Regulatory Relief for Certain Stationary Sources to Promote American Chemical Manufacturing Security
President Trump issued a proclamation granting a two-year exemption from specific Clean Air Act regulations for listed chemical manufacturing facilities.
The exemption, justified by national security concerns and the unavailability of necessary compliance technologies, aims to protect the domestic chemical industry and reduce reliance on foreign producers.
The proclamation identifies several facilities across multiple states and asserts that the temporary exemption will allow these facilities to continue operation while solutions to comply with the HON Rule are developed.
Arguments For
National Security: The proclamation argues that maintaining a robust domestic chemical industry is crucial for national security, reducing reliance on foreign sources for materials vital to defense and emergency preparedness.
Economic Resilience: A strong domestic chemical sector supports numerous industries, and its weakening through stringent regulations could harm the overall economy and supply chains.
Technological Unavailability: The proclamation cites the unavailability of necessary technologies for compliance with the HON Rule, making immediate compliance impractical and potentially causing plant closures.
Legal Basis: The President cites Section 112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act as the legal basis for issuing the exemption, suggesting a valid pathway for temporary regulatory relief, prioritizing national security interests.
Implementation: The implementation involves a two year extension for specified facilities, allowing time for technological advancements and a more feasible route to compliance.
Arguments Against
Environmental Concerns: Critics may argue that delaying emissions controls harms environmental protection efforts and increases pollution, contradicting environmental goals.
Economic Fairness: The exemption could be viewed as unfair to other industries facing stricter environmental regulations, creating a potential imbalance in the regulatory landscape.
Unintended Consequences: Delaying emissions controls could lead to long-term environmental damage and health consequences, outweighing short-term economic benefits.
International Relations: The action might raise concerns among international partners about the US commitment to environmental regulations and global cooperation on climate change.
Implementation Challenges: Effectively enforcing the exemption and ensuring that the two-year period is used productively to develop compliant technologies presents significant challenges.
- The United States relies on a strong chemical manufacturing sector to support industries like energy, national defense, agriculture, and health care. These facilities produce essential inputs for critical infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, medical sterilization, semiconductors, and national defense systems. Maintaining a robust domestic chemical industry is vital to safeguarding the supply chains that underpin our economy and to reducing the Nation’s dependence on foreign control over materials critical to national resilience. As adversaries expand influence over key inputs, continued domestic production is essential not only to economic resilience but also to military readiness, public health, and national preparedness.
The US chemical manufacturing sector is vital to various industries, including energy, defense, agriculture, and healthcare.
These facilities supply inputs critical for infrastructure, manufacturing, medical supplies, and national defense.
Maintaining domestic production is considered essential for economic resilience and national security, particularly as foreign influence over crucial materials grows.
- On May 16, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule titled New Source Performance Standards for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins Industry, 89 FR 42932 (HON Rule). The HON Rule imposes new emissions-control requirements on certain chemical manufacturing facilities, some of which were promulgated pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the HON Rule on May 16, 2024, which sets new emissions standards for the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry.
Some provisions of the HON Rule are based on Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
- The HON Rule imposes substantial burdens on chemical manufacturers already operating under stringent regulations. Many of the testing and monitoring requirements outlined in the HON Rule rely on technologies that are not practically available, not demonstrated at the necessary scale, or cannot be implemented safely or consistently under real-world conditions. For many facilities, the timeline for compliance as set forth at 89 FR 42953-42955 would require shutdowns or massive capital investments before any proven pathway to compliance exists. The HON Rule imposes requirements that assume uniform technological availability across facilities, despite significant variation in site conditions, permitting realities, and equipment configurations. A disruption of this capacity would weaken key supply chains, increase dependence on foreign producers, and impair our ability to respond effectively in a time of crisis. These consequences would ripple across sectors vital to America’s growing industrial strength and emergency readiness.
The HON Rule places significant burdens on chemical manufacturers, many of whom lack the necessary technologies to comply.
The compliance timeline requires expensive upgrades or plant closures before viable compliance methods are available.
The rule assumes uniform technology availability, despite variations among facilities, potentially weakening supply chains and increasing reliance on foreign sources.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412(i)(4), do hereby proclaim that certain stationary sources subject to the HON Rule, as identified in Annex I of this proclamation, are exempt from compliance with those aspects of the HON Rule that were promulgated under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7412 for a period of 2 years beyond the HON Rule’s relevant compliance dates (Exemption). This Exemption applies to all compliance deadlines established under the HON Rule applicable to the stationary sources listed in Annex I, with each such deadline extended by 2 years from the date originally required for such deadline. The effect of this Exemption is that, during each such 2-year period, these stationary sources will be subject to the emissions and compliance obligations that they are currently subject to under the applicable standard as that standard existed prior to the HON Rule. In support of this Exemption, I hereby make the following determinations:
President Trump issued a proclamation exempting certain chemical manufacturing facilities from portions of the HON Rule for two years.
