for Federal IT projects during FY 2005. While EPA was very interested
in initiating a procurement action under the GSA Share-in-Savings BPA
during FY 2005, we and GSA concluded that the procurement action should
not proceed until there was in place a final rule authorizing the use
of electronic manifests. Unfortunately, the initial Congressional
authorization for the SiS program expired on September 30, 2005, and it
does not now appear that the authority for this program will be
extended. While the expiration of the SiS program introduces some
uncertainty about the funding arrangements for the national e-manifest
system, the Agency is aware that some Congressional representatives are
considering legislative proposals that would provide the Agency with
the authority, including perhaps user fee authority, to implement a
centralized e-manifest system. Thus, we are proceeding with this
regulatory action so that we can proceed in the future with the
necessary contract actions that would lead to the development of a
national e-manifest system, provided that appropriate authorizing
legislation is enacted in the interim. Should the necessary authorizing
legislation not materialize, EPA could decide to adopt a final e-
manifest rule that is based on the proposed rule approach, if we
determine that such an approach is better than no e-manifest system, or
another approach that is not dependent on new federal funding
legislation being authorized. EPA's current schedule would have its
final regulation authorizing the use of electronic manifests in place
in time to enable us to award a contract in FY 2007, assuming any
legislation needed to address the funding of e-manifest is enacted
within that timeframe.
II. The Agency's General Approach to a Centralized E-Manifest System
Based on information provided at the May 2004 public meeting and
discussions with our stakeholders during and subsequent to this
meeting, EPA believes that the vast majority of stakeholders support an
e-manifest system. They also prefer a consistent national framework for
supplying, preparing, transmitting and maintaining e-manifests.
Stakeholders attending the public meeting also indicated that they are
willing to pay fees for their electronic manifest transactions in order
to develop and maintain a centralized e-manifest system.
EPA agrees with the position, from commenters to the May 2001
proposal and from stakeholder participants in the May 2004 public
meeting, that a centralized e-manifest system is the preferred approach
for developing an electronic manifest system. First, we are concerned
that the user participation in the decentralized approach for an e-
manifest system is limited to some extent by the customers'
relationships to firms that elect to establish e-manifest systems.
There should not be similar concerns about user participation in the
centralized e-manifest system since it would be developed to serve all
interested users, and participation would be open to all those with
Internet access who choose to access the system or who deal with waste
handlers who provide access to the system.
Second, our preferred approach is the more effective means to
address concerns that arise under the decentralized approach about the
potential inability of different systems to operate with each other, as
well as other concerns that arise regarding whether data from these
different systems can be exchanged and processed consistently. A final
rule adopting a decentralized e-manifest approach would require, among
other things, rigorous standards to address the consistent processing
and interoperability issues posed by multiple vendors' systems. Such an
approach would likely involve a process to evaluate the various systems
to determine if they are in compliance with our interoperability and
system security standards. In contrast, a centralized approach would
not need to address interoperability concerns, as the development of a
single, national e-manifest system would ensure the consistency of the
processing, completion, and transmission of electronic manifests.
Moreover, the centralized approach would simplify the execution of
system and data security with respect to e-manifests, as the necessary
security requirements could be addressed within the national e-manifest
procurement process, rather than as detailed regulatory standards that
would have to be met by the various vendors who might develop systems
under the decentralized approach.
Third, other capabilities and enhancements could be realized
through a centralized e-manifest system that are not possible under a
decentralized approach. For instance, a centralized e-manifest system
could be designed to store electronic manifest data centrally in a
national data repository, so that manifest users and regulators could
extract the stored manifest data to develop analyses from that data.
Such a national data repository could collect manifest data from both
domestic and transboundary waste movements, and it could also become a
basis for easing the production of reports under RCRA biennial
reporting requirments (the Hazardous Waste Report) and other reports
that are required under authorized state programs. The manifest users
who now must incur the burden and expense of supplying paper copies of
manifest forms through the mail to individual authorized states could
instead submit their manifest copies one time electronically to one
centralized hub system, which would distribute copies as needed to
interested states through their nodes on the Exchange Network. In
addition to this one-stop submission feature, the users may be able to
maintain their official copies of
[[Page 19847]]
manifest records on secure storage sites on the national system, rather
than continuing to retain manifest copies locally. We believe that the
centralized collection of manifest copies by the e-manifest system
would also afford advantages to RCRA inspectors by providing a simple
and efficient means for accessing and inspecting manifest records
electronically.
Therefore, today's notice announces that EPA's preferred approach,
at this time, for proceeding with the e-manifest rule is to develop a
centralized web-based IT system that EPA will host on its IT
architecture. This national system likely would be funded, in whole or
in part, by service fees that would be paid to EPA or its contractor.
This notice discusses a conceptual design of the nationally-centralized
e-manifest system and requests comment on our approach.
