Document ykpvr3qmVM0DXja8XkDdnDEJd

National Place, Suite 911 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 202737-6330 Organization Resources Counselors, Inc. January 16, 1985 Memorandum To: ORC Asbestos Task Force From: Darrell K. Hatthels Subject: EPA Response to Citizens Petition to Prohibit the Use of Asbestos in Automobile and Truck Brakes On December 19, 1984 the Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal Register (FR 49 49311) their response to the petition of the National Resources Defense Council, (NRDC) to ban the use of asbestos in automobile and truck brakes. The EPA concluded that "Based on information reviewed to date, EPA is not prepared to make an unreasonable risk finding for an immediate ban of all uses of asbestos in brakes at this time." Included for your information is a copy of the Federal Register Notice from the EPA. DKM/dm UCC 004210 JAH 21 1985 H. & IflVlNSOHlV, M.D. C28oQ Federal Register / Vol, 49, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 19, 1984 } Proposed Rules 49311 be considered before taking find action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the address above. The revisions are being proposed under a procedure called "parallel processing" (47 FR 27073). If the proposed revisions are substantially changed in areas other than those Identified in this notice, EPA will - evaluate those changes and may publish a revised NPR. If no substantial changes are made olher than those areas cited in this notice, EPA will publish a Final Rulemaking Notice on the revisions. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the SIP revisions have been adopted by Connecticut and submitted to EPA for incorporation into the SIP. Parallel processing will reduce the time necessary for final approval of these SIP revisions by 3 to 4 months. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the draft SIP revisions described in this Notice with the understanding that the corrections discussed above will be made in the final revisions. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12291. - Under 5 U.S.C. section 605(b). J certify that this SIP revision will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. (See 46 FR 8709.) The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the plan revisions will be based on whether it meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(A)--(K) and 110(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act. as amended, and EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 51. These revisions are being proposed pursuant to sections 110(a) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410(a) and 7601(a)). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Air pollution control. Ozone. Sulfur oxides, Nitrogen dioxide, Lead. Particulate matter, Carbon monoxide. Hydrocarbons. Intergovernmental relations Dated: October 26.1964 . Michael R. Dcland, RegionalAdministrator. Region /. |FR Doc 84-32847 Filed 12-18-64; 8:45 jmJ WUJNQ COOt C9U-S0-O 40 CFR Part 743 tOrrg-211615-, TSH-FRL >726-4] Aaboatoo; RMpons* to Citizens' Petition mcncy: Environmental Protection ' Agency (EPA). ' action: Response to Citizens' Petition. umuutv: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a petition filed under section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., to prohibit the use of asbestoB in automobile and truck brakes. EPA has commenced an appropriate proceeding to address the risks which may be posed by this use of asbestos. DATE: Submit written comments on or before March 18,1965. ADDRESS: Submit written comments in triplicate identified by the document control number (OPTS-211015) to: TSCA Public Information Office (TS-793). Office of Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. E-107,401 M. St.. SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. A copy of the petition and related information (with any confidential business information deleted] is located in: Room E-107, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.. Washington, DC 20460. This material is available for viewing and copying from 8 a m. to 4 p.m.. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward A. Klein, Director, TSCA Assistance Office (TS-799), Office of Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. E-543,401 M St.. SW., Washington, D.C. 20460, Toll-free: (800-424-9065), In Washington, D.C.: (554-1404), Outside the USA: (Operator--202-554 1404). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: f. Introduction Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2620. provides that any person may petition the Administrator of EPA to initiate a proceeding for the issuence, amendment, or repeal of a rule under various sections of the Act. EPA may hold a public hearing or may conduct an appropriate investigation to determine whether the petition should be granted. EPA must either grant or deny the petition within 90 days. If EPA grants the petition, EPA shall promptly commence an appropriate proceeding, ir EPA denies the petition, the reasons for denial must be published in the Federal Register, and the petitioner may commence a civil action in a district court of the United States to compel EPA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding as requested in the petition. Any such civil action must be filed within 60 days after EPA's denial of the petition or, if EPA fails to grant or deny the petition within 90 days after the petition is filed, within 60 days following expiration of the 90-day response period. 