Final FY2006 Update

National Program Managers’

Guidance

Office of Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance

June 2005

revised October 2005 
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION ................................................. 2

SECTION II.

NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE

ASSURANCE .......................................................... 4

Wet Weather ........................................................... 5

Air Toxics - Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) ................. 5

NSR/PSD .............................................................. 6

Mineral Processing ...................................................... 7

Tribal ................................................................. 8

Petroleum Refineries ..................................................... 8

SECTION III: CORE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES .................................. 9

Compliance Assistance ................................................... 9

Compliance Incentives ................................................... 11

Monitoring and Enforcement .............................................. 12

Technical Support and Training ........................................... 14

Data Quality and Reporting ............................................... 15

EPA State Relations ..................................................... 16

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)

and RCRA Corrective Action Enforcement Program ..................... 19

CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) PROGRAMS ................................ 20

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA) PROGRAM ........................ 28

FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE AND RODENTICIDE ACT PROGRAM . . 35

EPCRA PROGRAMS ................................................... 38

TSCA ................................................................ 40

CLEAN AIR ACT PROGRAM ............................................ 46

RCRA PROGRAM ..................................................... 55

FEDERAL ACTIVITIES PROGRAM ...................................... 63

FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAM ..... 65

MULTIMEDIA AND RAPID RESPONSE PROGRAM ........................ 70

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM ................................. 73

TRIBAL PROGRAM ................................................... 77

SECTION V. FY2006 OECA Workplan Submission Instructions ................... 80

Final 1 June 2005 
Executive Summary 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) - FY 2006 Update to the 

National Program Managers’ Guidance. 

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 

EPA’s national enforcement and compliance assurance program is characterized by its 

multi-media scope and breadth. The national program is responsible for maximizing compliance 

with 10 distinct federal environmental statutes dealing with prevention and control of air 

pollution, water pollution, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides. Most of these 

statutes have multiple program elements, and OECA carries out compliance and enforcement 

activities in a total of 28 separate program areas. The statutory and regulatory requirements of 

these programs apply to approximately 41 million regulated entities, an enormous and diverse 

universe which needs to achieve and maintain compliance. 

The OECA National Program Manager’s (NPM) guidance sets forth national program 

priorities and activities for the enforcement and compliance regulatory programs for a three year 

cycle. The performance expectations and activities outlined in the guidance are the starting point 

from which headquarters and the regional offices engage to discuss the management of program 

activities and the distribution of resources. These discussions result in the regions committing to 

a specific number of, or a specific universe percentage of, program activities. These 

commitments nationally constitute the agreed upon approach between the regions and the 

national program managers for achieving performance expectations in both the core program and 

the national priorities for the fiscal year. 

FY 2006 Update to the FY2005 - 2007 NPM Guidance 

The FY2005 - 2007 NPM guidance issued in April 2004 incorporated changes and 

recommendations adopted by the Agency to improve the planning process as a whole and to 

continue to integrate program planning with performance-based results. Additionally, the 

development and issuance of the NPM guidance was timed to engage the states earlier and more 

directly to allow them a greater role in EPA’s planning and priority setting processes. 

One of the most significant changes to the FY 2005 - 2007 planning process was the 

introduction of the Annual Commitment System (ACS). The ACS replaced the paper 

memorandum of agreement (MOAs) that OECA had previously required from each of the ten 

regions. Starting in FY2005, the regions entered their annual program commitments into the 

ACS. Regions were required to enter commitments for both the core and national priority areas. 

Headquarters and the regions negotiated and finalized acceptable commitment levels prior to the 

start of FY2005. 

For FY2006, OECA has eliminated a number of the commitments in the ACS. After 

Final 2 June 2005 
completing the commitment process for 2005, OECA senior managers established a workgroup 

to review the existing commitments and make recommendations for reducing the number of 

commitments in the system. The purpose for this was twofold. The first was to reduce the 

overall number of commitments to alleviate the reporting burden on the regions. The second 

was to respond to the regions’ feedback that a number of the commitments needed clarification, 

better definitions, clearer delineation between federal and state responsibility, or were 

duplicative of other media programs’ commitments. The workgroup, composed of regional and 

headquarters staff, reviewed all of OECA’s ACS commitments. A set of principles was 

developed to provide the group with a consistent rationale and framework for deciding which 

commitments should be deleted, which commitments should be reworked or redefined, and 

which commitments should remain unchanged. For those commitments recommended for 

deletion, the workgroup made sure to maintain the commitment’s program activities and 

expectations as part of the narrative in this FY2006 Update to the NPM Guidance. Further, the 

deletion of a commitment doesn’t mean the corresponding data is no longer reported into 

OECA’s national data systems. Regions should continue to rely on OECA’s Enforcement and 

Compliance Reporting Plan Memorandum which defines reporting requirements for the national 

program. The workgroup recommended that the number of commitments be reduced from168 to 

105. Additionally, the workgroup recommended that the commitments tracking both state and 

federal activities be broken out to clarify tracking within the ACS. Therefore, in some instances 

there will be two commitments for one activity. Overall, there is a decrease of 67 core and 

priority commitments and the addition of four new commitments for FY2006. 

It is important to note that not all core program activities have an associated commitment 

in the ACS. The absence of a commitment in the ACS does not tacitly imply that a core 

programs’ activities are any less important. Likewise, the activities in the ACS should not be 

focused on exclusively at the expense of other program activities. The commitments in the ACS 

are a subset of the full array of OECA’s core program. The national enforcement and 

compliance assurance program is a dynamic program and regions should expect that 

headquarters may need to redirect attention and resources toward program issues that arise 

during any given fiscal year. It is possible that an issue may develop well after the planning for 

the fiscal year has been completed. Headquarter’s acknowledges that there are regional 

considerations that dictate the extent to which a region can address newly identified initiatives or 

program requests but there is an expectation that the regions adjust resources and participate 

accordingly whenever practicable. The introduction of the ACS does not change this dynamic 

and a midyear ACS adjustment period has been built into the planning cycle so that regions may 

make any necessary adjustments to their commitments should their resources be directed 

elsewhere during the course of the year. 

Lastly, the financial assurance priority has been added to the FY2006 planning cycle and 

a development and implementation strategy will be developed. Last year OECA recommended 

that this issue be evaluated during FY2005 to determine whether it should be pursued as a 

priority beginning in FY2006. After consulting with our program partners and others, OECA 

has decided to pursue this priority for FY2006 -FY2007. A more detailed explanation on the 

priority’s selection rationale and OECA’s approach to for addressing this priority area can be 

found in Section II - National Priorities for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance below. 

Final 3 June 2005 
SECTION II. 

NATIONAL PRIORITIES FOR ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE 

OECA selected its national priorities for the FY2005 - FY2007 planning cycle at the 

beginning of last year. Strategy implementation plans have been developed for all of the 

priorities and activities are fully underway to meet the priorities’ goals. Below are short 

summaries of the priority topic areas. For more information on the priorities, priority-specific 

goals, and the national priority selection process go to 

http://epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/priorities/index.html 

Financial Responsibility 

Selection Rationale: Financial responsibility protects public health and the environment by 

promoting the proper and safe handling of hazardous materials and protecting against a liable 

party defaulting on closure or clean up obligations. These benefits are lost unless there is 

compliance with the financial responsibility requirements and enforcement where there is a 

failure to maintain sufficient financial responsibility. Absent financial assurance, protection of 

human health and the environment would depend on available governmental financial resources. 

Consistent with EPA’s mandate to protect human health and the environment and ensure 

compliance with the law, as well as the Agency’s long standing “polluter pays” principle, an 

enforcement strategy for obtaining full compliance with financial responsibility requirements 

prevents improper handling of hazardous materials and the shifting of the costs from the 

responsible parties to state and federal taxpayers. 

Recent events have revealed that there are significant issues related to compliance with 

the financial responsibility obligations under current environmental laws. OECA is concerned 

that entities not providing adequate financial responsibility in accordance with their obligations 

under federal laws are not providing adequate protection to human health and the environment. 

OECA’s concerns in this area are shared by the Association of State Territorial Solid Waste 

Management Organizations (ASTSWMO) who urged OECA to adopt financial responsibility as 

an FY2006-2007 enforcement priority. 

EPA has decided to phase in its approach in the examination of compliance and 

enforcement issues under the federal laws. OECA has initiated its review by looking at the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C closure/post-closure and 

corrective action and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA). OECA plans to initiate its review of Section 6(e)under the Toxics Substance 

and Control Act (TSCA) in FY2006. Also in FY2006, OECA plans to evaluate the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and RCRA Subtitle I to determine if the financial responsibility 

programs under these laws should be included in this priority. This phased approach will help 

OECA refine its efforts to address identified non-compliance and resource issues as well as help 

in the development of a strategy with measurable goals and outputs for all environmental laws 

Final 4 June 2005 
requiring financial responsibility in this priority. 

Performance-Based Strategy Goal: By FY2007, reduce harm to human health and the 

environment by addressing noncompliance and optimize EPA’s financial protection and 

resources. EPA is currently developing procedures and measures to carry out this goal by 

creating a screening process to assess risks caused by a failure to have financial responsibility so 

that high-risk entities are identified on a priority basis and ensuring that all inspected entities are 

in compliance or on a path to compliance. 

Wet Weather 

Selection Rationale - Discharges from wet weather events are the leading causes of water 

quality impairment as documented in Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 305(b) reports and 

represent significant threats to public health and the environment. The discharges come from 

overflows from combined sewers or sanitary sewers, concentrated animal feeding operations 

(CAFO) discharges and run off, and storm water run off. The main pollutants in sewer 

overflows are fecal coliform (raw sewage), bacteria, pathogens, nutrients, untreated industrial 

wastes, toxic pollutants such as oil and pesticides, and debris washed into the sewer system. 

Discharges of nitrogen, phosphorous and fecal coliform from CAFOs to water bodies can occur 

through poor maintenance of waste lagoons, improper storage of animal waste, excessive and 

improper application of manure to crops, and excessive rainfall resulting in spills and leaks of 

manure management areas. Storm water runoff can carry high levels of pollutants such as 

sediment, oil and grease, suspended solids, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens, toxins, and trash 

into sewer systems and ultimately into our streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, wetlands, and oceans. 

Pollutants in sewer overflows, storm water discharges and CAFO’s can cause a variety of 

diseases in humans, ranging from dysentery to hepatitis. Wet weather compliance problems have 

been prioritized by looking at regulated facilities contributing to the impairment of watersheds, 

beaches and other recreational areas, shellfish beds, source water protection areas, environmental 

justice areas, and other sensitive areas. 

Performance-Based Strategy Wet Weather Goal: Protect public health and water quality in 

our nation’s watersheds where CSO’s, SSO’s, CAFO’s, and Stormwater sources may adversely 

impact sensitive areas, environmental justice communities, or have the potential to cause other 

significant risks to the environment or human health. 

Air Toxics - Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Selection Rationale: MACT standards are promulgated under Section 112 of the CAA to 

regulate the most hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and those posing the highest degree of risk to 

human health and the environment. By ensuring compliance with MACT standards, the Agency 

reduces public exposure to toxic air emissions. By the end of 2004, EPA will have promulgated 

approximately 90 MACT standards. After MACT standards are established, the regulated 

community has several years before the compliance date takes effect to learn about and prepare 

for the new standards. Emphasis on MACT standards over several years, both before and after 

Final 5 June 2005 
the compliance dates, can ensure that the requirements are clearly understood and that guidance 

and compliance assistance tools are developed for regulatory agencies and the regulated 

community. 

The Air Toxics program first became an OECA priority in FY2000. Since that time, the 

objective of the priority has been to distribute the substantial MACT implementation workload 

between headquarters and the regions through a regional Adopt-a-MACT program. Through the 

program, the regions adopted MACT standards for which they developed compliance monitoring 

and compliance assistance tools. This approach has resulted in the availability of a wide array of 

MACT implementation tools such as inspector check lists, applicability flowcharts and 

compliance time lines. Now that compliance dates are in place for more than 40 MACT 

standards, and implementation tools are available for the majority of these standards, the focus of 

the Air Toxics priority will shift from primarily a compliance assistance and tool development 

effort to compliance monitoring and enforcement. 

Performance-Based Strategy Goal: The general goal of this strategy will be to protect 

public health and the environment from the release of harmful emissions of air toxic pollutants. 

An important component of meeting this general goal will be to implement the PerformanceBased Air Toxics Enforcement Strategy; key provisions will include: 

C Identification and addressing of high risk pollutants of concern; 

C Focus on major Maximum Achievable Control Technology (“MACT”) sources while 

maintaining regional flexibility to target all MACT source categories for investigation, 

including area sources; 

C Consideration of Environmental Justice (EJ) in targeting MACT source investigations; 

C Utilization and further development of targeting tools which identify and prioritize high 

risk sources of concern and substantive areas of noncompliance with MACT standards; 

C Identification of data gaps and ways to gather such data; 

C Coordination of enforcement efforts with states and tribes as appropriate. 

The primary goal of the Air Toxics Enforcement Strategy will be to: 

Achieve an annual projected reduction of approximately 12,000 pounds of air emissions 

regulated by the MACT standards during the priority period through the investigation and 

enforcement of strategically chosen MACT standards. Such air emissions, which include 

known carcinogens, mutagens, teratogens, etc., are the most toxic air pollutants regulated under 

the Clean Air Act. Over the FY2005-2007 period, approximately 36,000 pounds of air emissions 

regulated by the MACT standards will be reduced from these MACT sources. Sources 

identified as violating the emission requirements of applicable MACT standards will be placed 

on federally enforceable compliance schedules, or will have had appropriate enforcement action 

taken, to reduce their excess emissions to zero, in accordance with EPA’s enforcement response 

policy. 

NSR/PSD 

Final 6 June 2005 
Final 7 June 2005

Pursuant to a memo dated Oct. 13, 2005, from EPA Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock, the

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance is revising its NSR/PSD Strategy to account

for new Agency rule-makings affecting coal-fired power plants. While OECA will continue to

pursue filed cases and cases in active negotiation against coal-fired power plants, OECA will

shift its future focus in the NSR/PSD Strategy from coal-fired power plants to other sectors

where compliance assurance activities have the potential to produce significant environmental

benefits. It is expected that strategy revisions will be completed by the end of 2005.

Selection Rationale - New Source Review (NSR) requirements in the CAA are intended to

ensure that the construction of new sources or modification of existing sources does not

jeopardize the attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in nonattainment areas. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements ensure that areas

with relatively clean air are not significantly degraded by the influx of new air pollution sources. 

