Trump Announces Presidential Exemptions Under Clean Air Act

In an unprecedented move, the Trump administration established an electronic mailbox to allow the regulated community to request a Presidential Exemption to certain requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

Under Section 112(i)(4) CAA, the President has the authority to grant exemptions from compliance with National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) standards for specific facilities if deemed necessary for national security interests. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accepted emailed exemption requests for a period of a few weeks in March.

Specifically, the EPA allowed companies to request exemptions from the revised Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) as well as measures governing emissions from sterilizers, synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI), rubber tire manufacturers, copper smelters, and various steel-sector facilities. (See full list below.)

Presidential Exemptions Under the Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act, first enacted in 1970 and significantly amended in 1990, is the cornerstone of federal air pollution regulation in the United States. Section 112 of the Act mandates the EPA to establish stringent emission standards for HAPs, which include substances shown to cause cancer and other serious health effects. The law requires the EPA to set maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards to limit emissions from major industrial sources.

However, section 112(i)(4) provides a mechanism by which the President can exempt facilities from compliance on a case-by-case basis if it is determined that such compliance is not in the national interest. Historically, this provision has been used sparingly and typically in cases where military or critical infrastructure considerations were paramount.

Presidential Authority and Regulatory Precedents

The President’s ability to exempt facilities from compliance under Section 112(i)(4) has been a subject of debate among legal scholars. While the provision does grant broad discretion, legal challenges could arise if exemptions are perceived as arbitrary or lacking a clear justification tied to national security. Previous administrations have exercised this authority cautiously, often requiring detailed justification and consultation with the EPA and other agencies.

Email Exemption Requests

This move to centralize and expedite exemption requests by accepting email submissions was part of a broader deregulatory agenda aimed at reducing what the administration viewed as burdensome environmental regulations on industry.

The electronic submission process introduced several key changes to the traditional exemption request procedure:

• Centralized Submission: Previously, requests were handled through various channels, including direct communication with the EPA. The new system provided a single point of entry.
• Expedited Review Process: The Trump administration emphasized efficiency, suggesting that requests would be reviewed more quickly than they had been under prior procedures.
• Industry Engagement: The move was generally welcomed by industries seeking regulatory relief, particularly in sectors such as manufacturing, energy, and defense.

Transparency and Oversight

Critics argued that the electronic submission process lacked transparency, as it was unclear how requests were evaluated and whether environmental and public health considerations were adequately addressed. Environmental organizations raised concerns that exemptions could be granted without sufficient public scrutiny or scientific justification.

Moreover, EPA’s call for companies to seek presidential waivers from nine Biden-era air toxins rules that could run for the duration of President Trump’s term is spurring alarm. Environmentalists claim the plan is unlawful because many facilities have already installed the required controls and compliance with the rules poses no security risk.

Environmental and Public Health Concerns

Potential Increase in Hazardous Emissions

One of the primary concerns surrounding the use of Presidential Exemptions generally is the potential for increased emissions of hazardous air pollutants. If exemptions were granted too broadly or without rigorous evaluation, communities located near exempted facilities could risk higher exposure to carcinogenic and toxic substances.

Environmental Justice Considerations

Low-income and minority communities can be disproportionately affected by industrial pollution. The use of Presidential Exemptions without stringent oversight could exacerbate environmental justice issues, as facilities in these communities may seek relief from emission standards more frequently.

Long-Term Regulatory Precedent

The introduction of email exemption requests may set a precedent for future administrations, potentially altering the balance of power between regulatory agencies and the executive branch. Critics are concerned that, if future Presidents expand the use of this mechanism, the EPA’s ability to effectively enforce air quality standards may be limited.

Policy Considerations

To balance the need for national security considerations with environmental protection, the following policy developments may arise:

• Enhanced Transparency: Public disclosure of exemption requests and the rationale for approvals or denials.
• Environmental and Health Impact Assessments: A look at the review process assessing potential risks before exemptions are granted.
• Congressional and Public Oversight: Increased legislative and public engagement may be warranted to ensure exemptions best serve the public interest.
• Safeguards Against Abuse: Clear criteria can help prevent the overuse of exemptions.

The Trump administration’s email initiative represents a significant shift in how regulatory exemptions are processed. While some praised the system’s improved efficiency for regulated entities, others noted concern for transparency, environmental protection, and regulatory accountability.

Moving forward, policymakers may need to reconcile efficiency in the exemption process with the fundamental goals of the Clean Air Act — protecting human health and the environment while allowing for legitimate national security considerations.

The nine NESHAP Rules eligible for exemption are:

• MATS Rule, 89 FR 38508; May 7, 2024 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units Review of the Residual Risk and Technology Review)
• HON Rule, 89 FR 42932; May 16, 2024 (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)
• Sterilizer Rule, 89 FR 24090; April 5, 2024 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ethylene Oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization Facilities Residual Risk and Technology Review)
• Rubber Tire Rule, 89 FR 94886; November 29, 2024 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing)
• Copper Rule, 89 FR 41648; May 13, 2024 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Primary Copper Smelting Residual Risk and Technology Review and Primary Copper Smelting Area Source Technology Review)
• Iron and Steel Rule, 89 FR 23294; April 3, 2024 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities Technology Review)
• Lime Rule, 89 FR 57738; July 16, 2024 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Technology Review)
• Coke Ovens Rule, 89 FR 55684; July 5, 2024 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks, and Coke Oven Batteries; Residual Risk and Technology Review, and Periodic Technology Review)
• Taconite Rule, 89 FR 16408; March 6, 2024 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Taconite Iron Ore Processing)