Federal and State Developments

On January 22, 2018, U.S. EPA’s Assistant Administrator issued a memorandum to all U.S. EPA Regional Administrators that contained interim guidance on enforcement of environmental violations by State EPAs and the federal EPA.  The interim guidance is a significant shift away from the traditional federal/state balance on enforcement giving much greater leeway to the States.

U.S. EPA has always been active in enforcement in states, even states that have delegated programs.  EPA traditionally has set its own enforcement priorities, performed its own inspections and proceeded with enforcement when it finds violations.  While it may inform the states of its activities, it generally would not defer to the states once it initiates enforcement.

Often the federal EPA can be more stringent than the states in seeking corrective measures and/or civil penalties.  States are viewed as being more reasonable and open to considering practical compliance issues and costs of compliance.

The interim guidance signifies a shift away from this traditional approach.  Specifically, the memorandum makes the following two major statements:

  • With respect to inspections and enforcement, the EPA will generally defer to authorized States as the primary day-to-day implementer of their authorized/delegated programs. except in specific situations.
  • Where the EPA identifies violations at a facility, but the State requests that it take the lead for
    remedying the violations, the Region should defer to the State except where the EPA believes that some EPA involvement is warranted (as described in paragraph 2, above)

These statements are signify a pretty dramatic shift towards the states in controlling enforcement process within its borders.  In particular, the idea that if the EPA identifies violations and informs the states, the state can request to take the lead.  In this instance, the guidance makes clear the EPA should defer to the states except in special circumstances that are outlined in the memorandum.

The memorandum is just another indication that the Trump Administration wants to shift primary regulatory and enforcement authority to the states.

According to a Forbes article in 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved almost 40 major pipeline projects across the country, covering 1,200 miles, over 14 Bcf/d of new capacity (total national consumption is around 75 Bcf/d), and over $10 billion in new investment.  Most of these new pipelines are being built in the eastern third of the U.S.  There are three major pipelines currently being constructed or will soon start construction in Ohio.

With all this new construction, a key issue is the interplay between regulation under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) administered by the FERC and State EPA environmental permitting.  In order to expedite construction and avoid duplication in regulation, the NGA preempts much of the State regulatory oversight.  

On August 18th the Federal Court in the 2nd Circuit issued a significant decision regarding state environmental permitting authority and preemption.  The case relates to the State of New York’s permitting authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

In Constitution Pipeline Company v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) denied a stream/wetland permit requested by Constitution Pipeline to construct a pipeline that crossed through New York.  The dispute involved whether less water quality impacts were feasible by avoiding open cuts through streams and wetlands in favor of horizontal directional drilling which goes underneath these resources.  

During the FERC review, NYSDEC submitted comments requesting more HDDs and Constitution Pipeline submitted comments in response favoring the current plans.  FERC agreed with Constitution Pipeline and issued a certificate for the project pursuant to the NGA.  NYSDEC ended up denying the CWA 401 permit on the grounds more HDDs would result in less state water quality impacts.  Constitution Pipeline challenged the denial of the 401 in federal court arguing the NGA preempted the State since the FERC had already determined as part of its review the more HDDs were not feasible. 

The Court noted that the NGA has specific carve outs from preemption for the Clean Water Act.  The Court held that states retain their authority under the CWA and NYSDEC was within its right to deny the 401 permit.   Constitution Pipeline is looking to appeal arguing this gives the State’s veto authority over FERCs decision to approve pipeline routes.

This blog has previously detailed some of the ambiguity of the Voluntary Action Program ten year automatic tax abatement provisions set forth in Revised Code 5709.87. (See prior posts here and here). Three primary issues caused significant problems for developers attempting to leverage the VAP automatic tax abatement:
  1. How to value the abatement- The prior law was ambiguous as to how to value the abatement;
  2. Timing- The timing for locking in the tax abatement was difficult to navigate causing some developers to lose out on millions of dollars in tax abatements; and
  3. Exclusion for New Improvements and Structures- Until an Ohio Supreme Court ruling, the law was somewhat unclear as to whether the abatement covered the land and only existing buildings.  The Ohio Supreme Court clarified that new improvements and buildings were not covered by the automatic tax abatement. 

