2707ss02

Supporting Statement for an Information Collection Request (ICR)

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Identification of the Information Collection – Title and Numbers

Title: Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos; Regulation of Certain Conditions of Use Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (Final Rule; RIN 2070-AK86)

EPA ICR No.: 2707.02

OMB Control No.: 2070-0220

Docket ID No.: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057

Abstract

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating a rule to address unreasonable risks to human health from chrysotile asbestos under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The rule prohibits certain uses of chrysotile asbestos. It also requires each person who disposes of chrysotile asbestos or any chrysotile asbestos-containing products or articles related to those uses to adhere to requirements described in the OSHA Asbestos General Standard at 29 CFR 1910.1001(k) (or the OSHA Safety and Health Regulations for Construction Standard at 29 CFR 1926.1101 for sheet gaskets for chemical production) regarding asbestos waste disposal. Additionally, EPA is cross-referencing the disposal requirements of Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M) at 40 CFR section 61.150 for the following conditions of use: chrysotile asbestos diaphragm for use in chlor-alkali facilities; oilfield brake blocks; other vehicle friction products; and any non-consumer use of other gaskets and aftermarket automotive brakes and linings. The rule also requires each person who disposes of chrysotile asbestos or any chrysotile asbestos-containing products or articles subject to the rule to retain at the headquarters of the company, or at the facility for which the records were generated, documentation showing compliance with the disposal requirements as well as any documentation, such as invoices or bills of lading, related to compliance with the prohibitions in the rule.

Chlor-alkali plants using asbestos diaphragms and titanium dioxide producers using asbestos sheet gasket are required to develop information about exposures and plans to control exposures, and to disclose this information to potentially exposed persons.

EPA is promulgating this rule under section 6(a) of TSCA in response to a finding that chrysotile asbestos presents an unreasonable risk to human health when used in certain ways. The portions of the rule that trigger this Information Collection Request (ICR) are the third-party disclosure and recordkeeping requirement. The records must be retained for 5 years from the date of generation.

Summary Total Burden and Costs

Activity	Number of Responses	Responses per Respondent	Average Annual Burden per Response	Average Annual Total Labor Burden	Average Annual Total Labor Costs	Average Annual Total Non-Labor Costs	Average Annual Total Costs
IC #1: Exposure control plan	12	1	1.33	16	$1,141	-	$1,141
IC #2: Exposure monitoring	12	1	162.95	1,955	$112,118	$233,425	$345,544
IC #3: Exposure notification and recordkeeping	12	1	18.69	224	$21,247	-	$21,247
IC #4: Disposal recordkeeping (midpoint of range)	712	1	0.10	73	$3,041	-	$3,041
Total (midpoint of range)	721	1	3.1	2,269	$137,547	$233,425	$370,973
Agency	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

Summary

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating a rule under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to address unreasonable risk of injury to health it has identified for certain uses of chrysotile asbestos following completion of the Risk Evaluation for Asbestos, Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos. While chrysotile asbestos is used primarily in the chlor-alkali industry, EPA is also addressing other identified categories of use. EPA has determined that chrysotile asbestos presents an unreasonable risks of injury to health for 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 the oil industry; commercial use, consumer use, and disposal of aftermarket automotive chrysotile asbestos-containing brakes/linings; commercial use and disposal of other chrysotile asbestos-containing vehicle friction products, excluding for use on the NASA Super Guppy; commercial use, consumer use, and disposal of other asbestos-containing gaskets. To address these unreasonable risks, EPA is prohibiting manufacture (import), processing, distribution-in-commerce and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos, including products or articles containing chrysotile asbestos, pursuant to TSCA section 6(d)(1). EPA is also promulgating disposal and recordkeeping requirements for these conditions of use, as well as interim workplace controls for chrysotile asbestos diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry, and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets in chemical production.

Legal authority: The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. § 2605(a).

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR include persons that manufacture, process, or distributes in commerce chrysotile asbestos or products or articles containing chrysotile asbestos.

Respondent’s obligation to respond: Respondents are not obligated to respond or report to EPA. However, they are required to retain records, and to develop information and disclose it to potentially exposed persons.

Confidentiality of responses: Not applicable.

