
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2854-2858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01538]



[[Page 2854]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0756, FRL-9988-67-OLEM]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; 
Comment Request; Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste 
Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to 
submit the information collection request (ICR), Requirements for 
Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities Under the 
RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System (EPA ICR No. 0801.23, OMB Control 
No. 2050-0039) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review 
and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). 
Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific 
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This 
is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through 
May 31, 2019. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 9, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2018-0756, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred 
method), by email to rcra-docket@epa.gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket 
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information 
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Groce, Office of Resource 
Conservation and Recovery, Program Implementation and Information 
Division, (5304P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-8750; fax 
number: (703) 308-0514; email address: groce.bryan@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail 
the information that EPA will be collecting are available in the public 
docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at 
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, 
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone 
number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting 
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the 
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the 
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of 
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of 
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions 
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on those who are to respond, including 
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or 
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology, e.g., allowing electronic submission of responses.
    EPA is also proposing and soliciting comments and information to: 
(1) Improve the precision of waste quantities and units of measure 
reported in Items 11 and 12 of the hazardous waste manifest (both paper 
and electronic), respectively; (2) enhance the quality of international 
shipment data reported on the manifest; and (3) assist EPA with 
integrating e-Manifest and biennial reporting (BR) requirements. These 
improvements are discussed in more detail below.
    Abstract: The hazardous waste manifest (paper and electronic) and 
system cover recordkeeping and reporting activities under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Hazardous Waste Electronic 
Manifest Establishment Act (Pub. L. 112-195). EPA's authority to 
require use of a manifest system stems primarily from RCRA 3002(a)(5) 
(also RCRA Sections 3003(a)(3) and 3004.) Regulations are found in 40 
CFR part 262 (registrant organizations and generators), part 263 
(transporters), and parts 264 and 265 (TSDFs). The manifest lists the 
wastes that are being shipped and the treatment, storage, or disposal 
facility (TSDF) to which the wastes are bound. Generators, 
transporters, and TSDFs handling hazardous waste are required to 
complete the data requirements for manifests and other reports 
primarily to: (1) Track each shipment of hazardous waste from the 
generator to a designated facility; (2) provide information 
requirements sufficient to allow the use of a manifest in lieu of a DOT 
shipping paper or bill of lading, thereby reducing the duplication of 
paperwork to the regulated community; (3) provide information to 
transporters and waste management facility workers on the hazardous 
nature of the waste; (4) inform emergency response teams of the waste's 
hazard in the event of an accident, spill, or leak; and (5) ensure that 
shipments of hazardous waste are managed properly and delivered to 
their designated facilities. The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest 
Establishment Act provided EPA authority to establish the national 
electronic hazardous waste manifest system to track hazardous waste 
shipments electronically. The Act also provided EPA authority to adopt 
regulations that (1) allow it to accept electronic-manifests originated 
in the e-Manifest system as the legal equivalent to paper manifests; 
(2) require manifest users to submit paper copies of the manifest to 
the system for data processing; (3) collect manifests in the e-Manifest 
system for hazardous waste subject to federal or state law; and (4) set 
up user fees to offset the costs of developing and operating the e-
Manifest system.
    Pursuant to the Act, EPA modified the manifest regulations on 
February 7, 2014 (The e-Manifest ``One Year Rule''), to authorize use 
of electronic manifests (or e-Manifests) for tracking offsite shipments 
of hazardous waste from a generator's site to the site of the receipt 
and disposition of the hazardous waste. On January 3, 2018, EPA 
finalized the e-Manifest User Fee Final Rule which established the fee 
methodology that EPA uses to determine the user fees applicable to the 
electronic and paper manifests submitted to the national system. EPA 
launched the e-Manifest system on June 30, 2018. TSDF and other 
receiving facilities must submit manifests, both paper and electronic, 
to EPA. In addition to fees for RCRA wastes, EPA is charging TSDFs and 
other facilities receiving state-only regulated wastes a fee for each 
manifest submitted to the system. Regulations regarding copy submission 
requirements for interstate shipments and the

[[Page 2855]]

applicability of e-Manifest system and fees to facilities receiving 
state-only regulated wastes are found in 40 CFR part 260 (Hazardous 
Waste Management System). Regulations regarding imposition of user fees 
on receiving facilities for their manifest submissions, with references 
to key fee methodology, fee dispute, and fee sanction requirements are 
found in Parts 264 and 265.
    For this renewal, EPA is proposing several improvements/
enhancements, discussed below.