The NSR and PSD programs directly control emissions of criteria air pollutants, and the PSD

program requires sources to address a number of toxic air pollutants. Avoidance of the required

review results in inadequate control of emissions, thereby contributing thousands of unaccounted

tons of pollution each year, particularly of NOx, VOC, SO2 and PM10. These emissions worsen

problems in non-attainment areas and threaten to drive attainment areas into non-attainment. 

Investigations conducted by EPA at many coal-fired utility companies, refineries, and other

industrial facilities reveal that many of them made modifications that were subject to NSR or

PSD but failed to obtain the required permits or install necessary controls. 

While EPA will vigorously pursue the new rules through the courts, compliance with

current NSR provisions remains our objective and we will continue to use enforcement to meet

that objective. We will pursue all filed cases and decisions to bring new cases will be guided by

several factors including available resources and desired environmental benefits. NSR is an

important tool and one component of our comprehensive national strategy to achieve cleaner air. 

Performance-Based Strategy Goal:

Through the NSR/PSD priority, EPA will protect human health and the environment by

investigating the compliance status of companies representing 75% of the nation’s coal-fired

power generating capacity by 2007. The companies found to be in noncompliance will be

subject to an enforceable order by the end of FY2007. Such orders will ultimately result in the

reduction in air emissions of 700 million pounds. Further, EPA will identify additional sectors

where significant environmental benefit can be derived from the resolution of NSR/PSD

noncompliance by the end of FY2007.

Mineral Processing

Selection Rationale: The mishandling of mineral processing wastes has caused significant

environmental damage and resulted in costly cleanups. These highly acidic wastes have caused

fish kills and the arsenic and cadmium that these wastes often contain have been found in
mineral processing facilities are failing to obtain the necessary permits and adequately manage 

their wastes. 

Mining produces significant amounts of waste and byproducts, ranging from 10% to 

more than 99.99% of the total material mined. Wastes include overburden and waste rock, 

which are primarily disposed of in piles near the mine site. Waste rock dumps are generally 

constructed on unlined terrain, with underlying soils stripped, graded, or compacted depending 

on engineering considerations. Tailings contain a mixture of impurities, trace metals, and 

residue of chemicals used in the beneficiation process. Specific types of environmental impacts 

include: acid mine drainage, acid leaching operations, fugitive dust emissions, erosion and 

sedimentation, habitat modification, disruption of surface and groundwater, and mining 

subsidence, the creation of sinkholes or troughs as a result of collapsing overlying strata into 

mined out voids. These sinkholes interrupt surface water drainage, affecting ponds and streams. 

Performance-Based Strategy Goal: 

By FY2007, ensure that high-risk facilities in the mineral processing and mining sectors 

are in compliance or on a path to compliance, or are otherwise working to reduce risk to human 

health and the environment through measures such as the implementation of best management 

practices. This goal will be achieved through the following activities: 

• Prioritize mineral processing and mining facilities by evaluating risk and other factors, 

such as proximity to environmental justice areas, financial viability and compliance 

status. Select 25 non-phosphoric acid mineral processing facilities and five mining sites 

for investigation. 

• Ensure that all 18 phosphoric acid facilities are in compliance or are addressed through 

settlement, civil action or referral to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and are subject to 

an order to assess a substantial hazard and address any imminent and substantial 

endangerment. 

• Ensure that 25 of the mineral processing facilities (other than phosphoric acid ones) are 

in compliance or, if not in compliance, have been addressed through settlement, civil 

action or referral to DOJ for filing and are subject to an order to assess a substantial 

hazard and address any imminent and substantial endangerment. 

• At five mining facilities, assess compliance, evaluate whether there is a potential 

imminent and substantial endangerment, and take appropriate action to protect human 

health and the environment. 

• Identify waste management practices that cause health and environmental problems and 

work closely with local, state, tribal and federal authorities to provide that information to 

other regulated entities so that they can improve their environmental management 

practices. 

• Aggregate information on “marquee” compliance problems—those that occur throughout 

an industry—and best management practices and disseminate it to the regulated 

community and all state and private providers of assistance. 

Final 8 June 2005 
Tribal 

Selection Rationale: Significant human health and environmental problems, associated with 

several media programs, are present in Indian country and other tribal areas. There are currently 

562 federally-recognized Indian tribes in the United States responsible for almost 77 million 

acres of land in Indian country. The tribal priority will focus on a variety of environmental 

issues and will also address adjacent noncomplying facilities impacting Indian country and other 

tribal areas, including those in Alaska. 

Performance-Based Strategy Goal: The primary goal of the tribal strategy is to significantly 

improve human health and the environment in Indian country and other tribal areas through EPA 

working with tribes on compliance assistance, compliance monitoring and enforcement 

activities. Through building tribal capacity and direct implementation, EPA will initially focus 

national attention on three areas: drinking water, schools and waste management. If at the time a 

Region commits to focus on one of these areas there are no violations to address, the Regions 

should commit to address targeted violations as they arise. 

Petroleum Refineries 

Petroleum Refining, a current national priority, will be evaluated at the end of FY2005

for potential return to the Core Program.

Selection Rationale: The Petroleum Refining Sector was selected as a national priority in FY 

1996. An integrated national strategy was developed that built upon individual regional 

investigative efforts in this sector in the early 1990s, and sought to assemble and focus regional, 

headquarters and state refinery expertise in a National effort to engage this industry, on a 

company-wide basis, in resolving the most environmentally significant, crosscutting air pollution 

violations at their facilities. 

Through this effort, EPA initiated scores of investigations at refineries and embarked on a 

series of multi-facility negotiations with major refining companies. At this time, global 

settlements have been reached with refiners representing approximately 40 percent of the domestic 

petroleum refining capacity. Subsequent to FY2002, the emphasis in the petroleum refining 

strategy shifted to completing the investigation and settlement work that was in progress. Beyond 

concluding negotiations with those facilities we have already engaged, the regions will have a 

continuing resource commitment to implementing federal consent decrees. Ultimately, EPA must 

assure that the states have sufficient capacity to both investigate and return to compliance, refiners 

that have not been the subject of federal enforcement, and to secure the benefits of the federal 

settlements through permitting, once the settlements have expired. 

Performance-Based Strategy Goals: 

Goal 1: Through settlement or filed civil action, address 80 percent of the domestic refining 

capacity and 90 percent of the domestic refining capacity in environmental justice 

Final 9 June 2005 
areas. 

Goal 2: From the 1995 baseline, 50 percent improvement in compliance. 

Goal 3: Reduce SO2 and NOx emissions by 20 percent. 

Goal 4: Respond to all consent decree deliverables requiring a response, 75 percent of those 

responses within 90 days of receiving the deliverable. 

SECTION III: CORE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 

Core activities are conducted to implement required elements of environmental laws and to 

maintain a credible presence to deter noncompliance. This section begins with a discussion of 

those aspects of national guidance which apply across all core program areas, then provides a 

discussion about individual program elements under various environmental statutes. 

The performance expectations and required regional commitments defined in this core 

guidance represent national program expectations and do not cover all of the enforcement and 

compliance assurance efforts conducted in the regional offices. Flexibility is a key component of 

the national enforcement and compliance assurance program planning process and there is the 

understanding that, while regions are expected to support national program core and priority 

activities, there are very real, credible reasons for a region’s nonparticipation. There are many 

factors that can influence the level of a region’s participation. For example, geographic or sector 

initiatives, the presence/absence of a regulated sector in a region, regional resources, and high 

priority regional initiatives can all directly impact the regions’ contributions to national core and 

priority activities. To ascertain the full array of a region’s activities for a given fiscal year, the 

region’s response to the core program guidance must be considered along with their Regional Plan. 

In particular, the regional plans provide more information on the region’s use of compliance 

assistance and compliance incentive tools to achieve results. A region’s performance is based on 

the effective use of all the enforcement and compliance assistance tools and program activities. 

The core guidance activities laid out below, in conjunction with the regional plans, provide the 

best context for a region’s contribution to the national program and to program activities in areas 

unique to the region. To access the regional plans, go to 

http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/regionplans/regionalplans2.htm

 GUIDANCE APPLIED TO ALL CORE PROGRAMS 

Ensuring compliance involves the use of all available tools including compliance 

assistance, compliance incentives, compliance monitoring, and civil and criminal enforcement that 

are appropriate to address specific environmental risks and noncompliance patterns. In using these 

tools in the national program there are certain fundamental activities and requirements that need to 

be carried out for all core program areas. 

A. Compliance Assistance (Sub-objective 5.1.1) 

Final 10 June 2005 
Compliance Assistance includes activities, tools or technical assistance that provides clear 

and consistent information for: 1) helping the regulated community understand and meet its 

obligations under environmental regulations; and 2) helping other compliance assistance providers 

to aid the regulated community in complying with environmental regulations. Assistance may also 

help the regulated community find cost-effective ways to comply with regulations and go beyond 

compliance through the use of pollution prevention techniques, improved environmental 

management practices, and innovative technologies, thus improving environmental performance. 

The compliance assistance core program in the regions should include the following: 

1. A strong regional compliance assistance core program infrastructure: 

• A full-time regional compliance assistance coordinator to provide a focal point for 

planning and coordination of compliance assistance efforts; 

• Communication networks within the region, across regions, with headquarters, 

states, tribes, and external environmental assistance providers; 

• Mechanisms to coordinate and strategically build compliance assistance into 

national, regional and state planning processes. 

2. Strategic planning for up front consideration and appropriate use of compliance assistance 

in addressing environmental problems: 

• Plan and coordinate compliance assistance across organizational and programmatic 

boundaries (e.g., media programs, enforcement, environmental justice, small 

business) and include states, tribes, and other stakeholders in this process; 

• Use integrated strategic approaches to target and address environmental problems, 

and consider all available tools, such as compliance assistance, compliance 

incentives (self-audits, opportunities for pollution prevention and Environmental 

Management Systems (EMS)), compliance monitoring, and enforcement (See 

November 27, 2002, Framework for a Problem-Based Approach to Integrated 

Strategies). 

• Ensure appropriate use of compliance assistance in the implementation of integrated 

and performance-based strategies for both national and regional priorities. 

3. Tracking and measuring results of compliance assistance activities: 

• Report on planned and actual compliance assistance projects in the Integrated 

Compliance Information System (ICIS) 

• Report all compliance assistance project outputs, and for significant compliance 

assistance projects, also measure and report outcomes. Significant compliance 

assistance projects include activities that support the OECA national priorities or 

regional priorities. 

• Commitment ASST01: Conduct outcome measurement for 100% of all 

compliance assistance workshops/training, onsite visits and revisits which support 

the OECA national priorities and report the results of these outcomes into ICIS. 

Report on exceptions to the 100% and provide brief explanations in the ACS. 

Final 11 June 2005 
• Conduct follow-up measurement activities to determine improved environmental 

management practices and pollution reduction outcomes achieved for the subset of 

direct assistance activities identified above which are in support of the OECA 

national priorities. 

• Outcomes of federal compliance assistance on-site visits and revisits should be 

reported in ICIS. The Compliance Assistance Conclusion Data Sheet (CACDS) can 

be used to record these outcomes and facilitate data entry into ICIS. 

4. Providing compliance assistance targeted to appropriate problems, sectors, and geographic 

areas directly or through other providers (states, tribes, P2 providers, etc.) 

• Develop compliance assistance tools, conduct training, workshops, presentations, 

onsite visits and/or distribute outreach materials; 

• Share compliance assistance tools and opportunities within the regions and 

externally, e.g., with states, tribes, trade associations; 

• Serve as a wholesaler of compliance assistance to enable other providers to offer 

assistance, including, for example, providing training and tools to providers; 

• Place new tools on Compliance Assistance Clearinghouse as they are developed; 

• Market and wholesale compliance assistance opportunities and tools, and share 

success stories. 

Detailed descriptions of the above compliance assistance activities undertaken by the 

regions, as well as information on the types of sectors targeted for compliance assistance, can be 

found in the regional plans at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/regionplans/regionalplans2.htm 

B. Compliance Incentives (Sub-objective 5.1.2) 

EPA promotes compliance through the use of incentive policies. These policies reduce or 

waive penalties under certain conditions for facilities which voluntarily discover, promptly 

disclose, and correct environmental problems. EPA encourages the use of such policies, which 

include the Audit Policy, various market-based incentives, compliance auditing protocols, and 

environmental management systems that will result in actions that reduce, treat, or eliminate 

pollution or improve facility environmental management practices (EMPs). 

EPA’s Audit Policy, Small Business Policy and Small Community Policy provide 

incentives for the regulated community to resolve environmental problems and come into 

compliance with federal laws through self-assessment, disclosure, and correction of violations. 

Under various Compliance Incentive Programs (CIPs), individual entities or members of a sector 

can disclose and correct violations in exchange for reduced or waived penalties, while the risk of 

enforcement increases for those not taking advantage of this opportunity. EPA also promotes the 

disclosure of environmental information in accordance with the SEC’s mandatory corporate 

disclosure requirements as a means of promoting improved environmental performance. 

Increasing public access to corporate environmental information helps maintain a level playing 

field for companies, and raises company awareness concerning environmental issues. 

Final 12 June 2005 
C

Regions are expected to carry out at least the following activities associated with 

compliance incentives: 

participate in compliance incentive programs directed at a particular sector and/or 

noncompliance problem, with emphasis on violations that, once corrected, are likely to 

result in measurable pollution reductions. 

• promote OECA’s compliance incentive policies (e.g., small business policy, audit policy), 

with the assistance of state, tribal, and local agencies, to encourage the regulated 

community to voluntarily discover, disclose and correct violations before they are 

identified by regulatory agencies for enforcement investigation or response. 

• consider and follow-up on, as appropriate, self-disclosures submitted under the OECA 

audit policy and small business policy. 

C. Monitoring and Enforcement (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 

Compliance Monitoring 

All regional programs should conduct appropriate compliance monitoring activities, which 

include conducting compliance inspections and investigations, record reviews, targeting, and 

responding to citizen complaints. As in the past, NEIC will continue to support ongoing projects 

to the extent commitments were made in previous years, including case preparation and 

enforcement support. 

The core compliance monitoring program is defined by a number of specific activities. 

Compliance monitoring comprises all the activities conducted by a regulatory agency to determine 

whether an individual facility or a group of facilities (geographical, by sector or by corporate 

structure) are in compliance with environmental laws and regulations, as well as established 

settlement agreements (e.g., Administrative Orders, Consent Decrees, Criminal Plea Informations). 

Compliance determinations are generally documented and filed using various methods (e.g., 

database, inspection report). Compliance monitoring activities occur before and at the point when 

either compliance or an actual violation is determined. 

