Posted on January 16, 2026

As the asbestos community approaches the end of the Part 1 litigation road, it is clear that the foundations for today’s hard‑fought protections were poured years earlier, in the first phase of EPA’s work under reformed TSCA. From Lautenberg’s 2016 promise of stronger chemical safety, to Judge Chen’s 2020 ruling that forced EPA to confront its data blind spots, to EPA’s initial, narrowly framed chrysotile risk evaluation, each step helped define what Part 1 would, and would not, do. This timeline traces how that formative period shaped the rule now under challenge and why, even as the courtroom battles wind down, the implications for asbestos policy and public health remain far from settled.

1. Building the Part 1 foundation (2016–2020)

  • June 2016 – Lautenberg TSCA reform enables Part 1: Congress passes the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, amending TSCA and requiring EPA to evaluate and manage risks from high‑priority chemicals, including asbestos, under Section 6.​
  • December 22, 2020 – Judge Chen’s CDR decision: Judge Edward Chen grants summary judgment for ADAO and state Attorneys General, holds EPA’s denial of ADAO’s petition “arbitrary and capricious,” and orders EPA to revise CDR to capture asbestos data, underscoring that EPA lacks basic information on asbestos use and exposure for a sound Part 1 evaluation.​
  • Late December 2020 – Final Risk Evaluation for Asbestos, Part 1 (chrysotile): EPA issues the final Part 1 risk evaluation, finding unreasonable risks to workers, occupational non‑users, consumers, and bystanders for all identified ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, while finding no unreasonable risk to the environment; ADAO criticizes the evaluation as dangerously narrow and incomplete.​

2. ADAO challenges the Part 1 risk evaluation (2020–2021)

  • December 2020–January 2021 – Ninth Circuit petition and TSCA 60‑day notice: Joined by public‑health groups and asbestos scientists, ADAO petitions the Ninth Circuit to review EPA’s Final Risk Evaluation for Asbestos, Part 1, arguing it is piecemeal, fails to address legacy asbestos, and understates asbestos’ disease burden.​
  • Early 2021 – 60‑day notice to sue over legacy asbestos: In parallel, ADAO sends EPA a TSCA Section 20 60‑day notice of intent to sue to compel EPA to properly evaluate legacy asbestos, citing the Ninth Circuit’s Safer Chemicals decision and Judge Chen’s finding that EPA failed to collect basic asbestos data.​
  • 2021 – Settlement and commitments on data and evaluation: Through subsequent settlement‑related documents in ADAO v. EPA and allied cases, EPA commits to addressing data gaps and developing a broader Part 2 asbestos evaluation (covering legacy asbestos and additional fiber types), which frames and pressures how EPA implements and interprets Part 1.​

3. From proposal to final Part 1 rule (2022–March 2024)

  • April 2022 – EPA proposes Part 1 chrysotile rule; ADAO comments: EPA publishes the proposed “Asbestos Part 1; Chrysotile Asbestos: Regulation of Certain Conditions of Use” rule under TSCA Section 6(a), aiming to ban or phase out multiple ongoing chrysotile uses; ADAO submits detailed comments urging faster phase‑outs, coverage of additional chrysotile products, and stronger workplace protections.​
  • March 27–28, 2024 – Final Part 1 risk‑management rule issued: EPA announces and publishes the final rule “Asbestos Part 1; Chrysotile Asbestos; Regulation of Certain Conditions of Use Under TSCA” (89 Fed. Reg. 21970), the first TSCA Section 6 asbestos ban covering ongoing chrysotile uses. The rule prohibits manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and commercial use for specified conditions of use, with staggered compliance deadlines.​

4. ADAO’s post‑rule litigation and pressure on Part 1 (April 2024–2026)

  • April 19, 2024 – ADAO petition for review of Part 1 rule: ADAO and co‑petitioners file a petition for review in the D.C. Circuit (later consolidated in the Fifth Circuit) challenging the March 2024 Part 1 rule as incomplete and under‑protective, seeking, among other things, faster chlor‑alkali phase‑outs, better controls on in‑place asbestos and environmental releases, and a more comprehensive treatment of chrysotile conditions of use.​
  • 2024–2025 – Consolidated Part 1 litigation in Fifth Circuit (Case No. 24‑60193): Multiple challenges by public‑health and industry groups are consolidated before the Fifth Circuit; ADAO’s opening and reply briefs argue EPA unlawfully excluded documented ongoing chrysotile uses, allowed excessively long compliance timelines in violation of TSCA Section 6(d), and failed to prevent foreseeable resumption of discontinued asbestos uses.​
  • Mid‑2025 – EPA signals reconsideration of Part 1 rule: In response to the consolidated litigation and ADAO’s arguments, EPA agrees to reconsider aspects of the Part 1 rule; the Fifth Circuit grants time for reconsideration, effectively pausing elements of the ban schedule while EPA reviews its determinations and compliance deadlines.​
  • September 17, 2025 – ADAO reply brief details Part 1 flaws: ADAO’s reply brief in Case 24‑60193 emphasizes evidence of additional ongoing chrysotile imports that EPA wrongly omitted from Part 1, argues that compliance deadlines for chlor‑alkali are not “as soon as practicable,” and urges the court to remand the rule with instructions to broaden the scope and shorten the timelines.​
  • Ongoing (2025–2026) – ADAO advocacy linking Part 1, Part 2, and ARBAN: While litigation over the Part 1 rule proceeds, ADAO pushes EPA to fully address legacy asbestos and all six fiber types in Part 2 and continues to advocate for the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act to secure a statutory, comprehensive ban that would reinforce and go beyond the TSCA Part 1 rule.​