Thread Content
The *** administration in the United States has been in power for over 7 months, during which time the U.S. chemical industry has experienced both favorable policies and policies that posed obstacles to its development. Recently, the U.S. government has introduced a series of measures that result in various regulatory relaxations for the U.S. chemical industry. Eric Bayer, president and CEO of the American Chemical Distributors Association, noted that the federal government is currently focused on eliminating redundant or unnecessary regulations, with several key agencies responsible for chemical regulation working on this task, including the Department of Transportation (DoT), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has launched a comprehensive review of regulations that directly affect the chemical industry. For example, factories that rely on ethylene oxide for disinfecting medical equipment no longer need to comply with the provisions regarding ethylene oxide in the Hazardous Air Pollutant **Emission Standards** (NESHAP). The EPA also allows multiple chemical plants to be exempt from the Hazardous Organic Pollutants Hazardous Air Pollutant **Emission Standards (HON), with most of these plants producing general-purpose plastics and petrochemical products. According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the House Appropriations Committee recently added a clause to an appropriation bill prohibiting funding for the EPA’s “Integrated Risk Information System” (IRIS). ACC believes that the IRIS program has led to overly strict regulations on chemicals such as formaldehyde, ethylene oxide, hexavalent chromium, and inorganic arsenic. Congress has introduced a bill to permanently ban the use of IRIS assessment results in the development of federal regulations. Taking advantage of the simplified regulations in the United States, ACC has also initiated reforms to certain provisions within the U.S. chemical safety regulatory system; these provisions have caused the EPA to repeatedly miss the deadlines for approving the commercial use of new chemicals, and they have also made the review process for existing chemicals more complicated. This regulatory system is the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Regarding new chemicals, ACC also calls for the repeal of the New Chemicals Framework Rule, as it fails to address any of the issues that cause the EPA to continuously miss the 90-day review deadline. Regarding existing chemicals, ACC points out that the \"Risk Assessment Framework Rules\" contain unreasonable assumptions, such as the assumption that employees do not use personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly when handling chemicals. Bayer said that if the House of Representatives considers a new tax bill in the fall, the chemical industry could benefit once again from the abolition of the \"Superfund Tax\". The Superfund tax imposes taxes on various basic chemicals and their derivatives, and the chemical industry has been advocating for its abolition. Furthermore, there are signs that the United States may restart its counterterrorism program for chemical facilities, also known as the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS). That plan expired two years ago, and amid the current rise in geopolitical risks, the chemical industry lacks **level of anti-terrorism safeguards. New York Republican Representative Andrew Garbarino was recently elected as the new chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. This new chairman may create an opportunity to reconsider and restart the CFATS program. However, during periods of significant policy changes, while there may be favorable policies, there can also be those that pose drawbacks. Recently, an appeals court in the United States suspended the country’s reciprocal transshipment program and sent it back to the Surface Transportation Board (STB), the main railway regulatory body in the U.S., for further review. The chemical industry has always supported the reciprocal transshipment mechanism, believing that it can enhance competition among railway operators and improve services. Mutual transshipment refers to one railway operator handling a customer’s goods on behalf of another operator. In mid-2024, STB established a rule stating that companies can more easily apply for reciprocal transshipment when deficiencies in railway services are identified. But this new rule has been challenged by railway companies.