Examples of important compliance monitoring activities include: 

• creating a viable field presence and deterrent by conducting compliance inspections, 

surveillance, and civil investigations in all the environmental media (air, water, waste, 

toxics, wetlands, etc.) in both delegated and non-delegated programs; 

• performing compliance data collection, analysis, evaluation, and management; 

• developing compliance monitoring strategies that include targeting and information 

gathering techniques; 

• collecting and analyzing environmental samples at specific facilities, sites, and ambient 

locations; 

Final 13 June 2005 
• reviewing and evaluating self-reported data and records, environmental permits, and other 

technical information relating to compliance with environmental laws and regulations; 

• maintaining compliance files and managing compliance records; 

• responding to tips, complaints, and referrals from private citizens, other governmental 

entities, and non-governmental organizations; 

• providing training to fulfill the requirements of EPA Order 3500.1, and other applicable 

Orders (1440.1, 1440.2, etc.); 

• preparing reports and inputting compliance findings and inspection results into national 

databases; 

• reporting manually, or into ICIS, the outcomes of inspections and evaluations using the 

Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet (ICDS) and analyzing and evaluating the outcomes of 

compliance monitoring activities; 

• working with state, tribal, and local environmental regulatory agencies to monitor 

environmental compliance with environmental laws by private, state, federal, and tribal 

facilities; 

• identifying, tracking, and coordinating with state, tribal, and local environmental agencies 

those violators that are, or should be designated as, Significant Noncompliers, High 

Priority Violators, or Watch List facilities; 

• identifying potential environmental crimes through the civil compliance monitoring 

program, and referring and/or assisting in bringing environmental criminals to justice; 

• developing compliance monitoring tools such as inspection guides, checklists, or manuals; 

• promoting the recommendations detailed in the Office of Compliance (OC) guidance, Final 

National Policy, Role of the Inspector in Providing Compliance Assistance During 

Inspections, June 25, 2003; 

• developing, negotiating, or overseeing state or tribal compliance and enforcement grants; 

• providing training, assistance, support and oversight of state and tribal compliance 

inspectors; 

• issuing and tracking federal credentials to state and tribal compliance inspectors; 

• performing compliance screens for various headquarters and/or state programs such as 

Performance Track; 

• Conducting federal oversight inspections/evaluations to corroborate state or tribal 

inspection findings. Oversight inspections/evaluations are a principal means of evaluating 

both the quality of an inspection program and inspector training (Revised Policy 

Framework for State/EPA Enforcement Agreements, August 25, 1986). 

It is expected that the regions, for each of their programs, will conduct many of these 

activities in any fiscal year. The specific combination of activities will depend upon the 

availability of intra- and extramural resources, and working agreements made between state and 

tribal governments. 

Compliance monitoring does NOT include: 1) preparation of Notice of Violations (NOVs), 

warning letters, and administrative or judicial complaints, and 2) development of evidence and 

other information where a violation has already been determined to have occurred. Instead, these 

activities fall under the civil and criminal enforcement programs. 

Final 14 June 2005 
Civil and Criminal Enforcement 

EPA’s national enforcement and compliance assurance program utilizes several types of 

enforcement actions to correct and deter noncompliance. Civil enforcement authorities include 

administrative and judicial actions. In situations where violations are knowingly and willfully 

committed, EPA uses criminal enforcement actions. The criminal enforcement core program seeks 

to effectively integrate criminal enforcement with the regional enforcement programs. To achieve 

this purpose, each region will continue to coordinate and cooperate closely with the Special Agentin-Charge (SAC) of the region’s CID Area Offices. This includes, but is not limited to, the 

identification, investigation and prosecution of criminal violations of federal environmental laws, 

with a particular emphasis on identifying criminal activity which victimizes environmental justice 

communities. In using its civil and criminal enforcement authorities EPA regions are responsible 

for: 

• adhering to the applicable program enforcement response policies (ERPs), the timely and 

appropriate (T&A) guidances (where these exist), applicable penalty policies, the 

Supplemental Environmental Project Policy, and implementation of the Watch List project; 

• adhering to OECA Nationally Significant Issues (NSI) and delegations guidance in all 

cases as applicable; 

• tracking compliance with consent decrees and administrative orders, and taking all 

necessary actions to ensure continued compliance; 

• inputting all required data into the national databases, where applicable, and completing 

and entering the case conclusion data sheets (CCDS) for all concluded actions, including 

those in the CERCLA program, into ICIS; 

• continuing to resolve enforcement cases initiated prior to FY2006 and ensure investigation 

and issuance of appropriate action for any open tips/complaints/referrals received by EPA; 

• working with the Department of Justice and EPA Headquarters as appropriate to complete 

outstanding judicial and administrative actions; 

• continuing and completing appropriate case development activities including issuing 

information requests, conducting site visits, and developing appropriate remedies. 

• identifying leads appropriate for criminal investigations based upon the criteria in the 

January 12, 1994, Memorandum on the Exercise of Investigative Discretion; 

• submitting appropriate leads – including cases or aspects of cases that were initially 

developed for administrative or civil enforcement but later reveal potential criminal 

wrongdoing – to the regional screening committee where discussions and decisions will be 

made as to whether violations will be pursued administratively, civilly, or criminally; 

• providing technical support to CID investigations, provide regional personnel as witnesses 

when necessary, and maintain legal staff support to CID at levels sufficient to ensure the 

prompt prosecution of environmental crimes; and 

• ensuring that all environmental measurements or samples used to support EPA criminal 

investigations will be gathered, recorded and analyzed in a manner that complies with the 

EPA quality assurance system, and that all evidence collected will be handled and kept 

secure in accordance with EPA policies for the custodial management of evidence. 

Final 15 June 2005 
D. Technical Support and Training 

Technical assistance and training is available to assist regions, states, tribes and local 

governments in expanding and improving their capacity to conduct enforcement and compliance 

assurance activities. Both the National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) and the 

National Environmental Training Institute (NETI) are available to provide expertise and training 

in both the core and priority program areas of OECA. 

NEIC - The civil and criminal enforcement programs will continue to draw upon the 

scientific and technical expertise of the NEIC in conducting its compliance monitoring and 

enforcement activities in both the national priority and core program areas. NEIC will continue to 

direct its new activities toward national priorities and regional initiatives as described in this 

guidance, and the regional plans. NEIC project selection will also be guided by the Assistant 

Administrator’s priorities, the Agency’s Strategic Plan, Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA), and the national goals effort. Furthermore, NEIC will be examining requests for 

assistance based upon the potential for producing measurable environmental results and the degree 

to which activities provide opportunity to use or enhance NEIC’s unique capabilities (e.g., multidisciplined teams, in-depth process evaluations, complex analytical procedures, etc.). 

NETI - As a result of its recent organization into the Office of Compliance, a NETI 

Transition Task Force has been convened to implement a series of recommendations to assess 

emerging training needs, strengthen NETI’s role as a clearinghouse for training information within 

the enforcement and compliance assurance program, explore cost effective means of delivering 

distance training, and prepare a strategic training plan that parallels OECA’s annual planning 

process. NETI’s primary role as developer, coordinator, publisher, and trainer for federal, state, 

local and tribal attorneys, inspectors, civil and criminal investigators and technical experts in all 

phases of environmental enforcement is still paramount. Closer integration of a training strategic 

plan with OECA’s planning process will improve the ability of NETI to plan, develop, and deliver 

training that will assist EPA and its state and tribal partners in successfully achieving the 

environmental goals of OECA’s national priorities. NETI is also beginning the process of 

developing performance measures with the goal of quantifying the performance results of 

enforcement training. 

E. Data Quality and Reporting 

OECA continues to strive to improve the quality of the enforcement and compliance data to 

assure this information can be used as a tool to manage the program and to reliably report on our 

accomplishments. This effort to improve and attain a high level of confidence in our information 

is focused on two areas: data quality and reporting. 

Each OECA office and region should have an approved Quality Management Plan 

establishing the offices’ procedures for ensuring the sound collection and use of enforcement and 

environmental data. In addition, the Data Quality Strategy of March 25, 2002 outlines an 

Final 16 June 2005 
approach to systematically identify and address problems with the enforcement and compliance 

data. Part of this Strategy is to conduct projects (e.g., the enforcement action audit) that will 

require regional, state, and tribal involvement. 

On May 6, 2003, OECA issued a memorandum addressing data integrity (“Ensuring 

Integrity of Reported Enforcement and Compliance Data”) and established stringent procedures 

for reporting federal data including: 

• quarterly data quality reviews of enforcement and compliance data, 

• timely entry of data (i.e., two weeks after activity occurs), 

• mid-year and end-of-year certification by Senior Managers of data completeness 

and accuracy, 

• distribution of monthly ICIS manager reports, and 

• developing an ICIS Data Integrity Guidance. 

OECA will issue an annual Enforcement and Compliance Reporting Process memo by the 

end of March each fiscal year that will provide that year’s reporting requirements, GPRA 

measures, schedules/deadlines, contacts, etc. This memo is a comprehensive guide to the annual 

enforcement and compliance reporting requirements covering the various enforcement and 

compliance program tools (e.g., compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, compliance 

incentives, enforcement) and all media program areas (e.g., CAA, CWA, FIFRA, TSCA, 

CERCLA). The memorandum will identify all reporting requirements for national priority areas 

and core program on a fiscal year basis. 

All federal enforcement cases must be entered into ICIS, the database of record, and also 

entered in the associated legacy system, if one exists. Applicable CCDS information on all 

concluded actions must also be entered into ICIS and, beginning in FY2005, applicable CACDS 

data should be entered into ICIS. The legacy systems (e.g.,AFS, PCS, RCRAInfo) are the data 

base of record for inspections, violations, significant violators (SNCs)/high priority violators 

(HPVs); however many regions are also entering their inspections into ICIS. A large percentage 

of federal inspections are reported manually because there is no corresponding program database. 

OECA is striving to have all of the manually reported federal inspections (e.g.,UST, SPCC, 

wetlands), entered into ICIS during this planning cycle and will provide separate guidance on this 

through the annual Enforcement and Compliance Reporting Process memorandum. 

F. EPA State Relations 

Consistent with the process for developing national program guidances, regional plans and 

state performance agreements, it is critical to have effective ongoing consultation and 

communication between EPA and states. Regions and states should ensure that established 

processes and procedures for notification of inspections and enforcement actions in authorized and 

non-authorized programs, pursuant to the “no surprises” policy, are in place and may be included 

in work plans for Performance Partnership Agreements, Performance Partnership Grants 

(PPAs/PPGs) or categorical grant agreements. The work plans may be tailored to specific state 

conditions and levels of performance. In negotiating grant work plans, regions and states should 

Final 17 June 2005 
consult the National Program Guidance and follow EPA grant regulations, i.e., 40 CFR Parts 31 

and 35. OECA guidance and policy, such as the 1986 “Revised Policy Framework for State/EPA 

Enforcement Agreements” and its subsequent addenda, should continue to guide regional 

discussions with states. 

State Review Framework (SRF) 

OECA has worked closely with EPA regions, the Environmental Council of States 

(ECOS), state media associations and other state representatives to jointly develop a framework 

and process for conducting reviews of core enforcement programs in the CWA-NPDES, RCRA 

Subtitle C and the CAA Stationary Sources programs. The goals of the Reviews are to promote 

consistent levels of activity in state and regional enforcement programs, consistent oversight of 

state and regional enforcement programs, and consistent levels of environmental protection across 

the country, which should help ensure a level playing field for states as they try to attract business. 

In FY2004, 10 pilots were conducted of the Framework. In 2005, the pilots will be evaluated to 

identify opportunities to improve the Framework and streamline the review process. In July of 

2005, the regions are scheduled to begin reviews in the remaining states and territories, with the 

goal of completing all reviews by the end of FY2007. 

The elements, criteria and protocols of the Review Framework are consistent with the 1986 

“Revised Policy Framework for State/EPA Enforcement Agreements” and the media-specific 

enforcement response policies, compliance monitoring strategies and penalty policies. These 

reviews will be an integral part of regional oversight of state enforcement programs in the three 

media programs, and are appropriate to include in negotiated authorization MOAs. It is 

envisioned that the three programs to be covered by the reviews will be incorporated into existing 

program review activities, be the primary tool for determining adequacy in the core enforcement 

program, and will not constitute new reporting. These reviews should be an integral part of the 

regional/state planning process and should be captured in appropriate negotiated PPAs, PPGs or 

categorical grant agreements between the region and the state. Any corrective actions or follow up 

commitments on the part of the state or the region should be captured and tracked in these grant 

agreements and those parties held accountable for carrying out those commitments. Regions with 

multiple year PPAs, PPGs or categorical grant agreements that are already in place should plan to 

include the SRF process as part of program review activities by the end of FY2007. 

Regions should actively discuss these reviews and the schedules for carrying them out with 

their states on an ongoing basis. Regions should ensure that their staff as well as state managers 

and staff are aware of and informed about the Framework and the process for conducting the 

reviews. The capability to use OTIS management reports for national data that will support the 

reviews is being developed and will become available to the regions and states in phases in 

FY2006. The regions should encourage states to periodically look at the data, ensure its accuracy 

and use it in managing their programs. 

A performance-based strategy is being developed to guide the implementation of the SRF. 

The goals (as they currently exist) are stated above. Measures associated with the SRF will 

Final 18 June 2005 
include the number of reviews completed within a Fiscal Year (compared to the number of states 

and territories under the region’s jurisdiction); and the number of program improvements 

completed as a result of the review. In the future, OECA will look to determine the value of the 

program improvements through the measurement of various outcomes. 

Grants Management 

OECA awards a number of assistance agreements to states, tribes, and non-profit 

organizations to conduct a variety of activities, particularly in the areas of data management and 

performance measurement, many of which are managed by the regions. OECA wants to 

emphasize that effective grants management is a high priority for the Agency. The primary 

Agency guidance for managing assistance agreements is EPA Order 5700.6, which became 

effective January 1, 2005. The Order streamlines post-award management of assistance 

agreements and helps ensure effective oversight of recipient performance and grant management. 

The order encompasses both the administrative and programmatic aspects of the Agency’s 

financial assistance programs. It requires that EPA develop and carry out a post-award monitoring 

plan, and conduct basic monitoring for every award. In January 2004, a new Grants Policy 

Issuance, GPI 04-02, Interim Policy on Environmental Results Under EPA Assistance 

Agreements, came out of the Office of Grants and Disbarment (OGD). This policy instructs EPA 

to describe the goal level link to the Agency’s Strategic Plan for each grant awarded after February 

9, 2004. OGD developed a new EPA Order that requires EPA and grant recipients to discuss the 

environmental results of grants in grant work plans. This Order became effective on November 

30, 2004. Regional offices will need to consider these new and upcoming policies when preparing 

assistance agreements with states. 

