Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog

On June 27, 2017 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jointly proposed to revise their regulatory definitions of “waters of the United States”, applying authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Their proposals would rescind expansive versions adopted in June 2015, during the Obama Administration, and reinstate the text of the definitions in place until 2015. These actions represent the latest chapter in a saga dating back to United States Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 overturning decades-long understandings of which waters CWA empowers the agencies to regulate. (I wrote about this history in a blog about the 2015 rules here).

On May 23, the Trump Administration issued its budget proposal for federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 (October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018), subtitled “A New Foundation for America’s Greatness”. The proposal includes a 31% cut in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget, from $8.2 billion in FY 2016 (stable in FY 2017 under a Continuing Budget Resolution rather than a fully-new federal budget), to $5.7 billion for FY 2018, with corresponding personnel cuts from 15,376 full-time-equivalent employees (FTE) to 11,611. Although presidents’ annual budget proposals are rarely enacted in full, they do mark the formal start of annual considerations of federal policies and staffing. It’s therefore useful to review how President Trump and EPA Administrator Pruitt hope to proceed.

On June 1, President Trump announced that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Accord on climate change, and then seek to “begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.” Most of the strong reactions I’ve seen – pro and con – express only superficial approaches to the implications of the decision. In this note I’ll dig a little deeper, and propose two different less-superficial ways to watch these implications play out.

On December 1, 2016, ASTM International (ASTM) approved revisions to ASTM E2247-08, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property. The revisions were made as part of ASTM’s normal review process and through a working group of ASTM’s Committee E50 on Environmental Assessment, Risk Management, and Corrective Action. The changes are aimed at prospective purchasers conducting All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) on forestland and rural property, and include updated methodology for site reconnaissance, clarified language for recognized environmental conditions, and removal of unessential information. This current version, now designated E2247-16, replaces the “historic” 2008 version as ASTM’s current consensus-based standard.

On April 26, a federal district judge in Houston issued an order assessing Exxon Mobil nearly $20 million in civil penalties for thousands of Clean Air Act (CAA) violations at Exxon’s massive Baytown, Texas refinery and petrochemical complex. This decision is the latest in a long-running “citizen suit” enforcement case, seeking additional penalties to claw back the “economic benefits from noncompliance,” on top of nearly $1.5 million in civil penalties already assessed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for the same violations. This decision illustrates the power of these private enforcement cases, which may become more important if the Trump Administration eases its own enforcement efforts.

Earlier this year, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Fraud Section issued additional enforcement guidelines to US Attorneys, entitled “Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs.” DOJ’s US Attorneys perform these evaluations to weigh whether and how severely an organization might be charged for illegal conduct by directors, officers, or other employees. But individuals may be committing crimes to further the organization’s goals (remember Volkswagen’s recent use of fraudulent means to defeat emission requirements), or for their own purposes despite organizational efforts. For readers in organizations that aren’t encouraging criminal behavior, these guidelines provide important guidance to the design (and implementation) of effective compliance programs.

How long can a new President’s policy changes take? I’ve been writing about President Trump’s attempts to roll back environmental requirements, and cautioning that some changes can be fast (like immediate repeal of his predecessor’s executive orders regarding climate change) while others will require multi-year rulemakings to revise finalized regulations (like EPA’s review of the greenhouse gas emission limits under the Clean Air Act, both extremes appear in a recent Executive Order I discussed here). On April 11 the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a reminder that regulatory changes can take a long time. The Court revoked several environmental reporting exemptions adopted by EPA in the last month of George W. Bush’s administration (December 2008, effective on the day of President Obama’s inauguration January 20, 2009) – culminating a year-long rulemaking and setting of 8 years of administrative and judicial appeals. So this regulation-reducing effort took 9 years to fail.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has been on a tour to publicize his efforts to get EPA “back-to-basics.” He launched the tour with a visit to a Pennsylvania coal mine in April. The agency issued a press release about that visit, which also summarized its “Back-to-Basics Agenda.” The press release summarizes the Agenda as “Protecting the environment; engaging with state, local and tribal partners; and creating sensible regulations that enhance economic growth.” The Agenda provides a convenient rhetorical framework for the new Administrator’s efforts to re-boot EPA’s activities.

The biggest difference between Presidents Obama’s and Trump’s environmental policies relate to regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that most scientists and policy-makers believe contribute to climate change – a proposition which President Trump and his appointees do not embrace. On March 15, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its reconsideration of GHG emission standards from “light duty” vehicles such as automobiles and small trucks, for model years 2022-2025. These standards were set in 2012 by EPA, in cooperation with the (US federal) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Three days before President Obama left office, on January 17, EPA reaffirmed the 2022-2025 standards, determining them to be technically and economically feasible for auto makers to meet and cost-effective for customers.

On March 16, President Trump released his initial budget proposal for the 2018 federal Fiscal Year. Among its many provisions is a proposal to zero out budgeting for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (more often referred to as the Chemical Safety Board or CSB).