House Bill 463 included language to fix the first two issues. (H.B. 463 changes to R.C. 5709.87)

How to Value the Abatement

The act specifies that the beginning point for measuring the increase in value subject to abatement is the beginning of the year in which environmental remedial activities began.  Under the prior law, the value was based  upon the date of issuance of the tax abatement order by the Tax Commissioner.  At the start of a brownfield project, it wasn’t certain which year would be used as the base value for determining the exemption.

The changes enacted through House Bill 463 specify that the exemption is to measured using the year remedial activities were initiated as the base year.  Each of the ten years during which the property is exempted, any increase in value from the base year is exempted from taxes.

Timing

The other issue with the prior law related to timing.  The date of the exemption and calculation of the value of exemption was not tied to a specific year.  Rather, the exemption was tied to the tax list of the year prior to when the Tax Commissioner issued their abatement order.  The fact the value "floated" with the date the Tax Commissioner issued their order meant it was difficult to secure the full value of abatement. 

For example, assume remediation commenced in 2012 and the property was valued a $1 million. The VAP Covenant-Not-to-Sue (CNS) is issued in 2015.  By 2015, some improvements were completed and the property doubled in value to $2 million.  The Tax Commissioner issues the abatement order in 2016, which means the 2015 tax value (not the 2012 value) would be used to determine the value of the abatement.  This means the developer would lose out the abatement for the increase in taxes associated with property values increasing between 2012 and 2015.

This created challenges for developers who had to time completion of improvements with completion of the VAP CNS and Tax Commissioner Order.  Some developers didn’t plan correctly or were confused by the law and lost out on millions in abatement. 

For instance, once Cincinnati company lost out on a potential tax exemption on a $4 million dollar increase in the value of the property simply because the paperwork was not issued by the government officials in a timely fashion.  see, Hamilton Brownfields Redevelopment LLC v. Zaino, Tax Commissioner of Ohio.

The Trump Administration has made rollback of environmental regulations a top priority.  Through the use of Executive Orders and the Congressional Review Act(CRA), the Administration has already undone significant Obama era regulations, including the Waters of the U.S. Rule (WOTUS) and the Clean Power Plan.

The Trump Administration has also proposed significant budget cuts to EPA which could result in the reduction of 31% in federal funds to EPA and result in layoffs of 3,200 EPA workers. Budget cuts to State EPAs through reduction of state categorical grants have also been proposed. These cuts to federal funds could lead to reduced staff at State EPAs across the country.  

While the regulatory rollback and reduction in EPA staffs move forward, donations to major environmental groups around the country have surged since the election.  As reported in the Washington Times, the Sierra Club has reported an increase of 700% in donations since the election.  Across the board, green groups, like the NRDC are reporting a surge in donations.

Putting the New Money to Work

Whether it is the EPA budget reductions or EPA’s exercising enforcement discretion, most anticipate EPA federal environmental enforcement will be on the decline under the Trump Administration. While EPA may not bring suits, many long time environmental legal practitioners anticipate a surge in green groups use of citizen suit provisions to fill the void on enforcement.  

Almost all of the major federal environmental statutes include a "citizen suit" provision that allows individuals and groups harmed by environmental violations to step in the shoes of EPA and sue companies to address violations and pay civil penalties.  Such provisions are included in the Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Clean Water Act.  Why do many anticipate a surge in such suits?

