Updated April 27, 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.​
  • 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.
  • Early 2026 – Briefing completes in the consolidated Fifth Circuit challenge to EPA’s Part 1 chrysotile rule (Case No. 24‑60193), and the court sets oral arguments for mid‑2026, underscoring how much is at stake for workers and communities.
  • Mid‑2026 (scheduled) – The Fifth Circuit will hear oral arguments on whether EPA’s first TSCA asbestos ban is sufficiently protective, even as ADAO continues to link the Part 1 case to EPA’s broader Part 2 “legacy asbestos” obligations and the push for the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act.
  • May 2026 – ACC narrows its Fifth Circuit attack on EPA’s science: In the run‑up to oral argument in Texas Chemistry Council v. EPA (No. 24‑60193), the American Chemistry Council and allied industry petitioners inform the Fifth Circuit that they will no longer press their challenge to EPA’s underlying chrysotile risk evaluation, abandoning arguments that EPA overstated the risks driving the Part 1 rule and signaling a strategic retreat from head‑on attacks on the scientific record. This shift leaves their remaining challenge focused on how far and how fast the rule phases out chrysotile in chlor‑alkali and related uses, even as ADAO continues to defend EPA’s authority to regulate asbestos based on extensive scientific evidence and congressional intent.
  • May 6, 2026 – Olin withdraws from industry challenge to overturn EPA’s rule: On the eve of oral argument, Olin Corporation files a stipulation of dismissal in the Fifth Circuit and exits the consolidated industry challenge to the Part 1 chrysotile rule, stepping away from efforts to vacate or weaken EPA’s phase‑out of asbestos diaphragm technology. Olin’s withdrawal narrows the industry coalition attacking the rule and underscores that at least one major chlor‑alkali player has decided not to continue litigating against EPA’s first TSCA asbestos ban.
  • May 20, 2026 – ACC and allied petitioners abandon challenge to EPA’s asbestos science — The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and allied industry petitioners notify the Fifth Circuit that they will no longer pursue arguments attacking EPA’s chrysotile asbestos risk evaluation and underlying scientific findings. By withdrawing challenges to EPA’s risk determination, industry narrows the dispute to the scope, timing, and implementation of the Part 1 rule, leaving the scientific record supporting asbestos regulation largely uncontested.
  • May 27, 2026 – Fifth Circuit requests argument on standing -– Just days before oral argument in Texas Chemistry Council v. EPA (No. 24-60193), the Fifth Circuit sends a letter to all parties directing counsel to be prepared to address whether petitioners have satisfied their burden of establishing Article III standing, including whether they have adequately articulated and supported their claimed injuries. The court also asks the parties to discuss the impact of its recent en banc decision in United States v. Texas on organizational-standing theories. The letter signals that standing will be a central issue at oral argument and foreshadows the court’s subsequent request for supplemental standing briefing.
  • June 1, 2026 – Oral arguments held in New Orleans: The Fifth Circuit hears oral arguments in Texas Chemistry Council v. EPA in New Orleans, taking up, on an expedited schedule, both public‑health petitioners’ claims that Part 1 leaves workers and communities under‑protected and industry arguments that EPA went too far, particularly in the chlor‑alkali sector. ADAO and its allies attend and report from the courthouse as the panel questions both sides on TSCA’s requirements, EPA’s treatment of compliance timelines, and how Part 1 fits into the broader regulatory effort to confront both ongoing and legacy asbestos risks.
  • June 10, 2026 – ADAO files supplemental standing brief and declarations: In response to the Fifth Circuit’s June 2 request for additional briefing on standing in Texas Chemistry Council v. EPA (No. 24‑60193), ADAO and 17 co‑petitioners file an eight‑page letter brief and four new declarations, building on three earlier declarations to show that gaps in the EPA’s Part 1 rule continue to expose workers, firefighters, health and safety professionals, and community members to serious asbestos hazards. The filings underscore that the people facing ongoing asbestos risks have a direct and personal stake in securing stronger protections and ask the court to decide ADAO’s claims on the merits, consistent with Congress’s intent in the Lautenberg Act to finally give EPA the authority needed to end asbestos exposure.
  • June 22, 2026 – EPA moves to strike ADAO’s supplemental standing declarations EPA files a letter with the Fifth Circuit urging the court to strike supplemental standing declarations submitted by ADAO, the United Steelworkers, and other petitioners following oral argument. EPA argues that the court’s June 2 order authorized only supplemental briefing and did not permit new evidentiary submissions, contending that petitioners should have established standing through declarations filed earlier in the litigation. In the alternative, EPA requests an opportunity to respond if the court elects to consider the declarations. The filing highlights the continuing dispute over standing and reflects EPA’s effort to prevent the court from considering additional evidence demonstrating ongoing asbestos-related injuries and exposure risks.