Total Burden and Costs

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 721

Frequency of response: On occasion/as necessary

Estimated total annual burden: 2,269 hours. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Estimated total annual costs: $370,973

Changes in the estimate: Not applicable. This is a request for a new OMB Control Number.

Supporting Statement

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.

Under section 6(a) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. § 2605(a)), if EPA determines after 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 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 or mixture no longer presents such risk. Section 6(a) authorizes EPA to:

1. Prohibit or restrict manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce,

2. Prohibit or restrict the manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce of the chemical substance above a specified concentration,

3. Require minimum warnings or instructions with respect to use, distribution, or disposal,

4. Require manufacturers or processors to make and retain records,

5. Prohibit or regulate any manner of commercial use,

6. Prohibit or regulate any manner of disposal, and/or

7. Require manufacturers or processors to give notice of the unreasonable risk of injury, and to recall products if required.

This rule:

1. Prohibits the manufacturing (import) of chrysotile asbestos for diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry after 60 days.

2. Prohibits the processing, distribution in commerce and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos for diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry after 5 years, but allows a person converting multiple facilities to membrane technology to continue these activities at a second facility for 8 years and at a third facility for 12 years, if they certify that certain conditions are met.

3. Prohibits the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce and industrial use of sheet gaskets in chemical production facilities after 2 years; except for chemical production facilities manufacturing titanium dioxide or processing nuclear materials, where the industrial use of sheet gaskets is prohibited after 5 years (provided that persons processing nuclear materials have in place exposure controls).

4. Requires interim workplace controls (including developing an exposure control plan, conducting exposure monitoring, and notifying potentially exposed persons of the monitoring results) for diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry and chemical production facilities using sheet gaskets to manufacture titanium dioxide.

5. Prohibits all persons from manufacturing, processing, distributing in commerce, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos after 180 days from the effective date of this rule for the following conditions of use:

   1. Industrial use and disposal of oilfield brake blocks.

   2. Commercial and consumer use and disposal of aftermarket automotive brakes and linings.

   3. Commercial use and disposal of other vehicle friction products, excluding brake system components used on the NASA “Super-Guppy” Turbine (SGT) aircraft.

   4. Commercial and consumer use and disposal of other gaskets.

6. Requires persons who dispose of any chrysotile asbestos and any chrysotile asbestos-containing products or articles subject to the disposal provisions to 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.

7. Requires that disposal adhere to requirements described in the OSHA Asbestos General Standard in 29 CFR 1910.1001(k) (or the OSHA Safety and Health Regulations for Construction Standard at 29 CFR 1926.1101 for sheet gaskets for chemical production) regarding asbestos waste disposal. Additionally, for the chrysotile asbestos diaphragm condition of use, as well as oilfield brake blocks, other vehicle friction products, and any non-consumer use of other gaskets and aftermarket automotive brakes and linings, the rule cross-references the disposal requirements of Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M) at 40 CFR section 61.150.

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the Agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

EPA. This information collection will provide EPA with information only upon inspection of such materials. There are no reporting requirements to submit information to EPA under this information collection activity.

Regulated Entities. The regulated entities will compile and retain records that are necessary as a reference for EPA. These records demonstrate that regulated entities are in compliance with the requirements in this rule, including general provisions, certification of compliance, interim workplace controls, and disposal requirements. Compliance with the rule is required to mitigate the unreasonable risks to human health identified in EPA’s risk evaluation for chrysotile asbestos. These recordkeeping requirements are also necessary to permit the EPA to conduct its enforcement activities and to ensure compliance within the regulated community.

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

There will be no information collection by EPA. Therefore, there is no need for any technological facilitation under the rule related to the information collection activities. The recordkeeping requirement does not specify a particular technology or method of retaining the required information.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.

EPA’s information collection pursuant to the TSCA section 6(a) regulations does not duplicate any other collection. There is no other Federal program that requires the information collection activities related to the prohibitions and disposal requirements under the rule.

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe the methods used to minimize burden.

The only small businesses that are estimated to incur information collection costs due to the rule are those replacing asbestos brakes. The burden associated with keeping records of their disposal activities is estimated to average 0.1 hours per establishment, which is a minimal burden.

