EPA Proposes to Eliminate Paper Hazardous Waste Manifests

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on March 5, 2026, published the Paper Manifest Sunset Rule as a proposed rule in the Federal Register, proposing to amend the hazardous waste manifest regulations under 40 C.F.R. Parts 260 through 267 and Part 761 to establish a date after which paper manifests would no longer be accepted for hazardous waste shipments. EPA projects annual cost savings of $26.4 million to $28.5 million from reduced printing, recordkeeping and administrative burden. The proposal marks the culmination of more than a decade of incremental steps toward mandatory electronic manifesting – a trajectory that has moved slowly. Despite EPA's e-Manifest system launching in 2018, electronic manifests currently account for less than 1 percent of all manifests submitted. That statistic does not merely describe low adoption – it signals the scale of operational change that EPA now proposes to mandate within 24 months.

This Holland & Knight alert addresses dimensions of the proposal that carry strategic weight beyond the operational compliance questions: what the rule means for parties to business and financing transactions involving industrial targets, how multifacility operators should structure their response on an enterprise basis, and why the May 4, 2026, comment deadline represents a genuine opportunity to shape the final rule's timing and scope.

Key Proposed Changes

The Core Transition

The core proposal is straightforward: Establish a sunset date 24 months following publication of the final rule, after which only electronic or hybrid manifests submitted through EPA's e-Manifest system would be valid for tracking hazardous waste shipments. Paper manifests, including image-only and data-plus-image submissions, would no longer be accepted for shipments initiated on or after that date.

After the sunset date, covered entities must use either a fully electronic manifest or hybrid manifest. Understanding the distinction matters for compliance planning. A hybrid manifest is initiated electronically within the e-Manifest system, then printed on standard 8.5 x 11-inch office paper for signature in hard copy by the generator and initial transporter. The generator retains a copy; the transporter retains a copy that may also serve as the U.S. Department of Transportation shipping paper. All subsequent handlers (e.g., additional transporters and the designated receiving facility) sign the manifest electronically within the system. Although a hybrid manifest begins with a paper signature, EPA treats it as an electronic manifest for regulatory and fee purposes. Critically, under the hybrid manifest workflow, the generator's initial signed paper copy is not uploaded to e-Manifest and must be retained at the facility for the full three-year recordkeeping period.

Expanded Registration Requirements

The proposed rule's scope extends well beyond a format change. The proposal would expand mandatory e-Manifest registration to hazardous waste transporters, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) waste generators and transporters, very small quantity generators managing episodic events, and healthcare facilities and reverse distributors handling hazardous waste pharmaceuticals. These are entities that were not previously required to register. Registration enables covered entities to use electronic manifests and to satisfy other manifest-related obligations, such as mandatory data corrections, electronic exception and discrepancy reporting, and record retention.

On recordkeeping, the proposal also represents a structural shift: Official manifest records would be retained in e-Manifest system accounts rather than on-site facility files, which is the current baseline under existing regulations.

The New Broker Reporting Requirement

The proposed rule also introduces a new obligation with broad industry impact: Hazardous waste generators would be required to identify any broker who assists in preparing or arranging a hazardous waste shipment by including a standardized statement in Item 14 of the manifest. Specifically, the generator must ensure that the following statement is entered in Item 14:

[Broker company name], EPA ID [EPA identification number], prepared and/or arranged the shipment on behalf of the generator.

The generator may arrange for the broker or another entity associated with the shipment to enter the statement, but the generator remains responsible for ensuring accuracy.

In parallel, receiving facilities would be required to ensure that broker information is entered into the e-Manifest system at the time of manifest submission. This requirement applies equally to PCB waste generators and commercial storers and disposers of PCB waste. For manufacturers and industrial generators who routinely use third-party waste management brokers, this is a new, actionable compliance item, effective on the final rule's effective date – not merely on the paper sunset date.

The Proposed SMS/QR Code Signature Option

One of the most significant proposed features of this proposed rulemaking is a new electronic signature option that would allow unregistered users to sign manifests via text message (SMS) or QR code scan, without needing a registered e-Manifest account.

