chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets in chemical production.
    As described in Unit IV.A, EPA consulted with several companies in
the chlor-alkali industry and companies that process and use chrysotile
asbestos-containing sheet gaskets in chemical production. While EPA
expects the compliance date in the proposed regulatory option is
feasible, it is possible that the required changes could take longer
than expected to implement for some.
    Accordingly, and pursuant TSCA section 6(a)(2) and 6(a)(5), EPA
presents as a primary alternative regulatory action, a prohibition on
the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in
commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos in bulk form or as
part of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali
industry and for sheet gaskets used in chemical production, with an
effective date five years after the effective date of the final rule,
with interim controls for processing and commercial use as described in
Unit IV.B.2.
    2. Requiring as interim control an existing chemical exposure limit
(ECEL) for: Processing and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos
diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry; and chrysotile asbestos-
containing sheet gaskets in chemical production.
    As part of the primary alternative regulatory action, EPA would
require processors and commercial users to comply with an 8-hour
existing chemical exposure limit (ECEL), during the interim period
prior to prohibition, beginning 180 days after the effective date of
the final rule, for the following conditions of use: (1) Processing and
industrial use of chrysotile asbestos in bulk form or as part of
chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali industry and
(2) processing and industrial use of chrysotile asbestos-containing
sheet gaskets in chemical products. EPA calculated the ECEL to be 0.005
fibers (f)/cubic centimeter (cc), for inhalation exposure to chrysotile
asbestos as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) for use in workplace
settings based on incidence of lung cancer, mesothelioma and other
cancers. The alternative action would include this interim measure to
reduce exposures and address the unreasonable risk of injury to health
resulting from inhalation exposures to chrysotile asbestos in an
occupational setting. EPA expects that, if inhalation exposures in
occupational settings are kept at or below the ECEL of 0.005 f/cc, a
person reasonably likely to be exposed in the workplace, including
workers and occupational non-users, would be protected against excess
risk of cancer above the 1x10\4\ (1E-4) benchmark resulting from
chronic occupational exposure (Ref. 13). Based on this ECEL, the
alternative action includes an ECEL-action level of 0.0025 f/cc as an
8-hour TWA, which initiates certain required activities such as
periodic monitoring of exposures to chrysotile asbestos, as described
in this unit. As described in Unit III.B.3., EPA recognizes that an
ECEL will require time and resources to prepare for and therefore did
not propose to include it for the two-year interim period prior to the
proposed prohibition date. As part of an interim control measure,
requirements to meet an ECEL could reduce exposures and address
unreasonable risk during the interim period of time the regulated
entities need for implementing prohibitions. This Unit provides
additional details regarding implementation of the ECEL as an interim
control measure as part of the primary alternative regulatory action.
    EPA expects that, if this primary alternative regulatory action
were to be implemented for these two use categories, workplaces may
have the ability to implement an ECEL as part of an industrial hygiene
program. Using the NIOSH hierarchy of controls (Ref. 27) (i.e., in
sequential order: Elimination, substitution, engineering controls,
administrative controls and personal protective equipment (PPE)),
workplaces that cannot eliminate the source or replace chrysotile
asbestos with a substitute could use engineering and administrative
controls to implement process changes to reduce exposures. EPA also
expects that these workplaces could establish a monitoring program to
demonstrate compliance with an ECEL. For example, workplaces that may
be able to implement the ECEL include those that are implementing the
8-hour threshold limit value-time weighted average (TLV-TWA) set by the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), and
the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL), which are both 0.1 f/cc for
asbestos. EPA expects that workplaces engaged in the following
conditions of use may be able to implement an ECEL: Processing and
industrial use of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms in the chlor-alkali
industry and processing and industrial use of chrysotile asbestos-
containing sheet gaskets in chemical products. Therefore, for the
primary alternative regulatory action, EPA would require an ECEL for
these conditions of use and any facility engaged in these conditions of
use would be considered a regulated entity.
    Specifically, under the primary alternative regulatory action, EPA
would require that the regulated entity must ensure that no person in
the workplace is exposed to an airborne concentration of chrysotile
asbestos in excess of 0.005 f/cc as an 8-hour TWA.
    Initial exposure monitoring. Under the primary alternative
regulatory action, EPA would require the regulated entity to establish
a baseline for the implementation of the ECEL by monitoring the
personal breathing zone of all persons reasonably likely to be exposed
(with personal monitoring samples outside the facepiece if the person
is wearing respiratory protective equipment). Under this alternative
action, the initial monitoring would be taken when the operating
conditions are representative of the potential exposures of persons in
the workplace, or of a representative sample of persons in each type of
job task during every work shift who are reasonably likely to be
exposed to chrysotile asbestos in the workplace. EPA expects that
facilities would attempt to monitor a baseline for all of the tasks
during the same timeframe; however, EPA understands that certain tasks
occur less frequently, and EPA is soliciting comments regarding the
timing of the initial exposure monitoring so that it is representative
of all tasks involving chrysotile asbestos. If the regulated entity
chooses a representative sample, such sampling will include persons who
are the closest to the source of chrysotile asbestos, so that the
monitoring results are representative of the most highly exposed
persons in the workplace. If the regulated entity has existing
monitoring data less than five years old that follows the initial
exposure monitoring criteria and where a process change is not
implicated, the regulated entity could choose to use this existing data
as the initial exposure monitoring. EPA is soliciting public comments
regarding any additional requirement needed to ensure that the initial
exposure monitoring is representative of the

exposures to chrysotile asbestos in the workplace.
    Periodic exposure monitoring. Based on the results from the initial
exposure monitoring, under the primary alternative regulatory action,
EPA would require the regulated entity to conduct the following
periodic monitoring:
     If any samples taken during the initial exposure
monitoring reveal a concentration of airborne chrysotile asbestos at or
above the ECEL-action level but at or below the ECEL, the regulated
entity must repeat the exposure monitoring and in no case shall exceed
six months. However, if the facility does not use chrysotile asbestos
during those six months, then they do not have to conduct monitoring
until the next six months and would need to document the fact that they
are not using chrysotile asbestos.
     If any samples taken during the initial exposure
monitoring reveal a concentration above the ECEL, the regulated entity
must repeat the exposure monitoring at least every three months. The
regulated entity may alter the exposure monitoring schedule from every
three months to every six months if two consecutive monitoring events
taken at least seven days apart indicate that the potential exposure
has decreased to the ECEL or below, but it is at or above the ECEL-
action level. Also, if the facility does not use chrysotile asbestos
during those three months, then they do not have to conduct monitoring
until the next three months and would need to document the fact that
they are not using chrysotile asbestos.
     If the last monitoring was conducted more than five years
previously, the regulated entity must conduct a new baseline
monitoring.
    EPA understands that explicitly increasing the frequency of testing
may be a viable option and is soliciting comments regarding further
shortening the maximum time interval between monitoring events.
    Termination of exposure monitoring. Based on the results of the
initial exposure monitoring or the periodic exposure monitoring, EPA is
proposing that the regulated entity may terminate periodic exposure
monitoring:
     If all samples taken during the initial exposure
monitoring reveal a concentration below the ECEL action level, the
regulated entity may discontinue monitoring, except when additional
exposure monitoring is required as described in this unit.
     If the periodic exposure monitoring statistically
indicates that concentrations, are below the ECEL action level, the
regulated entity may discontinue the monitoring, except when additional
monitoring is required as described under periodic exposure monitoring
or additional exposure monitoring. However, regulated entities must
ensure that the last baseline monitoring event was conducted within the
last five years.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the proposed conditions to
terminate periodic monitoring for chrysotile asbestos.
    Additional exposure monitoring. In addition to the initial and
periodic exposure monitoring, under the primary alternative regulatory
action, EPA would require that the regulated entity must, conduct new
initial exposure monitoring followed by any necessary periodic or
additional exposure monitoring including immediately after:
     Changes in the production volume, use rate, process,
control equipment, personnel or work practices that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause additional sources of exposure or result in
increased exposure levels to chrysotile asbestos; and
     Start-up, shutdown, or malfunction of the facility that
may reasonably be anticipated to cause additional sources of exposure
or result in increased exposure levels to chrysotile asbestos.
    However, the required additional exposure monitoring should not
delay implementation of any necessary cleanup or other remedial action
to reduce the exposures to persons in the workplace. In addition, under
the primary alternative regulatory action, EPA would require use of
respiratory protection by workers, ONUs, and any other person
potentially exposed to chrysotile asbestos during cleanup or any other
remedial actions to reduce exposures.
    For each monitoring event, under the primary alternative regulatory
action EPA would require that the regulated entities record dates,
duration, and results of each sample taken, including all measurements
that may be necessary to determine the conditions (e.g., task duration,
work site temperatures, etc.) that might have affected the monitoring
results. In addition, under the primary alternative regulatory action,
EPA would require: Documentation of the name, address, work shift, job
classification, and work area of the person monitored. If the regulated
entity is using area monitoring or a representative sampling
monitoring, the same documentation will be needed of all other persons
whose exposures the monitoring was not measured but whose exposure is
intended to be represented by the area or representative sampling
monitoring. In addition, EPA would require documentation of and type of
respiratory protective device, if any, worn by the monitored person;
or, if area monitoring is used, respiratory protective devices worn, if
any, by persons in the area monitored; or if a representative sampling
monitoring is used, respiratory protective devices worn, if any, by the
persons whose exposure is represented by the monitoring. Also, under
the primary alternative regulatory action, EPA would require use of
appropriate sampling and analytical methods to determine asbestos
exposure, including:
     Use of analytical method with a limit of detection below
the ECEL-action level, so that the regulated entity is able to
implement exposure controls, to determine the monitoring frequency
according to the requirements described in this Unit, and to provide
persons exposed to chrysotile asbestos with the respiratory protection
required and described in this Unit.
     Use of analytical methods described in appendix A to 29
CFR 1910.1001 or as referenced in appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1001, the
NIOSH 7400 method;
     Compliance with the Good Laboratory Practice Standards at
40 CFR part 792; and
     Documentation of information regarding air monitoring
equipment, including: Maintenance, performance tests, limits of
detection, and any malfunctions.
    EPA requests comment on the proposed air sampling and analytical
methods as part of a chrysotile asbestos ECEL air monitoring
requirement under the primary alternative regulatory option and
specifically whether the required air sampling and analytical methods
should require the use of transmission electron microscopy (TEM), or
other microscopy, instead of phase contrast microscopy (PCM). PCM is
the required microscopy analysis in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1001 and
the NIOSH 7400 method. In addition, EPA requests comments on the
capacity of available methods to effectively sample, detect and analyze
chrysotile asbestos at the ECEL and ECEL action level.
    Exposure controls. EPA recommends and encourages the use of
pollution prevention as a means of controlling exposures whenever
practicable. Under the primary alternative regulatory action, EPA would
require regulated entities to implement the ECEL through the use of the
NIOSH/OSHA hierarchy of controls (i.e., elimination, substitution,
engineering controls, administrative controls, and PPE) and to refer to
29 CFR 1910.1001 (except for 29