11. Evaluation of tha Petition A. Introduction On September 12,1984. EPA received a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC). requesting that EPA prohibit the further use of asbestos in automobile and truck brakes under section 6 of TSCA. The petition requested a prohibition of ;1 asbestos in both brakes for new cars and trucks and in replacement brakes for existing vehicles. The petition argued that the risks posed by asbestos in brakes are unreasonable and that economically and technically feasible substitutes are available. In order to promulgate any rules under TSCA section 6, the Agency must consider a number of factors, including, among other things, the effects of a chemical substance on human health and the magnitude of exposure; the benefits of utilizing the substance: and the availability of substitutes for the use or uses of the substance being assessed. 15 U.S.C. 2605(c)(1). The Agency has conducted a review of the available information pertaining to the use of asbestos in brakes, including the information in NRDC's petition. A summary of that review, including an evaluation of the risks posed by this use and the availability of substitutes, is presented below. B Risk Presented by Asbestos Asbestos is a demonstrated human carcinogen that causes lung cancer and mesothelioma (a cancer of the chest and abdominal linings), as well as other lung disorders. People are exposed to asbestos throughout the life cycle of the substance--when asbestos is mined milled, processed, fabricated into industrial and consumer products, and when those products are used, repairedand disposed of. With regard to the use of asbestos in brakes, it has been estimated that about 2,750 people Bre potentially exposed during primary manufacturing of brai> e friction materials, and that about 550 OTO people are potentially exposed to asbestos during servicing and repair of vehicle brakes (Ref. 6). For example, persons in brake service and repair shops typically are exposed to asbes'os UCC 004211 i 2881 mo2 .1 / took 49. Ww. MR / Wsdneadoy, December M, W84 / Proposed Rules when date it Uw* Ml of Irak* dtaaw being replaced, wfcra W* foriagm <VM|MnM VMVHtVinM properties, mi whs bnkrttMi re* refined. IfWn nf haitni in n fiiih hrten wj Isa reach in increased aafcaato* fiber oetocanCations in the ambient ait. Far example. SPA has evidence Ant molar vehicle braking ataet likely cuntritsCn between 0-23 to 1-3 percent of the concentration of asbestos in the ambient air (Ref. 7). Both general popalntina and workplace exposures to asbestos fibers from its use in brakes may result in en increased number of asbestos-refoted illnesses, including cancer. AvailabilityofSubstitutes The petitioner asserts that economically and technicafiy foasiMe substitutes, most prominently semimetallic friction metenets end armmid fibers, are available to replace asbestos in brakes. EPA has analyzed the availability of sabatitntes for many asbestos products, fodudag brakes, and that analysis is summarized to Appendix A of the `'Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls cm Asbestos Products" (ReL 2), which is included to the public record established for NRDC's section 21 petition. EPA acknowledges that new substitutes for asbestos use in brakes are being developed and that EPA's analysis (summarized below] may not include recent developments. 1. Heavy vehicle brake blocks. Brake blocks are components of brakes that are riveted or bolted to the inaides of brake shoea to provide protection against the beat and wear caused by braking. Heavy vehicle brake blocks are used on heavy duty trucks, buses, and other heavy duty vehicles. About 34 percent of all asbestos used in brakes is in this category of use. Asbestos heavy vehicle brake blocks account for about 09 percent of the market for heavy vehicle brake blocks. Until recently, the only commercially available substitute for asbestos heavy vehicle brake blocks was a semimetallic brake block using brass and zinc chips in an organic binder. It is not considered as good as asbestos because it performs erratically at different temperatures. It is also considered inferior to the asbestos brake block in resisting wear and minimizing brake fade. Recently, aramid fiber products, such as Kevlar, have been introduced, but aramid fiber products are now more expensive titan asbestos products, and there is not sufficient evidence to determine whether aramid fiber products will be as effective as asbestos in this applicatioi. Information suggests that such products may last longer than asbestos-based products, but verification of fori tofotmstiasaa well m tofaimaMaa aa price and efficacy of the products are needed before RPA con determine whether continued use of asbestos in brake black* peasants an aaraaaeaafcle risk. 2. Light and atedkim vehicle drum brake finings. Drum brake linings are made of friction materials which cavei enrred metal shires fo a (from hrake. About 46 percent of all asbestos ased to brakes is in this category at aae. Light vehicle asbestos team brake finings may be used in bath the front and rear brakes at fight end mwfhim vehicles, primarily on the front wheels. Umntvai. most passenger re hides still aae team brake linings on the nor wheels. At least SB percent of drum brake fining* are still asbestos. Until recently the only substitutes for asbestos brake linings which appeared to have any potential were semimetallic brake linings. However, these products tend to perform erratically