  • Justify Donations– Green groups will show that increased donations are being put to work by taking enforcement to fill the void left by a less active EPA;
  • Easy Access to Monitoring Data Permit compliance and monitoring data is readily accessible online through EPA databases like ECHO or state database counterparts.  This makes it increasingly easier for green groups to identify violations that have gone unaddressed;
  • Civil Penalties-  The citizen suit provisions allow groups to assess civil penalties.  Under law, any civil penalties must go to the U.S. Treasury.  However, groups have used creative approaches like Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) to direct funds to environmental improvement projects or funding local groups;
  • Attorney Fees- Perhaps the biggest incentive to utilize citizen suit provisions is the attorney fee provision.  Courts have established a low threshold for recovery of fees.  This makes it easy for groups to recover their investigatory and legal expenses in pursuing actions; and
  • Lack of Availability of the Diligent Prosecution Defense-  Not only will reductions in EPA staff and resources lead to less enforcement, it also makes it less likely that companies will be able to secure "friendly" administrative or judicial enforcement orders used to block citizen suits during notice periods.  The 60 or 90 day notice periods are meant to give time to allow for state or federal regulators to take appropriate action to resolve violations after receiving notice of a potential citizen suit (i.e. "diligent prosecution" defense).

"New" Citizen Suit Legal Theories

In is not just an anticipated increase in the number of citizen suit actions brought, most see an expansion of the types of harms such suits are used to address.  Across the country, green groups have already utilized long-standing citizen suit provisions to bring creative new causes of action, including:

  • Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. v 3M Company- Environmental group have brought a RCRA imminent and substantial endangerment claim against 3M for historical releases of teflon related substances (PFOA/PFOS) which are not currently regulated by EPA.  The Court denied a motion to dismiss the action;
  • Sierra Club v. Chesapeake Operating LLC- Brought RCRA imminent and substantial endangerment claim for earthquakes in Oklahoma allegedly caused by disposal of water from oil and gas extraction;
  • Conservation Law Foundation v. ExxonMobil Corp.-  Alleging imminent and substantial endangerment under RCRA due to climate change; and
  • Upstate Forever and Savannah Riverkeeper v. Kinder Morgan–  Claims brought under the Clean Water Act alleging passive migration of contaminated groundwater to surface water from an oil spill was a violation of the Clean Water Act.  The case was dismissed after the Judge ruled plaintiffs failed to allege facts demonstrating migration of groundwater constituted a "point source" under the Clean Water Act.

Suing EPA to Compel Non-Discretionary Acts

Green groups have always sued EPA to compel the Agency to promulgate regulations or take action that are required under environmental statutes. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) allows green groups to bring suit to compel an agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. See, 5 U.S.C. Section 706(1).  

Because the Trump Administration will be less inclined to promulgate new environmental regulations, there will almost certainly be a major increase in suits against EPA to compel action. Unlike under the Obama Administration, which resolved many of these suits using consent orders, the Trump Administration will be far less inclined to settle.  This will inevitably lead to long and protracted litigation.  A recent article in the Legal Intelligencer by Kenneth J. Warren discusses the complications for Courts facing these suits to compel EPA to perform non-discretionary duites.

In the past several months, the Trump Administration has targeted U.S. EPA for major regulatory reform, massive budget cuts and a roll-back of Obama era regulations.  No Administration since the enactment of the landmark environmental statutes has gone as as far as the Trump Administration in attempting to change the landscape of environmental regulation.

After signing multiple executive orders and proposing a huge EPA budget cut, rumors are swirling as to what may be next. This creates a massive amount of regulatory uncertainty which is something businesses always say they hate.  This uncertainty extends to what the size and structure of what U.S. EPA will look like under the Trump Administration, including which Regional Offices will remain if the budget cuts and staff layoffs are implemented.  

Recently, one rumor causing significant uncertainty is whether EPA’s Region V Office, located in Chicago, will be eliminated.  Region V covers Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana and Minnesota.   

Both Ohio Senators along with ten others in the Great Lakes congressional delegation wrote to EPA Administrator Pruitt strongly opposing closing of the Region V Office.  This from the Plain Dealer Article discussing the letter:

Recent reports that the U.S. EPA’s Region 5 office, which is based in Chicago and includes Ohio among other Great Lake states, will be shut down has alarmed members of Ohio’s Congressional delegation and other representatives of the five states of the Great Lakes region.

