On March 12, EPA announced it will reconsider or rescind 31 environmental regulations––perhaps “the greatest and most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history,” according to new EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. The actions focus primarily on energy issues and address three broad areas: (1) unleashing American energy, (2) lowering the cost of regulations, and (3) advancing cooperative federalism, i.e., giving states more authority to regulate.

According to EPA, these measures will reduce regulatory costs by trillions of dollars and lower the cost of living on American households, making it more affordable to purchase vehicles, heat homes and operate businesses.
Some of the most significant deregulatory actions for this industry include:

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA plans to reconsider the March 2024 final rule setting PM2.5 NAAQS at 9 µg/m3 that would impose significant burdens and could stifle production for metalcasting and other manufacturing sectors. A reconsideration of the PM2.5 rule would most likely include a new rule with notice and comment. EPA could also rescind or vacate the rule or delay implementation of the current PM2.5. Regardless, legal challenges to any deregulatory action on this rule are probably and would likely delay any relief for metalcasting operations. 

GHG Endangerment Finding. Most of the rules slated for reconsideration are focused on climate change and energy sector. One of the most significant rules to be reconsidered is the 2009 greenhouse gas (GHG) endangerment finding that is the foundation for all of EPA’s climate change regulations. EPA will reevaluate the scientific basis for concluding that GHG emissions pose a threat to human health and the environment. In addition, EPA will examine the legal basis for the endangerment finding as well as how it has been implemented. Reversing the endangerment finding would mark a significant change in environmental regulatory policy––essentially removing the EPA’s obligation (and perhaps authority) to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act. Because this deregulatory action would attack the foundation for regulating GHG emissions, significant legal challenges are anticipated.

GHG Reporting Rule. Until any deregulatory actions for GHG emissions are finalized, existing regulatory requirements will remain in effect. As part of the Trump administration’s regulatory freeze, several EPA webpages were taken down, including the e-GGRT webpage and portal for reporting GHG emissions. Accordingly, EPA recently restored the webpage and announced it was extending the 2024 reporting deadline from March 31 to May 30. While EPA has not scrapped GHG reporting entirely, the agency is expected to make some significant revisions to the reporting rule in the future. 

Timing for Deregulatory Actions. Most of the deregulatory actions identified by EPA will require a notice and comment rulemaking that could take considerable time to implement. EPA has, however, signaled it wants to move faster than usual on these reviews, with proposed rule changes potentially coming within “the coming weeks.” 
Realignment of Enforcement Priorities. EPA also announced March 12 that it is realigning its enforcement priorities to deemphasize environmental justice (EJ) and climate change and ease enforcement against energy-sector facilities. Specifically, EPA will modify its existing National Enforcement and Compliance initiatives (NECIs) so enforcement and compliance actions will no longer have to incorporate EJ. Furthermore, the agency will not shut down any stage of energy production (from exploration to distribution) or power generation unless there is an imminent and substantial threat to human health or an express statutory or regulatory requirement to do so. With respect to air toxins, enforcement may continue in areas subject to high exposures from air emissions but can no longer focus exclusively on overburdened communities.

These revised enforcement priorities take effect immediately. Environmental advocacy groups are expected to oppose these changes and to increase the use of citizen enforcement actions where they believe that EPA is not adequately enforcing regulatory requirements. Despite the new federal enforcement priorities, states will also have the option of enforcing their own regulatory requirements that typically mirror the federal requirements.

In addition to these actions, EPA is also considering eliminating the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). Enforcement functions and staff would be distributed across the individual media program offices, EPA regions, and states. Critics of the plan claim that eliminating OECA will lead to a rapid decrease in enforcement cases and inconsistent enforcement across different environmental media and different areas of the country. 
For metalcasting operations, the revised enforcement priorities may lead to more predictable and perhaps more lenient enforcement efforts for minor infractions, especially if they could impact energy supply. In addition, facilities in economically disadvantaged or minority communities will likely face less EPA scrutiny based on EJ. 

Conclusion. EPA’s March 12 deregulatory announcements mark a tectonic shift in environmental policy, with a clear intent to reduce regulatory burdens on businesses, particularly those in the energy sector. For small and medium-sized enterprises, this could bring cost savings and new opportunities, but it also introduces legal uncertainty and potential long-term risks (especially related to climate change liabilities and public perception).  

Ironically, the administration’s plan to significantly reduce EPA staffing levels and budget could jeopardize or delay the implementation of the sweeping deregulatory agenda. Also, despite dramatic regulatory reforms on the federal level, some states may step up and fill the gaps from these deregulatory actions.