CFR 1910.1001(c), which references the asbestos PEL for general
industry), and 29 CFR 1926.1101 (except for 29 CFR 1926.1101(c), which
references the asbestos PEL for construction). EPA would require that
regulated entities document their efforts in an exposure control plan
or through any existing documentation of the facility's safety and
health program developed as part of meeting OSHA requirements or other
safety and health standards. If elimination, substitution, engineering
controls and administrative controls are not sufficient to reduce
exposures to or below the ECEL for all persons in the workplace, under
the primary alternative regulatory action, EPA would require the
regulated entity to use such controls to reduce chrysotile asbestos
concentrations in the workplace to the lowest levels achievable and
supplement these controls using respiratory protection. In such cases,
under the primary alternative regulatory action, EPA would require the
regulated entity to provide those persons reasonably likely to be
exposed to chrysotile asbestos by inhalation above the ECEL with
respirators sufficient to ensure that their exposures do not exceed the
ECEL, as described in this Unit. Under the primary alternative
regulatory action, EPA would also require that the regulated entity
documents their efforts to use elimination, substitution, engineering
controls and administrative controls to reduce exposure to or below the
ECEL.
    Under the primary alternative regulatory action, EPA would require
that the regulated entity documents in the exposure control plan the
following:
     Identification of the exposure controls including:
Elimination, substitution, engineering controls and administrative
controls available to reduce exposures in the workplace to either at or
below the ECEL or to the lowest level achievable, and the exposure
controls selected based on feasibility, effectiveness, and other
relevant considerations;
     If exposure controls were not selected, document the
efforts identifying why these are not feasible, effective, or otherwise
not implemented;
     Implementation of exposure controls selected, including
proper installation, maintenance, training or other steps taken;
     Regular inspections, evaluations, and updating of the
exposure controls to ensure effectiveness and confirmation that all
persons are using them accordingly; and
     Occurrence and duration of any start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction of the facility that causes air concentrations above the
ECEL and subsequent corrective actions taken during start-up, shutdown,
or malfunctions to mitigate exposures to chrysotile asbestos.
    Personal protective equipment (PPE). As part of this primary
alternative regulatory action, where engineering and administrative
controls are not feasible to reduce the air concentration below the
ECEL or inhalation exposure is still reasonably likely to persons in
the workplace, EPA would require the regulated entity to determine the
level of respiratory protection needed. EPA is proposing that the
regulated entity refer to OSHA's General Requirements for Personal
Protective Equipment standard at 29 CFR 1910.132 for application of a
PPE program. EPA is also proposing that the regulated entity select the
required respiratory protection as described in this unit and also
refer to OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard at 29 CFR 1910.134, and
the respiratory protection provision of the Asbestos standard for
general industry at 29 CFR 1910.1001(g) for directions on how to
implement a respiratory protection program.
    Required respiratory protection. EPA is proposing to require under
the primary alternative regulatory action the following respiratory
protection, after consideration and implementation of all other
practicable controls, such as engineering and administrative controls,
whenever exposure monitoring reveals an air concentration, measured as
an 8-hour TWA, that exceeds the ECEL (0.005 f/cc). A respirator
affording higher levels of protection than the following proposed
required respirator may be used.
     If the measured exposure concentration is at or below
0.005 f/cc (ECEL): No respiratory protection is required.
     If the measured exposure concentration is less than or
equal to 0.05 f/cc (10 times the ECEL), the respirator protection
required is: (i) Half-mask air-purifying respirator other than a
disposable respirator, equipped with high-efficiency filters (i.e., a
filter that is at least 99.97% efficient against mono-dispersed
particles of 0.3 [micro]m (micrometers) in diameter or higher).
     If the measured exposure concentration is less than or
equal to 0.25 f/cc (50 times the ECEL): Full-facepiece air-purifying
respirator equipped with high-efficiency filters.
     If the measured exposure concentration is less than or
equal to 0.50 f/cc (100 times the ECEL): The respirator protection
required is any powered air-purifying respirator equipped with high-
efficiency filters (i.e., a filter that is at least 99.97% efficient
against mono-dispersed particles of 0.3 [micro]m (micrometers) in
diameter or higher) or any supplied-air respirator operated in
continuous-flow mode.
     If the measured exposure concentration is less than or
equal to 5 f/cc (1,000 times the ECEL): The respirator protection
required is a full-facepiece supplied air respirator operated in
pressure-demand mode.
     If the measured exposure concentration is more than 5 f/cc
(1,000 times the ECEL): The respirator protection required is a full-
facepiece supplied-air respirator operated in pressure-demand mode,
equipped with an auxiliary positive-pressure self-contained breathing
apparatus.
    Worker participation: EPA encourages regulated entities to consult
with workers on the conduct and development of exposure control plans
and PPE program. EPA is proposing to require entities to provide
workers with access to the exposure control plans, exposure monitoring
records, and PPE program implementation (such as fit-testing and other
requirements as described in 29 CFR 1910.134) and documentation.
    Notification of monitoring results. As part of the primary
alternative regulatory action, EPA is proposing to require that within
15 working days after receipt of the results of any exposure
monitoring, the regulated entity must notify each person whose exposure
is represented by that monitoring in writing, either individually to
each person or by posting the information in an appropriate and
accessible location. The notice must identify the ECEL, the exposure
monitoring results, and any respiratory protection required in response
to the exposure monitoring results. Also, the notice must include a
description of the actions taken by the regulated entity to reduce
inhalation exposures to or below the ECEL or refer to a document
available to the person which states the actions to be taken to reduce
exposures. In addition, the notice should be in plain English and
understandable to the average worker that is exposed; for example:
``Based on the monitoring conducted on March 15, 2022, the exposure to
chrysotile asbestos by workers installing gaskets was 0.03 f/cc. This
concentration is above the limit set by EPA to protect workers, and
therefore the company is providing half-mask air-purifying respirators
(not disposable respirators), equipped with high-efficiency filters to
workers. Workers can access the

exposure control plans, exposure monitoring records, and PPE program
implementation and documentation at the office during regular business
hours.''
    Recordkeeping: To support and demonstrate compliance, EPA is
proposing under this primary alternative regulatory action, that the
regulated entities must retain compliance records for five years,
unless a longer retention time is required under 29 CFR 1910.1020. The
records proposed by EPA to be retained by regulated entities include:
     Exposure control plan;
     Exposure monitoring records;
     Notifications of exposure monitoring results; and
     PPE program implementation and documentation.
    3. Solicitation of public comment on interim workplace controls
prior to prohibition of processing and commercial use of chrysotile
asbestos in bulk form or as part of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms in
the chlor-alkali industry; and for chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet
gaskets used in chemical production.
    EPA is proposing to prohibit manufacturing, processing, commercial
use, and distribution of chrysotile asbestos in bulk form or as part of
chrysotile asbestos diaphragms for use in the chlor-alkali industry and
for chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used in chemical
production two years after the effective date of the final rule. EPA
recognizes that an ECEL will require time and resources to prepare for
and did not propose to include it for the two-year interim period prior
to the proposed prohibition date. However, EPA seeks public comment,
including data on costs and feasibility, on requiring compliance with
an ECEL during the period beginning 180 days after the effective date
of the final rule and continuing until the proposed prohibition date
for processing and commercial use of these uses of chrysotile asbestos.
    4. Compliance date for the prohibition of manufacture (including
import), processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of
chrysotile asbestos in bulk form or as part of chrysotile asbestos
diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry and for chrysotile asbestos-
containing sheet gaskets used in chemical production.
    For the proposed prohibition on manufacturing, processing,
distribution, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos in bulk for or
as part of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali
industry and for chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used in
chemical production uses, EPA is proposing that the prohibition begin
two years after the effective date of the final rule based upon several
considerations, including the existence of alternatives. As part of the
primary alternative regulatory action, EPA is also taking comment on
the prohibition beginning five years after the effective date of the
final rule. EPA proposes that the final rule would take effect 60 days
after publication of the final rule.
    EPA held meetings with several of the processors and industrial
users of chrysotile asbestos for these conditions of use. These
companies stated to EPA that the transition to asbestos-free technology
could take many years, although the companies processing and using
chrysotile asbestos for these uses stated that research on asbestos
alternatives has been ongoing. Each company did express that conversion
to an alternative was possible but would require significant retooling
of a facility, testing new processes, and other costly measures.
However, these companies did not provide EPA with delineated cost
estimates or a detailed timeline for the conversion process (Refs. 15,
16, 17, and 18).
    EPA acknowledges that a prohibition on manufacturing (including
import), processing, distribution and use of chrysotile asbestos
diaphragms will require significant infrastructure changes for the
chlor-alkali plants continuing to use the chrysotile asbestos diaphragm
technology. It is possible that chlor-alkali facilities using non-
asbestos technology could expand production to meet supply shortfalls
induced by a prohibition on chrysotile asbestos diaphragms, but such
expansion could also take time. Imports of caustic soda or chemicals
derived from chlorine or caustic soda may increase in order to make up
for short-term supply shortfalls. Short-term supply shortages of
chlorine, caustic soda, and derivative chemicals are likely to lead to
price increases experienced by both industrial and commercial users,
some of which may be passed along to final consumers of products made
with these inputs.
    EPA seeks comment on a prohibition compliance date that under TSCA
sections 6(d)(1) would be both ``as soon as practicable'' and ``provide
for a reasonable transition period.'' Information that will be helpful
includes the specific and detailed timelines to build asbestos-free
facilities or to convert existing asbestos-using facilities to
asbestos-free technology and the availability of asbestos-free
technology. EPA is also requesting specific information regarding
potential barriers to achieving the proposed prohibition date while
considering the supply of chlor-alkali chemicals. EPA is also
requesting comment on the potential impact of this transition on the
market price of chlor-alkali chemicals, including the potential impact
of a decrease in availability of diaphragm-grade caustic soda on both
the production and cost of water treatment chemicals, including both
caustic soda used directly in water treatment as well as the potential
impact on the cost of other water treatment chemicals derived from
caustic soda.
    Alternatively, EPA could grant an exemption for these uses under
TSCA section 6(g). Under the authority of TSCA section 6(g), EPA may
consider granting a time-limited exemption for a specific condition of
use for which EPA finds: That the specific condition of use is a
critical or essential use for which no technically and economically
feasible safer alternative is available, taking into consideration
hazard and exposure; that compliance with the proposed requirement, as
applied with respect to the specific condition of use, would
significantly disrupt the national economy, national security, or
critical infrastructure; or that the specific condition of use of the
chemical substance, as compared to reasonably available alternatives,
provides a substantial benefit to health, the environment, or public
safety. EPA is aware that chlor-alkali chemicals are important to the
national economy and operation of critical infrastructure, including:
Water and Wastewater Systems Sector, Chemical Production Sector,
Manufacturing Sector, Defense Industrial Base Sector, Emergency
Services Sector, Energy Sector, Food and Agriculture Sector, and
Healthcare and Public Health Sector.
    Should EPA find that justification exists for such an exemption, an
analysis and reasoning will be published in the final rule. EPA seeks
any public comment that that favors or disfavors EPA using TSCA section
6(g) authority for chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-
alkali industry or chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used in
chemical production. Since any decision made by EPA under TSCA section
6(g) must be through a rulemaking, EPA believes the best means to issue
an exemption would be through this rulemaking process and careful
analysis of reasonably available information which supports a TSCA
section 6(g) exemption. A rulemaking under TSCA section 6(g) also
allows EPA to include reasonable conditions to protect health while
achieving the

