21706 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 751 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0057; FRL–8332–02– 

OCSPP] 

RIN 2070–AK86 

Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos; 

Regulation of Certain Conditions of 

Use Under Section 6(a) of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing a rule under 

the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) to address the unreasonable risk 

of injury to health it has identified for 

conditions of use of chrysotile asbestos 

following completion of the TSCA Risk 

Evaluation for Asbestos, Part 1: 

Chrysotile Asbestos. TSCA requires that 

EPA address the unreasonable risks of 

injury to health and environment by 

rule and to apply requirements to the 

extent necessary so that chrysotile 

asbestos no longer presents such risks. 

Therefore, to address the unreasonable 

risk identified in the TSCA Risk 

Evaluation for Asbestos, Part 1 from 

chrysotile asbestos, EPA is proposing to 

prohibit manufacture (including 

import), processing, distribution in 

commerce and commercial use of 

chrysotile asbestos for chrysotile 

asbestos diaphragms for use in the 

chlor-alkali industry, chrysotile 

asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used 

in chemical production, chrysotile 

asbestos-containing brake blocks used in 

the oil industry, aftermarket automotive 

chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/ 

linings, other chrysotile asbestoscontaining vehicle friction products, 

and other chrysotile asbestos-containing 

gaskets. EPA also is proposing to 

prohibit 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. EPA is also proposing 

disposal and recordkeeping 

requirements for these conditions of 

use. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 13, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021–0057, 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Do not submit electronically 

any information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Due to the public 

health concerns related to COVID–19, 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and 

Reading Room is open to visitors by 

appointments. For the latest status 

information on EPA/DC services and 

docket access, visit https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical information contact: 

Peter Gimlin, Existing Chemicals Risk 

Management Division (7405M), Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 

566–0515; email address: Gimlin.peter@

epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this proposed action if you manufacture 

(including import), process, distribute 

in commerce, use, or dispose of 

chrysotile asbestos. TSCA section 3(9) 

defines the term ‘‘manufacture’’ to mean 

to import into the customs territory of 

the United States (as defined in general 

note 2 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States), produce, 

or manufacture. Therefore, unless 

expressly stated otherwise, importers of 

chrysotile asbestos are subject to any 

proposed provisions regulating 

manufacture of chrysotile asbestos. The 

following list of North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

to help readers determine whether this 

document applies to them. Potentially 

affected entities may include: 

• Oil and Gas Extraction (NAICS code 

211). 

• Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 

code 325). 

• Fabricated Metal Product 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 332). 

• Transportation Equipment 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 336). 

• Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device 

Manufacturing (NAICS code 339991). 

• Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle 

Parts and Supplies Merchant 

Wholesalers (NAICS code 4231). 

• Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 

(NAICS code 441). 

• Automotive Repair and 

Maintenance (NAICS code 8111). 

This action may also affect certain 

entities through pre-existing import 

certification and export notification 

rules under TSCA. Persons who import 

any chemical substance governed by 

TSCA are subject to the TSCA section 

13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification 

requirements and the corresponding 

regulations at 19 CFR 12.118 through 

12.127; see also 19 CFR 127.28. Those 

persons must certify that the shipment 

of the chemical substance complies with 

all applicable rules and orders under 

TSCA. The EPA policy in support of 

import certification appears at 40 CFR 

part 707, subpart B. In addition, any 

persons who export or intend to export 

a chemical substance that is the subject 

of this proposed rule are subject to the 

export notification provisions of TSCA 

section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)), and 

must comply with the export 

notification requirements in 40 CFR part 

707, subpart D. 

Asbestos (including chrysotile 

asbestos) is already subject to TSCA 

section 6(a) (40 CFR part 763, subparts 

G and I) rules that trigger the export 

notification provisions of TSCA section 

12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b); see also 40 CFR 

721.20). Any person who exports or 

intends to export asbestos (including 

chrysotile asbestos) must comply with 

the export notification requirements in 

40 CFR part 707, subpart D. Pursuant to 

TSCA section 12(a)(2), this proposed 

rule would apply to the chemical 

substance, mixture, or article even if 

being manufactured, processed, or 

distributed in commerce solely for 

export from the United States because a 

determination has been made that the 

chemical substance, mixture, or article 

presents an unreasonable risk to health 

within the United States or to the 

environment of the United States. 

If you have any questions regarding 

the applicability of this proposed action 

to a particular entity, consult the 

technical information contact listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

Under TSCA section 6(a) (15 U.S.C. 

2605(a)), if EPA determines through a 

TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation that a 

chemical substance presents an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or 

the environment, without consideration 

of costs or other non-risk factors, 

including an unreasonable risk to a 

potentially exposed or susceptible 

subpopulation identified as relevant to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21707 

the risk evaluation, under the 

conditions of use, EPA must by rule 

apply one or more requirements listed 

in section 6(a) to the extent necessary so 

that the chemical substance or mixture 

no longer presents such risk. 

C. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA determined in the Risk 

Evaluation for Asbestos, Part 1: 

Chrysotile Asbestos (Ref. 1), that 

chrysotile asbestos presents an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health 

based upon the following conditions of 

use: 

• Processing and Industrial use of 

Chrysotile Asbestos Diaphragms in the 

Chlor-alkali Industry; 

• Processing and Industrial Use of 

Chrysotile Asbestos-Containing Sheet 

Gaskets in Chemical Production; 

• Industrial Use and Disposal of 

Chrysotile Asbestos-Containing Brake 

Blocks in Oil Industry; 

• Commercial Use and Disposal of 

Aftermarket Automotive Chrysotile 

Asbestos-Containing Brakes/Linings; 

• Commercial Use and Disposal of 

Other Chrysotile Asbestos-Containing 

Vehicle Friction Products; 

• Commercial Use and Disposal of 

Other Chrysotile Asbestos-Containing 

Gaskets; 

• Consumer Use and Disposal of 

Aftermarket Automotive Chrysotile 

Asbestos-Containing Brakes/Linings; 

• Consumer Use and Disposal of 

Other Chrysotile Asbestos-Containing 

Gaskets. 

A detailed description of these 

conditions of use is provided in Unit 

III.B.2. Accordingly, to address the 

identified unreasonable risk, EPA is 

proposing pursuant to TSCA section 

6(a) to prohibit manufacture (including 

import), processing, distribution in 

commerce, and commercial use of 

chrysotile asbestos in bulk for or as part 

of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used 

in the chlor-alkali industry and 

chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet 

gaskets used in chemical production. 

EPA is proposing that these prohibitions 

would take effect two years after the 

effective date of the final rule. EPA is 

also proposing pursuant to TSCA 

section 6(a) to prohibit manufacture 

(including import), processing, 

distribution in commerce, and 

commercial use of: Chrysotile asbestoscontaining brake blocks used in the oil 

industry, aftermarket automotive 

chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/ 

linings, other chrysotile asbestoscontaining vehicle friction products (not 

including the NASA Super Guppy 

Turbine aircraft use), and other 

chrysotile asbestos-containing gaskets. 

EPA is proposing that these prohibitions 

would take effect 180 days after the 

effective date of the final rule. EPA is 

further proposing pursuant to TSCA 

section 6(a) to prohibit 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. EPA is proposing that 

these prohibitions would take effect 180 

days after the effective date of the final 

rule. EPA is also proposing disposal and 

recordkeeping requirements under 

which regulated parties would 

document compliance with certain 

proposed prohibitions. EPA does not 

intend the proposed prohibitions on 

processing or distribution in commerce 

to prohibit any processing or 

distribution in commerce incidental to 

disposal of the chrysotile asbestos waste 

in accordance with the proposed 

requirements. 

EPA is requesting public comment on 

this proposal. 

D. Why is the Agency taking this action? 

Under TSCA section 6(a), ‘‘[i]f the 

Administrator determines in accordance 

with subsection (b)(4)(A) that the 

manufacture, processing, distribution in 

commerce, use or disposal of a chemical 

substance or mixture, or that any 

combination of such activities, presents 

an unreasonable risk of injury to health 

or the environment, the Administrator 

shall by rule . . . apply one or more of 

the [section 6(a)] requirements to such 

substance or mixture to the extent 

necessary so that the chemical 

substance no longer presents such risk.’’ 

Chrysotile asbestos was the subject of a 

risk evaluation under TSCA section 

6(b)(4)(A) that was issued in December 

2020 (Ref. 1). In that risk evaluation, 

EPA determined that chrysotile asbestos 

presents unreasonable risk of injury to 

health under certain conditions of use 

evaluated. As a result, EPA is proposing 

to take action to ensure that chrysotile 

asbestos no longer presents such risk for 

the chrysotile uses evaluated under part 

1 of the risk evaluation. The 

unreasonable risk is described in Unit 

III.B.1. and the conditions of use that are 

the subject of this proposed regulation 

and that were found to drive the 

unreasonable risk in the Risk Evaluation 

for Asbestos, Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos 

are described in Unit III.B.2. 

E. What are the estimated incremental 

impacts of this action? 

EPA has prepared an Economic 

Analysis of the potential incremental 

impacts associated with this rulemaking 

that can be found in the rulemaking 

docket (Ref. 2). 

1. Background 

Asbestos usage in the nation has been 

declining for decades and current 

domestic consumption of raw asbestos 

is less than 0.1% of peak consumption 

in the early 1970s. Chlor-alkali 

producers are the only industry in the 

U.S. known to fabricate products from 

raw chrysotile asbestos. In addition, 

EPA has concluded that imports of a 

few asbestos-containing products are 

intended, known, or reasonably foreseen 

to occur; while the total quantity of 

asbestos in those products is uncertain, 

it is believed to be relatively small (see 

Appendix C of the Risk Evaluation). 

2. Costs 

Three firms own a total of ten chloralkali plants in the U.S. that still use 

asbestos diaphragms to produce 

chlorine and sodium hydroxide (also 

known as caustic soda). As one of these 

ten plants is expected to close in 2022, 

before the expected effective date of the 

final rule, EPA has only estimated the 

costs and benefits for the nine 

remaining plants that would be 

impacted by this rule. The nine 

remaining plants range in age from 40 

to 123 years old, although some have 

had new capacity added as recently as 

16 years ago, and others may have had 

recent refurbishments. The share of total 

production using asbestos diaphragm 

cells has been declining over time. The 

diaphragm cells in these plants 

currently represent about one-third of 

U.S. chlor-alkali production capacity. 

EPA’s analysis supports a high 

probability that these firms will respond 

to the proposed rule by converting their 

asbestos diaphragm cells to membrane 

cells, which do not use asbestos. The 

use of membrane cells has increased 

over time and they currently account for 

nearly half of U.S. capacity. (The 

remaining capacity uses non-asbestos 

diaphragms or other miscellaneous 

processes.) A more detailed discussion 

of the expected impacts of conversion 

from asbestos-containing diaphragm 

cells to membrane cells, which use an 

increased concentration of per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) 

compounds relative to the amount of 

PFAS compounds contained in 

asbestos-containing diaphragms, is 

located in Unit III.B.4. 

Converting the asbestos diaphragm 

cells to membrane cells in response to 

the proposed rule is predicted to require 

an incremental investment of 

approximately $1.8 billion across all 

nine plants predicted to be using 

asbestos diaphragms when the rule goes 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
21708 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

into effect. Membrane cells are much 

more energy efficient than diaphragm 

cells, so, despite the upfront capital 

cost, that conversion is expected to 

result in significant savings that would 

accrue over many years. The expected 

energy savings are included in the 

estimated net annualized costs. 

Membrane cells also produce a higher 

grade of caustic soda that has 

historically commanded a higher price 

than the product from diaphragm cells. 

EPA anticipates that most of the 

conversions to membrane cells would 

occur in the coming decades even 

without the proposed rule, following 

existing trends in the chlor-alkali 

industry to transition away from 

asbestos. Compared to this baseline 

trend, the incremental net effect of the 

proposed rule on the chlor-alkali 

industry over a 20-year period using a 

3 percent discount rate is estimated to 

range from an annualized cost of about 

$49 million per year to annualized 

savings of approximately $35 million 

per year, depending on whether the 

higher grade of caustic soda produced 

by membrane cells continues to 

command a premium price. Using a 7 

percent discount rate, the incremental 

annualized net effect ranges from a cost 

of $87 million per year to savings of 

approximately $40,000 per year, again 

depending on whether there are revenue 

gains from the caustic soda production. 

EPA also estimates that approximately 

1,800 sets of automotive brakes or brake 

linings containing asbestos may be 

imported into the U.S. each year, 

representing 0.002% of the total U.S. 

market for aftermarket brakes. The cost 

of a prohibition would be minimal due 

to the ready availability of alternative 

products that are only slightly more 

expensive (an average cost increase of 

$4 per brake). The proposed rule is 

estimated to result in total annualized 

costs for aftermarket automotive brakes 

of approximately $25,000 per year using 

a 3% discount rate and $18,000 per year 

using a 7% discount rate. 

EPA did not have information to 

estimate the costs of prohibiting 

asbestos for the remaining uses subject 

to the proposed rule (sheet gaskets used 

in chemical production, brake blocks in 

the oil industry, other vehicle friction 

products, or other gaskets), so there are 

additional unquantified costs. EPA 

believes that the use of these asbestoscontaining products has declined over 

time, and that they are now used in at 

most small segments of the industries. 

For these remaining categories, EPA 

requests comment on the number of 

entities that manufacture (including 

import), process, distribute in 

commerce, or use products or articles 

containing asbestos. EPA also requests 

comment on the costs of the rule to 

these entities. 

3. Benefits 

EPA’s Economic Analysis for the rule 

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 

(ONUs), and DIYers related to the rule’s 

requirements for chlor-alkali 

diaphragms, sheet gaskets for chemical 

production, and aftermarket brakes. The 

combined national quantified benefits of 

avoided cancer cases associated with 

these products are approximately $3,100 

per year using a 3% discount rate and 

$1,200 per year using a 7% discount 

rate, based on the cancer risk estimates 

from the Part 1 risk evaluation. EPA did 

not estimate the aggregate 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. Thus, there may be additional 

unquantified benefits from reducing 

exposures associated with these uses. 