I. Improve Precision of Waste Quantities and Units of Measure

A. Use of Decimals

    EPA is proposing to modify the manifest instructions to Item 11 of 
the manifest to grant manifest users the option to report waste 
quantities using decimals or fractions. The effect of this change would 
afford generators, and others completing the manifest, the ability to 
report more accurate wastes quantities in Item 11 of the manifest using 
decimals, rather than rounding partial units to the nearest whole unit 
or selecting smaller units of measure (e.g., pounds instead of tons).
    EPA has provided guidance on this issue in past manifest 
rulemakings. In March 2001, we explained that the Agency has 
historically discouraged use of fractions or decimals and referenced 
EPA's March 1984 Uniform Manifest Rule, which stated quantity 
descriptions should be as accurate as possible without using fractions 
or decimals. We also said that states reasonably may have relied upon 
EPA's 1984 guidance recommending against fractions and decimals when 
they designed their data systems. As a result, many state databases are 
not set up to receive data reported as fractions or decimals. The March 
2001 proposal, however, acknowledged that a strict exclusion of 
fractional quantities could cause waste handlers to report waste 
quantities that lacked precision. For example, for waste quantities 
reported in tons, a waste quantity reported as 1.5 tons is far more 
precise than the alternative of truncating the quantity reported to 
only 1 ton or rounding up the quantity reported to 2 tons. As a result, 
we proposed to revise the manifest instructions to require only whole 
numbers to describe non-bulk shipments but allow use of fractions for 
bulk shipments, where necessary.
    In its March 2005 final rule, EPA decided against allowing use of 
fractions or decimals to report waste quantities on the manifest based 
on a few adverse comments received to the proposal. First, state 
commenters confirmed that many state databases are not set up to 
receive data reported as fractions or decimals. Second, states argued 
frequent use of fractional or decimal entries could cause a significant 
number of errors resulting from attempts to interpret the fractions or 
to determine when and where a decimal point was present. Finally, 
states argued waste quantity reporting entries on the manifest could be 
misinterpreted and accuracy and precision compromised, because decimals 
or fractions may not transmit clearly to the bottom copies of the 
carbonless and non-carbon papers of the manifest forms.
    Although EPA elected not to adopt use of fractions or decimals in 
the March 2005 final rule, we are revisiting this issue in light of 
implementation of the e-Manifest system, which the Agency launched on 
June 30, 2018. The issue of whether to allow decimals was also raised 
during the September 2017 e-Manifest Advisory Board meeting. Hazardous 
waste shipments now can be tracked electronically in e-Manifest and, 
unlike the paper manifest form, the e-Manifest system could be designed 
to accept fractions or decimal entries in Item 11 of the manifest 
without concern of misinterpretation of waste quantities due to decimal 
misplacement. Additionally, all manifests, paper and electronic, are 
now submitted to one central system--EPA's e-Manifest system, which is 
then used to disseminate manifest data to the states. This central 
collection may alleviate some of the state-specific issues related to 
integrating decimals into the state databases. Furthermore, EPA 
believes the allowance of decimals in Item 11 of the manifest will 
greatly enhance the accuracy of waste quantities reported to EPA. 
Consequently, EPA requests comment on whether the agency should revise 
the manifest instructions to allow reporting of decimals or fractions 
in Item 11 of the manifest.
    Specifically, EPA asks, would use of decimals or fractions present 
issues for paper manifests? Should EPA limit use of decimals for 
certain shipment types--i.e., limit use of fractions and decimals to 
certain shipments as proposed in March 2001 by granting use of decimals 
for bulk shipments (greater than 119 gallons), but require use of whole 
numbers for non-bulk shipments (less than or equal to 119 gallons)? 
What are the impacts to state and industry database systems, if EPA 
elects to allow use of decimals for waste quantity descriptions?

