EPA Chrysotile Asbestos Ban 2024

EPA Chrysotile Asbestos Ban (2024)
Rule Citation	89 Fed. Reg. 21,970
Effective Date	May 28, 2024
Regulating Agency	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Scope	Import, manufacture, processing, and distribution of chrysotile asbestos; phase-out timelines vary by industrial use (180 days to 2037)
Legal Status	Final rule in effect; under challenge in Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 24-60193)
Call to Action	Contact Danziger & De Llano to discuss mesothelioma claims and asbestos exposure. Call: (555) XXX-XXXX

Executive Summary

On May 28, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implemented the most significant chrysotile asbestos ban in United States history—more than 30 years after a previous ban was overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Building on the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act of 2016, which reformed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the EPA's final rule systematically eliminates the import, manufacture, processing, and distribution of chrysotile asbestos across multiple industries. The rule establishes cascading compliance deadlines, ranging from immediate prohibitions (May 28, 2024) to extended transitions of 13 years for certain industrial uses. Though the ban addresses only one of six commercial asbestos fiber types and does not regulate legacy asbestos already in buildings, it represents a decisive regulatory action backed by rigorous risk evaluation. The rule is currently defended against legal challenge in the Fifth Circuit—the same court that invalidated the EPA's 1989 asbestos ban. This page examines the regulatory foundation, timeline, scope, and implications for current mesothelioma patients and litigants.

Key Facts

Fact
The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (June 2016) eliminated the "least burdensome" requirement that had doomed the 1989 EPA asbestos ban, creating a new cost-benefit framework under TSCA § 6(c).
Asbestos was designated among the first 10 chemicals for EPA risk evaluation under the reformed TSCA in December 2016.
The EPA published its scope document for Part 1 (chrysotile only) in June 2017 and issued the final rule on March 18, 2024, with an effective date of May 28, 2024.
The 2024 ban prohibits chrysotile asbestos but does NOT cover the other five commercial asbestos fiber types: amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, actinolite, and anthophyllite.
Compliance timelines vary by use: 180 days for automotive brakes/linings, 2 years (~May 2026) for sheet gaskets (most), 5 years (~May 2029) for titanium dioxide sheet gaskets, and up to 13 years (2037) for nuclear facility gaskets.
Eight chlor-alkali plants were using asbestos diaphragms as of 2023; six will convert within five years, and two within 5–12 years.
The EPA estimates that the rule will protect public health from exposures linked to approximately 40,000 deaths annually.
U.S. mesothelioma deaths in 2022 totaled 2,236, with the disease typically appearing 20–50 years after asbestos exposure.
Industry groups, including the Texas Chemistry Council, challenged the rule in the Fifth Circuit (April 19, 2024, No. 24-60193); as of July 2025, the case proceeds on merits.
The EPA's Part 2 Risk Evaluation (finalized November 27, 2024) found unreasonable risk for all six asbestos fiber types and legacy uses, setting the stage for future regulatory action beyond chrysotile.
U.S. asbestos consumption has fallen from 803,000 metric tons annually (1973) to approximately 110 metric tons in 2024, sourced entirely from stockpiles.
The Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act (S.2811/H.R.5373), introduced September 2025, would expand the ban to all six fiber types of asbestos.

What Changed with the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act in 2016?

The Reform of TSCA

The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, signed into law on June 22, 2016, fundamentally reformed the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. For four decades, the original TSCA had created a nearly insurmountable regulatory burden: the EPA was required to prove that any chemical prohibition represented the "least burdensome" alternative available. This standard effectively prevented the agency from banning even the most dangerous substances if less restrictive options existed.

Elimination of the "Least Burdensome" Test

As Danziger & De Llano legally documents, the 1989 EPA asbestos ban, which would have eliminated 94 percent of asbestos use, was struck down in 1991 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in part because the court found that the EPA had not adequately justified why a comprehensive ban was less burdensome than alternative regulations. The Lautenberg Act removed this obstacle. Under the reformed TSCA, specifically § 6(c), the EPA must determine whether a chemical poses an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. If it does, the EPA may establish requirements to "prohibit or otherwise restrict" the chemical, with the agency considering costs and benefits—but without the paralyzing requirement to identify and justify why a ban is less burdensome than every conceivable alternative.