There are also unquantified benefits 

due to other avoided adverse health 

effects associated with asbestos 

exposure including respiratory effects 

(e.g., asbestosis, non-malignant 

respiratory disease, deficits in 

pulmonary function, diffuse pleural 

thickening and pleural plaques) and 

immunological and lymphoreticular 

effects. 

In addition to the benefits of avoided 

adverse health effects associated with 

chrysotile asbestos exposure, the 

proposed rule is expected to generate 

significant benefits from reduced air 

pollution associated with electricity 

generation. Chlor-alkali production is 

one of the most energy-intensive 

industrial operations. Since membrane 

cells are more energy efficient than 

diaphragm cells, converting diaphragm 

cells 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. 

Based on a sensitivity screening-level 

analysis that EPA conducted, converting 

asbestos diaphragm cells 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. 

EPA’s Economic Analysis, which can be 

found in the rulemaking docket (Ref. 2), 

contains more information on the 

potential magnitude of these monetized 

benefits from reduced criteria air 

pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions 

as well as caveats about the limitations 

of the screening-level analysis that EPA 

conducted. 

4. Small Entity Impacts 

As described in more detail in Unit 

VIII.C and in the Economic Analysis of 

this rulemaking (Ref. 2), 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 revenues. 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 was unable to estimate the 

magnitude of the impacts for these small 

entities. Chlor-alkali plants account for 

nearly all of the quantified costs of the 

rule, and none of the firms operating 

chlor-alkali plants are small businesses. 

No small businesses have been 

identified as using sheet gaskets for 

chemical production or brake blocks in 

the oil industry, but small businesses do 

supply these products to end users that 

are not small. Asbestos-free products in 

these applications reportedly do not last 

as long as items containing asbestos. As 

a result, the proposed rule could 

increase revenues for the affected small 

business suppliers if they sell a larger 

volume of non-asbestos products to the 

end users as replacements. For the 

remaining use categories (aftermarket 

automotive brakes, other gaskets, and 

other vehicle friction products), EPA 

has not identified firms (of any size) 

manufacturing, processing, distributing 

or using products containing asbestos. 

To the extent that there are any small 

businesses engaged in these activities, 

there are likely only a few firms facing 

a small cost increase for asbestos-free 

products, and any such cost increase 

can probably be passed on to 

consumers. EPA requests public 

comments regarding 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. 

5. Environmental Justice 

This rule would increase the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21709 

health or environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income populations. There are preexisting environmental justice concerns 

in communities surrounding some of 

the affected chlor-alkali facilities and 

one other chemical manufacturer 

affected by this rule due to high levels 

of polluting industrial activities and a 

high proportion of minority residents. 

This rule is not expected to increase 

these pre-existing environmental justice 

concerns. Unit III.A.1 discusses 

outreach conducted to advocates of 

minority or low-income communities 

that might be subject to disproportionate 

exposure to chrysotile asbestos. 

Both asbestos-containing diaphragm 

cells and membrane cells use per- and 

polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) 

compounds. EPA lacks information to 

determine whether this proposed 

regulation would increase usage and 

associated release of PFAS compounds 

at chlor-alkali facilities that currently 

rely on asbestos-containing diaphragms, 

chlor-alkali facilities that do not 

currently use asbestos-containing 

diaphragms that may expand their 

production as a result of the regulation, 

upstream facilities that produce 

membranes, or upstream facilities that 

produce PFAS fibers used in nonasbestos diaphragms. 

6. Effects on State, Local, and Tribal 

Governments 

This action has federalism 

implications because regulation under 

TSCA section 6(a) may preempt state 

law. It does not impose costs on small 

governments or have tribal implications. 

II. Background 

A. Overview of Chrysotile Asbestos 

Asbestos is defined in section 202 of 

TSCA Title II as: ‘‘Asbestiform varieties 

of six fiber types—chrysotile 

(serpentine), crocidolite (riebeckite), 

amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite), 

anthophyllite, tremolite or actinolite.’’ 

EPA used this definition of asbestos at 

the onset of the asbestos risk evaluation 

in 2016. However, EPA determined that 

chrysotile asbestos is the only type of 

asbestos where import, processing, and 

distribution in commerce for use is 

known, intended, or reasonably foreseen 

in the U.S. As such, EPA assessed these 

non-legacy conditions of use of 

chrysotile asbestos in the December 

2020 Risk Evaluation for Asbestos, Part 

1: Chrysotile Asbestos (Ref. 1). 

Following a decision by the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals (Safer 

Chemicals Healthy Families v. EPA, 943 

F.3d 397 (9th Cir. 2019)) concerning 

legacy use and associated disposal of 

asbestos, conditions of use that were not 

included in the Part 1 risk evaluation, 

EPA began developing a supplemental 

risk evaluation to address legacy and 

associated disposal conditions of use. 

The Risk Evaluation for Asbestos, Part 2: 

Supplemental Evaluation Including 

Legacy Uses and Associated Disposals 

of Asbestos will include evaluation of 

those conditions of use of chrysotile 

asbestos, the five amphibole fiber types 

identified in the TSCA Title II definition 

(crocidolite (riebeckite), amosite 

(cummingtonite-grunerite), 

anthophyllite, tremolite and actinolite) 

and Libby Amphibole Asbestos (mainly 

consisting of tremolite, winchite, and 

richterite). Additionally, some talc 

deposits and articles containing talc 

have been shown to contain asbestos. 

Thus, it is recognized that certain uses 

of talc may present the potential for 

asbestos exposure. Where EPA identifies 

reasonably available information 

demonstrating the presence of asbestos 

in talc, where such talc applications fall 

under TSCA authority, those talc 

containing asbestos impurities will be 

evaluated in Part 2 of the risk evaluation 

for asbestos. 

This proposed rule would only apply 

to chrysotile asbestos (Chemical 

Abstract Services Registry Number 

132207–32–0). Chrysotile asbestos is a 

hydrated magnesium silicate mineral, 

with relatively long and flexible 

crystalline fibers that are capable of 

being woven. Chrysotile asbestos fibers 

used in most commercial applications 

consist of aggregates and usually 

contain a broad distribution of fiber 

lengths. Chrysotile asbestos fiber bundle 

lengths usually range from a fraction of 

a millimeter to several centimeters, and 

diameters range from 0.1 to 100 mm. 

More information on the physical and 

chemical properties of chrysotile 

asbestos is in Section 1.1 of the Risk 

Evaluation (Ref. 1). 

EPA evaluated the conditions of use 

associated with six ongoing use 

categories of chrysotile asbestos (chloralkali diaphragms, sheet gaskets used in 

chemical production, oilfield brake 

blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes/ 

linings, other vehicle friction products, 

and other gaskets). There is no domestic 

mining of asbestos. All imported raw 

asbestos is chrysotile asbestos and is 

used in the manufacture of chlor-alkali 

diaphragms. According to the United 

States Geological Survey (USGS), 300 

metric tons of chrysotile asbestos were 

imported in 2020 (Ref. 3). 

B. Regulatory Actions Pertaining to 

Chrysotile Asbestos 

Chrysotile asbestos is subject to 

numerous federal laws and regulations 

in the United States and is also subject 

to regulatory actions by states and other 

countries. The following is a summary 

of the laws and regulatory actions 

pertaining to chrysotile asbestos 

implemented by EPA, other federal 

agencies, states, and other countries or 

via international treaties and 

agreements. None of these actions 

addresses the unreasonable risks under 

TSCA that this proposed rule would 

address. For a full description see the 

Appendix A of the Risk Evaluation for 

Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos 

(Ref. 1). 

1. EPA Actions Pertaining to Chrysotile 

Asbestos 

EPA has taken the following actions 

pertaining to chrysotile asbestos under 

its various authorities: 

• Asbestos Hazard Emergency 

Response Act (AHERA): The AsbestosContaining Materials in Schools 

regulation (40 CFR part 763, subpart E 

(1987)) requires local education 

agencies to inspect their school 

buildings for asbestos-containing 

building material, prepare asbestos 

management plans and perform asbestos 

response actions to prevent or reduce 

asbestos hazards. Public school districts 

and non-profit private schools, 

including charter schools and schools 

affiliated with religious institutions 

(collectively called local education 

agencies) are subject to the rule’s 

requirements. AHERA defines asbestos 

as the asbestiform varieties of chrysotile 

(serpentine), crocidolite (riebeckite), 

amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite), 

anthophyllite, tremolite or actinolite. 

• Toxic Substances Control Act: In 

1989, EPA issued a final rule entitled 

Asbestos: Manufacture, Importation, 

Processing, and Distribution in 

Commerce Prohibitions; Final Rule, (54 

FR 29460 (1989)) banning most 

asbestos-containing products. In 1991, a 

federal court vacated and remanded 

most of the final rule, thereby 

permitting manufacture (including 

import), processing, or distribution in 

commerce for the majority of the 

asbestos-containing products. Corrosion 

Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th 

Cir., 1991). Manufacture (including 

import), processing, and distribution in 

commerce of the following products 

remain banned by the rule under TSCA: 

Corrugated paper, rollboard, commercial 

paper, specialty paper, and flooring felt. 

In addition, the 1989 rule continues to 

ban the manufacture (including import), 

processing, and distribution in 

commerce for use of asbestos in 

products that have not historically 

contained asbestos, referred to in the 

1989 rule as ‘‘new uses’’ of asbestos, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
21710 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

defined by 40 CFR 763.163 as 

‘‘commercial uses of asbestos not 

identified in part 763.165 the 

manufacture, importation or processing 

of which would be initiated for the first 

time after August 25, 1989.’’ 

Through the authority of section 6 of 

TSCA, EPA extended worker protection 

requirements to state and local 

government employees involved in 

asbestos work who were not previously 

covered by existing Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA) 

occupational health standards for 

asbestos through the Asbestos Worker 

Protection Rule (40 CFR part 763, 

subpart G (2000)). 

• Restriction on Discontinued Uses of 

Asbestos; Significant New Use Rule 

(SNUR). In 2019, EPA promulgated a 

significant new use rule under section 

5(a)(2) of TSCA to ensure that any 

discontinued uses of asbestos cannot 

reenter commerce without prior EPA 

review (84 FR 17345, April 25, 2019). 

These new provisions at 40 CFR 

721.11095 require persons subject to the 

rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before 

commencing any manufacturing 

(including importing) or processing of 

asbestos or asbestos-containing products 

covered under the rule. These uses are 

designated significant new uses and, as 

such, cannot be resumed unless EPA is 

notified and makes a required 

determination and takes action, as 

appropriate, under TSCA section 5. 

• Asbestos Information Act of 1988 

(AIA): The AIA, Public Law 100–577, 

helped provide transparency and 

identify the companies making certain 

types of asbestos-containing products by 

requiring manufacturers to report 

production to the EPA. 

• Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-To-Know Act 

(EPCRA): Under Section 313, the Toxics 

Release Inventory (TRI) requires 

reporting of environmental releases of 

friable asbestos at a concentration level 

of 0.1% or greater. Also, within EPCRA, 

friable asbestos is designated as a 

hazardous substance subject to an 

Emergency Release Notification at 40 

CFR 355.40 with a reportable quantity of 

1 pound. 

• Clean Air Act: Asbestos has been 

designated a hazardous air pollutant 

(HAP) under the CAA. In 1973, EPA 

promulgated the Asbestos National 

Emission Standard for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) (40 CFR part 61, 

subpart M). The regulation requires, 

among other requirements, that some 

manufacturing and fabricating 

operations either cannot emit visible 

emissions into the outside air or must 

follow air cleaning procedures and 

generally must seal asbestos-containing 

waste material from regulated activities 

in a leak-tight container while wet, 

label, and dispose of properly in a 

landfill permitted to receive asbestos 

waste. 

• Clean Water Act (CWA): CWA 

defines asbestos as a toxic pollutant per 

33 U.S.C. Section 1317. Each toxic 

pollutant listed in that section is subject 

to effluent limitations guidelines based 

on the best available technology 

economically achievable for the 

applicable category or class of point 

sources established in accordance with 

the CWA. The effluent limitations 

guidelines for the asbestos 

manufacturing point source category are 

in 40 CFR part 427. 

• Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA): RCRA gives EPA 

the authority to control hazardous 

wastes from cradle to grave, including 

generation, transportation, treatment, 

storage and disposal. Asbestos is not 

regulated as a hazardous waste under 

RCRA Subtitle C. Asbestos is a nonhazardous solid waste regulated under 

Subtitle D of RCRA. Regulations 

established under Subtitle D ban open 

dumping of waste and set minimum 

federal criteria for the operation of 

municipal waste and industrial waste 

landfills, including design criteria, 

location restrictions, financial 

assurance, corrective action (cleanup), 

and closure requirements. States play a 

lead role in implementing these 

regulations and may set more stringent 

requirements. 

• Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA): The Designation of 

Hazardous Substances Rule (40 CFR 

302.4) designates asbestos as a 

hazardous substance with a reportable 

quantity in Superfund regulations. The 

regulation also sets forth reportable 

quantities for asbestos under the Clean 

Water Act and the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act. 

• Safe Drinking Water Act: 

Established National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations (NPDWR) (40 CFR 

part 141, subpart G (1991)). NPDWR are 

enforceable drinking water standards 

expressed as Maximum Contaminant 

Levels (MCLs) or treatment techniques. 

The MCLs are the maximum level of 

contaminants that are allowed in public 

water systems in the United States. In 

40 CFR 141.62, EPA set the maximum 

contaminant level for asbestos in 

community water systems and nontransitory, non-community water 

systems at 7 million fibers/liter (longer 

than 10 mm). 