6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

The information collection activities covered by this ICR are necessary in order to enhance the mitigation of unreasonable risks identified in certain uses of chrysotile asbestos. Due to EPA’s finding that chrysotile asbestos presents an unreasonable health risk under the specified conditions of use, EPA is promulgating a rule that involves information collection activities that mitigate the unreasonable health risks and do not present unreasonable burdens to the regulated entities. Such records are necessary for effective enforcement of the section 6 rule. Due to the nature of the triggering events that initiate information collection activities under the rule, less frequent collection is not feasible. The rule does not require reporting information to EPA.

7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a manner:

1. requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;

2. requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;

3. requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;

4. requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years;

5. in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;

6. requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;

7. that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or

8. requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.

This rulemaking and information collection activity will require that regulated entities retain records for a duration of 5 years. EPA has tailored this timeframe to coincide with the statute of limitations for civil penalty enforcement (28 U.S.C. 2842). Though EPA does not require that regulated entities retain their records for 30 years as OSHA does in their asbestos standards, EPA expects that 5-year retention of records is necessary for effective implementation and enforcement of this rulemaking.

8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency’s notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken in response to the comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.

Describe efforts to consult with persons outside EPA to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.

Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years - even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.

The proposed rule was published on April 12, 2022 (87 FR 21706). See https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-04-12/pdf/2022-07601.pdf. The request for comments on the information collection was at 87 FR 21734. EPA did not receive comments on the cost or hour burden of the information collection.

While not specifically commenting on the information collection, one commenter (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057-0497) claimed that EPA’s Existing Chemical Exposure Limit (ECEL) value of 0.005 f/cc is an order of magnitude below the limit of quantification, and that setting threshold values at or below the limit of quantification will not yield information that has any practical utility because the data will likely fail validation tests. The commenter stated that the practicability of measuring below the proposed action level (0.0025 f/cc) will obviously present even more significant challenges.

EPA disagrees that the ECEL value is below the limit of quantification. While there may be practical sampling and analytical challenges measuring to the ECEL, EPA has concluded that monitoring at the ECEL level is feasible based on current analytical methods. EPA believes that current analytical methods and modern air sampling equipment allow for air monitoring with a detection limit that allows for comparison with the ECEL level. This is demonstrated by the personal air monitoring data submitted to EPA by the chlor-alkali industry. However, for instances in which a sufficient limit of detection cannot be reached for comparison to the ECEL, owners and operators may elect to use an alternative lowest concentration possible as their basis for the selection of the respirators, and use an increased respiratory protection with an appropriate assigned protection factor (APF) to demonstrate compliance with the ECEL as an interim control measure. For example, if the lowest concentration an owner or operator can measure is 0.1 f/cc, then, they should assume that the measured exposure concentration is above 0.05 f/cc and less than or equal to 0.125 f/cc or 25 times the ECEL, and provide a loose fitting facepiece supplied-air respirator (SAR) or airline respirator in continuous flow mode. (However, after public comments regarding the difficulties of measuring asbestos at the proposed action level, EPA has decided not to finalize an ECEL-action level in the final rule.) Therefore, EPA does not agree that the information collected under this rule lacks practical utility.

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.

This collection does not provide any payment or gift to respondents.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If the collection requires a systems of records notice (SORN) or privacy impact assessment (PIA), those should be cited and described here.

EPA will not be collecting any information. Therefore, confidential information will not be submitted to EPA.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

The information collection activities do not include questions of a sensitive nature.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:

1. Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.

2. If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.

3. Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included under ‘Annual Cost to Federal Government’.

The respondents, the information collection activities and related estimates for burden and costs related with those activities are described below for each respondent category. EPA’s Economic Analysis of the TSCA Section 6 Final Rule for Asbestos Risk Management, Part 1 (U.S. EPA, 2024) provides the detailed methodology for estimating the number of respondents, burden, and cost for the information collection activities that are summarized here. The information collection activities that may generate additional burden and cost include:

Interim Workplace Controls: Chlor-alkali plants using asbestos diaphragms and titanium dioxide producers using asbestos sheet gasket are required to develop exposure control plans; monitor exposure levels; maintain records of monitoring; provide potentially exposed persons with information about how they can access the exposure control plans, exposure monitoring records, PPE program implementation documentation, and respirator program documentation; and obtain an acknowledgment from potentially exposed persons that they have received the information. The respondents are also required to retain records of these activities and make them available to EPA for inspection. This analysis does not account for the fact that some respondents may already be engaging in at least some of these activities, so the actual burden and cost may be less than estimated here.