purposes of the exemption. To that end, EPA is considering requiring an
ECEL and downstream notification, as described in Unit IV.B. Primary
alternative regulatory action. EPA is seeking public comments on the
possible conditions to be included if EPA issues a rulemaking under
TSCA section 6(g) to provide a time limited exemption for chrysotile
asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali industry or chrysotile
asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used in chemical production.
    5. Primary alternative regulatory action for manufacture (including
import), processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of
chrysotile asbestos-containing brake blocks in the oil industry;
aftermarket automotive chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/linings;
other asbestos-containing vehicle friction products; and other
asbestos-containing gaskets.
    EPA's primary alternative regulatory action is to prohibit
manufacture, processing, commercial use, and distribution of chrysotile
asbestos containing brake blocks in the oil industry; aftermarket
automotive chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/linings; other
asbestos-containing vehicle friction products; and other asbestos-
containing gaskets two years after the effective date of the final
rule. This additional amount of time from the proposed regulatory
option is meant to account for stakeholders who may not have engaged
with EPA in advance of this proposed rule, and who may potentially have
difficulty immediately transitioning away from chrysotile asbestos in
the manufacture, processing, distribution, and use, of chrysotile
asbestos-containing brake blocks, chrysotile asbestos-containing
aftermarket automotive brakes and linings, other chrysotile asbestos-
containing vehicle friction products and other chrysotile asbestos-
containing gaskets. While EPA does not have specific knowledge of
regulated entities that would have difficulty complying with a shorter
compliance date, a period of two years may be more feasible for
regulated entities who have yet to transition to asbestos-free
technology. This amount of time would account for use of existing
stocks, expiration of equipment like asbestos-containing brake blocks,
and investment in asbestos-free technology.
    As with the proposed regulatory action, this primary alternative
action would not apply to NASA's Super Guppy Turbine aircraft use.
    6. Primary alternative regulatory action for the disposal of
chrysotile asbestos-containing brake blocks in the oil industry;
aftermarket automotive chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/linings;
chrysotile asbestos-containing other vehicle friction products and
other chrysotile asbestos-containing gaskets.
    The primary alternative regulatory action would also require
regulated entities, upon disposal, to dispose of chrysotile asbestos-
containing brake blocks in the oil industry; chrysotile asbestos-
containing aftermarket automotive brakes/linings; other chrysotile
asbestos-containing vehicle friction products and other chrysotile
asbestos-containing gaskets in a manner consistent with the waste
disposal requirements described in the housekeeping provision
(1910.1001(k)(6)) of OSHA's Asbestos standard for general industry and
in conformance with the asbestos waste disposal requirements of the
Asbestos NESHAP at 40 CFR 61.150 and any other applicable and existing
law as may apply to the commercial disposal of chrysotile asbestos and
chrysotile asbestos-containing products or article. This requirement
would apply to any unused or end-of-use products for these uses.
    7. Other provisions of the primary alternative regulatory action.
    a. Prohibition on manufacture (including import), processing, and
distribution in commerce of aftermarket automotive chrysotile asbestos-
containing brakes/linings for consumer use and other chrysotile
asbestos-containing gaskets for consumer use:
    The primary alternative regulatory action would prohibit the
manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in
commerce of aftermarket automotive chrysotile asbestos-containing
brakes/linings for consumer use and of other asbestos-containing
gaskets for consumer use two years after the effective date of the
final rule. This additional amount of time from the proposed regulatory
option aligns with the compliance dates provided for commercial use of
these asbestos-containing articles. The rationale for this compliance
date is the same as provided in that earlier Unit.
    b. Downstream notification:
    EPA would require as part of the primary alternative regulatory
action under TSCA section 6(a)(3) that manufacturers (including
importers), processors, and distributors of chrysotile asbestos in bulk
form or as part of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-
alkali industry and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used
in chemical production provide notification of the prohibitions through
existing safety data sheets (SDS) by adding to sections 1(c) and 15 of
the SDS the following language: ``This chemical/item is not and cannot
be distributed in commerce (as defined in TSCA section 3(5)) or
processed (as defined in TSCA section 3(13)) for commercial and
consumer use after [prohibition date].''
    The requirement under the primary alternative regulatory action
would take effect 180 days after the effective date of the final rule
in order to provide adequate time to undertake the changes to the SDS
and ensure that all products in the supply chain include the revised
SDS.
    c. Primary alternative regulatory action for signage and labeling
requirements:
    EPA would also, pursuant to TSCA section 6(a)(3), require
processors, and commercial users of chrysotile asbestos in bulk form or
as part of chrysotile asbestos chlor-alkali diaphragms and chrysotile
asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used in chemical production to post
visible and clearly noticeable signs in the work area of the ECEL
value, compliance with any monitoring requirements, and worker
protection requirements in this rule. Such signs would be used where
any worker or ONU may be exposed to chrysotile asbestos and according
to the requirements for signage under 29 CFR 1910.1001(j)(4).

V. TSCA Section (c)(2) Considerations

    The following is EPA's statement of effects, as required by TSCA
section 6(c)(2)(A), with respect to this proposed rule as well as
discussions under TSCA section 6(c)(2)(D) about replacement parts and
under TSCA section 6(c)(2)(E) about articles.

A. Health Effects of Chrysotile Asbestos and the Magnitude of Human
Exposure to Chrysotile Asbestos

    EPA's analysis of the health effects of and magnitude of exposure
to chrysotile asbestos is in the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos Part 1:
Chrysotile Asbestos (Ref. 1). A summary is presented here. Many
authorities have established causal associations between asbestos
exposures and lung cancer and mesothelioma in humans based on
epidemiologic studies. EPA identified in the literature a causal
association between exposure to asbestos and cancer of the larynx and
cancer of the ovary and suggestive evidence of a positive association
between asbestos and cancer of the pharynx, stomach, and colorectum.
EPA also identified increases in lung cancer and mesothelioma mortality
in both workers and residents exposed to various

asbestos fiber types, including chrysotile asbestos, as well as fiber
mixtures. Mesothelioma tumors arise from the thin membranes that line
the chest and abdominal cavities and surround internal organs.
    Asbestos exposure is known to cause various non-cancer health
outcomes as well, including asbestosis, non-malignant respiratory
disease, deficits in pulmonary function, diffuse pleural thickening,
and pleural plaques. Various immunological and lymphoreticular effects
are suggested but not well-established.
    For the conditions of use that drive unreasonable risk, populations
exposed to chrysotile asbestos (including potentially exposed or
susceptible subpopulations) include workers, ONUs, consumer users, and
bystanders to consumers using products containing chrysotile asbestos.
For these conditions of use EPA estimates that, annually, at least 144
workers and 276 ONUs are exposed to chrysotile asbestos at over 31
commercial operations either processing or using products containing
chrysotile asbestos. Additional workers and ONUs are exposed to
oilfield brake blocks and may potentially be exposed to other vehicle
friction products and other gaskets. Each year, approximately 400
consumers are potentially exposed to asbestos through the use of
products containing chrysotile asbestos subject to this rule. The
number of exposed bystanders is unknown to EPA. The breakdown by
category of use is as follows:
     Diaphragms--100 workers and 100 ONUs at 9 sites;
     Sheet gasket stamping--4 workers and 8 ONUs at 4 sites;
     Sheet gasket use--22 workers and 150 ONUs at 5 sites;
     Oilfield brake blocks--Unknown;
     Aftermarket automotive brakes--15 workers and 15 ONUs at
12 sites;
     Other vehicle friction products--Unknown;
     Other gaskets--Unknown; and
     DIY mechanics--400 consumers and unknown bystanders.
    More information on the derivation of these estimates is provided
in the Economic Analysis for this rulemaking that can be found in the
rulemaking docket (Ref. 2).
    As discussed in Unit II.D., EPA did not evaluate hazards or
exposures to the general population in the Part 1 asbestos risk
evaluation.

B. Environmental Effects of Chrysotile Asbestos and the Magnitude of
Exposure of the Environment to Chrysotile Asbestos

    EPA's analysis of the environmental effects of and the magnitude of
exposure of the environment to chrysotile asbestos are in the Risk
Evaluation for Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos (Ref. 1). A summary
is presented here.
    Chrysotile asbestos may be released to the environment through
industrial or commercial activities, such as processing raw chrysotile
asbestos, fabricating/processing asbestos-containing products, or the
dispersing of friable chrysotile asbestos during use, disturbance and
disposal of asbestos-containing products.
    Although this action is focused on chrysotile asbestos fiber type,
some of the information in this section pertains to asbestos fibers in
general. Asbestos is a persistent mineral fiber that can be found in
soil, sediments, in the air and windblown dust, surface water, ground
water and biota. Asbestos fibers are largely chemically inert in the
environment. They may undergo minor physical changes, such as changes
in fiber length or leaching of surface minerals, but do not react or
dissolve in most environmental conditions.
    In water, chrysotile asbestos will eventually settle into sediments
(or possible biosolids) and can enter wastewater treatment plants.
EPA's review of aquatic vertebrate and invertebrate studies indicated
that chronic exposure to waterborne chrysotile asbestos at a
concentration range of 10\4\-10\8\ fibers/L, which is equivalent to
0.01 to 100 million fibers per liter (MFL), may result in reproductive,
growth and/or sublethal effects to fish and clams. In addition, acute
exposure of clams to waterborne chrysotile asbestos at a concentration
range of 10\2\-10\8\ fibers/L demonstrated reduced siphoning activity.
    EPA has determined that there are minimal or no releases of
asbestos to surface water associated with the conditions of use that
EPA evaluated in the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile
Asbestos and that are the subject of this action.