2. Other Pertinent Federal Actions 

Pertaining to Chrysotile Asbestos 

Actions by other federal agencies 

related to chrysotile asbestos include: 

• Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA). OSHA has 

established 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), with an 

excursion limit of 1.0 asbestos fibers per 

cubic centimeter over a 30-minute 

period. Among other requirements, 

OSHA requires assessments of 

workplaces covered by one of three 

standards (General Industry (29 CFR 

1910.1001); Shipyards (29 CFR 

1915.1001); Construction (29 CFR 

1926.1101)) to be completed to 

determine if asbestos is present and if 

the work will generate airborne fibers. 

Further, monitoring is required to detect 

if asbestos exposure is at or above the 

PEL TWA or excursion limit for workers 

who are, or may be, expected to be 

exposed to asbestos. Monitoring 

frequency depends on work 

classification and exposure. Unit II.C. 

describes EPA’s general approach to 

considering OSHA occupational health 

standards in TSCA risk evaluations and 

TSCA risk management actions. 

• The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH), part of the U.S. Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, in the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, is a research agency focused 

on the study of worker safety and 

health. NIOSH has established a 

Recommended Exposure Limit (REL) for 

asbestos. For asbestos fibers >5 

micrometers long and a length-to-width 

ratio equal to or greater than 3:1, NIOSH 

recommends a REL of 100,000 fibers per 

cubic meter of air (100,000 f/m3), which 

is equal to 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter 

of air (f/cc), as determined by a 400-liter 

air sample in accordance with NIOSH 

Analytical Method 7400. NIOSH Pocket 

Guide to Chemical Hazards, Appendix 

C. The NIOSH Recommended Exposure 

Limit (REL) is a non-mandatory, 

recommended occupational exposure 

limit. This 0.1 f/cc level is consistent 

with OSHA’s PEL, as well as the 0.1 f/ 

cc Threshold Limit Value (TLV) 

guidance from the American Conference 

of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

(ACGIH), a private not-for-profit 

scientific association. 

• Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC). 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. The CPSC has 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21711 

banned or restricted the following 

asbestos-containing products: 

Emberizing materials (ash and embers), 

patching compounds, and asbestoscontaining garments for general use (16 

CFR part 1305; 16 CFR part 1304 and 16 

CFR 1500.17(a)(7)). 

• Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA). MSHA adopted 

an asbestos standard for exposure limits 

from airborne contaminants (30 CFR 

parts 56 and 57 (subpart D)). In these 

exposure limits, MSHA identifies 

respiratory protection requirements for 

mine workers in both surface and 

underground mines (Ref. 1). 

3. State Actions Pertaining to Chrysotile 

Asbestos 

Pursuant to AHERA, many states have 

adopted EPA’s Asbestos Model 

Accreditation Plan (MAP) (Appendix C 

to 40 CFR part 763, subpart E) for 

asbestos abatement professionals who 

perform work in schools and public and 

commercial buildings. Thirty-nine states 

have EPA-approved MAP programs and 

separately twelve states have also 

applied to and received a waiver from 

EPA to oversee implementation of the 

Asbestos-Containing Materials in 

Schools Rule (40 CFR part 763, subpart 

E) pursuant to AHERA. States also 

implement regulations pursuant to the 

Asbestos NESHAP regulations (40 CFR 

part 61, subpart M). While the asbestos 

MAP and asbestos NESHAP regulations 

set minimum national standards, states 

are free to impose more stringent 

regulations. Also, both California and 

Washington prohibit the use of more 

than 0.1% of asbestos in brake pads and 

require laboratory testing of brake pads 

and labeling to certify compliance with 

their regulations. 

A list of state regulations that are 

independent of the federal AHERA and 

NESHAP requirements that states 

implement is in Appendix A of the Risk 

Evaluation (Ref. 1). 

4. International Actions Pertaining to 

Chrysotile Asbestos 

Asbestos is regulated internationally; 

nearly 60 nations have banned or 

significantly limited the use of asbestos. 

The European Union (EU) first 

prohibited five uses of asbestos in 1991 

and added chrysotile asbestos 

prohibitions for numerous uses in 1999, 

with a full ban implemented on January 

1, 2005. In 2006, the EU established the 

Registration, Evaluation, Authorization 

and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) 

regulation and renewed its position on 

asbestos (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 

of the European Parliament and of the 

Council, 18 December 2006). Regulation 

(EC) No. 2016/1005 amended REACH 

Article XVII to formally phase out the 

use of diaphragms containing chrysotile 

asbestos for electrolysis installations 

(i.e., chlor-alkali facilities) by July 1, 

2025. 

Canada promulgated a regulation to 

ban asbestos effective December 30, 

2018 (Ref. 4). The regulation prohibited 

the import, sale and use of asbestos, as 

well as the manufacture, import, sale 

and use of products containing asbestos. 

Canada added several limited 

exclusions, including an allowance for 

the import and use of asbestos for chloralkali facilities using asbestos 

diaphragm technology until December 

31, 2029. 

C. Consideration of OSHA Occupational 

Health Standards in TSCA Risk 

Evaluations and TSCA Risk 

Management Actions 

TSCA requires EPA to evaluate 

whether a chemical substance presents 

an unreasonable risk of injury to health 

or the environment, without 

consideration of costs or other non-risk 

factors, including an unreasonable risk 

to a potentially exposed or susceptible 

subpopulation identified as relevant by 

the Administrator, under the conditions 

of use (COUs). COUs are the 

circumstances, as determined by the 

Administrator, under which a chemical 

is intended, known, or reasonably 

foreseen to be manufactured, processed, 

distributed in commerce, used, or 

disposed of. If EPA determines through 

risk evaluation that a chemical 

substance presents an unreasonable risk, 

TSCA section 6 requires EPA to issue 

regulations applying one or more 

control requirements to the extent 

necessary so that the chemical 

substance no longer presents such risk. 

Although EPA must consider, and in 

some cases factor in to the extent 

practicable, non-risk factors as part of 

TSCA section 6(a) rulemaking (see 

TSCA section 6(c)(2)), EPA must 

nonetheless still ensure that the selected 

regulatory requirements apply ‘‘to the 

extent necessary so that the chemical 

substance or mixture no longer presents 

[unreasonable] risk.’’ This risk-based 

requirement is distinguishable from 

approaches mandated by other laws, 

including the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act (OSH Act), which includes 

both significant risk and feasibility 

(technical and economic) assessments in 

its rulemaking. 

Congress intended for EPA to 

consider occupational risks from 

chemicals it evaluates under TSCA, 

among other potential exposures, as 

relevant and appropriate. As noted 

previously, section 6(b) of TSCA 

requires EPA to evaluate risks to 

potentially exposed or susceptible 

subpopulations identified as relevant by 

the Administrator. TSCA section 3(12) 

defines the term ‘‘potentially exposed or 

susceptible subpopulation’’ as ‘‘a group 

of individuals within the general 

population identified by the 

Administrator who, due to either greater 

susceptibility or greater exposure, may 

be at greater risk than the general 

population of adverse health effects 

from exposure to a chemical substance 

or mixture, such as infants, children, 

pregnant women, workers, or the 

elderly.’’ 

The OSH Act similarly requires 

OSHA to evaluate risk to workers prior 

to promulgating new or revised 

standards and requires OSHA standards 

to substantially reduce significant risk 

to the extent feasible, even if workers 

are exposed over a full working lifetime. 

See 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5); Indus. Union 

Dep’t, AFL–CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 

448 U.S. 607, 642 (1980) (plurality 

opinion). 

Thus, the standards for chemical 

hazards that OSHA promulgates under 

the OSH Act share a broadly similar 

purpose with the standards that EPA 

promulgates under section 6(a) of TSCA. 

The control measures OSHA and EPA 

require to satisfy the objectives of their 

respective statutes may also, in many 

circumstances, overlap or coincide. 

However, as this section outlines, there 

are important differences between EPA’s 

and OSHA’s regulatory approaches and 

jurisdiction, and EPA considers these 

differences when deciding whether and 

how to account for OSHA requirements 

when evaluating and addressing 

potential unreasonable risk to workers 

so that compliance requirements are 

clearly explained to the regulated 

community. To that end, EPA has also 

aligned with ancillary requirements of 

OSHA standards, to the extent possible, 

by cross referencing them. 

1. OSHA Requirements 

OSHA’s mission is to ensure that 

employees work in safe and healthful 

conditions. The OSH Act establishes 

requirements that each employer 

comply with the General Duty Clause of 

the Act (29 U.S.C. 654(a)), as well as 

with occupational safety and health 

standards issued under the Act. 

a. General Duty Clause of the OSH Act 

The General Duty Clause of the OSH 

Act requires employers to keep their 

workplace free from recognized hazards 

that are causing or are likely to cause 

death or serious physical harm to 

employees. The General Duty Clause is 

cast in general terms, and does not 

establish specific requirements like 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
21712 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

exposure limits, personal protective 

equipment requirements (PPE), or other 

specific protective measures that EPA 

could potentially consider when 

developing its risk evaluations or risk 

management requirements. OSHA, 

under limited circumstances, has cited 

the General Duty Clause for exposure to 

chemicals. To prove a violation of the 

General Duty Clause, OSHA must prove 

employer or industry recognition of the 

hazard, the hazard was causing or likely 

to cause death or serious physical harm, 

and a feasible method to eliminate or 

materially reduce the hazard was 

available. In rare situations, OSHA has 

cited employers for violation of the 

General Duty Clause where exposures 

were below a chemical-specific PEL. In 

such situations, OSHA must 

demonstrate that the employer had 

actual knowledge that the PEL was 

inadequate to protect its employees 

from death or serious physical harm. 

Because of the heavy evidentiary burden 

on OSHA to establish violations of the 

General Duty Clause, it is not frequently 

used to cite employers for employee 

exposure to chemical hazards. 

b. OSHA Standards 

OSHA standards are issued pursuant 

to the OSH Act and are found in title 29 

of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

There are separate standards for general 

industry, construction, maritime and 

agriculture sectors, as well as general 

standards applicable to a number of 

sectors (e.g., OSHA’s Respiratory 

Protection standard). OSHA has 

numerous standards that apply to 

chemical manufacturers and processors, 

as well as downstream employers whose 

employees may be occupationally 

exposed to hazardous chemicals. 

OSHA sets legally enforceable limits 

on the airborne concentrations of 

hazardous chemicals, referred to as 

permissible exposure limits (PELs), to 

protect workers against the health 

effects of exposure to hazardous 

substances (29 CFR 1910 subpart Z, 

1915 subpart Z, 1926 subparts D and Z). 

Under section 6(a) of the OSH Act, 

OSHA was permitted an initial two-year 

window after the passage of the Act to 

adopt ‘‘any national consensus standard 

and any established Federal standard.’’ 

29 U.S.C. 655(a). OSHA used this 

authority in 1971 to establish PELs that 

were adopted from federal health 

standards originally set by the 

Department of Labor through the WalshHealy Act, in which approximately 400 

occupational exposure limits were 

selected based on the American 

Conference of Governmental Industrial 

Hygienists (ACGIH) 1968 list of 

Threshold Limit Values (TLVs). In 

addition, about 25 exposure limits 

recommended by the American 

Standards Association (now called the 

American National Standards Institute) 

(ANSI) were adopted as PELs. 

Following the two-year window 

provided under section 6(a) of the OSH 

Act for adoption of national consensus 

and existing Federal standards, OSHA 

has issued health standards following 

the requirements in section 6(b) of the 

Act. OSHA has established 

approximately 30 PELs under section 

6(b)(5) as part of comprehensive 

substance-specific standards that 

include additional requirements for 

protective measures such as use of PPE, 

establishment of regulated areas, 

exposure assessment, hygiene facilities, 

medical surveillance, and training. 

These ancillary provisions in substance 

specific OSHA standards further 

mitigate residual risk that could be 

present due to exposure at the PEL. 

Many OSHA PELs have not been 

updated since they were established in 

1971 (The asbestos PEL was last 

updated in 1994). Yet, in many 

instances, scientific evidence has 

accumulated suggesting that the current 

limits are not sufficiently protective. As 

stated on OSHA’s annotated PELs web 

page, OSHA has recognized that many 

of its PELs are outdated and inadequate 

for ensuring protection of worker health 

(Ref. 5). In addition, health standards 

issued under section 6(b)(5) of the OSH 

Act must reduce significant risk only to 

the extent that it is technologically and 

economically feasible. OSHA’s legal 

requirement to demonstrate that its 

section 6(b)(5) standards are 

technologically and economically 

feasible often precludes OSHA from 

imposing exposure control requirements 

sufficient to ensure that the chemical 

substance no longer presents a 

significant risk to workers. In sum, the 

great majority of OSHA’s chemical 

standards are outdated or do not 

eliminate significant risk contemplated 

by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of 

the OSH Act. See Am. Petroleum Inst., 

448 U.S. at 655. They would, in either 

case, be unlikely to address 

unreasonable risk to workers within the 

meaning of TSCA, since TSCA section 

6(b) unreasonable risk determinations 

may account for unreasonable risk to 

more sensitive endpoints and working 

populations than OSHA’s risk 

evaluations typically contemplate, and 

EPA is obligated to apply TSCA section 

6(a) risk management requirements to 

the extent necessary so that the 

unreasonable risk is no longer 

presented. 

Because the requirements and 

application of TSCA and OSHA 

regulatory analyses differ, it is 

appropriate that EPA conduct risk 

evaluations and, where it finds 

unreasonable risk to workers, develop 

risk management requirements for 

chemical substances that OSHA also 

regulates, and it is expected that EPA’s 

findings and requirements may 

sometimes diverge from OSHA’s. 

However, it is also appropriate that EPA 

consider the chemical standards that 

OSHA has already developed, so as to 

limit the compliance burden to 

employers by aligning management 

approaches required by the agencies, 

where alignment will adequately 

address unreasonable risk to workers. 

