| Major Development – EPA is No Longer Advancing a New Rulemaking Process for the Chromium Electroplating Air Toxics Rule: The agency is not expected to advance a new round of review for the chromium electroplating air toxics rule anytime soon. This is in line with NASF’s long-standing position in recent years and advocacy of “no further regulatory action” needed in federal air policy for chromium. The air rule, last updated in 2012, is long overdue for a required update under the Clean Air Act’s deadline provisions.
Regulatory Update – OSHA Heat Rule Gets Massive 3-week Hearing: In a series of hearings this month, OSHA is being urged to drop a proposed Biden rule to regulate heat injury and illness. The main theme emerging from employers nationwide is for the administration to scrap the rule altogether or go back to the drawing board and consider more flexible, performance-oriented approaches to addressing heat stress in outdoor and indoor workplaces.
Policy Change: What does EPA’s Reorganization Mean: Since January, significant changes have been underway at EPA regarding its organizational shape and size and its regulatory agenda. This has included regulatory freezes, staff reductions, budget cuts, curtailing certain staff communications and an ambitious deregulatory agenda. What are the next steps in the agency’s budget, deregulatory and reorganization effort?
Washington Forum, September 15-17, 2025: Join us for this year’s Washington Forum this fall which is scheduled to take place September 15-17, 2025 at the historic Willard Hotel in Washington, DC. Our keynote speaker and more details on the agenda will be forthcoming. Please make your plans to attend this key industry event.
See below for more details on these issues…
Major Development: EPA Now No Longer Advancing a New Rulemaking Process for the Chromium Electroplating Air Toxics Rule
NASF has had ongoing discussions with EPA on a wide array of rules, science and regulatory actions, including the pending federal air toxics rule for hexavalent chromium emissions from plating and finishing. The air rule, last updated in 2012, is long overdue for a required update under the Clean Air Act’s deadline provisions.
At this time, however, with the shifting priorities of the new administration and following many exchanges from NASF Government Affairs in recent years – including our argument reflected in EPA’s own data that the nation’s finishing industry has reduced hexavalent chromium emissions by 99.7 percent since 1995 – the agency is not expected to advance a new round of review for the industry anytime soon. This is in line with NASF’s long-standing position in recent years and advocacy of “no further regulatory action” needed in federal air policy for chromium.
EPA had initially planned to have a proposed rule moving into play by later 2025. There is not yet a new date for when EPA intends to reinitiate the technology review of this rule. In the meantime, we remain in regular communication with key EPA officials and will report on any new developments. If you have any questions or would like more information on this issue, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or crichter@thepolicygroup.com.
Safety & Health: OSHA in Middle of Hearings on Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Rule
OSHA is now in the middle of a series of hearings this month on a proposed rule – “Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings” – which was a top priority of the Biden administration. With the Trump administration now in charge of OSHA, the agency’s leadership has not yet signaled publicly whether it will keep, change or drop the heat rule. In the meantime, the hearings have been intense with wide-ranging views in testimony from key employer groups, unions and other organizations.
The 2024 proposed heat standard would apply to all employers conducting outdoor and indoor work in all general industry, construction, maritime, and agriculture sectors where OSHA has jurisdiction. The standard would require employers to create a plan to evaluate and control heat hazards in their workplace. It would also clarify employer obligations and the many steps necessary to effectively protect employees from hazardous heat.
The goal of the agency’s pending action is to prevent and reduce the number of occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities caused by exposure to hazardous heat. Among the issues that have been raised at the hearing, however, is precisely HOW OSHA would achieve that in a manner that is not onerous, invasive and disruptive to businesses.
NASF continues to be supportive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce position for industry, which was conveyed last week to OSHA by Marc Freedman, the Chamber’s Vice President of Workplace Policy, who noted that the rule would apply a highly prescriptive framework for facilities, would not adapt to regional and industry-specific realities and would indeed by highly disruptive to the workplace for manufacturers and others. OSHA is being urged to either drop the rule altogether or go back to the drawing board and consider more flexible, performance-oriented approaches to addressing heat stress in outdoor and indoor workplaces.
Policy Change: Major Reorganization at EPA, What Does it Mean?
Some have described the changes that have occurred this year on the federal level as fast and furious. Since January, significant changes have been underway at EPA with regard to its organizational shape and size and its regulatory agenda. This has included regulatory freezes, staff reductions, budget cuts, prohibitions on staff communications with external stakeholders, and an ambitious deregulatory agenda.
