Posted on January 7, 2026

As the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) engages in another critical legal challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), we reflect on how far we’ve come and how far we still need to go. Thanks to the dedication of so many advocates, experts, and community members, we are very proud of the progress we’ve made together. This blog provides a glimpse into the changes we’ve made, tracing the history of asbestos regulation in the United States, highlighting key legal victories and challenges, and reinforcing the urgent need for stronger protections against asbestos exposure.

A Brief History of Asbestos Regulation (1989–1991)

  • 1989 EPA Asbestos Ban and Phase-Out Rule (Remanded)
    The EPA issued a rule banning most asbestos-containing products. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned it in 1991, leaving only a limited number of products banned and creating a regulatory vacuum that persists to this day.

Recent Federal Action on Asbestos (2016–2024)

Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Act (ARBAN) (2016 – 2026) 

Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Acts in the U.S. Senate

Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Acts in the U.S. House of Representatives

There have been two ARBAN legislative hearings:

ADAO’s Legal Advocacy Timeline

ADAO and allied public health groups challenged the EPA’s framework for evaluating chemical risks. In 2019, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the EPA must consider legacy asbestos in its risk evaluations, a landmark decision reinforcing TSCA’s full intent.

After the EPA denied our petition to strengthen asbestos data reporting, ADAO filed suit. The court ruled the denial was “arbitrary and capricious,” requiring the EPA to revise the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule.

ADAO challenged the Final Risk Evaluation for asbestos, citing significant omissions like contaminated talc and environmental pathways. We also issued a 60-day notice under TSCA Section 20 and subsequently sued to compel action on legacy asbestos.

On April 19, 2024, ADAO and co-petitioners filed a Petition for Review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to define the science, protect the existing rule, and, where possible, improve it, calling for a more substantial Part 1 Chrysotile Rule. Key concerns include:

      • Prolonged transition periods for technology phase-outs
      • Inadequate controls over in-place asbestos
      • Failure to regulate environmental release pathways
      • The rule has since been challenged in at least five separate lawsuits by environmental, labor, and industry stakeholders. These cases have been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, chosen at random by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.