B. Alternative Set of Units of Measure

    In addition, or as an alternative, to using decimals or fractions 
on the manifest, we believe the regulated community could more 
precisely report waste quantity by also using smaller units of measure 
(e.g., ounces, grams, milliliters). The current set of units of measure 
specified in the manifest instructions to Item 12 of the manifest limit 
use to gallons, kilograms, liters, metric tons, cubic meters, pounds, 
tons, or cubic yards. This set can cause waste quantity reporting 
imprecision if waste quantity data must be rounded to the nearest whole 
number. If, however, the current set also included smaller units of 
measure, waste quantity reporting precision may possibly be improved if 
quantities are expressed as whole numbers. EPA requests comment on 
whether the agency should revise Table II of the manifest instructions 
to Item 12 to include ounces, grams, and milliliters. Additionally, EPA 
asks what other smaller units of measure could offer greater waste 
quantity reporting precision?

II. Enhance Quality of International Shipment Data

A. Addition of a New Field for Consent Numbers for Import and Export 
Shipments

    EPA is proposing to add a new data field on the paper and 
electronic manifest so hazardous waste stream consent numbers can be 
recorded in a separate, distinct field on a manifest. Current export 
regulations at 40 CFR 262.83(c)(3) require exporters to record the 
consent numbers on the manifest for each waste stream listed in Item 9b 
of the manifest. Similarly, import-related regulations at 40 CFR 
264.71(a)(3)(i) require U.S. facilities receiving hazardous waste 
subject to 40 CFR part 262, subpart H, from a foreign entity to record 
the relevant waste stream consent number from consent documentation 
supplied by EPA to the facility for each waste listed on the manifest. 
Currently, EPA has recommended listing the consent numbers in Item 14 
``Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information'' on the 
paper manifest form due to the lack of dedicated fields for listing 
such numbers. For electronic manifests, consent numbers are collected 
in e-Manifest for each waste stream as part of Item 9b, the U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT) shipping description.
    EPA believes the addition of a separate data field to the paper and 
electronic manifest for consent numbers would facilitate the electronic 
upload or manual data entry of data from paper export and import 
manifests as the manifest would more clearly list the

[[Page 2856]]

consent number for each waste stream. The additional field would also 
facilitate the retrieval of import manifest data from e-Manifest for 
all manifested import shipments; the retrieval of export manifest data 
could also occur once EPA begins collecting export manifests in the e-
Manifest system.
    EPA requests comment on its proposal to add a new data element on 
the manifest for the consent number for each waste stream.