Asbestos Designated for Risk Evaluation

In December 2016, just six months after Lautenberg's enactment, the EPA designated asbestos among the first 10 chemicals selected for systematic risk evaluation under the reformed statute. This selection signaled the agency's intent to comprehensively reassess asbestos in the modern regulatory framework, free from the constraints that had doomed previous efforts.

Scope Document and Phased Approach

As Mesothelioma Lawyer Center notes, the EPA published its scope document in June 2017, announcing a two-part risk evaluation process. Part 1 would focus solely on chrysotile asbestos, the only form still imported into the United States in meaningful quantities. Part 2 would encompass all six commercial fiber types, legacy asbestos uses, and naturally occurring asbestos contamination issues. This phased approach allowed the EPA to issue a definitive rule on the most commercially relevant form while continuing to build evidence for broader action.

What Does the EPA's 2024 Chrysotile Asbestos Ban Actually Prohibit?

The Final Rule: March 18, 2024; Effective May 28, 2024

On March 18, 2024, the EPA announced its final rule banning chrysotile asbestos, published in the Federal Register as 89 Fed. Reg. 21,970. The rule became effective on May 28, 2024, and applies to the import, manufacture, processing, and distribution of chrysotile asbestos across multiple industrial sectors. Critically, the rule does not require immediate cessation of all asbestos use; instead, it establishes a series of compliance deadlines tailored to the technological and economic realities of different industries.

Compliance Timeline by Condition of Use

Condition of Use	Compliance Date	Notes
Chlor-alkali imports	May 28, 2024	5–12 year phase-out for processing and use depending on facility
Oilfield brake blocks	November 28, 2024 (6 months)	Commercial bans; no consumer sales
Aftermarket automotive brakes and linings	November 27, 2024 (approximately 6 months)	Commercial and consumer products
Other vehicle friction products	November 27, 2024 (approximately 6 months)	Commercial and consumer products
Sheet gaskets (most applications)	May 28, 2026 (approximately 2 years)	General industrial uses and power generation
Sheet gaskets (titanium dioxide production)	May 28, 2029 (approximately 5 years)	Extended transition to allow for technology adaptation
Sheet gaskets (nuclear and DOE facilities)	2037 (13 years from effective date)	Longest transition period; tied to facility lifecycle and national security considerations

The Chlor-Alkali Industry Transition

As reported by Mesothelioma Lawyer Center, As of 2023, eight chlor-alkali plants in the United States were still using asbestos diaphragms in their electrolytic processes for producing chlorine and caustic soda. Under the 2024 rule, six of these plants must transition to non-asbestos alternatives within five years (by May 2029), and two plants receive extended periods of up to 12 years (by May 2036) to complete conversion. The EPA determined that these extended timelines were necessary to allow sufficient time for the development and validation of replacement technologies, which is technically and economically critical for continuous chemical manufacturing processes.

Import, Manufacturing, and Distribution Prohibitions

Danziger & De Llano states that Beyond these use-specific timelines, the rule imposes immediate prohibitions on the import, manufacturing, and processing of chrysotile asbestos effective May 28, 2024. This means that chrysotile asbestos cannot be imported into the United States as raw material or finished products, and no U.S. manufacturer may process or create new asbestos-containing products. However, distribution of existing stockpiles (estimated at approximately 300–500 metric tons in the United States as of early 2024) is generally permitted, subject to use-specific prohibitions.

What Does the 2024 Ban NOT Cover?

The Five Other Asbestos Fiber Types

A critical limitation of the 2024 rule is its scope: it addresses only chrysotile asbestos, which accounts for approximately 95 percent of historical asbestos use but represents only one of six commercial fiber types. As Mesothelioma.net explains, the other five fiber types—amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, actinolite, and anthophyllite—are not regulated by the 2024 rule. Although amosite and crocidolite were largely phased out of U.S. commerce decades ago, their continued presence in some industrial products and legacy materials means that exposure pathways remain.

Libby Amphibole Asbestos

Libby amphibole asbestos, a non-commercial fiber type found in vermiculite ore mined in Libby, Montana, is not addressed by the 2024 rule. However, Libby amphibole is included in the EPA's Part 2 Risk Evaluation, discussed below, and may be subject to future regulatory action.

