Public Policy Report – May 2025

It has been a historic year in 2025 on the public policy front with the many changes underway in Washington and beyond. With new faces at the agencies, historic changes underway across the federal government and new challenges emerging on metals and minerals, regulation, tariffs, defense and manufacturing competitiveness, there has been much on the agenda.

To keep members informed and hear your questions and concerns, we’ll look forward to seeing you and presenting the NASF Public Policy Update on Thursday, June 6 @ 9:00 – 10:00 am CT on the show floor stage.

We will be covering a number of topics and providing updates on major issues that impact the industry. We’ll also be available to answer questions all week as well.

In the meantime, see some of the latest developments this month below.

See you in Rosemont!

Federal Nickel Toxics and Exposure Profile Removed for Further Agency Review

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has temporarily removed its recently finalized Nickel Toxicological Profile and related nickel documents from its public webpage. The agency, which operates under the Centers for Disease Control, states that it is now evaluating earlier health calculations associated with its final publication for nickel several months ago.

The ATSDR’s final Nickel Toxicology Profile, which it developed over several years and published in November 2024, raised major concerns for NASF and other sectors. Among the more problematic issues was its extremely conservative approach to human exposure in its calculations, which were not aligned with other authoritative health, scientific and regulatory bodies. Because the ATSDR profiles are considered the “gold standard” for regulators and public health agencies across the U.S. and worldwide, the final profile would drive significant changes to nickel regulation for industry.

NASF will keep members apprised of any new developments on this issue.

REMINDER: NASF Automotive Roundtable Webinar Recording Available to Members on Trivalent Chromium and PFAS Transition

NASF members can view the webinar recording of the association’s recent trivalent chromium webinar, developed in collaboration with the Detroit-based Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG). For the past three years NASF has been collaborating with the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), automotive OEMs, chemical suppliers, and finishing applicators to trivalent chromium coatings in the automotive supply chain.

Among the highlights of the webinar, which features a dozen panelists and a Q&A session from the automotive, supplier and plating community, were key remarks by industry colleagues from Toyota and General Motors, who reviewed emerging policies and timelines for transition from hexavalent to trivalent chromium for decorative plating and chromic acid etch, as well as eliminating PFAS in the supply chain.

NASF and AIAG have plans to continue the initiative and expand the discussion into 2026 on emerging OEM timelines, practical challenges and further opportunities for coordination.

If members have further questions or would like additional information on the project and outlook, please reach Christian Richter at crichter@thepolicygroup.com or Jeff Hannapel and jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com .

NASF Coordinates with Industry Allies in Response to White House Request for Deregulatory Action

In response to a White House request for information on areas that would benefit from deregulation, NASF coordinated this month with key manufacturing allies to urge the administration to rescind EPA’s August 2024 assessment for hexavalent chromium. The White House Office of Management and Budget requested suggestions for “regulations that are unnecessary, unlawful, unduly burdensome, or unsound.”

An existing federal court order requires EPA to revise the current U.S. drinking water standard for chromium within three years once EPA’s scientific assessment is completed. However, NASF and several other trade associations agree with EPA’s own Science Advisory Board that the document contained significant and consequential deficiencies which were never addressed prior to agency’s final action. As a result, EPA’s conclusions could likely lead to a drinking water value below average background levels, with costs to municipal drinking water systems as well as industry reaching $20 billion over time with little to no public health benefit.

NASF was joined by the Specialty Steel Industry of North America, the Industrial Fasteners Institute, the National Tooling and Machining Association, the Precision Machined Products Association, the Precision Metalforming Association and the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute.

NASF Calls for EPA to Withdraw Pending Federal Stormwater Permit Rule for Industrial Discharges

NASF has been closely engaged in EPA’s industrial stormwater discussions, and recently joined with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to urge that agency to withdraw its December 2024 proposed Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for industrial stormwater discharges. The proposal was included in the Biden administration’s last tranche of regulatory actions and deadlines for the agency before the inauguration.

Among the issues raised particularly for small business were the potential for significant costs and unintended consequences for facilities nationwide, including the proposed inclusion of PFAS in the monitoring requirements for rule. In broader comments to the agency, the industry recommended that EPA:

• provide evidence that metal finishing and others significantly impacting stormwater discharges;
• disclose the data it used to justify proposed PFAS reporting; and
• consider the total costs of monitoring and sampling.

NASF and others are urging EPA to delay PFAS monitoring in the stormwater permit rule renewal until more information is available and an appropriate dialogue with industry is convened.

EPA Advancing on New Plan to Address PFAS

EPA has been taking next steps on PFAS policy since agency chief Lee Zeldin recently released a widely anticipated outline to address PFAS contamination that, unlike other environmental policy announcements, maintains many of the priorities from the Biden Administration, albeit with a shift in emphasis. EPA’s PFAS actions will fall under three broad categories:

• strengthening science;
• fulfilling statutory obligations; and
• enhancing communication and building partnerships.

The development of effluent guideline limitations (ELGs) for metal finishing was included in the list of PFAS actions that EPA plans to address and was expected based on our ongoing discussions with the agency.

Zeldin’s announcement reflects his longstanding advocacy on PFAS from serving his Long Island district in Congress, including support for funding local communities’ cleanup of PFAS-contaminated water systems and promoting the need for a “polluter pays” model for PFAS contamination. He has expressed interest in working with Congress to exempt only “passive receivers,” like POTWs, drinking water agencies, local governments, and farmers, from bearing the costs for PFAS remediation pursuant to Superfund.

The agency has also stated that it is exploring better ways to use RCRA authorities to address PFAS contamination rather than Superfund. In addition, EPA is actively evaluating how to provide relief and more feasible compliance with the PFASA drinking water standard for drinking water providers.

EPA still intends to designate a PFAS lead official to help align and manage the broad array of PFAS efforts across different agency programs. NASF will continue to actively engage on these issues at both the federal and state level and provide updates to NASF members on critical developments. If you have any questions or would like ‎additional information regarding EPA’s new PFAS strategy or its potential impacts on the surface finishing industry, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or crichter@thepolicygroup.com .

NASF 1000

The NASF 1000 program was established to ensure that the surface finishing industry would ‎have resources to effectively address regulatory, legislative and legal actions impacting the ‎industry, NASF members and their workplaces. All funds from the NASF 1000 program are used ‎exclusively to support specific projects and initiatives that fall outside the association’s day-to-‎day public policy activities. The commitment to this program is one of the most vital ‎contributions made in support of surface finishing and directly shapes the future of the ‎industry. ‎

The sustained commitment from industry leaders has helped the NASF remain strong and ‎credible in informing regulatory decisions across the nation. Specific projects funded through ‎the NASF 1000 make a measurable difference in how the industry navigates emerging ‎challenges, communicates credibly with policy makers, and advocates for a strong science base ‎for rules or standards that affect surface finishing. ‎

Please consider supporting the NASF 1000 program. For more information, contact: Christian Richter (202-257-‎‎0250) or Jeff Hannapel (202 257-3756) with NASF.‎