Disposal Recordkeeping: Companies that manufacture (including import), process, distribute in commerce or use chrysotile asbestos are required to retain records related to the disposal of chrysotile asbestos or chrysotile asbestos-containing products or articles. Not all companies may be retaining such records in the absence of this requirement.

There are no forms or other required instruments for any of the information collection activities required by the rule. This rule requires entities to retain records for five years but does not require reporting information to EPA. However, persons subject to the rule must make the records that must be maintained under the rule available to EPA for inspection.

All persons who manufacture (including import), process, or distribute in commerce or engage in commercial use of chrysotile asbestos are required by 40 CFR 751.515 to retain ordinary business records, such as invoices and bills-of-lading related to compliance with the prohibitions, and other restrictions related to chrysotile asbestos. EPA expects that firms already retain such records as part of their customary business practices. Therefore, the burden and cost of keeping ordinary business records are not included in these estimates.

While 40 CFR 751.515 requires chlor-alkali facilities to submit a certification of compliance to EPA if they will be using asbestos diaphragms between 5 and 12 years after the effective date of the final rule, these reporting requirements are not included here because they will not be incurred within the next three years of the program covered by this ICR. However, they will be included in future ICR renewals for this rule.¹ Since there are no agency information collection activities during the period covered by this ICR, no costs to the Federal government are estimated.

The table below presents the labor rates used to estimate the costs of the labor burdens under the ICR.

Industry Wage Rates (2022$)
Labor Category	Data Series	Date	Wage ($/hour)	Fringe Benefit	Total Compen-sation	Overhead as % of Total Compen-sation1	Overhead	Hourly Loaded Wages
			(a)	(b)	(c) =(b)+(a)	(d)	(e)=(c)*(d)	(f)=(c)+(e)
Manufacturing – Managerial	BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, “Mgt, Business, and Financial” 2	Dec-22	$54.29	$24.66	$78.95	20%	$15.79	$94.74
Manufacturing – Professional / Technical	BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, “Professional and related“2	Dec-22	$46.01	$23.27	$69.28	20%	$13.86	$83.14
Manufacturing - Clerical	BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, “Office and Administrative Support” 2	Dec-22	$23.11	$10.33	$33.44	20%	$6.69	$40.13
Manufacturing - Production	BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing Industries, “Production occupations”2	Dec-22	$21.79	$11.63	$33.42	20%	$6.68	$40.10
Certified Industrial Hygienist4	BLS OES, Occupational Health & Safety Specialists (19-5011)3	May-22	$39.47	$19.96	$59.43	20%	$11.89	$71.32
Technical Specialist4	BLS OES, Occupational Health & Safety Technicians (19-5012) 3	May-22	$30.40	$15.38	$45.78	20%	$9.16	$54.94
Maintenance and repair	BLS ECEC, Service Industries, “Installation, maintenance, and repair"2	Dec-22	$28.39	$13.15	$41.54	20%	$8.31	$49.85
1 An overhead rate of 20% is used based on assumptions in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Handbook on Valuing Changes in Time Use Induced by Regulatory Requirements and Other U.S. EPA Actions. 2 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation December 2022. 3 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics (Occupational Employment and Wages) for May 2022. 4 Fringe benefits are not reported in the BLS Occupational Employment and Wages). It is therefore assumed that fringes as a percentage of wages are 50.57%, based on the percentage for Private Manufacturing Industries, “Professional and related” in the BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation.

IC #1: Exposure control plan

40 CFR 751.509 requires persons subject to the ECEL requirements at 40 CFR 751.511 to establish a plan to reduce exposures to all potentially exposed persons to below the ECEL. For the purpose of calculating burden and cost, facilities are assumed to prepare an exposure control plan but not to need to update it during the 3-year period covered by this information collection request. There are 4 titanium dioxide plants using asbestos sheet gaskets and 8 chlor-alkali plants using asbestos diaphragms that are estimated to respond for this activity. None of the respondents are small businesses.