Legacy Asbestos in Buildings

Perhaps the most significant gap in the 2024 ban concerns the estimated 733,000 public buildings in the United States that contain friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM). The EPA's ban does not address removal, management, or labeling of asbestos already installed in buildings, walls, pipes, roofs, and insulation. Instead, existing asbestos in place is governed by OSHA's workplace exposure standards and the EPA's asbestos-in-schools rules (40 CFR Part 763), which do not mandate removal but do require notification and management practices. Renovation and demolition contractors remain subject to strict protocols, but the asbestos may remain until disturbance occurs.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos

Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) in soil and rock formations—particularly in El Dorado County, California, and other western regions—is not regulated by the 2024 ban. The EPA's approach to NOA remains primarily advisory and educational rather than regulatory.

Asbestos in Imported Consumer Goods

The 2024 rule addresses direct imports of chrysotile asbestos and asbestos-containing products manufactured in the United States, but enforcement gaps remain for some consumer goods imported from countries without asbestos bans. Products such as certain textiles, brake pads, and adhesives imported from countries like India, Vietnam, and Indonesia may contain asbestos but are not explicitly addressed by the rule.

Talc and Asbestos Contamination

Legal analysis by Danziger & De Llano indicates that in November 2025, the FDA withdrew its proposed rule banning talc powder contaminated with asbestos, citing procedural concerns and ongoing litigation over talc and mesothelioma claims. Consequently, the asbestos contamination issue in talc-based products remains outside the EPA's 2024 chrysotile ban and continues to be litigated separately.

What Is the Status of the Legal Challenge to the Ban?

The Fifth Circuit Challenge

On April 19, 2024, less than one month after the EPA announced its final rule, the Texas Chemistry Council and allied industry groups filed suit in the U.S. According to Mesothelioma Attorney's legal review, court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, seeking to overturn the ban (Case No. 24-60193). The choice of forum is significant: the Fifth Circuit is the same court that invalidated the EPA's 1989 asbestos ban in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991). The industry petitioners argue that the 2024 rule fails to adequately justify why a comprehensive ban on chrysotile is the least expensive means of addressing the alleged risk, and they contend that the rule is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Litigation Timeline and Procedural Status

Mesothelioma Lawyer Center's legal documentation shows that in February 2025, the Fifth Circuit granted a 120-day abeyance—a temporary stay of the litigation to allow the parties to negotiate or reassess their positions. In June 2025, the EPA filed a motion for an additional six-month abeyance, suggesting ongoing discussions. However, on July 7, 2025, the EPA withdrew its abeyance motion, signaling its confidence and willingness to proceed with oral argument and briefing on the merits. By September 2025, industry petitioners had filed their initial briefs, and the case is actively proceeding through the appellate process.

Implications of Fifth Circuit Review

The Fifth Circuit's review is particularly consequential given its historical role in asbestos regulation. If the court were to strike down the 2024 rule using reasoning similar to that in Corrosion Proof Fittings, it would effectively nullify the EPA's efforts and cast doubt on the agency's authority under the reformed Lautenberg TSCA. However, the statutory foundation has changed dramatically: unlike the pre-1994 TSCA, the Lautenberg Act no longer requires the EPA to prove that a ban is the least burdensome option. This critical distinction may prove decisive in the court's review.

What Is EPA's Part 2 Risk Evaluation and Why Does It Matter?

Scope and Timeline

Concurrent with its work on the chrysotile ban, the EPA has been conducting a comprehensive risk evaluation of all six asbestos fiber types—amosite, crocidolite, chrysotile, tremolite, actinolite, and anthophyllite—along with naturally occurring asbestos, asbestos in legacy applications, and the question of asbestos contamination in talc. The EPA published the scope document for Part 2 in June 2022 and released a draft Part 2 Risk Evaluation in April 2024.

Final Part 2 Risk Evaluation (November 27, 2024)

On November 27, 2024, the EPA published its final Part 2 Risk Evaluation, concluding that all six asbestos fiber types pose unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. The evaluation also found that legacy uses of asbestos—particularly in building renovation, demolition, and disturbance—present ongoing and unreasonable risks. This finding provides the statutory foundation for EPA action on non-chrysotile fiber types and legacy asbestos uses.