C. Benefits of Chrysotile Asbestos for Various Conditions of Use

    The only form of asbestos manufactured (including imported),
processed, or distributed for use in the United States today is
chrysotile asbestos. The United States Geological Survey (USGS)
estimated that 300 metric tons of raw chrysotile asbestos were imported
into the United States in 2020 (Ref. 3). This raw asbestos is used
exclusively by the chlor-alkali industry and imported amounts between
2016 and 2020 ranged from 172 to 747 metric tons during a given year
(Ref. 3).
    In addition to the use of raw imported chrysotile asbestos by the
chlor-alkali industry, EPA is also aware of imported asbestos-
containing products; however, the imported volumes of those products
are not fully known. The asbestos-containing products that EPA has
identified as potentially being imported and used are sheet gaskets
(which are imported in large sheets and cut to size domestically by a
fabricator), oilfield brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes/
linings, other vehicle friction products, and other gaskets. Chrysotile
asbestos is chemically inert, durable, and able to effectively separate
the anode and cathode chemicals in the electrolytic cells used in the
chlor-alkali process. Asbestos-containing gaskets have been used in
chemical production because they are resistant to cyclical high
temperatures and immense pressure. During the manufacture of titanium
dioxide, temperatures can exceed 1850 degrees Fahrenheit and pressures
can be greater than 50 pounds per square inch. The physical properties
of chrysotile asbestos including heat resistance make asbestos a useful
material for uses where friction is produced and extreme heat is
generated, including its application in brakes, gaskets and other
vehicle friction product uses considered in this proposed rule.

D. Replacement Parts Under TSCA Section 6(c)(2)(D)

    TSCA section 6(c)(2)(D) states that EPA shall exempt from TSCA
section 6(a) rules replacement parts for complex durable goods and
complex consumer goods that are designed prior to the publication of a
final risk management rule, unless such replacement parts contribute
significantly to the risk, identified in a risk evaluation conducted
under TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A), to the general population or to an
identified potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation. TSCA
section 6(c)(2)(D) defines complex consumer goods as electronic or
mechanical devices composed of multiple manufactured components, with
an intended useful life of three or more years, where the product is
typically not consumed, destroyed, or discarded after a single use, and
the components of which would be impracticable to redesign or replace.
The term ``complex durable goods'' means manufactured goods composed of
100 or more manufactured components,

with an intended useful life of five or more years, where the product
is typically not consumed, destroyed or discarded after a single use.
Several of the conditions of use addressed by this proposed rule impact
these replacement part categories. Aftermarket automotive brakes/
linings are replacement parts for automobiles and other vehicles. Other
asbestos-containing gaskets may be available as both new and
replacement parts on utility and other vehicles. Oilfield brake blocks
are replacement parts for the drilling rigs used in the oil industry.
These vehicles and drilling rigs are composed of numerous components,
manufactured separately and assembled together into a machine designed
for a useful life of at least three years if properly maintained. By
their nature, EPA believes these meet the TSCA definition of complex
durable goods. In the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile
Asbestos, however, EPA found unreasonable risk from use and disposal of
chrysotile asbestos-containing brake blocks in the oil industry;
aftermarket automotive chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/linings;
and other asbestos-containing gaskets. EPA's risk evaluation evaluated
scenarios involving these replacement parts, and EPA proposes to find
that the replacement parts contribute significantly to the identified
unreasonable risk for these conditions of use to the potentially
exposed or susceptible subpopulations identified in the risk
evaluation.
    Accordingly, EPA is not exempting replacement parts from regulation
in the proposed rule.

E. Article Considerations Under TSCA Section 6(c)(2)(E)

    EPA is proposing to regulate the manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of articles containing chrysotile asbestos.
TSCA section 6(c)(2)(E) states that in selecting among prohibitions and
other restrictions, the Administrator shall apply such prohibitions or
other restrictions to an article or category of articles containing the
chemical substance or mixture only to the extent necessary to address
the identified risks from exposure to the chemical substance or mixture
from the article or category of articles so that the substance or
mixture does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment identified in the risk evaluation conducted in
accordance with section 6(b)(4)(A). TSCA does not define ``article,''
but based on the proposed definition of ``article'' in the proposed
rule, the conditions of use subject to this proposed regulation include
articles, e.g., sheet gaskets, brake blocks, brake/linings, other
gaskets and other vehicle friction products.
    Except for bulk chrysotile asbestos imported for use in asbestos
diaphragms, all of the other conditions of use that are the subject of
this proposed regulation involve the use and/or disposal of products or
articles containing chrysotile asbestos. For each condition of use, the
article is subject to circumstances during use that change or alter the
article as a direct result of the use. Releases of chrysotile asbestos,
and the associated unreasonable risks from exposure to chrysotile
asbestos identified in the risk evaluation, result from use of the
articles. The articles themselves include sheet gaskets, other gaskets,
brake blocks, brakes and linings, which wear down during use and
release asbestos fibers. The risk evaluation determined that exposure
to workers, ONUs, consumers and bystanders can occur when these items
are replaced or repaired, resulting in harmful exposures. These
identified risks from articles containing asbestos could result from
exposure of any kind and, as a result, EPA had no feasible option to
prevent these risks other than a complete prohibition. In particular,
no other restriction EPA researched could sufficiently prevent
unreasonable risk to ONUs, consumers, and bystanders who were not
expected to wear respiratory protection. Accordingly, EPA's proposed
regulatory action sets requirements for articles only to the extent
necessary to address the identified risks from exposure to chrysotile
asbestos from the article so that chrysotile asbestos does not present
an unreasonable risk to health.

F. Reasonably Ascertainable Economic Consequences of the Rule

    The reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of this rule
include several components, all of which are described in the economic
analysis for this proposed rule and summarized here (Ref. 2).
    1. Likely effect of the rule on the national economy, small
business, technological innovation, the environment, and public health.
    With respect to the anticipated effects of this rule on the
national economy, the economic impact of a regulation on the national
economy generally only becomes measurable if the economic impact of the
regulation reaches 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP). Given the current GDP of $23.17 trillion, this is
equivalent to a cost of $58 billion to $116 billion which is
considerably higher than the estimated cost of this rule. EPA
considered the number of businesses and workers that would be affected
and the costs and benefits to those businesses and workers and society
at large and did not find that there would be a measurable effect on
the national economy. In addition, EPA considered the employment
impacts of this proposal. While EPA assumes that chlor-alkali plants
currently using asbestos diaphragms will convert to non-asbestos
technologies, some facilities may choose not to do so before the
effective prohibition date in the proposed rule. As a result, the rule
may result in plant closures and job losses, at least temporarily, at
some chlor-alkali plants as well as at facilities that use chlorine,
caustic soda, or their derivatives as intermediates. There may be
similar employment effects at chemical plants using asbestos gaskets.
However, there may also be increased temporary employment associated
with new construction as firms convert their facilities to replace
asbestos diaphragms and asbestos gaskets with substitute technologies.
There may also be increases in employment at facilities that currently
use asbestos-free technologies (Ref. 2).
    EPA has determined that the rule will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities; EPA estimates that the rule
would affect at least 15 small entities, of which 12 are businesses
supplying aftermarket brakes incurring costs between $778 and $11,523
per firm (depending on the number of brake replacements they perform).
Nine of the brake replacement firms have a cost impact of less than 1%
of the annual revenue. Of the three small entities estimated to be
affected by the rule that are not supplying aftermarket brakes, two
manufacture sheet gaskets for chemical production and one imports
oilfield brake blocks. EPA did not have the information necessary to
estimate the cost impacts on the other three small entities (Ref. 2).
    The uses of asbestos subject to the rule are all in mature
industries and the amount of asbestos consumed in them has been
declining for some time. There is no evidence of innovative
applications of asbestos in these uses in recent years, nor is there
any expectation that such innovations would occur in the future in the
absence of a prohibition on these uses of asbestos.
    The effects of this rule on public health are estimated to be
positive, due to the avoided incidence of adverse health effects
attributable to asbestos exposure, including lung cancer, mesothelioma,
and cancers of the larynx

and ovary (Ref. 2). Despite the uncertainties about possible greater
use and release of PFAS discussed in Unit III.B.4.a, EPA believes the
benefits of removing chrysotile asbestos, a known human carcinogen that
causes an aggressive and deadly cancer (mesothelioma), from continued
use in the United States, are significant enough to outweigh the
potential additional exposure to PFAS that might result from this
action.
    Converting chlor-alkali diaphragm cells to membrane cells reduces
electricity consumption and thus the level of air pollution associated
with electric power generation. This reduction in air pollution would
provide environmental benefits as well as health benefits (Ref. 2).
    2. Costs and benefits of the proposed regulatory action and of the
primary alternative regulatory actions considered by the Administrator.
    a. Proposed regulatory action:
    EPA was able to quantify the costs of the proposed regulatory
action to the chlor-alkali industry and the aftermarket automotive
brake industry. For the chlor-alkali industry, the proposed rule is
predicted to require an investment of approximately $1.8 billion to
convert the remaining plants with asbestos diaphragm cells to membrane
cell technology. That conversion would result in significant energy
savings that would accrue over the long run. EPA anticipates that most
of these conversions would occur in the baseline in the coming decades
even without the proposed rule, following existing trends in the chlor-
alkali industry to transition away from asbestos. When taking the
capital costs and energy savings into account over a 20-year period,
the proposed rule is estimated to result in incremental annualized net
costs to the chlor-alkali industry of $49 million per year using a 3
percent discount rate and $87 million per year using a 7 percent
discount rate. Membrane cells also produce a higher grade of caustic
soda that has historically commanded a higher price than the product
from diaphragm cells. If this price differential continues, converting
to membrane cells could generate incremental net annualized savings of
approximately $35 million per year using a 3% discount rate and about
$40,000 per year using a 7% discount rate, when considered over a 20-
year period.
    The extent to which the higher grade of caustic soda will continue
to command a higher relative price when produced in larger quantities
depends on the elasticity of demand for the higher-grade product. EPA
lacks sufficient information to characterize the demand curve for
chlor-alkali products, including higher grade caustic soda. If the
caustic soda price differential declines but is still greater than
zero, then the incremental annualize net costs to the chlor-alkali
industry will fall between these estimates. The proposed rule would
result in total annualized costs for aftermarket automotive brakes
estimated at approximately $25,000 per year using a 3% discount rate
and $18,000 per year using a 7% discount rate.
    EPA was unable to estimate the costs of prohibiting the commercial
use of asbestos for other products that are subject to the rule (sheet
gaskets used in chemical production, oilfield brake blocks, other
vehicle friction products, or other gaskets). EPA requests comment on
the costs of the rule for each of these use categories.
    If there is no revenue gain from the higher grade of caustic soda
produced, the combined quantified annualized costs of the rule for the
chlor-alkali and aftermarket automotive brake industries would be
approximately $49 million per year and $87 million per year using a 3
percent and 7 percent discount rate, respectively. If there is a
revenue gain from caustic soda, the net quantified savings could be
approximately $35 million per year and $27,000 per year using a 3
percent and 7 percent discount rate, respectively. Because the costs of
prohibiting the commercial use of asbestos in sheet gaskets, oilfield
brake blocks, other friction products, and other gaskets could not be
quantified, these combined values are an upper bound estimate of total
cost savings and a lower bound estimate of total costs (Ref. 2).
    The combined national quantified benefits of avoided cancer cases
are approximately $3,000 per year using a 3% discount rate and $1,200
per year using a 7% discount rate. These reflect the benefits related
to the rule's requirements for chlor-alkali diaphragms, sheet gaskets
for chemical production, and aftermarket brakes. EPA did not estimate
total benefits of the requirements for oilfield brake blocks, other
vehicle friction products or other gaskets because the Agency did not
have sufficient information on the number of individuals likely to be
affected by the rule.
    In addition to the quantified benefits of avoided cancer cases
associated with asbestos exposure, the proposed rule may generate
significant benefits from reduced air pollution associated with
electricity generation. Chlor-alkali production is one of the most
energy-intensive industrial operations. According to the U.S.
Department of Energy the industry consumed approximately 317 trillion
Btu per year as of 2004, amounting to approximately 2% of the total
electric power used in the United States (Ref. 21). Since membrane
cells are more energy efficient than diaphragm cells, converting to
membrane cells reduces electricity consumption and thus the level of
pollutants associated with electric power generation, including carbon
dioxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. There
is uncertainty about the magnitude and location of these emission
reductions. EPA's economic analysis used a simplifying assumption that
the electric power used by chlor-alkali plants is all purchased from
commercial electric generating units. EPA then used information on
regional electricity markets to estimate how changes in electricity
demand would affect emissions of greenhouses gases and criteria air
pollutants. EPA performed this sensitivity screening-level analysis
which found that converting asbestos diaphragm plants to membrane cells
could yield tens of millions of dollars per year in environmental and
health benefits from reduced emissions of particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide (Ref. 2). Please see
Chapter 4, Section 4.4 of the economic analysis for more discussion.
EPA estimated the potential health and environmental benefits of
reduced emissions of carbon dioxide using the federal government's
interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases. EPA does not
rely on the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases as
a record basis for this Agency action, and the Agency would propose the
same conclusion regarding the requirements of this proposed rule even
in the absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases.
    b. Primary alternative regulatory action:
    Under the primary alternative action, the capital investment needed
to convert chlor-alkali plants to membrane cells would be spread out
over five years instead of two, but the energy savings and any revenue
gains from producing a higher grade of caustic soda would accrue more
slowly as well. The total annualized costs to the chlor-alkali industry
of the additional requirements for compliance with the ECEL as well as
disposal, downstream notification, and recordkeeping requirements are
estimated to be approximately $103,000 per year using a 3% discount
rate and $127,000 per year using a 7% discount rate, assuming the
industry relies solely on the use of upgraded PPE to comply