IC #1: Establish Exposure Control Plan
Activity	Respondents	Responses	Average Burden per Response (hours)	Total Annualized Burden (hours)	Total Labor Cost
Exposure control plan	12	12	1.33	16	$1,141

IC #2: Periodic Exposure Monitoring

40 CFR 751.509 requires persons subject to the ECEL requirements at 40 CFR 751.511 to conduct periodic exposure monitoring. This involves labor time to design the sampling plan, prepare for the sampling, collect and manage the samples, and prepare a written report documenting the results. There are 4 titanium dioxide plants using asbestos sheet gaskets and 8 chlor-alkali plants using asbestos diaphragms that are estimated to respond for this activity. None of the respondents are small businesses.

IC #2: Labor Burden and Cost for Periodic Exposure Monitoring
Activity	Respondents	Responses	Average Burden per Response (hours)	Total Annualized Burden (hours)	Total Labor Cost
Exposure monitoring	12	12	162.95	1,955	$112,118

IC #3: Exposure Monitoring Notification and Recordkeeping

40 CFR 751.509 requires persons subject to the ECEL requirements at 40 CFR 751.511 to notify potentially exposed workers of the exposure monitoring results; provide them with access to exposure control plans, exposure monitoring records, PPE program implementation documentation, and respirator program documentation; and obtain an acknowledgment that potentially exposed workers have received this information. 40 CFR 751.515 requires that such persons retain these records and make them available to EPA for inspection. There are 4 titanium dioxide plants using asbestos sheet gaskets and 8 chlor-alkali plants using asbestos diaphragms that are estimated to respond for this activity. None of the respondents are small businesses.

IC #3: Exposure Monitoring Notification and Recordkeeping
Activity	Respondents	Responses	Average Burden per Response (hours)	Total Annualized Burden (hours)	Total Labor Cost
Exposure notification (third-party disclosure)	12	12	17	203	$19,276
Exposure recordkeeping	12	12	1.7	21	$1,971
Total exposure notification and recordkeeping	12	12	18.7	224	$21,247

IC #4: Disposal Recordkeeping

40 CFR 751.515 requires that companies that manufacture (import), process, distribute in commerce or use chrysotile asbestos must retain information related to the disposal of chrysotile asbestos and chrysotile asbestos-containing products or articles at the company headquarters for five years. These information collection activities are necessary to provide EPA with information upon inspection. Not all entities subject to the requirements will incur burden or costs from these activities because they may already be meeting the requirements as part of their usual business practices.

Firms using sheet gasket for chemical production (except for those used for nuclear material processing) and firms replacing aftermarket automotive brakes are not assumed to maintain such records as an ordinary business practice, and will thus incur recordkeeping burdens and costs associated with documenting their disposal activities. It is unknown whether firms disposing of asbestos oilfield brake blocks, other vehicle friction products, or other gaskets maintain the necessary records as an ordinary business practice. Firms in other use categories subject to the rule are assumed to maintain the necessary information as part of their ordinary business records, and thus will not incur additional recordkeeping burdens and costs due to the rule.

IC-#4 presents a range for number of respondents based on two different scenarios (the average estimate and the upper bound estimate) considered in the rulemaking’s economic analysis for the number of asbestos aftermarket automotive brakes firms that will be affected. Since the burden and cost of the recordkeeping requirements are proportional to the number of asbestos brakes replaced, the two scenarios affect the estimated number of firms and the average burden and cost per firm, but not the total burden and cost. This is because the total number of brakes replaced and the recordkeeping cost per brake replacement are the same under both scenarios. The difference in the scenarios is in the number of firms performing asbestos brake replacements and the number of asbestos brakes replaced per firm. Thus, the average burden and cost per respondent differs between the two scenarios. Under the upper bound estimate there are a large number of firms that replace asbestos brakes (and must thus keep records), but each respondent is assumed to replace asbestos brakes on a single automobile. As a result, the burden and cost per respondent are very low since they reflect the records for a single brake change. Under the average estimate there are a small number of firms estimated to replace asbestos brakes and keep records, but each respondent is assumed to replace asbestos brakes on a larger number of automobiles. As a result, the burden and cost per respondent are higher because they reflect the records for multiple brake changes. The actual values may fall between the lower and upper bounds of the number of respondents, and therefore the midpoint is used as a summary statistic.