The following section discusses EPA’s 

consideration of OSHA standards in its 

risk evaluation and management 

strategies under TSCA. 

2. Consideration of OSHA Standards in 

TSCA Risk Evaluations 

When characterizing the risk during 

risk evaluation under TSCA, EPA 

believes it is appropriate to evaluate the 

levels of risk present in baseline 

scenarios where no mitigation measures 

are assumed to be in place for the 

purpose of determining unreasonable 

risk (see Unit II.C.2.a). (It should be 

noted that, there are some cases where 

baseline scenarios may reflect certain 

mitigation measures, such as in 

instances where exposure estimates are 

based on monitoring data at facilities 

that have existing engineering controls 

in place.) In addition, EPA believes it is 

appropriate to also evaluate the levels of 

risk present in scenarios considering 

applicable OSHA requirements (e.g., 

chemical-specific PELs and/or 

chemical-specific health standards with 

PELs and additional ancillary 

provisions) as well as scenarios 

considering industry or sector best 

practices for industrial hygiene that are 

clearly articulated to the Agency. By 

characterizing risks using scenarios that 

reflect different levels of mitigation, 

EPA risk evaluations can help inform 

potential risk management actions by 

providing information that could be 

used during risk management to tailor 

risk mitigation appropriately to address 

any unreasonable risk identified (see 

Unit II.C.2.b and Unit II.C.3). 

a. Risk Characterization for 

Unreasonable Risk Determination 

When undertaking unreasonable risk 

determinations as part of TSCA risk 

evaluations, EPA cannot assume as a 

general matter that an applicable OSHA 

requirement or industry practice is 

consistently and always properly 

applied. Mitigation scenarios included 

in the EPA risk evaluation (e.g., 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21713 

scenarios considering use of PPE) likely 

represent what is happening already in 

some facilities. However, the Agency 

cannot assume that all facilities will 

have adopted these practices for the 

purposes of making the TSCA risk 

determination. 

Therefore, EPA conducts baseline 

assessments of risk and makes its 

determination of unreasonable risk from 

a baseline scenario that is not based on 

an assumption of compliance with 

OSHA standards, including any 

applicable exposure limits or 

requirements for use of respiratory 

protection or other PPE. Making 

unreasonable risk determinations based 

on the baseline scenario should not be 

viewed as an indication that EPA 

believes there are no occupational safety 

protections in place at any location, or 

that there is widespread noncompliance 

with applicable OSHA standards. 

Rather, it reflects EPA’s recognition that 

unreasonable risk may exist for 

subpopulations of workers that may be 

highly exposed because they are not 

covered by OSHA standards, such as 

self-employed individuals and public 

sector workers who are not covered by 

a State Plan, or because their employer 

is out of compliance with OSHA 

standards, or because EPA finds 

unreasonable risk for purposes of TSCA 

notwithstanding existing OSHA 

requirements. 

b. Risk Evaluation To Inform Risk 

Management Requirements 

In addition to the baseline scenario 

described previously, EPA risk 

evaluations may characterize the levels 

of risk present in scenarios considering 

applicable OSHA requirements (e.g., 

chemical-specific PELs and/or 

chemical-specific health standards with 

PELs and additional ancillary 

provisions) as well as scenarios 

considering industry or sector best 

practices for industrial hygiene that are 

clearly articulated to the Agency. EPA’s 

evaluation of risk under scenarios that, 

for example, incorporate use of 

engineering or administrative controls, 

or personal protective equipment, serves 

to inform its risk management efforts. 

By characterizing risks using scenarios 

that reflect different levels of mitigation, 

EPA risk evaluations can help inform 

potential risk management actions by 

providing information that could be 

used during risk management to tailor 

risk mitigation appropriately to address 

worker exposures where the Agency has 

found unreasonable risk. In particular, 

as discussed below, EPA can use the 

information developed during its risk 

evaluation to determine whether 

alignment of EPA’s risk management 

requirements with existing OSHA 

requirements or industry best practices 

will adequately address unreasonable 

risk as required by TSCA. 

In the TSCA Risk Evaluation for 

Asbestos, Part 1 for chrysotile asbestos, 

EPA presented risk estimates based on 

workers’ exposures with and without 

respiratory protection. EPA determined 

that even when respirators are used by 

workers, unreasonable risk would 

remain in some of the conditions of use 

evaluated. In risk management, EPA is 

not relying only on the use of respirators 

to reduce exposures to workers so that 

chrysotile asbestos does not present 

unreasonable risk, since for some 

conditions of use respirators are not a 

viable regulatory option (e.g., the 

respirator alone does not reduce 

exposures enough so that asbestos does 

not present unreasonable risk). In 

addition, EPA is considering the 

NIOSH/OSHA hierarchy of controls 

when developing risk management 

actions, and therefore use of respirators 

might only be suitable after other steps 

have been taken by the facilities to 

reduce exposures. 

3. Consideration of OSHA Standards in 

TSCA Risk Management Actions 

When undertaking risk management 

actions, EPA: 1. Develops occupational 

risk mitigation measures to address any 

unreasonable risks identified by EPA, 

striving for consistency with applicable 

OSHA requirements and industry best 

practices, including appropriate 

application of the hierarchy of controls, 

when those measures would address an 

unreasonable risk; and 2. Ensures that 

EPA requirements apply to all 

potentially exposed workers in 

accordance with TSCA requirements. 

Consistent with TSCA section 9(d), EPA 

consults and coordinates TSCA 

activities with OSHA and other relevant 

Federal agencies for the purpose of 

achieving the maximum applicability of 

TSCA while avoiding the imposition of 

duplicative requirements. 

Informed by the mitigation scenarios 

and information gathered during the 

risk evaluation and risk management 

process, the Agency might propose rules 

that require risk management practices 

that may be already common practice in 

many or most facilities. Adopting clear, 

comprehensive regulatory standards 

will foster compliance across all 

facilities (ensuring a level playing field) 

and assure protections for all affected 

workers, especially in cases where 

current OSHA standards may not apply 

or not be sufficient to address the 

unreasonable risk. 

For evaluation scenarios which 

involve OSHA chemical-specific PELs, 

EPA’s risk evaluation in some cases may 

illustrate that limiting exposure to 

OSHA’s PEL would result in risk levels 

below the benchmark under the TSCA 

standard under certain conditions of 

use. In these cases, TSCA risk 

management requirements could 

incorporate and reinforce requirements 

in OSHA standards and ensure that 

risks are addressed, including for 

circumstances where OSHA 

requirements are not applicable (e.g., 

public sector workers) by asserting 

TSCA compliance/enforcement as well. 

EPA’s risk evaluation may also find 

unreasonable risk under TSCA 

associated with some occupational 

conditions of use, even when the 

applicable OSHA requirements are 

being met. In these cases, EPA would 

need to develop risk management 

requirements beyond those included in 

OSHA’s standards. 

D. Summary of EPA’s Risk Evaluation 

Activities on Chrysotile Asbestos 

In July 2017, EPA published a scope 

of the chrysotile asbestos risk evaluation 

(82 FR 31592, July 7, 2017), and after 

receiving public comment, published a 

problem formulation in June 2018 (83 

FR 26998, June 11, 2018). In March 

2020, EPA released a draft risk 

evaluation for asbestos, and in 

December 2020, following public 

comment and peer review by the 

Science Advisory Committee on 

Chemicals (SACC), EPA finalized the 

Risk Evaluation for Asbestos Part 1: 

Chrysotile Asbestos (Ref. 1). 

In the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos 

Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos, EPA 

evaluated risks associated with the 

conditions of use involving six nonlegacy use categories of chrysotile 

asbestos including: Chlor-alkali 

diaphragms, sheet gaskets in chemical 

production, other gaskets, oilfield brake 

blocks, aftermarket automotive brake/ 

linings, and other vehicle friction 

products. EPA evaluated the conditions 

of use within these categories, including 

manufacture (including import), 

processing, distribution, commercial 

use, consumer use, and disposal (Ref. 1). 

Descriptions of these conditions of use 

are included in Unit III.B.2. 

The risk evaluation identified 

potential adverse health effects 

associated with exposure to chrysotile 

asbestos, including the risk of 

mesothelioma, lung cancer, and other 

cancers from chronic inhalation. A 

further discussion of the chrysotile 

asbestos hazards is included in Unit 

III.B.1. The chrysotile asbestos 

conditions of use that EPA determined 

drive the chemical substance’s 

unreasonable risk to health include 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
21714 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

processing and industrial use of 

diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry; 

processing and industrial use of sheet 

gaskets used in chemical production; 

industrial use and disposal of brake 

blocks in the oil industry; commercial 

use and disposal of aftermarket 

automotive brakes/linings; commercial 

use and disposal of other vehicle 

friction products; commercial use and 

disposal of other gaskets; consumer use 

and disposal of aftermarket automotive 

brakes/linings; and consumer use and 

disposal of other gaskets. This 

determination includes unreasonable 

risk of injury to health to both workers 

and occupational non-users (ONUs) 

during occupational exposures, and to 

consumers and bystanders during 

exposures to consumer uses. 

EPA determined that there are no 

conditions of use that drive 

unreasonable risk to the environment. 

As previously discussed, following 

the November 2019 decision of the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Safer 

Chemicals Healthy Families v. EPA, 943 

F.3d 397, the agency will also, in 

parallel to pursuing risk management to 

address unreasonable risk identified in 

the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos, Part 1, 

conduct a Part 2 of the Asbestos Risk 

Evaluation: Supplemental Evaluation 

Including Legacy Uses and Associated 

Disposals of Asbestos. Legacy uses and 

associated disposals for asbestos are 

conditions of use for which manufacture 

(including import), processing, and 

distribution in commerce for a use no 

longer occur, but where use (e.g., in situ 

building material) and disposal are still 

known, intended, or reasonably foreseen 

to occur. 

Part 2 of the Risk Evaluation for 

Asbestos is currently underway. The 

October 13, 2021, consent decree in the 

case Asbestos Disease Awareness 

Organization et al v. Regan et al, 4:21– 

cv–03716–PJH (N.D. Cal.) requires the 

agency to publish a final Part 2 asbestos 

risk evaluation on or before December 1, 

2024. EPA published a draft scope for 

the Part 2 asbestos risk evaluation on 

December 29, 2021 (86 FR 74088). 

The Risk Evaluation for Asbestos, Part 

2: Supplemental Evaluation Including 

Legacy Uses and Associated Disposals 

of Asbestos will include evaluation of 

the legacy uses and associated disposals 

of chrysotile asbestos and the five 

amphibole fiber types described in the 

TSCA Title II definition in addition to 

Libby Amphibole Asbestos (mainly 

consisting of tremolite, winchite, and 

richterite). Additionally, where EPA 

identifies reasonably available 

information demonstrating the presence 

of asbestos in talc that fall under TSCA 

authority, talc containing asbestos 

impurities will be evaluated in Part 2. 

As part of the problem formulation for 

asbestos, EPA found that exposures to 

the general population may occur from 

the conditions of use considered in Part 

1 of the asbestos risk evaluation (Ref. 6). 

EPA determined, in Part 1 of the 

asbestos risk evaluation, that exposure 

to the general population via surface 

water, drinking water, ambient air, and 

disposal pathways falls under the 

jurisdiction of other environmental 

statutes administered by EPA. The 

Agency, therefore, at that time 

explained that it was tailoring the scope 

of the Part 1 risk evaluation for asbestos 

using authorities in TSCA sections 6(b) 

and 9(b)(1). As such, EPA did not 

evaluate hazards or exposures to the 

general population and the 

unreasonable risk determinations made 

in Part 1 of the asbestos risk evaluation 

do not account for exposures to the 

general population. However, EPA 

expects that any potential exposures to 

the general population would be 

adequately addressed through the 

proposed prohibition on the 

manufacture (including import), 

processing, distribution in commerce 

and commercial use of chrysotile 

asbestos to address the unreasonable 

risk posed to workers, ONUs, consumers 

and bystanders. EPA does plan to 

address exposures to the general 

population for the conditions of use 

evaluated in Part 2 of the risk 

evaluation. 

EPA also concluded that, based on the 

reasonably available information in the 

published literature provided by 

industries using asbestos and reporting 

to EPA databases, there were minimal or 

no releases of asbestos to surface water 

associated with the conditions of use 

that EPA evaluated in Part 1. Therefore, 

EPA concluded that there is low or no 

risk to aquatic and sediment-dwelling 

organisms from exposure to chrysotile 

asbestos. Terrestrial pathways, 

including biosolids from wastewater 

treatment plants, were excluded from 

the analysis at the problem formulation 

stage (Refs. 1 and 6). However, EPA 

expects that any potential exposures to 

terrestrial species, as with the general 

population, would be adequately 

addressed through the proposed 

prohibition on the manufacture 

(including import), processing, 

distribution in commerce and 

commercial use of chrysotile asbestos. 

III. Regulatory Approach 

A. Background 

Under TSCA section 6(a), if the 

Administrator determines through a 

TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation that a 

chemical substance presents an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or 

the environment, without consideration 

of costs or other non-risk factors, 

including an unreasonable risk to a 

potentially exposed or susceptible 

subpopulation identified as relevant to 

the Agency’s risk evaluation, under the 

conditions of use, EPA must by rule 

apply one or more requirements to the 

extent necessary so that the chemical 

substance no longer presents such risk. 

The TSCA section 6(a) requirements 

can include one or more of, the 

following actions: 

• Prohibit, limit, or otherwise restrict, 

the manufacturing, processing, or 

distribution in commerce of the 

substance or mixture (TSCA section 

6(a)(1)). 

• Prohibit, limit, or otherwise restrict, 

the manufacturing, processing, or 

distribution in commerce of the 

substance or mixture for particular uses 

or above a specific concentration for a 

particular use (TSCA section 6(a)(2)). 