with the ECEL. If there are no revenue gains from caustic soda, the
total 20-year annualized incremental net costs of all the requirements
for the chlor-alkali industry would be $48 million per year and $77
million per year using a 3% and 7% discount rate, respectively. If the
higher grade of caustic soda generates increased revenues, the chlor-
alkali industry could have an overall annualized incremental net
savings over 20 years of $27 million per year using a 3% discount rate;
using a 7% discount rate, the industry is predicted to incur an
annualized net cost of $4 million per year.
    The total annualized costs of the alternative option for
aftermarket automotive brakes are estimated at approximately $24,000
per year using a 3% discount rate and $16,000 per year using a 7%
discount rate, which are similar to the costs of the proposed option
($25,000 per year using a 3% discount rate and $18,000 using a 7%
discount rate).
    EPA was not able to estimate the costs of prohibiting the use of
asbestos sheet gaskets for chemical production. The total annualized
cost of the other requirements for this industry (ECEL, disposal,
downstream notification, and recordkeeping requirements) is estimated
to be approximately $230,000 per year using a 3% discount rate and
$285,000 per year using a 7% discount rate (assuming that the industry
relies solely on PPE to comply with the ECEL).
    For the remaining use categories (oilfield brake blocks, other
vehicle friction products, and other gaskets), EPA was unable to
estimate the costs of prohibiting the manufacturing, processing,
distribution or commercial use of asbestos, disposal, downstream
notification, or recordkeeping requirements, as the Agency was unable
to estimate the number of affected sites.
    The combined quantified incremental annualized costs of the
alternative option for the chlor-alkali, aftermarket automotive brake,
and sheet gasket industries would be approximately $48 million per year
and $78 million per year using a 3% and 7% discount rate, respectively,
if there is no revenue gain from the higher grade of caustic soda
produced. If there is a revenue gain from producing a higher grade of
caustic soda, the alternative option could result in combined
quantified savings of approximately $26 million per year using a 3%
discount rate but combined quantified costs of approximately $4 million
per year using a 7% discount rate. Because the costs of prohibiting the
use of asbestos in sheet gaskets could not be calculated, nor any of
the costs for oilfield brake blocks, other friction products, and other
gaskets, these combined values are an upper bound estimate of total
savings and a lower bound estimate of total costs.
    The combined national quantified benefits of avoided cancer cases
under the alternative option are approximately $2,900 per year using a
3% discount rate and $1,100 per year using a 7% discount rate. These
reflect the benefits related to the rule's requirements for chlor-
alkali diaphragms, sheet gaskets for chemical production, and
aftermarket brakes. EPA did not estimate total benefits of the
requirements for oilfield brake blocks, other vehicle friction products
or other gaskets because the Agency did not have sufficient information
on the number of individuals likely to be affected by the rule. As is
the case with the proposed option, converting asbestos diaphragm plants
to membrane cells could yield tens of millions of dollars per year in
environmental and health benefits from reduced criteria air pollution
and CO2 emissions due to decreased electricity consumption
and production (Ref. 2).
    3. Cost effectiveness of the proposed regulatory action and primary
alternative regulatory actions considered by the Administrator.
    For the COUs where EPA determined that chrysotile asbestos presents
an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, both the
proposed option and the alternative option reduce unreasonable risks to
the extent necessary such that risk is no longer presented. In
achieving this result, however, the estimated costs of the proposed
option and the alternative option differ as described in Unit V.F. The
costs of achieving the desired outcome via the proposed option or the
alternative option can be compared to evaluate cost-effectiveness. The
cost-effectiveness of the options depends on whether and to what extent
the higher grade of caustic soda produced by membrane cells generates
increased revenues for chlor-alkali manufacturers. If the revenues from
caustic soda do increase, the proposed option results in estimated
annualized cost savings of about $35 million per year using a 3%
discount rate or about $27,000 using a 7% rate. The alternative option
is estimated to result in annualized savings of about $26 million per
year using a 3% discount rate or annualized costs of about $4 million
per year using a 7% rate. In this revenue increasing scenario the
proposed option will be more cost effective in addressing the
unreasonable risk. If there is no increase in revenues, the estimated
annualized costs of the proposed rule are about $49 million per year
using a 3% discount rate or about $87 million per year using a 7% rate.
The estimated annualized costs of the alternative option are about $48
million per year using a 3% discount rate or about $78 million per year
using a 7% rate. In this revenue neutral scenario the alternative
option will be more cost effective in addressing the unreasonable risk.
In the latter scenario, the difference in annualized costs between the
options is largely due to the differences in their effective dates.
This is because costs that occur farther in the future have smaller net
present values and annualized values than the same costs that occur
sooner. The dates when the manufacture (including import), processing,
distribution in commerce and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos are
prohibited occur later under the alternative option than under the
proposed option. The differences in the annualized costs are mainly due
to discounting and are not driven by differences in the estimated unit
costs of compliance between the two options.
    4. Request for comment on economic analysis.
    EPA's economic analysis used a simplifying assumption that the
electric power used by chlor-alkali plants is all purchased from
commercial electric generating units. EPA then used information on
regional electricity markets to estimate how changes in electricity
demand would affect emissions of greenhouses gases and criteria air
pollutants. EPA requests comment on this assumption and approach to
estimating emissions reductions. EPA further requests information on
how much of the electric power for the chlor-alkali plants affected by
this rule is purchased from commercial electric generating units and
where these units are located; how much power is provided by on-site
co-generation units; what fuels are used by both types of power
sources; and how the mix of electricity sources and fuel types would be
affected by a conversion to membrane cells or non-asbestos diaphragms.
EPA also requests comment on the extent to which the power produced by
these co-generation units is sold or exported, as well as the extent to
which the electricity or heat produced is used on-site to produce goods
other than chlorine or caustic soda (e.g., ethylene dichloride, vinyl
chloride monomer, chlorinated organics, etc.).
    The chlor-alkali production occurs in three steps: Pre-electrolysis
brine preparation, electrolysis, and post-electrolysis after-treatment
of the chlorine and caustic soda. EPA estimated the net cost of
converting

from asbestos diaphragms to membranes or non-asbestos diaphragms based
on the capital costs of the conversion, the electricity savings of the
electrolysis step, and the potential for increased revenue from a
higher grade of caustic soda. EPA requests comment on the methodology
and data it used to estimate these values.
    EPA estimated the cost to convert asbestos diaphragm cell chlor-
alkali capacity to membrane technology based on the average cost per
ton from two different studies, a 2001 paper by Stanley and a 2014
study by the European Commission. EPA requests comment on reasons why
using the information from one or the other study might predict the
costs of this rule more accurately than using the average of the two.
EPA requests that commenters identify whether there are more recent
published studies that would be appropriate for estimating the
conversion costs from asbestos diaphragms to non-asbestos diaphragms or
membrane cells. EPA also requests data on other capital costs or
savings associated with the conversion (e.g., the avoidance of
refurbishment costs for existing asbestos diaphragm cells).
    Brine preparation and the treatment of the chlorine and caustic
soda require electricity, steam, and chemical inputs. The different
production technologies can require different amounts of these inputs
at various steps in the production process. EPA requests data on the
positive and negative differences in operating costs per unit of output
and energy use per unit of output between asbestos diaphragms,
membranes, and non-asbestos diaphragms, specific to each of the various
input processing, electrolysis, and output processing steps.
    EPA estimated the energy savings and potential revenue gains of the
rule for the chlor-alkali industry based on a capacity utilization rate
of 88%, which reflects a typical operating rate for the industry in
recent years. EPA requests comment on whether an alternative value
would better represent a typical operating rate over the twenty-year
analytical timeframe used in EPA's analysis.
    EPA requests information relevant to determining whether increased
costs for chlorine and caustic soda that may result from the rule would
lead to disproportionate or adverse effects on water systems that serve
populations with a higher concentration of people of color or lower
incomes than the total U.S. population.
    EPA requests comment on its analyses of the number of affected
firms for the sheet gasket for chemical production, oilfield brake
block, aftermarket automotive brake, other gasket, and other vehicle
friction use categories and the costs they would incur as a result of
the proposed rule, as well as information that the Agency could use to
improve these estimates.