B. Capturing Exporter EPA ID Number on the Manifest

    EPA explained in the 2018 e-Manifest User Fee Final Rule that it 
has not yet determined who in the export shipment chain of custody 
(i.e., primary exporter vs. transporter moving waste from U.S. or other 
entity) is best suited for making the submission of the export manifest 
to the system and paying the requisite processing fee. EPA also 
explained that the Agency plans to consult the Advisory Board on future 
e-Manifest system enhancements and expansions and thus will bring the 
issue of export manifests before the Advisory Board in the near future. 
If, however, EPA ultimately decides that the exporter is the party best 
suited to be billed for export manifests collected in e-Manifest, the 
current manifest doesn't provide adequate information required to 
invoice them.
    While EPA has designated a specific data element on the manifest 
form to report transporter ID numbers (Items 6 and 7 for Transporter 1 
and Transporter 2), it has not designated a similar data element for 
exporter ID numbers. Current export regulations at 40 CFR 262.83(c) 
require the exporter to comply with the manifest requirements of 40 CFR 
262.20 through 262.23 except that in lieu of the name, site address, 
and EPA ID number of the designated permitted facility, the exporter 
must enter the name and site address of the foreign receiving facility, 
the exporter must check the export box and enter the U.S. port of exit 
(city and state) from the United States in Item 16, and as previously 
discussed, the exporter must record the waste stream consent number for 
each waste listed on the manifest. If the exporter is the generator or 
the site from where the export manifest is initiated, the exporter's 
information will be listed in Item 1 and Item 5. But if the exporter is 
a recognized trader located separate from the site initiating the 
export shipment, then while the exporter must ensure that the items 
noted above are recorded on the manifest, Item 1 and Item 5 will 
reflect the generator or shipping site's information rather than the 
exporter's information.
    Therefore, in anticipation of promulgating a regulation requiring 
the collection of export manifests in e-Manifest, we are considering 
revising the manifest instructions for both the paper and electronic 
forms so that if the responsible exporter is separate from the site 
initiating the export shipment, the exporter can clearly identify 
itself by entering its EPA ID number on the manifest, either in 
addition to or in lieu of the EPA ID number for the generator site. 
Alternatively, EPA could rely on the waste stream consent numbers 
already required to be recorded on the manifest, as each waste stream 
consent number is associated with a unique U.S. exporter in EPA's Waste 
Import Export Tracking System (WIETS). Relying on the waste stream 
consent numbers would require e-Manifest obtaining reference data on 
the exporter EPA ID number for each waste stream consent number from 
WIETS, while adding a new element for entering the exporter's EPA ID 
number could be used directly by e-Manifest.
    EPA requests comment on whether the agency should revise the 
instructions for export manifests to clarify that the primary exporter 
must enter its EPA ID in Item 1 and its name and address on the left 
side of Item 5 and supply the name and address of the generator site on 
the right side of Item 5, if not the same as primary exporter, or, if 
an additional field should be added to capture the primary exporter's 
EPA ID number so that the generator site's EPA ID number is retained in 
Item 1 of the manifest. Or, alternatively, should EPA rely on the waste 
stream consent numbers from WIETS instead of adding a new data element 
on the manifest?

C. How To Incorporate New Fields on Manifest and Whether To Consolidate 
With Movement Document

How To Incorporate New Fields on Paper Manifests
    As mentioned above, EPA is considering several data element 
additions to the manifest (both paper and electronic) for international 
shipments. While the proposed additions for consent numbers are being 
implemented easily in the e-Manifest system for electronic tracking, 
these additions would be problematic with the paper forms. The one-page 
paper manifest is already full of many data elements and does not have 
much space left for new additions. EPA requests comment on whether 
there are other options to accommodate these additions on the paper 
forms.
    For example, is another option for international shipments to add 
space to Item 16, the International Shipment field, on the paper 
manifest to accommodate the four, 12-digit consent numbers 
corresponding to each of the four waste streams listed in Item 9 of the 
manifest? As an alternative, could we revise the Continuation Sheet so 
that the International Shipment Field is removed from the paper 
manifest and appears instead on a Continuation Sheet with an expanded 
area that is able to more easily accommodate four 12-digit consent 
numbers and the primary exporter's EPA ID number, if necessary? This 
would free up space on the paper manifest form for other tracking 
elements, including data elements needed for biennial reporting, or 
additional space needed for Item 14 entries. Both options would require 
revisions to the instructions for export manifests to clarify that the 
primary exporter must enter its EPA ID in Item 1 and its name and 
address on the left side of Item 5 and supply the name and address of 
the generator site on the right side of Item 5, if not the same as the 
primary exporter. Alternatively, we could modify the instructions under 
both options to clarify that the primary exporter must enter its EPA ID 
number in a separate new data field so that the generator site's EPA ID 
number is retained in Item 1 of the manifest. With respect to import 
manifests, the manifest instructions would also need to be revised to 
instruct the receiving facility to list the consent numbers for each 
waste stream.
How To Incorporate Import and Export Data for the Movement Document on 
the Manifest
    Besides the proposed revision to the Continuation Sheet for 
international shipment information, should EPA also revise the 
Continuation Sheet with a more expanded International Field that is 
sufficient to collect all the information that is required on a 
movement document? For hazardous waste shipments leaving the U.S., the 
hazardous waste export regulations require both an export manifest and 
movement document to accompany the shipment. For hazardous waste 
shipments entering the U.S., the hazardous waste import regulations 
similarly require both an import manifest and movement document to 
accompany the shipment. The movement document must accompany the 
shipment from its initiation in the country of export to its delivery 
to the receiving facility in the country of

