By Jordan Grady

As George Eliot wrote in Middlemarch, “what do we live for, if it is not to make life less difficult to each other?”[1] The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) maintains a protective function not only in the best interest of the environment, but also for the communities exposed to the industrial pollutants which they seek to regulate.[2] These protective aims, however, are dwindled in the face of presidential override to compliance with industrial emissions standards.[3] Where a president employs a narrow statutory provision to issue exemptions to emissions compliance on a grandiose scale, where do we draw the line?

To reduce the number of individuals with heightened cancer risk from toxic air emissions, the EPA enacted what is known as the Hazardous Organic National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HON) Rule.[4] With over 200 chemical plants across the United States,[5] the EPA sought to establish standards and emissions cuts for hazardous air pollutants discharged from these facilities.[6] As enacted today, this rule mandates fenceline monitoring programs to manage fugitive emissions, providing an extra measure of protection for surrounding communities.[7]

On July 17, 2025, President Trump issued a sweeping proclamation granting over fifty chemical manufacturing companies extended deadlines for their compliance with the HON Rule, citing to Clean Air Act Section 112(i)(4) as statutory authority to back the decision.[8] Section 112(i)(4) allows the president to exempt companies from compliance with emissions standards for up to two years when they determine that technology needed for compliance is not available, and that an exemption is in the best interest of national security.[9] This provision of the Clean Air Act has been in effect for over 35 years, yet it had never been employed prior to the Trump administration.[10]

Without existing precedent for navigating the extent of intended power under Section 112(i)(4), a constitutional debate has emerged. Commentators question whether the Trump administration’s sweeping extensions to compliance for chemical emissions standards marks action extending beyond the intended scope of Section 112(i)(4).[11] In furtherance of this debate, environmental justice advocates have highlighted socioeconomic disparities regarding who is most directly impacted by these extensions,[12] calling these exemptions by the President a “free pass to pollute” within certain communities.[13]

Locally, several Kentucky facilities have received these extensions to EPA emissions compliance, including Westlake Vinyls in Calvert City and Zeon Chemicals in Louisville.[14] Prior to these extensions, an air quality study of Calvert City linked 96% of ethylene dichloride (“EDC”) emissions around the city’s industrial complex to Westlake Vinyls.[15] Putting this into perspective, EDC exposure over extended periods can increase risk of cancer and other negative health effects in the liver and kidneys.[16] Moreover, Zeon Chemicals has a history of settlement for a class action related to their chemical emissions.[17] This settlement provided limited monetary relief, promises to reduce emissions, and payment into air-monitoring funds.[18] All this to say, both Westlake Vinyls and Zeon Chemicals continue to benefit from President Trump’s July 2025 emissions compliance extensions, despite the recorded impacts on Kentuckians surrounding these facilities and promises of improvement.[19]

Supporters of these extensions to EPA compliance highlight the interest of promoting American chemical manufacturing authority, citing to a reliance on these facilities to support national defense, healthcare, energy, and agriculture.[20] In his July 2025 proclamation of these extensions, the President maintained that the technologies necessary to support HON Rule compliance are not yet practically available.[21] President Trump specifically noted the need to maintain a robust domestic chemical industry to protect integral supply chains of the national economy and reduce the Nation’s dependence on foreign production.[22]

On its face, the President’s justifications for these extensions sound reasonable. Nevertheless, three-quarters of all HON-regulated manufacturers have maintained their production without receiving exemptions from HON Rule compliance.[23] Moreover, President Trump’s rationale for these extensions provided no statistical backing to support his assertion that the necessary technology to comply remains unavailable.[24] When technologies making compliance attainable are already widely in use throughout the chemical manufacturing industry, what is left of this shallow justification?