VI. TSCA Section 9 Analysis and Section 26(h) Considerations

A. TSCA Section 9(a) Analysis

    Section 9(a) of TSCA provides that, if the Administrator determines
in the Administrator's discretion that an unreasonable risk may be
prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent by an action taken under a
Federal law not administered by EPA, the Administrator must submit a
report to the agency administering that other law that describes the
risk and the activities that present such risk. Section 9(a) describes
additional procedures and requirements to be followed by EPA and the
other federal agency after submission of the report. As discussed in
this Unit, the Administrator does not determine that unreasonable risk
from the conditions of use of chrysotile asbestos may be prevented or
reduced to a sufficient extent by an action taken under a Federal law
not administered by EPA.
    TSCA section 9(d) instructs the Administrator to consult and
coordinate TSCA activities with other Federal agencies for the purpose
of achieving the maximum enforcement of TSCA while imposing the least
burden of duplicative requirements. For this proposed rule, EPA has
consulted with other appropriate Federal executive departments and
agencies including OSHA and NIOSH.
    OSHA requires that employers provide safe and healthful working
conditions by setting and enforcing standards and by providing
training, outreach, education and assistance. OSHA has three separate
health standards for asbestos covering employers in General Industry
(29 CFR 1910.1001); Shipyards (29 CFR 1915.1001); and Construction (29
CFR 1926.1101). These standards include a permissible exposure limit
(PEL) for asbestos of 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter (cc) of air as an
eight-hour time weighted average (TWA), and an excursion limit of 1.0
asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter over a 30-minute period. The
standards apply to all occupational exposures to asbestos and require
exposure monitoring to determine employee exposure. Exposure monitoring
includes both initial monitoring of employees who are, or may
reasonably be expected to be, exposed to airborne concentrations at or
above the TWA PEL or excursion limit, as well as additional monitoring.
Monitoring frequency depends on work classification exposure while
additional monitoring may be required based on changes in the workplace
environment that may result in new or additional exposures above the
TWA PEL or excursion limit.
    This proposed rule addresses risk from exposure to chrysotile
asbestos in both workplace and consumer settings (e.g., do-it-yourself
automobile maintenance). With the exception of TSCA, there is no
Federal law that provides authority to prevent or sufficiently reduce
these cross-cutting exposures. No other Federal regulatory agency can
evaluate and address the totality of the risk that EPA is addressing in
this proposal. For example, OSHA may set exposure limits for workers
but its authority is limited to the workplace and does not extend to
consumer uses of hazardous chemicals (while EPA does not regulate
consumer use directly under TSCA 6(a)(5), it has authority to regulate
the upstream supply of chemicals for consumer uses). Further, OSHA does
not have direct authority over state and local employees, and it has no
authority at all over the working conditions of state and local
employees in states that have no OSHA-approved State Plan under 29
U.S.C. 667. CPSC is charged with protecting the public from
unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with the use of the
thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's
jurisdiction, CPSC has the authority to regulate chrysotile asbestos in
such consumer products, but not in automobiles, trucks and motorcycles,
which are not under its jurisdiction.
    Moreover, the 2016 amendments to TSCA, Public Law 114-182, alter
both the manner of identifying unreasonable risk under TSCA and EPA's
authority to address unreasonable risk under TSCA, such that risk
management under TSCA is increasingly distinct from analogous
provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), the Federal
Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), or the OSH Act. These changes to TSCA
reduce the likelihood that an action under the CPSA, FHSA, or the OSH
Act would sufficiently prevent or reduce the unreasonable risk of
chrysotile asbestos. In a TSCA section 6 rule, following an
unreasonable risk determination, EPA must apply risk management
requirements to the extent necessary so that the chemical no longer
presents unreasonable risk and only consider costs to the extent
practicable, 15 U.S.C. 2605(a), (c)(2), subject to time-limited
conditional exemptions, 15 U.S.C.

2605(g). By contrast, a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA
must include a finding that ``the benefits expected from the rule bear
a reasonable relationship to its costs.'' 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3)(E).
Additionally, the 2016 amendments to TSCA reflect Congressional intent
to ``delete the paralyzing `least burdensome' requirement,'' 162 Cong.
Rec. S3517 (June 7, 2016), a reference to TSCA section 6(a) as
originally enacted, which required EPA to use ``the least burdensome
requirements'' that protect ``adequately'' against unreasonable risk,
15 U.S.C. 2605(a) (1976). However, a consumer product safety rule under
the CPSA must impose ``the least burdensome requirement which prevents
or adequately reduces the risk of injury for which the rule is being
promulgated.'' 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3)(F). Analogous requirements, also at
variance with recent revisions to TSCA, affect the availability of
action CPSC may take under the FHSA relative to action EPA may take
under TSCA. 15 U.S.C. 1262. Gaps also exist between OSHA's authority to
set workplace standards under the OSH Act and EPA's obligations to
sufficiently address chemical risks under TSCA. To set PELs for
chemical exposure, OSHA must first establish that the new standards are
economically feasible and technologically feasible. 79 FR 61387 (2014).
But under TSCA, EPA's substantive burden under TSCA section 6(a) is to
demonstrate that, as regulated, the chemical substance no longer
presents an unreasonable risk, with unreasonable risk being determined
under TSCA section 6(b)(4).
    EPA therefore concludes that: TSCA is the only regulatory authority
able to prevent or reduce risks of chrysotile asbestos to a sufficient
extent across the range of conditions of use, exposures and populations
of concern; these risks can be addressed in a more coordinated,
efficient and effective manner under TSCA than under different laws
implemented by different agencies, and there are key differences
between the finding requirements of TSCA and those of the OSH Act. For
these reasons, in the Administrator's discretion, the Administrator
does not determine that unreasonable risk from the conditions of use of
chrysotile asbestos may be prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent
by an action taken under a Federal law not administered by EPA.

B. TSCA Section 9(b) Analysis

    If EPA determines that actions under other Federal laws
administered in whole or in part by EPA could eliminate or sufficiently
reduce a risk to health or the environment, section 9(b) of TSCA
instructs EPA to use these other authorities unless the Administrator
determines in the Administrator's discretion that it is in the public
interest to protect against such risk under TSCA. In making such a
public interest finding, TSCA section 9(b)(2) states: ``the
Administrator shall consider, based on information reasonably available
to the Administrator, all relevant aspects of the risk . . . and a
comparison of the estimated costs and efficiencies of the action to be
taken under this title and an action to be taken under such other law
to protect against such risk.''
    Although several EPA statutes have been used to limit chrysotile
asbestos exposure (Unit II.B.1), regulations under those EPA statutes
have limitations because they largely regulate releases to the
environment, rather than direct human exposure. CAA generally focuses
on releases of asbestos to the ambient air. Under RCRA Subtitle D, the
disposal of chrysotile asbestos is regulated as a non-hazardous solid
waste; RCRA does not address exposures during manufacturing,
processing, distribution and use of products containing chrysotile
asbestos. Only TSCA provides EPA the authority to regulate the
manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce,
commercial use and commercial disposal of chemicals substances to be
able to address chrysotile asbestos direct exposure to humans.
    For these reasons, the Administrator does not determine that
unreasonable risk from the conditions of use of chrysotile asbestos
could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by actions taken
under other Federal laws administered in whole or in part by EPA.

C. TSCA Section 26(h) Considerations

    In accordance with TSCA section 26(h), EPA has used scientific
information, technical procedures, measures, methods, protocols,
methodologies, and models consistent with the best available science.
The unreasonable risk determination was based on a risk evaluation,
which was subject to peer review and public comment, was developed in a
manner consistent with the best available science and based on the
weight of the scientific evidence as required by TSCA sections 26(h)
and 40 CFR 702.43 and 702.45. The extent to which the various
information, procedures, measures, methods, protocols, methodologies or
models, as applicable, used in EPA's decision have been subject to
independent verification or peer review is adequate to justify their
use, collectively, in the record for this rule. Additional information
on the peer review and public comment process, such as the peer review
plan, the peer review report, and the Agency's response to comments,
can be found at EPA's risk evaluation docket at EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0501
(Ref. 23).

VII. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents referenced
within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the
referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. EPA. Risk Evaluation for Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos.
December 2020. (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0501-0117).
2. EPA. Economic Analysis of the TSCA Section 6 Proposed Rule for
Asbestos Risk Management, Part 1. April 2022.
3. U.S. Geological Survey. (2021). Mineral commodity summaries 2021:
U.S. Geological Survey, https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2021.
4. Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2021). Prohibitions of
Asbestos and Products Containing Asbestos Regulations (SOR/2019-
196). https://pollution-waste.canada.ca/environmental-protection-registry/regulations/view?Id=150. Accessed August 31, 2021.
5. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. Permissible Exposure Limits--Annotated Tables.
www.osha.gov/annotated-pels. Accessed August 31, 2021.
6. EPA. Problem Formulation for the Risk Evaluation of Asbestos. May
2018. (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0736-0131). https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0736-0131.
7. EPA. Section 6(a) Rulemakings under the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) Chrysotile Asbestos Rulemakings E.O. 13132: Federalism
Consultation. May 13, 2021.
8. EPA. Notification of Consultation and Coordination on Proposed
Rulemakings under the Toxic Substances Control Act for Asbestos Part
1: Chrysotile Asbestos. May 24, and June 3, 2021. Tribal
Consultation.
9. Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. Comments submitted at
the Environmental Justice Webinar. June 1, 2021.
10. EPA. Part 1. Asbestos (Chrysotile) Public Webinar Slides.
February 3, 2021.
11. EPA. Meeting with Environment and Climate Change Canada on Risk
Management under TSCA section 6, Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile
Asbestos. February 26, 2021.