Innovative Programs 

Innovative programs continue to be important to the compliance and enforcement program. 

Regions and states are encouraged to consider implementation of innovative projects for the 2005-

2006 planning cycle. EPA’s Innovation Action Council (IAC) has endorsed three priority 

innovations for “scale-up,” (i.e., full scale implementation) and recommended their integration into 

OECA’s NPM Guidance. These priority innovations are: the National Performance Track 

Program, Environmental Management Systems (EMS), and the Environmental Results Program 

(ERP). Details on these innovations are available at http://www.epa.gov/innovations. Regions, 

states, and tribes are encouraged to use these innovative approaches in the achievement of their 

program goals. One of the Agency-wide programs which OECA is working closely with the Office 

of Policy, Economics, and Innovations is the National Environmental Performance Track Program 

(Performance Track). When participating in Performance Track, regions should be aware of two 

relevant guidance memos: “Enforcement and Compliance Operating Principles for the National 

Performance Track Program,” January 19, 2001, and “National Environmental Performance Track 

Program,” April 23, 2003. In support of Performance Track, the regions and states (in concert 

with headquarters offices and DOJ) are expected to conduct comprehensive compliance screens of 

all applicant facilities. The regional effort includes searches of Agency databases, follow-up on 

information found, program by program inquiries about new information not yet accessible in 

databases, and coordination with state partners to the extent possible. The region will assess the 

Final 19 June 2005 
findings against the Performance Track entry criteria, and make recommendations as to the 

appropriateness of each facility’s participation. One of the incentives offered through Performance 

Track is the Agency’s commitment to consider all participating facilities as “low priority for 

routine inspections.” Regions should incorporate these commitments in inspection targeting 

efforts, both in the context of regional targeting and planning agreements with OECA and to the 

extent possible in negotiating with state partners in their performance agreements and work plans. 

On March 22, 2005, EPA published a proposal to exempt five categories of area sources 

from the Title V operating permit program. Although these sources would be exempt from the 

Title V program requirements, they would continue to be responsible for complying with the 

underlying regulatory requirements established in the applicable National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants. If the exemption is adopted, state/local agencies may want to 

supplement their traditional compliance monitoring activities for these source categories with an 

oversight program such as the ERP to improve compliance with the underlying regulatory 

requirements. It combines the following three elements to improve compliance: (1) an annual 

facility-specific, self-certification questionnaire; (2) compliance assistance to educate and train 

affected facilities; and (3) a performance measurement method to track and validate facility 

performance. To learn more about the ERP approach, visit the EPA website at 

www.epa.gov/permits/. 

G. Planning for Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) and RCRA Corrective Action Enforcement Program Commitments 

Regions are reminded that Superfund enforcement and RCRA Corrective Action are 

covered under the new Strategic Plan’s Goal 3. It is important to make sure that the Superfund and 

RCRA Corrective Action program commitments for Goal 3 are addressed. National program 

direction for Superfund activities are developed and conveyed through the Superfund 

Comprehensive Accomplishment Planning (SCAP) process. RCRA Corrective Action is 

addressed through the Office of Solid Waste's (OSW) NPM Guidance. 

The commitments for Superfund are to maximize Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) 

participation at Superfund sites by leveraging PRP resources and recovering costs. These 

commitments are included in OECA's portion of the on-line commitment system. The regions 

report the data in CERCLIS and certify it through OECA's annual certification process. The 

commitments for RCRA Corrective Action are to address the two RCRA environmental indicators 

(EIs), which measure human exposures under control and migration of contaminated groundwater 

under control. Regions are encouraged to use enforcement authorities and tools where appropriate 

to address EI's and final clean-up. In addition, the Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action 

program commitments for the new financial assurance priority are included in OECA's portion of 

the on-line commitment system and accomplishments are reported manually. 

Final 20 June 2005 
NATIONAL PROGRAM CORE REQUIREMENTS 

2. CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) PROGRAMS 

The Water Program encompasses five (5) separate programs under the Clean Water Act 

(CWA). These programs are: 

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program 

• Pretreatment Program 

• Biosolids/Sludge Program 

• CWA Section 404 (Wetlands) Program 

• CWA Section 311 (Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Program 

Each program has different characteristics (e.g., some programs have national data bases 

and some do not), and, as a result, the “core program” varies somewhat from program to program. 

Therefore, in order to provide clarity, shared core program elements are listed in the following 

section, followed by a description of compliance and enforcement activities unique to each water 

program. Regions should also refer to information contained in Section IV: Core Program 

Activities, for further details on shared core program elements. Regional NPDES programs are 

responsible for referencing the 1989 Enforcement Management System (EMS) guidance in PPAs 

and PPGs, and thereby ensuring that states are implementing adequate core program requirements. 

The following core program elements are shared by all of the CWA programs and 

should be implemented by regions and states: 

• Follow guidance provided in existing national compliance and enforcement policy and 

guidance, e.g., the 1989 National Enforcement Management System (EMS); 

• Consider all available data in implementing the compliance and enforcement activities 

described below; 

• Maintain an effective inspection program in each of the five water program areas; 

• Focus assistance, incentives, monitoring and enforcement actions in the national priority 

areas described in Section II while maintaining a viable presence in all water programs; 

priority water areas include watersheds, public drinking water intakes or designated 

protection areas, waters that could impact shellfish beds, waters with threatened or 

endangered species, waters designated as primary contact recreation, and waters located in 

environmental justice areas; 

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

actions against facilities in significant noncompliance (SNC), especially those causing 

facilities to be on the Watch List according to the EMS; 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-Objective 5.1.1) 

Compliance assistance is an appropriate tool, in particular, when there are new rules, sector 

specific compliance problems, and sectors with a preponderance of small business. Regions 

should refer to the Compliance Assistance activities description in Section III. A - Core Program 

Activities. 

Final 21 June 2005 
COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.3) 

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives activities description in Section III. B -

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3) 

Compliance Monitoring 

NPDES Program 

Performance Expectations 

Majors Inspection Coverage 

The Agency goal is to annually provide inspection ability for 100% coverage by EPA and 

states of all major NPDES facilities or equivalent coverage of a combination of major and priority 

minor facilities annually. The goal of 100% applies to the combined efforts of both EPA and 

delegated state programs. The regulations found at 40 CFR 123.26(e)(5) indicates: “State NPDES 

compliance evaluation programs shall have procedures and ability for . . . inspecting the facilities 

of all major dischargers at least annually.” 

If inspection coverage is not expected to be provided for 100% of all major NPDES 

facilities on an annual basis, the regions must provide an explanation that should include the 

following: 

• Information on how the compliance monitoring water resources will be redirected (e.g., 

national priority facilities, priority watersheds or facilities discharging to impaired waters 

such as fish advisories, shellfish bed or beach closures, drinking water sources), and 

• How majors will otherwise be monitored (e.g., file and discharge monitoring report (DMR) 

reviews, Watch List). 

This information will be discussed during mid-year and end-of-year discussions between 

OECA and the regions at national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and one-on-one 

conversations with individual regions. 

Since inspections at a major facility generally require more resources than an inspection at 

a minor facility, inspection tradeoffs - the number of minor facilities substituted for major facilities 

- should generally be at a 2:1 or greater ratio.1 

1

This ratio is based on previous work load models that averaged the amount of resources

needed to conduct major and minor inspections. All minors inspections that are traded-off for

majors MUST be put into PCS/ICIS in order for the region/state to get “credit” for them.

Final 22 June 2005 
• Commitment CWA01: Project by state the number of federal inspections at NPDES 

major facilities. 

• Commitment CWA01.s: Project by state the number of state inspections at NPDES major 

facilities. 

Note: Policy options are under development for other approaches to guide the use of 

NPDES inspection resources. The regions and states will be requested to fully participate 

in these discussions. 

Oversight Inspections 

Regions should conduct a sufficient number of oversight inspections to ensure the integrity 

of each state’s compliance monitoring program. The definition of oversight is taken from the 

August 1986 Revised Policy Framework for State/EPA Enforcement Agreements and the FY 1987 

Guidance for Oversight of NPDES Programs. The policy says: "Oversight inspections are a 

principal means of evaluating both the quality of an inspection program and inspector training." 

The documents also clarify that oversight inspections can be conducted in two ways: 1) by 

accompanying state inspectors during inspections, or 2) by conducting a separate inspection at the 

same facility at a later date to verify the same findings. The regions have flexibility to determine 

the appropriate number of oversight inspections needed to ensure that state inspections are being 

properly conducted and documented. The documents also clarify that oversight inspections are 

not "joint" inspections. 

• Commitment CWA03: Project by state the number of federal oversight inspections to be 

conducted. 

Biosolids/Sludge 

Regions planning to conduct additional sludge inspections instead of other CWA core 

activities should develop a rationale for their investment in this program and they should report 

these inspections into the Permit Compliance System (PCS). One rationale for doing biosolids 

inspections is to support the pre-treatment program. Metals and other elements in biosolids can be 

an indicator of pretreatment problems. OECA will review the number of biosolids inspections 

conducted by the regions at mid-year and end-of-year as part of the enforcement and compliance 

reporting process. 

Pretreatment Program 

Performance Expectations 

Where EPA is the control authority, regions should annually inspect 80% of the approved 

pretreatment programs. Audits should be conducted at least once every five years. In addition, 

regions should evaluate each Significant Industrial User (SIU) file (e.g., review the DMR and 

periodic compliance reports) and conduct investigations at 100% of the SIUs that have serious 

Final 23 June 2005 
violations identified in their periodic reports (e.g., effluent 20% over the pretreatment limit), or 

where the region has information suggesting the SIU discharge may adversely impact POTW 

operation, effluent quality, or receiving body water quality. 

Investigations were defined by the EPA/State Enforcement and Compliance Data Standards 

workgroup as: “an extraordinary, detailed assessment of a regulated entity's compliance status 

which requires significantly more time to complete than a typical compliance inspection (i.e., 

several weeks, as compared to one or a few days)”. Here is the link to the enforcement and 

compliance data standard workgroup: http://www.epa.gov/edr/fenfcompbr.pdf 

• Commitment CWA05: Project by state the number of federal and state inspections of POTWs 

with an approved pretreatment program in both approved and unapproved states. 

• Commitment CWA06: Regions will conduct field investigations at 100% of the SIUs with 

violations identified in their periodic reports. 

There is some concern there is no consistent method to define the universe of SIUs that require 

investigations. OECA will work with the regions and the Office of Water (OW) to define the 

universe since it has been flagged as a program deficiency by OW. 

Note: Policy options are under development for other approaches to guide the use of NPDES 

inspection resources. The regions and states will be requested to fully participate in these 

discussions. 

Section 404 (Wetlands) 

Regions should have a process for identifying, targeting, inspecting, and otherwise responding 

to illegal activities. Regions are expected to implement the timely and appropriate (T&A) policy. 

Since only two states have been delegated parts of the Section 404 program, this is primarily a 

federal effort. The regions must also coordinate, as appropriate, with other federal agencies which 

have significant roles in wetlands protection through the use of memoranda of understanding and 

memoranda of agreement (e.g., Corps of Engineers, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.). 

CWA Section 311 (Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Program 

Section 311 is a CWA authority but responsibility for compliance monitoring, enforcement and 

implementation resides in a number of different regional divisions including: Emergency and 

Remedial Response; Superfund; Hazardous Waste Cleanup; Environmental Cleanup; Ecosystems 

Protection and Remediation; and Waste Management. 

Compliance and enforcement efforts in CWA 311 should focus on ensuring that regulated 

sources have maintained the required Spill Prevention Countermeasures and Control (SPCC) 

plans. Regions should check compliance monitoring at facilities subject to SPCC requirements to 

Final 24 June 2005 
ensure that the plans are adequate and meet the regulatory requirements, particularly with regard to 

physical security requirements. In light of continuing concerns regarding chemical safety, regions 

should also consider the following factors in focusing their targeting and inspections efforts: 

- significant quantities of oil 

- proximity to population centers 

- proximity to critical infrastructure 

Enforcement 

NPDES Program 

The underlying tenet of the enforcement program is that each violation deserves a response. 

The appropriate response to different types of violations is contained in the EMS. Regions are 

expected to evaluate all violations, determine an appropriate response per the EMS, and take that 

action. Region should focus actions in the national priority areas while maintaining a presence in 

all water programs. 

In addition to initiating new enforcement actions, regions are expected to negotiate settlements 

and track compliance with consent decrees and administrative orders and to take all necessary 

actions to ensure compliance with the terms of federal enforcement actions. 

Pretreatment 

Regions should refer to the Enforcement activities description in Section III. C - Core Program 

Activities. 

Section 404 (Wetlands) 

Regions should refer to the Enforcement activities description in Section III. C - Core Program 

Activities. 

CWA Section 311 (SPCC) 

Regions should refer to the Enforcement activities description in Section III. C - Core Program 

Activities. 

DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 

NPDES Program 

In FY2006, ICIS-NPDES - the modernized Permit Compliance System (PCS) - will be 

launched. Additional guidance and policies will be provided under separate cover to the regions 

and states on the implementation and data entry procedures for the new system. 

Final 25 June 2005 
There are two components to CWA NPDES data management - (1) the state and federal 

programmatic data in PCS or ICIS-NPDES and (2) the federal enforcement case data required to 

be reported to ICIS including the CCDS and ICDS. All mandatory required data elements are 

expected to be entered into PCS or ICIS-NPDES. Where activities at majors have been traded for 

activities at national priority minor facilities (e.g., inspections), regions and states are expected to 

enter the minor data into PCS or ICIS-NPDES. 

• All CWA NPDES federal enforcement cases are required to be entered into both PCS and ICIS 

until PCS is modernized is completed and further guidance is given. Annual reporting 

guidance will be provided in the Enforcement and Compliance Reporting Plan memorandum. 

(Refer to Section III. E) 

• As detailed in the September 10, 2004 ICDS Expansion, Implementation and Reporting memo, 

(http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/campd/inspector/referenc/icds2005memo.pdf) regions must report 

all ICDS data collected from on-site CWA inspection (NPDES, biosolids/sludge, pretreatment, 

wetlands and SPCC) by either of the following methods: 

• Manual reporting: Submit summary ICDS information at mid-year and end-of-year 

using the form in Attachment A of the memo. First-line supervisors need to review the 

ICDS forms prior to compiling the ICDS data for mid-year and end-of-year reporting to 

verify its completeness and accuracy. 

• Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS): Use ICIS to enter the ICDS 

data. See Attachment B of the memo. HQ will then pull the ICDS information from 

ICIS for mid-year and end-of-year reporting. 