On Tuesday, Senator Rob Portman, R-Ohio, joined Senator Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and a coalition of Democratic senators and house members in delivering a letter to EPA Director Scott Pruitt expressing their concern over the proposal, and demanding he not relocate Region 5’s 1,500 employees to the Region 7 office in Lenexa, Kansas.

"Closing EPA’s Region 5 office would have a devastating effect on those who call Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Minnesota and Ohio home," the letter reads. "Therefore, we urge you to protect the environmental health and well-being of our states by keeping Region 5 intact and fully supporting its critical mission."

The focus of the letter is largely on consequences to public health and the environment, including the Great Lakes.  However, it is also worth noting the negative economic impacts elimination of the Regional Office would have on a region President Trump has stated he wants to help.

While delegated State EPAs handle most of the permitting for new factories or plant expansions, EPA plays a critical role in reviewing draft permits.  Until such permits are issued construction is limited and the new operations cannot commence.  Region V staff also address a myriad of issues that directly impact economic growth.  Without adequate staff permitting and decision making will slow.

The Midwest still has significant manufacturing.  President Trumps says he wants to keep or bring back U.S. manufacturing jobs.  Having adequate personnel to process permits and address other regulatory issues that impact economic development are critical to that effort.   

Let’s hope this is just another rumor.  However, these types of rumors are not helpful due to the uncertainty they create.  For example, if a business is currently thinking of expanding or locating in the Midwest, the inability to secure timely permits or address other regulatory decisions that impact economic growth could cause businesses to rethink locating in the region.

The Trump Administration has been slow to announce appointments to key positions within U.S. EPA. Administrator Scott Pruitt is in many ways  is operating on a island within the Agency. As reported in the New York Times, the Administration has not nominated any of the dozen key EPA senior positions:

At the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, the administrator, was confirmed by the Senate last month, and he has hired a chief of staff and a few others. But the White House has yet to nominate anyone to fill another dozen key jobs requiring Senate confirmation, like the assistant administrators who oversee clean air and water regulation

At the same time Administrator Pruitt is restricting decision making authority throughout the ten Regional Offices.  As first noted on the blog Law and the Environment, the following memorandum was recently sent to Regional Offices:

Because the Presidentially-appointed Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators have yet to assume their duties, for the next 30 days, the Administrator wishes to retain approval authority for Agency actions having significant regulatory and enforcement effect. The Administrator will rely on the Acting RA’s and AA’s to identify and send upward any proposed decisions or final agency actions for the Administrator’s review which, in the judgement of the Acting RA’s and AA’s would limit the flexibility of the States, limit energy resource use, impose significant costs on industry or commerce, or otherwise likely result in significant public attention on the proposed decisions or final agency actions (emphasis added)

The underlined language provides a broad description of the types of actions the Administrator expects to be sent for his review and approval.  This will certainly cause a slow down on decision making at the Agency.

These developments could have both good and bad implications for businesses.  It is likely the rulemaking and enforcement will be slowed.  However, for businesses working through permitting, compliance issues and settlement of enforcement actions, these developments could have the negative effective of slowing the pace of reaching a final resolution or obtaining a necessary permit. 

This week, President Trump released his Administration’s first federal budget dubbed the "America First- A Blueprint to Make America Great Again."  Under the budget proposal, U.S. EPA current budget would be cut by 31% which amounts to a $2.6 billion dollar reduction.  

This leaves the Agency with $5.7 billion to run its programs which is the lowest amount funding provided U.S. EPA since 1990.  As reported by POLITICO, the proposed budget cuts would force U.S. EPA to layoff 3,200 workers. 

Since 1990, environmental regulation and science has advanced significantly.  As a result, numerous new programs have been added, including: climate change, protection of the Great Lakes, improving air and water quality standards.  

In the early years of environmental regulation the "easy" pollution reductions were achieved first. Additional reductions become much more challenging.  As a result, environmental permitting (NPDES, Title V, New Source Review) has become far more complex.