at different temperatures, fade, and produce more noise than asbestos-based linings. More recently, brake linings made with - aramid fiber have been developed. However, these are more expensive than the asbestos product and there is not currently enough information available to iudge the performance of aramid fiber brake linings. Furthermore, EPA's evidence indicates that large volume production of aramid fiber brakes may require substantial retooling by brake manufacturers. Therefore, aramid fiber brakes may not be available in substantial quantities for several years. * 3. Heavy vehicle disc brake pads. Disc brake pads are steel plates lined with friction materials which rub against a rotor. Heavy vehicles rarely aae disc brakes. About 0.1 percent of all asbestos used in brakes is to this category of use. Semimetallic disc brake pads are about 20 percent more expensive than the asbestos disc brake pads but they last about 30 percent longer. The semimetallics disc brake pads are not considered to be good general replacements for asbestos disc brake pads for heavy vehicles because semimetanics perform better than asbestos only in hostile, high-friction, high-heat environments. 4. Light and medium vehicle disc brake pods. These are the same as disc brake pads for heavy vehicles, except they are smaller. About 20 percent of all asbestos used to brakes is in this category of nse. In the disc brake market, semimetallic brakes have already made larger inroads, and as in the drum brake finings market, aramid- based brakes are |ust beginning to be introduced. Approximately 50 percent of discs brakes to the original equipment market are asbestos and 50 percent are semimetoHic. to tfre sepiacement brake? after-market approximately 70 percent of disc brakes are asbestos and 30 Semireatafiic (hoc brakes cost approximately 3 times ds much as the asbestos disc brake pads, but they last about 40 percent longer than the asbeBtos pads. SemimolaHic disc brake pads cannot substitute for asbestos disc brake pads in every application because jof inferior performance characteristics. EPA has information indicating that seonimetalUc disc brakes should be used only in can with power brake systems because otherwise the semimetallic brakes may not provide enough stopping power. EPA also has information the! the semimetallic brakes are slightly inferior because the user has to push harder on them before they are warmed up to get (he same performance as with asbestos brakes. EPA is aware that a good deal of product research is being done to develop effective substitutes for asbestos in brakes. EPA is seeking additional information on substitutes for asbestos in brakes. HI. Conclusion ' EPA has decided to grant NRDC s petition becuase the Agency believes that the use of asbestos in brakes does present risks to human health. EPA is initiating a proceeding to gather information on the desirability and feasibility of reducing risks associated with the use of asbestos in brakes. EPA will analyze the exposure from uses of asbestos, the risk presented by those uses, and the substitutes for such uses. EPA will also gather information of the price, efficacy, and availability of substitutes for asbestos in brakes. After analysis of this information, EPA will determine what further action is appropriate to address the risks which may be pored by this use of asbestos. Based on information reviewed to date. EPA is not prepared to make an unreasonable risk finding for an immediate ban of all uses of asbestos in brakes at this time. Effective substitutes may not be available for certain applications of asbestos in brakes and substitutes for other applications are not available in sufficient quantity because of limited production capacity. Retooling may be required to make substitutes available in large volumes. The Agency invites the public to submit comments on issues relating to the petition. EPA is particularly interested in receiving information on both the current availability of substitutes for asbestos in brakes and UCC 004212 i i i * ! t i Fedaral / VaL 49. No. 345 J Wednesday, Deoember IS. 1864 / Proposed Rules 4S313 on new suhstitate prodants that an currently being developed. The Agency has an ongoing workgroup, whichwill review these comments, .will oontinue to investigate the availability of-eflactive asbestos-lree substitutes lor use in vehicle bcafces, and consider appropriate options to address the risk presented by asbestos in brakes. IV. Record EPA has established a record for information relating to the NRDC petition. The record includes information considered by EPA in developing tins response and consists of the fallowing categories of information: (1) The NRDC petition. (2) Appendix A of the "Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos Products.'* (3) Other information on substitutes for asbestos in brakes. (4) Information received from the public concerning the petition. (5) Memoranda summarising meetings and telephone conversations with the public concerning the petition. (6) Appendix J of the "Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos Products." (7) Appendix N of the "Regulatory Impact Analysis of Controls on Asbestos Products." A public version of the record, without any confidential business information, is available to the public in the Office of Toxic Substances Public Information Office, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., . Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. The Public Information Office is located in Rm. E-10". 