[[Page 2857]]

import. The movement document contains many of the same data required 
on the manifest; both documents identify the site from which the 
shipment originates in the country of export, the wastes being exported 
or imported, the applicable consent number for each waste stream from 
the relevant Acknowledge of Consent letters, the transporters or other 
persons taking custody of the waste during its movement, and the 
receiving facility in the country of import.
    The movement document also includes some additional information 
currently not required on export manifests. The additional information 
includes, but is not limited to, (1) more contact information for the 
company originating the shipment (if different than the exporter), 
exporter, transporters and handlers of the export shipment, foreign 
importer (if different than the foreign receiving facility), and 
foreign receiving facility; (2) international recovery or disposal 
operation codes for the hazardous waste management processes to be used 
at the consignee facility, as defined in 40 CFR 262.81; (3) and 
international waste codes from the OECD Decision's Green, or Amber 
Lists, as incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11. Both the manifest 
and movement document require the name and identifying information 
about the company initiating the waste shipment (i.e., EPA 
identification number, address, telephone). The export manifest, 
however, would not include the exporter's information if the exporter 
is not the generator but is a recognized trader located separate from 
the site initiating the export shipment; the movement document includes 
this information and also requires the email address, phone number and 
fax number (if they have one) for the exporter, shipping site company 
(if different than the exporter), transporters, foreign importer (if 
different than the receiving facility) and receiving site. Second, the 
movement document also requires additional information regarding the 
technologies to be employed by the foreign receiving facility, and the 
applicable international recovery or disposal operations must be 
included on the movement document as defined in 40 CFR 262.81; these 
codes serve the same purpose as the management method codes for 
domestic hazardous shipments, which describe the type of hazardous 
waste management system used to treat, recover, or dispose of a 
hazardous waste. Third, both the export manifest and movement document 
must include in the description of waste sections of the documents the 
RCRA waste codes and the applicable UN/DOT identification numbers. 
Besides this description information, the movement document must also 
include the applicable OECD waste codes from the Green or Amber Lists 
of wastes as set forth in the OECD Council Decision and incorporated by 
reference in 40 CFR 260.11(g). Finally, another difference between 
export manifests and movement documents is that movement documents must 
also be signed by the foreign receiving facility. The signed copy is 
then used to provide the exporter with confirmation of receipt. Lastly, 
any rejection of a waste in the shipment must be noted on the movement 
document.
    If EPA expanded the continuation sheet to include space for: (1) 
Additional contact information for the generator, exporter, 
transporters and handlers, importer (if different than the receiving 
facility) and receiving facility; (2) additional international codes 
for the recovery or disposal processes to be used at the consignee 
facility; (3) additional international waste codes from the OECD 
Decision's Green or Amber Lists; and (4) the foreign receiving 
facility's signature, it would eliminate the necessity for export 
shipments to be tracked with separate manifests and movement documents. 
Expansion of the Continuation Sheet to accommodate these movement 
document data elements would also aid in the electronic sharing of 
shipment data with the waste handlers and the national governments 
involved in the exports.