Under this proposal, the printed manifest shipping paper would include a phone number and QR code. The user (typically a transporter driver at the pickup site) would text or scan the code, receive a certification statement, enter their name and have the signature recorded in the system. The SMS signature option would afford the same timing flexibility as the existing remote signer policy, allowing signature execution within 24 hours of custody transfer or before transferring the waste to another handler, whichever is earlier.

This proposed feature directly addresses one of the most frequently cited operational barriers to electronic manifesting: the transporter driver present at a pickup site who lacks device access, system credentials or real-time network connectivity. Its inclusion in the proposed rule signals EPA's awareness that the failure to achieve meaningful adoption is, in significant part, a last-mile signature problem. Whether the SMS option is finalized (and in what form) is itself a critical question for comment, particularly for transportation-intensive industries.

PCB Waste Generators: A Distinct and More Demanding Compliance Track

PCB waste handlers face a more complex compliance path than their Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) counterparts. PCB waste generators, transporters, and commercial storage and disposal facilities would all be required to register with e-Manifest under proposed 40 C.F.R. 761.208(b), with registration for PCB generators and transporters aligned to the paper sunset date to allow EPA time to update the system to accept Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)-issued EPA IDs.

The registration challenge is most acute for a specific subset of PCB waste generators. EPA estimates that approximately 4,068 PCB waste generators (51.1 percent) currently have RCRA-issued EPA IDs and are registered with e-Manifest, and an additional 1,356 generators (34.8 percent) have RCRA-issued EPA IDs and can use them to register. That leaves an estimated 2,542 PCB waste generators who currently lack both RCRA and TSCA IDs and face the most demanding compliance path. These generators will need to submit EPA Form 7710-53 to obtain a TSCA-issued EPA ID as a prerequisite to e-Manifest registration.

Implications for M&A and Corporate Transactions

For parties to transactions involving industrial, manufacturing, logistics or energy sector targets, this proposed rule introduces a category of environmental compliance risk that standard Phase I environmental site assessments and traditional environmental representations and warranties frameworks are not structured to address. Environmental due diligence for hazardous waste generators has historically focused on site contamination, permit status, enforcement history and remediation liability. The proposed rule, however, adds a distinct layer: the target entity's compliance with the federal manifest tracking system itself. Below are considerations for parties in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and corporate transactions:

• Assess Whether the Target Is Registered with e-Manifest. Determine whether its facilities and information systems can support electronic or hybrid manifesting workflows. Identify any outstanding data correction obligations under 40 C.F.R. 262.20(a)(2). Flag any unresolved enforcement exposure from manifest compliance failures – including electronic exception and discrepancy reporting requirements that have been fully enforceable since December 1, 2025, under the e-Manifest Third Rule.
• Representations and Warranties Present a Parallel Concern. Standard environmental representations typically cover material compliance with applicable environmental laws and the absence of pending enforcement actions. They are not designed to address e-Manifest registration status, system readiness or data correction obligations as discrete compliance items. Transaction counsel for both buyers and sellers should evaluate whether their environmental representations are adequate to allocate this risk and whether specific representations regarding manifest system compliance, or preclosing covenants requiring e-Manifest registration and remediation of outstanding data corrections before closing, are warranted for transactions involving manufacturing, chemical, waste management or logistics assets.
• Indemnification Structures Warrant the Same Scrutiny. For transactions closing during the proposed 24-month transition period or involving targets that have not yet registered under the expanded registration requirements, evaluate carefully how post-closing manifest compliance failures are allocated. The transition period does not suspend existing RCRA manifest obligations, and RCRA civil penalty exposure for manifest violations runs on a per-day basis.

For private equity (PE) sponsors with multicompany industrial platforms, the compliance exposure is aggregated across portfolio companies. A fund-level review of e-Manifest registration status and system readiness across industrial portfolio companies is a prudent exercise now – one that is significantly more manageable before a regulatory inspection, information request or sale process than during one.