A drastically reduced workforce at the state and federal level will make implementation of these programs impossible and threaten to compromise the progress made over the last forty years.  The improvements to air and water quality since environmental regulations were implemented in the U.S. are well documented:

  • From 1970 to 2015, aggregate national emissions of the six common pollutants alone dropped an average of 70 percent while gross domestic product grew by 246 percent. This progress reflects efforts by state, local and tribal governments; EPA; private sector companies; environmental groups and others.
  • In the forty years since passage of the Clean Water Act there has been dramatic improvement to U.S. waterways:
    • Only about a third of U.S. water was safe for swimming or fishing. Now, an estimated 65% pass the fishable and swimmable test;
    • Before passage of the Clean Water Act, the country was losing up to 500,000 acres of wetlands per year. With wetland regulations, average wetland losses have fallen below 60,000 acres per year; and
    • Before the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, 30% of tap water samples exceeded federal limits for certain chemicals. According to a 2012 EPA report, 90.7% of U.S. community water systems met “all applicable health-based standards” in 2011.

The President’s EPA budget blueprint has a stated goal of shifting authority back to the states for primary implementation of the federal environmental regulations.  The Administration cites to waste as a result of duplication between state EPA’s and U.S. EPA.  Here are some of the statements included in the budget blueprint regarding prioritizing delegation of authority and responsibility to the states:

  • Avoids duplication by concentrating EPA’s enforcement of environmental protection violations on programs that are not delegated to States, while providing oversight to maintain consistency and assistance across State, local, and tribal programs. This reduces EPA’s Office of Enforcement
    and Compliance Assurance budget to $419 million, which is $129 million below the 2017 annualized CR level;
  • Supports Categorical Grants with $597 million, a $482 million reduction below 2017 annualized CR levels. These lower levels are in line with the broader strategy of streamlining environmental protection. This funding level eliminates or substantially reduces Federal investment in State environmental activities that go beyond EPA’s statutory requirements.

State Categorical Grants fund core programs, such as implementation of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, hazardous waste regulation (RCRA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act.  The budget blue print calls for a 45% reduction in support to the states to run these programs.  

A recent article in the Columbus Dispatch discussed the potential impacts on Ohio EPA.  As noted in the article, federal funds make up a significant portion of Ohio EPA’s operating budget.

After fees for permits, inspections and licenses, federal funding is the Ohio EPA’s second-largest source of income, accounting for about $40 million of its $200 million budget.

In 2016, the U.S. EPA awarded its Ohio counterpart nearly $37 million for programs that maintain Superfund sites, restore wetlands, protect the Great Lakes and manage hazardous waste. 

The Administration is missing an opportunity to be more cost effective in implementation of environmental regulation.  The Administration is also losing a significant opportunity to be true to principles of federalism by entrusting the states with greater autonomy with regard to implementation of environmental program.  

If the Administration truly wants to shift power more toward the states, then drastic cuts to federal funds that allow states to implement those federal programs undermines that important policy goal. The danger exists that without adequate funding states cannot meet the increased demands.  In the years to follow, the states inability to be to handle the increased burden will be used by those who champion increased federal oversight to justify taking authority away from the states.  

On January 20th, Reince Preibus, President Trumps Chief of Staff, issued a broad regulatory freeze memorandum entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” halting federal rules that had not yet become effective. All rules covered by the memorandum are suspended for 60 days (March 21, 2017). On January 26, 2017, EPA published a list of 30 rules subject to the freeze.

The vast majority of EPA rules temporarily frozen are actually rules that would lessen regulatory burdens or approve plans for meeting existing standards.  These include: a grant of primacy to Kentucky’s Underground Injection Control Program, numerous air plans for compliance with ozone or PM 2.5 air quality standards and attainment designations for areas that now meet air quality standards.