This exemption, based on Section 112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act, extends all relevant compliance deadlines by two years, effectively reverting those facilities to pre-HON Rule emissions standards for the exemption period.
The President's determination is based on the unavailability of necessary technology and national security interests.
a. The technology to implement the HON Rule is not available. Such technology does not exist in a commercially viable form sufficient to allow implementation of and compliance with the HON Rule by the compliance dates in the HON Rule.
The proclamation asserts that the technology to comply with the HON Rule is not currently available in a commercially viable form.
b. It is in the national security interests of the United States to issue this Exemption for the reasons stated in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this proclamation.
Issuing the exemption is deemed to be in the national security interest of the United States, aligning with the arguments presented earlier in the proclamation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventeenth day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fiftieth.
DONALD J. TRUMP
This concludes the proclamation, signed by President Donald J. Trump on July 17, 2025.
ANNEX I
Shell Chemical LP i. Affected Facility/Source: Geismar Plant, Louisiana
SABIC Innovative Plastics Mt. Vernon, LLC i. Affected Facility/Source: Manufacturing Plant, Indiana
Bakelite Synthetics i. Affected Facility/Source: a. Riegelwood, North Carolina; b. Conway, North Carolina; c. Crossett, Arkansas; d. Louisville, Kentucky; e. Lufkin, Texas; f. Taylorsville, Mississippi
The Dow Chemical Company i. Affected Facility/Source: Glycol II Plant, Louisiana
Trinseo LLC i. Affected Facility/Source: a. Trinseo Facility, Georgia b. Trinseo Facility, Michigan
Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. i. Affected Facility/Source: a. Formosa Plastics Corporation, Louisiana b. Formosa Plastics Corporation, Texas
Union Carbide Corporation/The Dow Chemical Company i. Affected Facility/Source: a. Seadrift Operations, Texas b. Hahnville, St. Charles Parish Facility, Louisiana
Westlake Vinyl’s LLC/Westlake Corporation i. Affected Facility/Source: a. Petrochemical Complex, Louisiana b. Styrene Monomer Production Facility, Louisiana c. Styrene Marine Terminal, Louisiana d. Lake Charles South Facility, Louisiana e. Lake Charles North Facility, Louisiana
BASF TotalEnergies Petrochemicals LLC i. Affected Facility/Source: Port Arthur Facility, Texas
BASF Corporation i. Affected Facility/Source: a. Geismar Facility, Louisiana; b. North Geismar Facility, Louisiana; c. Freeport Facility, Texas
Rubicon LLC i. Affected Facility/Source: Geismar Facility, Louisiana
CITGO Petroleum Corporation i. Affected Facility/Source: a. Lake Charles Refinery, Louisiana b. Corpus Christi Refinery, Texas c. Lemont Refinery, Illinois
INEOS Americas LLC i. Affected Facility/Source: Bayport EO Plant, Texas
Celanese Corporation i. Affected Facility/Source: a. Narrows Facility, Virginia b. Clear Lake Facility, Texas c. Bishop Facility, Texas d. Bay City Facility, Texas
Huntsman Petrochemical LLC i. Affected Facility/Source: a. Huntsman Pensacola, Florida b. Huntsman Conroe, Texas
TotalEnergies Petrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc. i. Affected Facility/Source: a. TotalEnergies Petrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc., Alabama b. Cos-Mar StyreneMonomer Plant, Alabama c. TotalEnergies Polystrene Plant, Louisiana d. Port Arthur Refinery, Texas
Indorama Ventures Xylenes and PTA i. Affected Facility/Source: Decatur Facility, Alabama
Denka Performance Elastomer LLC i. Affected Facility/Source: LaPlace Neoprene Production Facility, Louisiana
Sasol Chemicals (USA) LLC i. Affected Facility/Source: Lake Charles Chemical Complex, Louisiana
Philips 66 Company i. Affected Facility/Source: a. Sweeny Refinery, Texas b. WRB Refining LP Calvert Refinery, Illinois c. WRB Refining LP Borger Refinery, Texas
Indorama Ventures Oxides, LLC i. Affected Facility/Source: Port Neches Facility, Texas
Eastman Chemical Company i. Affected Facility/Source: Longview Facility, Texas
DuPont Specialty Products USA, LLC i. Affected Facility/Source: Pontchartrain Site, Louisiana
Stepan Company i. Affected Facility/Source: Millsdale Facility, Illinois
Ascend Performance Materials Operations LLC i. Affected Facility/Source: a. Ascend Decatur, Alabama; b. Ascend Alvin, Texas; c. Ascend Pensacola, Florida
Annex I lists the specific chemical manufacturing facilities granted the two-year exemption from sections of the HON Rule.
These facilities are located across multiple states.