12. EPA. Email Exchange with Mobis and EPA on the presence of
Asbestos in its Brake and Friction Products. March to June, 2021.
13. EPA. Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL) for Occupational
Use of Chrysotile Asbestos. March 2, 2021.
14. EPA. Meeting with Chemours Corporation on Risk Management under
TSCA section 6, Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos. March 29,
2021.
15. EPA. Meeting with Olin Corporation on Risk Management under TSCA
section 6, Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos. June 2, 2021.
16. EPA. Meeting with Oxychem Corporation on Risk Management under
TSCA section 6, Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos. May 27, 2021.
17. EPA. Meeting with Westlake Corporation on Risk Management under
TSCA section 6, Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos. May 20, 2021.
18. Westlake Corporation. Comments submitted to EPA on Axiall/
Westlake use of asbestos for diaphragms in chlor-alkali facility.
May 22, 2018.
19. Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. (2019). ADAO Chlor-
Alkali Industry Report. https://www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ADAO-ChlorAlkali-Industry-Report.pdf.
Accessed on June 1, 2021.
20. EPA. Meeting and Correspondence with The Chlorine Institute on
Risk Evaluation and Risk Management for Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos.
June 30, 2021.
21. EPA. Email Correspondence with Oilfield Industry concerning use
of Chrysotile Asbestos in Brake Blocks. April through June, 2021.
22. U.S. Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Industrial Technologies Program. (2006). Zero-Gap Membrane Chlor-
Alkali Cells with Oxygen-Depolarized Cathodes Achieved Energy
Savings of 32%. https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/industries_technologies/imf/pdfs/1797_advanced_chlor-alkali.pdf.
Accessed on November 1, 2021.
23. EPA. Summary of External Peer Review and Public Comments and
Disposition for Chrysotile Asbestos. May, 2020 (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-
0501).
24. EPA. Information Collection Request (ICR) for the Regulation of
Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos under TSCA Section 6(a) (Proposed Rule).
EPA ICR No. 2707.01 and OMB No. 2070-[NEW].
25. EPA. Environmental Justice Consultation on Forthcoming Proposed
Rulemakings under TSCA Section 6(a). May 12, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/chemicals-under-tsca/epa-announces-environmental-justice-consultations-risk-management-0.
26. Office of Management and Budget. Memorandum for the Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies (M-95-09). Guidance for
Implementing Title II of S. 1. March 31, 1995. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/1995-1998/m95-09.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2021.
27. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Hierarchy
of Controls. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hierarchy/default.html. Accessed December 10, 2021.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is an economically significant regulatory action that
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Any changes made
in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.
EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action, which is available in the docket and
summarized in Unit IV.D (Ref. 2).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted to OMB for review and comment under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA has been assigned the EPA
ICR number 2707.01 (Ref. 24), and it is briefly summarized here.
    The information collection activities required under the proposed
rule include recordkeeping requirements. The proposed rule does not
include any reporting requirements or any third-party notification
requirements, nor does it include any certification requirements that
would substitute for a collection of information to collect evidence
of, or to monitor, compliance with regulatory standards. As explained
in Unit IV.A.4.b and specified at proposed section 751.X11, companies
that manufacture (including import), process, distribute in commerce
and use chrysotile asbestos would be required to retain certain
information at the company headquarters for five years from the date of
generation. These information collection activities are necessary to
provide EPA with information upon inspection. EPA believes that these
information collection activities would not significantly impact the
regulated entities. As further explained in the ICR document:
     Four chemical manufacturers that use sheet gaskets and 12
companies installing aftermarket automotive brakes are estimated to
incur additional recordkeeping costs associated with their disposal
activities. Each firm is predicted to incur a burden of approximately
4.4 hours. The aftermarket automotive brake installers incur this
burden for one year, and the chemical manufacturers using sheet gaskets
incur it for two years.
     For the remaining industry sectors and recordkeeping
activities required by the rule, records that comply with the
requirements are assumed to already be maintained as part of ordinary
business records. Therefore, EPA estimates that such respondents would
incur no additional incremental paperwork burdens due to the rule.
    Respondents/affected entities: Chrysotile asbestos manufacturers
(including importers), processors, and distributors.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 16.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 29 hours per year. Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,166 per year.
    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. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this proposed rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using
the interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than May
12, 2022. EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities

under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The small entities subject to the
requirements of this action manufacture (including import), process,
distribute in commerce and use chrysotile asbestos in the conditions of
use covered by this proposed rule. EPA estimates that the proposed rule
would affect at least 15 small entities, of which 12 are businesses
supplying aftermarket brakes incurring costs between $778 and $11,523
per firm (depending on the number of brake replacements they perform).
Nine of the brake replacement firms have a cost impact of less than 1%
of their annual revenue. Of the three small entities estimated to be
affected by the rule that are not supplying aftermarket brakes, two
manufacture sheet gaskets for chemical production and one imports
oilfield brake blocks. EPA did not have the information necessary to
estimate the cost impacts on the other three small entities. The
available information about the magnitude of the small entity impacts
for each use category are summarized below:
    Chlor-alkali plants: None of the three affected firms are small
businesses.
    Sheet gasket manufacturing for chemical production: EPA does not
have the information to calculate the costs of the rule to small
businesses in this sector, so small business impacts have not been
estimated. EPA requests comment on the costs of the rule to firms
currently manufacturing asbestos sheet gaskets for chemical production.
    EPA is aware of one small business that manufactures sheet gaskets
containing asbestos for chemical production, and the Agency assumes
that there may be a second small business engaged in this activity.
While EPA lacks the information to estimate the compliance cost and the
resulting impact on firms in this sector, the one firm EPA is aware of
sells a diverse line of products (including non-asbestos gaskets and
many products other than gaskets) serving several different industries,
and it operates several sites that do not manufacture gaskets
containing asbestos. This suggests that asbestos-containing gaskets are
not a primary source of revenue for the firm. EPA assumes that if there
is another manufacturer of asbestos gaskets, that it also sells non-
asbestos gaskets. Since asbestos gaskets are such a niche portion of
the gasket industry, EPA believes this is a reasonable assumption. If
the customers using gaskets containing asbestos are able to convert
entirely to asbestos-free gaskets, the affected gasket manufacturers
could likely provide the substitute products. These customers consist
of chemical manufacturers that are all large businesses as far as EPA
is aware. To the extent that asbestos-free gaskets do not last as long
as those containing asbestos, the proposed rule could increase revenues
for the affected gasket manufacturers. A less durable product might be
less profitable for the customers, but selling a product that has to be
replaced more often could increase revenues for the suppliers.
    Sheet gasket end users (chemical production): None of the 4 firms
known to be affected are small businesses. It is possible there may be
other unknown small businesses that may be affected.
    Oilfield brake block importer: EPA does not have the information to
calculate the costs of the rule to small businesses in this sector, so
small business impacts have not been estimated. EPA requests comment on
the costs of the rule to firms supplying oilfield brake blocks.
    There is one firm known to import and distribute oilfield brake
blocks containing asbestos and it is a small business. While EPA was
not able to estimate the compliance cost and its impact on this firm,
if the customers (which may include other small businesses) with older
drilling rigs currently using brake blocks containing asbestos continue
to use those rigs, the importer could likely provide the asbestos-free
brake blocks used as substitutes. To the extent that asbestos-free
brake blocks are more expensive and do not last as long as those
containing asbestos, the proposed rule could increase revenues for the
affected brake block importer. A less durable product might be less
profitable for the customers, but selling a product that has to be
replaced more often could increase revenues for the importer.
    Oilfield brake block--end users: EPA has not identified any small
businesses using oilfield brake blocks containing asbestos. If there
are such small businesses, EPA does not have the information needed to
calculate the costs of the rule to them. EPA requests comment on
whether there are small businesses using oilfield brake blocks
containing asbestos, and if so, what the costs of the rule to them
would be. Industry sources have indicated that the use of asbestos-
containing brake blocks has declined over time because the type of
drilling rigs that use them have been replaced by equipment that does
not require the use of brake blocks containing asbestos, or that do not
use brake blocks at all. Since there is only one known importer and it
is small, there are likely few companies still using asbestos-
containing brake blocks.
    Aftermarket automotive brakes: Twelve firms are estimated to be
affected by the proposed rule, and all of them are assumed to be small
businesses. As described in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 2), brakes
containing asbestos are estimated to have a very small share (0.002%)
of the total market, and the cost impact of the rule is modest
(estimated to range between $800 and $12,000 per establishment based on
an incremental cost of $4 per brake and annual recordkeeping costs of
approximately $178). It is expected that the affected firms would pass
the higher cost of non-asbestos brakes on to their customers, who may
include other small businesses. EPA did not estimate any costs for
these businesses associated with finding suppliers of non-asbestos
brakes because EPA assumes that these businesses already sell non-
asbestos brakes as well as brakes containing asbestos.
    Other gaskets: EPA is not aware if any firms that would be affected
for this use category, since the one firm that previously indicated
that it used these products subsequently stated that it does not do so.
Therefore, no impacts are predicted on this use category as a result of
the rule.
    Other vehicle friction products: EPA is not aware of any firms
impacted for this use category because the one firm that previously
indicated to EPA that it used products in this use category
subsequently stated that it does not do so. Therefore, no impacts are
predicted on this use category as a result of the rule. To the extent
there are ongoing uses, it is likely that the effects of the rule would
be similar to those for aftermarket auto brakes (a few firms facing a
small cost-increase for asbestos-free products that probably can be
passed on to consumers).
    Details of this analysis are presented in the Economic Analysis
(Ref. 2).
    EPA requests public comments regarding on the number of small
businesses subject to the rule, including use categories for which EPA
did not identify any affected small businesses, and on the potential
impacts of the rule on these small businesses.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action contains a federal mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538, that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Accordingly, the EPA has prepared a written
statement required under section 202 of UMRA. The statement is