The most significant rule affected by the freeze include:

  • Amendments to EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP)
  • Renewable Fuel Standard’s renewable volume obligations
  • Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators

EPA’s recent amendments to the Risk Management Plan (RMP) Rule titled "Accidental Release Prevention Requirements:  Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act."  The RMP amendments, which will be discussed in a later post, increase emergency preparedness requirements at some 12,500 facilities that handle chemicals or hazardous substances.

Another rule impacted is the Renewable Fuel Standard’s renewable volume obligations.  As discussed in a recent Bloomberg article, the biofuel industry struck a major victory when the Obama Administration raised 2017 quotas- Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOS)- to new record levels. As discussed in the Bloomberg article, the freeze triggered a sell-off of biofuel credits.

Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), tracking compliance with 2017 ethanol consumption targets, plummeted 23 percent to 46 cents a piece on Wednesday, the lowest since November 2015, broker data compiled by Bloomberg show.  The credits are attached to each gallon of biofuel.  Once a refiner blends ethanol or biodiesel into petroleum, they can keep the credit to show adherence to the program or trade it to another party.

Finally, the final rule Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators was also frozen.  EPA states the purpose of the rule was to ensure that persons using certain types of pesticides- Restricted Use Pesticides (RUPs)- were competent to use the product.  The rule creates new certification requirements for persons who want to use RUPs.  According to EPA, the most acutely toxic pesticides or those needing to be applied with special care are classified as RUPs.

Conclusion

While the freeze did have a major impact on the RMP rules, pesticide certification and biofuels, the vast majority or rules affected are likely beneficial.  These majority rules demonstrate compliance with federal air quality standards, allows states to take over implementation of regulatory programs or  approves air quality compliance plans developed by States.

After the temporary freeze most if not all of the rules will likely move forward.  The most likely rules that could be targeted by future Congressional action include the RMP amendments and raise in biofuel volume requirements. 

President Elect Trump has vowed to unwind regulations which he believes are dramatically constraining economic growth.  The Obama Administration’s environmental regulations are specifically being targeted, including:  the Clean Power Plan, the Waters of the U.S. Rule and ozone regulations. His transition web-page even touts that for every one new regulation enacted his Administration will remove two old regulations.  

Billionaire investor Carl Ichan was given the position of Special Adviser on Regulatory Issues.  As reported on CNBC, Mr. Ichan said this about government regulation when his new position was announced:

"Under President Obama, America’s business owners have been crippled by over $1 trillion in new regulations….It’s time to break free of excessive regulation and let our entrepreneurs do what they do best: create jobs and support communities."

But just how quickly can the Trump Administration unwind environmental regulations?  What tools does the Administration have at its disposal to reduce or eliminate environmental regulation?

Federal Rulemaking Process

The rulemaking procedures for federal agencies, including U.S. EPA, are governed by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).  While the APA imposes a formal process for adoption of new rules that naturally slows the pace of federal rulemaking, it also imposes restrictions on the ability to either remove existing regulations as well as stop regulations once they are in process.

The APA (5 U.S.C. Section 553) requires a four step rulemaking process:

  1. Issue a notice of proposed rulemaking;
  2. Receiving comments on the proposed rule;
  3. Issue a final rule; and
  4. Setting an effective date at least 30 days after publication of the final rule n the Federal Register.

Once a rule has completed this four step process, it becomes much more difficult to remove or prevent the rule from going into effect.  Below are some of the administrative, legislative and legal strategies the Trump Administration may employ to reduce and/or eliminate environmental regulation.

Executive Order to Stop Regulations in Process

On the first day of office, President Trump can have a memorandum issued directing all federal agencies, including the U.S. EPA, to freeze current rule making efforts.  Similar memorandums were issued on the first day by Bush and the Obama Administrations.  But the APA has limits on the authority to derail current rulemaking efforts.

A similar memorandum was issued on January 20, 2001, by Andrew Card, President Bush’s Chief of Staff.  See, 66 Fed. Reg. 7702 (Jan. 24, 2001) The memo directed executive agencies to withdraw rules not yet published and to postpone the effective dates of public regulations. However, prior Court precedent forced agencies to go through proper APA procedures prior to withdrawing or delaying rules. 

In Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 683 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 1982) the Court specifically addressed whether indefinite postponement of an EPA rule would violate the APA.  At issue was an EPA rule that had completed the four-step APA process with an effective date.  An Executive Order was issued to suspend the effective date of certain rules to reconsider the costs and benefits of the new rule.  The Court held that such a postponement was tantamount to rulemaking itself and the four step APA process would need to be completed to delay the effective date of the rule.

A GAO study showed that the Card memorandum resulted in the delay of the effective date of 90 rules and 15 rules still had not gone effective after one year from the date of issuance of the memorandum.  See, U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO-02-370R, Feb. 15, 2002.

While the Trump Administration can delay rules in process, past precedent shows that executive authority to stop a rule in process is does have constraints.

Slow the Pace of New EPA Regulations

The Trump Administration can also direct U.S. EPA to be cautious in adopting any new regulations. Certainly the new Administration can reduce the number of newly adopted regulations.  A similar action was taken by President Reagan through his Executive Order 12291.  The Order enacted on February 17, 1981, required all agencies perform a "Regulatory Impact Analysis" to determine if the "potential benefits to society for the regulation outweigh the potential costs to society" and the rule with the "least net cost to society" shall be enacted.

President Reagan order did reduce the number of new regulations adopted during his Presidency. However, such an Executive Order cannot prevent all new rulemaking, in particular with regard to U.S. EPA that is statutorily required to adopt certain regulations.

In fact, environmental groups often sue U.S. EPA to force adoption of new regulations.  Such suits were common during the Bush Administration.  Environmental statutes, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, contain citizen suit provisions that authorize third parties to compel an agency to perform a mandatory act under those statutes.  See, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7604(a)(2) and Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1365(a)(2).

However, litigation takes time.  Even if Courts agree and order the U.S. EPA to adopt statutorily mandated regulations, the Trump Administration will have the power to slow pace of newly adopted EPA regulations.

Legislative Options

The Congressional Review Act (CRA- 5 U.S.C. Section 801-808) requires federal agencies to submit rules to Congress for review.  Under the CRA, Congress has the ability to revoke rules through a special joint resolution during the 60 day period following the rules submission to Congress.

While the CRA could be used to revoke rules enacted at the end of the Obama Administration, the process to adopt a special joint resolution is required for each rule to be rescinded.  Therefore, the process is time consuming.  

As discussed in Forbes, another option is to pass legislation such as the RED Tap Act (S. 1944), which would require elimination of one rule for every new rule enacted.  

Current Litigation Involving Obama Administration EPA Rules

Challenges to two of the Obama Administration’s signature environmental rules- the Clean Power Plan and the Waters of U.S..- are still pending in the Courts.  The Trump Administration could simply not put on a strong defense to rules currently being challenged.  If the Court invalidates a rule, then the Trump Administration could simply choose not to enact the rule.

Authority to Repeal Existing EPA Regulations

While the ability to delay or revoke rules in process is important, what authority does the Administration have to revoke rules that are currently in place.  Previous Administrations have learned, typically through the courts, that Presidential powers to revoke existing rules is limited.  An existing regulation can only be amended or repealed if the four step APA rulemaking process is followed.  Furthermore, the APA requires the Administration to not act "arbitrary" or "capricious" in revoking or amending a rule.  In other words, the Agency must justify its change in position.  See, FCC V. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009).

A good example of the limits on the ability to revoke prior enacted rules is the Tongass National forest exemption to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s "Roadless Rule" which limited road construction and timber harvesting in national forests.  The Roadless Rule was promulgated under President Clinton.  President Bush created an exemption to the rule that was challenged in Court as arbitrary and capricious under the APA.  After years’ of litigation, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal overturned the exemption stating the Agency provided insufficient justification for its change in policy.  See, Organized Village of Kake v. USDA, 795 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2015)

Conclusion

Clearly, the Trump Administration can slow down the regulatory rulemaking process.  It can also choose not to defend rules currently being challenged in the Courts.  However, under the APA, the Administration cannot simply revoke existing rules without sufficient technical and legal justification.  

