Jump to main content.

State Audit Privilege and Immunity Laws & Self-Disclosure Laws and Policies

State Audit Privilege and Immunity Laws

The following states have enacted environmental audit privilege and/or penalty immunity laws. The first date contained in the parenthetical indicates when the law was enacted; the subsequent dates reference the effective date of actions to satisfy minimum requirements for federally authorized, delegated or approved environmental programs (i.e., sunset, amendment, memorandum of agreement and/or attorney general statement).

Unless otherwise noted: each State listed below has enacted statutory revisions and/or issued a clarifying Attorney General's statement and/or entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with EPA to satisfy minimum requirements for federally authorized, delegated, or approved environmental programs. Note: These laws need to be scrutinized carefully to discern differences which may impact decisions on compliance with federal requirements.

Privilege Only

* Wisconsin's innovative "Green Tier" program Exit EPA Disclaimer, authorized by W.S.A. § 299.85 (re-adopted with amendments July 11, 2009 in the 2009 Senate Bill 126), provides incentives to entities that voluntarily improve their environmental performance. The program is based upon a collaborative system of contracts and charters between businesses and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The program is divided into two tiers. Generally speaking, tier one participants are entitled to deferred civil enforcement as well as statutorily capped or stipulated fines for violations. Through contract, DNR promises to not seek penalties for those businesses that self-disclose violations and take corrective action. Tier two participants generally contract for a limited form of immunity from any civil action for self-disclosed violations. Charter participants also typically contract for a limited form of immunity from civil action.

Immunity Only *

**In April 2000, Arizona enacted a law that contained elements of audit privilege and/or immunity in the context of encouraging environmental management systems. The law satisfied minimum requirements for federally authorized, delegated, or approved environmental programs. The Arizona law never became effective because its effectiveness was conditioned on passage of an appropriations bill to fund a program to administer the law, which never happened.

Privilege & Immunity

Top of page

State Voluntary Self-Disclosure Civil Penalty Mitigation Law

One state, Illinois, enacted a statute in January of 2004 that permits mitigation of a civil penalty when a person or entity, under a number of specified conditions set forth in the statute, self-discloses its noncompliance.

Top of page

State Voluntary Self-Disclosure Penalty Immunity Rule

One state, Oklahoma, adopted a rule in June of 1997 (amended 6/1/03) that allows penalty immunity under certain conditions.

Top of page

State Self-Disclosure Policies

The following states have adopted self-disclosure policies. The first date in parentheses indicates when the policy was adopted; subsequent dates reflect policy revisions.

Top of page

Further Reference

Environmental Audit Immunity Laws: A State-by-State Comparison (2004 Update)
By John A. Lee and Bertram C. Frey (U.S. EPA)
A comprehensive examination of the audit immunity laws, which have been enacted by a large number of states. Current through April 2004. This is a copyrighted article reprinted with permission of the authors.

Top of page

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.