• Require clear and adequate 

minimum warning and instructions 

with respect to use, distribution in 

commerce, or disposal of the substance 

or mixture (TSCA section 6(a)(3)). 

• Require record keeping, monitoring 

or testing by manufacturers and 

processors (TSCA 6(a)(4)). 

• Prohibit or regulate any manner or 

method of commercial use of the 

substance or mixture (TSCA section 

6(a)(5)). 

• Prohibit or otherwise regulate any 

manner or method of disposal of the 

substance or mixture by certain persons 

(TSCA section 6(a)(6)). 

• Direct manufacturers or processors 

to give notice of the determination of 

unreasonable risk to distributors, users, 

and the public and replace or 

repurchase the substance or mixture 

(TSCA section 6(a)(7)). 

As described in Unit III.B., EPA 

analyzed how the TSCA section 6(a) 

requirements could be applied so that 

the unreasonable risk found to be 

presented in Part 1 of the risk evaluation 

for chrysotile asbestos is no longer 

presented. TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A) 

requires EPA, in proposing and 

promulgating TSCA section 6(a) rules, 

to include a statement of effects 

addressing certain issues, including the 

effects of the chemical substance on 

health and the environment; the 

magnitude of exposure of the chemical 

substance to humans and the 

environment; the benefits of the 

chemical substance for various uses; 

and the reasonably ascertainable 

economic consequences of the rule, 

including consideration of the likely 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21715 

effects of the rule on the national 

economy, small business, technological 

innovation, the environment and public 

health; and the costs and benefits and 

the cost effectiveness of the regulatory 

action and of the one or more primary 

alternative regulatory actions 

considered by the Administrator. As a 

result, EPA is proposing a regulatory 

action and requesting comment on an 

alternative regulatory action, which are 

discussed in Unit IV. EPA is requesting 

public comment on all aspects of the 

proposed regulatory action and the 

primary alternative regulatory action. 

Under the authority of TSCA section 

6(g), EPA may consider granting a timelimited 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 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 

not proposing to grant an exemption 

from the rule requirements. EPA is 

aware that chlor-alkali chemicals are 

used in sectors important to the national 

economy and operation of critical 

infrastructure to protect human health, 

for uses such as drinking water 

treatment. Sectors include: Water and 

Wastewater Systems Sector, Chemical 

Sector, Critical Manufacturing Sector, 

Defense Industrial Base Sector, 

Emergency Services Sector, Energy 

Sector, Food and Agriculture Sector, 

and Healthcare and Public Health 

sector. EPA is requesting public 

comment regarding the need and 

rationale for exemptions from the 

proposed rule pursuant to the 

provisions of TSCA section 6(g). 

TSCA section 6(c)(2)(C) requires that, 

in deciding whether to prohibit or 

restrict in a manner that substantially 

prevents a specific condition of use and 

in setting an appropriate transition 

period for such action, EPA considers, 

to the extent practicable, whether 

technically and economically feasible 

alternatives that benefit health or the 

environment will be reasonably 

available as a substitute when the 

proposed prohibition or restriction takes 

effect. Unit III.B.4. includes more 

information regarding EPA’s 

consideration of alternatives. 

1. Consultations 

EPA conducted consultations and 

outreach in preparing for this proposed 

regulatory action. The Agency held a 

federalism consultation on May 13, 

2021, as part of this rulemaking process 

and pursuant to Executive Order 13132. 

During the consultation EPA met with 

state and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

action to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development (Ref. 7). During the 

consultation, participants and EPA 

discussed the authority given under 

TSCA section 6 regarding prohibition, 

how alternatives may be treated in 

rulemaking, and which activities would 

be potentially regulated in the proposed 

rule (Ref. 7). 

On May 24, 2021, and June 3, 2021, 

EPA held tribal consultations for Part 1: 

Chrysotile Asbestos. 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 (Ref. 

8). 

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 

environmental justice (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. These meetings were held 

pursuant to and in compliance with 

Executive Orders 12898 and 14008. 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). 

Units VIII.C., VIII.E., VIII.F., VIII.J. 

provide more information regarding the 

consultations. 

2. Other Stakeholder Consultations 

In addition to the consultations 

described in Units VIII.C., VIII.E., 

VIII.F., and VIII.J. on February 3, 2021, 

EPA held a public webinar (Ref. 10) and 

also attended a Small Business 

Administration roundtable on February 

5, 2021, where EPA staff provided an 

overview of the TSCA risk management 

process and the findings in the Part 1 

risk evaluation (EPA–HQ–OPPT–2021– 

0057). Attendees of these meetings were 

given an opportunity to voice their 

concerns on both the risk evaluation 

and the risk management process. 

Furthermore, EPA engaged in 

discussions with industry, nongovernmental organizations, other 

national governments, asbestos experts 

and users of chrysotile asbestos. 

Summaries of external meetings held 

during the development of this 

proposed rule are in the docket. These 

meetings helped to inform how long 

industry would need to implement a 

prohibition, how companies currently 

protect workers, and the extent to which 

each industry uses asbestos-free 

technology. Additionally, discussions 

with the Canadian government helped 

EPA to better understand how Canada 

approached its 2018 regulation to 

prohibit asbestos use (such as the 

asbestos-containing products covered in 

the prohibition and the chosen 

prohibition effective dates) to better 

inform this proposed rule (Refs. 4 and 

11). The purpose of these stakeholder 

discussions was to hear from importers, 

processors, distributors, users, 

academics, advisory councils, and 

members of the public health 

community about the conditions of use 

evaluated for chrysotile asbestos; 

substitute chemicals or alternative 

methods; engineering control measures 

and personal protective equipment 

currently in use or potentially feasible 

for adoption; and other risk reduction 

approaches that may have already been 

adopted or considered for the evaluated 

conditions of use. 

B. Regulatory Assessment of Chrysotile 

Asbestos Under Part 1 

This Unit describes the additional 

information that EPA considered in 

deciding the proposed regulatory 

approach for chrysotile asbestos, so that 

chrysotile asbestos would no longer 

present an unreasonable risk under the 

conditions of use evaluated under Part 

1 of the risk evaluation. This Unit 

describes the unreasonable risk, the 

conditions of use of chrysotile asbestos 

that are the focus of this regulation, and 

how EPA is proposing to apply the 

TSCA section 6(a) requirements, 

including the consideration of 

alternatives in deciding whether to 

prohibit or restrict in a manner that 

substantially prevents a specific 

condition of use. 

1. Description of Unreasonable Risk 

The health endpoint driving EPA’s 

determination of unreasonable risk for 

chrysotile asbestos under the conditions 

of use is cancer from inhalation 

exposure (Ref. 1). This unreasonable 

risk includes the risk of mesothelioma, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
21716 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

lung cancer, and other cancers from 

chronic inhalation. An inhalation unit 

risk (IUR), which is an estimate of the 

carcinogenic risk associated with a unit 

concentration of air, was developed for 

chrysotile asbestos. The IUR was based 

on epidemiological studies on 

mesothelioma and lung cancer in 

cohorts of workers using chrysotile 

asbestos in commerce. Since there was 

no exposure-response data for cancer of 

the ovary and laryngeal cancer effects, a 

direct estimate of risk from ovarian and 

laryngeal cancer could not be made for 

the unit risk calculation. An adjustment 

factor for ovarian and laryngeal cancer 

effects was applied to risk value 

estimates to correct for the negative bias 

in the risk values derived from only 

lung cancer and mesothelioma. And, as 

discussed in Section 4.2.1 of the Risk 

Evaluation (Ref. 1), for workers and 

ONUs exposed in a workplace, EPA 

used as a benchmark extra risks of 1 

cancer per 10,000 people. At this risk 

level 1×10–4 (1E–4), if the noncancer 

effects (e.g., asbestosis and pleural 

thickening) of chrysotile asbestos are 

similar to Libby Amphibole Asbestos, 

the non-cancer effects of chrysotile 

asbestos are likely to contribute 

additional risk to the overall health risk 

of chrysotile asbestos beyond the risk of 

cancer. Thus, the overall health risks of 

chrysotile asbestos are underestimated 

based on cancer risk alone. 

For processing and industrial use of 

chrysotile asbestos diaphragms, EPA 

found unreasonable risk to workers from 

chronic inhalation exposure to 

chrysotile asbestos, based on industry 

data including personal air monitoring 

(i.e., worker breathing zone results) and 

area air monitoring (i.e., fixed location 

air monitoring results) that led to the 

high-end risk estimates exceeding the 

1E–4 risk benchmark (Ref. 1). 

For both the processing (i.e., gasket 

cutting) and industrial use activities of 

chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet 

gaskets for chemical production, EPA 

found unreasonable risk to workers and 

ONUs from chronic inhalation exposure 

to chrysotile asbestos based on 

monitoring data provided by industry 

and data in the published literature (Ref. 

1). 

For the industrial use and disposal of 

chrysotile asbestos-containing oilfield 

brake blocks, EPA found unreasonable 

risk to workers and ONUs from chronic 

inhalation exposure to chrysotile 

asbestos based on a 1988 study of 

Norway’s offshore petroleum industry 

(Ref. 1). 

For the commercial use and disposal 

of aftermarket automotive chrysotile 

asbestos-containing brakes/linings and 

other vehicle friction products (except 

for the NASA Super Guppy Turbine 

aircraft use), EPA found unreasonable 

risk to workers and ONUs from chronic 

inhalation exposure to chrysotile 

asbestos based on published literature 

and OSHA data (Section 2.3.1.8.1 of the 

Risk Evaluation). EPA determined, 

based on exposure data provided by 

NASA to EPA (Section 2.3.1.8.2 of the 

Risk Evaluation), that the use and 

disposal of chrysotile asbestoscontaining brakes for NASA’s Super 

Guppy Turbine aircraft did not present 

an unreasonable risk of injury to health 

or the environment. 

For the commercial use and disposal 

of other chrysotile asbestos-containing 

gaskets, EPA found unreasonable risk to 

workers and ONUs from chronic 

inhalation exposure to chrysotile 

asbestos based on exposure scenarios 

from occupational monitoring data for 

asbestos-containing gasket replacement 

activities in vehicles. 

For consumer use and disposal of 

aftermarket automotive chrysotile 

asbestos-containing brakes/linings and 

other chrysotile asbestos-containing 

gaskets, EPA found unreasonable risk to 

consumers and bystanders from chronic 

inhalation exposure to chrysotile 

asbestos, using as a benchmark cancer 

risk level of 1x10–6 (1E–6) for 

consumers and bystanders. 

EPA also noted in the Part 1 asbestos 

risk evaluation that it is possible for 

industrial workers or consumers 

working with aftermarket automotive 

products or other types of asbestoscontaining gaskets to cause 

unintentional exposure to individuals in 

their residence due to take-home 

exposure from contaminated clothing or 

other items. While EPA did not identify 

or receive information which could 

inform such an exposure scenario and 

does not currently have models which 

can adequately evaluate and address 

this pathway, take-home exposures were 

considered pathways in the Part 1 risk 

evaluation for asbestos that could 

increase risk to populations associated 

with the workers, ONUs, consumers or 

bystanders. 

Unit V.A. summarizes the health 

effects and the magnitude of the 

exposures (Ref. 1). 

The regulatory actions proposed, and 

alternatives, so that chrysotile asbestos 

no longer presents this unreasonable 

risk, are in Unit IV. 

2. Description of Conditions of Use 

This Unit describes the conditions of 

use subject to this proposed regulatory 

action. 

Although EPA identified both 

industrial and commercial uses in Part 

1 of the risk evaluation for purposes of 

distinguishing scenarios, the Agency 

clarified then and clarifies now that 

EPA interprets the authority over ‘‘any 

manner or method of commercial use’’ 

under TSCA section 6(a)(5) to reach 

both. 

The conditions of use subject to this 

proposed regulatory action do not 

include any legacy uses or associated 

disposal for chrysotile asbestos or other 

asbestos fiber types. EPA will consider 

legacy uses and associated disposals in 

Part 2 of the risk evaluation for asbestos 

(Ref. 1). 

a. Processing and industrial use of 

chrysotile asbestos diaphragms in the 

chlor-alkali industry: 

Chrysotile asbestos is imported and 

used by the chlor-alkali industry for the 

fabrication of semi-permeable 

diaphragms. The chrysotile asbestos 

diaphragms are used in an industrial 

process for the production of chorine 

and sodium hydroxide (caustic soda). 

Asbestos is chemically inert and able to 

effectively separate chlorine and sodium 

hydroxide in electrolytic cells. The 

chlor-alkali chemical production 

process involves the separation of the 

sodium and chloride atoms of salt in 

saltwater (brine) via electricity to 

produce sodium hydroxide (caustic 

soda), hydrogen, and chlorine. This 

reaction occurs in an electrolytic cell. 

