EPA ICR No. 1446.10; OMB Control No. 2070-0112

APPENDIX E

Summary of Public and Consultative Comments and EPA’s Response to All Comments

(Copies of public comments are available at www.regulations.gov at Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0910)
May 6, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Response to Comments on the PCB Consolidated Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements Information Collection Request Renewal 

FROM: Maria J. Doa, Director /s/

National Program Chemicals Division

TO: Angela Hofmann, Director

Regulatory Coordination Staff

In proposing to renew ICR number 1446.10, on December 29, 2010, EPA published a 

notice in the Federal Register soliciting public comment on the ICR and its supporting statement 

(75 FR 82007). The 60-day public comment period ended February 28, 2011. In response to the 

notice, EPA received two sets of written comments, submitted by the Utilities Solid Waste 

Activities Group (USWAG) and the Color Pigments Manufactures Association (CPMA). 

In addition, concurrent with the public comment period for this ICR renewal, EPA 

conducted a consultative outreach effort. EPA contacted seven individuals to solicit their 

opinion on the PCB recordkeeping and reporting requirements. EPA received two responses. 

EPA received oral comments from the American Gas Association (AGA) and comments from

Guy Donzella, EPS Industries. Below is a brief summary of the comments made and the 

responses to them: 

A. Public Comments

1. USWAG: 

 USWAG did not object to EPA’s proposal to renew the existing ICR. USWAG 

commented that there has been a 10 percent decline in the number of newly discovered 

PCB transformers and that since the last ICR renewal there has been a decrease in the 

number of PCB waste items listed on manifests, a decrease in the number of reports on 

which PCB wastes were listed, and a decrease in the number of certificates of disposal for 

PCB wastes. 

Response: This comment raises issues outside the scope of the ICR exercise. No change 

was made to the supporting statement based on this comment. 
 USWAG commented that there has been a decrease in the number of PCB spills and the 

number of spills required to be reported to the National Response Center (NRC). 

USWAG also commented on the limitations of the NRC spill data.

Response: This comment raises issues outside the scope of the ICR exercise. No change 

was made to the supporting statement based on this comment. 

2. CPMA:

 CPMA commented in support of the existing regulatory structure for the control of 

inadvertent de minimis PCBs in excluded products and processes. CPMA further 

commented that EPA’s recent proposal to eliminate the excluded products and processes 

regulation under 40 CFR section 761 would impact significantly numerous important 

color pigments and be unreasonable, unnecessary, and not cost effective. 

Response: This comment raises issues outside the scope of the ICR exercise. No change 

was made to the supporting statement based on this comment. 

 CPA commented that the cost estimates for the burden of compliance provided in the 

PRA supporting statement significantly underestimate the costs of compliance with the 

reporting obligations because the cost of management time is missing from the estimate 

of costs. 

Response: This comment did not provide sufficient detail on what amount of 

management supervision the commenter believes is needed for the maintenance of 

records. EPA believes that a minimal amount of management supervision is necessary to 

ensure records are compiled and maintained. EPA revised its burden estimate to include 

.5 hours of managerial time and reduced its estimate of the technical time by .5 hours. 

 CPA commented that the cost estimates for the burden of compliance provided in the 

ICR’s supporting statement significantly underestimate the costs of compliance with the 

reporting obligations because the costs of sampling and analyzing products for PCBs is 

not included in EPA’s cost estimates. 

Response: The burden of sampling and analyzing the data are outside the scope of this 

ICR exercise. These comments relate to substantive compliance with the regulations, not 

record keeping and reporting burdens. No change was made to the supporting statement

based on this comment.

B. Consultative Comments

1. American Gas Association (AGA)

 AGA’s oral comments expressed concern with the requirement that if PCB testing reveals 

greater than 50 ppm PCBs, that the collection point or source must be tested every year 

until there are two successive tests indicating less than 50 ppm PCBs. According to AGA 
some collection points become dry holes, so such testing would never reveal less than 50 

ppm PCBs. Wipe samples were suggested. 

Response: EPA is aware of these industry concerns; however they are outside the scope 

of this ICR exercise. EPA plans to address issues like these in its forthcoming 

rulemaking (see 75 FR 17645). No change was made to the supporting statement based 

on this comment.

 AGA comments expressed concern that sampling data may need to be kept perpetually. 

Response: EPA notes that 40 CFR section 761.30 (i)(1)(iii)(C) requires records to be 

maintained “for 3 years after the PCB concentration in the component or segment is 

reduced to <50ppm.” No change was made to the supporting statement based on this 

comment. 

2. Guy Donzella, EPS Industries 

 Mr. Donzella commented that some of the data EPA is seeking may be available through 

the regional coordinators, inspectors, or other personnel. Also, he commented that some 

states such as New York collect data on PCBs.

Response: EPA’s regional coordinators receive this information based on the 

requirements of the underlying regulations which the ICR supports. Because the PCB 

program is not a delegated program, State information is not uniform or complete enough 

to be a viable data source for EPA’s data needs. No change was made to the supporting 

statement based on this comment.

 Mr. Donzella believed it was clear what is required for data submission.

Response: No response is required for this comment. 

 Mr. Donzella commented that he would be interested in an electronic data submission 

option, preferably a secured web based data submission system. Mr. Donzella also 

commented that signatures should be handled via PINS and passwords on a secured web 

system. He commented that there would be a significant increase in efficiency if 

companies could submit raw data in comma delimited fields. 

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that a move toward electronic manifesting as 

soon as feasible would be beneficial to both the Agency and the public. As EPA noted in 

2004, the RCRA program has the lead on this initiative for the uniform hazardous waste 

manifest, as the use of the manifest for PCBs in 40 CFR part 761 is modeled on the 

RCRA regulations. EPA further notes that since 2004 the Agency is much closer to 

implementation of electronic manifesting under RCRA and that legislation to fund this 

program is under consideration in Congress. Once electronic manifesting for hazardous 

waste has been implemented, it may be possible to implement compatible electronic 

manifesting requirements for PCBs. EPA appreciates the information provided by Mr. 
Donzella and will take it into account as it explores electronic manifesting issues. 

 Mr. Donzella agreed with EPA’s estimated burden and costs.

Response: No response is required for this comment.