Today, we are announcing that EPA intends to develop a final rule
to authorize the use of electronic manifests that are created and
transmitted through the use of a centralized e-manifest system. EPA
will consider the comments received pursuant to this notice, along with
comments on the e-manifest proposal in the May 2001 proposed rule and
the May 2004 Stakeholder meeting, as we prepare a final rule on the e-
manifest. The final rule would amend existing manifest regulations
which require manifests to be created only as paper forms. These
regulatory changes would be necessary to ensure that electronic
manifests are as valid as the traditional paper manifests that are
signed with ink and manually processed and transmitted. The usage of
EPA's national e-manifest system to obtain and process valid electronic
manifests would be the key component of the final rule.
EPA believes that as a result of this change in approach for the e-
manifest system, the final regulation authorizing the use of electronic
manifests would be much simpler than the regulation suggested by the
May 2001 proposed rule. The final rulemaking will be constrained in its
scope to authorizing the use of electronic manifests created and
transmitted in the national system, and to several other key policy
issues that must be resolved prior to implementation. EPA thus expects
to limit, as far as possible, the subject matter of the final rule on
electronic manifesting to the key policy issues associated with
authorizing the use of electronic manifests and with implementing the
electronic manifest as a means of tracking hazardous waste shipments
and recording and transmitting waste shipment information. EPA believes
it is far more sensible to address the more detailed technical system
design and performance requirements for the centralized e-manifest
system within the contracting process than to codify performance
requirements and other technical matters within the rulemaking process.
We also recognize that State participation and input during the
planning stage of the e-manifest development process is critical,
because there will be significant implementation issues associated with
moving to an electronic manifest system. EPA will work closely with our
State partners as we develop both the final rulemaking and the detailed
system design and performance requirements.
A. Conceptual Design of the E-Manifest
The centralized e-manifest system will include the necessary
applications and components to supply, complete, electronically sign,
transmit, and retain electronic manifests. The centralized e-manifest
system that will be developed initially will provide only the core
services necessary to manage the basic waste shipment tracking and
waste data collection functions of the manifest process, including
manifest creation, completion, signing, routing and communication
services (i.e., services required to create, view, update, transmit,
and close manifests) and the collection, distribution, and archiving of
official manifest records. In accordance with requests expressed by
stakeholders in the May 2004 public meeting, the system initially will
not support any more advanced reporting or business integration
services. The system would be designed with scalability so that
additional EPA reporting functions (e.g., Biennial Report integration
or transboundary waste reporting), or additional commercial services
that may be desired by users could be added as future upgrades. The
development of the e-manifest system will use a web services-oriented
architecture and will be hosted on EPA's CDX (http://www.epa.gov/cdx)
and NEIEN architecture. The CDX would act as the Agency's central
reporting hub for receiving, processing, and routing the in-bound
electronic manifests to waste shipment management entities and to state
governments. As the e-manifest would be hosted within our CDX/Exchange
Network architecture, the submission of e-manifests to the national
system would be governed by the standards and procedures included in
EPA's Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR), which EPA
published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2005 (70 FR 59847).
The CROMERR Rule provides the legal and policy framework for electronic
reporting to the CDX hub, and will address such matters as user
registration, user authentication, execution of electronic signatures,
and the procedures for producing records of electronic manifest
submissions.
We believe that the use of a services-oriented architecture
involving web services applications will enable a high level of
interoperability with users' legacy and future system investments.
Thus, EPA plans to develop the e-manifest applications in conformance
with Internet ``web services'' standards which now are supported by
CDX. Also, schemas (i.e., models for describing the structure of
information within a document to allow machine validation of document
structure) and stylesheets developed in the Extensible Mark-up Language
(XML) will be the means EPA will use for the electronic exchange of e-
manifest data, and these XML documents will conform to the data
elements of the hazardous waste manifest (EPA Form 8700-22) and
continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-22A) that EPA recently announced in
the March 4, 2005 Form Revisions final rule (70 FR 10776).
EPA further will develop the e-manifest applications with the
appropriate access controls to ensure that only authorized users may
enter the system, complete and sign manifests, and access manifest
data. We plan to limit access to particular manifest records and
related data to only those entities that are involved with the handling
of a waste shipment, as well as to RCRA regulators. The centralized e-
manifest system also will support, as far as possible, the provision of
reliable and uninterrupted manifest services to the user community and
will adopt necessary measures and controls that meet EPA and Federal
policies for protecting information security, privacy, and confidential
business information (CBI).
The Federal regulations concerning CBI are found at 40 CFR Part 2.
Confidential business information obtained under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act is handled in accordance with 40 CFR Part
2, and will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed by, and by
means of, the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. Anyone wishing to
claim that some or all of the information provided in their Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest is confidential business information must make
this claim at the time the manifest is transmitted electronically to
EPA. Claims of confidentiality must be specific: The generator,
transporter, or designated
[[Page 19848]]
facility must clearly indicate which manifest item number is being
declared confidential (e.g., Item 18a.). Any information not claimed as
confidential when being submitted will not be treated as confidential
business information.
III. Request for Comments
EPA requests comments on the approach described in today's notice
for electronically completing and transmitting manifests through a
national, centralized e-manifest system. EPA will consider the comments
received pursuant to this notice, along with comments on the e-manifest
proposal in the May 2001 proposed rule and the May 2004 Stakeholder
meeting, as it prepares a final rule on the e-manifest.
Dated: April 11, 2006.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. E6-5745 Filed 4-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P