III. Biennial Reporting and e-Manifest Integration

    Pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment 
Act, EPA is required to build the e-Manifest system to afford users the 
ability to report hazardous waste receipt data applicable to the 
biennial hazardous waste report in e-Manifest. To meet the conditions 
under the e-Manifest Act, EPA is proposing to revise the paper manifest 
and continuation sheet (EPA Form 8700-22 and 8700-22A) to include 
source and form codes and density information.
    The current manifest form already collects certain waste receipt 
data for biennial reporting: Facility's EPA ID number (Item 1); 
facility's name and address (Item 5); total quantities of waste shipped 
off-site for hazardous management (Item 11); and management method 
codes for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (Item 19). 
Generators and other manifest preparers can voluntarily report specific 
gravity or density for each waste stream in Item 14 ``Special Handling 
Instructions and Additional Information'' on the paper manifest form 
due to the lack of dedicated fields for listing such information. 
However, the paper manifest form does not provide BR data that 
describes how the hazardous waste originated (source code) nor does it 
provide waste information about the physical form or chemical 
composition of the hazardous waste (form code). The densities for each 
waste stream must also be reported for BR purposes if total hazardous 
waste quantities are reported using volumetric measure (gallons, 
liters, or cubic yards). (Note: The e-Manifest system allows users to 
voluntarily report source and form codes, and density data in the 
system.) If adopted, certain hazardous waste generators would be 
required to enter source and form codes and density information on the 
manifest for each RCRA waste listed on paper and electronic manifests. 
Currently, federal regulations only require large quantity generators 
(LQGs) to submit the Biennial Report (see Sec.  262.41). Small quantity 
generators (SQGs) and very small quantity generators (VSQGs) are not 
subject to the federal biennial reporting requirements, but such 
generators could be subject to BR requirements under state law since 
states can have more stringent reporting requirements. Thus, hazardous 
waste generators who are required to complete the Waste Generation and 
Management (GM) Form under federal law or state law would be expected 
to enter source and form codes and density information, if necessary, 
on paper and electronic manifests. Because the e-Manifest Act extends 
to federally and state-regulated wastes requiring manifests, the e-
Manifest system also collects manifests for state-only regulated 
hazardous wastes shipped on a manifest. Therefore, if a waste has a 
manifesting requirement under the law of either the origination 
(generator) state or the destination state, EPA would also require the 
generator of such wastes to enter source and form codes and density 
information, if applicable, on paper and electronic manifests. 
Similarly, an entity preparing a manifest on behalf of the generator, 
meeting the BR conditions above, would be expected to also enter source 
and form codes and density information, if applicable, on the paper and 
electronic manifests.
    EPA believes the addition of these BR data elements to the paper 
manifest form is an important step towards full integration of e-
Manifest with BR. These codes will enable users to report waste receipt 
data in the e-Manifest system

[[Page 2858]]

and ultimately assist them in the preparation of their biennial 
hazardous waste report. EPA requests comment on its proposal to require 
the reporting of form and source codes and density information, if 
applicable, on the manifest; these codes and density data would also be 
mandatory for manifest completion in e-Manifest. EPA requests comment 
on how the Agency should add the new data elements on the paper 
manifest for BR integration. Should EPA expand Item 19 of the manifest 
to include source code, form code, and density information, or create 
separate new data fields for each? Are the additions of these elements 
to the manifest sufficient enough to ensure that waste receipt data can 
be collected in the e-Manifest system and ultimately used for biennial 
hazardous waste reporting? If these additions are insufficient for BR 
integration, what other data entries must be recorded on the manifest 
for Biennial Reporting purposes?
    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as 
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for 
review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal 
Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the 
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Form numbers: Form 8700-22 and 8700-22A.
    Respondents/affected entities: Business or other for-profit.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (RCRA 3002(a)(5)).
    Estimated number of respondents: 203,927.
    Frequency of response: Each shipment.
    Total estimated burden: 2,608,292 hours per year. Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $131,925,993 (per year), includes $38,784,093 
annualized capital and operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: The burden hours are likely to increase but 
not substantially, if EPA adopts the proposed manifest modifications 
detailed above in the Supplementary Information section.

    Dated: December 11, 2018.
Barnes Johnson,
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
[FR Doc. 2019-01538 Filed 2-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


