1850 M Street NW, Suite 730• Washington, DC 20036 • USA

Phone: (202) 465-4900 • Fax: (202) 465-4905 • e-mail: cpma@cpma.com

November 14, 2014

Ms. Toiya Goodlow

Document Control Office 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 7407T

William Jefferson Clinton Building

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,

Washington, D.C. 20460

Attn: Docket Control Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0597-0001

Re: Comments of the Color Pigments Manufacturers Association, 

Inc. on the Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed 

Collection; Comment Request; PCBs, Consolidated Reporting 

and Recordkeeping Requirements; EPA ICR No. 1446.11, 

OMB Control No. 2070-0112.

Dear Ms. Goodlow:

I am writing on behalf of the Color Pigments Manufacturers Association, Inc. ("CPMA"). 

The following comments are provided in response to the questions contained in your email of 

October 14, 2014 regarding the Notice entitled “Agency Information Collection Activities; 

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; PCBs, Consolidated Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements”; EPA ICR No. 1446.11, OMB Control No. 2070-0112, Docket Number, EPAHQ-OPPT-2014-0597-0001, 79 Fed. Reg. 61302 (the "ICR"). 

The Color Pigments Manufacturers Association is an industry trade association 

representing small, medium and large color pigments manufacturing companies in the United 

States, Canada, and Mexico. In addition, the association represents foreign color pigments 

manufacturers that sell products in the US, Canada and Mexico. Suppliers of intermediates and 
Ms. Toiya Goodlow

Environmental Protection Agency

November 14, 2014

Page 2

other chemical products that serve North American color pigments manufacturers are also 

members of the association. The association provides US and international advocacy programs in 

support of the color pigments industry on matters pertaining to the environment, health and 

safety issues.

In general, CPMA believes that the EPA has underestimated the burden of compliance 

with the ICR. Despite the underestimated costs of compliance with the ICR, CPMA believes 

that the existing regulatory structure for the control of inadvertent PCBs in excluded products 

and processes is both reasonable and protective of human health and the environment. The 

excluded products and processes regulations provide an authorization allowing manufacture and 

import of products which contain trace amounts of inadvertent PCBs.

On February 4, 2011 CPMA submitted comments to EPA regarding an Information 

Collection Request for collection of the same information under the PCB regulations. See the 

request identified as EPA ICR No. 1446.10, OMB Control No. 2070-0112, Docket Number, 

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0910, 75 Fed. Reg. 82007. CPMA comments also addressed concerns 

with the EPA notice entitled the "Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding 

Reassessment of Use Authorizations for Polychlorinated Biphenyls", 75 Fed. Reg. 17645, April 

7, 2010, Docket Control No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757 (the “ANPR”) as the ANPR may 

impact on the requirements for excluded products and processes under the PCB regulations. 

The following comments are provided on the specific portion of the PCB regulations 

related to excluded products and processes and the certification process contained in 40 CFR 

§761.185 and 40 CFR §761.187. 
Ms. Toiya Goodlow

Environmental Protection Agency

November 14, 2014

Page 3

Your email of October 14, 2014 requested information on the following questions which 

are recited below with our response:

1) Are the data that EPA seeks under this ICR available from any public source, or 

already collected by another EPA office or by another agency? If so, where can 

the data be found?

Answer, The data collected as part of the Excluded Products and Processes 

certification process is not provided in any public source. Although this 

information is not in the public domain, it is shared between a company and its 

customers.

2) Is it clear what is required for data submission? If not, are there any suggestions 

for clarifying instructions?

Answer, Yes, data requirements are clear for the excluded products and 

processes provisions specific to reporting for excluded products and processes 

located at 40 CFR §761.185 We support these excluded products and processes 

regulations and the necessity for the collection of the data represented by 

excluded products and processes regulations.

3) Would you be interested in electronic/ data submission option? What type of 

alternative would you be most likely to utilize-web form, USB flash drive, CDROM?

Answer, No, because the reports submitted pursuant to 40 CFR §761.185 

and 40 CFR §761.187 involve one time reporting of certification regarding 

manufacturing of products and processes many of which are confidential. 

Recordkeeping under the excluded products and processes regulations is an 

ongoing obligation specific to each manufacturer. There is no reason to create an 

expensive and time consuming system for electronic reporting of these records.

4) Do you agree with EPA's estimated burden and costs (the ICR addresses only the 

costs associated with paperwork)? Are the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) labor 

rates accurate? If you have any reason to consider the BLS labor rates as used by 

EPA inaccurate or inappropriate, explain your rationale. 

Answer, CPMA continues to be concerned that the overall estimate of the 

cost of compliance with the excluded products and process portion of the PCB 

regulations have been underestimated. The cost of analysis for reporting and the 

managerial costs for professional review of these submissions are underestimated. 

The BLS labor rates are improved over the previous ICR in that the rates have 

been increased by 22 to 28 percent for clerical, professional\technical and 

managerial employees. 
Ms. Toiya Goodlow

Environmental Protection Agency

November 14, 2014

Page 4

In describing the requirements for reporting under the excluded products and process 

rules the Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (the "Supporting Statement") states:

"(#72) Recordkeeping of Excluded Manufacturing Processes and 

Certification: Chemical manufacturers and importers of products that 

contain inadvertently generated PCBs (i.e., excluded manufacturing 

processes) must maintain the monitoring data (or other analyses) that were 

used to support the determination of compliance with the conditions of 

Section 761.3, and copies of the signed certification of compliance. These 

recordkeeping requirements expire under their own terms, either three 

years after the manufacturer has ceased operating the process that 

necessitated notification, or after seven years, whichever is a shorter 

retention period. Monitoring records must contain the method of analysis; 

the results of the analysis, including data from the Quality Assurance Plan; 

a description of the sample matrix, the name of the analyst or analysis; the 

date and time of the analysis; and numbers for the lots from which the 

samples are taken 40 CFR §761.1(f)(1), 40 CFR §761.185(c)(2) and (d)" 

Supporting Statement p. 43.

CPMA believes the description provided above for the recordkeeping requirements 

applicable to manufacturers and importers of excluded products and processes is correct, 

accurate and reasonable. However, the costs of generating the monitoring records described 

above are not adequately reflected in the Supporting Statement, Annual Respondent Hourly 

Burden and Cost Estimate, which states that only .5 hours of management time and 4.5 hours of 

technical time are needed toward each reporting submission. The 5 hours allotted to 

recordkeeping for excluded manufacturing processes is too low. Item 42, for example, takes as 

much time and effort to comply with as Item 72.
Ms. Toiya Goodlow

Environmental Protection Agency

November 14, 2014

Page 5

Conclusion

We hope these comments are helpful to you in your efforts to review the ICR and 

develop accurate and appropriate cost estimates for compliance with the PCB reporting provision 

of TSCA. We believe there is overwhelming evidence to substantiate that the existing regulatory 

structure for PCBs is both cost effective and protective of the human health and the environment.

Sincerely,

 

David J. Wawer

Executive Director