ICDS data, both manually reported and directly entered into ICIS, are compiled in regional 

workbooks which are sent to the regions for certification. Regions should have in place a 

quality assurance process to verify that the ICDS data is correct and accurate. 

• Regions should enter the number and type of planned compliance assistance activities and 

outcome measurement projects into the compliance assistance module in ICIS and report all 

on-site assistance visits using the CACDS. 

Pretreatment: 

• OECA strongly encourages regions to enter these inspections into ICIS in lieu of reporting 

them manually. Separate guidance will be sent to the regions on how to enter pretreatment 

inspections into ICIS. 

• Regions should enter the number and type of planned compliance assistance activities and 

outcome measurement projects into the compliance assistance module in ICIS and report all 

on-site assistance visits using the CACDS. 

Final 26 June 2005 
Section 404 ( e.g. Wetlands) 

• OECA strongly encourages regions to enter these inspections into ICIS in lieu of reporting 

them manually. Separate guidance will be sent to the regions on how to enter wetlands 

inspections into ICIS. 

• Regions should enter the number and type of planned compliance assistance activities and 

outcome measurement projects into the compliance assistance module in ICIS and report all 

on-site assistance visits using the CACDS. 

CWA Section 311 (SPCC) 

• OECA strongly encourages regions to enter these inspections into ICIS in lieu of reporting 

them manually. Separate guidance will be sent to the regions on how to enter SPCC 

inspections into ICIS. 

• Regions should enter the number and type of planned compliance assistance activities and 

outcome measurement projects into the compliance assistance module in ICIS and report all 

on-site assistance visits using the CACDS. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

NPDES Program 

Regions should routinely review all DMR reports received for compliance with permit limits. 

(Note that regions may accomplish this review through a routine screen of the PCS data and 

reviewing the DMRs themselves as necessary.) 

Regions also should routinely review data submitted by states to PCS and review other 

information available to them on a facility’s compliance with its permit and other CWA 

requirements. 

In reviewing regional performance, OECA will consider the following information that is 

currently based on data reported into PCS: 

• number of SNCs identified (and percent of universe); 

• number (and percent) addressed in a timely and appropriate manner; 

• number of Watchlist facilities per region. 

Pretreatment Program 

The regions should review the state program for evaluating local control authority operation 

during the 2005-2007 period of this Guidance. If problems are discovered the regions should take 

appropriate action. 

Final 27 June 2005 
Wetlands 

Since only two states have been delegated parts of the Section 404 program, this is primarily a 

federal effort. The regions must coordinate, as appropriate, with other federal agencies which have 

significant roles in wetlands protection through the use of memoranda of understanding and 

memoranda of agreement (e.g., Corps of Engineers, NRCS, Fish and Wildlife Service). 

CWA Section 311 (SPCC) 

Regions should routinely review the program to determine if spills are adequately being 

addressed by reviewing the Emergency Response Notification System database and reviewing 

SPCC inspection reports and results of Expedited Settlement Agreements to determine if routine 

non-compliance is being addressed. 

3. SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA) PROGRAM

This section provides guidance for regions as they develop core drinking water compliance 

assistance and enforcement commitments for their annual workplan. Regions are to follow this 

guidance both with respect to their oversight of primacy states and tribes and with respect to their 

own actions in areas or particular rules where EPA directly implements the drinking water 

program. Where there are differences between this guidance and annual workplan guidance for 

the Tribal priority, regions should follow the Tribal priority guidance when addressing tribal water 

systems. 

The following clarifications are provided to ensure that Headquarters and the regions have a 

common understanding of the program implementation requirements when negotiating the 

commitments: 

• The Safe Drinking Water Information System Federal Version (SDWIS/FED) is the main 

database system used by EPA and the states to track public drinking water systems. 

SDWIS/FED is currently undergoing modernization with an expected completion date of 

October 1, 2005. The existing SDWIS/FED system will be used until the official switch to the 

modernized SDWIS/FED. If that doesn’t occur on October 1, 2005, we will still use the 

existing capabilities to generate and track SNCs and exceptions. 

• The Consumer Confidence Report Rule (CCR) will be added to the list of rules the regions are 

committed to address (it will be grouped with chronic contaminants for purposes of the 

commitment system). 

• The regions are not asked to commit to addressing SNCs where SNC is not defined or where 

the SNC Exceptions Tracking System (SETS) does not have the capability to calculate 

exceptions or allow the SNCs to be addressed. It is anticipated that the modernized 

SDWIS/FED will have the capability to handle the new SNC definitions for the Filter 

Backwash, Interim Enhanced SWTR and Stage 1 Disinfection Byproduct Rules. If 

Final 28 June 2005 
modernized SDWIS/FED is fully operation on October 1, 2005, the regions will be expected to 

address the additional SNCs for Filter Backwash, Interim Enhanced SWTR and Stage 1 

Disinfection Byproduct Rule for the full year. If modernized SDWIS/FED is not fully 

operational then the regions will be expected to start addressing these SNCs the quarter after 

full implementation of modernized SDWIS/FED. 

• It is expected that the modernized SDWIS/FED will address the issue of “automatic” 

exceptions, which are those exceptions that the existing SETS automatically, but incorrectly, 

generates when a SNC is calculated. If we are still using the existing SDWIS/SETS system, 

automatic exceptions will still exist however, these “automatic” exception will not count 

against a regions’ commitment to address the SNC before it becomes an exception. 

• SNCs should be addressed before they become exceptions. Headquarters views this as a 

manageable workload based on SNC data in recent years. Moreover, the expectation is that the 

regions will work primarily with the states to ensure that they are addressing SNCs. The 

regions should not have to address all the SNC themselves. 

• Headquarters will provide quarterly data for SNCs, about to become exceptions, new 

exceptions, and old exceptions. 

• Regions will report to headquarters on a quarterly basis within 60 days of receiving data from 

headquarters. 

• In all cases, non-transient and transient non-community systems serving 500 users or less are 

excluded from the Regions’ commitments. Other exceptions may apply for each category of 

rules. 

• On a quarterly basis, regions are to provide an explanation for each SNC at a large or medium 

system (serving more than 10,000 users and serving between 3,301 and 10,000 users, 

respectively) that became an exception in the preceding quarter. 

The effort to address new SNCs before they become exceptions does not diminish the 

importance of addressing the backlog of systems in exception (all system sizes). As resources 

allow, the regions and states are encouraged to address backlog of systems in exception. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-Objective 5.1.1) 

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program

 Regions should target compliance assistance toward small drinking water systems (serving 

3,300 or fewer users). Using the data contained in SDWIS/FED to identify patterns of 

noncompliance, regions can both target the small systems most likely to benefit from compliance 

assistance and assemble compliance assistance materials suited to their particular needs. Regions 

should coordinate with the drinking water program office and work with the states and tribes to 

Final 29 June 2005 
increase small system operators’ awareness of their monitoring and reporting requirements, and to 

build small systems’ technical and financial capacity to perform required activities. Regions 

should focus compliance assistance resources on helping small systems and tribal systems comply 

with microbial rules. The Long Term 1 Enhanced SWTR (LT1) should be of particular focus for 

compliance assistance, if not previously provided, as the compliance date for requirements began 

in January 2005 for small systems impacted by this rule. For the Stage 1 Disinfectants and 

Disinfection Byproducts Rule and the Interim Enhanced SWTR, (promulgated in 1998) the need 

for compliance assistance may be less at this time because of the initial efforts to provide 

compliance assistance and the requirements for small system began in 2004 or earlier. 

Compliance assistance efforts will include outreach and education programs to ensure that sources 

understand both the requirements and the assistance available to help them comply. While the 

optimal time for compliance assistance is before a system violates a standard, compliance 

assistance is useful when a system fails to comply also. Where compliance assistance is likely to 

return a small system to compliance, the regions should incorporate compliance assistance in their 

tools for addressing SNCs at small systems, and encourage their states to do likewise. 

We encourage the regions to use the Local Government Environmental Assistance Network 

(LGEAN) (www.lgean.org), the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse 

(www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc) and the National Environmental Compliance Assistance Clearinghouse 

(www.epa.gov/clearinghouse) as sources of compliance assistance information and recommend 

marketing these resources to drinking water system operators as compliance assistance tools. We 

also encourage the regions to make available compliance information packages that can be 

distributed by sanitary survey inspectors. 

Regions should enter the number and type of planned compliance assistance activities and 

outcome measurement projects into the compliance assistance module in the ICIS and report all 

on-site assistance visits and outcomes using the CACDS. Please note that the core compliance 

assistance program sets out other general guidance and expectations the regions should follow 

when providing compliance assistance to public water systems. 

The “measures” area of the National Environmental Compliance Assistance Clearinghouse 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/clearinghouse/) provides guidance documents, tools, and success stories 

regions can use to assess the effectiveness of their compliance assistance efforts. Regions should 

also encourage states to measure state compliance assistance performance and should facilitate 

states’ efforts to report outcomes and outputs. 

Regions should report the percentage of small systems that have received compliance 

assistance. Regions should have a goal of reporting 100% of the four specific compliance 

assistance performance measures identified in the Data Quality and Reporting section below. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.2) 

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives activities description in Section III. B -

Core Program Activities. 

Final 30 June 2005 
MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3) 

Monitoring 

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program 

The primary enforcement authority (i.e., a state with primacy, a tribe approved for 

treatment as a state, or EPA implementing the drinking water program) is required to ensure an 

effective sanitary survey program. When appropriate, regions should also incorporate a SDWA 

component in all multimedia inspections of federal facilities as outlined in the federal facilities 

core program section of this guidance (Section 10). Significant deficiencies are to be corrected 

and regions are to ensure discovered regulatory violations are addressed in a manner consistent 

with timely and appropriate guidelines with annual workplan commitments. 

Performance Expectations for Sanitary Surveys 

In each fiscal year, regions should ensure sanitary surveys are performed at one third of the 

public water systems that are on a three-year sanitary survey cycle and at one fifth of the 

public water systems that are on a five-year sanitary survey cycle. This should be done by 

ensuring that the annual workplans contain commitments to perform sanitary surveys at an 

appropriate number of systems. 

Commitment SDWA01: Number of surveys to be conducted, with a breakout for number 

on tribal lands. 

Actions Taken in Response to Lead Action Level Exceedances 

Each quarter Headquarters will provide a list of systems whose tap monitoring has 

exceeded the 90% percentile for 3 consecutive monitoring periods (we will provide the 

lead data at the same time we provide the SNC and Exceptions data). In turn, the regions 

are encouraged to follow up with the primacy agencies to monitor the progress community 

water systems and non-transient non-community water systems have made toward reducing 

lead in drinking water that exceeds the action level for lead. For direct implementation 

programs the regions should ensure that appropriate lead response actions are taken by the 

systems. The regions should report the results of any necessary follow-up at the same time 

they report on addressing their SNCs. 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 

Regions should ensure an effective field presence through routine inspections of all classes 

of wells. The actual number of inspections and the distribution by well class will depend on the 

region and whether or not all or part of the program has been delegated to the states. 

Enforcement 

Final 31 June 2005 
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program 

Regions are to take timely and appropriate action to address all circumstances that present 

or have the potential to present, imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, 

regardless of whether the contaminant is an acute or chronic contaminant. To ensure national 

consistency and promote establishment of strong precedent, the region is strongly encouraged to 

consult with the Water Enforcement Division prior to issuance of an order to address any 

imminent and substantial endangerment to public health that may exist. 

Regions, states, and tribes with primacy should have a goal of addressing 100% of all 

drinking water SNCs before they become exceptions. To help prioritize efforts toward reaching 

this goal, OECA provides the following performance benchmarks. The region is to provide an 

explanation in its annual workplan commitments if it does not anticipate meeting a benchmark. 

On a quarterly basis, regions are to provide an explanation for each SNC at a large or medium 

system (serving more than 10,000 users and serving between 3,301 and 10,000 users, respectively) 

that became an exception in the preceding quarter. The regions are not asked to commit to 

addressing SNCs where SNC is not defined or where the SETS does not have the capability to 

calculate exceptions or allow the SNCs to be addressed. 

• Commitment SDWA03.a and SDWA03.b Microbial SNCs: Ensuring compliance with 

the microbial rules (SWTR, TCR, IESWTR, FBR, LT1 and Stage 1 DBPR) is the first 

priority for regions, states, and tribes with primacy. Regions, states, and tribes with 

primacy are to address 100% of microbial SNCs at large and medium public water systems 

(CWS, NTNCWS, and TCNCWS), and at least 90% of microbial SNCs at small (serving 

up to 3,300 users) public water systems, before they become exceptions. 

• Commitment SDWA04.a and SDWA04.b Nitrates SNCs: Regions, states, and tribes 

with primacy are to address 100% of nitrates SNCs at large and medium public water 

systems (CWS, NTNCWS, and TCNCWS), and at least 85% of nitrates SNCs at small 

public water systems, before they become exceptions. 

• Commitment SDWA05.a and SDWA05.b Lead SNCs: Regions, states, and tribes with 

primacy are to address 100% of lead SNCs (initial tap monitoring, optimization of 

corrosion control, and public education) at large and medium community and non-transient 

non-community water systems, and 85% of lead SNCs at small community and nontransient non-community water systems, before they become exceptions. 

• Commitment SDWA06.a and SDWA06.b Chronic Contaminant and CCR SNCs: 

Region, states, and tribes with primacy are to address 100% of all other chronic 

contaminant SNCs at large and medium community and non-transient non-community 

systems, and at least 85% of all other chronic contaminant SNCs at small community and 

non-transient non-community systems, before they become exceptions. Regions, states, 

and tribes with primacy are to address 100% of all CCR SNCs at large and medium 

community systems, and at least 85% of all CCR SNCs at small community systems, 

Final 32 June 2005 
before they become exceptions. 

DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 

Efforts to assess the quality of the data in the SDWIS/FED have shown that the data in the 

system are highly accurate, but many violations are not in the system. As a recent Inspector 

General Report2

 notes, data verifications conducted on violations information for the period 

between 1999 and 2001 found that SDWIS/FED contained only 65% of all health-based violations 

and 23% of all monitoring and reporting violations that should have been reported. While the 

largest burden for improving the quality of data in SDWIS/FED falls on the states, it is important 

that EPA also do its best to ensure data are reported accurately and completely. 

Compliance Assistance 

Regions should enter the number and type of planned compliance assistance activities and 

outcome measurement projects into the compliance assistance module in ICIS and report all onsite assistance visits using the CACDS. The regions should have a goal of reporting 100% of the 

following information into either SDWIS, ICIS or on a CACDS, in accordance with this guidance. 

