The Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency has published a proposed rule that would strip away most of the chemical disaster prevention safeguards finalized in 2024, rolling back requirements for safer technology assessments, third-party audits, community notifications, and worker participation at industrial facilities handling hazardous substances. The proposal, filed under 40 CFR Part 68 with docket number EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-0313, frames the changes as a “Common Sense Approach to Chemical Accident Prevention” and opens a public comment window through April 10, 2026. If finalized, the rollback would weaken protections for millions of Americans who live near chemical plants, refineries, and water treatment facilities at a time when climate-driven disasters are increasing the frequency of accidental releases.
What the 2024 Rule Required and Why It Existed
The Biden-era Risk Management Program rule, formally titled “Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention,” was published in the Federal Register in March 2024 after years of rulemaking under docket EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0174. It added several layers of protection that had not previously existed in the RMP framework: safer technologies and alternatives analysis (known as STAA), mandatory third-party audits for facilities with poor safety records, expanded emergency preparedness exercises, stronger worker participation rights, and new information availability provisions that gave communities and first responders direct access to chemical hazard data.
According to EPA’s summary of the final RMP amendments, the 2024 rule required facilities to evaluate inherently safer technologies, improve coordination with local responders, and document how workers would participate in hazard evaluations and incident investigations. These measures responded to a pattern of preventable industrial accidents and were backed by an EPA fact sheet spelling out operational requirements, including backup power for air monitoring systems and community notification protocols, with a field compliance date of March 15, 2027. Each of these safeguards was designed to close gaps that had allowed toxic releases to harm fenceline communities, often low-income neighborhoods and communities of color located closest to industrial sites.
How the New Proposal Dismantles Those Protections
The Trump EPA’s 2026 proposal, published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2026, targets nearly all of the 2024 additions for removal or significant weakening. The agency’s notice describes a shift away from prescriptive mandates toward what it calls a more flexible, performance-based framework, emphasizing reductions in paperwork and compliance costs for regulated entities. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, who previewed the move in agency communications before the formal proposal, has argued that the earlier rule imposed unnecessary burdens on operators of refineries, chemical plants, and other covered facilities.
EPA’s own overview of the “common sense” proposal underscores that many of the 2024 requirements would become optional or be eliminated altogether. The safer technologies and alternatives analysis obligation would be pared back so that facilities no longer have to conduct detailed evaluations of inherently safer options or document why they are not adopted. Mandatory third-party audits after catastrophic incidents or repeated violations would be replaced with greater reliance on self-auditing. Worker participation provisions would lose specific guarantees that employees and their representatives can access process safety information and contribute to investigations. In practice, the proposal would return the RMP framework to something close to its pre-2024 form, erasing protections that took years of public engagement and technical analysis to craft.
Public Data Access Already Shrinking
The rollback extends beyond regulatory text and into how communities can access basic safety information. The Trump EPA has already shut down an online tool that had allowed residents and first responders to see which hazardous substances were stored at nearby facilities and what emergency plans existed. That website, built to complement the 2024 rule’s emphasis on transparency, made it possible for families, local officials, and journalists to check facility information in minutes rather than weeks. Its removal means people living near high-risk sites must now navigate a patchwork of slower, less accessible channels to get the same data.
EPA’s own guidance on accessing RMP information explains that members of the public can still review certain records in federal reading rooms, request limited materials through the Freedom of Information Act, contact Local Emergency Planning Committees, or ask facilities directly. Yet each of these options introduces delays and barriers that are incompatible with real-time emergency decision-making. For a firefighter responding to a plant explosion, or a school administrator deciding whether to shelter students in place during a toxic release, the difference between a quick website lookup and a weeks-long FOIA process can determine whether people are exposed to dangerous levels of toxic gas. Environmental violations at RMP-covered facilities can still be reported through EPA’s online enforcement portal, but post-incident reporting does not substitute for the proactive hazard disclosure that can prevent injuries and deaths in the first place.
A Pattern of Deregulation With Real Consequences
The new proposal is part of a broader pattern of deregulation around chemical safety. In March 2025, the administration moved to reconsider key elements of the 2024 rule, signaling its intent to weaken or remove many of the safeguards before they fully took effect. Reporting at the time described how the EPA was preparing to rewrite chemical accident requirements in ways that aligned closely with industry lobbying campaigns, including efforts by petrochemical and refining interests to avoid costly modernization of aging facilities. The 2026 proposal now formalizes that direction, translating those early signals into specific regulatory text that would narrow the scope of accident prevention duties for thousands of covered sites.
The agency has scheduled a virtual public hearing for March 10, 2026, and the comment period runs through April 10, giving communities, workers, and local governments a limited window to weigh in on the changes. Public participation is not a mere formality in this context: the 2024 rule itself was shaped by extensive comments from residents of fenceline neighborhoods, labor unions, environmental justice advocates, and state and local officials who had dealt firsthand with chemical fires, explosions, and toxic releases. Those same stakeholders now face the prospect that protections they fought for (more rigorous hazard analysis, stronger worker voice, and clearer information for neighbors) could be rolled back before they are fully implemented. For communities already living with daily exposure to industrial risks, the outcome of this rulemaking will help determine whether the next preventable disaster is mitigated or allowed to unfold under weaker federal oversight.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