The cell contains two compartments 

separated by a semi-permeable 

diaphragm, which is made mostly of 

chrysotile asbestos. The diaphragm 

prevents the reaction of the caustic soda 

with the chlorine and allows for the 

separation of both materials for further 

processing. Diaphragms are typically 

used for 1–3 years before they must be 

replaced (Ref. 1). 

b. Processing and industrial use of 

chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet 

gaskets in chemical production: 

Sheet gaskets are used to form a 

leakproof seal between fixed 

components. Chrysotile asbestoscontaining gaskets are used primarily in 

industrial applications with extreme 

operating conditions, such as high 

temperatures, high pressures, and the 

presence of chlorine or other corrosive 

substances. Such extreme production 

conditions are found in many chemical 

manufacturing and processing 

operations, including: The manufacture 

of titanium dioxide and chlorinated 

hydrocarbons; polymerization reactions 

involving chlorinated monomers; and 

steam cracking at petrochemical 

facilities. Chrysotile asbestos-containing 

gaskets are fabricated from sheets 

composed of 80% (minimum) chrysotile 

asbestos fully encapsulated in styrene 

butadiene rubber. The chrysotile 

asbestos-containing sheets are imported 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21717 

into the U.S. in large rolls where they 

are cut to shape by a fabricator and 

subsequently used at titanium dioxide 

manufacturing facilities. Installed 

gaskets typically remain in use 

anywhere from a few weeks to three 

years (Ref. 1). 

c. Industrial use and disposal of 

chrysotile asbestos-containing brake 

blocks in oil industry: 

The rotary drilling rig of an oil well 

uses a drawworks hoisting machine to 

raise and lower the traveling blocks 

during drilling. The drawworks is a 

permanently installed component of a 

mobile drilling rig. The drawworks 

consists of a large-diameter steel spool, 

a motor, a main brake, a reduction gear, 

and an auxiliary brake. The brake of the 

drawworks hoisting machine is an 

essential component that is engaged 

when no motion of the traveling block 

is desired. Chrysotile asbestoscontaining brake blocks are imported for 

use in some drawworks, reportedly most 

often on larger drilling rigs. Spent brake 

blocks must periodically be replaced by 

workers in the oilfield industry who 

maintain the rig (Ref. 1). 

d. Commercial use and disposal of 

aftermarket automotive chrysotile 

asbestos-containing brakes/linings: 

The two primary types of automobile 

brakes are drum brakes and disc brakes, 

and chrysotile asbestos has been found 

in both, in linings for drum brake 

assemblies and pads in disc brake 

assemblies. Disc brakes are much more 

common today than drum brakes, but 

many passenger vehicles have a 

combination of disc brakes for the front 

wheels and drum brakes for the rear 

wheels. Chrysotile asbestos fibers offer 

many properties that are desired for 

brake linings and brake pads, and up 

through the 1990s many new 

automobiles manufactured in the United 

States had brake assemblies with 

asbestos-containing components. 

However, by 2000, asbestos was no 

longer used in the brakes of virtually 

any original equipment manufacturer 

(OEM) automobiles sold domestically. 

Asbestos in automotive parts is not 

currently banned in the U.S., and 

asbestos-containing brake products may 

be imported and sold in the United 

States. The quantity of asbestoscontaining brake parts imported is 

unknown. Therefore, asbestos could be 

found in the United States: (1) In 

vehicles on the road that have asbestoscontaining brakes, whether from older 

and vintage vehicles or aftermarket 

parts; and (2) in vehicles that have new 

asbestos-containing brakes installed by 

establishments or individuals that use 

certain imported products. Brakes must 

be repaired and replaced periodically, 

which involves activities that create 

dust and potential occupational 

exposure to asbestos (Ref. 1). 

e. Commercial use and disposal of 

other chrysotile asbestos-containing 

vehicle friction products: 

While EPA has verified that U.S. 

automotive manufacturers are not 

installing asbestos-containing brakes on 

new cars for domestic distribution, EPA 

identified a company that claimed to 

import asbestos-containing brakes and 

then install them on cars in the United 

States for export only. Following 

completion of the risk evaluation, and 

during the risk management phase 

following publication of the final risk 

evaluation, this company disavowed 

this practice (Ref. 12). 

In addition, there is a limited use of 

asbestos-containing brakes for a special, 

large transport plane, the ‘‘SuperGuppy’’ Turbine (SGT) aircraft, owned 

and operated by the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA). The SGT aircraft is a specialty 

cargo plane that transports oversized 

equipment, and it is considered a 

mission-critical vehicle. Only one SGT 

aircraft is in operation today, and NASA 

acquired it in 1997. The SGT aircraft 

averages approximately 100 flights per 

year. When not in use, it is hangered 

and maintained at a NASA facility in El 

Paso, Texas. The SGT aircraft has eight 

landing gear systems, and each system 

has 32 brake blocks, which contain 

chrysotile asbestos. Potential worker 

exposures are associated with servicing 

the brakes. As explained in the risk 

evaluation, the following two conditions 

of use do not present unreasonable risk, 

and therefore do not require mitigation 

by this proposed regulation: Use of 

chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes for 

a specialized, large NASA transport 

plane; and the disposal of chrysotile 

asbestos-containing brakes for a 

specialized, large NASA transport plane 

(Ref. 1). 

f. Commercial use and disposal of 

other asbestos-containing gaskets: 

EPA also identified the use of 

chrysotile asbestos-containing gaskets in 

the exhaust system of a specific type of 

utility vehicle manufactured and 

available for purchase in the United 

States. The utility vehicle manufacturer 

purported at the time to receive the precut gaskets which are then installed 

during manufacture of the vehicle. The 

gaskets may be removed during 

servicing of the exhaust system. EPA 

determined that workers and ONUs who 

install the gaskets during assembly and 

workers who may repair these vehicles 

are exposed to asbestos (Ref. 1). 

g. Consumer use and disposal of 

aftermarket automotive chrysotile 

asbestos-containing brakes/linings: 

As discussed in Unit III.B.2.d., 

asbestos could be found in the United 

States: (1) In vehicles on the road that 

have asbestos-containing brakes, 

whether from original manufacturers 

(primarily for older and vintage 

vehicles) or aftermarket parts; and (2) in 

vehicles that have new asbestoscontaining brakes installed by 

establishments or individuals that use 

certain imported products. Brakes must 

be repaired and replaced periodically, 

activities which create dust and 

exposure to asbestos for consumers and 

bystanders who perform their own doit-yourself automobile maintenance and 

repairs on asbestos-containing 

components (Ref. 1). 

h. Consumer use and disposal of other 

asbestos-containing gaskets: 

As discussed in Unit III.B.2.f., EPA 

also identified the use of chrysotile 

asbestos-containing gaskets in the 

exhaust system of a specific type of 

utility vehicle manufactured and 

available for purchase in the United 

States. The gaskets may be removed 

during servicing of the exhaust system. 

EPA determined that do-it-yourself 

consumers who may repair these 

vehicles and bystanders are exposed to 

asbestos (Ref. 1). 

3. Description of TSCA Section 6(a) 

Requirements Considered To Address 

Unreasonable Risk 

EPA examined which requirements or 

combination of requirements under 

TSCA section 6(a), as described in Unit 

III, have the potential to reduce the risk 

to workers, occupational non-users 

(ONUs), consumers and bystanders so 

that chrysotile asbestos no longer 

presents unreasonable risk. As required 

by TSCA, as amended, in selecting 

among these requirements, EPA factored 

in, to the extent practicable, 

considerations including the effects of 

the chemical on health and the 

environment, the benefits of the 

chemical substance for various uses, 

and the reasonably ascertainable 

economic consequences of the rule, 

including the effect of the rule on the 

national economy, small business, 

technological innovation, the 

environment and public health; the 

costs and benefits of the proposed 

regulatory action and one or more 

primary regulatory alternative 

regulatory actions considered; and the 

cost effectiveness of the proposed 

regulatory action and of the one or more 

primary alternative regulatory actions 

considered. See Unit V for further 

discussion related to TSCA section 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
21718 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(c)(2)(A) considerations, including the 

statement of effects of the proposed rule 

with respect to these considerations. 

EPA developed a proposed regulatory 

action and one primary alternative 

regulatory action, which are described 

in Units IV.A. and IV.B. To identify and 

select a regulatory action, EPA 

considered the route of exposure driving 

the unreasonable risk (inhalation) and 

the exposed population. For consumer 

conditions of use, EPA considered how 

it could exercise its authority under 

TSCA to regulate the manufacturing, 

processing, and distribution in 

commerce of chrysotile asbestos at 

different levels in the supply chain to 

eliminate or restrict the availability of 

chrysotile asbestos and chrysotile 

asbestos-containing products for 

consumer use to effectively address the 

unreasonable risk to consumers and 

bystanders. EPA also considered the 

regulatory authority under TSCA and 

other statutes such as OSHA, CPSA, and 

other EPA-administered statutes to 

examine (1) whether there are 

opportunities for identified risk from 

chrysotile asbestos to be addressed 

under other statutes, such that a referral 

may be warranted under TSCA section 

9(a) or section 9(b), or (2) whether TSCA 

section 6(a) regulation could include 

alignment of requirements and 

definitions to minimize confusion to the 

regulated entities and the general 

public. 

In addition, EPA considered other 

TSCA requirements such as the 

consideration of alternatives when 

recommending prohibition or a 

substantial restriction (TSCA section 

6(c)(2)(C), as outlined in Unit III.B.4.), 

and the requirements in TSCA section 

6(d)(1)(B) for compliance dates 

(described in the proposed and primary 

alternative regulatory actions in Unit 

IV.). 

To the extent information was 

reasonably available, when selecting 

regulatory actions, EPA considered the 

pollution prevention actions and the 

hierarchy of controls adopted by OSHA 

and NIOSH, with the goal of identifying 

risk management control methods that 

are permanent, feasible, and effective. 

EPA also considered how to address the 

unreasonable risk while providing 

flexibility to the regulated entities, given 

the functionality and the performance 

efficacy of chrysotile asbestos. EPA 

considered the information presented in 

the risk evaluation, additional input 

from stakeholders (as described in Unit 

III.A.) and anticipated compliance 

strategies from regulated entities. 

EPA evaluated regulatory options 

under TSCA section 6(a) to address the 

unreasonable risk found to be presented 

by chrysotile asbestos under the 

conditions of use evaluated in the Risk 

Evaluation for Asbestos, Part 1: 

Chrysotile Asbestos. EPA is proposing a 

prohibition of the manufacture 

(including import), processing, 

distribution in commerce and 

commercial use of chrysotile asbestos in 

bulk form and as part of chrysotile 

asbestos diaphragms used in the chloralkali industry and chrysotile asbestoscontaining sheet gaskets used in 

chemical production (descriptions of 

these conditions of use are in Unit 

III.B.2.) two years following the effective 

date of the final rule, which is 60 days 

after final rule promulgation. Associated 

with that prohibition, EPA considered 

and is proposing interim recordkeeping 

requirements and is proposing to cross 

reference existing disposal regulations. 

The proposed prohibition, 

recordkeeping requirements, and cross 

referencing are described in more detail 

in Unit IV.A. Similarly, EPA evaluated 

and is proposing a prohibition of the 

manufacture (including import), 

processing, distribution in commerce 

and industrial or commercial use of 

chrysotile asbestos-containing brake 

blocks used in the oil industry; 

aftermarket automotive chrysotile 

asbestos-containing brakes/linings; 

other vehicle friction products; and 

asbestos-containing gaskets 180 days 

after the effective date of the final rule. 

EPA is further proposing pursuant to 

TSCA section 6(a) to prohibit 

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 180 days after the 

effective date of the final rule. EPA also 

is proposing disposal and recordkeeping 

requirements for these conditions of 

use. EPA does not intend the proposed 

prohibitions on processing or 

distribution in commerce to prohibit 

any processing or distribution in 

commerce incidental to disposal of the 

chrysotile asbestos waste in accordance 

with the proposed requirements. 

EPA considered alternative regulatory 

requirements that would reduce 

exposures in occupational settings and 

address consumer and bystander 

exposure so that chrysotile asbestos no 

longer presents unreasonable risk. A 

possible requirement under TSCA 

section 6(a) that EPA considered was 

the use of respirators; however, EPA 

determined that respirators were not 

adequate for all conditions of use that 

are driving unreasonable risk, and EPA 

also would like to consider the NIOSH/ 

OSHA hierarchy of controls instead of 

consideringly only respirators as part of 

management of occupational exposures. 

Other possible requirements under 

TSCA section 6(a) such as limiting the 

weight fraction or size of the items 

containing chrysotile asbestos, were not 

considered since those seemed 

impracticable for the conditions of use 

under consideration. Other possible 

requirements under TSCA section 6(a) 

that EPA considered in combination 

under the primary alternative regulatory 

action, such as labels, warning signs, 

and recordkeeping, are discussed in 

Unit IV.B. 

The primary alternative option EPA 

considered for the chlor-alkali 

diaphragm and sheet gasket categories 

was a prohibition to take effect over a 

longer time (five years), and the 

establishment of a risk-based 

performance standard, known as an 

existing chemical exposure limit (ECEL) 

to reduce inhalation exposures by 

workers and occupational non-users 

during that period prior to the 

prohibition. EPA developed an 8-hour 

time-weighted average (TWA) ECEL in 

support of risk management efforts on 

chrysotile asbestos under TSCA section 

6(a). EPA calculated the ECEL to be 

0.005 fibers/cc (f/cc) for inhalation 

exposures to chrysotile asbestos as an 8- 

hour TWA (Ref. 13). 

Requirements to meet an ECEL would 

not include requirements for specific 

engineering or administrative controls; 

rather, the ECEL is a performance-based 

exposure limit that would allow 

regulated entities to determine how to 

most effectively meet the ECEL based on 

what works best for their workplace, 

while following the hierarchy of 

controls to the extent feasible (e.g., 

preferential use of methods which 

prevent generation or release of asbestos 

in the workplace rather than relying on 

respiratory protection to meet the ECEL; 

see Unit IV.B.1, Exposure Controls). 

In general, industrial and commercial 

facilities are already familiar with the 

concept of permissible exposure limits 

(PELs) required by OSHA. Based on 

their familiarity with the PELs and 

corresponding methods of compliance, 

some industrial and commercial 

facilities may be able to implement an 

ECEL. 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. It is also unknown whether 

facilities could, under the ECEL 

provision, routinely monitor at or below 

the ECEL or ECEL-action level with 

reasonable certainty. Additionally, there 

are uncertainties regarding whether 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21719 

facilities would need to routinely rely 

on the use of respiratory protection 

considering the engineering and 

administrative controls already in place 

and the effectiveness of the respiratory 

protection to ensure that air 

concentrations above the ECEL do not 

result in unreasonable risk (see Section 

2.3.1.2 of the Risk Evaluation). For these 

reasons, EPA did not include in the 

proposed regulation requirements to 

meet an ECEL. However, the ECEL is 

included as an interim exposure 

reduction measure in the primary 

alternative regulatory action, based on 

the longer interim period prior to 

prohibition considered in the primary 

alternative regulatory action. Details of 

the ECEL requirement included in the 

primary alternative regulatory action, 

including how facilities could 

demonstrate compliance, are described 

in Unit IV.B. 