• Number of public water system SNCs that returned to compliance as a result of an on-site 

compliance assistance visit and which were not the subject of a reported enforcement 

followup activity. 

• Number of small and tribal public water systems in violation that received direct 

compliance assistance, subsequently returned to compliance, and were not the subject of a 

reported enforcement followup activity. 

• Number of public water systems that received compliance assistance.

 • Number of public water systems that received compliance assistance during a sanitary 

survey. 

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program 

Regions, states and tribes with primacy are expected to ensure that all required data is input 

into SDWIS, including federal facilities as applicable. Regions with direct implementation 

programs, including those with authority for implementing the drinking water program on tribal 

lands, are expected to input the data themselves. If regions are directly implementing any of the 

new drinking water regulations, they must ensure that the required data is in SDWIS. Regions are 

expected to continue to support the legacy system SDWIS/FED until the modernized system is in 

production. Regions should review reports as appropriate to ensure changes to data are 

2 EPA Claims to Meet Drinking Water Goals Despite Persistent Data Quality 

Shortcomings; Report No. 2004-P-0008; March 5, 2004. 

Final 33 June 2005 
successfully accepted in SDWIS/FED. All PWSS federal enforcement cases should be entered 

into both ICIS and SDWIS. 

OECA is striving to have all federal inspections that are currently reported manually (e.g., 

sanitary surveys), entered into ICIS during this planning cycle and will provide separate guidance 

on sanitary survey reporting through the annual Enforcement and Compliance Reporting Plan 

Memorandum (see Section III. E).

 Beginning in FY2006, all relevant ICDS information should be completed and reported for 

on-site PWSS inspections/evaluations and entered into ICIS. As detailed in the September 10, 

2004 ICDS Expansion, Implementation and Reporting memo 

(http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/campd/inspector/referenc/icds2005memo.pdf), regions must report 

all ICDS data collected from on-site PWSS inspections/evaluations by either of the following 

methods: 

• Manual reporting: Submit summary ICDS information at mid-year and end-of-year using 

the form in Attachment A of the memo. First-line supervisors need to review the ICDS 

forms prior to compiling the ICDS data for mid-year and end-of-year reporting to verify its 

completeness and accuracy. 

• Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS): Use ICIS to enter the ICDS data. 

See Attachment B of the memo. HQ will then pull the ICDS information from ICIS for 

mid-year and end-of-year reporting. 

• ICDS data, both manually reported and directly entered into ICIS, are compiled in regional 

workbooks which are sent to the regions for certification. Regions should have in place a 

quality assurance process to verify that the ICDS data is correct and accurate. 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 

• OECA is striving to have all federal inspections that are currently reported manually 

entered into ICIS during this planning cycle however, OECA will provide separate 

guidance on UIC inspection and evaluation reporting through the annual Enforcement and 

Compliance Reporting Plan Memorandum. (Refer to Section III. E). 

• Beginning in FY2006, all relevant ICDS information should be completed and reported for 

on-site UIC inspections/evaluations and entered into ICIS. As detailed in the September 

10, 2004 ICDS Expansion, Implementation and Reporting memo 

(http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/campd/inspector/referenc/icds2005memo.pdf), regions 

must report all ICDS data collected from on-site UIC inspections/evaluations by either of 

the following methods: 

• Manual reporting: Submit summary ICDS information at mid-year and end-of-year using 

the form in Attachment A of the memo. First-line supervisors need to review the ICDS 

Final 34 June 2005 
forms prior to compiling the ICDS data for mid-year and end-of-year reporting to verify its 

completeness and accuracy. 

• Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS): Use ICIS to enter the ICDS data. 

See Attachment B of the memo. HQ will then pull the ICDS information from ICIS for 

mid-year and end-of-year reporting. 

• ICDS data, both manually reported and directly entered into ICIS, are compiled in regional 

workbooks which are sent to the regions for certification. Regions should have in place a 

quality assurance process to verify that the ICDS data is correct and accurate. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program 

To ensure adequate program oversight, regions should review data in the SDWIS and 

review other information on compliance available to the region. 

In evaluating regional performance, OECA will look at: 

• the number of SNCs identified (and percent of universe); 

• number (and percent) addressed in a timely and appropriate manner; 

• number (and percent) exceptions; 

• number (and percent) exceptions addressed; and number remaining. 

If a drinking water Watch List is developed, the Watch List will replace the evaluation of 

exceptions. 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 

Regions should routinely review inspection reports, mechanical integrity test results and 

other information available on the compliance status of injection wells. Regions should also 

review other information available to them which suggests the existence of Class V well or wells. 

Based on review of this information, appropriate inspections or enforcement actions should be 

targeted. 

4. FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE AND RODENTICIDE ACT PROGRAM

EPA and states have complementary roles in pesticide enforcement. In general, EPA is 

responsible for pesticide products and states are responsible for pesticide use. EPA is responsible 

for investigating and enforcing pesticide registration and labeling, data quality requirements 

(FIFRA Good Laboratory Practice Standards), the effectiveness of hospital disinfectant products, 

pesticide producing establishment registrations and the annual submission of production data, 

import and export requirements, and registrant reporting of unreasonable adverse effects 

Final 35 June 2005 
information. States conduct most field inspections, including product issues, and may take 

enforcement actions or in some cases, refer the case to EPA. The statute gives primary use 

enforcement responsibility to the states. However, regions are expected to follow up on all 

referrals received from headquarters and states. 

A major focus of FIFRA is providing assistance, training, and oversight to states and tribes 

carrying out FIFRA related enforcement under cooperative enforcement agreements. This 

includes issuing credentials as appropriate and providing training and grants oversight. Regions 

should refer to the Federal Facilities section (Section 10) for guidance on including federal 

facilities in core program activities where applicable. 

EPA and the public rely on pesticide manufacturers and formulators to provide accurate 

information about pesticides and their associated risks. Unregistered and ineffective 

antimicrobials, as well as products making false or misleading public health protection claims, 

pose a potential public health threat when the public makes inappropriate choices based on 

inaccurate or misleading information. Products used in agricultural or structural pest control 

settings may pose health risks to those working with or exposed to the chemicals. In particular, 

users must be informed about exposure to pesticides that are mixed, used, and stored or disposed 

of and must be informed how to properly handle and apply pesticides. 

In FY2003 and 2004, regions and headquarters agreed through a consensus process that the 

following five FIFRA program areas within the core should receive special focus: worker safety, 

e-commerce, antimicrobial testing, label enforceability, and unregistered sources and product 

integrity. For each area, regions and headquarters jointly developed work plans of activities to be 

undertaken and expected outcomes. Similarly, regions and headquarters agreed through a 

consensus process to the following three focus areas for 2005: measures, imports (including 

product integrity), and enforcement infrastructure, with completion of remaining 2005 focus area 

work plan activities. Thereafter, the regions and headquarter will evaluate the progress in terms of 

planning for 2006-2007. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-Objective 5.1.1) 

Although there is no target for assistance activities, assistance is an appropriate tool, in 

particular, to inform farm owners and workers about exposure to pesticides and how to properly 

handle and apply pesticides when there are new rules, sector specific compliance problems, or 

sectors with a preponderance of small businesses. Regions should refer to the Compliance 

Assistance activities description in Section III. A - Core Program Activities. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.2) 

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives activities description in Section III. B -

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3) 

Final 36 June 2005 
Regions should work with pesticide state lead agencies and tribal pesticide agencies to 

target and conduct inspections and investigations to support the pesticide focus areas identified 

above. Regions should ensure inspection coverage in states without EPA enforcement cooperative 

agreements. 

Regions are expected to track and prioritize tips and complaints, and follow-up, as needed. 

Follow-up means that the region needs to evaluate the tip or complaint to determine the 

appropriate next step, and either: 1) refer the tip or complaint to a state as appropriate, and track it 

through resolution consistent with national guidance; or 2) obtain additional information through 

federal investigation or a show cause letter if necessary, and take federal action as appropriate; or 

3) determine that follow-up is not necessary. 

Performance Expectations 

• Commitment FIFRA12: Project regional federal FIFRA inspections. 

DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 

It is critical that regions enter all federal, state, and tribal data into the FIFRA/TSCA 

Tracking System (FTTS), which is merged into the National Compliance Data Base (NCDB). All 

federal enforcement cases should be entered into both ICIS and FTTS. Annual reporting guidance 

will be provided in the Enforcement and Compliance Reporting Plan Memorandum. (Refer to 

Section III. E). 

Beginning in FY2005, all relevant ICDS information should be completed and reported for 

on-site FIFRA inspections/evaluations and entered into ICIS. As detailed in the September 10, 

2004 ICDS Expansion, Implementation and Reporting memo 

(http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/campd/inspector/index.html), regions must report all ICDS data 

collected from on-site FIFRA inspections/evaluations by either of the following methods: 

• Manual reporting: Submit summary ICDS information at mid-year and end-of-year using 

the form in Attachment A of the memo. First-line supervisors need to review the ICDS 

forms prior to compiling the ICDS data for mid-year and end-of-year reporting to verify its 

completeness and accuracy. 

• Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS): Use ICIS to enter the ICDS data. 

See Attachment B of the memo. HQ will then pull the ICDS information from ICIS for 

mid-year and end-of-year reporting. 

ICDS data, both manually reported and directly entered into ICIS, are compiled in regional 

workbooks which are sent to the regions for certification. Regions should have in place a quality 

assurance process to verify that the ICDS data is correct and accurate. 

Regions should enter the number and type of planned compliance assistance activities and 

Final 37 June 2005 
outcome measurement projects into the compliance assistance module in ICIS and report all onsite visits using the CACDS. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

Each region should conduct state enforcement program oversight. This can include joint 

end-of-year reviews with the pesticides program, joint inspections to monitor quality of field work 

and training opportunities to standardize the knowledge-base of state inspectors. 

5. EPCRA PROGRAMS 

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. EPA and the public rely on EPCRA for information on chemicals entering the 

environment, and on the storage of chemicals at facilities. EPA, state, tribes, local entities, and 

communities rely on the combined EPCRA/CERCLA authorities to prepare local chemical 

emergency response plans, and to more safely and adequately respond to chemical emergencies. 

EPA must ensure that companies report accurately and within required time frames. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-Objective 5.1.1) 

Although there is no target for assistance activities, assistance is an appropriate tool, in 

particular, for smaller entities who meet the reporting criteria. Regions should refer to the 

Compliance Assistance activities description in Section III. A - Core Program Activities. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-objective 5.1.2) 

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives activities description in Section III. B -

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3) 

Monitoring 

EPCRA 313 

Regions are encouraged to use screening and targeting tools to focus limited federal 

resources on national and regional priority areas. A general area of emphasis is to target facilities 

that meet reporting criteria but have not reported. In the EPCRA 313 program, regions are 

expected to conduct at least 4 on-site Data Quality inspections each fiscal year as part of their 

overall inspection commitment. In the EPCRA 313 program, regions are expected to conduct at 

least 20 inspections each fiscal year as part of their overall inspection commitment. 

Performance Expectations 

Final 38 June 2005 
• Commitment EPCRA01: Number of federal EPCRA data quality inspections. 

• Commitment EPCRA02: Number of federal EPCRA 313 inspections. 

EPCRA 304/311/312 CERCLA 103 

Regions are encouraged to use screening and targeting tools to focus limited federal 

resources on national and regional priority areas. A general area of emphasis is to target facilities 

that meet reporting criteria but have not reported. In light of continuing concerns regarding 

chemical safety, regions should also consider the presence of significant quantities of chemicals of 

concern and proximity to population centers in focusing their targeting and inspections efforts. 

Enforcement 

EPCRA 313; EPCRA 304/311/312 CERCLA 103 

Regions may be asked to participate in enforcement case initiatives or cluster filings. 

These tools are used to further focus effort and resources. In all circumstances, cases filed as part 

of an initiative or cluster filing count as part of the annual workplan commitment, not as an addon. OECA will remain sensitive to regional priorities when identifying initiatives or cluster 

filings. Regions will work with OECA to identify candidate issues, industries or sectors for 

enforcement case initiatives. OECA will use national meetings and conference calls as the means 

for selecting issues, industries or sectors for federal enforcement initiatives. 

DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 

EPCRA 313; EPCRA 304/311/312 CERCLA 103 

Each region is responsible for timely entry of inspection and case information into 

FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS). All EPCRA 313; EPRCRA 304/311/312; and CERCLA 

103 federal enforcement cases should be entered into both ICIS and FTTS. Annual reporting 

guidance will be provided in the Enforcement and Compliance Reporting Plan Memorandum. 

(Refer to Section III. E). 

For FY2005-2007, OECA is considering making ICIS the official database or record for 

the manually- reported EPCRA non-313 inspections/evaluations. If OECA decides this is an 

appropriate reporting scheme, a separate memo will be transmitted to the regions informing them 

to enter the EPCRA non-313 inspections/evaluations into ICIS. 

For 2005-2007, all relevant ICDS information should be completed and reported for all 

EPCRA 313 and non-313 on-site inspections/evaluations and entered into ICIS. As detailed in the 

September 10, 2004 ICDS Expansion, Implementation and Reporting memo 

(http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/campd/inspector/index.html,) regions must report all ICDS data 

Final 39 June 2005 
collected from on-site EPCRA 313 and non-313 inspections/evaluations by either of the following 

methods: 

• Manual reporting: Submit summary ICDS information at mid-year and end-of-year using 

the form in Attachment A of the memo. First-line supervisors need to review the ICDS 

forms prior to compiling the ICDS data for mid-year and end-of-year reporting to verify its 

completeness and accuracy. 

• Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS): Use ICIS to enter the ICDS data. 

See Attachment B of the memo. HQ will then pull the ICDS information from ICIS for 

mid-year and end-of-year reporting. 

ICDS data, both manually reported and directly entered into ICIS, are compiled in regional 

workbooks which are sent to the regions for certification. Regions should have in place a quality 

assurance process to verify that the ICDS data is correct and accurate. 

Regions should enter the number and type of planned compliance assistance activities and 

outcome measurement projects into the compliance assistance module in ICIS and report all onsite visits using the CACDS. 

