Senators may vote THIS WEEK on a bill making R&D expensing, 100% bonus deprecation, and the 199a deduction for passthroughs permanent. This is almost everything you told us we needed to secure in this tax bill. Contact Senators NOW before they vote this week, ask them to vote yes and press to increase the deduction for subchapter S corporations and other passthroughs a bigger tax deduction by increasing 199a to 20%. Click here to act NOW – the Senate may vote THURSDAY!
One Voice Testifies at OSHA Heat Rule Hearing
On June 23, 2025, during the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hearing on the proposed rule for Heat Injury and Illness Prevention, One Voice raised serious concerns about the rule’s feasibility for small and mid-sized manufacturers and expressed strong opposition to several core elements of the regulation. While affirming their support for workplace safety, representatives from the National Tooling and Machining Association (NTMA) and the Precision Metalforming Association (PMA) warned that the rule—as currently written—would place disproportionate burdens on small and mid-sized manufacturers, particularly those in the metalworking and precision machining sectors.
The proposed rule, published on August 30 after being announced by OSHA in July 2024, outlines the requirements for employers when the heat index reaches 80°F or higher. During testimony, PMA and NTMA emphasized their commitment to worker safety while warning that the proposed heat standard—particularly its uniform thresholds and prescriptive requirements—could undermine operational efficiency without improving health outcomes.
Both associations referenced past survey data showing that member companies have a strong track record in preventing heat-related illnesses, with some reporting zero incidents over decades of operation. They stressed that existing safety practices—tailored to individual facilities and work processes—are already effective and that the proposed rule risks replacing this flexible approach with rigid, one-size-fits-all mandates.
As OSHA continues its hearings through July 2 and then looks towards the next steps, One Voice will continue to stress to OSHA that rather than static thresholds and prescriptive checklists, any regulatory measure should offer guidance and support employer-led initiatives that prioritize both worker safety and manufacturing competitiveness.
EPA Postpones Key Provisions of TCE Risk Management Rule
On June 18, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a notice further delaying implementation of key provisions in its risk management rule for trichloroethylene (TCE), a widely used industrial solvent known to pose serious health risks. The effective date for the rule’s Section 6(g) exemptions—temporary allowances for certain critical uses—has been postponed to **August 19, 2025**, marking the second such delay this year.
Originally finalized in December 2024, the TCE rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) aimed to prohibit nearly all manufacturing, processing, and distribution of TCE due to its links to cancer, reproductive toxicity, and neurotoxicity. However, the rule allowed narrow exemptions for specific uses under stringent workplace safety controls, including applications in the defense and battery manufacturing sectors. These exemptions were subject to phased implementation and additional EPA oversight.
The latest delay follows a series of legal and administrative developments. A stay issued by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2025 halted enforcement of the rule, after several industry stakeholders—including PPG Industries and Microporous LLC—challenged the regulation. EPA has since coordinated its regulatory timeline with the court proceedings and the broader regulatory freeze ordered by the Trump administration in early 2025.
While the exemption provisions are on hold, the broader ban on most TCE uses remains in place. EPA has indicated it may reconsider aspects of the rule through a formal notice-and-comment process, depending on the outcome of the ongoing judicial review. For now, regulated industries that qualify for exemptions must wait until at least mid-August for clarity on compliance obligations.
SCOTUS Declines to Hear IEEPA Tariffs Case
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, June 20, 2025, declined to hear an expedited appeal concerning former President Trump’s tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Petitioners Learning Resources and hand2mind—two small educational toy companies—had asked the Court to bypass the usual appellate process and move directly to full review, citing the sudden and severe economic harm caused by these emergency-imposed tariffs.
Lower courts have already challenged the legality of these tariffs. On May 29, a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., ruled they were illegal, granting a preliminary injunction. In parallel, the U.S. Court of International Trade determined in late May that the tariffs exceeded the scope of IEEPA, invoking nondelegation and “major questions” doctrinal concerns—though this decision was temporarily stayed pending appeal.
In their Supreme Court petition, the companies argued that no previous president had used IEEPA to impose tariffs, and that the administration’s actions created “paralyzing uncertainty” for businesses forced to pay exponentially rising duties—reportedly increasing from $2.3 million in 2024 to potentially $100 million in 2025. Yet the Court opted not to intervene at this stage, opting to let the case proceed through the traditional appeals process, without comment.
As lower courts continue to weigh the scope of presidential authority under IEEPA, the tariffs remain in effect for now—with a final word likely coming later, potentially after a full circuit court review or a future Supreme decision on the merits.
Trump Rescinds California Emission Waivers Through CRA Resolutions
On June 12, 2025, President Donald Trump signed three resolutions under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) waivers that had allowed California to set its own vehicle emissions standards. The action effectively dismantles California’s Advanced Clean Cars II program—which required that all new passenger vehicles sold by 2035 be electric or hybrid—as well as separate state regulations aimed at reducing emissions from trucks and heavy-duty vehicles. These standards had been adopted by 11 other states.
The Trump administration defended the move as a necessary step to ease regulatory burdens on the U.S. auto and trucking sectors. The White House argued that a patchwork of state-level emissions rules created confusion and inefficiencies for manufacturers. President Trump criticized the California standards as a “disaster,” claiming they forced automakers to build vehicles for “two countries.” In response, California and ten other states have filed lawsuits challenging the legality of using CRA resolutions to revoke Clean Air Act waivers. They contend that such waivers, which are authorized by statute and historically fall outside the scope of CRA authority, cannot be undone through the congressional disapproval process.