included in the docket for this action and briefly summarized here.
    Total estimated compliance costs of the proposed rule are estimated
to be approximately $909 million per year the first two years, not
including costs for sheet gaskets used in chemical production, brake
blocks in the oil industry, other vehicle friction products, or other
gaskets. Thus, the cost of the rule to the private sector exceeds the
inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million in any one year. When
longer term savings in the chlor-alkali industry are accounted for over
a 20-year period, the quantified effects of the proposed rule range
from an incremental cost of $49 million per year to an incremental
savings of $35 million per year using a 3% discount rate. Using a 7%
discount rate, the incremental effects range from a cost of 90 million
per year to savings of $300,000 per year.
    Most of the estimated compliance costs would be incurred by the
chlor-alkali industry. Of the nine chlor-alkali plants affected by the
rule, seven are in Louisiana or Texas.
    The economic impact of a regulation on the national economy is
generally considered to be measurable only if the economic impact of
the regulation reaches 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) (Ref. 26). Given the current GDP of $23.17 trillion, this
is equivalent to a cost of $58 billion to $116 billion. Therefore, EPA
has concluded that this rule is highly unlikely to have any measurable
effect on the national economy.
    The quantified benefits of avoided cancer incidence due to the
requirements for chlor-alkali plants, sheet gaskets in chemical
production, and aftermarket automobile brakes total approximately
$3,000 per year using a 3% discount rate and $1,200 per year using a 7%
discount rate. There may be additional unquantified benefits from
reducing exposures associated with other uses of chrysotile asbestos,
and avoided cases of non-cancer health outcomes. There may also be
significant benefits due to the reduction in pollutants generated by
electric utilities that supply power to the chlor-alkali plants.
    Additional information on EPA's estimates of the benefits and costs
of this action are provided in Units I.E and V.F and in the Economic
Analysis for this action (Ref. 2). Information on the authorizing
legislation is provided in Unit I.B. Information on prior consultations
with affected State, local, and Tribal governments is provided in Units
VIII.E and VIII.F.
    This action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The EPA has concluded that this action has federalism implications,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because regulation under TSCA section 6(a) may preempt state law. EPA
provides the following preliminary federalism summary impact statement.
The Agency consulted with state and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed action to facilitate their
meaningful and timely input into its development. EPA invited the
following national organizations representing state and local elected
officials to a meeting on May 13, 2021, in Washington, DC: National
Governors Association; National Conference of State Legislatures,
Council of State Governments, National League of Cities, U.S.
Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, International
City/County Management Association, National Association of Towns and
Townships, County Executives of America, and Environmental Council of
States. A summary of the meeting with these organizations, including
the views that they expressed, is available in the docket (Ref. 7). EPA
provided an opportunity for these organizations to provide follow-up
comments in writing but did not receive any such comments.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rulemaking
would not have substantial direct effects on tribal government because
chrysotile asbestos is not manufactured, processed, or distributed in
commerce by tribes and would not impose substantial direct compliance
costs on tribal governments. Thus, E.O. 13175 does not apply to this
action. EPA nevertheless consulted with tribal officials during the
development of this action, consistent with the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes.
    EPA met with tribal officials via teleconferences on May 24, 2021,
and June 3, 2021, concerning the prospective regulation of chrysotile
asbestos under TSCA section 6 (Ref. 8). Tribal officials were given the
opportunity to meaningfully interact with EPA risk managers concerning
the current status of risk management. EPA received questions during
both meetings held during the consultation period concerning potential
risks to workers, consumers, and general population. Participants in
the consultations expressed interest in the conditions of use where EPA
found unreasonable risk and how EPA would address that unreasonable
risk. EPA responded by providing the suite of options provided the
agency under TSCA section 6 to address the unreasonable risk (Ref. 8).

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and the EPA believes that the environmental health or
safety risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate effect on
children. The health effect of concern related to exposures to
chrysotile asbestos are mesothelioma and lung cancer, both of which
have a long latency periods following exposure. The risk evaluation
demonstrated in sensitivity analyses that age at first exposure
affected risk estimates, with earlier exposures in life resulting in
greater risk. For children, exposures can be anticipated (1) as
bystanders for consumer uses such as aftermarket brakes and (2) in
consumer uses and occupational uses given that the risk evaluation
presented information indicating that children 16 years of age may
engage in these activities. The results of this evaluation are
discussed in Units II.A. and V.A.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution in Commerce, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of
energy and has not otherwise been designated by the Administrator of
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a ``significant
energy action.'' The action is predicted to reduce energy use and is
not expected to reduce energy supply or increase energy prices.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. As
such, NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this
action.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    This action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income
populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Executive Order 12898
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental effects of
their programs, policies and activities on minority populations and
low-income populations in the U.S. This rule would increase the level
of environmental protection for all affected populations without having
any disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental effects
on any population, including any minority, or low-income population.
EPA also conducted outreach to advocates of communities that might be
subject to disproportionate exposure to chrysotile asbestos, such as
minority populations, low-income populations and indigenous peoples.
EPA's EJ consultation occurred from June 1 through August 13, 2021. On
June 1 and 9, 2021, EPA held public meetings as part of this
consultation (Ref. 24). See also Unit III.A.1. These meetings were held
pursuant to and in compliance with Executive Order 12898 and Executive
Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (86 FR
7619, February 1, 2021). EPA received several comments following the EJ
meetings. Commenters expressed concerns that consumers who live near
chlor-alkali facilities and Do-It-Yourself (DIY) auto workers could be
exposed unless chrysotile asbestos is banned (Ref. 9). EPA also
acknowledges that there are pre-existing environmental justice concerns
in communities surrounding some of the affected chlor-alkali facilities
and one other chemical manufacturer in Louisiana and Texas due high
levels of polluting industrial activities and high proportions of
minority residents. This rule is not expected to affect these pre-
existing environmental justice concerns.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 751

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Export certification,
Hazardous substances, Import certification, Recordkeeping.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 751 as follows:

PART 751--REGULATION OF CERTAIN CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND MIXTURES
UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT

0
1. The authority citation for part 751 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 15 U.S.C. 2625(l)(4).

0
2. Add subpart F to read as follows:
Subpart F--Chrysotile Asbestos
Sec.
751.X01 General.
751.X03 Definitions.
751.X05 Restrictions on Conditions of Use.
751.X07 [Reserved]
751.X09 Disposal.
751.X11 Recordkeeping.

Subpart F--Chrysotile Asbestos

Sec.  751.X01  General.

    This subpart sets certain restrictions on the manufacture
(including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and
commercial use and disposal of chrysotile asbestos to prevent
unreasonable risk of injury to health in accordance with TSCA section
6(a), 15 U.S.C. 2605(a).

Sec.  751.X03  Definitions.

    The definitions in subpart A of this part apply to this subpart
unless otherwise specified in this section. In addition, the following
definitions apply:
    Aftermarket Automotive Brakes and Linings mean any automotive
friction brake articles sold in the secondary market as replacement
parts (e.g., brake pads, linings and shoes) used in disc and drum brake
systems on automobiles and trucks.
    Article means a manufactured item:
    (1) Which is formed to a specific shape or design during
manufacture;
    (2) Which has end use function(s) dependent in whole or in part
upon its shape or design during end use; and
    (3) Which has either no change of chemical composition during its
end use or only those changes of composition which have no commercial
purpose separate from that of the article, and that result from a
chemical reaction that occurs upon end use of other chemical
substances, mixtures, or articles; except that fluids and particles are
not considered articles regardless of shape or design.
    Chrysotile asbestos is the asbestiform variety of a hydrated
magnesium silicate mineral, with relatively long and flexible
crystalline fibers that are capable of being woven.
    Disposal means to discard, throw away, or otherwise complete or
terminate the useful life of chrysotile asbestos, including any
chrysotile asbestos-containing products or articles.
    Distribution in commerce has the same meaning as in section 3 of
the Act, but the term does not include distribution of chrysotile
asbestos waste solely for purposes of disposal in accordance with this
subpart.
    Diaphragms means semipermeable diaphragms, which separate the anode
from the cathode chemicals in the production of chlorine and sodium
hydroxide (caustic soda).
    Gasket means an article used to form a leakproof seal between fixed
components.
    Oilfield Brake Blocks means the friction brake blocks component in
drawworks used in the hoisting mechanism for oil well drilling rigs.
    Other Gaskets means gaskets other than sheet gaskets in chemical
production, to include gaskets used in the exhaust systems of utility
vehicles.
    Other Vehicle Friction Products means friction articles such as
brakes and clutches, other than aftermarket automotive brakes and
linings, installed on any vehicle, including on off-road vehicles,
trains, planes, etc. Vehicle Friction Products do not include articles
used in the NASA Super Guppy Turbine aircraft, a specialty cargo plane
used for the transportation of oversized equipment that is owned and
operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
    Processing has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Act, but the
term does not include processing of chrysotile asbestos waste solely
for purposes of disposal in accordance with this subpart.
    Sheet Gaskets in Chemical Production means gaskets cut from
sheeting, including asbestos-containing rubberized sheeting, that are
used in chemical manufacturing facilities for extreme condition
applications such as titanium dioxide manufacturing.

Sec.  751.X05   Restrictions on Conditions of Use.

    (a) After [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], all
persons are prohibited from the manufacture (including import),
processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile
asbestos, including any chrysotile

asbestos-containing products or articles, for:
    (1) Diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry; and
    (2) Sheet gaskets in chemical production.
    (b) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], all
persons are prohibited from the manufacture (including import),
processing, distribution in commerce and commercial use of chrysotile
asbestos, including any chrysotile asbestos-containing products or
articles, for commercial use of:
    (1) Oilfield brake blocks;
    (2) Aftermarket automotive brakes and linings;
    (3) Other vehicle friction products; and
    (4) Other gaskets.
    (c) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], all
persons are prohibited from the manufacture (including import),
processing, and distribution in commerce of chrysotile asbestos,
including any chrysotile asbestos-containing products or articles, for
consumer use of:
    (1) Aftermarket automotive brakes and linings; and
    (2) Other gaskets.

Sec.  751.X07  [Reserved]

Sec.  751.X09  Disposal.

    (a) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], all
persons disposing of chrysotile asbestos and any chrysotile asbestos-
containing products or articles subject to Sec.  751.X05(a)(1), must
dispose of chrysotile asbestos and any chrysotile asbestos-containing
products or articles, as applicable:
    (1) In accordance with the Asbestos General Industry Standard--(29
CFR 1910.1001(k)).
    (2) In conformance with the asbestos waste disposal requirements at
40 CFR 61.150.
    (b) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], all
persons disposing of chrysotile asbestos and any chrysotile asbestos-
containing products or articles subject to Sec.  751. X05(a)(2) must
dispose of chrysotile asbestos and any chrysotile asbestos-containing
products or articles, as applicable:
    (1) In accordance with the Asbestos General Industry Standard--(29
CFR 1910.1001(k))
    (2) [Reserved]
    (c) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], all
persons disposing of chrysotile asbestos and any chrysotile asbestos-
containing products or articles subject to Sec.  751.X05(b) must
dispose of chrysotile asbestos and any chrysotile asbestos-containing
products or articles, as applicable:
    (1) In accordance with the Asbestos General Industry Standard--(29
CFR 1910.1001(k)).
    (2) In conformance with the asbestos waste disposal requirements at
40 CFR 61.150.
    (d) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], each
manufacturer (including importer), processor, and distributor of
chrysotile asbestos, including any chrysotile asbestos-containing
products or articles, for consumer use, disposing of chrysotile
asbestos and any chrysotile asbestos-containing products or articles
subject to Sec.  751.X05(c), must dispose of chrysotile asbestos and
any chrysotile asbestos-containing products or articles, as applicable:
    (1) In accordance with the Asbestos General Industry Standard--(29
CFR 1910.1001(k)).
    (2) In conformance with the asbestos waste disposal requirements at
40 CFR 61.150.

Sec.  751.X11  Recordkeeping.

    (a) Each person, except a consumer, who disposes of any chrysotile
asbestos and any chrysotile asbestos-containing products or articles
subject to Sec.  751.X09, after [DATE 180 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE] must retain in one location at the headquarters of
the company, or at the facility for which the records were generated,
documentation showing:
    (1) Any records related to any disposal of chrysotile asbestos and
any chrysotile asbestos-containing products or articles generated
pursuant to, or otherwise documenting compliance with, regulations
specified in Sec.  751.X09.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (b) The documentation in paragraph (a) of this section must be
retained for 5 years from the date of generation.

[FR Doc. 2022-07601 Filed 4-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P