Action Items for Transaction Counsel

1. Add e-Manifest registration status, system readiness and data correction compliance as standing items in environmental due diligence protocols for industrial, manufacturing, logistics, chemical and waste management targets. This should take place now, not when the final rule publishes.
2. Evaluate whether existing environmental representations and warranties in your standard forms are sufficient to address manifest system compliance as a discrete risk category; consider bespoke representations for high-exposure sectors.
3. For pending or near-term transactions involving manufacturing or logistics targets, assess whether a preclosing covenant requiring e-Manifest registration is appropriate.
4. For PCB-intensive targets, verify whether the target has an RCRA- or a TSCA-issued EPA ID and whether exempt PCB generators within the target's operations have initiated the Form 7710-53 notification process.
5. For PE sponsors, conduct a fund-level e-Manifest compliance review across industrial portfolio companies as a presale and pre-examination risk management measure.

Implications for Multifacility Industrial Operators

For companies with existing hazardous waste operations, the proposed rule demands enterprise-level planning rather than facility-by-facility triage.

The expanded mandatory registration requirements reach categories of waste handlers that have not previously been required to interface with the e-Manifest system. Hazardous waste transporters, including companies that manage in-house transportation of hazardous waste, common in chemical, metals and food manufacturing operations, would be required to register under proposed 40 C.F.R. 263.20(a)(3). Registration is not merely an administrative enrollment; it makes the registrant responsible for data corrections and electronic exception reporting that paper-based compliance programs have not historically required.

For companies that use third-party waste management brokers, the new broker identification requirement in Item 14 requires immediate attention. This obligation takes effect on the final rule's effective date, not the paper sunset date, meaning it could apply well before the 24-month transition window closes.

The proposed SMS/QR-code signature option, if finalized, will ease one of the most commonly cited practical barriers for multisite operators: the transporter driver at a pickup location who lacks system access or credentials. However, the hybrid manifest option remains available in the interim (and in locations without cell or network coverage) as a transitional tool for generators not yet integrated into electronic manifesting workflows.

Across all affected categories, the transition period carries its own compliance obligations. Existing manifest requirements, including the electronic exception and discrepancy reporting requirements that took effect December 1, 2025, under the e-Manifest Third Rule, remain fully enforceable throughout the 24-month window. Companies that defer planning under the assumption that enforcement attention will be limited during the transition period should weigh that assumption against the per-day civil penalty structure applicable to RCRA manifest violations.

Action Items for Industrial Operators

1. Conduct an enterprise-wide audit of e-Manifest registration status across all generator, transporter and receiving facility sites, including sites that operate as in-house transporters. Begin information technology (IT) and workflow readiness assessments now, with a target completion date well ahead of the paper sunset date.
2. Review all hazardous waste shipments managed through third-party brokers and ensure systems are in place to capture and include broker identification information (company name and EPA ID number) in Item 14 of the manifest, effective on the final rule's effective date.
3. For facilities with PCB legacy equipment, initiate the Form 7710-53 notification process for any exempt PCB waste generators within your operations immediately – do not wait for the final rule to publish. The ID obtainment process takes lead time, and the paper sunset date is the hard deadline.
4. Evaluate whether the SMS/QR-code signature option, if finalized, will address the last-mile signature challenges at your generator and transporter sites and plan your IT and operational workflows accordingly.
5. Train compliance personnel on electronic exception and discrepancy reporting requirements, which are already in effect under the 2024 e-Manifest Third Rule and enforceable now.

The Comment Deadline Is an Opportunity to Influence the Final Rule

Comments on the proposed rule are due May 4, 2026. EPA notes, however, that comments on information collection provisions under the Paperwork Reduction Act are most effective if received by the Office of Management and Budget by April 6, 2026.

The fact that electronic manifests account for less than 1 percent of all submissions since system launch is not a trivial statistic in this context – it is the strongest factual foundation for any argument that 24 months is insufficient. Substantive comments providing concrete data on IT readiness timelines, implementation costs, training burdens and operational challenges, particularly from large regulated entities or industry trade associations, are the most likely to influence EPA's final determination on the compliance date and treatment of specific regulated categories.

Regulated sectors for which substantive comment submissions are most warranted include chemical and industrial manufacturers, hazardous waste transporters, PCB waste handlers, healthcare facilities and reverse distributors, and PE-backed industrial platforms with multifacility operations.

For additional information or assistance evaluating how this proposed rule may affect your operations, transactions or compliance programs, or for assistance preparing and submitting substantive comments, please contact the authors or any member of Holland & Knight's Environmental Team.

Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.