Regulatory Foundation for Future Rules

The Part 2 evaluation does not itself impose new prohibitions; rather, it establishes that the EPA has met its threshold determination under TSCA § 6(b)—that these substances pose unreasonable risks. This opens the door for the EPA to issue subsequent rules under TSCA § 6(c) that would regulate or ban amosite, crocidolite, and the other fiber types, as well as impose restrictions on legacy asbestos. Industry observers expect the EPA to propose rulemaking for non-chrysotile fiber types in 2026–2027, potentially leading to final rules by 2028–2029.

What Is the ARBAN Act and Could It Achieve a Full Ban?

Legislative Framework

Recognizing the limitations of the EPA's approach, advocates and members of Congress have championed the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now (ARBAN) Act, introduced in September 2025 as S.2811 (Senate) and H.R.5373 (House). The act is named in honor of Alan Reinstein, a mesothelioma patient and longtime asbestos ban advocate.

Comprehensive Ban on All Fiber Types

As documented by Danziger & De Llano, Unlike the EPA's chrysotile-specific 2024 rule, the ARBAN Act would impose a complete ban on all six commercial fiber types of asbestos and would explicitly cover naturally occurring asbestos, legacy asbestos in buildings, and asbestos in imported products. The bill would also authorize the EPA to establish strict labeling and notification requirements for asbestos-containing products and would provide federal funding for asbestos removal programs.

Political Prospects

As of early 2026, the ARBAN Act has attracted bipartisan support from members concerned about public health and occupational safety. However, its passage remains uncertain, facing opposition from chemical manufacturers, chlor-alkali producers, and other industry groups. Congressional action on the ARBAN Act is expected throughout 2026, with the possibility of passage or merger with broader occupational safety legislation.

What Does the Ban Mean for Current Mesothelioma Patients?

No Impact on Existing Claims

Mesothelioma Attorney's historical analysis indicates that Mesothelioma is a disease of latency: exposure to asbestos typically occurs decades before symptoms appear, with a lag period of 20–50 years between initial exposure and diagnosis. Consequently, individuals currently diagnosed with mesothelioma were almost certainly exposed during the pre-2024 era, when asbestos use was widespread and often unregulated or inadequately controlled.

The 2024 EPA ban does not affect the legal rights of current mesothelioma patients or their families. All mesothelioma cases are based on past exposure—decades ago—and are pursued under theories of negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, or fraudulent concealment against the manufacturers, distributors, employers, and premises owners responsible for that exposure. The ban does not retroactively alter those claims or the liability of responsible parties.

Continued Legal Remedies

Mesothelioma patients currently have access to multiple compensation mechanisms:

• Asbestos Trust Funds: Over 60 trust funds, established through bankruptcy proceedings of asbestos manufacturers and distributors, hold approximately $30 billion in assets designated for asbestos-related disease claims. These trust fund claims are unaffected by the 2024 EPA ban and remain available to patients with documented asbestos exposure and mesothelioma diagnosis.

• Litigation: Plaintiffs may file civil lawsuits against non-bankrupt manufacturers, premises owners, employers, and other defendants. These cases are litigated in state and federal courts across the country, with jury verdicts and settlements regularly exceeding $1 million.

• Veterans Benefits: Military veterans exposed to asbestos during service are eligible for VA disability compensation and survivor benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs, separate from the EPA's regulatory actions.

The Ban as Reinforcement of Liability Arguments

In the courtroom, the 2024 EPA ban serves as powerful evidence that asbestos is far more dangerous than manufacturers and distributors claimed or acknowledged. The EPA's decision to impose a comprehensive ban—supported by decades of epidemiological data linking chrysotile to mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis—demonstrates that industry knew or should have known about these risks. Attorneys representing mesothelioma patients frequently cite the EPA's risk assessments and regulatory action as evidence that manufacturers acted with conscious disregard for human safety and withheld critical information about asbestos dangers.

Statute of Limitations and Repose

An important consideration for current and future patients is that most states impose statutes of limitations on mesothelioma claims, typically ranging from one to three years from the date of diagnosis. Some states also impose statutes of repose based on the date of exposure, though mesothelioma is often exempted from repose statutes because the disease is so latent. Individuals who believe they have been exposed to asbestos should seek immediate evaluation by an experienced mesothelioma attorney to preserve their legal rights.