Proof Fittings and the Asbestos Rule

Most of the EPA s rules banning uses of asbestos under TSCA 6(a) were overturned in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA. As mentioned above, EPA s inability to ban such a notoriously hazardous substance is often used as an 

The Court held that the EPA must promulgate the least burdensome regulation that adequately protects the environment. By banning most uses of asbestos, the Court opined that the EPA had chosen the most burdensome possible restrictions. To meet the statutory requirements, the EPA must evaluate each of the less burdensome restrictions and determine the costs and benefits associated with them, and the EPA had not performed that analysis. 

The Court concluded that the EPA had also not met its burden of showing that asbestos poses an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. In particular, the EPA had not balanced the costs and benefits of its proposed restrictions, and therefore could not have made a determination about the reasonableness of the risks posed by asbestos. Because of these shortcomings, the Court vacated the EPA s rule and remanded it to the EPA. 

The Court clarified its opinion and stated that products could be banned if they had once been manufactured, imported, or processed but such activities had stopped as of July 12, 1989, which was the date the regulations were issued. The Court had explained that products that are not in commerce do not pose a risk, but a risk would be present if they were reintroduced into commerce and so the EPA was justified in banning them. 

On remand, the EPA found that there were six categories of asbestos containing products that were not manufactured, imported, or processed as of July 12,1989. They are  

---