441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

B-336187

April 12, 2024

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

The Honorable Shelley Moore Capito

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Chair

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr.

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

Subject: Environmental Protection Agency: Asbestos Part 1; Chrysotile Asbestos; Regulation of 

Certain Conditions of Use Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

Pursuant to section 801(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, this is our report on a major 

rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entitled “Asbestos Part 1; 

Chrysotile Asbestos; Regulation of Certain Conditions of Use Under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA)” (RIN: 2070-AK86). We received the rule on March 26, 2024. It was 

published in the Federal Register as a final rule on March 28, 2024. 89 Fed. Reg. 21970. The 

effective date is May 28, 2024.

The final rule, according to EPA, is issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act, Pub. L. 

No. 94-469, 90 Stat. 2003 (Oct. 11, 1976), and addresses, to the extent necessary, the 

unreasonable risk of injury to health presented by chrysotile asbestos based on the risks posed 

by certain conditions of use. EPA explained that the injuries to human health include 

mesothelioma and lung, ovarian, and laryngeal cancers resulting from chronic inhalation 

exposure to chrysotile asbestos. 

Enclosed is our assessment of EPA’s compliance with the procedural steps required by 

section 801(a)(1)(B)(i) through (iv) of title 5 with respect to the rule. If you have any questions 

about this report or wish to contact GAO officials responsible for the evaluation work relating to 

the subject matter of the rule, please contact Shari Brewster, Assistant General Counsel, at 

(202) 512-6398.

Shirley A. Jones

Managing Associate General Counsel
Page 2 B-336187

ENCLOSURE

REPORT UNDER 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(2)(A) ON A MAJOR RULE

ISSUED BY THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

ENTITLED

“ASBESTOS PART 1; CHRYSOTILE ASBESTOS; REGULATION OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS 

OF USE UNDER THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA)”

(RIN: 2070-AK86)

(i) Cost-benefit analysis

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepared an economic analysis of the potential 

incremental impacts associated with this final rule. Regarding costs, EPA stated that three firms 

own a total of eight chlor-alkali facilities in the United States that still use asbestos diaphragms 

to produce chlorine and sodium hydroxide. According to EPA, converting the facilities using 

asbestos diaphragm cells to non-asbestos technologies is predicted to require an investment of 

approximately $2.8 billion to $3.4 billion across all eight facilities. The incremental net effect of 

the rule, according to EPA, on the chlor-alkali industry over a 35-year period using a three 

percent discount rate is estimated to range from an annualized cost of $7 million per year to an 

annualized savings of $1 million per year, depending on whether the higher grade of caustic 

soda produced by membrane cells continues to command a premium price. EPA stated that,

using a seven percent discount rate, the incremental annualized net effect is a cost ranging from 

$34 million to $43 million per year, again depending on whether there are revenue gains from 

the caustic soda production. Further, EPA noted that the rule is estimated to result in total 

annualized costs for aftermarket automotive brakes of approximately $300,000 per year using a 

three percent discount rate and $200,000 per year using a seven percent discount rate. 

Regarding benefits, EPA stated it quantified the benefits from avoided cases of lung cancer, 

mesothelioma, ovarian cancer, and laryngeal cancer due to reduced asbestos exposures to 

workers, occupational non-users, and do-it-yourselfers related to the rule’s requirements for 

chlor-alkali diaphragms, aftermarket automotive brakes, and sheet gaskets used for titanium 

dioxide production. According to EPA, the combined national quantified benefits of avoided 

cancer cases associated with these products are approximately $6,000 per year using a three 

percent discount rate and $3,000 per year using a seven percent discount rate. 

(ii) Agency actions relevant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 603–605, 607, 

and 609

EPA certified that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the RFA. 

(iii) Agency actions relevant to sections 202–205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995, 2 U.S.C. §§ 1532–1535

EPA stated that this final rule contains a federal mandate under the Act that may result in 

expenditures of more than the inflation-adjusted threshold of $100 million or more for state, local 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. EPA stated it 

prepared a written statement as required under the Act, which is included in the docket for the 

rule, and summarized the statement in the preamble of the rule.
Page 3 B-336187

(iv) Agency actions relevant to the Administrative Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2023, Pub. L. 

No. 118-5, div. B, title III, 137 Stat 31 (June 3, 2023)

Section 270 of the Administrative Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2023 amended 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(2)(A) 

to require GAO to assess agency compliance with the Act, which establishes requirements for 

administrative actions that affect direct spending, in GAO’s major rule reports. In guidance to 

Executive Branch agencies, issued on September 1, 2023, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) instructed that agencies should include a statement explaining that either: “the 

Act does not apply to this rule because it does not increase direct spending; the Act does not 

apply to this rule because it meets one of the Act’s exemptions (and specifying the relevant 

exemption); the OMB Director granted a waiver of the Act’s requirements pursuant to 

section 265(a)(1) or (2) of the Act; or the agency has submitted a notice or written opinion to the 

OMB Director as required by section 263(a) or (b) of the Act” in their submissions of rules to 

GAO under the Congressional Review Act. OMB, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive 

Departments and Agencies, Subject: Guidance for Implementation of the Administrative 

Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2023, M-23-21 (Sept. 1, 2023), at 11–12. OMB also states that 

directives in the memorandum that supplement the requirements in the Act do not apply to 

proposed rules that have already been submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, however agencies must comply with any applicable requirements of the Act before 

finalizing such rules. 

EPA did not address the Act in the final rule or in its submission to us.

(v) Other relevant information or requirements under acts and executive orders

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

On April 12, 2022, EPA issued a proposed rule. 87 Fed. Reg. 21706. EPA received a total of 

10,847 public comments, 158 of which were unique comments from trade organizations, 

industry stakeholders, environmental groups, and non-governmental health advocacy 

organizations, among others. EPA stated that a summary of comments and EPA’s responses is 

available in the docket for the rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501–3520

EPA determined that this final rule contains information collection requirements (ICRs) subject 

to PRA and stated that the ICRs have been submitted to OMB for approval under OMB Control 

Number 2070-0220. EPA estimated a total annual burden of 2,269 hours associated with the 

ICRs, and a total annual cost of $370,973 which includes $233,425 annualized capital or 

operation and maintenance costs. 

Statutory authorization for the rule

EPA promulgated this final rule pursuant to section 2605 and 2625(l)(4) of title 15, United States 

Code.

Executive Order No. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

EPA stated that this final rule is a significant regulatory action as defined under the Order. 

Accordingly, EPA noted that it submitted the rule to OMB for review. 
Page 4 B-336187

Executive Order No. 13132 (Federalism)

EPA stated that it concluded this final rule has federalism implications as specified in the 

Order because regulations under section 6(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, Pub. L. 

No. 94-469, 90 Stat. 2003 (Oct. 11, 1976), may preempt state law. EPA stated it consulted with 

state and local officials early in the process to facilitate their input, invited officials to a meeting 

on May 13, 2021, and provided an opportunity to provide the agency with follow-up comments in 

writing. EPA noted it did not receive any such comments.