With new leadership, EPA has not only announced its intentions but is taking action to reduce the size and scope of the agency as well as the impact of its regulatory actions. The most recently proposed federal budget plan to Congress from the White House includes nearly a 55 percent budget reduction for EPA. The rather comprehensive deregulatory agenda has also been accompanied by proposed organizational changes to EPA that affects its regulatory priorities and how they impact the metalcasting industry. Some of the most recent developments are discussed below.
EPA Air Office Reorganization
Under EPA’s Air Office reorganization, the Climate Change Division, the Climate Protection Partnership, and other climate change functions currently housed in the Office of Atmospheric Protection (OAP) are being eliminated, signaling a shift in priorities away from climate change programs.
Moving beyond climate, the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and the Office of Atmospheric Protection (OAP) itself would be abolished. OAQPS, which is currently responsible for approximately 80 percent of EPA’s air regulations, is being split into two new offices: the Office of Clean Air Programs (OCAP) and the Office of State Air Partnerships (OSAP). OCAP will implement the regulatory work required under the Clean Air Act (e.g., National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)), and OSAP will handle approvals of state implementation plans (SIPs) and address air permitting issues (to support cooperative federalism efforts).
With the reorganization, EPA will reassign current staff to new positions within the agency, but staff reductions are expected as some OAQPS personnel were offered a second round of buyouts and are likely to leave the agency. Of course, uncertainty remains as the changes are now subject to a temporary restraining order (TRO) sought by environmental and labor groups that has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Even supporters of the air office reorganization have expressed concerns about the timing for the changes and how they may impact EPA’s ambitious deregulatory agenda. Keep in mind that even with the deregulatory push, EPA is a regulatory agency that will continue to issue regulations, many of which are required by statutes enacted by Congress over decades. Furthermore, deregulatory actions take time, require staff to implement the agenda, and need budget resources to support the effort. Deregulation does not necessarily come easily.
EPA Office of Research and Development
In addition, the Trump Administration plans to shutter the Office of Research and Development (ORD). Many ORD staff are expected to be reassigned to the Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) to help with the risk evaluation of existing chemicals and the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) to address backlog of air regulations statutory reviews. Additional ORD staff are slated to be sent to a new Office of Applied Sciences and Environmental Solutions (OASES) within the Office of the Administrator to “align research and put science at the forefront of the agency’s rulemakings and technical assistance to states.” Critics have warned that the closing of ORD is causing a science “brain drain” within the agency and that housing research functions within the administrator’s office will make it vulnerable to politicized micromanaging of science to support deregulatory conclusions.
Potential Impact of Staff Reduction and Reorganization
With reduced staff, ambitious timetables, and slashed budgets, EPA is now in the process of drafting proposed rules that will be subject to the notice-and-comment process of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This includes proposals to revise or rescind The Clean Power Plan, greenhouse gas (GHG) rules, air toxic standards, and NAAQS such as the PM2.5 rule, as well as reconsidering the GHG endangerment finding. Issuing proposed rules by the end of 2025 would be considered a significant accomplishment for EPA. It is an incredible workload in an incredibly short time frame for the current agency workforce.
All of this demonstrates the Trump Administration’s ongoing tension between meaningful regulatory reform and dramatically reducing the size and scope of the agency. EPA has moved from its regulatory review and evaluation stage to implementing its ambitious deregulatory plan. The success of the agency reorganization and the deregulatory agenda will play out over the next six months and beyond as EPA works diligently to issue new proposed rules to support its historic deregulatory agenda and meet its statutory requirements.
Throughout this process, the surface finishing industry will be presented with many opportunities and challenges to shape the regulatory landscape that impacts its operations. Next month, we will address water quality and effluent guidelines and the outlook for industry and finishing, including the still looming issues connected with PFAS. If you have any questions or would like more information on this issue, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or crichter@thepolicygroup.com.
Washington Forum, September 15-17, 2025
The Washington Forum will take place September 15-17, 2025 at the historic Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. Please make your plans to attend this key industry event. Registration will be available shortly, and details on the agenda and keynote will be announced imminently.
Forum Topics and Speakers
The Forum will include presentations and briefings from national and global experts on pertinent policy, technical, regulatory, and management issues impacting the surface finishing industry, including speakers from EPA, DOD, the Nickel Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other organizations.
In addition, Washington Forum participants also have the option during the event to meet with their congressional representatives and staff to educate them on the importance and impact of the surface finishing industry, the challenges facing companies across key sectors and regions, and specific policy priorities of concern.
We look forward to seeing you at the Washington Forum this year. If members have questions or would like additional information about the Washington Forum, please contact Jeff Hannapel or Christian Richter with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or cichter@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.
|
New England Chapter of NASF is an official chapter of