Client Alerts & Insights
Benesch COVID-19 Resource Center: Ohio Businesses Should be Aware that Environmental Agencies Have Terminated COVID-19 Enforcement Discretion Policies
September 10, 2020
Authored By:
In late March 2020, as many states adopted responses to the coronavirus pandemic that either encouraged or mandated “work from home” practices, U.S. EPA and other environmental regulators developed temporary enforcement discretion policies to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on their own employees and on the employees of regulated companies and their contractors. Recognizing that travel to many sites and workplaces was either legally prohibited or simply imprudent in light of the risk of viral exposure, U.S. EPA published “COVID-19 Implications for EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program” on March 26, 2020. States such as Ohio adopted their own enforcement discretion policies to address companies’ compliance with state environmental requirements. Both U.S. EPA and Ohio EPA have now terminated their policies.
U.S. EPA’s COVID-19 enforcement discretion policy did not include an expiration date when adopted. In late June 2020, U.S. EPA announced a presumptive termination date of August 31, 2020. When U.S. EPA took no action to extend the federal policy, it terminated as scheduled at the end of August 2020. However, U.S. EPA expressly reserved its inherent authority to exercise enforcement discretion on a case-by-case basis, “including noncompliance caused by the COVID-19 public health emergency, before or after the temporary policy is terminated.”
Ohio EPA also decided to terminate its “regulatory flexibility” request system as of August 31, 2020, announcing on its website:
With the lifting of Ohio’s stay at home order and the reopening of businesses under Ohio’s Responsible RestartOhio Plan, Ohio EPA discontinued considering any new COVID-19 regulatory flexibility requests effective Aug. 31, 2020. This deadline is also consistent with U.S. EPA’s termination of federally related regulatory flexibility requests.
Although Ohio EPA’s announcement did not include an explicit reference to its inherent enforcement discretion, it’s safe to assume that Ohio EPA believes it possesses such authority, including in situations involving COVID-19.
Ohio businesses, many still actively reconfiguring their workplaces and payrolls in response to the pandemic’s gut punch to the economy, would be wise to assume that environmental regulators will now be deeply skeptical of claims that any ongoing difficulties collecting wastewater samples, submitting timely reports, complying with cleanup schedules, or meeting other legal obligations are attributable to pandemic-related disruptions. Future enforcement relief will only be available, at most, on a case-by-case basis and will require a demonstration of highly compelling and unique circumstances.
For more information, please contact a member of Benesch’s Environmental Law & Litigation Group.
Reed W. Sirak at rsirak@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.6256
***
Please note that this information is current as of the date of this Client Alert, based on the available data. However, because COVID-19’s status and updates related to the same are ongoing, we recommend real-time review of guidance distributed by the CDC and local officials.

Latest News
The Coming State-Law Litigation Wave of 2026-27: “Subscription Trap” Class Actions
The subscription economy keeps growing—and so does the wave of class-action litigation targeting it. While the FTC’s regulatory efforts have drawn headlines, private class actions under state laws pose an even greater exposure risk.
Updates to Fees and Grace Periods for Nonimmigrant Visas
Starting September 9, 2026, the 9-11 Response Biometric Entry-Exit Fee will apply to H-1B and L-1 extension petitions filed by employers subject to the fee. Prior to the new rule, the fee was only required for (1) initial grant of status to a foreign national seeking H-1B or L-1 status and (2) a change of employer in the same status.
Third Circuit Decision Reshapes Creditor Standing in Successor Liability Disputes
The Third Circuit recently held that when determining whether a successor liability claim belongs to a bankruptcy estate, the key question is whether the claim seeks to remedy harm suffered by all creditors collectively or a unique injury suffered by a specific creditor. The fact that creditors may be permitted to bring the claim outside of bankruptcy is not, by itself, determinative.
CMS Proposes Sweeping Restrictions on Remote Patient Monitoring: The Outsourcing Ban, Reimbursement Revaluation and Potential Code Consolidation in the CY 2027 Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule
CMS’s CY 2027 Proposed Rule would significantly restrict Medicare reimbursement for Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) and Remote Therapeutic Monitoring (RTM), including banning outsourced clinical staffing, adding new patient-relationship and initiating-visit requirements, reducing certain reimbursement rates, and exploring consolidation of existing billing codes.