401 M St.. SW., Washington, D.C. Dated: December 14,1984 William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator. !FR Doc. 84-33120 Filed 12-17-84. M4 pmj MIXING CODE MO-SO-N DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 4 CFR Part 391 IBMCS Docket No. MC-111; Notice No. 84J Qualifications of Drivers-- Handicapped Driver Waiver Program AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The FHWA proposes 1o amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations by clarifying an application requirement of the Handicapped Driver Waiver ftggnun. The proposed application mqturement woddrequire an applicant with an upper limb amputation or limb impairment to be capable of demonstrating prehensic n and power grasp in each upper limb. The FHWA has had a long-standing policy of requiring upper limb applicants to demonstrate prehension and power grasp. This proposed action would incorporate that policy into the rule. DATE: Comments must be received on or before Februajy 2,1985. ADDRESS: All comments sbodd refer to the docket nnmber and notice number that appear at toe top df this document and should be sdbuntted in Triplicate, to room 3404, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, 400 Seventh Street SW,, Washington, DC. 25090. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Neill L Thomas, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. (202] 428-9767; or Mr Thomas P. Holian, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202} 426-0346, Federal Highway Administration. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 pm. e.t, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The qualifications for drivers who drive in interstate or foreign commerce are found in 49 CFR Part 391. Among these qualifications are certain physical standards. 49 CFR 391.41. Two of the physical standards concern drivers who have had an amputation of a limb or who have a limb impairment. 49 CFR 391.41(b) (1) and (2). These two conditions are subject to the waiver provisions of 49 CFR 391.49. Waiver of Certain Physical Defects. Paragraph (d) of ! 391.49 lists eight types of documents that must accompany the letter of application for a waiver. It is proposed that paragraph (d)(3) be expanded to give notice to en applicant that he or she must be capable of demonstrating prehension and power grasp in each upper limb separately. In effect, this will require the use of a limb prosthesis for an upper limb amputee applicant who has been disqualified under | 391.41(b)(1). A limb-impaired applicant would be required to wear an orthotic device if he or she was not capable of demonstrating prehension and power grasp in each upper limb without a device. In 1977, the FHWA contracted with the Krusen Center for Research and Engineering of the Moss Rehabilitation Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to develop a booklet on the amputee commercial driver. A principal part of the booklet, "Limb Prosthetics for the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety." was the development of the Amputee Driver Functional Matrix Chart (ADFMC). The AOFMC identified critical driving tasks associated with specific types of amputation or limb-impairment and graded its difficulty given the specific handicap type. The chart was predicated on the behalf that a driver with an upper limb amputation or limbimpaiiment must wear* properly fitted and appropriate prosthetic or orthotic device to properly and safely operate a commercial motor vehicle. Limbimpaired applicants may not require an orthotic device if they can demonstrate prehension and power grasp without one. Subsequently, the FHWA instituted a policy that all upper limb amputee ;1 applicants must have a properly fitted and appropriate prosthesis, be proficient in its use, and use the prosthesis while driving to be considered for a waiver. Limb-impaired applicants must have a properly fitted and appropriate orthotic device, be proficient in its use, and use the orthotic device while driving to be considered for a waiver, or be capable of demonstrating prehension and power grasp without an orthotic device. Because this requirement is not Specifically stated in the waiver program rule, there has been some confusion among waiver applicants. By stating the requirement in the waiver program rule, we would inform the applicant initially of an important program requirement and avoid late: confusion or misunderstanding. It has been and continues to be the intent of the FHWA that all amputee or limbimpaired drivers, who are granted waivers, have prehension and power grasp ability in both upper limbs when driving a commercial motor vehicle The FHWA has had a long-standing policy that requires prehension end power grasp with each upper limb separately. This proposal merely expresses that policy and places no additional burden on the affected population. The anticipated economic impact of this proposed Bction, if any. is negligible. Therefore, a full regulatory evaluation has not been prepared. The FHWA has determined that this document contains neither a major rule under Executive Order 12291 or a significant regulation under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation. For the reasons stated above and under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L 96-354), the FHWA hereby certifies that this rulemaking, if promulgated, will not hf ve a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. UCC 004213 Z8Q3