In addition, EPA considered other 

requirements, such as requiring 

monitoring and recordkeeping to 

demonstrate compliance with the ECEL, 

or downstream notification to 

communicate the date of prohibition for 

manufacturing, processing and 

distribution in commerce. These 

requirements are described in Unit IV.B. 

As required under TSCA section 6(d), 

any rule under TSCA section 6(a) must 

specify the date of compliance, which 

shall be as soon as practicable with a 

reasonable transition period but begin 

no later than five years after the date of 

promulgation of the rule. These 

proposed compliance dates are detailed 

in Unit IV.A. 

Because a determination has been 

made that chrysotile asbestos presents 

an unreasonable risk to health within 

the United States or to the environment 

of the United States, pursuant to TSCA 

section 12(a)(2), this proposed rule 

would apply to chrysotile asbestos even 

if being manufactured, processed, or 

distributed in commerce solely for 

export from the United States. 

After considering the different 

regulatory requirements under TSCA 

section 6(a), consideration of 

alternatives (described in Unit III.B.4.), 

compliance dates, and other 

requirements under TSCA section 6(c), 

EPA developed the proposed regulatory 

action described in Unit IV.A. and a 

primary alternative regulatory action 

described in Units IV.B.1., IV.B.5, 

IV.B.6, and IV.B.7. 

4. Consideration of Alternatives in 

Deciding Whether To Prohibit or 

Substantially Restrict Chrysotile 

Asbestos 

In selecting among prohibitions and 

other restrictions available under TSCA 

section 6(a), EPA must under section 

6(c)(2)(A) and (B) consider and factor in, 

to the extent practicable, the health and 

environmental effects and exposures of 

the chemical, the benefits of the 

chemical for various uses and the 

reasonably ascertainable economic 

consequences of the rule (described in 

Unit V.). Further, under TSCA section 

6(c)(2)(C) and based on the information 

published under TSCA section 

6(c)(2)(A), in deciding whether to 

prohibit or restrict in a manner that 

substantially prevents a specific 

condition of use of a chemical substance 

or mixture, and in setting an appropriate 

transition period for such action, EPA 

must also consider, to the extent 

practicable, whether technically and 

economically feasible alternatives that 

benefit health or the environment will 

be reasonably available as a substitute 

when the proposed prohibition or other 

restriction takes effect. 

a. Health and environmental effects of 

the chemical alternatives or substitute 

methods: 

In considering the potential chemical 

alternatives or substitute methods for 

chrysotile asbestos for the conditions of 

use evaluated in the risk evaluation, 

EPA notes that chrysotile asbestos is not 

currently the primary substance most 

commonly used in these conditions of 

use, nor has it been for the last decade. 

Chlor-alkali asbestos diaphragms, sheet 

gaskets for chemical production, 

aftermarket automotive breaks, oilfield 

brake blocks, other gaskets and other 

friction products containing chrysotile 

asbestos are relatively uncommon in the 

market space, as described in the risk 

evaluation. There are a number of 

alternatives to asbestos in these 

conditions of use that make up the 

majority of the market share and have 

been preferentially used for some time, 

in part as a result of the known severe 

and adverse health effects related to 

asbestos exposure. Based on the 

information published under TSCA 

section 6(c)(2)(A), EPA does not expect 

any adverse impacts to human health 

and the environment to result from the 

further reduction of asbestos in these 

conditions of use when compared to the 

continued use of asbestos. 

EPA acknowledges that substitute 

technologies for asbestos-containing 

diaphragms in chlor-alkali production 

use an increased concentration of perand polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) 

relative to the amount of PFAS 

compounds contained in asbestoscontaining diaphragms. As discussed in 

the Economic Analysis, the three types 

of chlor-alkali production technologies 

commonly used in the United States 

vary in their use of PFAS. Non-asbestos 

diaphragms have a higher concentration 

of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, a 

polymeric perfluorinated substance) 

than asbestos-containing diaphragms, 

and non-asbestos membranes are made 

of PTFE, perfluorinated carboxylic acids 

and perfluorosulfonic acids. Therefore, 

the transition away from asbestoscontaining diaphragms could result in 

greater usage and release of PFAS. EPA 

lacks information to determine whether 

increased usage is likely to cause 

increased release of PFAS at chlor-alkali 

facilities that currently rely on asbestoscontaining diaphragms, chlor-alkali 

facilities that do not currently use 

asbestos-containing diaphragms that 

may expand their production as a result 

of the regulation, upstream facilities that 

produce membranes, or upstream 

facilities that produce perfluorinated 

fibers used in non-asbestos diaphragms. 

EPA requests public comment with 

monitoring data and other information 

that would allow the Agency to assess 

how a transition away from asbestos 

containing diaphragms may affect 

exposures to PFAS released by chloralkali facilities. Despite these 

uncertainties about possible greater use 

and release of PFAS, 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 even 

though there are uncertainties regarding 

the potential additional exposure to 

PFAS that might result from this action. 

b. Technical feasibility, economic 

feasibility, and reasonable availability 

of the chemical alternatives or 

substitute methods: 

As mentioned, there are a number of 

alternatives to asbestos in these 

conditions of use that make up the 

majority of the market share and have 

been preferentially used for some time. 

EPA received input from stakeholders 

regarding their concerns about 

alternatives to chrysotile asbestos. EPA 

expects non-asbestos diaphragms and 

membrane cells will be the likely 

substitutes to asbestos diaphragms. Each 

chlor-alkali industry member consulted 

expressed concerns about the economic 

feasibility of transitioning to asbestos 

free technology (Refs. 14, 15, 16, 17, and 

20), indicating that would take a 

significant amount of time. Several 

stakeholders provided feedback on 

alternatives to chrysotile asbestos for the 

sheet gasket use in chemical production. 

Generally, these stakeholders described 

how the transition from asbestos use for 

titanium dioxide production would 

require significant capital investment. 

One stakeholder noted they have a 

titanium dioxide production facility 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
21720 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

located in Taiwan that uses asbestosfree gaskets. The stakeholder, however, 

stated that the technology used in the 

Taiwan facility would not suit certain 

domestic titanium dioxide plants 

because the large diameter flanges in the 

domestic plants result in performance 

issues with the asbestos-free gaskets 

(Ref. 14). Non-asbestos technologies 

already dominate the market for other 

gaskets, oilfield brake blocks, brakes and 

other friction products. Although, 

stakeholders indicated the advantages of 

using asbestos (e.g., asbestos in 

automotive drum brakes advantages 

include thermal stability, flexibility, 

resistance to wear, and low cost), and 

limitations of the non-asbestos 

replacements (e.g., non-asbestos 

replacements in brake blocks have a 

useful life half that of products 

containing asbestos, are more expensive 

than asbestos-containing products, and 

are subject to sudden failure) (Ref. 2). 

Non-asbestos aftermarket automotive 

brakes are estimated to cost an average 

of $4 more than brakes containing 

asbestos. Asbestos-free brake blocks are 

also more expensive than those 

containing asbestos according to a 

company importing asbestos brake 

blocks. EPA was unable to identify any 

companies currently supplying or using 

other gaskets or other friction products 

containing asbestos, so the Agency does 

not have information on the cost 

differentials between products that 

contain asbestos and those that are 

asbestos-free. Additional information is 

available in the risk evaluation (Ref. 1) 

and economic analysis (Ref. 2). 

IV. Proposed and Primary Alternative 

Regulatory Actions 

This Unit describes EPA’s proposed 

regulatory action to address the 

unreasonable risk identified for 

chrysotile asbestos under certain 

conditions of use in EPA’s Risk 

Evaluation for Asbestos Part 1, so that 

chrysotile asbestos no longer presents 

such risk (Ref. 1). In addition, as 

indicated by TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A), 

EPA must consider the cost and benefits 

and the cost effectiveness of the 

proposed regulatory action and one or 

more primary alternative regulatory 

actions. In the case of chrysotile 

asbestos, the proposed regulatory option 

is described in Unit IV.A. and the 

primary alternative regulatory action is 

described in Unit IV.B. 

A. Proposed Regulatory Action 

EPA is proposing under TSCA section 

6(a) to: Prohibit 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; chrysotile 

asbestos-containing sheet gaskets in 

chemical production; chrysotile 

asbestos-containing brake blocks in the 

oil industry; aftermarket automotive 

chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/ 

linings; and other vehicle friction 

products. EPA is also proposing to 

prohibit 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. EPA is also proposing 

disposal requirements and 

recordkeeping requirements under 

which regulated parties would 

document compliance with the 

proposed disposal requirements. EPA 

does not intend the proposed 

prohibitions on processing or 

distribution in commerce to prohibit 

any processing or distribution in 

commerce incidental to disposal of the 

chrysotile asbestos waste in accordance 

with the proposed requirements. 

Under this proposed approach and 

pursuant to TSCA section 6(d)(1), the 

manufacture (including import), 

processing, distribution in commerce, 

and commercial use of chrysotile 

asbestos in bulk form or as part of 

diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry 

and for asbestos-containing sheet 

gaskets used in chemical production 

would be prohibited two years after the 

effective date of the final rule. 

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 chrysotile asbestoscontaining vehicle friction products; 

and asbestos-containing gaskets would 

be prohibited 180 days after the 

effective date of the final rule. Disposal 

and recordkeeping requirements would 

take effect 180 days after the effective 

date of the final rule. As noted in Unit 

III.B.2.e, these prohibitions would not 

apply to chrysotile asbestos in the 

NASA Super Guppy Turbine aircraft, 

which is a condition of use for which 

EPA did not make a determination of 

unreasonable risk. 

EPA requests comment on any 

suggestions to address the unreasonable 

risk identified while recognizing that 

chrysotile asbestos is a natural occurring 

fiber that may be unintentionally 

present (e.g., by incorporating a de 

minimis level). In particular, in lieu of 

proposing a de minimis provision for 

chrysotile asbestos with this proposed 

rule, EPA requests comment on 

incorporating a de minimis provision for 

chrysotile asbestos where the regulatory 

requirements of the rule would apply: 

(1) Only at concentrations in a product 

greater than or equal to 0.1% by weight; 

(2) at any concentration in a product, if 

intentionally added; or (3) above 

another de minimis level. 

Other national governments, in their 

prohibitions of asbestos, have used 

threshold levels or other provisions to 

limit the regulation of products that 

contain trace amounts of chrysotile 

asbestos present as unintentional or 

naturally occurring fibers in other 

material obtained from mineral sources, 

such as brake pads and other friction 

materials (Ref. 4). 

1. Prohibition on 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 asbestoscontaining sheet gaskets in chemical 

production. 

EPA consulted with several 

companies who manufacture, process, 

distribute, and use chrysotile asbestos 

diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry 

and process and use chrysotile asbestoscontaining sheet gaskets in chemical 

production. Each company stated that 

while alternatives may exist, they could 

take many years to implement. EPA 

considered this information while 

developing the proposed regulatory 

option and compliance timeframes. 

EPA proposes to prohibit 

manufacturing (including import), 

processing, distribution in commerce, 

and commercial use of chrysotile 

asbestos under TSCA sections 6(a)(2) 

and 6(a)(5) in bulk form or as part of 

chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in 

the chlor-alkali industry and for 

chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet 

gaskets used in chemical production. 

The prohibition would take effect two 

years from the effective date of the final 

rule. Pursuant to TSCA section 6(d)(1), 

when EPA elects to ban or phase-out a 

chemical substance, the start of the ban 

or phaseout must be as soon as 

practicable but not later than five years 

after the date of promulgation of the 

rule, and the date for full 

implementation must be as soon as 

practicable thereafter. EPA believes 

safer, economically viable alternatives 

are available for these conditions of use. 

Specifically, for the chrysotile asbestos 

diaphragms, EPA is aware of one 

company already transitioning to 

exclusive use of alternative technologies 

such as membrane and non-asbestos 

diaphragm technologies. All three 

domestic companies that use chrysotile 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21721 

asbestos diaphragms currently also use 

membrane or non-asbestos diaphragms 

at their chlor-alkali facilities. The plants 

range in age from 40 to 123 years old, 

although some have had new capacity 

added as recently as 16 years ago, and 

others may have had recent 

refurbishments. EPA understands from 

industry stakeholder consultations that 

there are no plans to build new chloralkali plants that use chrysotile asbestos 

technology for the production of 

chlorine and caustic soda (Refs. 14, 15, 

and 16). One of the three remaining 

chlor-alkali companies that continue to 

use chrysotile-asbestos technology 

domestically stated to EPA in 2017 that 

they plan to voluntarily discontinue the 

use chrysotile asbestos (Ref. 18). 

Globally, the chlor-alkali industry has 

transitioned away from chrysotile 

asbestos diaphragms to membrane-based 

technology or asbestos-free diaphragm 

technology due to prohibitions or 

impending prohibitions of chrysotile 

asbestos and the advantages of asbestosfree technology including greater energy 

efficiency, and reduced waste handling 

and disposal costs for asbestos-free 

materials. Only one chlor-alkali plant 

that uses chrysotile asbestos technology 

remains in operation in the European 

Union (EU), but it will phase-out of 

chrysotile asbestos use no later than 

2025 to comply with the EU prohibition 

on chrysotile asbestos use by that date 

(Ref. 19). One chlor-alkali plant utilizing 

chrysotile asbestos technology remains 

in operation in Canada (Ref. 11). The 

Canadian government prohibited 

chrysotile asbestos use in the chloralkali industry with a compliance date 

of no later than the end of 2029. 