Allowing presidential extensions for HON Rule compliance without accountability as to whether the president has met the required justifications of Section 112(i)(4) leaves the HON Rule’s power, and the public health of industrial communities, highly vulnerable. President Trump has taken an unprecedented, and arguably dangerous step toward extending executive power beyond the intended scope of Section 112(i)(4).[25] The plain language of Section 112(i)(4) allocates the authority to grant extensions upon narrow conditions being met.[26] To guarantee that this limited authority is restricted to its intended scope, the public requires accountability. Individualized extension justifications must be issued within the public record to ensure they are substantiated by Section 112(i)(4) authority. Only when such safeguards are guaranteed will the president be held to the intended scope of Section 112(i)(4).

[1] George Eliot, Middlemarch 789 (W.J. Harvey ed., Penguin Books 1973) (1871-72).

[2] Jack Lewis, Looking Backward: A Historical Perspective on Environmental Regulations, EPA J., (Mar. 1988), https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/looking-backward-historical-perspective-environmental-regulations.html [https://perma.cc/3VPW-NWNW].

[3] See Whitehouse, Schiff Introduce Bill to End Trump’s Corrupt Exemptions for Toxic Chemical Polluters, U.S. Sen. Comm. on Env’t & Pub. Works (Apr. 27, 2026), https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/4/whitehouse-schiff-introduce-bill-to-end-trump-s-corrupt-exemptions-for-toxic-chemical-polluters [https://perma.cc/T9NU-Q6E7] [hereinafter Whitehouse].

[4] EPA’s Final Rules for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry and Group I & II Polymers and Resins Industry, Env’t Prot. Agency (Apr. 2024), https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/hon-final-rule-overview-presentation_0.pdf [https://perma.cc/HJ5Z-D7X5].

[5] Id.

[6] 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 Fed. Reg. 42932 (May 16, 2024) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 60, 63).

[7] 40 C.F.R. § 63.184.

[8] Proclamation No. 11041, 91 Fed. Reg. 44719 (July 09, 2026) ("Regulatory Relief for Certain Stationary Sources to Promote American Chemical Manufacturing Security").

[9] 42 U.S.C § 7412.

[10] U.S. Sen. Comm. on Env’t & Pub. Works, supra note 3.

[11] Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services v. Trump, Nat. Res. Def. Council (July 13, 2026), https://www.nrdc.org/court-battles/texas-environmental-justice-advocacy-services-v-trump [https://perma.cc/TJ2F-F3CB].

[12] Nicole Greenfield, Advocates Are Sparking a Revolution in Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley”, NAT. Res. Def. Council (Nov. 10, 2022), https://www.nrdc.org/stories/advocates-are-sparking-revolution-louisianas-cancer-alley [https://perma.cc/V629-RNMW].

[13] Nat. Res. Def. Council, supra note 11.

[14] Hanna Saad, Pair of Kentucky chemical plants exempted from EPA rule meant to reduce harmful emissions, WKMS (Jul. 20, 2026), https://www.wkms.org/environment/2026-07-20/pair-of-kentucky-chemical-plants-exempted-from-epa-rule-meant-to-reduce-harmful-emissions [https://perma.cc/N5U5-PRSR].

[15] Id.

[16] Calvert City, Kentucky Air Monitoring, Env’t Prot. Agency (June 11, 2026), https://www.epa.gov/ky/calvert-city-kentucky-air-monitoring [https://perma.cc/4JRT-BNJS].

[17] Erica Peterson, Judge Approves Zeon Settlement for Rubbertown Emissions, Louisville Pub. Media (Sept. 24, 2011), https://www.lpm.org/news/2011-09-24/judge-approves-zeon-settlement-for-rubbertown-emissions [https://perma.cc/H7Y6-AEEF].

[18] Kentucky Residents Mull Chemical Plant Settlement, Claims J. (June 22, 2009), https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/southeast/2009/06/22/101596.htm [https://perma.cc/W5K9-BSRE].

[19] Proclamation No. 11041, supra note 8.

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Greenfield, supra note 11.

[24] Proclamation No. 11041, supra note 8.

[25] U.S. Sen. Comm. on Env’t & Pub. Works, supra note 3.

[26] 42 U.S.C § 7412.