There is a lot of hyperbole regarding President-Elect Trump’s potential environmental agenda. During the campaign there was also a lot made about issues of employment and opportunity in the "Rust Belt" (a term I personally do no like).  Here are two suggestions of how the incoming Trump Administration could bring greater opportunity to the Rust Belt without controversial roll backs of environmental standards.   

  1. Bring Logic to Air Quality Standards and Regulations
  2. Moonshot on Brownfield Redevelopment

Bring Logic to Air Quality Standards and Regulations 

Midwestern states with large populations and a heavy manufacturing base are hit particularly hard by tightening air quality standards for ozone and small particulate matter (p.m. 2.5).  On October 1, 2015, EPA strengthened the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone to 70 parts per billion (ppb).  EPA will designate areas in late 2017 based on monitoring data as to whether they meet the ozone standard ("Attainment Areas") or do not meet the standard ("Non-Attainment Areas"). States will have until at least 2020 to achieve compliance with the revised standards. 

As the adjacent map demonstrates, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania (all key states to Trump’s victory) will have significant portions of the state designated as non-attainment areas.  The designations will result in more regulation and restrictions on economic growth.

The good news is that U.S. EPA projects that most areas will be able to reach attainment of the new standards as a result of already promulgated federal regulations for gasoline, autos, power plants, and other sources of emissions. U.S. EPA projects that these already promulgated regulations will bring all but 14 of the 241 counties that currently don’t meet the 70 ppb ozone standard into attainment.  However, the bad news is that these reductions will not be achieved until 2025, five years past the ozone deadline.  Furthermore, some Members of Congress are trying to block the federal regulations.

As discussed in a recent Congressional Research Service report on the new ozone standard, some while Members in Congress have objected to the federal standards for motor vehicles, fuels, power plants, and other sources.  However, the net effect of repealing them would be to shift the burden of attaining the ozone NAAQS more squarely in the direction of state and local governments. As detailed in prior posts (here and here), the states have very little ability to improve air quality through state specific regulations under required emission reduction plans (State Implementation Plans- SIPs) to meet the NAAQS.  The federal regulations are far more cost effective.

It’s not just new regulations that will hamper economic growth in non-attainment areas, it is also mandated restrictions on economic growth.  Under the Clear Air Act, businesses looking to expand or relocate must pay for more costly emission controls in non-attainment areas.  Also, in non-attainment areas any increase in air emissions associated with a business expansion must be offset by reductions from existing businesses before a permit can be issued that allows the expansion to go forward (i.e. "Offsets").  These requirements push businesses to avoid non-attainment areas reducing opportunities for economic expansion.  

A Trump Administration could bring more logic to this regulatory mish mash by resisting calls to roll back the more cost effective federal regulations and by adjusting attainment deadlines to give states more time to take full advantage of federal regulations already on the books. Such actions would also avoid promulgation of costly new local air regulations that will largely do very little to improve air quality.  

Moonshot on Brownfield Redevelopment

A major focus during the campaign was how to improve our urban centers- finding ways to attract development and jobs to our neglected cities.  A highly effective means of giving a boost to our inner cities would be to energize U.S. EPA’s brownfield program as well as other brownfield incentives. 

As detailed in a four part series on this blog, brownfields lead to significant decay, social injustice and loss of opportunity (i.e. jobs).  The cost for businesses to expand in our urban centers is often complicated by the cost to cleanup pre-existing contamination.  Those costs are avoided by moving out of the City and developing on greenfields instead.

While brownfield programs have been successful, they have been wholly inadequate to make a significant difference.  If part of the Trump Administration’s massive infrastructure program was directed toward brownfield redevelopment, this could be a major shot in the arm promoting capital investment, cleaning up sites that pose public health issues and creating more jobs for those living in the inner city.