EPA’s 2024 Asbestos Ban Paused as Fifth Circuit Grants Abeyance for Rule Reconsideration

Quick Hits

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has delayed the EPA’s 2024 ban on chrysotile asbestos, allowing the agency six months to reconsider the rule amid legal challenges.
• Public health advocates warn that the delay in enforcing the EPA’s asbestos ban could prolong exposure to a carcinogen responsible for thousands of deaths annually in the United States.
• Industry groups support the EPA’s decision to reconsider the asbestos ban, advocating for a risk-based approach and questioning the agency’s statutory authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

In March 2024, the EPA finalized a comprehensive ban on the manufacture, import, processing, distribution, and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos, the only form of asbestos still in use in the United States. The rule imposed immediate and phased compliance deadlines for various applications, including the chlor-alkali industry, which is the only industry that still imports the raw fibers. Chrysotile asbestos fibers can be found in thousands of products, including adhesives, automotive parts, cements, cement sheets, construction mastics and gunning mixtures, diaphragms, dust connectors, electrical components, felts, fireproofing, flooring, gaskets, insulation products, laboratory equipment, plastics, textiles, and tiles.

Industry groups, including chemical manufacturers and trade associations, challenged the rule in the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority under TSCA by imposing a ban rather than relying on workplace exposure limits and other risk management measures. On June 16, 2025, the EPA, represented by the U.S. Department of Justice, requested that the Fifth Circuit continue to hold the litigation in abeyance for six months to allow the agency to conduct a new rulemaking process. The EPA indicated that this process, including public comment and stakeholder engagement, could take up to thirty months. The Fifth Circuit granted the abeyance, pausing legal proceedings and, effectively, the enforcement of the ban and related compliance deadlines for the duration of the reconsideration process.

Public health advocates, including the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), have strongly opposed the abeyance, warning that delays in enforcement could prolong exposure to a known carcinogen responsible for an estimated 40,000 deaths annually in the United States. ADAO has expressed concern that the EPA may not enforce the 2024 rule’s bans during the rulemaking process, creating uncertainty and potential risk for workers and the public. Industry petitioners, including the American Chemistry Council (ACC), support the EPA’s decision to reconsider the rule, advocating for a risk-based approach that limits the EPA’s regulatory actions to what is necessary to address “unreasonable risk” and defers to other agencies where appropriate. The Environmental Protection Network, representing former EPA officials, has criticized the planned revision, particularly the targeting of restrictions on asbestos use in chlorine manufacturing and industrial gasket installations, sectors where safer alternatives are available. For employers that use or have used asbestos-containing products in the past or currently, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has and continues to have regulations that apply, for both general industry and construction.

Implications of the Abeyance and Next Steps

The abeyance delays the enforcement of the most comprehensive asbestos ban in U.S. history and introduces significant regulatory uncertainty for affected industries and public health stakeholders. The outcome of the EPA’s reconsideration may result in the reinstatement, modification, or potential weakening of the ban, with broad implications for chemical regulation under TSCA. The EPA’s resource constraints and concurrent rulemaking obligations for other chemicals may further extend the timeline for finalizing any revised asbestos rule.

The EPA has indicated it will solicit early stakeholder input and issue a proposed rule for public comment as part of its reconsideration process. The agency anticipates that finalizing a new rule could take up to thirty months, during which time enforcement of the 2024 ban remains uncertain. The Fifth Circuit’s decision to grant abeyance underscores the ongoing legal and policy debate over the scope of EPA’s authority under TSCA and the appropriate balance between public health protection and regulatory flexibility.

Ogletree Deakins’ Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group will continue to monitor developments in this area and provide updates on the Workplace Safety and Health blog as the EPA’s reconsideration process unfolds.

This article and more information on how the Trump administration’s actions impact employers can be found on Ogletree Deakins’ New Administration Resource Hub.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts