FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 1 

FY 2013 

Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA) 

 National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance 

April 30, 2012 

Publication Number - Final: 

305R12001
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 2 

Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

A. Program Office...............................................................................................................4 

B. Introduction/Context.........................................................................................................4 

C. Program Priorities............................................................................................................4 

D. Achieving Compliance for National and Regional Priorities...........................................................8

E. Cross Cutting Significant Strategies in the FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan............................................9 

F. Significant Changes from FY 2012......................................................................................13

SECTION I: OECA GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT AND FEEDBACK PROCESS.................................18 

SECTION II: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS...............18

1. Advance EJ goals through Selection and Implementation of National Enforcement Initiatives............19 

2. Advance EJ Goals Through Targeting and Development of Compliance and Enforcement Actions......20 

3. Enhance Use of Enforcement and Compliance Tools to Advance EJ Goals in Regions‘ Geographic 

Initiatives to Address Overburdened Communities...............................................................21 

4. Seek Appropriate Remedies in Enforcement Actions to Benefit Vulnerable and Overburdened 

Communities and Address EJ Concerns............................................................................21 

5. Enhance Communication with Affected Communities and the Public Regarding EJ Concerns and the 

Distribution and Benefits of Enforcement Actions, As Appropriate...........................................23

SECTION III: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROBLEMS FROM AIR POLLUTION.......................................................................................25

A. Clean Air Act (CAA)......................................................................................................25

1. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives......................................................................25

2. Link with Top Office of Air and Radiation Priorities............................................................26

3. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities.......................27

4. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes...................................................................30

5. Improve Transparency................................................................................................31

6. Relevant Policies and Guidance.....................................................................................33 

SECTION IV: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROBLEMS FROM WATER POLLUTION.............................................................................................................34 

 A. Clean Water Act (CWA)...................................................................................................34

1. Clean Water Act Action Plan.........................................................................................34

2. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives.......................................................................36

3. Link with Top Office of Water Priorities...........................................................................38

4. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities........................38

5. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes....................................................................44

6. Improve Transparency.................................................................................................45

7. Relevant Policies and Guidance......................................................................................45

B. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).........................................................................................45 

1. Link with Top Office of Water Priorities............................................................................47

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities........................47

3. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes.....................................................................48

4. Improve Transparency..................................................................................................49

5. Relevant Policies and Guidance........................................................................................49

SECTION V: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROBLEMS FROM WASTE, TOXICS, AND PESTICIDES POLLUTION.............................................50
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 3 

A. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)...............................................................50

1. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives..................................................................50

2. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements........................................................................50 

3. Link with Top OSWER Priorities...............................................................................51

4. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities...................52 

5. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes...............................................................55

6. Improve Transparency.............................................................................................57

B. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)..............................................................................57

1. Link with Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention‘s Top Priorities.........................59

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities..................59

3. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes...............................................................64

4. Improve Transparency.............................................................................................66

5. Relevant Policies and Guidance.................................................................................66

C. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)....................................................66

1. Link with Top Office of Pesticide Programs Priorities........................................................67 

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities...................67

3. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes...............................................................74

4. Improve Transparency.............................................................................................75

5. Relevant Policies and Guidance.................................................................................75

D. Specific Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) 

Enforcement Program Performance Expectations..................................................................76

1. Link with Top OSWER Priorities................................................................................76

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities...................76

3. Working with States and Tribes.................................................................................79

4. Improve Transparency.............................................................................................79

SECTION VI: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROBLEMS THROUGH CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT...................................................................80

1. Criminal Enforcement Priorities.................................................................................80

SECTION VII: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROBLEMS THROUGH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT....................................82

A. Specific Federal Activities Program Performance Expectations...................................................82

SECTION VIII: NATIONAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL OECA PROGRAMS 

UNDER GOAL 5.......................................................................................................................84

Specific Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act Performance Expectations 

1. Link with Top Office of Environmental Information Priorities...................................................84

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities........................84

A. EPCRA 313..............................................................................................................84

B. EPCRA 311/312.........................................................................................................86

C. CERCLA 103 and EPCRA 304.......................................................................................86

3. Reset our Relationships with States and Tribes.....................................................................86

4. Improve Transparency..................................................................................................86

5. Relevant Policies and Guidance.......................................................................................87

D. Federal Facilities Enforcement Program Performance Expectations.............................................87

E. State Review Framework (SRF) Expectations.......................................................................90

SECTION IX. FY 2013 OECA WORKPLAN SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS 

A. Annual Commitment System..........................................................................................91 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 4 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. Program Office 

This guidance applies to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), all 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional enforcement programs, and states and federallyrecognized Indian Tribes (tribes) implementing EPA-approved inspection and enforcement 

programs1

. OECA designs, develops, implements and oversees national enforcement programs, 

while the regional offices work with states, tribes, and others to implement these programs. The 

OECA National Enforcement Program Managers Guidance (NPMG) for fiscal year (FY) 2013 

describes how EPA should work with state and tribal governments to enforce environmental laws 

that protect and improve the quality of the Nation‘s environment and public health. 

B. Introduction/ Context 

EPA‘s national enforcement and compliance assurance program is multi-media in scope and 

breadth. The national program assures compliance with ten distinct federal environmental statutes 

using a variety of tools, including civil and criminal enforcement, compliance assistance, incentives, 

and monitoring, as well as other strategies to improve compliance, such as publication of 

compliance information. OECA implements a total of 28 separate program areas dealing with 

prevention and control of air pollution, water pollution, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and 

pesticides. The statutory and regulatory requirements of these programs apply to a diverse universe 

of regulated entities. EPA works closely with the states and tribes to assure that compliance 

assurance and enforcement programs achieve the protections of the environmental laws and provide 

a level playing field for responsible businesses. 

The majority of the work in the FY 2013 NPMG is accomplished under Goal 5 - ―Enforcing 

Environmental Laws‖ in the FY 2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan.2 Goal 5 of the Strategic Plan 

describes how EPA will address violators and pollution problems through vigorous and targeted 

civil and criminal enforcement, promote compliance and deter violations by achieving set 

enforcement goals, including those for national enforcement initiatives with special emphasis on 

potential environmental justice concerns and those in Indian country. 

The FY 2013 NPMG is organized to describe, for each statutory authority, the national enforcement 

and program office priorities, and other key enforcement actions to achieve EPA‘s enforcement 

goals. 

C. Program Priorities 

OECA‘s work aligns with and implements the Administrator‘s priorities in the following ways:

 

1

 When referring to states and tribes throughout this NPM guidance, OECA is referring to states and tribes authorized 

to implement federal programs. EPA implements programs in states and Indian country until EPA approves the state or 

Tribe to implement the inspection and enforcement program. 

2

 The Strategic Plan can be found at http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan.html 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 5 

Taking Action on Climate Change: Enforcement supports the Agency‘s climate strategy by 

achieving reductions of global warming pollution in settlements of enforcement actions. 

OECA will support the integrity of the monitoring and reporting system for global warming 

pollution by assuring compliance with the greenhouse gases reporting rule. 

Improving Air Quality: Enforcement helps improve air quality in communities by targeting 

large pollution sources, especially in the utility, acid, cement, glass and natural gas 

exploration and production industries, and taking aggressive action to bring them into 

compliance, which may include installing controls that will benefit communities and 

improve emission monitoring. OECA is working closely with the Office of Air and 

Radiation to reduce toxic air pollution, through protective enforcement, permitting and 

standards, especially in communities that are disproportionately affected by pollution now. 

OECA will continue to work with states and tribes to improve monitoring of compliance 

with air pollution standards and make sure that action is taken against serious violations that 

affect community air quality. 

Assuring the Safety of Chemicals: As the Agency steps up its review of chemical safety and 

pushes for reform, OECA will work closely with the Office of Chemical Safety and 

Pollution Prevention to achieve its goals. The enforcement program will take action when 

we find violations of standards for high-concern chemicals. 

Cleaning Up Our Communities: Enforcement ensures that parties responsible for 

contamination step up to their cleanup responsibilities. By ensuring that the polluter pays 

whenever possible, OECA‘s efforts result in more cleanups, which protect more

communities from exposure and returns properties to productive use. OECA will also use 

enforcement to spur cleanup at RCRA corrective action sites where the cleanup progress is 

stalled. Environmental justice (EJ) is a priority for OECA's waste programs, promoting 

healthy and environmentally sound conditions for all people. OECA will continue to 

integrate environmental justice into its Site Remediation Enforcement program by using EJ 

criteria when enforcing RCRA corrective action requirements to meet RCRA 2020 goals 

and ensuring that institutional controls are implemented at sites in environmental justice 

areas of concern. 

Protecting America‘s Waters: OECA‘s water enforcement program is focusing on the 

compliance problems that are the biggest threat to the nation‘s waters, including overflows 

of raw sewage and uncontrolled storm water discharges, as well as discharges of animal 

manure from concentrated animal feeding operations. At the same time, OECA will 

increase oversight of the states and work to define the shared accountability of EPA, states 

and tribes for clean water, working closely with the Office of Water. OECA will improve 

transparency, to enlist the public in holding sources and government accountable. 

Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental Justice: 

In all OECA‘s enforcement work, as described above, OECA protects communities by 

targeting enforcement in areas where we find serious noncompliance, including in 

communities that face multiple pollution threats. OECA works with other federal agencies 

to make sure environmental justice considerations are included in their decision-making 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 6 

process as they prepare environmental analyses (environmental impact statements or 

environmental assessments) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). OECA 

also will make available more understandable information on facility compliance and 

government response, so that people have better access to more information about the 

facilities in their communities, including information they need to take action to improve 

their own communities. 

Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships: EPA shares accountability with states and 

tribes for protecting the environment and public health. With the current economic 

challenges, it is important that EPA and its partners work efficiently and effectively to do 

the most we can with the resources we have. At the same time, OECA will strengthen 

oversight of states that implement federal environmental programs, and support states that 

take strong enforcement action to protect their citizens by making sure that we hold all states 

to a comparable standard. Similarly, OECA consults, as appropriate, with tribes when 

implementing federal environmental programs in Indian country and takes enforcement 

actions to ensure that same degree of human health and environmental protection in Indian 

country as elsewhere in the United States. 

OECA‘s overall enforcement goals for FY 2013 are to:

Aggressively go after pollution problems that make a difference in communities. EPA will use 

vigorous civil and criminal enforcement that targets the most serious water, air and chemical 

hazards, as well as advance environmental justice by protecting vulnerable communities. 

o Clean water

In follow-up to the Clean Water Act action plan, EPA is revamping enforcement 

and working with permitting to focus on the biggest pollution problems, such as 

Getting raw sewage out of the water 

Cutting pollution from animal waste 

Reducing polluted storm water discharges 

Assure clean drinking water for all communities, including in Indian country 

Clean up great waters that matter to communities, e.g, Chesapeake Bay 

o Clean air

Cut toxic air pollution in communities 

Reduce air pollution from largest sources, including coal-fired power plants, 

cement, acid and glass sectors 

o Climate and clean energy

Assure compliance with Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 

Encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions through settlements 

Target energy sector compliance with air, water and waste rules 

o Protect people from exposure to hazardous chemicals

Prevent releases of hazardous chemicals that threaten public health or the 

environment 

Press for prompt cleanup of hazardous sites in communities, ensuring that the 

polluter pays 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 7 

Reform chemical management enforcement and reduce exposure to pesticides, 

focusing on specific areas aimed to help achieve clean water, clean air, and 

climate and clean energy, and to protect people from exposure to hazardous 

chemicals. 

Reset our relationship with States to make sure we are delivering on our joint commitment 

to a clean and healthy environment.

o Shared accountability

Make joint progress with states and tribes toward clean air and water goals, and 

protection from exposure to hazardous chemicals 

Work toward shared focus on protecting vulnerable communities 

o Strengthened oversight

Assure strong and effective state enforcement of federal environmental laws 

Press for consistent enforcement across states and Regions, ensuring fairness and 

a level playing field 

o Establish new model for shared accountability and strengthened oversight, starting with 

water

Build focus on highest priority problems into grants, enforcement and permitting 

agreements 

Define clear expectations for state performance 

Take federal action where minimum expectations are not met 

Improve transparency

o Make meaningful facility compliance information available and accessible using 21st 

century technologies 

o Hold government accountable through public information on state and federal 

performance 

o Promote better federal environmental decisions and public engagement through NEPA 

To help implement these enforcement goals, OECA selects a limited number of National 

Enforcement Initiatives based upon significant environmental risks and noncompliance patterns. In 

FY 2010, EPA re-examined the existing initiatives to look for opportunities to clarify goals and 

measures, more accurately identify universes of sources, and, where necessary, to change the focus 

of an Initiative. In addition, EPA considered candidates for new National Enforcement Initiatives. 

After consulting with EPA programs and Regions, states, tribes, and the public, OECA adopted the 

following National Enforcement Initiatives for 2011 through 2013. More information on each is 

found in the media sections of this guidance:

Keeping raw sewage and contaminated stormwater discharges out of our waters 

Cutting animal waste to protect surface and ground waters 

Reducing widespread air pollution from the largest sources, especially the coal-fired utility, 

cement, glass, and acid sectors 

Cutting toxic air pollution that affects communities‘ health

Assuring energy extraction sector compliance with environmental laws 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 8 

Reducing pollution from mineral processing operations 

Strategies to implement these initiatives are developed by regional and headquarter teams and 

include goals, measures, and options for innovative approaches. 

D. Achieving Compliance for National and Regional Priorities 

EPA, states and tribes need to consider how to best use the mix of compliance and enforcement 

tools (compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, civil and criminal enforcement) to address all 

the regulated entities contributing to the environmental problem. The strategic use of these tools 

along with the identification of partners to help implement them will allow for the efficient use of 

Agency resources and effective approaches to solving large scale issues. 

Strategic use of the tools will benefit EPA, states and tribes by: 1) targeting limited compliance 

monitoring and enforcement resources on the bad actors; 2) building capacity and coordination 

across partners; and 3) expanding governments‘ effectiveness and demonstrating governments‘ 

commitment. More information on the use of integrated strategies is found in the Guide for 

Addressing Environmental Problems: Using an Integrated Strategic Approach (March 2007) 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/assistance/index.html. 

Program Reviews

OECA monitors regional, state and tribal implementation activities in a set of annual commitments 

at mid-year and at the end of a fiscal year based upon regional and state results entered in OECA 

databases, the Annual Commitment System (ACS), and data collected in the implementation of 

national enforcement initiatives. In addition, OECA senior managers conduct an annual program 

review of each regional office. The performance expectations and activities outlined in this 

guidance are the starting point from which headquarters and the regional offices discuss the 

management of program activities and the distribution of resources. These discussions result in 

regional commitments for a specific level of activity and an agreed-upon approach between the 

Regions and the national program manager for achieving fiscal year performance expectations. 

Regional Priorities

EPA Regions may have additional priorities that are specific for a particular environmental situation 

that may not affect other Regions. Some problems cross regional boundaries and Regions are 

working together to address them. For example, in response to the President‘s May 12, 2009, 

Executive Order 13508—Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, Regions 2, 3, 4, and 5 are 

working with OECA to address nitrogen deposition to the Bay from large industrial air sources of 

NOx. The Regions will build on work already begun under the national enforcement initiatives to 

evaluate the compliance of power plants and other industrial sources in the Chesapeake Bay air shed 

emitting more than 1000 tons of NOx per year. Any resulting enforcement actions would seek to 

achieve significant NOx reductions through complying actions, as appropriate. In addition, Region 

3 will take steps to evaluate the potential impacts on the Bay of ammonia (NH3) emissions from 

concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 9 

E. Cross Cutting Strategies in the FY2011-2015 Strategic Plan 

As part of the FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, the Agency has identified five cross-cutting 

fundamental strategies designed to change the way the Agency works and delivers environmental 

and human health protection. OECA‘s NPM guidance directly supports three of the five crosscutting strategies by instructing the Regions to undertake activities in FY2013 that contribute to the 

cross-cutting strategies‘ goals. Specific examples in the FY2013 guidance include the following: 

Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism 

Data regarding state assessments, priorities and performance under the Clean Water Act (CWA) 

will be made public, where possible, on a regular basis in a manner easily understood and used 

by the public; 

Compliance data will distinguish state information from Indian country information; 

Information will be made available to communities, including tribal communities, who lack 

access to the internet; 

The Criminal Enforcement program will continue to develop its use of new outreach methods 

such as Facebook, Twitter and mobile applications to encourage the public‘s reporting of 

potential violations and to provide leads through the fugitives website 

http://www.epa.gov/fugitives/.

Agency Focus on Electronic Reporting: On March 24, 2011, EPA Deputy Administrator Bob 

Perciasepe issued a memorandum in which he affirmed his support for using the National 

Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network) as the preferred means of 

environmental data sharing between EPA, states, tribes, and others. Also, this memorandum 

affirmed the unanimous ECOS resolution calling for full implementation of the Exchange 

Network, and represented a renewed joint commitment to success of the Network. The Office 

of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance supports this goal. The specific activities which 

must be carried out in support of this are discussed on pages 35 and 41 of this guidance. 

The Environmental Information Exchange Network has provided the foundation for EPA, states 

and tribes to now move aggressively to convert from old fashioned paper reports to electronic 

reporting. To reduce burden, improve compliance, expand the information available to the 

public about pollution that affects them, and improve the ability of EPA, states and tribes to 

implement environmental programs, the Agency has commenced a comprehensive initiative to 

convert to electronic reporting. EPA is focusing this initiative in two main areas: (1) 

developing an Agency wide policy to ensure that new regulations include electronic reporting in 

the most efficient way; and (2) developing and then implementing an Agency plan to convert 

the most important existing paper reports to electronic, while also looking for opportunities to 

reduce or streamline outdated paper reporting. Since this work is cross-cutting, EPA has 

established an Agency Electronic Reporting Task Force to lead and manage this work. 

The Agency invites the provision of examples to the Electronic Reporting Task Force of 

experiences in moving from paper to electronic reporting. We are interested in learning from 

the states and tribes about their successes and challenges in converting from paper reporting to 

electronic. The Agency will keep states and tribes informed about its progress in this initiative. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 10

If a state or tribe would like to share information with the Electronic Reporting Task Force, 

please contact David Hindin (OECA) and Andy Battin (OEI) for more information. 

Strengthening State, Tribal and International Partnerships 

Regions will continue to implement the CWA Action Plan in FY2013 by collaborating with 

states to address NPDES permitting, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities, 

including work-sharing; 

A majority of program narratives in the FY2013 guidance contain specific activities regarding 

state and tribal relationships; 

Regions should consult, as appropriate, with tribes when conducting civil inspections and 

enforcement activity consistent with the applicable media and/or program-specific compliance 

monitoring strategies and enforcement policies, and OECA‘s ―Guidance on the Enforcement 

Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy‖ (1/17/01). Consultations, civil inspections and 

enforcement activity should ensure the same degree of protection of human health and 

environmental protection in Indian country as elsewhere in the U.S. 

Working for Environmental Justice (EJ) and Children’s Health

The impact of enforcement and compliance efforts in communities overburdened by exposure to 

environmental risks, including minority, low-income and indigenous communities, as well as 

those with greater concentrations of sensitive populations, is an important consideration as 

OECA undertakes investigations and compliance activities. Regions are directed to use the 

Agency‘s environmental justice tools and methodologies as they consider any environmental 

justice aspects to their enforcement and compliance activities. 

Specific OECA EJ performance expectations, which include children‘s health as appropriate, 

are discussed in Section II of this guidance. 

OECA‘s national enforcement initiatives address some of the more complex pollution 

problems, especially those confined to a particular sector or source type, and can have positive 

impacts on children‘s health. For example:

o Reducing widespread air pollution from large sources, especially the coal-fired utility, 

cement, glass, and acid sectors can lessen adverse health effects such as asthma, respiratory 

diseases and premature death in communities overburdened by exposure to environmental 

risks and vulnerable populations, including children. 

o Preventing raw sewage from contaminating surface and ground waters reduces children‘s 

exposure to disease-causing pathogens or other contaminants which have potential adverse 

health effects. 

o Addressing the human health and environmental threats from of mining and mineral 

processing can reduce exposure to asbestos and lead poisoning in children. 

OECA’s FY 2013 Children Health Measure: In addition to the national initiatives and 

work in different media specific programs, OECA reduces risks to children through compliance 

monitoring and enforcement of lead based paint (LBP) rules. Recent data show that tremendous 

progress has been made in the continuing effort to eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a national 

public health concern. Based on data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 11

(CDC), EPA has measured progress by tracking reductions in the number of children with elevated 

blood lead-levels (EBLLs) of 10 micrograms per deciliter (mg/dL) or higher. CDC data released in 

2009 indicated that the incidence of childhood lead poisoning at 10 mg/dL has declined from

approximately 1.6 percent of children in 2002 to 0.9 percent of children in 2006. 

At the same time, however, new data are revealing adverse health effects to children at lower lead 

levels than previously recognized. Thus, even though initial gains have been encouraging, EPA 

wishes to achieve further reductions in the incidence of children with EBLLs lower than 10 mg/dL. 

Monitoring and enforcement efforts to promote compliance with LBP rules, particularly the 

Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule, advance the goal of eliminating and preventing LBP 

hazards, which are the primary single cause of childhood lead poisoning. These efforts support the 

Agency‘s mission to eliminate childhood lead poisoning. For this reason, the LBP component of 

OECA‘s TSCA 01 ACS commitment, which focuses on inspections, will serve as OECA‘s FY 2013 

measure of compliance work being done to protect children‘s health. 

Better Serving Communities 

In FY 2013, EPA will institutionalize its commitment to support communities both through 

the resources EPA offers and the means by which we coordinate among programs. Since 

March 2010, when Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe convened a multi-region, multiprogram effort to steer the Agency towards using communities as one of the Agency‘s 

―organizing principles,‖ significant progress has been made. A subset of 27 ―communitybased programs‖ have been identified that, while not exhaustive, illustrate the investment 

the agency has made across offices in direct assistance to communities. For example, since 

its inception in 1994, OECA‘s Environmental Justice Small Grants Program has awarded 

more than $23 million in funding to 1,253 community-based organizations, and local and 

tribal organizations working with communities facing environmental justice issues. 

Additionally, geomapping capabilities were completed in March 2012 to help the Agency 

identify and track where EPA is working in communities through grants and technical 

assistance. The geomapping has the potential to better coordinate Headquarters and regional 

efforts and improve the ability to identify potential gaps in service to communities. Finally, 

a new grants policy went into effect on March 31, 2012 establishing a  ̳One EPA‘ approach 

to coordinating and implementing community-based grant programs. 

In implementing EPA‘s long-term goals for an improved environment and better public 

health in communities, for FY 2013, Regions are asked to consider the following 

opportunities where appropriate: 

1) Strengthen involvement and increase investment in one or more of the Agency‘s 

programs that comprise the Community-Based Coordination Network; (Contact: John 

Foster, Office of Sustainable Communities, at foster.john@epa.gov).

2) Support ongoing inter-agency partnerships that align resources or activities in 

communities (e.g. the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, the HUDDOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities, the Urban Waters partnership and 

others); 

3) Adhere to Office of Grants and Disbarment‘s (OGD‘s) Community-Based Grants Policy 

(http://intranet.epa.gov/ogd/policy/gpi_12_02_community_based_grants_03_02_12.pdf),
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 12

including implementing identified best practices for streamlining competitions, considering 

combining competitions, and implementing protocols to geo-code projects for inclusion in 

Agency-wide mapping; 

4) Work with OGD and the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) to post competition 

schedules and other grant information; 

http://www.epa.gov/ogd/training/resources_for_communities/community_grants_table.htm. 

5) Utilize OSWER‘s Technical Assistance Services for Communities (TASC) contract to 

provide technical assistance for communities that find it difficult to manage grants; 

(Contact: Howard Corcoran, OARM, at corcoran.howard@epa.gov). 

6) Increase the amount of training provided to regional staff to work within tribes and other 

communities (for example, OITA‘s Working Effectively with Tribal Governments online 

training, http://intranet.epa.gov /aieointr/training/tribal/EPA/mainmenu/ launchPage.htm, the 

EJ Fundamentals Course available through http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/neti/indexnew.html); and 

7) Work with Marsha Minter of OSWER, Charles Lee of OECA, or John Frece of Office of 

Policy [co-leads for a new community-based KPI in FY12] to identify a pilot project in each 

region to implement the best practices generated through an assessment conducted under the 

FY12 Community-Based KPI. (Contacts: minter.marsha@epa.gov, lee.charles@epa.gov, 

frece.john@epa.gov.) 

Compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

It is a priority of the Agency to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, http://www.epa.gov/civilrights/t6lawrg.htm. This statute prohibits discrimination 

based on race, color, and national origin, including limited English proficiency (LEP), by 

entities receiving Federal financial assistance. 

As required by implementing EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 7, EPA applicants must 

complete EPA Form 4700-4 to demonstrate compliance with Title VI and other non 

discrimination statutes and regulations, http://www.epa.gov/ogd/forms/adobe/4700-

4_sec.pdf. The regulations also impose specific obligations on grant recipients, including 

providing compliance information, establishing grievance procedures, designating a Title VI 

Coordinator, and providing notices of non-discrimination, 

http://www.epa.gov/civilrights/docs/40p0007.pdf. 

Title VI requires EPA financial assistance recipients to provide meaningful access to LEP 

individuals. To implement that requirement, and consistent with Executive Order 13166, 

http://www.epa.gov/cvilrights/docs/eo13166.pdf., the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued 

guidance to recipients entitled, "Guidance to Environmental Protection Agency Financial 

Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin 

Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons."

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2004_register&docid=fr25jn04-79.pd 

OCR also published a Title VI Public Involvement Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients 

Administering Environmental Permitting Programs, 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/06-2691.pdf.

In coordination with the grants management community, OARM will work with OCR and 

the Office of General Counsel to develop and implement appropriate grant conditions, 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 13

training programs and monitoring strategies to help achieve compliance with Title VI and 

implementing regulations and guidance. 

All recipients of EPA financial assistance have an affirmative obligation to implement 

effective Title VI compliance programs and ensure that their actions do not involve 

discriminatory treatment and do not have discriminatory effects even when facially neutral. 

Recipients should be prepared to demonstrate that such compliance programs exist and are 

being implemented or to otherwise demonstrate how they are meeting their Title VI 

obligations. 

F. Significant Changes from FY2012 

The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance‘s FY 2013 guidance continues to focus on 

the Administrator‘s and Assistant Administrator‘s goals, and on aligning enforcement and 

compliance priorities with those of the other EPA national program managers as appropriate. The 

FY 2013 guidance describes specific expectations for Regions in implementing the Assistant 

Administrator‘s priorities and explains how the enforcement program supports the priorities of other 

EPA national programs. Some notable changes in specific programs contained within this guidance 

are as follows: 

Next Generation Compliance: OECA has identified a critical new investment area aimed at 

instituting next generation compliance practices to build 21st century technical capabilities and 

efficiencies in assuring compliance. Consistent with EPA‘s desire to better address large 

regulated universes with approaches that go beyond traditional inspection and enforcement 

activities, OECA and the Regions are supporting the Agency‘s Next Generation Compliance by 

promoting electronic monitoring and reporting to improve targeting and transparency and 

advancing new monitoring technologies to identify violations impacting public health and 

harming the environment. For consent decrees that include a requirement to conduct a 

performance test(s), Regions should seek having electronic copies of required performance test 

reports submitted to the Agency through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) when feasible.

Budget Challenges for FY 2013: Our top priority is ensuring that we address the most 

important violations posing a threat to public health or the environment. It is also essential that 

we invest in new ways to improve the effectiveness of our work, such as monitoring, electronic 

reporting, and innovative enforcement approaches. Maintaining or even increasing our 

investment in these top priorities during lean budget times requires us to make difficult choices, 

and to work in partnership with States and Tribes to ensure that limited funds are focused on 

those compliance and enforcement initiatives that will deliver the greatest benefit to people's 

health. 

In order to ramp up work on these priorities in a time of declining budgets, we necessarily will 

have to cut back in other areas in FY13. In some cases, progress made in the past allows for 

reduced effort today. In other programs, new electronic tools make it possible to do more with 

less, or we can set a higher threshold for taking federal enforcement. In some cases, we will, out 

of necessity, need to consider scaling back on important work. However, in every case we will 

retain our capacity to address the most serious national problems, and will also continue to 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 14

respond to the most egregious cases using criminal enforcement authorities, where that is 

appropriate. 

Although all NPM Guidance documents are being finalized today (per the Agency‘s annual 

schedule), we are still are in the process of discussing the content and schedule for the budget 

adjustments portion of the Guidance. With the participation of all the Regions and OECA 

Offices, we are thinking through the issues associated with implementation of these reductions, 

and considering the input from States and Tribes. We also plan to re-train staff who work in the 

areas of reduced emphasis to take on other compliance and enforcement work. Discussions of 

the budget adjustment plans will continue for the next several months. 

Some changes to the February 10, 2012 proposed OECA NPM Guidance have already been 

made, based on early comments from the States and Regions. For example, due to state 

concerns, we have decided to retain at least a limited national presence in all of the adjustment 

areas and are no longer proposing to completely disinvest in any programs. Some of the budget 

adjustments outlined in this final guidance may be further revised as we continue work on 

implementation plans. 

So that we can transition to the changed profile given budget adjustments, this guidance requests 

that Regions not initiate new work (e.g., inspections) in the areas under consideration for 

reduction, without prior consultation with senior managers in Headquarters. There will be more 

discussion on the consultation process before FY2013. Given the importance of compliance 

monitoring and enforcement work, it will be critical to maintain travel funds for those purposes, 

and to scale back on other types of travel instead where Regional travel funds are limited. 

Two of the budget adjustment areas are not specific to any one media program and are not 

discussed in the media specific sections. For that reason, they are discussed in this section as 

follows: 

Compliance Assistance (non-centers): Advances in information technologies and the 

widespread availability of computer access make it possible for EPA to reconsider the delivery 

of compliance assistance. EPA can provide on demand assistance via the web for many 

regulated parties. States provide the vast amount of direct, day-to-day (or ―retail‖) compliance 

assistance, while third-party providers (such as academic institutions, non-profits, trade 

associations or private consultants) offer more technical guidance and best practices, often on a 

sector-specific basis. EPA programs have an important role to provide compliance guides for 

new regulations that impact small business and do outreach as rules are being promulgated. 

Anticipating tight budgets in FY13 and beyond, EPA‘s enforcement program needs to focus its 

limited resources on the most pressing environmental and noncompliance problems. In that 

context, OECA is planning to reduce its investment in compliance assistance and direct our 

compliance assistance resources where they can have the greatest national impact. Advances in 

IT make this greater impact possible, as we focus on wholesale distribution of compliance 

guides and materials, especially via the web, development of two-way communication (made 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 15

possible by electronic reporting) to deliver electronic assistance, and maximizing the use of 

inspectors to direct companies to assistance resources.3 

Audit Policy/Self-Disclosures: Since implementation of the Audit Policy began in 1995, 

EPA‘s enforcement program has increased its understanding of environmental compliance 

auditing, and believes that internal reviews of compliance have become more widely adopted by 

the regulated community, as part of good management. In addition, EPA has found that most 

violations disclosed under the Policy are not in the highest priority enforcement areas for 

protecting human health and the environment. EPA believes it can reduce investment in the 

program to a limited national presence without undermining the incentives for regulated entities 

to do internal compliance reviews to find and correct violations. As we reduce investment in 

this program, EPA is considering several options, including a modified Audit Policy program 

that is self-implementing.4

Small Business Compliance Policy: EPA will continue to implement this Policy. Although 

this is not a change for FY 2012, we are highlighting this upfront in response to questions 

received. 

RCRA Subtitle C Program: OECA deleted the ACS commitment RCRA 04 for financial 

assurance. However, the NPM Guidance emphasizes that financial assurance compliance 

evaluations should be part of any Compliance Evaluation Inspection. 

Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Program: Starting in FY2013, the One TSCA 

approach includes activities in each TSCA focus area not subject to FY 2013 budget adjustment. 

The extent of those activities is dependent on the suite of problems the Region identifies, and 

the resources available to address them. Many of the activities are likely to be ones that 

Regions have previously conducted, but were not captured in the ACS process. 

CAA 112(r) Program: Potential changes to the definition of high risk facilities under the CAA 

112(r) program have been reflected in this year‘s NPM Guidance. 

Air Toxics National Enforcement Initiative: Industrial facilities emit significant amounts of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Causes include noncompliance with regulations intended to 

prevent the incomplete combustion of HAPs in steam-assisted flares due to low heat content and 

over-steaming. EPA has determined that these problems are particularly likely to occur at 

petroleum refineries and chemical, petrochemical, and polymer manufacturers. Under the Air 

Toxics National Enforcement Initiative (NEI), the Regions are targeting compliance evaluations 

(including CAA Section 114 information requests) at facilities in these sectors. The goal of the 

flaring enforcement enhancements are to improve EPA's efficiency and effectiveness in 

targeting, enforcing against, and reducing illegal emissions of HAPs from flares. We will do so 

by piloting innovative, efficient enforcement approaches, i.e., a flaring efficiency enforcement 

 

3

Note: To meet the agency wide schedule, the final OECA NPM Guidance is being issued now, although we have not 

completed discussions on the content and schedule for the budget adjustments portion of the Guidance. Some of the 

budget adjustments outlined in this final guidance may be revised as we continue work on implementation plans. 

4

 See footnote above. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 16

alert combined with individual-facility flaring notices, and using HQ contractor resources to 

enhance the Regions‘ ability to evaluate facilities' compliance based on their 114 responses, 

respond to violations, and meet existing ACS commitments more efficiently. In addition, we 

will use the results to demonstrate compliance and pollution control impacts beyond individual 

flaring enforcement actions to show general deterrence. 

Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Planning Approach: EPA engaged 

stakeholders to develop and implement an Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater 

Planning Approach Framework to address municipalities' numerous CWA obligations. This 

approach will allow municipalities to prioritize and sequence CWA requirements in a manner 

that addresses the most pressing public health and environmental protection issues first, while 

maintaining existing regulatory standards that protect public health and water quality. All or part 

of an integrated plan may be incorporated into the remedy of enforcement actions and/or into 

NPDES permits. After the details of the development and implementation of this Approach are 

finalized, OECA will decide what modifications to the National Municipal Enforcement 

Initiative are necessary to promote and implement it. More detail about the changes and their 

implications will be made available soon in follow-up to a series of integrated planning 

workshops held with states, local governments and environmental groups. Information can be 

found at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/integratedplans.cfm.

Preparation for implementing the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule: This 

guidance identifies activities the Regions and states must complete to prepare for implementing 

the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, including support of the National 

Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network). 

EJ Screen: OECA will continue to participate in the cross-agency work of the EJ Screen 

Workgroup, which is developing a nationally consistent EJ screening tool (EJ Screen) for 

Agency-wide use. In the interim, OECA will continue to use its internal tool, the 

Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT) and other information 

to support targeting and development of enforcement actions and to enhance performance 

reporting. As we implement Plan EJ 2014, it will be important to ensure that OECA‘s internal 

guidance to enforcement case teams is consistent with the approach(es) being developed by the 

EJ Screen Workgroup. Therefore, upon completion of EJ Screen, OECA expects to phase out 

EJSEAT and other screening tools, and will be working with Regions to provide guidance on 

consistent use of EJ Screen around the country. Sections in this guidance referring to EJSEAT 

will change as a result of the transition to EJ Screen.

FY 2013 Children’s Health Measure for OECA: As proposed, the Lead Based Paint 

component of OECA‘s TSCA 01 ACS commitment, which focuses on lead inspections, will 

serve as OECA‘s FY 2013 measure of compliance work being done to protect children‘s health. 

Inspector Credentials: In FY 2013, Regions will be required to re-credential many of their 

federal inspectors. Documentation of the requirements and the process for obtaining 

credentials are established in EPA Order 3510. EPA Order 3510 also requires that each EPA 

office which prints and distributes credentials (i.e. federal credentials issued to state and tribal 

inspectors to conduct inspections on behalf of EPA) must conduct an annual inventory including 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 17

an annual physical possession check of 10% of the credentials. OECA will work the Regions to 

establish a schedule and necessary steps for the re-credentialing of inspectors. 

Compliance Monitoring National Dialogue: OECA will be holding a national dialogue on 

how to expand the range of compliance monitoring activities to be credited under media 

Compliance Monitoring Strategies (CMS). This is necessary as the regulated universe continues 

to grow while federal and state resources become scarcer. Traditionally, on-site compliance 

inspections and investigations have been the primary means for providing coverage of the 

regulated universe. There are many additional activities regulatory agencies do to monitor 

facility-level compliance that can and should be considered along with inspections and 

investigations as contributing to our coverage goals. EPA Regions, states and tribes will be 

invited to participate in this national dialogue in 2012, and should be ready to implement the 

outcome of this discussion in 2013. 

G. Contacts 

For general questions or comments on the OECA National Program Managers Guidance please 

contact: 

Maureen Lydon 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Office of Compliance 

Planning, Measures, and Oversight Division 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, M2221A 

Washington, DC 20460 

Email: lydon.maureen@epa.gov 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 18

SECTION I: OECA GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT AND FEEDBACK PROCESS 

OECA has structured the NPM Guidance to focus on the performance expectations of the national 

enforcement program in terms of: 1) achieving the Enforcement Goals; 2) making progress in 

attaining compliance within the national enforcement initiative areas; and 3) supporting the EPA 

program offices in achieving their environmental and public health goals. EPA posted the FY 2013

draft NPM Guidance to allow Regions, states, tribes, and others to review and comment on the 

draft. OECA responded to the comments and incorporated changes, as needed, in the final 

document. This final guidance and a Response to Comments Summary have been posted on the 

Internet identifying the changes made in the guidance as a result of comments on the draft. 

SECTION II: SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 

EXPECTATIONS

OECA plays a dual role in setting performance expectations for environmental justice. First, OECA 

oversees national and regional compliance assurance and enforcement programs. In this role, 

OECA ensures that facilities in communities disproportionately impacted by environmental 

problems are complying with the law. OECA aggressively applies regulatory tools to protect these 

communities, engages our regional, federal, state and tribal partners to meet community needs, and 

fosters community involvement in EPA‘s decision-making processes by making information 

available, as appropriate. 

Second, OECA is the National Program Manager for the Agency‘s Environmental Justice (EJ) 

Program, operating as the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ). The EJ Program promotes 

environmental justice to foster public health and sustainability in overburdened communities and 

works to enable all major EPA Headquarter and Regional offices to address environmental justice 

as part of their day-to-day business. In FY13, the OEJ will continue its work with EPA Regional 

Offices to provide communities with funding, technical support, and tools to empower them to take 

action to address issues in their communities. 

OECA and all Regions are implementing the strategies and activities outlined in Advancing 

Environmental Justice through Enforcement and Compliance, one of the five cross-cutting areas 

identified for Agency-wide action in EPA‘s Plan EJ 2014. OECA‘s goals under this Plan are to 

fully integrate consideration of EJ concerns5 into the planning and implementation of program 

strategies, case targeting strategies, and development of remedies in enforcement actions to benefit 

overburdened communities6. OECA also plans to accelerate efforts to communicate more 

 

5 EPA defines ―environmental justice‖ as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, 

color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental 

laws, regulations, and policies. EJ concerns with respect to ―fair treatment‖ arise where there are actual or potential 

disproportionate impacts on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations that exist prior to or that may be created 

by a proposed action. EJ concerns with respect to ―meaningful involvement‖ arise where there is an actual or potential 

lack of opportunities for minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, or tribes, to effectively and appropriately 

participate in decision-making. These terms are discussed in more detail in Part I of EPA‘s “Interim Guidance on 

Considering Environmental Justice during the Development of an Action”

(http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/ej-rulemaking.html). 

6

In Plan EJ 2014, EPA uses the term ―overburdened‖ to describe the minority, low-income, tribal, and indigenous 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 19

effectively with vulnerable and overburdened communities about enforcement actions and program 

activities. 

OECA has developed five strategies for Advancing Environmental Justice through Enforcement and 

Compliance7: 

1. Advance EJ goals through selection and implementation of National Enforcement 

Initiatives. 

2. Advance EJ goals through targeting and development of compliance and enforcement 

actions. 

3. Enhance use of enforcement and compliance tools to advance EJ goals in Regions‘ 

geographic initiatives to address overburdened communities. 

4. Seek appropriate remedies in enforcement actions to benefit vulnerable and overburdened 

communities and address EJ concerns. 

5. Enhance communication with affected communities and the public regarding EJ concerns 

and the distribution and benefits of enforcement actions, as appropriate. 

For FY2013, OECA will address our Plan EJ 2014 goals through the following performance 

expectations.

1. Advance EJ goals through Selection and Implementation of National Enforcement 

Initiatives

OECA will continue to look for opportunities to address EJ concerns as it implements the 

National Enforcement Initiatives for FY2011-13. A ―Strategy Implementation Team,‖ 

consisting of OECA headquarters and regional representatives, developed implementation 

strategies and performance measures for each of the National Enforcement Initiatives. Each 

initiative‘s strategy discusses how EJ concerns can be addressed in carrying out its activities, 

e.g. by considering EJ concerns. The Agency also will seek appropriate judicial and 

administrative remedies that reduce or eliminate pollution that may have a disproportionate 

impact on overburdened populations. 

To support EPA‘s cross-cutting fundamental strategy on Environmental Justice and Children‘s 

Health, OECA‘s EJ Council is evaluating how existing program initiatives/activities can be 

enhanced, as part of Plan EJ 2014, to maximize environmental and human health benefits for 

disproportionately burdened communities. In FY2013, OECA and all Regions will implement 

the National Enforcement Initiatives consistent with this commitment, including reporting on 

these benefits. 

 

populations or communities in the United States that potentially experience disproportionate environmental harms and 

risks as a result of greater vulnerability to environmental hazards. This increased vulnerability may be attributable to an 

accumulation of both negative and lack of positive environmental, health, economic, or social conditions within these 

populations or communities. 

7 The link to OECA‘s Plan EJ 2014 implementation plan is: http://www.epa.gov/environmental justiceplan-ej/ceinitiatives.html
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 20

2. Advance EJ Goals through Targeting and Development of Compliance and Enforcement 

Actions 

OECA and the Regions place a high priority on addressing EJ concerns as the specific targeting 

and case selection strategies for both National Enforcement Initiative and other enforcement 

cases are implemented. As discussed above, the Strategic Implementation Teams for each 

Initiative have identified potential opportunities to protect and benefit overburdened 

communities when selecting and developing specific cases to achieve the Initiative goals. For 

example, facilities that are impacting or threatening the drinking water supplies of poor rural 

communities could be given priority attention when Teams are selecting specific CAFO 

facilities for enforcement action. OECA and the Regions will also give specific consideration 

and attention to overburdened communities, including those in Indian country, when selecting 

enforcement actions to address other important compliance problems. For example, in selecting 

enforcement actions to address violations of drinking water standards, we will give high priority 

to addressing violations at water supply systems that serve poor and tribal communities, as well 

as children, one of our most vulnerable populations. 

OECA will continue to participate in the cross-agency work of the EJ Screen Workgroup, which 

is developing a nationally consistent EJ screening tool (EJScreen) for Agency-wide use. In the 

interim, OECA will continue to use its internal tool, the Environmental Justice Strategic 

Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT) and other information to support targeting and 

development of enforcement actions and to enhance performance reporting. As we implement 

Plan EJ 2014, it will be important to ensure that OECA‘s internal guidance to enforcement case 

teams is consistent with the approach(es) being developed by the EJ Screen Workgroup. 

Therefore, upon completion of EJ Screen, OECA expects to phase out EJSEAT and other 

screening tools, and will be working with Regions to provide guidance on using the national 

tool to develop consistent use of EJ Screen around the country. Sections in this guidance 

referring to EJSEAT will change as a result of the transition to EJ Screen. 

COMMITMENT EJ01: HQ will analyze FY12 EJSEAT data to consider developing a 

baseline for a budget measure related to case initiations in areas with EJ concerns. 

In FY 2013, OECA will evaluate and begin post-pilot implementation of the Technical 

Directive: Reviewing EPA Enforcement Cases for Potential Environmental Justice Concerns 

and Reporting Findings to the ICIS Data System. Regions and OECA will review new 

enforcement cases for potential EJ concerns and enter the EJ data into ICIS in accordance 

with the Technical Directive. 

Each region will review its civil enforcement cases initiated in FY 2013 for Environmental 

Justice concerns in accordance with the internal Technical Directive. All enforcement cases 

with an EJSEAT score of 1, 2, or 3 will receive an enhanced level of review for EJ concerns 

in accordance with the Technical Directive. 

In December, 2011, the Office of Criminal Enforcement issued the policy, ―OCEFT Policy 

to Integrate Environmental Justice Concerns in Assessments of Criminal Investigations‖ and 

will use the EJSEAT, or EJ Screen when it becomes available, as part of assessments for 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 21

potential EJ concerns. OCEFT has modified its Criminal Case Reporting System (CCRS) to 

track EJ reviews. 

3. Enhance Use of Enforcement and Compliance Tools to Advance EJ Goals in Regions’ 

Geographic Initiatives to Address Overburdened Communities 

Regions will continue to develop integrated strategies to focus on particular geographic areas in 

their Regions with overburdened communities that are disproportionately affected by 

environmental problems. Integrated strategies consider the full range of EPA‘s enforcement and 

compliance assurance tools, as appropriate, to identify and address environmental problems in 

areas with EJ concerns that are caused or made worse by violations of federal environmental 

laws. 

Regions, together with states, tribes and other partners as appropriate, should evaluate 

facility compliance in overburdened communities selected for strategic focus. These 

evaluations should be targeted using the best available data and methods in light of the 

overall objectives of EPA‘s enforcement and compliance assurance work. In this way, 

community-focused initiatives will complement the national enforcement initiatives and 

other sector-based and program-specific enforcement activities, meeting OECA‘s goal of 

strategically using limited compliance monitoring and enforcement resources to address the 

most significant issues first. 

Regions should tailor compliance and enforcement actions to enhance EPA‘s ability to gain 

environmental benefits in overburdened communities. For example, this could include use 

of multi-media inspections and/or process inspections to comprehensively address potential 

impacts from violations at a given facility. 

OECA and the Regions should consider activities to effectively reach large numbers of 

small sources with environmental violations that have significant local impacts on 

overburdened communities. 

4. Seek Appropriate Remedies in Enforcement Actions to Benefit Vulnerable and 

Overburdened Communities and Address EJ Concerns 

OECA and the Regions, and the Environmental Enforcement Section of the U.S. Department of 

Justice (DOJ) are jointly heightening their focus in civil enforcement cases on potential options 

to obtain meaningful environmental benefits to specific overburdened communities impacted by 

violations of federal environmental laws. These efforts go beyond traditional injunctive relief to 

stop illegal pollution, to provide for mitigation of the environmental harm caused by illegal 

pollution and, where appropriate and agreed to by defendants, Supplemental Environmental 

Projects (SEPs) to provide benefits to communities. For example, in a case involving illegal 

discharges of pollutants from a facility that damaged a tribal fishing area, the relief ordered (in 

addition to stopping the illegal discharges) included restocking the fishing ground. EPA has 

also been successful in obtaining SEPs from defendants to retrofit diesel school buses to reduce 

children‘s exposure to air pollution. We will continue and accelerate these types of efforts to 

reduce pollution burdens that have a disproportionate impact on overburdened populations. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 22

In addition to the benefits that can be obtained for overburdened communities through judicial 

and administrative enforcement actions, there may be other, parallel opportunities to obtain 

additional benefits for the community through cooperation with other federal agencies, state or 

local governments, and/or the business community. For example, the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development may be able to provide housing assistance or other 

community benefits in a ―brownfields‖ area where EPA has taken enforcement action to clean 

up environmental contamination. State or local governments may have projects or grant 

funding that can be used to improve the community‘s infrastructure or environment in an area 

that is also the focus of EPA compliance or enforcement action. In situations where air 

emissions from multiple industrial facilities continue to adversely affect community health 

despite their compliance with emission limitations, some business communities may be willing 

to work together to take voluntary action to further reduce the emissions that adversely affect 

the community. Examples of such voluntary actions may include: a health clinic established 

and operated together with local, state and community members; a household hazardous waste 

collection drive; a local company voluntarily agreeing to post compliance monitoring 

information directly on a public website to allow community members to check on compliance; 

―good neighbor agreements‖ between local companies and communities to address facility 

impacts not regulated by a permit or other law. OECA and the Regions will identify specific 

opportunities, as appropriate, in cases or regional geographic initiatives, to work with other 

federal agencies, state and local governments, and/or the business community to complement 

and leverage benefits resulting from enforcement activities. OECA and the Regions will 

document and share recommendations and best practices for taking action on these 

opportunities. 

OECA‘s criminal enforcement program is engaged in similar activities. In cases considered to 

have potential EJ concerns the criminal investigation team will meet with the regional EJ 

coordinator to obtain additional information supporting the preliminary EJ determination as well 

as the community‘s health and environmental problems. OCEFT will increase efforts to benefit 

affected communities by working with DOJ to (1) explore innovative uses of criminal 

sentencing options, e.g., community service or environmental compliance plans, and (2) take 

into account information obtained pursuant to the Crimes Victim‘s Rights Act (CVRA) when 

developing environmental crimes case resolutions, e.g., restitution. The CVRA provides crime 

victims with multiple rights, including the right to be heard in a sentencing proceeding and the 

right to full and timely restitution. The CVRA also authorizes the courts to fashion reasonable 

procedures to give effect to the statute‘s requirements when multiple crime victims – such as a 

neighborhood or community – are involved. Restitution and community service may partially 

or fully remedy the harm caused by the violation(s), as well as improve the environment of the 

affected overburdened communities and the health of its residents. Even where the specific 

pollution and/or harmful effects caused by the crime may no longer be mitigated or remedied, 

community service can address similar threats in the same ecosystem or general geographic 

area. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 23

5. Enhance Communication with Affected Communities and the Public Regarding EJ 

Concerns and the Distribution and Benefits of Enforcement Actions, As Appropriate 

OECA and EPA Regions, with the Department of Justice, will continue to increase their 

communication with affected communities and the public about enforcement strategies and 

actions that may affect vulnerable and overburdened communities. OECA recognizes that 

communities have a legitimate need to be informed and to understand the federal government‘s 

enforcement activities to protect their environment, and to have their voices heard when 

solutions are being considered to redress environmental problems caused by violations of 

federal environmental laws that affect their community. As OECA implements Plan EJ 2014, 

we commit to increase our outreach to communities and to provide more information about 

environmental problems caused by failure to comply with federal environmental laws, our 

efforts to address those problems, and available judicial and administrative solutions to those 

problems that can address the communities‘ concerns and needs.

At the same time, it is important for affected communities, including Tribal governments, to 

understand the legitimate and essential need to protect the confidentiality of enforcement 

activity when a case is under development and in settlement negotiations. This is essential to 

assure that effective enforcement, and its ultimate benefits for the community, will not be 

undermined and adversely affected by premature disclosure of confidential enforcement 

information. While this consideration will necessarily limit the amount and kind of information 

that EPA is able to share with the community at various stages of enforcement activity, we are 

committed to sharing as much information as possible to enable communities to be informed 

and to have their voices heard in the determination of appropriate resolutions for violations of 

federal environmental laws that affect communities. 

While increased communication is important, it is no less important to receive input from 

affected communities on potential violations. We will continue to invite tips and complaints, 

including through such means as OECA‘s on-line reporting badge and the EPA fugitives 

webpage. 

OECA and the Regions will review their enforcement dockets to identify communities with 

EJ concerns that could benefit from enhanced communication and consultation regarding 

enforcement activities, and provide the communities, including Tribal governments, with 

additional information (consistent with the confidentiality requirements needed to protect 

the integrity of enforcement actions). 

OECA and the Regions will also provide opportunities for communities to provide input on 

EJ concerns and remedies to be sought in enforcement actions that affect their communities. 

This information will be provided through EPA‘s website, local information repositories, 

and other appropriate means. 

To assist in identifying the risks and pollution experienced by a community due to 

environmental crimes and potential remedies, OECA and DOJ will consider information 

obtained pursuant to the Crime Victim‘s Rights Act (CVRA). In these situations, 

appropriate CVRA mechanisms may be utilized for outreach to and communication with 

victims, input into case resolution, and sentencing. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 24

OECA and the Regions recognize that EPA‘s enforcement processes, e.g. the enforcement 

processes concerning hazardous waste site cleanup that affect communities with EJ 

concerns, are often complicated and can be difficult for the public to understand and to 

follow. To increase affected communities‘ ability to understand our enforcement processes, 

EPA will continue to improve the accessibility to communities of the information provided 

on EPA‘s website, develop and make available fact sheets to better explain EPA‘s 

enforcement process at particular sites, and update for internal EPA use a compendium of 

―best practices‖ that will encourage and facilitate EPA employees‘ efforts to make 

enforcement information more available to the public. EPA‘s enforcement actions frequently 

provide significant benefits to vulnerable and overburdened communities, including 

reduction of air or water pollution, cleanup of toxic and hazardous waste, and additional 

community benefits such as diesel bus retrofits and other benefits made available through 

Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs). However, the community is able to 

appreciate these benefits only to the extent that it is aware of them. Therefore, OECA and 

the Regions will continue accelerating our efforts to communicate, through press releases, 

our website and other means, the benefits of our enforcement actions for vulnerable and 

overburdened communities, consistent with the internal memorandum entitled ―Guidance on 

Characterizing and Communicating Environmental Justice Benefits Achieved in 

Enforcement Actions‖ (Sept. 2011). 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 25

SECTION III: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM AIR POLLUTION 

A. Clean Air Act (CAA) 

OECA addresses air pollution problems through the following CAA programs: 

Part 60 - New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

Part 61- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

Part 63 -Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

o Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) – major sources 

o Generally Available Control Technology (GACT) – area sources 

New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD) 

Enforcement of State plans developed and approved under Sections 110 and 111(d) 

Title V Operating Permits 

Part 82-Title VI Stratospheric Ozone Protection 

Section 112(r) Prevention of Accidental Releases 

Title II (Emission Standards for Moving Sources) 

Section 129 Solid Waste Combustion 

1. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives 

The relevant FY 2011 – 2013 national enforcement initiatives for CAA programs are discussed 

below. Region-specific commitments for activities to support the goals and measures are negotiated 

through the ACS process. 

Cutting Toxic Air Pollution that Affects Communities’ Health: In 1990, Congress identified 

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), currently totaling 187, that present significant threats to human 

health and have adverse ecological impacts (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/188polls.html). The 

pollutants are known or suspected to cause cancer and other serious health effects, such as 

reproductive or birth defects. The threats posed by HAPs may be particularly significant for 

communities overburdened by exposure to environmental risks, including urban minority and lowincome communities, as well as those with greater concentrations of sensitive populations. The 

CAA and EPA‘s regulations impose strict emission control requirements (known as ―Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology‖ or ―MACT‖) for these pollutants, which are emitted by a wide 

range of industrial and commercial facilities. For FY2011-13, EPA will target and reduce emissions 

of toxic air pollutants in three areas where the Agency has determined there are high rates of 

noncompliance: (A) leak detection and repair; (B) waste gas flares; and (C) excess emissions, 

including those associated with startup, shut down and malfunction. Through the Air Toxics 

Initiative, EPA will undertake compliance monitoring and enforcement activities to maximize 

environmental and human health benefits, which is particularly important for disproportionately 

burdened communities. As part of this effort, OECA will utilize innovative monitoring and 

evaluation techniques and partner with EPA‘s Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and Office of 

Research and Development. OECA will also provide equipment and training to inspectors to 

enhance the effectiveness of on-site activities.
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 26

Reducing Widespread Air Pollution from the Largest Sources, Especially the Coal-fired 

Utility, Cement, Glass, and Acid Sectors: The NSR/PSD requirements of the CAA require certain 

large industrial facilities to install state-of-the-art air pollution controls when they build new 

facilities or make ―significant modifications‖ to existing facilities. However, many industries have 

not complied with these requirements, leading to excess emissions of air pollutants such as sulfur 

dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. These pollutants can be carried long distances by 

the wind and can have significant adverse effects on human health, including asthma, respiratory 

diseases and premature death. These effects may be particularly significant for communities 

overburdened by exposure to environmental risks and vulnerable populations, including children. In 

recent years, EPA has made considerable progress in reducing excess pollution by bringing 

enforcement actions against coal-fired power plants, cement manufacturing facilities, sulfuric and 

nitric acid manufacturing facilities, and glass manufacturing facilities. However, work remains to be 

done to bring these sectors into compliance with the CAA and protect communities burdened with 

harmful air pollution. Therefore EPA will continue this work as a National Enforcement Initiative 

for FY2011-2013. EPA will also place emphasis on compliance evaluations and enforcement 

actions relating to the carbon black industry. 

As of January 2, 2011, EPA also began regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) under its NSR 

program. EPA will endeavor to ensure these pollutants are also addressed in any process changes or 

modification that gives rise to NSR requirements. 

Assuring Energy Extraction Sector Compliance with Environmental Laws: As the nation 

expands its search for new forms and sources of energy, there is an urgent need to assure that we 

develop ―clean energy‖ sources that protect our air, water and land. Some energy extraction 

activities, such as new techniques for gas extraction, pose a risk of pollution of air, surface waters 

and ground waters if not properly controlled. For example, an unprecedented acceleration of 

natural gas leasing and development has led to a significant rise in the level of air pollution 

throughout the intermountain West. Drilling and fracking activities have led to concerns about 

ground water pollution and the safety of drinking water supplies in various parts of the country. As 

part of OECA‘s energy extraction enforcement initiative, EPA is utilizing a range of its authorities, 

including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to address noncompliance from natural gas 

extraction and production activities that may cause or contribute to adverse public health impacts.

2. Link with Top Office of Air and Radiation Priorities 

OECA addresses top OAR priorities in the following ways: 

Greenhouse Gases (GHG): OECA continues to support the Agency‘s climate strategy by 

recognizing reductions of global warming pollution in settlements of enforcement actions. 

OECA and OAR will implement a National Implementation Strategy for the Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Program, which will provide guidance to Regions on compliance monitoring 

and enforcement activities to support the integrity of the GHG monitoring and reporting 

system. As noted above, OECA will also ensure that sources undertaking certain process 

changes or modification that result in significant GHG emissions go through proper New 

Source Review permitting.
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 27

Air Toxics in Communities: OECA will address this Agency priority through the 2011 –

2013 National Enforcement Initiative - cutting toxic air pollution that affects communities‘ 

health. OECA also is working closely with OAR and ORD to reduce toxic air pollution 

through standards, permitting, compliance monitoring and assistance activities, and 

enforcement, especially in communities overburdened by environmental problems.

3. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 

Air pollution is of great concern to communities both near its source and remotely located. Air 

pollutants that are emitted closer to the ground, for example as a result of equipment leaks or low 

stack height, can cause disproportionate exposure for neighboring communities. In industrial areas, 

these communities frequently have significant low income and minority populations. Serious health 

effects caused by air pollution include difficulty in breathing, exacerbation of respiratory and 

cardiac conditions, and cancer. 

In addition to the activities being conducted pursuant to the national enforcement initiatives, 

Regions and delegated state, tribal and local agencies should: 

Implement programs in accordance with existing national compliance and enforcement policy 

and guidance [e.g., the CAA Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS), the 

CAA National Stack Testing Guidance, the Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to 

High Priority Violations (HPV Policy)]; and the Area Source Implementation Guidance to 

address significant air pollution problems that adversely affect impacted communities with 

special attention directed toward reducing toxic air pollution. Regions should work with 

delegated state, tribal and local agencies to ensure that they are familiar with national guidance, 

aware of the flexibilities within the guidance, and implement their programs consistent with the 

guidance. 

To identify the most important air pollution problems and the most serious violations, use 

targeting tools and other information, including, but not limited to, the National Scale Air 

Toxics Assessment (NATA) data, chemical toxicity data, non-attainment areas, and the 

Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT). Community input 

should also be considered. Regions and delegated agencies should continue to work with EPA 

Headquarters to develop new targeting tools to help focus resources on the most important 

problems. 

Have a clearly defined process for identifying, targeting, evaluating, prioritizing, and responding 

to CAA violations. 

Work together to initiate civil and criminal enforcement actions, as appropriate, and whenever 

necessary to protect communities by addressing and ultimately resolving serious air violations 

in order to bring sources into compliance. 

Evaluate all violations, determine an appropriate response, and take timely and appropriate 

actions against facilities determined to have High Priority Violations (HPV). 

Enter data in the Air Facility System (AFS) on all federally-reportable violations, not just HPVs, 

consistent with the ―Clarification Regarding Federally-Reportable Violations for Clean Air Act 

Stationary Sources‖ (―2010 FRV Clarification‖) issued on March 22, 2010.

Negotiate settlements and track compliance with consent decrees and administrative orders and 

take all necessary actions to ensure compliance with the terms of federal enforcement actions. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 28

Participate in a national dialogue to broaden the types of activities that may be counted as 

compliance monitoring under the CAA CMS. Traditionally, on-site compliance evaluations and 

investigations have been the primary means for undertaking coverage of the regulated universe. 

However, as the regulated universe of sources continues to expand and challenge our ability to 

conduct on-site evaluations, EPA and delegated agencies need to use available resources in the 

most effective manner to determine facility compliance. 

The CAA CMS does currently encourage the use of a variety of techniques to determine 

compliance [on-site and off-site Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs), Partial Compliance 

Evaluations (PCEs), and Investigations]. Nevertheless, a national dialogue to identify additional 

activities and analyses that provide facility-specific compliance status information would add 

important tools and techniques to our compliance monitoring toolbox. As additional activities 

are identified, EPA will consider how to incorporate them into the CAA CMS and the annual 

negotiations between Regions and delegated agencies regarding commitments for compliance 

monitoring plans. 

In addition, the Regions should: 

Continue any on-going investigations and initiate new ones, as appropriate. Activities reported 

as investigations should meet the definition of an investigation as provided in the CMS and 

minimum data requirements. Regions must review and approve state implementation plans 

(SIPs) as well as track the compliance status of sources within various regulatory programs 

under the Clean Air Act. Both initiated and completed investigations are to be reported in 

AFS. 

Review Title V permits consistent with national guidance and ensure the delegated 

agencies/tribes are reviewing the certifications consistent with the CMS. Regions also should 

ensure that Title V permits do not shield sources subject to a pending or current CAA 

enforcement action or investigation, and that draft Title V permits include appropriate 

placeholder language for the applicable requirement at any affected units. Regions should 

ensure that consent decree requirements, including required schedules of compliance are 

incorporated into underlying federally enforceable non-Title V and Title V permits.

Inspect federal facilities, initiate enforcement actions to address non-compliance at federal 

facilities, and seek penalties, where appropriate, consistent with the 1997 penalty policy for 

CAA violations by federal agencies. 

Perform CAA section 112(r) inspections at regulated facilities in the Region, including high 

risk facilities. A high risk facility is one that meets one or more of the following criteria: 1) 

facilities whose reported Risk Management Program (RMP) worst-case scenario population 

that exceeds 100,000 people; 2) any RMP facility with a hazard index greater than or equal to 

25; and/or 3) facilities that have had one or more significant accidental releases within the 

previous five years. (Note: facilities that have only program 1 processes8 are not considered 

 

8

Program 1: Processes which would not affect the public in the case of a worst-case release (in the 

language of Part 68, processes ―with no public receptors within the distance to an endpoint from a 

worst-case release‖) and with no accidents with specific offsite consequences within the past five 

years are eligible for Program 1, which imposes limited hazard assessment requirements and 

minimal prevention and emergency response requirements. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 29

high risk). Inspections at high-risk facilities should also include an evaluation of compliance 

with applicable EPCRA and CERCLA requirements. Regional program managers may, after 

consultation with and approval by headquarters, alter the population and/or hazard index 

thresholds for their region in order to include additional facilities on the regional high-risk list. 

Regions may use this approach to account for region-by-region variations in population 

density, types of covered facilities, facility geographic clustering or other factors. However, all 

changes to the high-risk criteria must first be approved by headquarters. 

Evaluate facilities that experience significant chemical accidents to determine compliance with 

CAA sections 112(r)(1) and (7) and pursue an appropriate enforcement response for any 

violations. 

Conduct CAA section 112(r) inspections in accordance with the 2011 ―Guidance for 

Conducting Risk Management Program Inspections under Clean Air Act Section 112(r)‖ This 

document established final EPA policy on involvement of facility employees and employee 

representatives in EPA and delegated agency on-site compliance inspections as provided for in 

CAA section 112(r)(6)(L). 

Focus on identifying RMP non-filers and initiating enforcement in accordance with the June 

30, 2010 memorandum titled  ̳Identification of Facilities Subject to 40 CFR Part 68‘. Settle 

or litigate cases filed in years prior to FY 2013. 

Exercise authority in accordance with the 2008 Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment 

Rule and the Amendments to the CAA Civil Penalty Policy. 

Ensure compliance with environmental statutes in Indian country unless and until a Tribe 

obtains primacy. Regions should, when appropriate, authorize state and tribal inspectors to 

conduct compliance evaluations on EPA‘s behalf. Authorization decisions, training, and 

tracking of state and tribal inspectors should be undertaken consistent with OECA‘s Guidance 

for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of State/Tribal 

Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004).

EPA Order 3510 requires that each EPA office which prints and distributes credentials (i.e. 

federal credentials issued to state and tribal inspectors to conduct inspections on behalf of EPA) 

conduct an annual inventory, including an annual physical possession check of 10% of the 

credentials. 

Support the Agency‘s Next Generation Compliance by promoting electronic monitoring and 

reporting to improve compliance, transparency and targeting as well as by advancing new 

monitoring technologies to enhance the ability to identify violations that may harm public 

health and/or the environment. For example, for consent decrees that include a requirement to 

conduct a performance test(s), Regions should seek having electronic copies of required 

performance test reports submitted to the Agency through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) 

when feasible. 

COMMITMENT CAA04: The number of compliance evaluations (or other agreed upon 

compliance monitoring activities pursuant to the national dialogue on CAA compliance monitoring) 

to be conducted by the Regions at majors sources, 80% synthetic minors, and other sources (as 

appropriate). [Note: Region should break out evaluation projections by source classification and by 

compliance monitoring category (FCE, PCE, and Investigations).] In the comment section, each 

region should also provide the number of federal facility FCEs, PCEs and investigations. Projected 

investigations under this commitment are those investigations initiated by the Regions for the air 

 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 30

enforcement program outside of the National Enforcement Initiatives, and identified by the air 

program (e.g., MACT, NSPS). 

4. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes 

The Regions should work with the delegated state, local and tribal agencies to identify priorities and 

align resources to implement the above commitments. This includes: 

Holding annual planning meetings with senior federal and state management to discuss air 

quality standards, permitting, and enforcement when developing program goals and annual 

monitoring and enforcement work plans. Convening routine and regular (several times per 

year) meetings with senior state management to assess progress in how the state has been 

performing overall in its implementation of the program. These meetings may be held in person 

or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. Regular frequency of these 

meetings is strongly suggested as a best practice for ensuring progress in meeting goals. Such 

meetings also will help to further region/state/local communications to ensure resources are 

used most effectively to address the most significant environmental sources of pollution and the 

most serious noncompliance. 

In instances where a delegated state, tribe or local agency is not meeting performance 

expectations, EPA Regions should focus oversight resources to the most pressing performance 

problems and work to demonstrably improve the delegated agency‘s performance through these 

actions. The Regions need to take action when necessary to raise awareness about issues 

needing attention to achieve the goals of the federal environmental laws and ensure a level 

playing field between and among states and Indian Country. The Regions should ensure 

delegated agencies implement compliance monitoring and enforcement programs in accordance 

with national guidance/policy (e.g., the CAA CMS; HPV Policy; CAA National Stack Testing 

Guidance; Area Source Implementation Guidance), and consistent with revisions to national 

emission standards, including the treatment of emissions from startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction events. The Regions should monitor the level and quality of efforts undertaken by 

the delegated agencies to ensure strong enforcement of environmental laws. In the absence of 

an appropriate response by a delegated agency, the Region should take enforcement action to 

address serious violations. Enforcement actions, whether taken by the Regions, delegated 

states, tribes or local agencies, should be timely, appropriate, and accurately reported. 

Negotiating facility-specific CMS plans with all delegated agencies. Throughout the year, the 

Regions are to be evaluating progress and working with delegated agencies to revise such CMS 

plans as necessary. Such planning processes are to aid the delegated agencies in fully utilizing 

the flexibilities available in the CMS and tailoring strategies to state/local-specific 

circumstances. 

Having frequent (at least monthly) discussions with delegated agencies to ensure consistent 

implementation of the HPV Policy. 

Implementing the State Review Framework (SRF) for the CAA Program and ensuring progress 

with corrective actions identified in the SRF reports. 

Regional direct implementation in Indian country includes applying the various CAA 

compliance monitoring strategies and enforcement policies, and OECA’s Guidance on the

Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy (January 17, 2001). OECA’s 

Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy contains 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 31

procedures for consultation with federally-recognized tribes in the civil compliance monitoring 

and enforcement context and contains threshold criteria for EPA‘s consideration of enforcement 

actions. The threshold criteria are not intended to, and should not, result in a lesser degree of 

human health and environmental protection in Indian country than elsewhere in the U.S. 

COMMITMENT CAA06: Ensure that delegated state, tribal and local agencies implement their 

compliance and enforcement programs in accordance with the CAA CMS and have negotiated 

facility-specific CMS plans in place. The Regions are to provide the number of FCEs at majors and 

80% synthetic minors to be conducted by individual state/local agencies to demonstrate program 

implementation consistent with CMS. However, if a delegated agency negotiates with a Region an 

alternative CMS plan or alternative activities (pursuant to the CAA CMS national dialogue), this 

commitment should reflect the alternative plan. [Note: Break out evaluation and activity 

projections (e.g., FCEs; PCEs included in alternative plan) by source classification.] Prior to 

approving an alternative plan, Regions should consult with the Office of Compliance (OC) and 

provide OC with information on how the state, tribal or local agency compliance monitoring air 

resources will be redirected and the rationale for making the change. 

5. Improve Transparency 

The Regions should: 

Work with the delegated state, tribal and local agencies to verify that their compliance and 

enforcement data is added to the Air Facility System (AFS), the national repository for air 

stationary source compliance monitoring and enforcement data. 

Enter complete, accurate, and timely data consistent with the AFS Information Collection 

Request (ICR) and Agency policies. Agreements with delegated agencies to provide complete, 

accurate, and timely data should be incorporated in documents such as memorandum of 

understanding (MOU), State Enforcement Agreements (SEAs), Performance Partnership 

Agreements (PPAs)/ Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs) or Section 105 grant agreements. 

Such complete, accurate, timely data is a critical component of effective transparency. 

Work with EPA Headquarters to ensure that when delegated agencies use the flexibilities 

offered in the CMS to tailor their strategy to state/local specific circumstances, such use of 

flexibility is taken into account to accurately represent delegated agency performance in 

program reviews and to the public.

Work with EPA Headquarters to modernize the Air Facilities System (AFS).

Acid Rain: Given tight budgets, EPA is looking for efficiencies in areas of the air program, such as 

the area of acid rain. Sources of acid rain consistently have high compliance rates because nearly 

all sources have a Continuous Emissions Monitor (CEM) system that must be used and their sulfur 

dioxide allowances are tracked in a national database. The use of CEMs, transparency, and the 

continued and robust enforcement of the Clean Air Act‘s New Source Review requirements have 

resulted in strong compliance performance. In addition, the pollutants covered by the acid rain 

program are also addressed by other EPA programs. In light of these factors, EPA‘s enforcement 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 32

program is able to shift to a limited national presence in this area and focus its specific acid rain 

resources on other high priority work9.

Stratospheric Ozone: Through a multitude of innovative and flexible regulatory approaches and 

voluntary programs, the Agency continues to meet its responsibility for protecting the stratospheric 

ozone layer. For example, the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) implements regulatory programs 

to phase out the production and import of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) in the U.S. and guides 

the transition to safer substitutes while assuring U.S. compliance with treaty obligations under the 

Montreal Protocol. OAR also has several voluntary partnerships to encourage superior 

performance, such as ―Green Chill,‖ a partnership with those grocery store chains that want to 

improve their environmental performance, while saving money by reducing leaks of ozone and 

climate-damaging refrigerants. The effectiveness of these programs allows the enforcement 

program to reduce enforcement resources in this area to a limited national presence, and to focus on 

responding to the most serious violations in this program (e.g., illegal importation of ODS). 

Through regulatory and voluntary efforts as well as international engagement, education, and 

outreach, the Agency will continue to make significant strides to protect the ozone layer, reduce 

emissions of high global warming potential gases, and protect people‘s health.10

Asbestos NESHAPs: The Clean Air Act (CAA) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) for Asbestos specifies work practices to be followed during demolitions and 

renovations of asbestos-containing structures, installations, and buildings (excluding residential 

buildings that have four or fewer dwelling units). Building owners and/or contractors are required 

to notify applicable State and local agencies and/or EPA Regional Offices before demolitions or 

renovations of buildings that contain a certain threshold amount of asbestos. EPA and states 

conduct inspections as needed, take enforcement actions when violations of notification or work 

practices are identified, and make Applicability Determinations (AD) under the regulations. 

In light of budget constraints expected in FY13, EPA will maintain a limited national presence for 

asbestos NESHAP enforcement, with a focus on high-priority federal activities such as assessing, 

advising, and supporting state and local emergency response and recovery after catastrophic 

situations (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornadoes) where structures with asbestos containing 

materials have been destroyed and normal procedures for abating asbestos before demolition are not 

feasible. Headquarters‘ development of new regulatory applicability determinations will be limited 

to requests that pose issues of first impression that are of national importance. Criminal 

enforcement will continue to be a viable and robust tool to address criminal violations of the 

Asbestos NESHAP regulations. Delegated state programs will continue to conduct the day-to-day 

activities associated with the receipt of notifications and related compliance monitoring and 

enforcement activities.11

 

9

Note: To meet the agency wide schedule, the final OECA NPM Guidance is being issued now, although we have not 

completed discussions on the content and schedule for the budget adjustments portion of the Guidance. Some of the 

budget adjustments outlined in this final guidance may be revised as we continue work on implementation plans. 

10See previous footnote. 

11 See previous footnote. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 33

Wood Heater Program: New regulatory approaches being proposed provide opportunities for 

EPA to utilize its resources more effectively in monitoring and enforcement. EPA‘s Office of Air 

and Radiation is proposing changes to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for 

residential wood heaters. The proposed rule will reflect significant advancements in wood heater 

technologies and design that limit particulate matter emissions. The proposed revisions are 

expected to require manufacturers to use third-party laboratories to review certification reports and 

submit compliance paperwork electronically. The proposal will also consider Agency coordination 

of compliance, monitoring, and enforcement activities with State and local governments. EPA will 

maintain a limited national role, focused on managing the certification process and conducting 

limited compliance and enforcement activities. Resource savings will be directed to other highpriority enforcement work. This approach is possible because of the substantial emission reductions 

achieved by the manufacturers of wood heaters and the anticipated streamlining of the NSPS' 

compliance, monitoring, and enforcement activities.12

 

6. Relevant Policies and Guidance 

Additional information about OECA‘s CAA programs can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/index.html 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/caa/index.html

List of relevant CAA policies and guidance: 

The Air Facility System Business Rules Compendium 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/data/systems/air/afsbusinessrulescompendium.pdf

The Air Facility System Minimum Data Requirements 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/data/systems/air/mdrshort.pdf

CAA Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/cmspolicy.pdf

CAA National Stack Testing Guidance 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/caa/stacktesting.pdf

Area Source Rule Implementation Guidance 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/caa/areasource.pdf

The Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to High Priority Violations 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/issue-ta-rpt.pdf

The Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to High Priority Violations Workbook 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/hpvmanualrevised.pdf

CAA Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/penpol.pdf

CAA Section 112(r) Combined Enforcement Policy 

http://epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/caa112r-enfpol.pdf 

Guidance for Conducting Risk Management Program Inspections under Clean Air Act Section 112(r) 

www.epa.gov/oem/docs/chem/audit_gd.pdf

Civil Penalty Policies http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/penalty/

 

12 Note: To meet the agency wide schedule, the final OECA NPM Guidance is being issued now, although we have not 

completed discussions on the content and schedule for the budget adjustments portion of the Guidance. Some of the 

budget adjustments outlined in this final guidance may be revised as we continue work on implementation plans. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 34

SECTION IV: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM WATER POLLUTION 

A. Clean Water Act (CWA) 

OECA addresses water pollution problems resulting from noncompliance with our nation‘s 

environmental statutes and regulations, including the following CWA programs: 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program (including general and 

individual permits from sources such as municipal and industrial wastewater treatment 

facilities and their collection systems, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), 

industrial stormwater, and vessels). 

Pretreatment Program 

Biosolids/Sludge Program 

CWA Section 404 (Wetlands) Program 

CWA Section 311 (Oil Pollution Act, including the Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasures (SPCC) Program) 

1. Clean Water Act Action Plan 

OECA, together with EPA Regions, states and tribes with program delegation, and the Office of 

Water, continues to implement the CWA Action Plan (―the Action Plan‖) issued in October 2009. 

Pursuant to the Action Decision Document, issued in May 2011, EPA is making four fundamental 

changes to revamp the NPDES permitting, compliance and enforcement program to better address 

today‘s serious water quality problems:

1. Switch from existing paper reporting to electronic reporting, resulting in increased efficiency 

and improved transparency of the NPDES program. 

2. Use ―Next Generation Compliance‖ approaches to create a new paradigm in which regulations 

and permits compel compliance via public accountability, self-monitoring, self-certification, 

electronic reporting and other methods. 

3. Address the most serious water pollution problems by fundamentally re-tooling key NPDES 

permitting and enforcement practices, while continuing to vigorously enforce against serious 

violators.

4. Conduct comprehensive and coordinated permitting, compliance, and enforcement programs to 

improve state and EPA performance in protecting and improving water quality. 

These elements are consistent with the Assistant Administrator‘s goals for the compliance and 

enforcement program, listed on pages 6-7 of this Guidance. 

Regions and authorized states should participate in workgroups tasked with designing and 

implementing these changes as well as use the new tools, policies and regulations as appropriate. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 35

For FY2013, Regions should participate in the following CWA Action Plan efforts:

1. In preparation for implementing the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, the 

Regions must: 

a. Ensure states not already migrated to ICIS-NPDES meet all milestones and 

schedules for migrating by end of first quarter FY2013. 

b. Actively market and implement the use of NetDMR by permittees for the electronic 

transfer of Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) to ICIS-NPDES, supported by the 

National Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network). The 

Regions should also begin implementing OECA‘s new electronic Notice of Intent 

(eNOI) tool which is planned to be completed by the end of first quarter FY2013 

contingent on FY2012 funding; 

c. Ensure their states are preparing for the implementation of the electronic reporting 

rule by adopting the use of EPA electronic reporting tools (NetDMR, eNOI), or 

developing their own state e-reporting tools. The plan is to have the first reporting 

under the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule begin January 2014. 

d. Work closely with the Office of Compliance to individually evaluate their states 

readiness to implement the electronic reporting rule, including: 

i. CROMERR-compliant electronic reporting tools; 

ii. State system readiness; and 

iii. Level of participation using the state e-reporting tools (i.e., 90% participation 

by NPDES-regulated facilities). 

2. Where appropriate, and in accordance with any subsequent guidance, enforcement actions 

should require electronic reporting, as appropriate, for all data required by the enforcement 

actions. 

3. Where appropriate, and in accordance with any subsequent guidance, compliance and 

enforcement personnel should provide relevant feedback to permitting offices regarding 

permit prioritization and modifications to consider when new permits are developed or a 

permit is renewed. Permit writers should consider comments provided by inspectors and/or 

enforcement personnel in developing appropriate permit conditions. 

4. Where the Regions have direct implementation responsibilities, and where data can be made 

available, utilize multi-sector general permit (MSGP) violation and benchmark data to 

support monitoring, targeting and enforcement. 

5. Actively participate in CWA Action Plan projects including those to address effluent 

violations reported on Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) using new strategies and 

tools, such as expedited administrative enforcement actions and electronic compliance 

assistance. Consider innovative approaches to deal with more routine paperwork violations. 

6. Designated regional and HQ managers and staff should use the results of the 2012 

enforcement management system (EMS) gap analysis, consider input obtained from the 

states, and help to draft new approaches for a revised CWA/NPDES EMS framework that 

supports the principles described in the 2009 CWA Action Plan. This framework will 

supersede the existing CWA/NPDES EMS that is used to prioritize violations for 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 36

appropriate enforcement responses. Full implementation of the NPDES electronic reporting 

rule will be a key pre-requisite to implementing the new EMS. 

7. Regions should broaden the scope of targeting, monitoring, enforcement and state oversight 

beyond traditional NPDES majors. New targeting tools, such as the DMR Pollutant Loading 

Tool, can be used to determine the source, location and amount of discharged pollutants. It 

includes a subset of non-major facilities, and can be found at: 

www.epa.gov/pollutantdischarges. 

2. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives 

Implementation strategies have been developed for the National Enforcement Initiatives that include 

final goals and measures, and guidance on implementation. Region–specific commitments for 

activities to support the goals and measures are negotiated through the ACS process. 

The FY 2011 – 2013 national enforcement initiatives for CWA programs are: 

Keeping Raw Sewage and Contaminated Stormwater Out of Our Nation’s Waters: EPA will 

continue its enforcement focus on reducing discharges of raw sewage and contaminated stormwater 

into our nation‘s rivers, streams and lakes. Older urban areas with aging sewer systems are 

problematic because these systems were not designed to handle heavy rainfall and snowfall, nor can 

they handle the added burden of growing urban populations and industrial discharges. As a result, 

untreated sewage may overflow from sewers into waterways, or back up into city streets or 

basements of homes. Raw sewage contains pathogens that threaten public health, leading to beach 

closures and public advisories against fishing and swimming. This problem particularly affects 

older urban areas, where minority and low income communities are often concentrated. In addition, 

stormwater runoff from urban streets and construction sites carries sediment, metal, oil and grease, 

acid, chemicals, toxic materials and industrial waste into surface waters. Many cities use rivers as 

the source of their drinking water, and contaminants in the water increase the difficulty and expense 

of treating the water for drinking water use. 

The CWA requires municipalities to treat sewage before it is discharged and to control 

contaminated stormwater discharges, but many municipalities are not complying with these 

requirements. EPA‘s enforcement efforts in recent years have resulted in agreements by many cities 

to remedy these problems, but the problem remains in many other cities. In FY2011-2013, this 

National Enforcement Initiative focuses on reducing discharges from combined sewer overflows 

(CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) by 

obtaining cities‘ commitments to implement timely, affordable solutions to these problems, 

including increased use of green infrastructure and other innovative approaches. EPA is committed 

to working with communities to incorporate green infrastructure, such as green roofs, rain gardens, 

and permeable pavement, into permitting and enforcement actions to reduce stormwater pollution 

and sewer overflows. Regions should consider and promote the opportunity to utilize green 

infrastructure controls in municipal enforcement actions. Green infrastructure approaches have the 

potential to help reduce and/or eliminate CSOs and SSOs in a cost effective manner while providing 

a variety of environmental and community benefits, including improved water and air quality, 

increased energy efficiency, green spaces and economic development. For these reasons, EPA is 

committed to the incorporation of green infrastructure projects into municipal settlements where 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 37

appropriate. Information on green infrastructure projects can be found at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=298. Regions should also implement the 

Integrated Municipal Planning Approach (http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/integrationplans.cfm) to 

address municipalities' numerous CWA obligations related to their municipal sewer system 

infrastructure. EPA engaged stakeholders to develop and implement an Integrated Municipal 

Planning Approach to address municipalities' numerous CWA obligations related to their municipal 

sewer system infrastructure. This approach will allow municipalities to prioritize CWA 

requirements in a manner that addresses the most pressing public health and environmental 

protection issues first, while maintaining existing regulatory standards that protect public health and 

water quality. All or part of an integrated plan may be able to be incorporated into the remedy of 

enforcement actions. After the details of the development and implementation of the Approach are 

finalized (anticipated by Spring 2012), OECA will decide what modifications to the National 

Municipal Enforcement Initiative Strategy are necessary to implement this Approach. More detail 

about the changes and their implications will be made available after it is finalized. More 

information can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/integrated_planning_framework%20_draft.pdf

Preventing Animal Waste from Contaminating Surface and Ground Waters: Concentrated 

animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are a subset of livestock and poultry animal feeding operations 

(AFOs) that meet the regulatory thresholds of number of animals for various animal types. Animals 

are kept and raised in confined situations for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period and 

feed is brought to the animals rather than the animals grazing or otherwise feeding in pastures, 

fields, or on rangeland. At these facilities, live animals as well as mortalities, feed, and animal 

wastes may be congregated on a small land area. These operations generate significant volumes of 

animal waste which, if improperly managed, can result in environmental and human health risks 

such as water quality impairment, fish kills, algal blooms, contamination of drinking water sources, 

and transmission of disease-causing bacteria and parasites associated with food and waterborne 

diseases. EPA‘s goal is to take action to reduce animal waste pollution from livestock and poultry 

operations that impair our nation‘s waters, threaten drinking water sources, and adversely impact 

vulnerable communities. EPA‘s regulations require permit coverage for any large CAFO that 

discharges manure, litter, or process wastewater into waters of the U.S. CAFOs that discharge but 

do not have NPDES permits are in violation of the CWA. EPA will continue to focus enforcement 

investigations on these facilities, particularly in priority areas. For FY2013, OECA and the Regions 

will focus primarily on existing large and medium CAFOs identified as discharging without a 

permit to waters of the U.S. In addition, some resources will be used to assure that CAFOs that 

already have permits are in compliance with those permits. Each Region, coordinating with their 

states where appropriate, will consider a variety of factors to prioritize its CAFO activities. These 

factors include, but are not limited to, identifying watersheds or water bodies where CAFOs are 

negatively affecting water quality, proximity of CAFOs to drinking water sources and vulnerable 

communities, and status of authorized state CAFO programs. 

Assuring Energy Extraction Sector Compliance with Environmental Laws: As the nation 

expands its search for new forms and sources of energy, there is an urgent need to assure that we 

develop ―clean energy‖ sources that protect our air, water and land. Some energy extraction 

activities, such as new techniques for gas extraction, pose a risk of pollution of air, surface waters,

and ground waters if not properly controlled. Drilling and hydraulic fracturing (―fracking‖)
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 38

activities have led to concerns about ground water pollution and the safety of drinking water 

supplies in many parts of the country. Of particular concern are current practices in the industry to 

discharge or haul processed wastewaters to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) or 

centralized waste treaters who may not have controls in place to effectively treat these wastewaters. 

Concerns also exist about potential to contaminate drinking water sources. As part of OECA‘s 

energy extraction enforcement initiative, EPA is utilizing a range of its authorities, including the 

Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, to address non-compliance from natural gas extraction and 

production activities that may cause or contribute to adverse public health impacts. 

3. Link with Top Office of Water Priorities 

OECA addresses top Office of Water priorities for the CWA in the following ways: 

Restoring and Protecting Urban Waters: As part of aggressively going after pollution that 

matters to communities and working toward environmental justice, OECA‘s enforcement and 

compliance efforts will be particularly focused on protecting communities, especially 

underserved or economically distressed communities, by getting raw sewage out of the water, 

cutting pollution from animal waste, and reducing polluted stormwater runoff. See 

http://www.epa.gov/urbanwaters. 

Strengthening Protections for Our Waters: OECA is improving protection of water through the 

CWA Action Plan (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/cwaenfplan.html). See section 

A.1. 

Chesapeake Bay: Regions 2, 3, 4 and 5 should refer to the Chesapeake Bay Compliance and 

Enforcement Strategy implementation plans for details about expectations and commitments for 

stormwater, wastewater, CAFOs and air deposition. Implementation plans include goals and 

measures with targets for accomplishing activities to support each, e.g., three MS4 audits per 

year. Relevant information related to compliance and enforcement is posted at: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/initiatives/chesapeakebay.html#watershed. 

4. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 

Communities across the country depend on clean water as a source of drinking water, a habitat to 

support healthy ecosystems and as a resource for recreation and fishing. They expect protection 

from exposure to water contaminated by raw sewage, animal waste and pollutants in urban 

stormwater run-off. 

Direct exposure to raw sewage and associated high levels of disease-causing organisms can be a 

particular problem for communities located in older urban areas where the aging municipal 

wastewater infrastructure may be failing or unable to handle the demands of a growing urban 

population. When pipes break, equipment fails or the system exceeds capacity, untreated 

wastewater flows into waterways, homes and city streets, most significantly exposing the 

community to pathogens. Urban water bodies can also be assaulted by large volumes of 

uncontrolled polluted stormwater from streets, parking lots, and commercial and industrial 

businesses. Many of these older urban areas include minority and low income communities. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 39

Exposure to animal waste from CAFOs may particularly affect low income and minority 

populations in rural areas. Water bodies polluted by the waste can cause human illness after 

swimming or wading and result in contaminated fish and shellfish. This is a particular problem 

with respect to subsistence fishing, which is most frequent in minority and low income populations. 

OECA, together with the Office of Water and authorized state and tribal water control agencies will 

work to identify at-risk waters and use appropriate regulatory tools, including setting strong water 

quality standards, issuing protective and enforceable NPDES permits and addressing serious 

violations through effective enforcement, to ensure water quality protection and restoration. 

A. CWA NPDES Program 

Regions with non-authorized states and Indian country, and authorized states and tribes, should: 

Target to identify serious sources of pollution and serious violations. Use the new tools 

developed pursuant to the CWA Action Plan, such as available ambient monitoring data, the 

Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Pollutant Loading Tool (http://cfpub.epa.gov/dmr/), 

and other GIS resources, to target the most significant sources of pollutants on those water 

bodies and watersheds. Priority should be given to water bodies that are not meeting water 

quality standards and that have disproportionate impacts on individual communities. 

Utilize the Inspection Targeting Model for the CWA, as appropriate, and provide feedback 

to OECA. The model includes ―Is the facility or outfall within 15 miles upstream of a 

drinking water intake?‖ as part of its indexing. This model can be accessed through OTIS 

(www.epa-otis.gov/otis/itm). 

Develop annual compliance monitoring plans that take advantage of the flexibility available 

in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance Monitoring Strategy for 

the Core Program and Wet Weather Sources (issued October 17, 2007, hereafter ―NPDES 

CMS‖). Target inspections to identify and address serious water quality problems where 

NPDES compliance and enforcement tools will be effective in addressing the pollution 

problem. In 2012, EPA updated the Inspection Targeting Model with annual estimates of 

pollutant discharge amounts to allow users to sort on the facilities with the largest pollutant 

loads and largest pollutant load over limits. In FY 2013, EPA Regions and states should be 

using the model as a tool for targeting the most serious water quality problems. 

Participate with authorized agencies in a national dialogue on what activities count as 

―compliance monitoring‖ under the 2007 NPDES CMS. Traditionally, on-site inspections 

and investigations have been the primary means for providing coverage of the regulated 

universe. The rapidly expanding universe of NPDES regulated sources has outpaced our 

ability to conduct on-site inspections at all permittees. The Regions and authorized agencies 

need to use their resources in a way that maximizes the reach of their compliance monitoring 

activities. Out of the national dialogue on compliance monitoring, in 2012 OECA expects to 

issue additional guidance that Regions and states will begin to use in FY 2013 on the 

parameters for conducting periodic ―off-site‖ evaluations of permittee compliance. Any offsite evaluations that are counted under the CMS will need to be sufficient to ascertain 

permittee compliance, be well documented and reported to a national data system. The 

guidance on off-site evaluations may cover things such as CWA Section 308 Information 

Requests, subpoenas, review of a year‘s worth of DMRs coupled with information provided 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 40

by the permittee on calibration of discharge monitoring equipment and ambient sampling. In 

addition, starting in 2012 and continuing in 2013. OECA will be conducting a study to 

evaluate whether the CMS is achieving the desired results and whether any adjustments are 

needed. 

Ensure that all available data regarding violations are evaluated to determine the seriousness 

of the violation and the appropriate response. Facilities in significant noncompliance (SNC) 

should be considered for appropriate follow-up action, along with point sources with serious 

effluent limit violations, unpermitted discharges, systemic reporting problems or violations 

at facilities with potential to seriously impact water quality. Ensure that civil enforcement 

actions, where appropriate, are taken to address serious violations contributing to a 

community‘s water quality problems. Ensure compliance with federal consent decrees and 

administrative orders where appropriate. Implement targeted ―real time‖ (quick response) 

enforcement activities to address CWA violations impacting communities‘ waters, such as 

violations at concentrated animal feeding operations. 

In addition, Regions should: 

Implement CWA specific geographic compliance and enforcement strategies, as appropriate 

for their Region, including CWA Action Plan projects, the Chesapeake Bay Compliance and 

Enforcement Strategy, and other region-specific geographic initiatives. 

Routinely review all DMRs and non-compliance reports received for compliance with 

permit requirements where the Region directly implements the program, including in Indian 

Country. (Note that Regions may accomplish this review through a routine screen of the 

PCS or Integrated Compliance Information System ICIS-NPDES data and reviewing the 

DMRs themselves as necessary.) 

Evaluate the effectiveness of the approval authority‘s pretreatment program by inspecting 

and auditing pretreatment POTWs. In conjunction with POTW inspections, Regions and 

states should ensure that POTWs with control authority are carrying out their 

responsibilities, including annual inspections of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). Where 

states are the control authority, Regions should assess each state program‘s performance in 

conducting annual inspections of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). 

Regional audits or inspections should be conducted in accordance with the NPDES CMS 

and can be conducted in conjunction with other compliance inspections at major and minor 

POTWs, such as compliance evaluations (CEIs), or separately. For Industrial Users (IUs) in 

non-authorized states that discharge into POTWs without approved pretreatment programs, 

the Regions will inspect the IUs in accordance with the NPDES CMS. 

All states now have their own safety program for biosolids, and there are also third party 

verification programs that support compliance in this area. In light of these facts, and the 

scientific studies indicating that biosolids present a lower risk than other substances, EPA 

expects to reduce investment in this area to support other high priority enforcement work. 

To monitor this area, EPA plans to rely on straightforward performance standards, 

recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that, once EPA‘s NPDES e-reporting rule is fully 

implemented, will provide for increased transparency and accountability with regard to this 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 41

sewage sludge. EPA will maintain a limited national enforcement capacity in this area to 

respond to national priority work that may arise in this program.13 

Use all available data to benchmark and monitor state performance using data from federal 

and state data systems, permitting and enforcement performance reviews, and other audit or 

evaluation reports. These include State Review Framework reviews, Office of Water Permit 

Quality Reviews, MOA reviews, regular EPA/state meetings to review performance, data 

not entered into national databases and Government Accountability Office (GAO) and/or 

Inspector General (IG) reviews of state performance. In FY2013, EPA will implement an 

integrated and streamlined NPDES enforcement and permitting oversight review process, 

including guidance and training for EPA Regions and states. 

Where authorized states have exhibited a widespread and long-standing problem with 

significant aspects of their permitting or enforcement programs, Regions should object to 

permits or take direct enforcement actions in those states in accordance with EPA‘s June 22, 

2010 Memorandum titled, ―Interim Guidance to Strengthen Performance in the NPDES 

Program.‖ Regions should focus oversight resources on the most pressing performance 

problems in states. Regions and states must work together to demonstrably improve state 

performance. 

Regions should investigate the CWA compliance status of surface mining facilities within 

each Region, including mountaintop removal mining operations. Regions should evaluate 

the compliance status of such facilities with respect to both NPDES permitting requirements 

and CWA section 404 permitting requirements. If CWA violations are identified, 

enforcement action should be taken where appropriate. 

HQ, and Regions as necessary, will coordinate with Coast Guard in implementing the Vessel 

General Permit MOU and review of Coast Guard deficiency data. Regions will coordinate as 

necessary with Coast Guard sector offices on conducting joint inspections with Coast Guard. 

Continue implementing the Federal Facility Integrated Strategy on Stormwater. 

Work with states that are currently using the NPDES Permit Compliance System (PCS) to 

prepare to migrate to the modernized data system, ICIS-NPDES by the end of the first 

quarter of FY 2013. On March 24, 2011, EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe issued 

a memorandum in which he affirmed his support for using the National Environmental 

Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network) as the preferred means of 

environmental data sharing between EPA, states, tribes, and others. Also, this memorandum 

affirmed the unanimous ECOS resolution calling for full implementation of the Exchange 

Network, and represented a renewed joint commitment to success of the Network. The 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance supports this goal. Regions must work 

closely with the Office of Compliance to evaluate their states remaining in PCS on their 

readiness to migrate, and what assistance is needed for the migration, if any. PCS will be 

turned off by the third quarter of FY 2013. 

Regions should support the Agency‘s Next Generation Compliance by promoting electronic 

monitoring and reporting to improve targeting and transparency as well as by advancing new 

monitoring technologies to enhance the ability to identify violations impacting public health 

and harming the environment. For example, for consent decrees that include a requirement 

 

13 Note: To meet the agency wide schedule, the final OECA NPM Guidance is being issued now, although we have not 

completed discussions on the content and schedule for the budget adjustments portion of the Guidance. Some of the 

budget adjustments outlined in this final guidance may be revised as we continue work on implementation plans. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 42

to conduct sampling or to report, Regions should seek to obtain electronic reporting to ICISNPDES. 

COMMITMENT CWA07: By December 31, 2012, provide to Headquarters a specific NPDES 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) plan for each authorized state in the Region, targeting the 

most significant sources with potential to impact water quality. The plan should provide universe 

information for the CMS categories; sub-categories covered by the CMS and combined EPA and 

state expected accomplishments for each category and subcategory. The plan should identify tradeoffs made among the categories utilizing the flexibilities in the 2007 NPDES CMS policy and any 

amendments or further guidance as a result of the national dialogue on expanding the range of 

activities to be counted as compliance monitoring under the NPDES CMS. At the end of the year, 

provide for each state a numerical report on EPA and state inspection plan outputs, by category and 

subcategory. To increase the transparency of NPDES inspection data, OECA will work with EPA 

Regions and state associations to develop formats for releasing inspection data on CMS 

implementation performance on a state-by-state basis. 

B. CWA Section 404 – Discharge of Dredge and Fill material 

Regions should: 

Coordinate, as appropriate, with other federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Fish and Wildlife Service) which 

have significant roles in wetlands protection through the use of memoranda of understanding 

and memoranda of agreement or other appropriate mechanisms. 

Meet with Corps Districts on an annual basis to establish regional priorities and 

communicate priorities to OECA.

Review field level agreements with Corps Districts, and revise to make them consistent with 

Section 404 Enforcement Strategy, as appropriate. 

Regions should utilize the Office of Water‘s DARTER (Data on Aquatic Resources 

Tracking for Effective Regulation) system as well ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information 

System) in their targeting efforts to identify potential repeat and flagrant violators (ICIS 

continues to be the data base of record for tracking EPA information on CWA section 404 

enforcement actions).

Develop methods to effectively leverage other program resources to more systematically 

identify potential serious Section 404 violations and take appropriate enforcement response 

to address these violations. Share effective techniques with OECA for use in developing the 

national wetlands enforcement strategy. 

Utilize existing regional cross training opportunities as well as opportunities identified by 

OECA to cross-train inspectors and to train other federal and state agencies and stakeholders 

to identify CWA section 404 violations. 

The Section 404 Enforcement Strategy was piloted during FY 2011 - 2012, and the Regions 

are expected to work with OECA in implementing the strategy in 2013. 

C. CWA Section 311 – Oil Pollution Act 

Regions should: 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 43

Participate in multi-regional judicial enforcement cases to address spills from inter-state 

pipelines and others, such as production facilities, on a company-wide basis. Cases should 

include company-wide injunctive relief requirements to prevent future spill violations at all 

facilities of the owner or operator. 

Participate in multi-regional judicial enforcement cases to address facility response plan 

(FRP) violations at facilities owned or operated by the same company. Cases should include 

company-wide injunctive relief requirements to improve facility response planning and 

implementation at all facilities of the owner or operator. 

Investigate and develop informal (e.g. warning letters, notices, etc.), administrative (e.g. 

Class I or Class II penalties, orders, information requests, etc.) and judicial (e.g. complaints 

or consent decrees in federal court) enforcement actions to address noncompliance with 

EPA Product Schedule Requirements for use of dispersants and other substances. 

Investigate, target and develop informal (e.g. warning letters, notices, etc.), administrative 

(e.g. Class I or Class II penalties, orders, information requests, etc.) and judicial (e.g. 

complaints or consent decrees in federal court) enforcement actions to address spill 

prevention, and facility response planning violations at facilities subject to EPA regulations, 

including offshore platforms within EPA jurisdiction. Also investigate, target, and develop 

informal, administrative and judicial enforcement actions to address discharge violations 

(spills) wherever the violation occurs, whether or not the spill occurred at a facility subject 

to EPA‘s spill prevention or facility response planning regulations. 

When appropriate, in the context of an enforcement action or enforcement targeting effort, 

conduct inspections and enforcement investigations as needed to confirm violations or 

develop enforcement cases. These activities are intended to be conducted by enforcement 

staff or contractors, when needed for enforcement targeting or case development. 

Conduct enforcement investigations to identify noncompliance, target appropriately for 

enforcement response, and build cases for enforcement actions. Enforcement investigations 

could include use of CWA Section 308 and/or 311(m) information requests, independent 

audits, interviews, review of inspection reports, coordination with state and other federal 

agencies, use of public tips and complaints, review of public databases, or other 

investigative means. Whenever spill or regulatory enforcement is pursued at facilities 

subject to EPA regulations, the case development staff should evaluate whether the facility 

is in compliance with all spill prevention and facility response plan requirements and should 

include claims in the enforcement case to address all noncompliance in these areas. 

As part of enforcement targeting work, review spill notification reports to the National 

Response Center, pipeline spill reports to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, spills reported to states and other available sources to identify spill 

violations. Issue CWA 308 information requests to confirm violations and identify causes 

of the spills. Take appropriate enforcement action to address spills of oil and hazardous 

substances that have occurred, to include penalties and injunctive relief to prevent future 

violations from similar causes across all facilities of the same owner or operator. 

Participate in OECA-led coordination and strategy meetings, as appropriate. 

Where opportunities exist, coordinate with OECA and OEM to provide outreach and 

assistance to the agricultural sector on Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure 

(SPCC) rule that will be required to come into compliance in 2013. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 44

5. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes 

Regions should: 

Work with authorized states to conduct a CWA annual planning process that brings the 

different components of the regional and state NPDES program (water quality standards and 

assessment, permitting and enforcement) to the table together, identifies and discusses 

shared goals and national, regional, and state priorities versus available resources at both the 

state and federal levels, and results in collaborative annual work plans that use all available 

mechanisms to get work done, such as federal and state work-sharing, innovative 

approaches to monitoring facilities or addressing violations. 

Convene routine and regular meetings between the EPA region and authorized state to 

discuss progress towards meeting annual permitting and enforcement commitments, and 

how the state has been performing overall in the NPDES program. 

In instances where authorized states are not meeting performance expectations, EPA 

Regions should focus oversight resources to the most pressing performance problems in 

states and should work to demonstrably improve state performance. EPA Regions need to 

take action when necessary to communicate what things need attention to achieve the goals 

of the federal environmental laws and ensure a level playing field amongst authorized states. 

Conduct a sufficient number of oversight NPDES inspections to ensure the integrity and 

quality of each authorized state or tribe compliance monitoring programs. EPA Regions 

have flexibility to determine the appropriate number of oversight inspections needed to 

ensure proper state inspection conduct and documentation. Oversight inspections are not 

"joint" inspections. Oversight inspections can be conducted by accompanying state 

inspectors during inspections, or conducting a separate inspection at the same facility at a 

later date to verify the same findings. 

Implement Round 3 of the State Review Framework (SRF) for the NPDES program in 

conjunction with permit quality reviews and assure implementation associated with 

corrective actions identified in the SRF reports. 

When conducting state program oversight: 

o Ensure the full regulated universe of NPDES permittees is addressed in the state‘s 

CMS plan, focusing on the most important sources and most serious noncompliance; 

o Review the number of SNCs identified (and percent of universe), especially those 

related to effluent exceedance or illegal discharges by state and by region and the 

number (and percent) addressed in a timely and appropriate manner; and 

o Track and manage results of State Review Framework and Permit Quality Reviews 

and progress in correcting identified issues. 

Regional direct implementation in Indian country includes applying the various clean water 

compliance monitoring strategies, enforcement policies, and OECA’s Guidance on the

Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy (January 17, 2001). OECA’s 

Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy contains 

procedures for consultation with federally-recognized tribes in the civil compliance 

monitoring and enforcement context and contains threshold criteria for EPA‘s consideration 

of enforcement actions. The threshold criteria are not intended to, and should not, result in a 

lesser degree of human health and environmental protection in Indian country than 

elsewhere in the U.S. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 45

Ensure that state and tribal inspectors who inspect on behalf of EPA are trained and 

credentialed per Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize 

Employees of State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004). 

EPA Order 3510 requires that each EPA office which prints and distributes credentials (i.e. 

federal credentials issued to state and tribal inspectors to conduct inspections on behalf of 

EPA) conduct an annual inventory, including an annual physical possession check of 10% of 

the credentials. 

6. Improve Transparency 

Data regarding state assessments, priorities and performance under the CWA should be 

made public by the Regions and Headquarters, where possible, on a regular basis in a 

manner easily understood and used by the public. 

If data systems are not able to support reporting at end-of-year FY 2013, the Regions should 

manually report using instructions specified in the multi-program fiscal year reporting 

guidance memorandum. 

Regions should work with the states and tribes to verify that their compliance and 

enforcement data is accurate and input into national databases. 

Compliance monitoring activities conducted pursuant to the goals in CMS and the statespecific plans should be reported into the appropriate national information system, either 

PCS or ICIS-NPDES, in accordance with documents which establish data requirements and 

reporting timeframes for those systems. States must ensure that all required compliance and 

enforcement data is input or transmitted to the national databases. States utilizing CMS 

flexibility should report on the commitments in their CMS plan. EPA encourages states to 

expand their use of the national databases to include compliance and enforcement data that 

pertains to the entire NPDES universe.

Regions should review the oil and hazardous substance spills reported to the National 

Response Center (NRC) to ensure they are timely and accurately reported. 

Regions should make information available to communities, including tribal communities, 

who lack access to the internet.

7. Relevant Policies and Guidance 

Additional information about OECA‘s CWA programs can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/cwa/index.html

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/index.html

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/munic.cfm 

B. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

OECA addresses drinking water pollution problems through the following SDWA programs: 

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program; 

Underground Injection Control Program; and

Working with Regions to address imminent and substantial endangerment circumstances 

under Section 1431 of the SDWA. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 46

PWSS Program

EPA‘s focus on regulated drinking water systems, including those in Indian country, protects the 

public from the potential acute and chronic health effects of drinking water that fails to comply with 

the SDWA. The Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) establishes EPA‘s expectations of how 

primacy agencies are to address drinking water violations and protect public health by returning 

violating public water systems (PWSs) to compliance. Following the concepts of the ERP, the 

Enforcement Targeting Tool (ETT) generates a list of all PWS that have unresolved violations and 

identifies those systems that have the most serious, most numerous, and longest-lasting unresolved 

drinking water violations.

The ETT assigns to each drinking water violation a numerical point value weighted for its severity, 

and applies a formula that generates a total score for each PWS with unresolved violations. 

Because violations of health-based standards and major violations of monitoring and reporting 

requirements for acute contaminants present the most serious risks to the public‘s health, violations 

of these types are assigned the higher point values. Major monitoring and reporting violations 

related to chronic contaminants, minor monitoring and reporting violations, and public notification 

violations are assigned lower point values. Violations that have been returned to compliance or that 

are attached to an addressing formal enforcement action have a point value of zero. The higher a 

PWS‘s total ETT score, the more serious is its overall unresolved noncompliance. 

The ERP provides that all drinking water violations at PWSs are to be resolved and that PWSs are 

to be returned to compliance. Additionally, the ERP directs that if a PWS reaches an ETT score of 

11 or higher before its violations are resolved, that PWS will be considered a priority system that 

must, within six months of having reached a score of 11, either return to compliance or receive 

formal enforcement action that compels the system to return to compliance in a timely fashion. It is 

OECA‘s expectation that primacy agencies will simultaneously be working to reduce their backlog 

of systems that have already been at a score of 11 or higher for more than 6 months. Most primacy 

agencies (either EPA, states, tribes or territories) have markedly reduced their backlog of priority 

systems in the past years. 

As a longer term goal, primacy agencies are encouraged to address violations at non-complying 

PWSs before they become priority systems. A quick response to SDWA violations decreases the 

risks to public health and allows primacy agencies flexibility to use a variety of tools such as 

assistance and informal enforcement actions as they work with PWSs to develop the technical, 

financial, and managerial capacity that will allow them to achieve sustained compliance. By 

focusing resources on PWSs in this way, the ERP helps ensure those PWSs return to compliance in 

a timely manner. This proactive approach is especially important in addressing violations at PWSs 

in Indian country, as it allows for timely notice to the tribe as soon as a violation is identified. The 

purpose of this contact is to discuss the system‘s options for returning to compliance and to ensure 

that the coordination and consultation encouraged by EPA‘s tribal policies occur on a schedule 

consistent with the ERP. 

OECA strongly encourages primacy agencies to improve the completeness, accuracy, and 

timeliness of violation reporting and enforcement response data they report to the Safe Drinking 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 47

Water Information System (SDWIS)/FED. EPA is responsible for ensuring that primacy agencies 

fulfill the conditions of their primacy agreements, including fully reporting inventory, compliance 

and enforcement data to EPA. When primacy agencies do not properly report information in 

SDWIS, EPA cannot assure the integrity of the program or reliably report to the public, Congress 

and other oversight bodies. Inaccurate and incomplete data result in incorrect and inconsistent ETT 

scores within and across states. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in FY2011 

highlighted the seriousness of underreporting SDWA data and recommended action by EPA to 

improve the quality of data reported by states. 

OECA is committed to partnering with OGWDW to improve the quality of data on PWSs in 

SDWIS, and asks regional enforcement staff and managers to work with their states to promote 

accurate, timely and complete reporting. As resources allow, HQ and the Regions will conduct file 

reviews of the compliance and enforcement data in SDWIS for their primacy agencies. 

1. Link with Top Office of Water Priorities 

OECA addresses top Office of Water priorities for the SDWA by supporting the core national 

program areas that are critical to ensuring safe drinking water. The areas where OECA provides 

support include: 

Development or revision of drinking water standards; 

Ensuring that states have the tools needed to begin implementing new rules as they take 

effect; 

Implementation of drinking water standards and technical assistance to water systems to 

enhance their technical, managerial, and financial capacity; 

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund; and 

Underground Injection control (UIC). 

By participating on regulatory workgroups, OECA addresses enforcement and compliance 

issues in the early stages of the drinking water standards. In implementing the program, OECA 

and primacy agencies will work with the Office of Water in identifying systems that are not 

complying with the standards and may need technical assistance. Through cross-program 

collaboration in the areas like capacity development, operation certification, and sanitary 

surveys, the Office of Water and OECA can leverage available tools and resources to obtain 

safe water. 

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 

The ETT and ERP apply equally to all public water systems in the U.S., regardless of the size or 

which agency implements the Safe Drinking Water program. EPA‘s goal is to ensure that all 

consumers receive equal protection of their drinking water. 

OECA will continue to place emphasis on drinking water in schools and in Indian country. 

In accordance with the ERP, all PWSs that reach a score of 11 or higher (priority systems) are to be 

addressed with a formal enforcement action or returned to compliance within six months of the 

quarterly ETT report on which the system first is reported as having a score of 11 or higher. OECA 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 48

headquarters will track primacy agency performance in meeting the timely and appropriate 

provisions of the ERP.

COMMITMENT SDWA02: 

During FY 2013, the primacy agency must address with a formal enforcement action or 

return to compliance the number of priority systems equal to the number of its PWSs that 

have a score of 11 or higher on the July 2012 ETT report14.

State, territory and tribal breakouts shall be indicated in the comment field of the Annual 

Commitment System. 

3. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes 

Regions are responsible for working with states, territories, and tribes with primacy in an oversight 

capacity to ensure that the ETT is used and the ERP is implemented as intended. OECA and the 

Regions will regularly discuss progress returning systems to compliance, identifying those for 

which return to compliance is impracticable, and regional performance overall in implementation of 

the program. OECA will work with the primacy agencies on assessing data completeness based on 

violation data to determine if rules are being implemented in a timely manner. 

The Regions will hold regular in-depth discussions with their states, territories, and tribes with 

primacy that include, but are not limited to, progress in returning systems to compliance, monitoring 

compliance progress on orders, number of systems addressed, number of systems in violation, 

consistency and appropriateness of compliance determinations and data quality, preparation for new 

rules, and overall performance in implementing the program. These meetings may be held in 

person or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. EPA strongly suggests a 

minimum of quarterly communication as a best practice for ensuring progress in meeting goals. 

Where states and tribes with primacy are not meeting performance expectations established by this 

commitment or systems are in substantial noncompliance with state enforcement orders, Regions 

should take action to ensure the systems with the most serious violations are addressed or returned 

to compliance. Regions should focus oversight resources on the most pressing performance 

problems in states/territories/tribes with primacy and should work to improve performance through 

these actions. Also, EPA Order 3510 requires that each EPA office which prints and distributes 

credentials (i.e. federal credentials issued to state and tribal inspectors to conduct inspections on 

behalf of EPA) conduct an annual inventory, including an annual physical possession check of 10% 

of the credentials. 

OECA will perform this oversight function with respect to direct implementation programs. OECA 

will engage with Regions on a regular basis to ensure that Regions are directly implementing the 

program in Indian country, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia effectively and are applying the 

ETT and ERP. Regional primacy (direct implementation) in Indian country includes applying the 

 

14 A primacy agency‘s success at addressing violations will be tracked by means of the quarterly ETT reports. 

Numerical targets may be adjusted at mid-year. While it remains the ERP‘s goal that all of a priority system‘s 

violations will be returned to compliance, a primacy agency has met its commitment under the 2013 SDWA ACS with 

respect to a priority system if the score for that system has been brought below, and remains below, eleven. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 49

various SDWA compliance monitoring strategies and enforcement policies, including the SDWA 

ERP and ETT, and OECA’s Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian 

Policy (January 17, 2001). OECA’s Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 

Indian Policy contains procedures for consultation tribes in the civil compliance monitoring and 

enforcement context and contains threshold criteria for EPA‘s consideration of enforcement actions. 

The threshold criteria are not intended to, and should not result in a lesser degree of human health 

and environmental protection in Indian country than elsewhere in the U.S. 

4. Improve Transparency 

OECA headquarters will continue its annual national report on PWS compliance and enforcement 

as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act, and on progress in returning systems to compliance. 

Past reports are posted on the EPA website at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/accomplishment/sdwa/

Compliance and enforcement data for all drinking water systems will continue to be available to the 

public through the Enforcement and Compliance History Online website at http://www.epaotis.gov/echo/index.html 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program

EPA plans to focus UIC enforcement efforts on UIC violations that pose the greatest threat to health 

by adjusting our work on smaller and more routine UIC violations. Data generally shows good 

compliance at most facilities that EPA inspects, supporting a strategy of focusing our attention on 

the worst problems. This adjustment is not expected to affect compliance or enforcement activities 

where EPA directly implements the program, or UIC activities related to implementation of the 

Energy Extraction National Enforcement Initiative.15

5. Relevant Policies and Guidance 

SDWA compliance and enforcement policies and guidance can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/sdwa/drinking_water_erp_2009.pdf

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/sdwa/index.cfm

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/sdwa/wsg.cfm

Information about EPA‘s tribal programs can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/tribal/laws/sdwa.htm

http://www.epa.gov/tribal/consultation/index.htm 

 

15 Note: To meet the agency wide schedule, the final OECA NPM Guidance is being issued now, although we have not 

completed discussions on the content and schedule for the budget adjustments portion of the Guidance. Some of the 

budget adjustments outlined in this final guidance may be revised as we continue work on implementation plans. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 50

SECTION V: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM WASTE, TOXICS, AND PESTICIDES 

POLLUTION 

A. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

OECA‘s RCRA program addresses the management of solid and hazardous waste and underground 

storage tanks (UST). For more information on the management of hazardous waste under RCRA 

Subtitle C, readers are urged to review the RCRA Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) which 

provides detailed information about goals and measures, policies which allow flexibility from 

OECA‘s expectations, program oversight, and other aspects of the RCRA compliance monitoring 

program.

1. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives 

One of the Administrator‘s priorities is ―cleaning up our communities‖ - using all the tools at our 

disposal, including enforcement and compliance efforts, to focus on making safer, healthier 

communities. The relevant FY 2011 – 2013 national enforcement initiative for RCRA program that 

supports this Agency priority is: 

Reducing Pollution from Mineral Processing Operations

Mining and mineral processing facilities generate more toxic and hazardous waste than any other 

industrial sector, based on EPA‘s Toxic Release Inventory. Many of these facilities have impacted 

surrounding communities and continue to pose high risk to human health and the environment. For 

example, 95 mining and mineral processing sites are on the Superfund National Priorities List and 

more sites are being added every year, including operating facilities. EPA has spent over $2.4 

billion to address the human health and environmental threats to communities, such as exposure to 

asbestos and lead poisoning in children, as a result of mining and mineral processing. In some cases, 

EPA had to relocate families because of these threats, especially those to children in low income 

communities. EPA has inspected 65 mining and mineral processing sites that pose significant risk to 

communities and found many to be in serious non-compliance with hazardous waste and other 

environmental laws. Contamination of groundwater and potable water has occurred at many sites, 

sometimes requiring alternative drinking water supplies or removal of lead-contaminated soil from 

residential yards. In other cases, toxic spills into waterways from mining and mineral processing 

caused massive fish kills and impacted the livelihood of low income communities. Some workers at 

mining and mineral processing facilities have been exposed to spills and mismanagement of toxic 

and hazardous waste. EPA will continue its enforcement initiative to bring these facilities into 

compliance with the law and protect the environment and nearby communities. 

Region–specific commitments for activities to support the goals and measures are negotiated 

through the ACS process. It is expected there will be approximately 12 mineral processing 

inspections required for 2013 nationally. 

2. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 51

RCRA dictates minimum inspection frequencies for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities 

(TSDF) - annually for TSDFs operated by state/local governments, and biennially for nongovernmental TSDFs. RCRA01 and RCRA01.s apply to TSDFs owned or operated by nongovernmental entities, and to TSDFs owned but not operated by state/local/tribal governments. 

RCRA03 applies to TSDFs operated by state/local/tribal governments. The inspections performed 

under these RCRA commitments should generally be Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEIs). 

The RCRA CMS allows states (or Regions with direct implementation responsibility) to conduct 

Focused Compliance Inspections (FCIs) in lieu of CEIs at TSDFs if the states have approval from 

their Region (Regions with direct implementation responsibility should have approval from HQ) 

and the TSDF meets the established requirements (i.e., has been inspected at least two times and has 

no significant noncompliance). 

COMMITMENT RCRA01: Project by state, and Indian Country where applicable, the number of 

operating non-governmental TSDFs, to be inspected by the Region during the year16. Regions must 

commit to inspect at least two (2) TSDFs in each state or Indian country unless OECA approves a 

deviation from this requirement. For example, deviations are given for states with small universes 

where it might not make sense for a Region to inspect two TSDFs per year. Financial responsibility 

is an important component of the RCRA core program and evaluating compliance with 40 CFR 

Parts 264/265 Subpart H should be included as part of the inspection of each TSDF (although such 

evaluations do not have to occur at the same time nor be conducted by the same people who 

conduct the field inspections). If a Region determines that there are unique circumstances in the 

Region or with a particular TSDF, the Region may contact Headquarters to discuss undertaking a 

detailed evaluation of compliance with 40 CFR Parts 264/265 Subpart H at another TSDF. 

COMMITMENT RCRA01.s: Project by state the number of operating TSDFs to be inspected by 

the state during the year. 

Only one inspection per facility counts towards this coverage measure. The RCRA CMS 

establishes minimum annual inspection expectations for TSDFs: The inspections for 

RCRA01 and RCRA01.s should be CEIs. CEIs include evaluating compliance with the 

financial assurance requirements, 40 CFR Parts 264/265 Subpart H. Financial responsibility 

is an important component of the RCRA core program and should be included as part of the 

inspection of each TSDF (although the financial responsibility reviews do not have to occur 

at the same time nor be conducted by the same people who conduct the field inspections). 

COMMITMENT RCRA03: Inspect each operating TSDF operated by states, local, or Tribal 

governments. 

3. Link with Top OSWER Priorities 

OECA addresses top OSWER priorities for RCRA in the following ways: 

Safe Waste Management and Clean Up, Recycling, and Resource Conservation: OECA 

maintains an overall enforcement presence in RCRA that supports OSWER programs and 

 

16 Currently there is only one TSD in Indian country. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 52

rulemaking efforts including those regarding CERCLA 108(b) and Cathode Ray Tubes 

(CRTs). 

Support continued progress towards the 2020 Corrective Action aspiration goals by targeting 

enforcement on facilities that have not made meaningful progress. 

Emergency Preparedness, Implementing the EPAct, Response and Homeland Security: 

OECA maintains an overall enforcement presence in RCRA that supports OSWER 

programs. 

4. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 

a. RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Program 

Regions and states should inspect pollution problems that matter to communities, and develop 

enforcement cases that produce significant environmental benefits. Regions, in their oversight and 

direct implementation roles, including in Indian Country, and authorized states are expected to 

follow the guidance in the RCRA CMS. (EPA directly implements the RCRA program in Indian 

country in coordination with Tribes because RCRA precludes EPA from authorizing tribal 

programs.) 

To enable states to monitor and identify environmental problems of concern to communities, states 

may utilize flexibility in the RCRA CMS to deviate from their large quantity generator (LQG) 

requirements. RCRA facilities may cause air, surface and groundwater pollution. Because these 

facilities are frequently associated with industrial operations, surrounding communities are often 

low income and minority. EPA may screen for potential environmental justice concerns at RCRA 

facilities by analyzing demographics and environmental factors. 

Issues of emerging environmental concern to EPA and communities are listed here. These focus 

areas should be considered a high priority for Regions and states when developing strategies for 

targeting compliance assurance work. These should also specifically be discussed between 

authorized states and Regions when developing annual plans for respective activities in the Region. 

The areas of concern are: 

Surface Impoundments: EPA, with support from authorized states, continues to focus on 

problems associated with illegal disposal of hazardous waste in unlined surface 

impoundments. There are thousands of industrial surface impoundments across the country, 

many of which adversely impact communities through air, surface water, and/or 

groundwater contamination, particularly in the chemical manufacturing and petroleum 

refining sectors. 

Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities: These facilities conduct treatment of industrial 

solid waste from third-parties. Through recent inspections, EPA has identified several such 

facilities that were grossly mismanaging hazardous wastes, and treating and discharging 

these wastes without permits. This area of concern will include a focus on wastewater 

treatment units. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 53

Hazardous Waste Recycling Facilities: EPA supports the environmentally beneficial 

recycling of hazardous wastes and secondary materials. However, sham recycling and 

recycling not done in compliance with RCRA requirements can result in significant adverse 

impacts to human health and the environment. This area of concern will include a focus on 

zinc fertilizer manufacturing that uses hazardous waste in the production process. 

Coke Manufacturing: There are approximately 20 coke manufacturing facilities in the 

United States. EPA has recently inspected and identified multi-media compliance problems 

at some of these facilities, including the illegal land disposal of hazardous waste. This 

sector produces several listed and characteristic hazardous waste streams that are excluded 

from RCRA if recycled without being land disposed. EPA intends to conduct focused 

inspections within this sector to ensure compliance. 

Waste Analysis Plans at Commercial TSDFs: EPA has conducted sampling at TSDFs to 

determine if the facilities‘ waste analysis plans and treatment of the waste were adequate. 

Based on the results of the sampling, concerns have been identified with the treatment and 

stabilization techniques and the sampling and analysis of hazardous waste treated to meet 

the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) treatment standards for land disposal. 

RCRA Corrective Action: To help achieve the RCRA Corrective Action 2020 Goals, EPA 

and authorized states should focus enforcement resources on facilities that have not made 

meaningful progress in achieving remedial objectives, and on financially marginal or 

bankrupt facilities. To ensure that meaningful cleanup progress is being made at all facilities 

subject to corrective action, Regions and authorized states should be monitoring compliance 

with orders and permits, identifying substantial noncompliance with such instruments, and 

taking enforcement actions where appropriate. When monitoring compliance with orders 

and permits, Regions should use electronic reporting tools whenever feasible. 

The Regions should: 

Conduct compliance monitoring and pursue enforcement to ensure that pollution problems that 

matter to communities are aggressively addressed. 

Support, and encourage states to support, OC‘s RCRA inspector training development effort. 

Ensure that state and tribal inspectors who inspect on behalf of EPA are trained and credentialed 

per Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of 

State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004). Enhance 

coordination in the RCRA program pursuant to the ―Best Practices to Enhance Coordination in 

the RCRA Program.‖ 

Conduct an annual inventory, including an annual physical possession check, of 10% of the 

credentials (i.e. federal credentials issued to state and tribal inspectors to conduct inspections on 

behalf of EPA) consistent with EPA Order 3510.
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 54

COMMITMENT RCRA02: Project by state and Indian Country, the number of LQGs, including 

those at federal facilities, to be inspected by the Region during the year. Each Region must commit 

to inspect at least six (6) LQGs in each state, and 20% of the region‘s LQGs universe in Indian 

Country, unless OECA approves a deviation from this requirement. For example, deviations are 

given for states with small universes where it doesn‘t make sense for a Region to inspect 6 LQGs 

per year or 20% of the Region‘s LQG universe in Indian country. Regions should select at least 2 

of the Region's total LQG inspections at facilities described in the high priority section as areas of 

emerging environmental concern. Regions may work with OECA to coordinate these inspections, 

including whether the inspection will be conducted at a TSDF or LQG. In the Comment Section, 

provide the number of federal facility LQG inspections. 

COMMITMENT RCRA02.s: Project by state the number of LQGs to be inspected by the state 

during the year. At least 20 percent of the LQG universe should be covered by combined federal 

and state inspections unless an alternative plan is approved under the RCRA CMS. 

The RCRA corrective action financial responsibility measure may include the review of financial 

assurance instruments received by the states within each region. For those states that are not 

authorized for corrective action, the Regions should be reviewing the financial assurance 

instruments as part of EPA‘s role of implementing and enforcing the corrective action program in 

unauthorized states and Indian Country. Regions conducting financial assurance instrument 

reviews for the RCRA Subtitle C closure/post-closure regulatory program (under RCRA01) may 

also review any corresponding corrective action submissions as part of the completion of this 

program measure. 

COMMITMENT OSRE04: Regions must commit to inspect at least one (1) RCRA corrective 

action financial assurance instrument per state, with at least 50% being financial test or corporate 

guarantee reviews. Where the submission is noncompliant, take appropriate enforcement action to 

address noncompliance (e.g., notice of violation). Or, where appropriate, work with the state to 

ensure appropriate action is taken to address noncompliance. If possible, return facility to 

compliance by end of fiscal year. 

b. RCRA Underground Storage Tank (UST) Subtitle I Program 

A major focus of the RCRA UST program is to maintain an enforcement presence concerning leak 

prevention, leak detection, corrective action, closure, and financial responsibility violations.

Approved states have primary responsibility for determining facility compliance, ensuring adequate 

inspection coverage of the regulated universe, taking appropriate actions in response to noncompliance, and playing a vital role in alerting EPA to regulatory implementation problems. 

EPA anticipates providing continued support for UST inspections. The Agency believes that it can 

refocus its UST enforcement efforts to address violations that pose the greatest threat to health, and 

where a federal response is necessary and shift away from enforcement work on more routine UST 

violations. EPA intends to maintain compliance monitoring and enforcement resources to directly 

implement the UST program in states and territories that do not have state program approval, where 

necessary, and in Indian Country. The enforcement program will also continue to support the 

Office of Underground Storage Tanks in promulgating any UST regulations and help develop 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 55

innovative approaches to promote and maintain compliance using next generation compliance and 

enforcement methods.17

Generally, EPA actions will complement and provide oversight of state activities. Remaining 

regional work will generally focus on enforcement and compliance activities as described below 

and will be consistent with the guidance under development for focusing work: 

UST inspections that will produce the greatest environmental and human health benefits (e.g., 

leak prevention, leak detection, corrective action, and financial responsibility). Factors to 

consider in identifying facilities for inspection under the UST program include:

Owners and operators of USTs located in Indian country; 

Owners and operators with UST facilities in multiple states; 

Mid-level distributors with multiple UST facilities; 

Problem non-compliers; (i.e.; repeat violators; owners/operators who fail to cooperate in 

an effort to return to compliance); 

Owners and operators of facilities with USTs that endanger sensitive ecosystems or 

sources of drinking water; and 

Corporate, government-owned, and federal central fueling facilities.

Take enforcement actions and assess penalties, as appropriate. Focus on developing large 

complex cases involving noncompliance on a corporate-wide basis or noncompliance in 

multi-state operations. Regions will consult with the states on use of the delivery 

prohibition, when appropriate, to address significant noncompliance. It is recognized that 

this tool may not be an option for states and tribes that do not have delivery prohibition 

programs or are not state authorized programs. Focus on developing large complex cases 

involving noncompliance on a corporate-wide basis or noncompliance in multi-state 

operations. 

5. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes 

RCRA compliance monitoring is a collaborative effort between OECA, Regions, and authorized or 

approved states. Each of these entities performs complementary but distinct roles. OECA provides 

national program leadership, and oversight of Regional and state programs, aimed at increasing 

program effectiveness and national consistency. 

To the extent practicable, Regions and authorized or approved states should: 

Ensure the most serious environmental problems caused by noncompliance are addressed. 

Regions should accomplish this primarily through annual planning with states, state program 

oversight, strategic and targeted federal inspections and enforcement in states, and through 

direct implementation in Indian country. Regions provide capacity-building support to states 

 

17 Note: To meet the agency wide schedule, the final OECA NPM Guidance is being issued now, although we have not 

completed discussions on the content and schedule for the budget adjustments portion of the Guidance. Some of the 

budget adjustments outlined in this final guidance may be revised as we continue work on implementation plans. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 56

on complex or multi-state issues; and consult with states to identify compliance problems that 

may warrant areas of national focus. Regions should meet and consult regularly (for example, 

quarterly) with each authorized state to maintain communication on progress towards meeting 

annual permitting and enforcement commitments, enhancing program performance and 

ensuring fairness and a level playing field. 

Focus oversight resources on the most pressing performance problems in states and work to 

demonstrably improve state performance. Regions need to take enforcement action where 

states are not addressing serious violations to call attention to needed improvements in order 

to achieve the benefits of federal environmental laws and ensure a level playing field between 

states.

States are encouraged to report to the Regions and OECA, any patterns of noncompliance 

they may identify through their inspections or other activities. 

Regional direct implementation in Indian country includes applying the various RCRA 

compliance monitoring strategies and enforcement policies and OECA’s Guidance on the 

Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy (January 17, 2001). OECA’s 

Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy contains 

procedures for consultation with federally-recognized tribes in the civil compliance 

monitoring and enforcement context and contains threshold criteria for EPA‘s consideration 

of enforcement actions. The threshold criteria are not intended to, and should not, result in a 

lesser degree of human health and environmental protection in Indian country than elsewhere 

in the U.S.

Participate with authorized or approved states in a national dialogue to expand the range of 

compliance monitoring activities that may be counted under the RCRA compliance 

monitoring strategy. Traditionally, on-site compliance inspections and investigations have 

been the primary means for undertaking coverage of the regulated universe. However, as the 

regulated universe of sources continues to expand resulting in a significant challenge to our 

ability to conduct on-site evaluations, the Regions and authorized or approved states need to 

use available resources in the most effective manner. 

RCRA Corrective Action 

RCRA corrective action is implemented by EPA and 43 authorized states and territories. On April 

27, 2010, OECA and OSWER jointly issued the ―National Enforcement Strategy for Corrective 

Action‖ (NESCA). This strategy encourages EPA and states to continue to work in partnership to 

achieve the 2020 Corrective Action goals and emphasizes the need for close communication and 

coordination between EPA and states to meet this goal. Regions should be working closely with 

their state partners to implement NESCA. NESCA provides guidance to Regions and states for 

targeting enforcement efforts and to address special considerations that arise in the enforcement 

arena, such as ensuring enforceable requirements and deadlines in permits and orders are clearly 

identified, dealing with companies having financial difficulties, using CERCLA authorities, 

ensuring institutional controls are effective and enforceable and long-term stewardship requirements 

are met, and increasing the transparency and community involvement of enforcement efforts. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 57

OECA will continue to provide training to both Regions and states on how to review financial test 

and corporate guarantee submissions for compliance. EPA and its state partners are currently in the 

process of assessing the contribution of NESCA in achieving progress toward the 2020 Corrective 

Action Goals. 

Regions and authorized states should: 

Enhance coordination within your offices and among regulatory partners. 

Emphasize compliance monitoring, including ensuring that a compliance schedule is 

in place at all EPA-lead and state-lead facilities under a permit or order, determining 

whether noncompliance with cleanup milestones exists, and taking appropriate 

action in cases of noncompliance. 

6. Improve Transparency 

At the end of the fiscal year or when otherwise available, OECA will make essential information, 

such as the following, available to the public via OECA‘s web page, or by other means:

Results of the State Review Framework; 

Results of the annual commitment reporting; and 

Highlights of significant EPA and state enforcement actions. 

Regions are expected to use their own comparable existing mechanisms to inform the 

public. States are encouraged to do likewise. 

Compliance data should distinguish state information from Indian Country information. 

Information should be made available to communities, including tribes, who lack access to 

the internet.

7. Relevant Policies and Guidance 

Additional information about OECA‘s RCRA programs can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/rcra/index.html 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/rcra.html

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup 

B. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

The Toxic Substances Control Act provides EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping 

and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. TSCA 

also addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals, including leadbased paint (LBP), formaldehyde, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and asbestos. 

OECA addresses toxics problems through the following TSCA programs: 

Lead-based Paint Risk Reduction Program. 

New and Existing Chemicals Programs (TSCA Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 12 and 13).

Formaldehyde in composite board products (a new addition to TSCA). 

PCB Program. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 58

Asbestos Program, which includes the Worker Protection Standard, Model Accreditation Plan 

Program, and Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). 

TSCA Compliance Monitoring Strategy

On September 16, 2011, the TSCA Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) became effective. The 

CMS adopts a strategic ―One-TSCA‖ program approach, which focuses TSCA resources on 

addressing the Region‘s most significant TSCA challenges. 

To help implement the One-TSCA approach, the TSCA ACS commitments will include a new 

commitment to report the Region‘s other compliance monitoring activities beyond inspections and 

investigations (see the CMS for further details on compliance monitoring activities). 

OECA will be holding a national dialogue on how to expand the range of compliance monitoring 

activities to be credited under media CMS. This is necessary as the regulated universe continues to 

grow while federal and state resources become more scarce. Traditionally, on-site compliance 

inspections and investigations have been the primary means for providing coverage of the regulated 

universe. There are many additional activities regulatory agencies do to monitor facility-level 

compliance that can and should be considered along with inspections and investigations as 

contributing to our coverage goals. EPA Regions, states and tribes should participate in this 

national dialogue in 2012, and be ready to implement the outcome of this discussion in 2013. 

Consistent with EPA‘s desire to better address large regulated universes (e.g., the vast universe 

subject to the LBP Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule [ RRP Rule]) with approaches that go 

beyond traditional inspection and enforcement activities, Regions are expected to support the 

Agency‘s Next Generation Compliance by promoting electronic monitoring and reporting to 

improve targeting and transparency as well as by advancing new monitoring technologies to 

enhance the ability to identify violations impacting public health and harming the environment. 

OC Resources Provided for TSCA Implementation

OECA received appropriated funding for portions of the LBP, PCB and Asbestos programs to be 

given to identified states, tribes and territories (collectively, states) under State and Tribal 

Assistance Grants (STAG) for implementation of those programs. Additionally, OECA has 

received funds appropriated for Environmental Program and Management (EPM) LBP compliance 

monitoring activities. These funds are not to be directed to other programs or for other uses. 

Funding for State/Tribal Programs 

In the past, OECA has made about $5 million ($M) in STAG funds available annually for 

implementing the LBP, Asbestos, and PCB programs. OC has distributed these funds to the 

Regions, who then negotiate grant agreements with the states to support state compliance and 

enforcement activities. The Regions conduct oversight of the state programs and grants. Regional 

direct implementation of the asbestos, PCB and LBP programs has been expected to complement 

state implementation activities. Further guidance on Regional direct implementation activities and 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 59

grant oversight for asbestos and PCBs will be provided in implementation plans addressing budget 

adjustments in these areas. 

Currently, $1.5M (of the total $5M STAG dollars) support LBP programs. These funds are divided 

among: 1) 41 states and two tribes authorized for the §402(a) lead abatement program; 2) five 

states authorized for the §406(b) Pre-renovation Education (PRE) program; and 3) twelve states 

authorized for the RRP program. The remaining $3.5M in STAG funds support twelve asbestos 

waiver states, fourteen non-waiver states and nine PCB state programs. For FY 13, OECA will 

evaluate the future strategic use of STAG funds and the oversight of state grants. 

Funding for Regional Programs 

OECA has made about $1.2M in EPM funds available annually for regional Senior Environmental 

Employee (SEE) inspectors for LBP direct implementation programs. It is important that these 

EPM funds be used only for compliance monitoring activities (i.e., activities that determine 

compliance status) and not for enforcement or administrative support.

Screening Tools and Checklists 

OC plans to develop and refine screening tools/checklists that the Regions may use to support 

multi-media activities that can be included in the Region‘s TSCA02 reporting commitment. These 

tools will be designed for an inspector to quickly complete while at a facility conducting an 

inspection for programs other than TSCA. The use of these tools may help the Region to target for 

further inspections or to determine that the facility is likely to be in compliance with the applicable 

TSCA requirements. In any event, these tools will provide EPA with additional coverage for the 

TSCA programs. The Regions and states are free to develop and use their own checklists/screening 

tools that are as least as inclusive as the HQ tools. If they do, they are expected to share those tools 

with HQ, the other Regions and states. OC will ask for electronic copies of such tools during the 

monthly conference calls and will establish a location where they will be available for anyone to 

review and use for their own programs. 

1. Link with Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention’s Top Priorities

OECA addresses the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) priorities for 

TSCA programs in the following way: 

Reduce Lead Risks: OECA provides overall direction to Regions and authorized states, tribes 

and territories to promote compliance with all of the LBP rules, with a significant focus on the 

RRP Rule. 

Assess and Reduce Risks from New and Existing Chemicals: OECA focuses on compliance 

with TSCA Section 5. 

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 60

TSCA‘s enforcement programs are significant to communities because they address chemicals that 

can pose serious risks to human health and the environment. Lead-based paint is particularly 

dangerous to children: exposure may cause reduced intelligence, learning disabilities, behavior 

problems, and other developmental delays. Because LBP is found in pre-1978 buildings, it is more 

common in communities predominated by older housing; in some cases, this housing is in lowincome, minority, and environmental justice (EJ) communities. Due to these risks, OECA has made 

ensuring compliance with the TSCA LBP requirements its top priority for the TSCA compliance 

monitoring and enforcement program. 

ACS Commitments and Implementation

COMMITMENT TSCA01: Project the total number of FY2013 TSCA inspections. In the 

comment field of the Annual Commitment System (ACS), the Region shall break out the number of 

projected inspections by TSCA program area (LBP, New and Existing Chemicals, formaldehyde,). 

Note: For the reasons discussed in the executive summary, the LBP component of this TSCA ACS 

commitment (TSCA 01) will serve as OECA’s FY 2013 measure of compliance work being done to 

protect children's health. 

COMMITMENT TSCA02: Report other compliance monitoring activities at the end of the year; 

and break-out the description of other such activities by TSCA program area. (See the CMS and the 

future outcomes of the compliance monitoring national dialogue for more details). 

For Regional ACS planning purposes, Regions should target their FY2013 ACS commitments 

based upon a historic baseline (e.g., the last three years of representative TSCA resources available 

for inspections and other compliance assurance activities), and describe how those resources will be 

utilized in FY2013. If the Region‘s FY2013 bid is significantly lower than its recent past output (or 

lower than national output norms consistent with resources), then the Region should be prepared to 

explain the rationale for such deviation to Headquarters. 

Regions may need to make adjustments before or during the fiscal year to accommodate potential 

activities for the new formaldehyde rule (discussed below). Such potential activities include work 

with other programs related to TSCA screening activities. In addition, some inspection resources 

may be shifted to other compliance monitoring activities (e.g., where a Region has a backlog of 

enforcement actions, it may shift inspection resources to work with local housing code authorities to 

ensure any ordered repairs to target housing are done in compliance with the RRP requirements). 

Regions that remain invested in the new and existing chemicals program should direct 10 percent of 

their TSCA resources to ensuring the safety of chemicals (new and existing chemicals) and the 

formaldehyde rule (where appropriate) and 90 percent of their TSCA resources to the lead-based 

paint (LBP) program. All other Regions should devote up to 5 percent of their TSCA resources to 

the formaldehyde rule (where appropriate) and the remaining percent of their TSCA resources to the 

LBP program. Almost all (i.e., 95 percent) of the LBP resources should be directed to the RRP 

Rule. Section 1018 inspections should only be conducted in response to tips and complaints or as 

part of a RRP or abatement inspection. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 61

a. TSCA Lead Risk Reduction Program 

Regions and authorized states are expected to implement the CMS for LBP, including the principles 

and activities identified for the RRP, §402 Abatement, §406 PRE, and §1018 rules as an integral 

part of the Region‘s One-TSCA program. The CMS articulates and encourages coordinated 

activities aimed at: 1) determining compliance among the regulated universe; and 2) using nontraditional approaches to promote compliance by regulated operations. 

Regions should implement the program priorities and activities set out in detail in the CMS. Those 

activities include conducting an appropriate balance of the various types of inspections (e.g., record 

reviews, training course audits, and work-site inspections); and conducting other compliance 

assurance activities, such as using checklists and other screening tools for cursory compliance 

reviews, working with local housing code authorities to help ensure only certified firms are used for 

repair and renovation work on pre-1978 housing. As discussed above, to effectively accomplish 

these objectives, the CMS establishes that Regions must know the regulated universe to the extent 

practicable, and prioritize the environmental problems to be addressed (i.e., focus on hot spots). 

For LBP inspections, once the universe is known, the Region should use the targeting principles set 

forth in the CMS. Additionally, Regions may wish to focus RRP inspection activities at primary 

schools and large child care centers where there is a better chance of obtaining access to the facility 

and observe contractors‘ actual compliance with required work practices because children are 

present and the renovation activities may occur over a long period. While at these facilities, 

inspectors should also see if there are any opportunities to leverage resources as described in the 

CMS.

Regions should: 

Respond appropriately to tips and complaints, as described in the CMS; and actively follow-up 

on the highest priority action items as determined through an objective triage process such as 

described in the CMS. 

Target for, and conduct audits at the Region‘s most active EPA-accredited training provider 

programs to assure and promote a high level of compliance across the regulated community 

(each Region will determine the appropriate number of audits based on the particulars of that 

Region). 

Focus efforts in high-priority lead ―hot spots‖ as described in the CMS (e.g., geographical areas 

with evidence or indicators of significant or wide-spread EBLLs). 

Focus primarily on RRP/PRE compliance. At least 95% of the Region‘s LBP compliance 

efforts should be directed to RRP/PRE, and no more than 5% to new § 1018-only compliance. 

The CMS encourages Regions to employ integrated strategies and targeting so that, while 

focusing primarily on RRP/PRE, the Region may concomitantly monitor for and enforce 

compliance with other LBP rules (the § 1018 and § 402 Abatement rules), as appropriate (e.g., 

the Region may conduct § 1018 inspections in conjunction with RRP/PRE inspections of 

property management firms that also conduct property renovations). 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 62

Use a variety of methods to inspect for RRP/PRE compliance: record review inspections for 

RRP and PRE; and field work practice for RRP. 

―Bundle‖ press activities related to filing complaints and coordinate with OECA to bundle cases 

from multiple Regions as appropriate. 

Partner with state and local government code enforcement and building permit programs and 

state/local health departments to conduct joint inspections. 

In addition, Regions should do the following: 

In areas where Regions conduct integrated strategies (as part of the national RRP enforcement 

strategy or otherwise), include methods to better target compliance monitoring and enforcement 

activities, such as partnering with state and local health departments and health care providers to 

identify lead hot spots and individual properties associated with EBLL children. 

Work with their LBP programmatic (non-enforcement) offices in the region to encourage states 

to seek authorization for the RRP program. 

Conduct appropriate oversight of authorized state § 402 and § 406 programs. 

Closely investigate the applicability of the LBP regulations to housing at federal facilities.18

All of these considerations should be covered when reporting activities for the Region‘s TSCA 02 

commitment.

b. TSCA New and Existing Chemicals Programs 

The TSCA New and Existing Chemicals Program is exclusively a Federal program that provides for 

review of the toxicity of chemicals prior to their manufacture and importation to prevent 

unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. To assist the Regions in targeting 

inspections, OECA commits to working with OCSPP to obtain lists of facilities for targeting 

inspections. Additionally OC plans to develop a tool to help all media inspectors 1) screen for 

facilities potentially subject to core TSCA requirements when performing their pre-inspection 

activities for the facility; and 2) ask a few appropriate questions in the field to help determine the 

facilities compliance with TSCA if applicable. 

The Regions should: 

Focus TSCA compliance activities on chemical manufacturing, distribution, processing, use, or 

disposal in emerging technologies and/or use of new chemicals. 

 

18 Many federal agencies maintain housing for both federal employees/dependents, contractors, and/or tenants, and such 

housing is subject to the requirements of the LBP regulations, including the LDR. However, consistent with the 

Kingsville Naval Air Station decision (March 17, 2000, TSCA Appeal #99-2), FFEO should be consulted for any case 

wherein ―assignment of quarters‖ by the Department of Defense (DOD) is involved.
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 63

Increase the use of TSCA subpoenas for investigation of potential noncompliance 

Where field activities are conducted (inspections or screening), focus on ensuring facility 

compliance with: 

o TSCA § 5 - new chemicals requirements such as Pre-manufacturing Notice (PMN); 

Significant New Use Rules (SNUR‘s); Low Volume Exemptions (LVE‘s), and on 

chemicals of concern including short chained and other chlorinated paraffins, fractions 

and other priority or Action Plan chemicals or targets. 

Target existing chemical reporting and record keeping requirements such as TSCA § 8(c), (d) 

and (e) and the Chemical Data Reporting Rule. 

Bundle the settlement or litigation of multiple TSCA § 4 and nanotechnology cases. 

Evaluate and prioritize tips and complaints and follow-up as appropriate. Targeting for future 

inspections based on credible leads from tips and complaints should also be considered. 

Regions implementing this program are also expected to follow-up on all referrals received from 

headquarters, states, tribes, and the public. Regions not implementing this program should refer 

tips and complaints the Waste and Chemical Enforcement Division within the Office of Civil 

Enforcement. 

Obtain information through inspections and/or subpoena as appropriate. Initiate civil 

enforcement actions, as appropriate, to bring facilities into compliance.

Focus compliance, monitoring and enforcement efforts on the 2011 Chemical Data Reporting 

Rule. 

c. TSCA Formaldehyde Programs

On July 7, 2010, the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act was signed into 

law. It restricts formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products sold or manufactured in the 

U.S. -- including those imported. These products include hardwood plywood, medium-density 

fiberboard, and particle board, as well as goods made from these wood products. The law amends 

TSCA by adding Title VI. 

The law requires EPA by January 1, 2013, to implement formaldehyde emission standards that 

apply to products sold in the United States, based on the rules originally established by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). In addition to these standards, Title VI requires thirdparty testing and certification to ensure that subject products comply with the standards, and it 

directs EPA to work with Customs and Border Protection and other relevant federal agencies to 

enforce the standards for imported products. 

During the first year of implementation, EPA should focus on (1) determining the universe of 

composite wood product manufacturers, third-party certifiers (TPCs) and accrediting bodies and (2) 

emissions testing compliance by composite wood product manufacturers. 

OCSPP is currently planning a database which will store information received from composite 

wood product manufacturers. If the database is fully functioning by 2013, the database should be 

checked to determine the universe of composite wood product manufacturers. 

Information submitted to TPCs by composite wood product manufacturers can be inspected and 

checked against information in the database for compliance with the formaldehyde rule. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 64

Accrediting Bodies can be inspected to determine who the TPCs are and whether the TPCs are 

operating in accordance with the rule. 

d. TSCA PCB Programs 

Many important efforts to protect people from exposure to PCBs are continuing to occur in 

programs other than enforcement; for example, in FY 2013, OCSPP regional offices will provide 

assistance to schools when requested in assessing the presence of PCBs in caulk, fluorescent light 

ballasts and other sources and promote education and outreach efforts on PCBs in schools. These 

activities were taken into account in the decision to have a limited national enforcement presence in 

this area; EPA will focus on addressing nationally-significant PCB civil and criminal violations that 

may present a significant risk to human health or the environment and maintain some field presence 

at EPA-approved commercial PCB storage and disposal facilities.19 

e. TSCA Asbestos Program/AHERA 

Since 1986, when the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) amended TSCA to 

require schools to inspect their buildings for asbestos-containing materials and implement asbestosmanagement programs, EPA has devoted considerable resources to educating schools about the 

risks associated with asbestos and assisting with managing these risks. The success of these efforts 

means that EPA is able to reduce its civil and criminal enforcement presence in this area to a limited 

national presence, with a focus on the most egregious violations of AHERA20

. 

 

States that have ―waiver‖ status are expected to: 

Within a reasonable period of time, investigate and respond appropriately to any 

tips/complaints containing allegations that provide a reasonable basis to believe that a 

violation has occurred. 

Conduct inspections and take appropriate enforcement action in each state and in Indian 

Country to assure equitable protection and ensure compliance with the TSCA asbestos 

regulations. 

Enforce under state law, in states that have "waiver" status. 

3. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes 

The Regions should work with states and tribes to identify any obstacles to implementation of the 

expectations above and work to resolve them. This includes convening routine and regular 

meetings between the region and states to discuss progress towards meeting annual program and 

enforcement commitments, and how the state has been performing overall in its implementation of 

the program. 

 

19 Note: To meet the agency wide schedule, the final OECA NPM Guidance is being issued now, although we have not 

completed discussions on the content and schedule for the budget adjustments portion of the Guidance. Some of the 

budget adjustments outlined in this final guidance may be revised as we continue work on implementation plans. 

20 See previous footnote. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 65

The Grants Administration Division issued guidance for the TSCA grants program that requires that 

negotiated grant workplans prominently display the following three Essential Elements: Essential 

Element 1 - Strategic Plan Goal; Essential Element 2 - Strategic Plan Objective; and Essential 

Element 3 - Workplan Commitments plus time frame. Regional Program Offices must 

electronically enter workplans and progress report information into an IT application currently 

being developed. 

Where states are not meeting performance expectations, Regions should focus oversight resources 

to the most pressing performance problems in states and should work to demonstrably improve state 

performance. OECA and the Regions will use a variety of mechanisms to ensure adequate 

oversight, including regular meetings and consultations with states/tribes, grant reviews, oversight 

inspections, and enforcement actions.

Regions should provide: 

Regional updates on actions and outcomes through discussions with OECA (generally, 

through existing channels of communication). 

Review of state inspection reports, feedback to states, and enforcement actions as 

appropriate, where inspections are conducted by states with EPA credentials. Additionally, 

Regions should provide reports to OECA in accordance with Guidance for Issuing Federal 

EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of State/Tribal Governments to Conduct 

Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004). 

EPA Order 3510 requires that each EPA office which prints and distributes credentials (i.e. 

federal credentials issued to state and tribal inspectors to conduct inspections on behalf of 

EPA) conduct an annual inventory, including an annual physical possession check of 10% of 

the credentials. 

Consultation with tribes on the central role that enforcement and compliance plays in EPA‘s 

direct implementation program and oversight of approved tribal programs. Regional direct 

implementation in Indian country includes applying the various TSCA compliance 

monitoring strategies and enforcement policies and OECA’s Guidance on the Enforcement 

Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy (January 17, 2001). OECA’s Guidance on the

Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy contains procedures for 

consultation with federally-recognized tribes in the civil compliance monitoring and 

enforcement context and contains threshold criteria for EPA‘s consideration of enforcement 

actions. The threshold criteria are not intended to, and should not result in a lesser degree of 

human health and environmental protection in Indian country than elsewhere in the U.S. 

The Regions should work with the state/local agencies and tribes to identify priorities and align 

resources to implement the above commitments. This includes: 

Participating with delegated agencies in the ongoing dialogue at the national level to discuss 

what activities may be counted under a compliance monitoring strategy. Traditionally, onsite compliance evaluations and investigations have been the primary means for undertaking 

coverage of the regulated universe. However, as the regulated universe of sources continues 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 66

to expand resulting in a significant challenge to our ability to conduct on-site evaluations, 

the Regions and delegated agencies need to use available resources in the most effective 

manner. 

Regions should focus primarily on state program oversight and capacity-building to ensure 

states are appropriately using tools to help ensure compliance, and more importantly, 

integrating those tools to help effectively reduce EBLLs and LBP hazards in identified lead 

hot spots; support states and tribes on complex or multi-state or multi-tribal compliance 

issues; and consult with states and tribes to identify issues that may warrant areas of national 

focus. 

For TSCA asbestos, Regions should encourage states and tribes to develop their own 

regulations and apply for a ―waiver‖ where applicable.

4. Improve Transparency 

The Regions should: 

Work with the states and tribes using EPA credentials to ensure that the data on inspections 

they conduct on EPA‘s behalf is input into national databases. For waivers states, ensure 

compliance and enforcement data are provided in aggregate form as part of midyear and end 

of year evaluation reports. (Note: This is not applicable to the lead program.) 

Enter all federal inspections, including the Inspection Compliance Data Sheet (ICDS), and 

enforcement cases into ICIS. 

Publicize regional enforcement actions taken through press releases. 

Distinguish state compliance data from Indian country information.

Make information available to communities, including tribal communities, who may lack 

access to the internet. 

5. Relevant Policies and Guidance 

Additional information about OECA‘s TSCA programs can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/tsca/index.html

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/tsca/index.html

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/tsca/asbestoes.html

C. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

A major focus of EPA‘s FIFRA program is to ensure compliance by pesticide registrants and to 

provide assistance, training, and oversight to states and tribes carrying out FIFRA-related 

compliance and enforcement activities under cooperative enforcement agreements. The statute gives 

states primary compliance monitoring and enforcement responsibility for the use of pesticides 

within their respective jurisdictions. However, EPA directly implements FIFRA in Indian country, 

including compliance monitoring and enforcement for pesticide use, although Tribes enforce similar 

provisions under their own tribal codes through enforcement agreements with EPA. For more 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 67

information on the FIFRA compliance monitoring program, readers are urged to review the FIFRA 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) which provides detailed information about the FIFRA core 

program implementation, targeting, prioritizing and types of inspections, program oversight, and 

other aspects of the FIFRA compliance monitoring program, as well as the Joint EPA OPP/OECA 

State and Tribal Cooperative Agreement Guidance which directs state and tribal activities to 

establish compliance monitoring priorities. 

1. Link with Top Office of Pesticide Programs Priorities 

OECA‘s compliance monitoring and enforcement efforts support the FIFRA program priority of a 

strong field presence to ensure that the risk mitigation decisions of the Office of Pesticide Programs 

result in their intended protections and to reduce pesticide risk. In addition, both OECA and the 

Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) identify Pesticide Occupational Worker Safety as one proposed 

regional-specific priority focus area. Effective implementation of EPA‘s occupational safety 

programs is one of OPP‘s highest priorities, and a key component of OPP‘s strategy to ensure the 

safety of pesticide chemicals, prevent pollution and advance environmental justice and children‘s

health. 

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 

EPA protects human health and the environment by ensuring compliance and effectively enforcing 

FIFRA regulatory requirements through federal inspections and enforcement. The core program 

also protects human health and the environment, including water resources, through support and 

oversight of state and tribal monitoring and enforcement of pesticide use/misuse. 

EPA will ensure compliance with and effective enforcement of FIFRA regulatory requirements. 

The core program should include compliance and enforcement activities covering: protecting 

workers, pesticide registration and labeling, data quality requirements21, efficacy and compositional 

integrity of hospital disinfectant products, pesticide producing establishment registration and annual 

production data reporting, import/export requirements, registrant reporting of unreasonable adverse 

effects and compliance monitoring and enforcement of non-compliant pesticides. 

In conducting this work, all Regions are expected to participate in Focus Areas A, B and C 

discussed on the following pages. States and tribes with cooperative enforcement agreements may 

also become involved in supporting these activities, as appropriate, by including relevant activities 

in their negotiated cooperative agreements. 

Focus Area A: FIFRA Imports of Non-compliant Pesticides 

EPA‘s enforcement program addresses the illegal importation of noncompliant pesticide products

into the United States by bringing enforcement actions against importers and others, and working 

with other governments, agencies and stakeholders to prevent and reduce risks of unsafe products 

 

21 The FIFRA Good Laboratory Practices Standards Program is a Headquarters only program and an area where OECA 

will maintain a limited national presence. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 68

entering our country. Illegal pesticide imports may present significant human health and 

environmental risks and have been linked to poisonings of children and pets, so interception before 

they enter the United States is critical. 

EPA Regions have been the primary source of inspections and enforcement for this area. States 

may become involved through region-to-state referrals to monitor import compliance, or states may 

encounter imported products during the course of their compliance monitoring inspections. EPA 

should make their states aware of EPA‘s strong interest in import compliance and encourage them 

to collaborate with EPA when situations warrant. 

Currently, the FIFRA compliance monitoring and enforcement program manually reviews FIFRA 

Notices of Arrival (NOAs) for pesticide products and devices entering the U.S. and provides 

direction and guidance to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as to whether the pesticide should 

be allowed to enter U.S. commerce. The planned transition to an automated processing system in 

FY 14 [the Automated Commercial Environment in the International Trade Data System 

(ACE/ITDS)] creates opportunities to reduce the investment in manual processing of FIFRA 

Notices of Arrival (NOAs) to a limited national presence. The budget adjustment focuses solely on 

the processing of NOAs and not other aspects of the import compliance and enforcement program. 

Once fully functional, ACE/ITDS will process the majority of NOAs, significantly reducing the 

need for manual review and approval by EPA, and allowing EPA to reduce its resources currently 

devoted to this work.22

EPA will continue to: 

Monitor import compliance through inspections at the designated destination point for the 

imported products. Such inspections would be conducted after the imported pesticides have 

been released by the CBP and have entered into U.S. commerce. Take physical samples when 

appropriate. 

Place special emphasis on compliance of pesticides imported into Foreign Trade Zones for 

storage, processing or packaging prior to release into U.S. commerce. 

Focus on importers with a history of noncompliance or significant importation activity from 

countries frequently associated with noncompliant shipments. 

Screen for potential discrepancies concerning legitimate sources and countries of origin 

identified on the confidential statement of formula for both active ingredients used to produce 

registered end-use pesticides and the production of manufacturing-use pesticides, while 

reviewing Notices of Arrival (NOAs). Where potential discrepancies are noted, follow-up 

investigations may be warranted to further evidence collection, at U.S. registered agents for 

foreign producers and domestic producing establishments. 

 

22 Note: To meet the agency wide schedule, the final OECA NPM Guidance is being issued now, although we have not 

completed discussions on the content and schedule for the budget adjustments portion of the Guidance. Some of the 

budget adjustments outlined in this final guidance may be revised as we continue work on implementation plans. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 69

Take enforcement actions, as appropriate, to ensure optimum deterrence effect and enforcement 

impact. 

Address noncompliance by taking enforcement action against violative import shipments and 

then, when appropriate, develop cases that address corporate-wide noncompliant behavior.

Building on the success in addressing non-compliant pesticide products, EPA will continue to work 

with CBP‘s Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center (CBP CTAC) by combining and leveraging 

resources to implement national operations strategically focusing on importers with a history of 

noncompliance or significant importation activity from countries frequently associated with 

noncompliant shipments. 

Focus Area B: Supplemental Registrations 

Supplemental pesticide registrations are a continued source of concern for regulators across the 

country. States, which conduct thousands of marketplace inspections each year, have raised concern 

over supplemental or ―distributor products‖ labels for years, citing them as a major source of 

noncompliance. Supplemental registrations are distributor labels approved for marketing as a subregistration to a registered pesticide. Although required to be consistent with the labels of the basic 

registered products, distributor product labels frequently deviate substantially from the EPA 

accepted labels. Such unapproved product labeling can lead to misuse and misapplication as well as 

pose significant risks to the users who rely on product labels to inform them about proper and safe 

pesticide use. Due to the potential risk associated with the use of improperly labeled pesticides, it is 

important that the EPA aggressively pursue compliance for supplemental registrations. 

EPA issues supplemental registrations for a wide range of pesticide products in every toxicity 

category, including agricultural chemicals, pesticides used for residential pest control, lawn and 

garden pesticides, as well as for disinfectants and other antimicrobial products. To address 

noncompliance in this focus area, EPA will place emphasis on registrants with a large number of 

current supplemental registrations or registrants marketing Tox 1 category distributor products. 

EPA will determine distributor product compliance by undertaking a comprehensive review of 

product labeling and product chemistry, when appropriate. 

Each Region will conduct inspections as appropriate to monitor for label/labeling compliance, 

product composition, and compliance with the provisions as described in to 40 CFR § 152.132, 

including the restrictions on where and how a supplemental distributor pesticide may be produced 

and packaged. This should include any contract manufacturing agreement(s) that should be in place. 

States may wish to participate, too, and can be a significant source of information about 

noncompliant distributor products. 

The EPA should develop enforcement actions to address corporate-wide compliance. Regions 

should coordinate with the Office of Civil Enforcement‘s Waste and Chemical Enforcement 

Division and other Regions in developing corporate-wide cases. In addition, Regions should take 

enforcement actions, as appropriate, to ensure optimum deterrence and compliance impact. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 70

Focus Area C: Region-Specific Focus Area Developed in Consultation with States 

In FY13, in addition to the focus areas A and B above, Regions will develop a separate focus area 

with their State Lead Agencies (SLAs) to address a FIFRA enforcement issue of regional and state 

significance. Although SLA and EPA enforcement priorities differ, there are many issues where 

EPA and state interests overlap and as such, may be good candidates for an NPM focus area. This 

focus area presents a unique opportunity for Regions and states to comprehensively address a 

pesticide enforcement problem area. For example, an EPA Region might choose in consultation 

with its states to focus on rodenticide products. Under this scenario, states might look a rodenticide 

product misuse or pesticide applicator certifications while the Region would look at rodenticide 

production and labeling. 

The State FIFRA Issues Research Group (SFIREG) conducted a survey of state enforcement 

priorities and most common FIFRA violations, and identified several overlapping areas including 

pesticide misuse (over application, unlabeled pesticides) and pesticide drift. Additional issues 

identified by EPA that may be appropriate for a coordinated enforcement focus area under this 

FY13 are listed below. 

Fumigants/Fumigation 

Worker Safety 

Retail Marketing 

Container/Containment 

 

More detail on each of these areas is provided below. In developing a focus area, the Regions 

should consult with the states to identify the states‘ top enforcement priorities and focus on an 

environmental or human health problem that advances both state and federal enforcement programs. 

Commitment FIFRA-FED1: Project regional (federal) FIFRA inspections. Each Region should 

conduct a minimum of ten (10) FIFRA inspections. In the Comment Section, provide the number 

of federal facility inspections. 

Option 1: Fumigants/Fumigation

Fumigants are a class of highly toxic pesticides that are efficacious in a gaseous stage, making them 

very hazardous to handle and use. These products have a wide range of application use, 

including treatment of residential structures, warehouses, transportation vehicles, grains and 

other agricultural commodities, and soil. Improper or inadequate use directions and safety 

precautions on the product labeling and improper use of these products often result in serious 

exposure incidents potentially leading to death or hospitalization. Due to the potential risk 

associated with fumigant use, it is critical that EPA and the states work collaboratively to 

proactively monitor compliance with existing product labeling requirements, as well as proper 

use of fumigant products. 

The NPM Guidance‘s fumigants/fumigation focus area is primarily targeted on product regulatory 

compliance and use/application compliance for all areas of fumigation including structural 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 71

(residential and commercial), transportation vehicles and containers, soil, agricultural commodities, 

and other products. 

Targeting should consider production factors (facility location, production volume, and product) 

as well as use/application factors (use patterns of concern and volume/frequency of use). For 

FY2012, participating Regions are expected to implement one or more of the compliance 

monitoring approaches identified below and to initiate appropriate enforcement actions. 

EPA has primary responsibility for monitoring compliance and initiating enforcement action against 

violators of pesticide user requirements where states lack primacy and in Indian country unless a 

Region and a tribe maintain a cooperative enforcement agreement. In addition, states have primary 

responsibility for monitoring compliance and initiating enforcement action against violators of 

pesticide use requirements (referred to as ―primacy). Regions are encouraged to determine whether 

there are opportunities for federal cases to support state efforts. Federal involvement or support can 

provide significant benefits by addressing noncompliance from a national corporate-wide 

perspective, facilitating compliance efforts involving multiple states and/or Regions, and enhancing 

public awareness. 

OECA will work with OPP to obtain FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) information across a broad class of 

pesticide fumigants including structural, grain, and soil, among others. Section 6(a)(2) 

information, together with information regarding fumigant incidents from the states, press and 

other available sources, will help target fumigant uses where an enforcement monitoring 

presence may significantly deter future violations. 

Regions should work with their states to identify federal and state PEI opportunities, with special 

emphasis placed on the priority fumigants frequently involved in exposure incidents (i.e., sulfuryl 

fluoride, methyl bromide, aluminum phosphide, zinc phosphide, metamsodium, and chloropicrin). 

State PEIs can be applied toward meeting negotiated PEIs commitments within existing cooperative 

agreements. Physical samples of fumigant gases should not be taken; only documentary samples of 

the labeling, container, and other appropriate materials should be sampled. Physical samples of 

non-gas fumigants can be sampled and analyzed. 

When monitoring compliance in application settings subject to FIFRA‘s Worker Protection 

Standards (WPS), such as on-farm use of grain or soil fumigants, compliance with the WPS labeling 

requirements should also be monitored. 

Enforcement actions should be pursued under both state and federal authorities, as appropriate. 

Similarly, EPA will pursue enforcement actions under FIFRA when noncompliance arises in Indian 

country. Significant use or product compliance violations discovered during state or tribal 

investigations should be considered for referral to EPA for federal enforcement, when appropriate. 

Regions should work with states and tribes to identify opportunities within existing cooperative 

agreements for federal involvement or case support (particularly in cases involving human 

exposure, death, or other serious non-compliance). Headquarters will provide assistance, as needed, 

to states, tribes, and Regions in support of enforcement actions. Headquarters will develop a plan to 

coordinate filing of enforcement cases to ensure optimum deterrence effect and compliance impact. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 72

Option 2: Worker Safety

Agricultural farm workers and pesticide applicators face a disproportionately high risk of 

exposure to pesticides (from mixing, loading and applying pesticides; hand labor tasks in 

pesticide treated crops; and pesticide drift from neighboring fields). Studies show that farm 

worker families have higher levels of pesticide exposure than non-farm worker families (take-home 

exposure transfer of pesticide residues and proximity of housing to treated areas). There are 2 

million farm workers in the US, over a million certified applicators, and 2–3 million 

noncertified applicators applying pesticides under the supervision of certified applicators. It is 

important to protect farm workers from occupational pesticide hazards to ensure their safety in 

the workplace and viability as a community. 

Under FIFRA, states with primacy enforce pesticide use, including the worker protection 

standards. States with primacy also conduct compliance monitoring inspections. Regions are 

encouraged to determine whether there are opportunities for federal cases to support state efforts. 

Where EPA implements FIFRA, including in Indian country, the Agency enforces requirements 

governing pesticide use and conducts compliance monitoring inspections. Tribes with cooperative 

enforcement agreements with EPA may conduct compliance monitoring inspections under their 

own tribal codes. 

To optimize the risk reduction potential of compliance monitoring, Regions are expected to place 

particular emphasis on farming activities that typically involve frequent use of highly toxic 

pesticides, such as in fruit and vegetable production and on-farm grain and soil fumigation. 

Compliance monitoring and enforcement activities should include product and use inspections. 

Performance expectations for an active federal cooperative compliance/enforcement role within the 

Worker Safety focus area include: 

Regions should work with their state and tribal partners to target federal and state PEIs 

(focusing on high toxicity pesticides subject to FIFRA‘s Worker Protection Standards 

(WPS) labeling requirements and associated with high-risk applications/uses such as fruit 

and vegetable production or on-farm grain and soil fumigation) to ensure label compliance. 

Regions should monitor use compliance in application settings (e.g., on-farm grain or soil 

fumigation, applications to fruit and/or vegetable crops) subject to WPS and monitor 

compliance with the WPS labeling requirements. Focus should be on pesticides with high 

risk for exposure.

Enforcement actions should be pursued under state, federal, or tribal authorities, as 

appropriate. 

In order to optimize the deterrent impact of the enforcement action, significant misuse 

violations should be investigated in a comprehensive manner to determine comprehensive 

compliance with FIFRA. 

States and tribes should be encouraged to refer use and non-use cases to EPA, when 

appropriate. 

Regions are expected to work with states to identify opportunities within existing 

agreements for federal involvement or support (particularly cases involving exposure or 

death). 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 73

Significant use or product compliance violations discovered during state or tribal 

investigations should be considered for referral to EPA for federal enforcement, when 

appropriate. 

Headquarters will provide assistance, as needed, to states, tribes, and Regions in support of 

enforcement actions. 

State and tribal inspectors who inspect on behalf of EPA must be trained and credential per 

Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials for Authorize Employees of 

State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004) 

Option 3: Retail Marketing

Until recently, EPA has focused enforcement against the producer or registrant of violative 

product(s). However, retailers of noncompliant products must also comply with FIFRA. One 

action against a retailer may result in bringing numerous pesticides into compliance with FIFRA. 

Taking enforcement at the retail level, as well as at the producer or registrant level, can have a very 

significant impact on gaining product compliance. Deterrence likely increases due to heightened 

end-use consumer awareness and the adverse publicity generated against the retail store, the 

product, and the manufacturer. 

Retail marketers of pesticide products are positioned to directly interact with the consuming public, 

so any enforcement action taken against products being offered for sale is quickly noted by the 

buying public and, as a result, purchasing patterns of the consumers can be quickly altered, thus 

creating a significant financial impact on all businesses with a financial interest in the distribution 

and sale of the pesticide product(s) involved. This provides a tremendous incentive for registrants 

to quickly return the product(s) to compliance so that a positive business relationship with retailers 

can be preserved and a positive image can be presented and/or restored with the consuming public. 

Regions should focus on national or regional retail chains operating multiple stores nationwide or in 

a multi-state area. Such stores often market similar products throughout their network of stores so 

that compliance issues can have corporate-wide implications. Such consumer-based retail stores 

typically offer a wide variety of pesticide device products, so addressing noncompliance at this level 

can immediately impact multiple pesticide producers. 

Alternatively, Regions may elect to target major distributors who sell directly to specialized niche 

markets rather than to the general public. Examples of these retailers might be distributors that sell 

pesticide products and other supplies directly to hospitals, beauty salons and barber shops, funeral 

homes, and restaurants. These industries typically do not deal directly with traditional retail outlets 

for their supplies but instead purchase from specialized niche distributors. These direct-retailers 

often handle very specialized products not commonly found in the retail stores targeted to the 

general public and, as a result, compliance may not be as closely monitored. Additionally, many of 

these retailers handle distributor-label disinfectants, a product sector which has a long history of 

noncompliance. 

Performance expectations for the retail marketing focus area include: 

Regions should conduct compliance monitoring inspections at targeted retailers. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 74

Regions should work with their state and tribal partners to encourage producer establishment 

and marketplace inspections in support of this focus area, including targeting follow-up PEIs 

at producers of violative products discovered at the retail inspections. Regions may consider 

making inspection referrals to the states/tribes to follow-up on leads and otherwise 

supplement federal efforts. 

Regions are expected to take enforcement actions, as appropriate, to ensure optimum 

deterrence effect and compliance impact. 

Option 4: Container/Containment

To ensure effective implementation of the new container/containment regulations, Regions, states 

and tribes should monitor compliance with the requirements in all areas of the regulated universe 

and for all aspects of the container/containment rule. In particular, inspections should focus on 

compliance with container design and labeling, residue removal, and containment requirements for 

registrants, re-fillers, agricultural retailers, commercial applicators, and custom blenders, as 

appropriate. User inspections, conducted by states and tribes, should focus on compliance with 

label directions for storage, cleaning, and disposal of containers. 

States and tribes have been actively addressing the new regulations and are likely to continue that 

emphasis under the State Grant Guidance. 

For Regions electing to participate in the container/containment focus area, performance 

expectations include: 

Conducting compliance monitoring inspections at targeted producers, distributors, and other 

regulated non-user entities subject to the container/containment rule. 

Working with states and tribal partners to encourage a full range of user and non-user 

inspections to monitor all aspects of compliance for the container/containment rule in 

support of this focus area. States and tribes should be encouraged to refer significant 

noncompliance cases to EPA for enforcement action. 

Taking enforcement actions, as appropriate, to ensure optimum deterrence effect and 

compliance impact. 

3. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes 

The Regions should work with states and tribes to implement the expectations above including: 

Convene routine and regular meetings between the region and state to discuss progress 

towards meeting annual program and enforcement commitments, and how the state has been 

performing overall in its implementation of the program. Note: meetings can be via 

conference calls but at least one meeting each year should be face-to-face subject to 

available resources. Regions may rely upon existing communications with states to meet the 

intent of this requirement. 

Where states are not meeting performance expectations, Regions should focus oversight 

resources on the most pressing performance problems in states and should work to 

demonstrably improve state performance. In the absence of an appropriate response by a 

delegated agency, the Region should take an enforcement action to address serious 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 75

violations. Regions need to take action when necessary to communicate what needs 

attention to achieve the goals of the federal environmental laws and to ensure a level playing 

field among states. 

Negotiate, oversee the implementation of and review state and tribal performance under 

the pesticide enforcement cooperative agreements following existing policy and guidance. 

When doing mid- or end-of-year reviews, include a review of cases based on complaints by 

farm-workers and those involving one of the NPM guidance focus areas to evaluate whether 

the enforcement response was appropriate. 

Provide states and tribes targeting assistance, especially related to inspections of producer 

establishments. 

Ensure that state and tribal inspectors who inspect on behalf of EPA are trained and 

credentialed per Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize 

Employees of State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004).

EPA Order 3510 requires that each EPA office which prints and distributes credentials (i.e. 

federal credentials issued to state and tribal inspectors to conduct inspections on behalf of 

EPA) to conduct an annual inventory including an annual physical possession check of 10% 

of the credentials. 

Regional direct implementation in Indian country includes applying the various FIFRA 

compliance monitoring strategies and enforcement policies and OECA’s Guidance on the

Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy (January 17, 2001). OECA’s 

Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy contains 

procedures for consultation with federally-recognized tribes in the civil compliance 

monitoring and enforcement context and contains threshold criteria for EPA‘s consideration 

of enforcement actions. The threshold criteria are not intended to, and should not, result in a 

lesser degree of human health and environmental protection in Indian country than 

elsewhere in the U.S. 

4. Improve Transparency 

OECA intends to modernize and update the FIFRA-TSCA Tracking System/National Compliance 

Database (FTTS/NCDB) that contain information on pesticide inspections and enforcement action 

by state and tribal grantees, in order to improve data quality and provide more timely data entry and 

public access to data. Until a revised and modernized system is in place, Regions are expected to 

continue to assure the timely and accurate entry of state and tribal performance data into FTTS and 

enter their own federal inspection and enforcement data into ICIS. 

5. Relevant Policies and Guidance 

Additional information about OECA‘s FIFRA programs can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/fifra/index.html

http://wwwp.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/fifra/wps.html

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/fifra/index.html

Policies and guidance pertinent to the FIFRA focus areas can be found at the following: 

FY2011-2013 Grant Guidance: 

http://www.http://www.epa.gov/compliance/state/grants/fifra.html 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 76

FIFRA Enforcement Response Policies: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/fifra/

FIFRA State Primacy Enforcement Responsibilities: Final Interpretive Rule: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/grants/fifra/1983frnotice.pdf

Procedures Governing the Rescission of State Primary Enforcement Responsibility for 

Pesticide Use Violations: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/grants/fifra/1981frnotice.pdf

EPA WPS Agricultural Inspection Guidance: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/grants/fifra/08-10-appendix4c.pdf

Factors To Consider When Establishing A Risk-Based Targeting Strategy For Worker 

Protection Outreach and Compliance Monitoring Activities: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/grants/fifra/08-10-appendix4d.pdf

Multilingual Labeling for Imports: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/fifra/imports/multilanglabel.pdf

Questions and answers on supplemental labeling, effective date, registration status for 

labeling purposes, foreign purchaser acknowledgement statements, and confidentiality: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/fifra/imports/supplabel.pdf

Questions and answers on research and development pesticides and active ingredient 

concentrations: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/fifra/imports/ai.pdf

FIFRA Inspection Manual: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/fifra/manuals/fifra/index.html

WPS Inspection Manual: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/fifra/manuals/wps/index.html

Project Officer Manual: http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/ag/manual.html

D. Specific Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) Enforcement Program Performance Expectations 

1. Link with Top OSWER Priorities 

OECA addresses top OSWER priorities for CERCLA in the following way: 

Cleaning Up Our Communities: In an effort to improve the accountability, transparency, 

and effectiveness of EPA‘s cleanup programs, EPA initiated a multiyear effort in 2010 to 

better use assessment and cleanup authorities to address a greater number of sites, accelerate 

cleanups, and put those sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the 

environment. By bringing to bear the relevant tools available in each of the cleanup 

programs, including enforcement, EPA will better leverage the resources available to 

address needs at individual sites. 

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 

EPA‘s CERCLA Enforcement program protects communities by requiring responsible parties to 

conduct cleanups, preserving federal dollars for sites where there are no viable contributing parties. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 77

Superfund enforcement ensures prompt site cleanup and uses an ―enforcement first‖ approach that 

maximizes the participation of liable and viable parties in performing and paying for cleanups. 

EPA negotiates cleanup agreements with potentially responsible parties at hazardous waste sites 

and, where negotiations fail, either takes enforcement actions to require cleanup or expends 

Superfund appropriated dollars to clean up the sites. In some cases, EPA takes both actions. When 

EPA uses appropriated dollars, it takes action against any viable responsible parties to recover 

cleanup costs. Aggressively pursuing responsible parties to clean up sites ultimately reduces direct 

human exposure to hazardous pollutants and contaminants, provides for long-term human health 

protections and makes contaminated properties available for reuse. 

As part of the Integrated Cleanup Initiative (ICI), OECA will take early and focused enforcement 

efforts to compel cleanup. Those efforts include increasing enforcement earlier in the pipeline at 

non-emergency removal action and remedial investigations/feasibility study (RI/FS) stages; 

expediting remedial action by holding parties accountable to negotiation timeframes and scheduled 

cleanup commitments; and rejuvenating the process for identifying responsible parties at the site 

assessment stage where it appears likely that a removal or remedial response will be necessary. 

Under the ICI, OECA is reaffirming its commitment to ―enforcement first‖ in all aspects of the 

Superfund program (i.e., removals, remedial, long-term stewardship, etc.). Regions should continue 

to focus on activities that maximize PRP involvement at Superfund sites. 

Given budget limitations, EPA is making a modest reduction in the Superfund enforcement 

program, at private and federal facility sites. We think these reductions can be achieved while still 

maintaining a strong cleanup enforcement program, which is essential to promote the 

Administrator‘s priority of Cleaning Up Our Communities. EPA believes that savings can be 

achieved by focusing Superfund enforcement resources on the highest-priority sites and those 

enforcement activities that achieve the biggest return on our investment.23

 

CERCLA‘s landowner liability protections are designed to be self-implementing, and EPA‘s 

enforcement program has in place a robust set of guidance documents that can assist potential 

purchasers and developers of Brownfield sites with questions about liability. Relying more on these 

policies as EPA‘s principal mechanism for clarifying liability allows the EPA enforcement program 

to shift some of the resources previously devoted to site-specific Brownfields enforcement work to 

traditional enforcement activities necessary to provide protections for the public. We will maintain 

a limited national presence to allow us to address liability at a particular site when necessary to 

promote redevelopment.24

EPA‘s Superfund enforcement GPRA goals and performance expectations for FY 2013 are: 

COMMITMENT OSRE-01: Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the start of 

remedial action at 99% of non-federal Superfund sites that have viable, liable parties. 

 

23 Note: To meet the agency wide schedule, the final OECA NPM Guidance is being issued now, although we have not 

completed discussions on the content and schedule for the budget adjustments portion of the Guidance. Some of the 

budget adjustments outlined in this final guidance may be revised as we continue work on implementation plans. 

24 See previous footnote. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 78

COMMITMENT OSRE-02: Address all unaddressed costs in Statute of Limitations cases for 

sites with total past Superfund costs equal to or greater than $200,000 via settlement, referral to 

DOJ, filing a claim in bankruptcy, or where appropriate write-off. 

COMMITMENT HQ-VOL: Volume of Contaminated Media Addressed (VCMA): As part of the 

Goal 5 sub-objective, Support Cleaning up Our Communities, the following is the GPRA target: 

By 2015, obtain commitments to clean up 1.5 billion cubic yards of contaminated soil and 

groundwater media as a result of concluded CERCLA and RCRA corrective action enforcement 

actions. 

OECA has reported VCMA for contaminated soil and groundwater media as separate measures in 

its annual results since 2004. The GPRA target is a national target and regions are not required to 

post commitments in ACS. 

In addition, the CERCLA enforcement program tracks many program-level measures. These 

measures and their definitions can be found in the Superfund Program Implementation Manual 

(SPIM) at: http://epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim11.html.

OSWER's National Program Managers Guidance for FY2013 helps establish priorities for EPA's 

Federal Facilities enforcement program. EPA has CERCLA Section 120 interagency agreements, 

known as Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs), in place at all but two of 173 federal facility NPL 

sites. Those agreements govern the cleanups conducted by the facilities and delineate EPA‘s 

oversight of those cleanups. In particular, the FFAs identify procedures for resolving disputes and 

ensuring accountability. Regions are expected to use the agreements, or other applicable 

enforcement authorities (such as imminent and endangerment orders in applicable circumstances), 

when federal facilities are not complying with the terms of the agreements or with other legal 

requirements. Additionally, Regions and Headquarters offices must collaborate to establish 

remaining and new agreements. 

Superfund federal facilities oversight and enforcement, however, is an area where OECA 

anticipates a significant reduction in investment. Given this reduction in Superfund enforcement 

resources, EPA must target enforcement to the highest priority sites and to those instances where 

the biggest potential return is realized on our enforcement dollars. Further, EPA will work with 

OSWER and the Regions on how to better utilize FFAs to make site performance data available to 

the public and otherwise empower citizen involvement to enhance cleanup oversight and 

accountability. OECA, working with OSWER and the Regions, is developing a plan to implement 

the reduction in work, which will address a reduction in the Agency‘s ability to staff cleanup 

disputes and enforce CERCLA FFAs, as well as EPA‘s interest in greater transparency for the 

public at these sites. Since all federal facility enforcement actions are ―nationally significant‖ by 

OECA policy and require consultation with Headquarters, this consultation will be even more 

important as the Regions contemplate new work in this program.25

 

 

25 Note: To meet the agency wide schedule, the final OECA NPM Guidance is being issued now, although we have not 

completed discussions on the content and schedule for the budget adjustments portion of the Guidance. Some of the 

budget adjustments outlined in this final guidance may be revised as we continue work on implementation plans. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 79

Environmental justice (EJ) is a priority for OECA's waste programs, promoting healthy and 

environmentally sound conditions for all people. OECA will continue to integrate environmental 

justice into its Site Remediation Enforcement program by: 

Affirming its commitment to ensure that Regions and States use EJ criteria when enforcing 

RCRA corrective action requirements to meet RCRA 2020 goals. 

Affirming its commitment to ensure that institutional controls are implemented at sites in 

environmental justice areas of concern. 

Conducting an environmental justice review of new policy and guidance documents before 

they become final. 

3. Working With States and Tribes 

EPA will be implementing its Community Engagement Initiative26 designed to enhance 

headquarters and regional program engagement with states, tribes, local communities and 

stakeholders to meaningfully participate in government decisions on land cleanup, emergency 

response, and the management of hazardous substances and waste. The initiative provides an 

opportunity for EPA to refocus and renew its vision for community engagement, build on existing 

good practices, and apply them consistently in EPA processes. Proactive, meaningful engagement 

with states, local governments and communities will enable EPA to obtain better information about 

the environmental problems and local situations - leading to more informed and effective policies 

and decisions. 

4. Improve Transparency 

The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System 

(CERCLIS) is the main database for Superfund information. The public can request specific reports 

by going to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/. In addition, Regions should continue to provide sitespecific fact sheets, which include enforcement information, on regional web pages. Compliance 

data will distinguish state information from Indian country information. Information should be 

made available to communities, including Tribal communities, who lack access to the internet.

 

26 Information on the Community Engagement Initiative can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/cei_action_plan_12-09.pdf
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 80

SECTION VI: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS THROUGH CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT

1. Criminal Enforcement Priorities 

The criminal enforcement program will emphasize: 

EPA‘s Enforcement Goals, National Enforcement Initiatives for FY 2013-14 and Regional 

Enforcement Priorities 

Focusing Enforcement through Case Tiering 

Integrating Environmental Justice (EJ) into EPA's criminal enforcement program 

investigations 

Anticipating tight budgets in FY13 and beyond, EPA is focusing its criminal enforcement resources 

on the criminal violations that have the biggest impact on health and the environment. Recognizing 

that such cases are often more complex and demanding, and that we will have fewer resources in 

total, we expect to cut back on the smaller impact cases that, while important, have less potential for 

broader effect. The areas of expected reduced effort include matters on which other agencies have 

effective criminal enforcement programs – like the Coast Guard in vessel pollution cases – or where 

civil enforcement tools may be effective to redress violations – like stormwater violations. EPA 

will retain capacity to address particularly egregious criminal violations in these and other areas 

where budget cuts reduce the amount of more routine enforcement we are able to do. CID field 

offices will consult with Headquarters before investing in new work in these programs.27

 

Case Tiering. During FY 2013, the criminal enforcement program will continue to implement and 

refine its case ―tiering‖ system to focus scarce investigative resources using criteria, data and 

methodologies linked to OECA‘s goals. The objective is to focus enforcement efforts by increasing 

the percentage of Tier 1 and Tier 2 cases, which is both a GPRA measure and a key national priority 

of the criminal enforcement program. The case tiering methodology prioritizes cases based on four 

categories of information: 

1) Human health and environmental impacts (e.g., death or serious injury), 

2) The nature of the pollutant and the release, (e.g., toxic pollutant, continuing violation) 

3) Subject characteristics (e.g., significant organizational and/or repeat violators), and 

4) Strategic Case Factors (e.g., program-wide threats to an environmental protection regime, 

potential links to broader criminal networks). 

Based on these factors, all cases are ―tiered‖ with Tier 1 cases being the most important. Any case 

involving death or actual serious injury is automatically a Tier 1 case. The tier designation is used 

throughout the investigative process including the opening of leads, case selection and prosecution 

and direction of resources for case support. (Note: a case‘s tier classification may change as cases 

are investigated and additional information uncovered). 

 

27 Note: To meet the agency wide schedule, the final OECA NPM Guidance is being issued now, although we have not 

completed discussions on the content and schedule for the budget adjustments portion of the Guidance. Some of the 

budget adjustments outlined in this final guidance may be revised as we continue work on implementation plans. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 81

Environmental Justice: One of the main duties of EPA‘s criminal enforcement program is to 

serve and protect the most vulnerable communities by using law enforcement tools to protect their 

health and local environment. EJ is a critical concept in meeting that objective. 

Criminal enforcement has issued a policy on integrating environmental justice concerns in 

assessments of criminal investigations, and will use EPA's screening tools and regional input along 

with other relevant information when tiering criminal cases. OCEFT has modified its Criminal 

Case Reporting System (CCRS) to track an EJ screening score, a text entry section for recording 

additional input and a final EJ determination selection when investigating environmental crimes. 

Cases considered to have potential EJ concerns for criminal enforcement purposes meet the 

threshold level for a heightened analysis. The criminal enforcement program will then meet with 

the regional EJ coordinator to obtain additional information supporting why the case has potential 

EJ concerns.

The program will also continue to work with tribal law enforcement organizations to strengthen the 

effectiveness of environmental enforcement in Indian country. 

2. Link with Critical Program Office Priorities

EPA‘s enforcement program relies on criminal and civil program coordination at a strategic level, 

and – in parallel proceedings – on a case-specific basis, to bring to bear the most appropriate 

enforcement tools to protect human health and the environment. 

Each program will adhere to OECA‘s parallel proceedings policy when both civil and criminal 

violations are present in an individual case, and will ensure all civil and criminal staff are trained on 

parallel proceedings. 

At the Regional level, the enforcement offices will work with the Special Agents-In-Charge (SACs) 

to continue and strengthen joint case screening, share salient information and plan how to address 

violations using the most appropriate administrative, civil or criminal enforcement tools. 

. 

3. Strengthen Relationships with Law Enforcement Partners That Support State and 

Tribal Environmental Crimes Investigations and Prosecutions 

The criminal enforcement program will work with the states, Regions, tribal governments, and other 

law enforcement organizations as appropriate to: 

Help these organizations build capacity to pursue environmental crime and provide 

investigative support to state-lead prosecutions where appropriate. 

Provide targeted training to state, tribal and law enforcement partners to enhance their 

abilities to safely spot, report and address environmental violations. 

Continue international enforcement efforts, e.g., working with INTERPOL to combat the 

illegal transnational shipment and disposal of electronic waste (e-waste). 

 4. Improve Transparency 

The criminal enforcement program will: 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 82

Publicize EPA‘s criminal enforcement efforts and successes to deter other potential 

violators. 

Continue to encourage the public‘s reporting of potential violations and to provide leads 

through the fugitive web site. 

Ensure that the public can access information about completed criminal prosecutions 

through the Summary of Criminal Prosecutions. 

Work with OECA's Office of Compliance to incorporate criminal enforcement information 

into EPA's State Review Framework. 

SECTION VII: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS THROUGH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

POLICY ACT

A. Specific Federal Activities Program Performance Expectations 

Federal activity compliance work focuses on three areas: fostering compliance and pollution 

prevention through international cooperation; assisting other federal agencies in making 

environmentally sound decisions which include early public involvement and transparency by 

complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and guiding EPA‘s own 

compliance with NEPA and applicable statutes and Executive Orders. This work implements two 

of OECA‘s FY 2013 goals by addressing pollution that matters most to communities and promoting 

transparency. 

Regions should work to assure international compliance and prevent illegal trans-boundary 

movement of hazardous waste by: 

Improving environmental performance and cooperation in accordance with Goal 6 of the 

U.S./Mexico Border 2020 Plan (Regions VI and IX). 

Enhancing enforcement, compliance, and capacity building efforts with Mexico and Canada 

relating to trans-boundary compliance monitoring on the U.S. borders for hazardous waste, 

CFCs, selected chemicals (e.g., mercury), and other regulated substances (Border Regions). 

Improving performance of joint responsibilities along the border and ports of entry into the 

United States by working with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) through 

appropriate contact channels (all Regions). 

Promoting international environmental enforcement through participation in relevant 

organizations and networks, such as the Enforcement Working Group of the North American 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) and the International Network for 

Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE), and, in particular, its Seaport 

Environmental Security Network (regional participation as appropriate, based on subject 

matter). 

Reviewing the permit and compliance status of U.S. receiving facilities in connection with 

100% of the notifications for the import of hazardous waste they receive from HQ EPA and, 

based on the review, recommending consent or objection to notifications within the time periods 

allowed under applicable international agreements (all Regions). 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 83

As a regular part of Regional inspection activities, conducting periodic inspections of U.S. 

facilities which receive imported hazardous waste (TSDFs) and generators and other primary 

exporters of hazardous waste, cathode ray tubes (CRTs) and spent lead acid batteries (SLABs), 

based on information provided by OFA which identifies those facilities participating in import 

and export shipments. 

Regions should implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by: 

Fulfilling EPA‘s obligations under NEPA and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act by reviewing 

and commenting on all major proposed federal actions to ensure identification, elimination, or 

mitigation of significant adverse effects, and making the comments available to the public. 

Ensuring that projects likely to have significant impacts (e.g., transportation, mountaintop 

mining, and energy) receive sound environmental analysis, use cooperation among agencies to 

resolve differences, consider environmental justice, incorporate innovation and support public 

involvement through a more streamlined and transparent environmental review process 

Ensuring that 70 percent of significant impacts identified by EPA during the NEPA review of all 

major proposed federal actions will be mitigated. (GPRA measure) 

Ensuring that at least 90 percent of EPA projects subject to NEPA environmental assessment or 

EIS requirements (e.g., water treatment facility projects and other grants, new source NPDES 

permits and EPA facilities) are expected to result in no significant environmental impact. 

Promoting Environmental Justice considerations throughout the environmental decision-making 

process and encouraging public involvement early in the process to maximize transparency. 

Making categorical exclusion determinations or preparing environmental analyses (EISs or 

EAs) and posting them on the internet for EPA-issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permits for new sources, for states/tribes without authorized NPDES 

programs; off-shore oil and gas sources, including permits for deepwater ports, EPA 

laboratories and facilities; and Clean Water Act wastewater treatment plant grants. 

Making Categorical Exclusion determinations or preparing environmental analyses (EAs or 

EISs) and posting them on the internet for Special Appropriation grants (including the Colonias 

Wastewater Construction and Project Development Assistance program) for wastewater, 

drinking water supply, and solid waste collection facilities; Border Environment Infrastructure 

Funds (for the US/Mexico Border Environment Cooperation Commission projects); and reviews 

conducted under ―EPA‘s Voluntary NEPA Compliance Policy.‖

Entering the results of their '309 reviews and NEPA compliance actions into the Lotus Notes 

EIS Tracking Database maintained by HQ OFA, and the Special Appropriations Act Projects 

(SAAP) system maintained by HQ OW, respectively. Additionally, Regions should report to 

the Office of Federal Activities quarterly on the status of their 309 reviews and NEPA 

compliance actions pursuant to the Government Performance Reporting Act (GPRA) reporting 

process, and provide other reports as may be required by the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 84

SECTION VIII: NATIONAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL OECA 

PROGRAMS UNDER GOAL 5

In addition to the national initiatives and programs that can be specifically assigned to one of the 

four Strategic sub-objectives of water, air, waste/toxic/pesticides, and criminal enforcement, OECA 

has several programs that contribute to the goals of more than one sub-objective. These programs 

are: Multi-media, Compliance Incentives, Indian country, and Emergency Planning and 

Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). In addition, OECA has specific training and state 

oversight program requirements. 

Specific Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) Program 

Performance Expectations 

EPCRA includes two distinct programs, Community Right-to-Know under EPCRA 313 and release 

notification and emergency preparedness under CERCLA 103 and EPCRA 304, 311 and 312. The 

EPA and the public rely on EPCRA for information on chemical releases entering the environment, 

and on the storage of chemicals at facilities. The EPA, states, tribes, local entities, and communities 

rely on the combined EPCRA/CERCLA information to prepare local chemical emergency response 

plans, and to more safely and adequately respond to chemical emergencies. The EPA must ensure 

that companies report accurately and within required time frames. Regions and states should inspect 

facilities that may be contributing to pollution problems that matter to their respective communities, 

and develop enforcement cases that produce significant environmental benefits. 

1. Link with Top Office of Environmental Information Priorities 

OECA addresses the top Office of Environmental Information priority for the EPCRA programs by 

increasing compliance of non-reporters and never-reporters. 

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities 

A. EPCRA 313 

Regions are expected to: 

o Inspect or send information request letters to enforcement targets developed by OECA 

with assistance from OEI for FY 2013 to address the following categories of concern as 

resources allow: 

 Twenty potential non-reporters (facilities that report in one year but fail to report 

the following year) 

 Potential never-reporters (target facilities in the same sectors where a company 

may not have reported and a similar facility in the sector did report) 

 Potential data quality issues (facilities with significant changes in release 

estimates from one year to the next or facilities in the same sector where a 

facility reports significantly more/less than a similar facility in the sector) 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 85

 OECA may provide additional targeting as part of an initiative focused on 

communities, chemicals, sectors of concern or new regulations. Some new TRI 

regulations are expected to be finalized in FY 2012. 

o Resolve Notices of Significant Errors (NOSEs) for enforcement targets developed by 

OECA with assistance from OEI for reporting years 2007 to the present for using invalid 

forms, missing signatures, invalid id and invalid chemical name, no data in section 7 and 

other significant errors that prevent entry of data. Electronic reporting will eliminate 

future NOSEs. This would be accomplished by issuing a Notice of Noncompliance. If 

the facility still does not comply, a complaint should be issued. 

 

o Resolve the outstanding TRI MEWeb Noncertifiers for reporting year 2010 with a 

Notice of Noncompliance. If the facility still fails to certify, a complaint should be 

issued for failure to file, if appropriate, and as regional resources allow. 

Track and prioritize tips and complaints and follow-up, as needed. 

Any inspections (or other agreed upon compliance monitoring activities pursuant to the 

national dialogue on EPCRA 313 compliance monitoring) resulting from any of these 

targeting efforts will count towards the Region‘s overall commitments for inspections (or 

other agreed upon compliance monitoring activities pursuant to the national dialogue on 

EPCRA 313 compliance monitoring). 

In addition, Regions should: 

Work with the Air, RCRA and Water compliance and enforcement programs to add EPCRA 

questions to information requests where appropriate, evaluate the responses, and take 

appropriate enforcement actions or combine with other enforcement actions.

Respond to OECA‘s requests for reviewing draft TRI regulations for enforceability, the 

revised draft section 313 enforcement response and penalty policy, and any other documents 

or proposed actions where OECA requests regional input on enforcement matters. 

OECA will assist in targeting inspections, but the Regions are expected to provide legal and 

technical enforcement case support, and either obtain additional information through federal 

investigation, show cause letter, subpoena and issue appropriate federal actions as 

appropriate; or determine that follow-up is not necessary. 

COMMITMENT EPCRA 01: Conduct at least four (4) EPCRA 313 data quality inspections 

(or other agreed upon compliance monitoring activities pursuant to the national dialogue on EPCRA 

313 compliance monitoring). 

COMMITMENT EPCRA 02: Conduct at least twenty (20) EPCRA 313 non-reporter inspections 

(or other agreed upon compliance monitoring activities pursuant to the national dialogue on EPCRA 

313 compliance monitoring). 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 86

B. EPCRA 311/312 

EPCRA sections 311 and 312 will continue to require facilities to develop or have available 

Material Safety Data Sheets and to provide annual reports on a facility‘s chemical inventory directly 

to state and local emergency response entities. The statute authorizes citizen suits, and civil suits by 

state or local governments against owners or operators of a facility for failure to comply with 

specific EPCRA provisions. Regarding federal enforcement, EPA will maintain a limited national 

presence but focus resources on the highest priority violations and be available to respond to 

significant enforcement issues (e.g. violations that create significant risks to communities, workers 

and first responders or state or tribal requests for federal action against recalcitrant facilities). 

Furthermore, EPA will leverage Agency-wide resources, as appropriate, to address this program. 

National Program Guidance from OSWER and OECA indicates that Risk Management Plan 

inspections conducted at high risk facilities should also include an evaluation of the facility‘s 

compliance with EPCRA sections 304 and 311/312.28

 

C. CERCLA 103 and EPCRA 304 

Regions should: 

Use screening and targeting tools to focus limited federal resources on national and regional 

priority areas. In targeting for inspections, Regions should consider the presence of 

significant quantities of CERCLA hazardous or EPCRA extremely hazardous chemicals, 

proximity to population centers, a history of significant accidental releases, and any other 

information that indicates a facility may be high-risk. 

Evaluate compliance with EPCRA section 304 and CERCLA section 103 during CAA 

section 112(r) high-risk facility inspections (as described in the CAA Section of this 

guidance). 

Within a reasonable period of time, evaluate and respond, if appropriate (including taking 

enforcement action where appropriate) to any tip or complaint containing allegations that 

provide a reasonable basis to believe that a violation has occurred. 

Evaluate certain continuous release submissions for accuracy and compliance and take 

appropriate enforcement actions for non-compliance. 

3. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes 

The Regions should continue coordinating with states and tribes. 

4. Improve Transparency 

The Regions should: 

Enter all federal enforcement cases into national databases. 

 

28 Note: To meet the agency wide schedule, the final OECA NPM Guidance is being issued now, although we have not 

completed discussions on the content and schedule for the budget adjustments portion of the Guidance. Some of the 

budget adjustments outlined in this final guidance may be revised as we continue work on implementation plans. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 87

Enter all federal civil judicial consent decrees into ICIS. 

5. Relevant Policies and Guidance 

Additional information about OECA‘s EPCRA programs can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/epcra/index.html

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/epcra/index.html

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/epcra.html

D. Federal Facilities Enforcement Program Performance Expectations 

EPA‘s compliance and enforcement program involves more than 30,000 federal facilities and 

installations spread across nearly 30% of the nation‘s territory, among which are some 10,000 

currently regulated under the Agency‘s various statutes. As such, it is one of the EPA‘s largest and 

most diverse sectors to oversee. Further, EPA holds these federal agencies accountable to the same 

standard of environmental compliance as other members of the regulatory community. This equal 

accountability is specifically required by CERCLA, envisioned by most other statutes and affirmed 

under Presidential executive order. In addition, federal agencies are now expected to go beyond 

compliance and serve as an example to others regarding environmental stewardship and 

management, as Presidential Executive Order No. 13514 on federal environmental sustainability 

makes clear. EPA‘s federal facilities enforcement and compliance programs are at 

http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/federalfacilities/index.html

Given limited EPA resources, the Agency‘s primary focus in this sector has increasingly been on 

monitoring and enforcement, given stewardship opportunities and reliable compliance assistance 

offered by others, especially at FedCenter, the sector‘s on-line environmental stewardship and 

compliance assistance center sponsored by more than a dozen federal agencies. FFEO, in 

partnership with other federal agencies, will operate and expand FedCenter as the central point for 

federal agency collaboration on greenhouse gas emission response and other green compliance 

initiatives associated with Executive Order 13514. See http://www.fedcenter.gov/ 

All federal facility enforcement actions are considered nationally significant and require 

consultation with FFEO. FFEO will focus its resources to make these consultations timely and 

effective. 

Regions are encouraged to target federal facilities as part of all National Enforcement Initiative 

areas, as well as Regional priorities, national initiatives targeted at geographic areas, EJ areas and 

federal facilities Integrated Strategies areas. FFEO and the Regional Federal Facility Program 

Managers also annually negotiate Integrated Strategies as part of the National Federal Facilities 

Program Agenda. These integrated strategies align enforcement, compliance, and stewardship 

activities and help achieve environmental and health benefits by addressing those problems that 

matter to communities. In FY 2013, Regions are expected to continue to implement Integrated 

Strategies dealing with storm water, federal underground storage tanks, RCRA corrective action 

sites and vulnerable communities. FFEO and the Regions will also continue to pursue exploratory 

integrated strategy areas in FY 2013. These areas focus on enforcement actions at Government 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 88

Owned/Contractor Operated/Government Owned/Privately Operated (GOCO/GOPO) facilities, 

HCFCs/CFCs enforcement and inspections associated with the disposal of unneeded federal real 

estate. Inspections in these areas, as well as energy extraction enforcement activities on federal 

lands, qualify for credit under this commitment. 

1. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in 

Communities 

Clean water action plan: Regions are expected to continue implementing the Integrated Strategies

on stormwater. Regions and FFEO are expected to continue to implement a 2011 enforcement 

settlement with the Department of the Interior‘s (DOI‘s) Indian Affairs program for violations at its 

schools and water treatment plants across Indian country. In addition, FFEO will complete new 

inspection targeting capabilities for improved monitoring of vulnerable communities associated 

with federal facilities. 

In order to protect people from exposure to hazardous chemicals, Regions are expected to sustain a 

vigorous inspection and enforcement program at federal facilities, especially focused on National 

Enforcement Initiatives, Integrated Strategy areas and Regional priorities. Underground Storage 

Tanks, PCBs and AHERA/asbestos, are all areas where OECA will need to reduce its work as 

discussed in previous sections of the guidance. The Regions are supposed to consult Headquarters 

before initiating any new work in these areas.29

FFEO strongly encourages the Regions to take appropriate and timely enforcement actions to 

improve compliance at federal facilities. For FY 2013, federal facility resources should give first 

priority to taking such actions, as defined within relevant media-specific policies, for each federal 

facility inspected as a consequence of Integrated Strategies efforts. Where appropriate, FFEO 

advocates including environmental management system (EMS) improvements and SEPs as part of 

enforcement action settlements. Further, FFEO recommends that the Regions promote greater 

public awareness and consider greater public engagement through increased transparency of federal 

facility compliance activity and enforcement actions, which should serve to leverage our own 

oversight activities across affected communities. 

Enforcement Follow Up and Projections 

At mid-year each Region must project the number of formal (1) federal facility enforcement case 

initiations and (2) federal facility settlements for FY 2013. The projections should not include 

Records of Decision at federal facility CERCLA sites. The projections should be emailed by the 

Regional Enforcement Division Director to the Director of OECA‘s Federal Facility Office at the 

end of the 2nd fiscal quarter. Since these projections are outside the ACS system, they are not 

commitments by the Regions. 

 

29Note: Please see the UST, asbestos and PCB sections of the NPMG for details related to these program areas. To 

meet the agency wide schedule, the final OECA NPM Guidance is being issued now, although we have not completed 

discussions on the content and schedule for the budget adjustments portion of the Guidance. Some of the budget 

adjustments outlined in this final guidance may be revised as we continue work on implementation plans. 

 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 89

Cleanup at Hazardous Sites 

Please note the reference at Section V.D, earlier in this Guidance, to OSWER‘s NPMG which 

establishes priorities for EPA‘s Federal Facilities CERCLA Enforcement program. OECA, working 

with OSWER and the Regions, is developing a plan to implement the reduction in work, which will 

address a reduction in the Agency‘s ability to staff cleanup disputes and enforce CERCLA Federal 

Facility Agreements (FFAs). Since all federal facility enforcement actions are ―nationally 

significant‖ by OECA policy and require consultation with Headquarters, this consultation will be 

even more important as the Regions contemplate new work in this program.30

COMMITMENT FED-FAC05: Each Region must conduct ten (10) federal facilities inspections 

primarily to support national Integrated Strategy areas, which include stormwater, federal 

underground storage tanks (UST), RCRA corrective action sites, vulnerable communities and 

inspections associated with the disposal of unneeded federal real estate. Three exploratory 

categories from FY 2012 -- inspections at Government Owned/Contractor Operated/Government 

Owned/Privately Operated (GOCO/GOPO) facilities, for HCFCs/CFCs at federal installations and 

related to energy extraction on federal lands – will also count. These 10 inspection commitments 

can be achieved through any combination of single media or multimedia inspections, with the 

following limitations: (1) a maximum of two UST inspections can count toward this goal; (2) a 

maximum of four vulnerable community inspections can count toward this goal; and (3) for any 

multimedia inspection conducted, it shall count as up to four inspections toward this goal if up to 

four of the individual inspections support the Integrated Strategies and/or official Regionallydesignated priorities. Further, (4) up to four official Regionally-designated priorities can count 

toward the commitment, if the Region determines that inspections up to that number are more 

desirable than the same number of Integrated Strategy inspections in the Region. Finally, all of 

these inspections may simultaneously satisfy inspection commitments required in any National 

Enforcement Initiative or other core program area. 

2. Reset Our Relationships with States and Tribes 

Regions should continue to work with States to ensure adequate coverage of the federal facility 

sector through compliance monitoring and enforcement activity. One way the Regions may work 

with States is to coordinate inspections or enforcement activity where appropriate and to be a 

resource when questions of enforcement authorities arise, including questions of sovereign 

immunity. When questions arise, the Regions and States should keep in mind that federal agencies 

have an obligation to comply with environmental laws. Executive Order 12088 states that, "The 

head of each Executive agency is responsible for ensuring that all necessary actions are taken for 

the prevention, control, and abatement of environmental pollution with respect to Federal facilities 

and activities under the control of the agency." 

3. Improve Transparency 

 

30 Note: To meet the agency wide schedule, the final OECA NPM Guidance is being issued now, although we have not 

completed discussions on the content and schedule for the budget adjustments portion of the Guidance. Some of the 

budget adjustments outlined in this final guidance may be revised as we continue work on implementation plans. 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 90

Regions are expected to share environmental information appropriately with the public for federal 

facility environmental violations, including through press releases for all enforcement actions, and 

at federal facility cleanup sites. EPA will seek opportunities for legislative change, when 

appropriate, to ensure federal agency environmental accountability under federal laws. 

E. State Review Framework (SRF) Expectations 

In FY 2013, Regions are asked to support the SRF in the following ways: 

Develop a plan for completing all Round 3 Reviews by the end of FY 2016, generally 

completing at least 1 state per year, and submit the plan by October 30, 2012.

Conduct all Round 3 SRF reviews of state CAA, CWA, and RCRA enforcement programs 

scheduled for FY 2013. 

Conduct all CWA reviews using the integrated CWA-NPDES program oversight process 

(permit and enforcement reviews). 

Draft integrated reports for the CWA portion of the reviews following HQ guidance. 

Use data verification and annual data metric analysis to inform regular discussions with 

states and to track performance. 

Review MOAs as part of the CWA-NPDES review process in light of the OW/OECA 

criteria for MOA review and checklist to be developed by the end of FY 2012. Ensure that 

MOAs are updated as needed by the end of FY 2017. 

Follow the Round 3 SRF process and guidance and use Round 3 templates. 

Ensure commitments to implement recommendations for program improvements are 

captured in appropriate negotiated PPAs, PPGs, or categorical grant agreements between the 

Region and state, with accountability for carrying out those commitments. 

Use all available data to benchmark and monitor the enforcement performance of their 

states. Data sources include but are not limited to federal and state data systems, permitting 

and enforcement performance reviews, and other audit or evaluation reports. 

Enter both draft and final SRF reports, including data metric analyses, file reviews, 

recommendations, state comments, and benefits arising from SRF reviews, into the Lotus 

Notes SRF Tracker database upon completion of the review. 

Monitor progress of states and tribes in carrying out the recommendations of SRF Rounds 1 

and 2, and record progress quarterly in the SRF Tracker. 

Use results of SRF reviews to inform annual planning and regular progress meetings with 

states. Where progress toward resolving SRF recommendations is not being made, Regions 

should escalate their responses. 

COMMITMENT SRF01: Develop a plan to complete all Round 3 state reviews by the end of FY 

2016 and submit it to OC by October 30, 2012. Before the plan is due, OC and OWM will have a 

discussion with each Region about their plan. Subsequently, OC and OWM will hold annual 

discussions with Regions to establish whether any modifications to the schedules are necessary. 

Identify the states where Round 3 reviews will be conducted in FY 2013. Conduct all Round 3 SRF 

reviews of state CAA, CWA, and RCRA enforcement programs scheduled for FY 2013. Conduct 

all CWA reviews using the integrated CWA-NPDES program oversight process (permit and 

enforcement reviews). Review existing MOAs as part of the CWA-NPDES review process in light 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 91

of the OW/OECA criteria for MOA review and checklist to be developed in FY 2012. Ensure that 

MOAs are updated as needed. 

SRF guidance, policies, and templates for reporting are found at http://www.epaotis.gov/srf/srf_tracking.html. 

SECTION IX. FY 2013 OECA WORKPLAN SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Annual Commitment System 

Following the release of the final OECA NPM Guidance, Regions should hold discussions with 

states and tribes to discuss the highest priority work across the Region and states for the upcoming 

year. This work should be an integration of national, regional and state priorities, and consider 

permitting and enforcement activities that will lead to improvements in compliance and in 

environmental conditions. The Regions and states should discuss how to work together to ensure 

that the highest priority work gets done, including consideration of this NPM Guidance, along with 

guidance of other EPA programs. 

Regions and states should develop draft numbers for the commitments contained in the guidance 

that relate to state and tribal activities. Regions should also assess their own resource levels in 

relation to the priority work identified in the regional/state discussions and the state and tribal 

contributions to that work, and the work outlined in the NPM Guidance. 

OECA will hold a planning discussion with each Region at the senior management level during the 

spring of 2012 to discuss the strategic allocation of the Region‘s resources, with the goal of 

informing the negotiation of the ACS commitments for the Region for the coming year. OECA 

understands that the demands of ensuring compliance with the myriad of environmental laws and 

programs covered by this NPM Guidance may exceed a Region‘s resources, and wants to ensure 

that available resources are put towards addressing the most important sources and most serious 

violations that affect the environment and public health. 

NPMs will initiate the commitment process in the system by entering a value in the ―Proposed Bid‖ 

field for each commitment measure by May 25, 2012. Current schedules call for Regions to enter 

their draft targets into the annual commitment system by July 6, 2012. By completing OECA and 

regional senior management discussions prior to this time, the process for resolving any issues and 

finalizing annual regional targets should be streamlined. During this same time, Regions should 

engage states and tribes in negotiations to complete the grant process (PPAs, PPGs, and Categorical 

Grants), including translating regional targets into formal commitments supported by state-by-state 

agreements. NPMs and Regions should reach agreement in ACS on FY 2013 performance 

commitments by October 19, 2012 and notify the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) of 

any outstanding issues for dispute resolution by October 26, 2012. All commitments should be final 

by November 16, 2012. 

B. FTE Resource Charts 
FY2013 OECA NPM Guidance Page 92

The Regions should complete FTE charts which organize FTE information by goal, objective, and 

sub-objective, and then cross-walk to the media program elements. The importance of the FTE 

Resource Charts is due to increased interest from the Office of Management and Budget, the 

Inspector General, and Congress. As in past planning cycles, Regions will receive FTE templates. 

Regions should submit these completed documents to Michele McKeever on September 30, 2012. 

2012 Final – Enter the Region‘s final FTE allocation for FY2012 in the 2012 Final column. 

2013 Proposed – Enter the Region‘s proposed FTE allocation for FY2012 in the 2013

Proposed column. Headquarters recognizes that FTE levels may change after the Agency 

receives the FY2011 enacted budget after October 1, 2012. Therefore this number is a ―best 

guess‖ estimate.
1

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

FY 2013 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES APPENDIX

G/O/S*

ACS 

Code Measure Text

NonCommitment 

Indicator 

(Y/N)

State 

Performance 

Measure 

(Y/N)

Planning Target1 National Target (FY 

2013 Pres. Bud)

 5 EJ01

HQ will analyze FY12 EJSEAT data to consider developing 

a baseline for a budget measure related to case initiations in 

areas with EJ concerns.

N N N N

5 CAA04

The number of compliance evaluations (or other agreed upon 

compliance monitoring activities pursuant to the national 

dialogue on CAA compliance monitoring) to be conducted 

by the Regions at majors sources, 80% synthetic minors, and 

other sources (as appropriate). [Note: Region should break 

out evaluation projections by source classification and by 

compliance monitoring category (FCE, PCE, and 

Investigations).] In the comment section, each region should 

also provide the number of federal facility FCEs, PCEs and 

investigations. Projected investigations under this 

commitment are those investigations initiated by the Regions 

for the air enforcement program outside of the National 

Enforcement Initiatives, and identified by the air program 

(e.g., MACT, NSPS).

N N N N

5 CAA06

Ensure that delegated state, tribal and local agencies 

implement their compliance and enforcement programs in 

accordance with the CAA CMS and have negotiated facilityspecific CMS plans in place. The Regions are to provide the 

N N N N

 

1

 See measures text for each ACS commitment for specific expectations. 
2

number of FCEs at majors and 80% synthetic minors to be 

conducted by individual state/local agencies to demonstrate 

program implementation consistent with CMS. However, if 

a delegated agency negotiates with a Region an alternative 

CMS plan or alternative activities (pursuant to the CAA 

CMS national dialogue), this commitment should reflect the 

alternative plan. [Note: Break out evaluation and activity 

projections (e.g., FCEs; PCEs included in alternative plan) 

by source classification]. Prior to approving an alternative 

plan, Regions should consult with the Office of Compliance 

(OC) and provide OC with information on how the state, 

tribal or local agency compliance monitoring air resources 

will be redirected and the rationale for making the change. 

5 CWA07

By December 31, 2012, provide to Headquarters a specific 

NPDES Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) plan for 

each authorized state in the Region, targeting the most 

significant sources with potential to impact water quality. 

The plan should provide universe information for the CMS 

categories; sub-categories covered by the CMS and 

combined EPA and state expected accomplishments for each 

category and subcategory. The plan should identify trade-

offs made among the categories utilizing the flexibilities in the 2007 NPDES CMS policy and any amendments or 

further guidance as a result of the national dialogue on 

expanding the range of activities to be counted as compliance 

monitoring under the NPDES CMS. At the end of the year, 

provide for each state a numerical report on EPA and state 

inspection plan outputs, by category and subcategory. To 

increase the transparency of NPDES inspection data, OECA 

will work with EPA Regions and state associations to 

develop formats for releasing inspection data on CMS 

implementation performance on a state-by-state basis.

NNN N

5

SDWA02

During FY 2013, the primacy agency must address with a 

formal enforcement action or return to compliance the 

number of priority systems equal to the number of its PWSs 

that have a score of 11 or higher on the July 2012 ETT 

NN

 

 N

 

 N
3

report. State, territory and tribal breakouts shall be indicated 

in the comment field of the Annual Commitment System.

5 RCRA01

Project by state, and Indian Country where applicable, the 

number of operating non-governmental TSDFs, to be 

inspected by the Region during the year. Regions must 

commit to inspect at least two (2) TSDFs in each state or 

Indian country unless OECA approves a deviation from this 

requirement. For example, deviations are given for states 

with small universes where it might not make sense for a 

Region to inspect two TSDFs per year. Financial 

responsibility is an important component of the RCRA core 

program and evaluating compliance with 40 CFR Parts 

264/265 Subpart H should be included as part of the 

inspection of each TSDF (although such evaluations do not 

have to occur at the same time nor be conducted by the same 

people who conduct the field inspections). If a Region 

determines that there are unique circumstances in the Region 

or with a particular TSDF, the Region may contact 

Headquarters to discuss undertaking a detailed evaluation of 

compliance with 40 CFR Parts 264/265 Subpart H at another 

TSDF.

NNN N

5

RCRA01. s

Project by state the number of operating TSDFs to be 

inspected by the state during the year. 

Note: Only one inspection per facility counts towards this 

coverage measure. The RCRA CMS establishes minimum 

annual inspection expectations for TSDFs: The inspections 

for RCRA01 and RCRA01.s should be CEIs. CEIs include 

evaluating compliance with the financial assurance 

requirements, 40 CFR Parts 264/265 Subpart H. Financial 

responsibility is an important component of the RCRA core 

program and should be included as part of the inspection of 

each TSDF (although the financial responsibility reviews do 

not have to occur at the same time nor be conducted by the 

same people who conduct the field inspections).

NNN N
4

5 RCRA03

Inspect each operating TSDF operated by states, local, or 

Tribal governments. 

NNN N

5 RCRA02

Project by state and Indian Country, the number of LQGs, 

including those at federal facilities, to be inspected by the 

Region during the year. Each Region must commit to 

inspect at least six (6) LQGs in each state, and 20% of the 

region’s LQGs universe in Indian Country, unless OECA 

approves a deviation from this requirement. For example, 

deviations are given for states with small universes where it 

doesn’t make sense for a Region to inspect 6 LQGs per year 

or 20% of the Region’s LQG universe in Indian country. 

Regions should select at least 2 of the Region's total LQG 

inspections at facilities described in the high priority section 

as areas of emerging environmental concern. Regions may 

work with OECA to coordinate these inspections, including 

whether the inspection will be conducted at a TSDF or LQG. 

In the Comment Section, provide the number of federal 

facility LQG inspections. 

NNN N

5

RCRA02. s

Project by state the number of LQGs to be inspected by the 

state during the year. At least 20 percent of the LQG 

universe should be covered by combined federal and state 

inspections unless an alternative plan is approved under the 

RCRA CMS. 

NNN N

5 OSRE-04

Regions must commit to inspect at least one (1) RCRA 

corrective action financial assurance instrument per state, 

with at least 50% being financial test or corporate guarantee 

reviews. Where the submission is noncompliant, take 

appropriate enforcement action to address noncompliance 

(e.g., notice of violation). Or, where appropriate, work with 

the state to ensure appropriate action is taken to address 

noncompliance. If possible, return facility to compliance by 

end of fiscal year.

NNN N
5

5

TSCA01

Project the total number of FY2013 TSCA inspections. In 

the comment field of the Annual Commitment System 

(ACS), the Region shall break out the number of projected 

inspections by TSCA program area (LBP, New and Existing 

Chemicals, formaldehyde,). Note: For the reasons discussed 

in the executive summary, the LBP component of this TSCA 

ACS commitment (TSCA 01) will serve as OECA’s FY 2013 

measure of compliance work being done to protect children's 

health.

NNN N

5

TSCA02

Report other compliance monitoring activities at the end of 

the year; and break-out the description of other such 

activities by TSCA program area. (See the CMS and the 

future outcomes of the compliance monitoring national 

dialogue for more details). 

NNN N

5

FIFRA-

FED1

Project regional (federal) FIFRA inspections. Each Region 

should conduct a minimum of ten (10) FIFRA inspections. 

In the Comment Section, provide the number of federal 

facility inspections.

NNN N

5

OSRE-01

Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the start 

of remedial action at 99% of non-federal Superfund sites that 

have viable, liable parties.

NNN N

5 OSRE-02

Address all unaddressed costs in Statute of Limitations cases 

for sites with total past Superfund costs equal to or greater 

than $200,000 via settlement, referral to DOJ, filing a claim 

in bankruptcy, or where appropriate write-off. 

NNN N

5 HQ-VOL

Volume of Contaminated Media Addressed (VCMA). As 

part of the Goal 5 sub-objective, Support Cleaning up Our 

Communities, the following is the GPRA target: 

By 2015, obtain commitments to clean up 1.5 billion cubic 

N N

Y

 (See narrative.)

 N
6

yards of contaminated soil and groundwater media as a 

result of concluded CERCLA and RCRA corrective action 

enforcement actions. 

OECA has reported VCMA for contaminated soil and 

groundwater media as separate measures in its annual results 

since 2004. The GPRA target is a national target and regions 

are not required to post commitments in ACS.

5

EPCRA 

01

Conduct at least four (4) EPCRA 313 data quality 

inspections (or other agreed upon compliance monitoring 

activities pursuant to the national dialogue on EPCRA 313 

compliance monitoring). 

NNN N

5

EPCRA 

02

Conduct at least twenty (20) EPCRA 313 non-reporter 

inspections (or other agreed upon compliance monitoring 

activities pursuant to the national dialogue on EPCRA 313 

compliance monitoring).

NNN N

5

FED-

FAC05

Each Region must conduct ten (10) federal facilities 

inspections primarily to support national Integrated Strategy 

areas, which include stormwater, federal underground 

storage tanks (UST), RCRA corrective action sites, 

vulnerable communities and inspections associated with the 

disposal of unneeded federal real estate. Three exploratory 

categories from FY 2012 -- inspections at Government 

Owned/Contractor Operated/Government Owned/Privately 

Operated (GOCO/GOPO) facilities, for HCFCs/CFCs at 

federal installations and related to energy extraction on 

federal lands – will also count. These 10 inspection 

commitments can be achieved through any combination of 

single media or multimedia inspections, with the following 

limitations: (1) a maximum of two UST inspections can 

count toward this goal; (2) a maximum of four vulnerable 

community inspections can count toward this goal; and (3) 

for any multimedia inspection conducted, it shall count as up 

to four inspections toward this goal if up to four of the 

individual inspections support the Integrated Strategies 

NNN N
7

and/or official Regionally-designated priorities. Further, (4) 

up to four official Regionally-designated priorities can count 

toward the commitment, if the Region determines that 

inspections up to that number are more desirable than the 

same number of Integrated Strategy inspections in the 

Region. Finally, all of these inspections may simultaneously 

satisfy inspection commitments required in any National 

Enforcement Initiative or other core program area. 

5 SRF01

Develop a plan to complete all Round 3 state reviews by the 

end of FY 2016 and submit it to OC by October 30, 2012. 

Before the plan is due, OC and OWM will have a discussion 

with each Region about their plan. Subsequently, OC and 

OWM will hold annual discussions with Regions to establish 

whether any modifications to the schedules are necessary. 

Identify the states where Round 3 reviews will be conducted 

in FY 2013. Conduct all Round 3 SRF reviews of state CAA, 

CWA, and RCRA enforcement programs scheduled for FY 

2013. Conduct all CWA reviews using the integrated CWANPDES program oversight process (permit and enforcement 

reviews). Review existing MOAs as part of the CWANPDES review process in light of the OW/OECA criteria for 

MOA review and checklist to be developed in FY 2012.

Ensure that MOAs are updated as needed. 

N N N N

*Goal/Objective/Sub-Heading 
1

Explanation of Changes between FY 2012 and FY 2013 NPM Guidance 

 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Instructions 

Change from FY 2011 Guidance Document Reason for Change Location of Information

Briefly describe the significant changes from the FY 2012 guidance and 

specify whether it is a deletion, addition, or modification. Changes to 

measures may be grouped. 

Provide the reason for the change and indicate whether 

the change is in response to an Agency initiative, 

internal process or comment on the draft guidance 

(e.g., budget decisions, Administrator’s priorities, 

regulation, initiative, result of measures review, etc.).

Identify where in the document the 

new or modified information can be 

found (by page number and section).

Template 

Change from FY 2012 Guidance Document Reason for Change Affected Pages and Sections

Priorities

Changes to priorities and strategies are interrelated in certain instances. To avoid unnecessary 

repetition, please see strategy changes highlighted 

below.

See below.

Strategies

Next Generation Compliance: OECA has 

identified a critical new investment area aimed 

at instituting next generation compliance practices 

to build 21st century technical capabilities and 

efficiencies in assuring compliance. OECA and 

the Regions are supporting the Agency’s Next 

Generation Compliance by promoting electronic 

monitoring and reporting to improve targeting and 

transparency and advancing new monitoring 

technologies to identify violations impacting 

public health and harming the environment. For 

consent decrees that include a requirement to 

conduct a performance test(s), Regions should 

seek having electronic copies of required 

performance test reports submitted to the Agency 

through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) 

This is consistent with EPA’s desire to better 

address large regulated universes with 

approaches that go beyond traditional inspection 

and enforcement activities.

See page 13.
2

when feasible.

 

Clean Water Act Action Plan: OECA, together 

with EPA regions, states and tribes with program 

delegation, and the Office of Water, continues to 

implement the CWA Action Plan (“the Action 

Plan”) issued in October 2009. Pursuant to the 

Action Decision Document, issued in May 2011, 

EPA is making four fundamental changes to 

revamp the NPDES permitting, compliance and 

enforcement program to better address today’s

serious water quality problems.

The proposed changes take into account work 

already accomplished and continuing 

improvements to better address today’s water 

quality problems.

See pages 34-36.

Integrated Municipal Stormwater and 

Wastewater Planning Approach: 

EPA engaged stakeholders to develop and 

implement an Integrated Municipal Stormwater

and Wastewater Planning Approach Framework 

to address municipalities' numerous CWA 

obligations. 

This approach will allow municipalities to 

prioritize and sequence CWA requirements in a 

manner that addresses the most pressing public 

health and environmental protection issues first, 

while maintaining existing regulatory standards 

that protect public health and water quality. All 

or part of an integrated plan may be 

incorporated into the remedy of enforcement 

actions and/or into NPDES permits. After the 

details of the development and implementation 

of this Approach are finalized, OECA will 

decide what modifications to the National 

Municipal Enforcement Initiative are necessary 

to promote and implement it. More detail about 

the changes and their implications will be made 

available soon in follow-up to a series of 

integrated planning workshops held with states, 

local governments and environmental groups.

See page 16.

Inspector Credentials: In FY 2013, regions will 

be required to re-credential many of their federal

inspectors. 

EPA Order 3510 requires that each EPA office 

which prints and distributes credentials (i.e. 

federal credentials issued to state and tribal 

See pages 16, 29, 45, 48, 53, 65, 

75.
3

inspectors to conduct inspections on EPA’s 

behalf) must conduct an annual inventory 

including an annual physical possession check 

of 10% of the credentials. OECA will work the 

regions to establish a schedule and necessary 

steps for the re-credentialing of inspectors. 

Compliance Monitoring National Dialogue: 

OECA will be holding a national dialogue on how 

to expand the range of compliance monitoring 

activities to be credited under media Compliance 

Monitoring Strategies (CMS). 

This is necessary as the regulated universe 

continues to grow while federal and state 

resources become scarcer. Traditionally, on-site 

compliance inspections and investigations have 

been the primary means for providing coverage 

of the regulated universe. There are many 

additional activities regulatory agencies do to 

monitor facility-level compliance that can and 

should be considered along with inspections and 

investigations as contributing to our coverage 

goals. EPA Regions, states and tribes will be 

invited to participate in this national dialogue in 

2012, and should be ready to implement the 

outcome of this discussion in 2013. 

See page 17.

Budget Challenges for FY 2013: Our top 

priority is ensuring that we address the most 

important violations posing a threat to public 

health or the environment. It is also essential that 

we invest in new ways to improve the 

effectiveness of our work, such as monitoring, 

electronic reporting, and innovative enforcement 

approaches. Maintaining or even increasing our 

investment in these top priorities during lean 

budget times requires us to make difficult choices, 

and to work in partnership with States and Tribes 

to ensure that limited funds are focused on those 

compliance and enforcement initiatives that will 

deliver the greatest benefit to people's health. 

Maintaining or even increasing our investment 

in these top priorities during lean budget times 

requires us to make difficult choices, and to 

work in partnership with States and Tribes to 

ensure that limited funds are focused on those 

compliance and enforcement initiatives that will 

deliver the greatest benefit to people's health. 

See pages 13-14, 31-33, 40, 49, 

54, 64, 68, 77, 80 and 86.
4

In order to ramp up work on these priorities in a 

time of declining budgets, we necessarily will 

have to cut back in other areas in FY13. In some 

cases, progress made in the past allows for 

reduced effort today. In other programs, new 

electronic tools make it possible to do more with 

less, or we can set a higher threshold for taking 

federal enforcement. In some cases, we will, out 

of necessity, need to consider scaling back on 

important work. However, in every case we will 

retain our capacity to address the most serious 

national problems, and will also continue to 

respond to the most egregious cases using 

criminal enforcement authorities, where that is 

appropriate. 

Although all NPM Guidance documents are being 

finalized today (per the Agency’s annual 

schedule), we are still are in the process of 

discussing the content and schedule for the budget 

adjustments portion of the Guidance. With the 

participation of all the Regions and OECA 

Offices, we are thinking through the issues 

associated with implementation of these 

reductions, and considering the input from States 

and Tribes. Discussions of the budget adjustment 

plans will continue for the next several months. 

Some changes to the February 10, 2012 proposed 

OECA NPM Guidance have already been made, 

based on early comments from the States and 

Regions. For example, due to state concerns, we 

have decided to retain at least a limited national 

presence in all of the adjustment areas and are no 

longer proposing to completely disinvest in any 

programs. Some of the budget adjustments 

outlined in this final guidance may be further 

revised as we continue work on implementation 

plans. 
5

So that we can transition to the changed profile 

given budget adjustments, this guidance requests 

that Regions not initiate new work (e.g., 

inspections) in the areas under consideration for 

reduction, without prior consultation with senior 

managers in Headquarters. There will be more 

discussion on the consultation process before 

FY2013. Given the importance of compliance 

monitoring and enforcement work, it will be 

critical to maintain travel funds for those 

purposes, and to scale back on other types of 

travel instead where Regional travel funds are 

limited. 

Environmental Information Exchange 

Network: The NPM guidance provides updated 

information on the Environmental Information 

Exchange Network. It also invites the provision 

of examples to the Electronic Reporting Task 

Force of experiences in moving from paper to 

electronic reporting.

To reduce burden, improve compliance, expand 

the information available to the public about 

pollution that affects them, and improve the 

ability of EPA, states and tribes to implement 

environmental programs, the Agency has 

commenced a comprehensive initiative to 

convert from paper reporting to electronic 

reporting. The NPM guidance discusses the 

focus of this initiative in two main areas. The 

Agency is also interested in learning from states 

and tribes about successes and challenges in 

converting from paper reporting to electronic. If 

a state or tribe would like to share information 

with the Electronic Reporting Task Force, 

please contact David Hindin (OECA) and Andy 

Battin (OEI) for more information.

See pages 35 and 41.

Environmental Justice (EJ):

Expanded narrative addressing children’s health 

and screening of civil and criminal enforcement 

cases for EJ concerns.

The narrative was expanded to further address 

children’s health. Also, the narrative addresses 

OECA’s evaluation and post-pilot 

implementation of the Technical Directive: 

Reviewing EPA Enforcement Cases for 

Potential Environmental Justice Concerns and 

See pages 18 -22.
6

Reporting Findings to the ICIS Data System. 

Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy: Starting in 

FY2013, the One TSCA approach includes 

activities in each TSCA focus area not subject to 

FY 2013 disinvestment. 

One-TSCA means that each Region is expected 

to use all available compliance monitoring 

capabilities (within all relevant offices in the 

Region, at Headquarters, and among 

participating states) to address the Region’s 

most significant TSCA challenges, while 

sustaining essential capacity in all of its TSCA 

program areas not subject to disinvestment. 

See page 15.

EPA Direct Implementation in Indian 

Country: Regional direct implementation in 

Indian country includes applying the various 

compliance monitoring strategies and 

enforcement policies, and OECA’s Guidance on 

the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 

Indian Policy (January 17, 2001). OECA’s 

Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined 

in the 1984 Indian Policy contains procedures for 

consultation with federally-recognized tribes in

the civil compliance monitoring and enforcement 

context and contains threshold criteria for EPA’s 

consideration of enforcement actions. The 

threshold criteria are not intended to, and should 

not, result in a lesser degree of human health and 

environmental protection in Indian country than 

elsewhere in the U.S.

What is described is not a change in approach

from FY 2012. However, OECA thought it was 

important to note in the NPM Guidance that 

EPA regional direct implementation in Indian 

country includes applying the various 

compliance monitoring and enforcement 

policies.

See pages 30, 44, 56, 65 and 75.

CAA Section:

Updates to activities for regions, states, tribes and 

local agencies.

Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013 

activities, including national dialogue on 

compliance monitoring and support of next 

generation compliance activities.

See pages 25-33.
7

CWA Section:

Updates to activities for regions and states.

Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013 

activities, including but not limited to preparing 

for implementation of proposed NPDES 

electronic reporting rule.

See pages 34-45.

SDWA Section:

Updates to activities for regions and states.

Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013 

activities.

See pages 45-49.

RCRA Section:

Updates to activities for regions and states.

Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013 

activities.

See pages 50-57.

TSCA Section:

Updates to activities for regions and states.

Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013 

activities.

See pages 57-66.

FIFRA Section:

Updates to activities for regions, states, tribes.

Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013 

activities.

See pages 66-76.

CERCLA:

Updates to activities for regions.

Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013 

activities.

See pages 76-79.

Criminal Enforcement Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013 

activities.

See pages 80-82.

Federal Activities Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013 

activities.

See pages 82-83.

EPCRA 313 Section:

Updates to activities for regions.

Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013 

activities.

See pages 84-85.

EPCRA 311/312 Section:

Updates to activities for regions.

Reflects change in focus for EPCRA 311/312 

program.

See page 86.

CERCLA 103 and EPCRA 304 Section:

Updates to activities for regions.

Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013 

activities.

See page 86.
8

Federal Facilities Section:

Updates to activities for regions.

Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013 

activities.

See pages 87-89.

State Review Framework:

Updates to activities for regions.

Necessary changes to reflect focus of FY 2013 

activities.

See page 90.

Annual 

Commitment 

Measures

CAA 07: Deleted commitment CAA 07 which 

appeared in OECA’s final FY 2012 NPMG but 

was subsequently discontinued in follow-up to 

discussions with regions. This addressed the 

reporting of Minimum Data Requirements 

(MDRs) in the national data system AFS. 

The regions are still working to ensure the entry 

of 100% of MDRs in AFS. The importance of 

this activity has not changed. But this is part of 

the core program and it was deemed 

unnecessary to have an ACS measure.

Deleted from page 31.

RCRA 04 Subtitle C Program: Deleted 

commitment RCRA 04 for financial assurance. 

However, the NPM Guidance emphasizes that 

financial assurance compliance evaluations 

should be part of any Compliance Evaluation 

Inspection. 

Financial responsibility was an OECA National 

Enforcement Priority from 2005-2010. In FY 

11 and FY 12, OECA used an ACS commitment 

to ensure continued focus on financial assurance 

compliance monitoring as it transitioned from a 

priority back to a core program function. 

OECA believes that transition is now 

successfully complete and does not see a 

continued need for RCRA04.

Deleted from page 54.

CWA09: Deleted commitment CWA 09 which 

reads as follows: Regions should submit 

summaries of the collaborative EPA/state annual 

work planning process addressing NPDES 

permitting, compliance monitoring, and 

enforcement activities, including work-sharing, to 

the Office of Compliance and the Office of 

Wastewater Management by October 31, 2011, 

for FY 2013 activities. 

Regions will continue to conduct collaborative 

EPA/state annual work planning processes 

addressing NPDES permitting, compliance 

monitoring, and enforcement activities, 

including work-sharing. It was deemed 

unnecessary to have an ACS commitment on 

this.

Deleted from page 42.

CWA 10: Deleted CWA 10 which read as 

follows: Regions should focus their CWA 

enforcement work towards meeting the national 

target of 37% for concluding federal judicial and 

The Goal was to increase the percentage of our 

enforcement actions taken in waters that do not 

meet water quality standards. The FY 2011 

target was 37%, compared to an FY 2009 

Deleted from CWA section.
9

administrative enforcement actions resulting in a 

reduction of pollutants that pertain to facilities 

discharging into waters that do not achieve water 

quality standards. The Regions should report 

their data per the November 2010 guidance issued 

by OECA, and any subsequent updates issued for 

FY2012.

baseline of 32%. In FY 2011, EPA focused 

approximately 60% of its water quality 

enforcement actions to facilities discharging to 

waters that do not meet water quality standards. 

Given this achievement, the Agency has chosen 

another area of focus (Electronic Reporting) for 

its FY 2012-2013 Priority Goal.

EJ01: Headquarters (HQ) added this 

commitment which involves the analysis of FY 

2012 EJ SEAT data by HQ. 

Headquarters believes it’s important to analyze 

FY 12 EJSEAT data to consider developing a 

baseline for a budget measure related to case 

initiations in areas with environmental justice 

(EJ) concerns.

Added to page 20.

TSCA 01: The Lead Based Paint (LBP) 

component of OECA’s TSCA 01 ACS 

commitment, which focuses on inspections, will 

serve as OECA’s FY 2013 measure of 

compliance work being done to protect children’s 

health. TSCA 01 was an FY 2012 measure, but 

identification of the LBP component as a

children’s health measure is new.

Monitoring and enforcement efforts to promote 

compliance with LBP rules, particularly the 

Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule, 

advance the goal of eliminating and preventing 

LBP hazards, which are the primary single 

cause of childhood lead poisoning. These 

efforts support the Agency’s mission to 

eliminate childhood lead poisoning.

See page 60.

TSCA02: Added commitment TSCA02, which 

reads as follows: Report other compliance 

monitoring activities at the end of the year; and 

break-out the description of other such activities 

by TSCA program area. (See the CMS and the 

future outcomes of the compliance monitoring 

national dialogue for more details). 

See explanation next to Compliance Monitoring 

National Dialogue on the bottom of page #

See page 60.

CAA04, CAA06, RCRA 01, 01.s, 02, OSRE 04, 

CWA07, FIFRA Fed1, Fed-Fac05, SRF-01:

Language was modified (slightly in some 

instances) under each of these ACS commitments.

Language was modified (slightly in some 

instances) to reflect focus of FY 2013 activities.

See pages:

- (CAA04) 29, 

- (CAA 06) 31, 

- (CWA07) 42, 

- (RCRA01, 01.s) 51, 
10

- (RCRA02 & OSRE04) 54,

- (FIFRA Fed1) 70, 

- (Fed Fac 05) 89 and 

- (SRF01) 90.

Contacts Maureen Lydon