There are 5 users of sheet gaskets for chemical production expected to be affected (both titanium dioxide plants and other chemical production facilities), and 12 to 1,400 automotive aftermarket brake firms (so the midpoint of the range is 706 firms). The extent to which oilfield brake blocks, other vehicle friction products, or other gaskets contain asbestos is unclear. The burden and cost of recordkeeping for these use categories is included for one firm for illustrative purposes. If there are additional firms subject to the requirements, the total disposal recordkeeping costs will scale proportionally to the number of firms affected by the rule.

None of the firms using sheet gaskets are small businesses. Of the automotive aftermarket brake that may incur recordkeeping costs, 11 are small businesses under the average estimate scenario, and 1,369 are small businesses under the upper bound scenario. Thus, there are 690 small businesses affected when using the midpoint of the range.

IC #4: Disposal Recordkeeping
Activity	Respondents	Responses	Average Burden per Response (hours)	Total Annualized Burden (hours)	Total Labor Cost
Disposal recordkeeping (sheet gasket users)	5	5	4.42	22	$974
Disposal recordkeeping (automotive aftermarket brakes – average scenario)	12	12	4.00	47	$1,873
Disposal recordkeeping (automotive aftermarket brakes –upper bound scenario)	1,400	1,400	0.03	47	$1,873
Oilfield Brake Blocks1	1	1	4.42	4	$195
Other Vehicle Friction Products1
Other Gaskets1
Disposal recordkeeping (Range of all respondents)	18 to 1,406	18 to 1,406	4.14 to 0.05	73	$3,041
Disposal recordkeeping (Midpoint of range)	712	712	0.10	73	$3,041
1 Costs reflect incremental disposal recordkeeping costs for one firm for illustrative purposes. Disposal recordkeeping costs will scale proportionally to the number of firms affected by the rule.

13. Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden already reflected on the burden worksheet).

1. The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.

2. If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collections services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.

3. Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

IC #2: Periodic Exposure Monitoring

40 CFR 751.509 requires persons subject to the ECEL requirements at 40 CFR 751.511 to conduct periodic exposure monitoring. This will result in non-labor costs for items such as personal pumps, a calibrated primary flow meter, tubing, sampling media, shipping samples to a laboratory, and laboratory analysis of the samples.

IC #2: Non-labor Costs for Periodic Exposure Monitoring
Activity	Form	Respondents	Responses	Average Non-Labor Cost per Response	Total Non-Labor Cost
Exposure monitoring	None	12	12	$19,452	$233,425

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information. Agencies may also aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.

There will be no agency collection activities during the period covered by this information collection request, although persons subject to the rule must make the records that must be maintained under the rule available to EPA for inspection.

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in hour or cost burden.

This is a new, rule-related information collection. The total burden requested for this ICR is 2,269 hours per year. The total annual cost burden requested for this ICR is $370,973.

16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.

Not applicable.

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.

Not applicable.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in “Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions.”

EPA does not request an exception to the certification of this information collection.

Supplemental Information

This collection of information is approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (OMB Control No. 2070-0220). Responses to this collection of information are mandatory (40 CFR 751). 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 public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 3.1 hours per response. Send 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 the Information Engagement Division Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2821T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.

List of Attachments

The attachments listed below can be found in the docket for this ICR or by using the hyperlink that is provided in the list below. The docket for this ICR is accessible electronically through http://www.regulations.gov using Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057.

Ref.	Title (hyperlink)
1.	Statutory Authority (15 U.S.C. 2605)
2.	Proposed Rule (April 12, 2022)

1 EPA estimates respondent burden of 0.5 hours for a manager to submit each chlor-alkali certification of compliance (5 and/or 8 years after the effective date of the final rule). Each submission will incur costs currently estimated to be $47.37 in labor costs and $4.35 in non-labor costs.

Page 1 of 9