EPA considers the proposed two-year 

effective date for the prohibition on 

manufacturing (including import), 

processing, distribution in commerce, 

and use of chrysotile asbestos in bulk 

form and as part of chrysotile asbestos 

diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry 

to be achievable by the industry, thus 

meeting the ‘‘as soon as practicable’’ 

requirement of TSCA section 6(d)(1). 

EPA believes an aggressive transition 

away from chrysotile asbestos will spur 

adoption of superior technology and 

that potential supply disruptions could 

be addressed in the shorter term through 

increased importing of caustic soda and 

derivatives of chlorine and caustic soda, 

and over time with increased 

production at existing non-asbestos 

diaphragm or membrane-based chloralkali plants. However, EPA is aware 

that public drinking water and 

wastewater systems have experienced 

substantial price increases for chloralkali products related to supply 

shortages and COVID pandemic 

impacts. EPA has insufficient 

information to fully assess the impact of 

this proposed rule on the cost or 

availability of water treatment 

chemicals. EPA requests public 

comment on the potential impact of 

changes in supply on the availability 

and cost of water treatment chemicals, 

including both chlorine and caustic 

soda used directly in water treatment as 

well as the potential impact on the cost 

of other water treatment chemicals 

derived from chlorine or caustic soda. 

Chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet 

gaskets are used in limited chemical 

production applications, particularly for 

the manufacture of titanium dioxide. 

EPA believes alternative gaskets are 

available that can meet the hightemperature and pressure conditions for 

which the chrysotile asbestoscontaining gaskets are currently used. 

At least one manufacturer of titanium 

dioxide uses only asbestos-free gaskets 

(Ref. 14) and the two-year transition 

away from existing use of chrysotile 

gaskets should be feasible based on the 

availability of these substitutes. 

EPA requests comment on whether 

the proposed prohibition date would 

both provide a reasonable transition 

period and be as soon as practicable 

under TSCA section 6(d)(1). EPA 

requests specific information to support 

or refute its assumption that plants 

using asbestos diaphragms will convert 

to non-asbestos technologies, and the 

timeframes required for such 

conversions. EPA is requesting 

comments on potential alternative 

transition strategies and timing to 

implement those strategies. EPA is 

requesting specific information 

regarding potential barriers to achieving 

the proposed prohibition date while 

considering the supply of chlor-alkali 

chemicals and on the potential impact 

of this transition on the market price of 

chlor-alkali chemicals. 

2. Prohibition on manufacture 

(including import), processing, 

distribution in commerce, and 

commercial use of: Chrysotile asbestoscontaining brake blocks in the oil 

industry; aftermarket automotive 

chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/ 

linings; asbestos-containing vehicle 

friction products; and other asbestoscontaining gaskets. 

EPA is proposing under TSCA section 

6(a)(2) and 6(a)(5) to prohibit 

manufacturing (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 (excluding the 

NASA SGT use); and other asbestoscontaining gaskets. Based upon 

discussions with trade groups and 

industry representatives (Refs. 14, 15, 

16, 17, 20 and 21), EPA believes 

chrysotile asbestos is almost entirely 

phased out for these product categories. 

Thus, these prohibitions would not only 

address the unreasonable risk EPA has 

identified, but also, for this reason, 

upon consideration of the TSCA section 

6(c)(2)(A) factors can achieve that 

statutory requirement without an undue 

economic burden on these industries 

overall. EPA is proposing that the 

prohibition take effect 180 days after the 

effective date of the final rule for these 

categories of use. In the context of these 

specific uses of chrysotile asbestos, 

which EPA believes are almost entirely 

phased out, EPA has no information 

indicating that these proposed 

compliance dates are not practicable; 

however, EPA is requesting public 

comment regarding the timing of the 

prohibition . 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 asbestoscontaining brake blocks, chrysotile 

asbestos-containing aftermarket 

automotive brakes and linings, other 

chrysotile asbestos-containing vehicle 

friction products and other chrysotile 

asbestos-containing gaskets. 

3. Prohibition on manufacture 

(including import), processing, and 

distribution in commerce for 

aftermarket automotive chrysotile 

asbestos-containing brakes/linings and 

other asbestos-containing gaskets for 

consumer use. 

EPA is proposing under TSCA section 

6(a)(2) to prohibit the manufacture 

(including import), processing, and 

distribution in commerce of aftermarket 

automotive chrysotile asbestoscontaining brakes/linings for consumer 

use and of other chrysotile asbestoscontaining gaskets for consumer use. 

EPA is proposing that the prohibition on 

manufacture (including import), 

processing and distribution in 

commerce for consumer use take effect 

180 days after the effective date of the 

final rule for these categories of use, 

identical to the equivalent proposed 

prohibition on manufacture (including 

import), processing, and distribution in 

commerce of chrysotile asbestos for 

commercial use. EPA has no 

information indicating that the 

proposed compliance dates for these 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
21722 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

prohibitions are not practicable for these 

consumer use-related categories. While 

EPA does not have the authority under 

TSCA section 6(a)(5) to regulate 

consumer use or under TSCA section 

6(a)(6) to regulate disposal by someone 

other than a manufacturer, processor, or 

a person who uses or disposes of the 

substance commercially, prohibiting the 

manufacture (including import), 

processing, and distribution in 

commerce of these products for both 

commercial and consumer uses will 

remove them from the market and 

therefore effectively eliminate new 

instances of consumer use and the 

associated disposals from such use. 

4. Other requirements. 

a. Disposal: 

EPA proposes to cross reference 

existing EPA and OSHA regulations that 

address asbestos-containing waste 

disposal. By following these existing 

regulations, worker and ONU exposure 

to chrysotile asbestos during disposal 

can be prevented. 

For this rule, EPA proposes that for 

each condition of use, regulated entities 

must adhere to waste disposal 

requirements described in OSHA’s 

Asbestos General Industry Standard in 

29 CFR 1910.1001, including 

1910.1001(k)(6), which requires waste, 

scrap, debris, bags, containers, 

equipment, and clothing contaminated 

with asbestos that are consigned for 

disposal to be disposed of in sealed 

impermeable bags or other closed, 

impermeable containers. EPA expects 

regulated entities to follow these 

requirements for unused and end-of-use 

products containing chrysotile asbestos 

Additionally, for the chrysotile 

asbestos diaphragm condition of use, as 

well as oilfield brake blocks, other 

vehicle friction products, and any 

commercial use of other gaskets and 

aftermarket automotive brakes and 

linings, EPA is proposing to crossreference the disposal requirements of 

Asbestos National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

(40 CFR part 61, subpart M) at 40 CFR 

61.150. The asbestos NESHAP reduces 

exposure to airborne asbestos by 

generally requiring sealing of asbestoscontaining waste material from 

regulated activities in a leak-tight 

container and disposing of it in a 

landfill permitted to receive asbestos 

waste. EPA is not proposing to crossreference this same NESHAP waste 

disposal provision for the disposal of 

chrysotile asbestos-containing waste 

from sheet gasket processing and use, 

because EPA did not find unreasonable 

risk for the disposal of sheet gaskets. 

However, EPA is requesting comment 

on this, since, according to industry 

communications to EPA, they already 

follow these work practices. 

EPA is also proposing to require that, 

upon disposal, each manufacturer 

(including importer), processor, and 

distributor of chrysotile asbestos, 

including as part of products and 

articles, for consumer uses subject to 

this proposed regulation, dispose of 

such items in accordance with specified 

disposal provisions. These consumer 

uses are aftermarket automotive brakes 

and linings, and other gaskets. These 

consumer use supply chain disposal 

requirements are consistent with those 

proposed for disposers of aftermarket 

automotive brakes and linings, and 

other gaskets, intended for commercial 

use. EPA does not generally have TSCA 

section 6(a) authority to directly 

regulate consumer use and disposal, but 

under TSCA section 6(a) EPA may 

nonetheless regulate the disposal 

activity of suppliers of these products, 

including importers, wholesalers and 

retailers of asbestos-containing 

aftermarket automotive brakes and 

linings, and other gaskets. 

The proposed disposal requirements 

would take effect 180 days after the 

effective date of the final rule. EPA has 

no information indicating that this 180- 

day compliance period, after the 60-day 

effective date of the final rule, is not 

practicable for regulated entities to 

comply with the proposed disposal 

provisions; however, EPA requests 

comment on whether the proposed time 

is adequate. EPA also requests 

comments on the practicability of 

making the proposed disposal 

requirements take effect sooner than 180 

days after the final rule effective date. 

b. Recordkeeping for disposal: 

EPA is also proposing that each 

person who disposes of any chrysotile 

asbestos and any chrysotile asbestoscontaining products or articles subject 

to the disposal provisions of this 

proposed rule must retain any records 

generated pursuant to, or otherwise 

documenting compliance with specified 

disposal regulations. These records 

must be retained in one location at the 

headquarters of the company, or at the 

facility for which the records were 

generated, and they must be retained for 

five years from the date of generation. In 

addition, EPA is exercising its authority 

under TSCA section 6 to apply 

recordkeeping requirements to 

distributors of asbestos-containing 

products who are not also 

manufacturers (including importers), or 

processors identified in the risk 

evaluation. 

The proposed recordkeeping 

requirements would take effect 180 days 

after the effective date of the final rule. 

EPA has no information indicating that 

a 180-day period is not practicable for 

regulated entities to modify their 

recordkeeping systems to comply with 

the proposed rule; however, EPA 

requests comment on whether the 

proposed time is adequate. EPA also 

requests comments on the practicability 

of making the proposed recordkeeping 

requirements take effect sooner than 180 

days and whether additional 

recordkeeping requirement are 

necessary to further document 

compliance with this proposed rule. 

B. Primary Alternative Regulatory 

Action 

As indicated by TSCA section 

6(c)(2)(A), EPA must consider the cost 

and benefits and the cost effectiveness 

of the proposed regulatory action and 

one or more primary alternative 

regulatory actions. EPA’s primary 

alternative regulatory action is to: 

Prohibit 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 in chemical production (with 

prohibitions taking effect five years after 

the effective date of the final rule) and 

require, prior to the prohibition taking 

effect, compliance with an existing 

chemicals exposure limit (ECEL) for the 

processing and commercial use of 

chrysotile asbestos for these uses; and to 

prohibit manufacture (including 

import), processing, distribution in 

commerce, and commercial use of 

chrysotile asbestos-containing brake 

blocks in the oil industry; aftermarket 

automotive chrysotile asbestoscontaining brakes/linings; and other 

vehicle friction products (with 

prohibitions taking effect two years after 

the effective date of the final rule and 

with additional requirements for 

disposal). The primary alternative 

regulatory action also includes 

prohibitions 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 (with prohibitions 

taking effect two years after the effective 

date of the final rule). The primary 

alternative regulatory action also would 

require disposal of chrysotile asbestoscontaining materials in a manner 

identical to the proposed option, with 

additional provisions for downstream 

notification and signage and labeling. 

EPA does not intend the primary 

alternative regulatory action’s 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21723 

prohibitions on processing or 

distribution in commerce to prohibit 

any processing or distribution in 

commerce incidental to disposal of the 

chrysotile asbestos waste in accordance 

with the proposed requirements. 

1. Primary alternative regulatory 

action for 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 asbestoscontaining 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 asbestoscontaining 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 chloralkali 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 chloralkali industry and (2) processing and 

industrial use of chrysotile asbestoscontaining 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 1x104 (1E–4) benchmark 

resulting from chronic occupational 

exposure (Ref. 13). Based on this ECEL, 

the alternative action includes an ECELaction 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 asbestoscontaining 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
21724 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21725 

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 mm 

(micrometers) in diameter or higher). 

• If the measured exposure 

concentration is less than or equal to 

0.25 f/cc (50 times the ECEL): Fullfacepiece 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 mm (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 fullfacepiece 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 selfcontained 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 fittesting 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
21726 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 asbestoscontaining 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 diaphragmgrade 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 asbestoscontaining 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21727 

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 asbestoscontaining 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 asbestoscontaining 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 asbestoscontaining 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 asbestoscontaining brakes/linings for consumer 

use and other chrysotile asbestoscontaining gaskets for consumer use: 

The primary alternative regulatory 

action would prohibit the manufacture 

(including import), processing, and 

distribution in commerce of aftermarket 

automotive chrysotile asbestoscontaining 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 asbestoscontaining 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
21728 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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, nonmalignant respiratory disease, deficits in 

pulmonary function, diffuse pleural 

thickening, and pleural plaques. Various 

immunological and lymphoreticular 

effects are suggested but not wellestablished. 

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 asbestoscontaining products, or the dispersing of 

friable chrysotile asbestos during use, 

disturbance and disposal of asbestoscontaining 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 104–108 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 102–108 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 asbestoscontaining 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21729 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
21730 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 energyintensive 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 chloralkali 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 screeninglevel 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21731 

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 chloralkali 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 costeffectiveness 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 cogeneration 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 postelectrolysis after-treatment of the 

chlorine and caustic soda. EPA 

estimated the net cost of converting 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
21732 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21733 

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/EPAHQ-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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
21734 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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.asbestos

diseaseawareness.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2019/08/ADAO-ChlorAlkaliIndustry-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-undertsca/epa-announces-environmentaljustice-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/lawsregulations/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 thirdparty 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21735 

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 asbestosfree 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 nonasbestos 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 asbestosfree 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
21736 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 chloralkali 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 21737 

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 chloralkali 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 

■ 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). 

■ 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 

§ 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). 

§ 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. 

§ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
21738 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 asbestoscontaining products or articles, for 

consumer use of: 

(1) Aftermarket automotive brakes and 

linings; and 

(2) Other gaskets. 

§ 751.X07 [Reserved] 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 751. 

X05(a)(2) must dispose of chrysotile 

asbestos and any chrysotile asbestoscontaining 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 

§ 751.X05(b) must dispose of chrysotile 

asbestos and any chrysotile asbestoscontaining 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 § 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. 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2