President Donald Trump signed a proclamation granting certain U.S. chemical manufacturing facilities a two-year exemption from the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2024 hazardous emissions rule, according to the proclamation and a White House fact sheet released Monday, July 13, 2026.
Although signed on July 9, the proclamation was made public four days later.
The action temporarily suspends compliance deadlines under what the chemical industry commonly refers to as the HON Rule—a sweeping set of EPA standards finalized on May 16, 2024, covering synthetic organic chemical manufacturing facilities as well as Group I and Group II polymers and resins producers.
Trump invoked Section 112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act, a rarely used provision allowing a president to delay hazardous air pollutant compliance deadlines when doing so is determined to be necessary for national security.
How the Exemption Works
The proclamation applies only to facilities specifically listed in Annex I of the order.
For those plants, every compliance deadline contained in the 2024 EPA rule is postponed by two years from its original implementation date.
During the exemption period, affected facilities will instead remain subject to the emissions standards, monitoring requirements and reporting obligations that existed before the Biden administration finalized the 2024 regulations.
Facilities not included in the annex remain obligated to comply with the original EPA schedule.
Trump’s proclamation rests on two principal findings.
First, the administration argues that several technologies required to comply with the rule are not yet commercially available or sufficiently proven for widespread industrial deployment.
Second, the White House concluded that enforcing the rule on its current timetable would threaten U.S. national security by disrupting domestic production of critical industrial chemicals.
According to the proclamation, some required emissions-monitoring systems have not demonstrated reliable operation at commercial scale, while other compliance measures would require extensive capital investments without established technological pathways.
The White House’s Economic Argument
The administration argues the affected facilities manufacture chemicals essential to industries considered strategically important to the United States.
According to the White House fact sheet, products manufactured at the covered plants support:
- Semiconductor manufacturing
- Medical device sterilization
- Defense production
- Advanced manufacturing
- Critical infrastructure
Officials warned that forcing facilities offline to complete compliance upgrades could increase America’s dependence on foreign suppliers for semiconductor materials, reduce supplies of sterilized medical equipment and disrupt domestic production of industrial chemicals used throughout the manufacturing sector.
One chemical receiving particular attention is ethylene oxide.
While regulated because of health concerns, ethylene oxide also serves as a key feedstock used to manufacture antifreeze, polyester fibers, detergents and agricultural chemicals, while sterilizing a significant percentage of America’s medical devices.
An Extension of Earlier Relief
The latest proclamation expands upon similar action taken by the Trump administration in July 2025, when portions of the same EPA rule were temporarily delayed.
According to the Environmental Defense Fund, that earlier action exempted 53 petrochemical facilities, 39 medical sterilization plants, three coal-fired power stations, and eight taconite iron ore processing facilities.
Companies covered under the earlier exemptions included:
- The Dow Chemical Company
- SABIC Innovative Plastics
- Bakelite Synthetics
- Trinseo
- INEOS Americas
- Celanese Corporation
- Huntsman Petrochemical
- TotalEnergies Petrochemicals & Refining USA
- Indorama Ventures
- Denka Performance Elastomer
- Sasol Chemicals
Among the most closely watched cases has been Denka Performance Elastomer’s neoprene plant in LaPlace, Louisiana.
Parent company Denka previously disclosed losses totaling approximately $112 million, attributing much of the financial impact to compliance costs associated with federal emissions requirements.
Production at the facility has since been suspended indefinitely.
Industry Support and Legal Challenges
The American Chemistry Council, the nation’s largest chemical industry trade organization, welcomed the exemption.
The group argued that the administration recognizes chemical manufacturing as critical infrastructure and said the EPA’s rule would require billions of dollars in investments on timelines that many facilities cannot realistically meet.
Environmental organizations strongly disagree.
A coalition including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project, and the Environmental Justice Health Alliance, represented by Earthjustice, filed suit in October 2025 seeking to block the earlier exemptions.
The plaintiffs argue that many emissions-control technologies required under the rule are already commercially available and contend the administration lacks legal authority to broadly delay hazardous air pollutant protections affecting dozens of industrial facilities across 13 states.
According to EPA estimates, the 2024 HON Rule would reduce toxic air emissions by more than 6,200 tons annually while lowering cancer risks associated with chemical plant emissions by approximately 96% for nearby communities.
What Comes Next
The exemption provides more than temporary regulatory relief.
It also gives EPA additional time to reconsider the underlying rule itself.
The agency has already initiated a review of the Biden administration’s amendments, indicating it believes the 2012 emissions standards may already provide what the Clean Air Act describes as an “ample margin of safety.”
Should EPA ultimately revise or withdraw portions of the 2024 rule before the exemption expires, many of the delayed compliance deadlines could become unnecessary.
For chemical manufacturers, the immediate benefit is straightforward: two additional years before making potentially significant capital investments.
For environmental groups, it represents another legal battle over the federal government’s authority to suspend hazardous air pollution standards.
JBizNews Desk | Washington, D.C.
© JBizNews.com All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.