6. TSCA

The Agency’s TSCA program consists of four major elements: “core TSCA”; PCBs; 

AHERA, which covers asbestos in schools; and lead-based paint. Title III Radon activities will 

not be covered in this section 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-Objective 5.1.1) 

Compliance assistance will be an important focus of OECA activity for the TSCA AHERA 

program in FY2005-2007. The EPA-supported Schools Compliance Assistance Center will be the 

primary vehicle for providing compliance assistance, with regions participating where resources 

permit. For lead-based paint, as part of the integrated strategy efforts, regions will continue to 

work with the regulated community to provide compliance assistance at appropriate opportunities 

such as home shows, meetings, and discussions with landlord associations. Inspectors will provide 

compliance assistance materials at inspections which will cover all aspects of the lead paint 

program. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.2) 

Lead-based Paint: As part of the integrated strategy, the lead paint program will continue 

to focus its work with the regulated community to look for ways to achieve a lead-safe 

environment. Efforts for achieving a lead-safe environmental include voluntary actions on the part 

of the regulated community, compliance assistance to the regulated community, or when necessary 

negotiated settlements and enforcement actions. 

Final 40 June 2005 
PCBs: As part of the Agency’s Persistent Bio-accumulative Toxics (PBTs) program, 

OECA will continue to work with regions to further decommission PCB-laden equipment. Federal 

compliance incentives programs will be initiated, as appropriate. Regions are encouraged to work 

with OECA when developing their own compliance incentive programs based on regional needs 

and priorities. 

Core TSCA: Regions should review and follow-up on, as appropriate, disclosures 

submitted under the OECA Audit Policy and Small Business Policy. Under Core TSCA, self 

disclosures received by minimally-invested regions may be forwarded to OECA for appropriate 

action. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3) 

Core TSCA 

Regions must stay current and informed of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 

Substances (OPPTS) and OECA’s TSCA program priorities. Regions must track and prioritize 

tips and complaints, and follow-up, as needed. Regions 2, 4 and 5 are also expected to follow-up 

on all referrals received from headquarters, states, tribes and the public. Follow-up includes 

evaluating the tip or complaint to determine the appropriate next step. Minimally-invested regions 

(all regions other than 2, 4, and 5) are to refer tips and complaints to the Core TSCA Enforcement 

Center for follow-up, and to respond to questions from the regulated community. Under special 

circumstances all regions may need to conduct limited inspections as resources allow, and to work 

with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection on the import/export program. 

For those regions (other than 2 and 5) who chose to continue to invest additional resources 

in Core TSCA compliance and enforcement, the Core TSCA Enforcement Center will assist in 

targeting inspections, but the region is expected to provide legal and technical enforcement case 

support, and either obtain additional information through federal investigation, show cause letter, 

subpoena if necessary and issue appropriate federal action as appropriate; or determine that followup is not necessary. 

Performance Expectations 

• Commitment TSC01: Project the number of federal Core TSCA inspections. 

PCBs 

In FY2005-2007, the regions should use their enforcement resources to focus on the 

continued phase out of PCBs as well as monitoring PCB storage and disposal facilities. As 

appropriate, regional PCB personnel should coordinate with waste program personnel to ensure 

that the transfer of Brownfield properties are in compliance with PCB rules, guidance and policies. 

Using the Transformer Registration information, regions should target inspections toward users of 

high concentration PCBs and non-reporters. Enforcement follow-up to violations detected as a part 

Final 41 June 2005 
of these inspections should promote, where possible, the retirement of PCB transformers through 

Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs). Tips and complaints should be followed-up as 

appropriate. 

Starting in FY2006, OECA will coordinate with the regions, Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (OPPT), and states to identify issues which would benefit from a coordinated 

compliance and enforcement effort and to identify criteria for targeting inspections based on an 

evaluation of the regulated community, potential risks, and enforcement data. During FY2006, 

pending new criteria for targeting inspections based on discussions between OECA, OPPT, 

regions, and states, regions would be expected to continue: targeting disposal facilities every three 

years (i.e., inspect one third of the facilities in their region); respond to tips/complaints and 

environmental incidents involving PCBs; follow-up on food/feed contamination referrals; and 

address regional PCB priorities. Regions should work with states operating under TSCA 

compliance monitoring grants to address these priorities as well as state priorities. Regions that 

award TSCA compliance monitoring grants to states need to submit mid-year and end-of-year 

reports to OC. In order to improve the efficiency of PCB inspections, OECA will continue to 

pilot the field use of the tablet computer to conduct inspections and write inspection reports. 

Performance Expectations 

During FY2005-2007, regions should inspect each PCB commercial storage and disposal 

facility in their region at least once so that a baseline of enforcement activity at these sites 

can be established. Regions may count state inspections at PCB commercial storage and 

disposal facilities conducted under the TSCA cooperative enforcement agreements towards 

meeting the regional commitments 

Commitment TSC03: Inspect 33% of the PCB commercial storage and disposal facility 

universe. 

AHERA (asbestos) 

Compliance assistance will be the an important focus of OECA activity for the TSCA 

AHERA federal program in FY2005-2007 with a secondary focus on traditional enforcement as 

appropriate. Regions are expected to track and prioritize tips and complaints. If the regions 

receive a complaint containing allegations which provide a reasonable basis to believe that a 

violation has occurred, the region shall investigate and respond (including taking enforcement 

action where appropriate) to the complaint within a reasonable period of time. Regions are also 

expected to follow-up on all referrals received from headquarters, states, and tribes. Follow-up 

includes evaluating the tip or complaint to determine the appropriate next step, and either: 1) refer 

the tip or complaint to a state as appropriate and track it through resolution consistent with national 

guidance; or 2) obtain additional information through phone calls, inspections, federal 

investigation, show cause letter, subpoena if necessary and issue appropriate federal action as 

appropriate; or 3) determine that follow-up is not necessary. Special attention should be given to 

tips alleging asbestos contamination at schools. Where EPA is the lead for inspections and 

Final 42 June 2005 
enforcement, resources should be targeted based on regional experience at: 

• Charter schools 

• Large Local Education Authorities (LEA) School districts, and 

• LEAs that had settlement agreements or were asked to certify “compliance” 

• School districts targeted for EJ or children’s health concerns 

• Other LEAs as resources allow for this category. No targets or commitments are specified. 

In non-waiver states with grants, the regions will follow-up on violations referred by the 

states, and develop appropriate enforcement responses. Where applicable, the regions should 

encourage states to apply for the “waiver” program. 

Performance Expectations 

During the FY2005-2007 national program guidance period, HQ is asking the regions and 

applicable states to focus their compliance monitoring efforts on Charter Schools, the largest 100 

LEAs and to review past settlement agreements. 

Based on data and information collected from these inspections, and an evaluation of the 

compliance status in each inspection category, EPA will be able to improve its targeting of limited 

compliance assistance and compliance monitoring resources. OECA will make information 

available to the asbestos workgroup developing a draft National Strategy for Asbestos and to the 

workgroup that develops the Asbestos Action Plan information on the inspection data and the 

results of compliance status evaluations. Note: Inspections targeted for environmental justice or 

children's health concerns as part of a regional initiative may be substituted for charter school 

inspections. 

• Charter Schools - There is anecdotal evidence that Charter Schools are not in compliance 

with the AHERA program. HQ is requesting compliance monitoring be conducted on this 

specific sector to provide a more accurate assessment of the overall compliance status of 

the Charter School sector. 

• Largest 100 LEAs - A compliance review of the largest 100 largest public school districts 

will allow HQ to determine if these LEAs are maintaining their compliance responsibilities 

under AHERA. By inspecting the largest LEAs, EPA can insure that the largest school 

districts with the largest children populations are being protected. 

• Past settlement agreements - This review will allow HQ to determine the effectiveness of 

the past settlement agreements where the LEA certified to remain compliant. If the 

settlement agreements had a positive impact, the program can focus its compliance 

monitoring resources on other types of LEAs, i.e., religious and private, not-for-profit 

schools, etc. 

Regions may count state inspections by non-waiver and waiver states toward the following 

Final 43 June 2005 
three commitments. 

Commitment TSC04: Conduct inspections at 5% of the charter school universe or 20 

inspections, whichever is less and identify the number of Charter schools in each region. 

To determine the number of charter schools in a state, review the Department of 

Education’s Charter School website at: 

http://www.uscharterschools.org/pub/uscs_docs/index.htm. 

Commitment TSC06: Conduct inspections at 5 large LEAs (randomly select 5 individual 

schools from each LEA for evaluation) each year and identify large LEAs located in the 

region using a national list of the 100 largest LEAs. The following web sites can assist the 

regions in identifying the 100 largest LEAs (school year 2000-2001) by the number of 

students and faculty, and the number of buildings assigned for instruction to primary, 

middle and high school students. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/100_largest/table_01_1.asp 

(student/faculty population) http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/100_largest/table_06_1.asp 

(number of buildings). 

Commitment TSC07: Review past settlement agreements from 1991-1998, and conduct 

follow-up inspections at 5 LEAs each year. 

If the regions cannot meet the above commitments they must provide an explanation based 

on facts and provide a rationale for: 

• How the compliance monitoring TSCA resources will be redirected (e.g., regional or state 

priority facilities); 

• Why it is not necessary to evaluate specific facilities or source categories subject to the 

minimum frequencies. 

This explanation will be discussed during mid-year and end-of-year discussions between 

OECA and the regional toxics managers at national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and oneon-one conversations with individual regions. 

Lead-Based Paint Program 

The lead-based paint program will focus on meeting the 2010 goals established in the 

President’s Task Force report by fully developing and implementing an integrated strategy which 

will include the 1018 Disclosure Rule program in partnership with HUD, and working with the 

regions, states, and tribes to implement the 402 and 406 rules. The integrated strategy will employ 

a broad range of compliance and enforcement approaches to reduce lead-poisoning in children. 

The strategy will also explore ways to incorporate other lead related programs and partnerships 

and leverage resources to bring about reductions in elevated blood levels. The current 

enforcement scheme (and resources) should focus primarily on Disclosure Rule (1018) violations, 

and secondarily on Section 402 and/or 406 violations in non-authorized states. Enforcement of 

Sections 402 and 406 should be coordinated with appropriate oversight of authorized state 402 and 

Final 44 June 2005 
406 programs. Likewise, the lead program will work to broaden the State Tribal Assistance Grant 

(STAG) program to fund a full range of compliance and enforcement activities. 

Regions should screen tips and complaints for potential violations of the Lead Disclosure 

Rule, as well as the Section 402 Abatement, Training and Certification Rule and Section 406 

Renovator and Remodeler Rule in states and Indian country without authorized programs. Each 

tip or complaint should be reviewed carefully to determine whether follow-up is necessary and, if 

so, the level of follow-up. In many cases, a follow-up letter to the violator will be the appropriate 

response to a tip or complaint. After screening the response for indicators of actual or potential 

non-compliance, the region should determine whether an on-site investigation or more resourceintensive level of compliance monitoring is appropriate. 

Regions should continue to explore innovative ways to implement an integrated lead paint 

strategy. This will include methods to better target compliance activities, partner with state, tribal 

and local health care providers, as well as methods to identify “hot spots.” In addition, identifying 

and establishing a baseline for the universe of lead poisonings, and other similar activities to 

reduce the number of lead poisoned children, will be carried out. 

Performance Expectation 

In states without authorized Section 402 programs, regions should conduct targeted Section 

402 inspections of training providers and inspect work sites; this activity should be briefly 

described in the work plan submission as rationale for any trade-offs with Disclosure Rule or 

Section 406 inspection commitments. 

• Commitment TSC10: Number of 1018/402/406 federal inspections; provide an 

explanation if no activity projected in this area. 

DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 

It is critical that regions enter all federal and state data into the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking 

System (FTTS), which is then merged into the TSCA, FIFRA, & EPCRA 313 National 

Compliance Data Base (NCDB). All TSCA federal enforcement cases should be entered into both 

ICIS and FTTS. Annual reporting guidance will be provided in the Enforcement and Compliance 

Reporting Plan Memorandum. 

For 2005-2007, all relevant ICDS information should be completed and reported for all 

TSCA on-site inspections or evaluations and entered into ICIS. As detailed in the September 10, 

2004 ICDS Expansion, Implementation and Reporting memo 

(http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/campd/inspector/index.html), regions must report all ICDS data 

collected from on-site TSCA inspections/evaluations, including on-site TSCA inspections ICDS 

data collected by CAA inspectors, by either of the following methods: 

• Manual reporting: Submit summary ICDS information at mid-year and end-of-year using 

Final 45 June 2005 
the form in Attachment A of the memo. First-line supervisors need to review the ICDS 

forms prior to compiling the ICDS data for mid-year and end-of-year reporting to verify its 

completeness and accuracy. 

• Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS): Use ICIS to enter the ICDS data. 

See Attachment B of the memo. HQ will then pull the ICDS information from ICIS for 

mid-year and end-of-year reporting. 

ICDS data, both manually reported and directly entered into ICIS, are compiled in regional 

workbooks which are sent to the regions for certification. Regions should have in place a quality 

assurance process to verify that the ICDS data is correct and accurate. 

Regions should enter the number and type of planned compliance assistance activities and 

outcome measurement projects into the compliance assistance module in ICIS and report all onsite visits using the CACDS. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

OECA and the regions should evaluate the overall effectiveness of the federal TSCA 

compliance and enforcement program to ensure that resources are being utilized as efficiently and 

effectively as possible. These analyses should address whether TSCA compliance and 

enforcement activities are addressing program priorities; effective targeting strategies are being 

utilized; violations are being identified and appropriate enforcement action is being taken; tips and 

complaints are priority and are being tracked and responded to; appropriate penalties are being 

assessed; written procedures/guidelines are consistent with Agency policy and are available to 

guide activities; adequate QA/QC programs are in place; adequate inspector training is available; 

and inspectors are in compliance with the EO 3500.1 training requirements; and data are 

accurately reported to the appropriate data systems in a timely manner. 

7. CLEAN AIR ACT PROGRAM 

The regional Clean Air Act (CAA) stationary source compliance and enforcement program 

focuses primarily on the following areas: New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Maximum Achievable Control 

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

Title V Operating Permits, Stratospheric Ozone Protection, and Section 112(r) Risk Management 

Plans (RMPs). 

For the FY2005/2007 planning cycle, the MACT and NSR/PSD programs have been 

identified as priorities, and the discussion of, and performance expectations for, those programs 

can be found in Section II - National Priority Activities. 

For the remaining programs, the regions should continue to maintain a minimum level of 

activity consistent with the resources available for implementing the program and Agency policies, 

Final 46 June 2005 
monitoring the level and quality of effort by the delegated agencies, and participating in regionspecific initiatives that may require greater EPA involvement. In designing these programs, the 

regions should take into consideration all aspects of the program (e.g., compliance evaluations, 

applicability determinations, assistance, incentives, enforcement), and focus on those activities that 

will yield the greatest benefit and are not duplicative of efforts by delegated agencies. Regardless, 

the regions, should provide sufficient oversight to ensure that delegated programs are being 

implemented consistent with the delegation agreements. The SRF does not replace the 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) requirements to: 

• annually evaluate whether states/locals have met the compliance monitoring 

commitments, and 

• annually conduct an in-depth analysis of state/local compliance monitoring 

programs. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub- Objective 5.1.1) 

Compliance assistance is an appropriate tool, in particular, when there are new rules, 

sector-specific compliance problems, and sectors with a preponderance of small businesses. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.2) 

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives activities description in Section III. B -

Core Program Activities. 

COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3) 

NSPS/NESHAP/MACT PROGRAMS 

Compliance evaluations should be conducted at Title V major sources and synthetic minor 

sources that emit or have the potential to emit emissions at or above 80% of the Title V major 

source threshold (80% synthetic minors) consistent with the CMS, and the biennial plans 

developed by the delegated agencies. Emphasis should be placed on ensuring that delegated 

agencies provide and maintain an accurate universe of sources subject to the policy; develop 

facility-specific CMS plans; maintain records of compliance monitoring activities; and report all 

Minimum Data Requirements (MDRs) in a timely manner consistent with Agency policies, and the 

business rules and Information Collection Request (ICR) of AFS. Once an evaluation is 

completed and a compliance determination is made, all evaluations should be reported into the 

national database of record, AFS, as soon as practicable, and if feasible, in the next regularly 

scheduled update of AFS. The results of evaluations conducted by either the regions or delegated 

agencies should not be held until the end of the fiscal year and input into the data system all at 

once. 

Separate from investigations associated with the PSD/NSR Priority and discussed in the 

section on National Priority Activities, regions should continue any on-going investigations, and 

Final 47 June 2005 
initiate new ones as appropriate. These activities should be reported in AFS. This is a minimum 

data requirement in the AFS ICR. 

During the FY2006 time frame, special emphasis should be placed on implementing the 

National Stack Testing Guidance. The guidance was developed in response to a report by the OIG 

which criticized the Agency for not issuing national guidance on stack testing, or providing 

sufficient oversight of state and local stack testing programs. The OIG concluded that this lack of 

guidance and oversight had an adverse effect on the use of stack testing as a tool in determining 

compliance. 

In partial response to the concerns raised in the OIG report, the CMS addressed the issues 

of testing frequencies and the reporting of test results. Consistent with this policy, regions and 

delegated agencies should report all stack tests and the results in AFS. The Stack Testing 

Guidance addresses the remaining issues raised by the OIG, and thus focuses on those issues 

associated with the conduct of stack tests and the interpretation of the test results. For example, it 

addresses issues such as the time frames for conducting stack tests, the issuance of waivers, 

notification requirements, observation of tests, representative performance, and stoppages and 

postponements of tests. 

During the first year of implementation, this guidance was treated as interim guidance to 

provide OC and the regions with an opportunity to evaluate its usage and monitor any potential 

problems that may arise as individual states/locals or tribes applied the provisions. The guidance 

will become final in Spring 2005, and reflect any necessary changes stemming from the one-year 

evaluation. Regions should ensure that delegated agencies are familiar with the Stack Testing 

Guidance, and implement their programs consistent with the guidance. 

Performance Expectations:

 Consistent with the CMS, the regions should provide projections for: (1) the number of 

Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) at Title V majors, 80% synthetic minors, and other sources 

(as appropriate) by region and state; (2) the number of Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs) to 

be conducted by the regions (this is a minimum data requirement); and (3) the number of state 

PCEs to be conducted that were negotiated between the region and the state in the biennial plan 

(i.e., where states negotiated PCEs in lieu of conducting a certain number of FCEs at Title V 

majors or 80% synthetic minors). The state numbers should include delegated local agencies as 

appropriate. The default in CMS is 50% of the universe for majors, and 20% of the universe for 

80% synthetic minors per year. This default applies only to the state projections. However, this 

default may vary from state-to-state depending on what is negotiated between regions and states 

under the CMS. 

Commitment CAA 01: Number of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be conducted 

at Title V majors by region per year; 

Commitment CAA 01.s: Number of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be 

conducted at Title V majors by state per year; 

Final 48 June 2005 
Commitment CAA 02: Number of Full Compliance Evaluations to be conducted at the 

80% synthetic minors, and other sources (as appropriate) by region per year; 

Commitment CAA 02.s: Number of Full Compliance Evaluations to be conducted at the 

80% synthetic minors, and other sources (as appropriate) by state per year; 

Commitment CAA 03: Number of Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs) to be 

conducted by the regions. This is a minimum data requirement; 

Commitment CAA 03.s: Number of PCEs to be conducted by the states that were the 

result of the negotiation process for the year (could be the result of redirecting resources 

from FCEs to PCEs). 

If the states/locals cannot meet the above commitments, the regions must provide a written 

explanation that should include the following: 

• Information on how the compliance monitoring air resources will be redirected 

(e.g., national priority facilities, state air priorities); 

• How majors and/or 80% synthetic minors will otherwise be monitored; and 

• Why it is not necessary to evaluate specific facilities or source categories subject to 

the recommended minimum frequencies. 

This explanation will be discussed with regional air compliance/enforcement managers 

during national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and one-on-one conversations with 

individual regions. 

Commitment CAA05: Regions should project the number of investigations to be 

initiated in FY2006. Investigation projections should be provided by air program (e.g., 

MACT, NSPS). 

The regions should enter both initiated and completed investigations into AFS, and identify 

the targeted air program(s). This is a minimum data requirement. OECA uses this information to 

evaluate the overall health of the stationary source compliance monitoring program by comparing 

the number of FCEs, PCEs, and investigations. The region must provide an explanation if no 

activity is projected in this area. This explanation will be discussed with regional air 

compliance/enforcement managers during national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and oneon-one conversations with individual regions. 

The following activities are critical components of the core program. OECA will continue 

to collect and analyze information on these activities from either AFS, ICIS, or through CMS 

evaluations. The regions should be prepared to discuss any concerns or questions arising from the 

collection and analysis of the data. 

• Regions should report 100% of the compliance results of all FCEs and PCEs as 

soon as practicable, and if feasible, in the next regularly scheduled update of AFS 

after an evaluation is completed and a compliance determination is made. 

• Regions should ensure that 100% of the delegated agencies report the compliance 

Final 49 June 2005 
results of all FCEs and negotiated PCEs into AFS as soon as practicable after a 

compliance determination is made. 

• Regions should negotiate facility-specific CMS plans with 100% of delegated 

agencies, periodically evaluate progress, and work with delegated agencies to revise 

the plans as necessary. 

• Regions should utilize and encourage delegated agencies to use stack tests as a 

means of determining compliance. Regions and delegated states/locals should 

report 100% of the stack tests and the results (pass/fail) in AFS when a compliance 

determination has been made. 

TITLE V OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM 

Regions should continue to review Title V permits, both new ones as well as renewals, to 

ensure that they have adequate monitoring provisions consistent with the statute, underlying 

regulations, agency policies and judicial decisions. Although regions are no longer required to 

review all Title V certifications, they are still responsible for reviewing a subset of certifications, 

and ensuring that states/locals review them pursuant to the CAA CMS. In addition, they are 

responsible for ensuring that all permit program MDRs are entered into AFS in a timely manner. 

Performance Expectations: 

Regions should review and comment as appropriate to the permitting authority on the 

compliance and enforcement provisions of a subset of the initial Title V permit applications they 

receive each year, as well as all renewals. Regions should ensure sources subject to a pending or 

current CAA enforcement action or investigation are not shielded by the Title V permit, and that 

draft Title V permits include appropriate placeholder language for the applicable requirements at 

any affected units. Further, regions should ensure that draft Title V permits include compliance 

schedules addressing consent decree requirements. OECA will collect information and discuss 

these activities with regional air managers during national meetings, scheduled conference calls, 

and one-on-one conversations with individual regions. 

Regions and states should report results of 100% of certification reviews consistent with 

CMS and the MDRs identified for the program. 

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE PROTECTION 

Consistent with CMS, all regional FCE’s at major sources and 80% synthetic minors 

should include an evaluation of compliance with regulations promulgated to protect the 

stratospheric ozone layer if such regulations apply. When CFCs or other ozone depleting 

substances (ODS) are known or suspected to be present at a facility of concern, available regional 

resources also may be used to conduct PCEs at these facilities. The regions are reminded that this 

program is not delegable to states/locals or tribes. Nevertheless, some states/locals or tribes may 

have promulgated similar requirements, and thus should be evaluating compliance with their own 

requirements. 

Final 50 June 2005 
Performance Expectations: 

Regions should include evaluations of CFCs and other ODS as part of routine FCEs to the 

extent the regulations apply. This does not apply to states since this program is not delegable. The 

regions must provide an explanation if no CFC or other ODS evaluations will be conducted. 

OECA will collect information and discuss these activities with regional air 

compliance/enforcement managers during national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and oneon-one conversations with individual regions. 

SECTION 112(r) RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS (RMPs and General Duty Clause) 

Although section CAA 112(r) is a Clean Air Act authority, responsibility for compliance 

and enforcement varies from region to region, and may not reside with the regional division 

responsible for the air compliance and enforcement program. Past compliance and enforcement 

efforts in section 112(r) have focused on ensuring that regulated sources have submitted the 

required Risk Management Plans. Regions are currently shifting efforts toward ensuring that 

submitted plans are adequate and meet the regulatory requirements. Headquarters will continue to 

provide support in this area. In light of continuing concerns regarding public safety, regions 

should consider the following factors in focusing their compliance monitoring efforts: 

- significant quantities of chemicals of concern in a process; 

- proximity to population centers of facilities that have significant quantities of 

chemicals of concern. 

Performance Expectation: 

Regions should include CAA 112 (r) RMP inspections and Section 68.220 audits as part of 

an overall program to determine compliance. This program does not apply to the states since this 

program is not delegable. If the program is delegated to a state or local agency, the regions should 

work closely with the delegated agency to avoid duplication of effort. The regions must provide 

an explanation if no CAA 112(r) audits or inspections will be conducted. OECA will collect 

information and discuss these activities with regional managers during national meetings, 

scheduled conference calls, and one-on-one conversations with individual regions. 

ENFORCEMENT 

Federal enforcement will be considered where delegated agencies fail to take appropriate 

action. In addition, regions should take appropriate federal enforcement actions in situations 

where federal involvement could be particularly helpful in bringing the matter to a successful and 

environmentally beneficial resolution (e.g., a company with violations in more than one state, 

transboundary issues, recalcitrant violators, etc.), or is essential to ensure fair and equal 

environmental protection mandated by law. 

Final 51 June 2005 
For all cases newly listed in accordance with the “Policy on Timely and Appropriate 

Enforcement Response to High Priority Violations (HPVs)”, regions should adhere to the 

requirements of the Policy, and ensure that all MDRs are reported in AFS in a timely manner. 

Regions should work with delegated agencies to ensure that they are familiar with the HPV Policy, 

and implement their programs consistent with the guidance. OECA will collect information and 

discuss these activities with regional air compliance/enforcement managers during national 

meetings, scheduled conference calls, and one-on-one conversations with individual regions. 

Performance Expectations: 

The following activities are critical components of the core program. OECA will continue 

to collect and analyze information on these activities from either AFS or ICIS. The regions should 

be prepared to discuss any concerns or questions arising from the collection and analysis of the 

data. The regions must provide an explanation if the region will not be undertaking any of these 

activities. This explanation will be discussed with regional managers during national meetings, 

scheduled conference calls, and one-on-one conversations with individual regions. 

• Evaluate and bring to closure 100% of any self-disclosures received by the region; 

• Settle or litigate cases issued in years prior to FY2006 and ensure investigation and 

issuance of appropriate action for any open tips, complaints, or referrals received by 

EPA; 

• Exercise 1997 clarified penalty authority against federal agencies for CAA 

violations in appropriate circumstances; 

• Report 100% of MDRs accurately and in a timely manner in AFS consistent with 

the HPV policy and ensure that delegated agencies do the same. 

DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 

Data is an integral part of the CAA compliance and enforcement program; therefore, it is 

essential that regions and delegated agencies enter complete and accurate information into the 

national database in a timely manner. Complete, accurate and timely data is necessary for EPA, 

delegated agencies and the public to evaluate programs and institute corrections. For a complete 

list of MDRs for the program, please consult CMS, the HPV Policy, and the ICR for the program. 

A summary of the requirements can be found at the following website: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/air/mdrshort.pdf 

The region must provide an explanation if no activity is projected in this area. 

As stated previously, once an evaluation is completed and a compliance determination is 

made, all evaluations should be reported as soon as practicable, and if feasible, in the next 

regularly scheduled update of AFS. The results of evaluations conducted by either the regions or 

delegated agencies should not be held until the end of the fiscal year and input into the data system 

all at once. Regions should work with delegated agencies to ensure that they are familiar with the 

data aspects of CMS, the HPV Policy, and the ICR, and implement their programs consistent with 

them. This is critical since the air program is structured differently than other media programs in 

Final 52 June 2005 
that the type and timing of compliance data that must be reported into the national database are not 

specified by statute or regulations, but through Agency policy and an ICR for the program. 

Agreements with delegated agencies to provide complete, accurate and timely data should be 

incorporated in documents such as SEAs, PPAs or Section 105 grant agreements. 

As detailed in the September 10, 2004 ICDS Expansion, Implementation and Reporting 

memo (http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/campd/inspector/index.html), regions must report all ICDS 

data collected from on-site CAA evaluations (FCEs, PCEs, stack testing, RMP audits and 

inspections, and CFC evaluations) by either of the following methods: 

• Manual reporting: Submit summary ICDS information at mid-year and end-ofyear using the form in Attachment A of the memo. First-line supervisors need to 

review the ICDS forms prior to compiling the ICDS data for mid-year and end-ofyear reporting to verify its completeness and accuracy. 

• Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS): Use ICIS to enter the ICDS 

data. See Attachment B of the memo. HQ will then pull the ICDS information 

from ICIS for mid-year and end-of-year reporting. 

ICDS data, both manually reported and directly entered into ICIS, are compiled in regional 

workbooks which are sent to the regions for certification. Regions should have in place a 

quality assurance process to verify that the ICDS data is correct and accurate. 

OECA is striving to have all federal inspections that are currently reported manually 

entered into ICIS during this planning cycle and will provide separate guidance on CAA NESHAP 

inspection reporting through the annual Enforcement and Compliance Reporting Plan 

Memorandum. (Refer to Section III. E) federal 112(r) inspections are required to be entered into 

ICIS. 

Regions should enter the number and type of planned compliance assistance activities and 

outcome measurement projects into the compliance assistance module in ICIS and report all onsite visits using the CACDS. 

Performance expectations: 

The following commitments need to be undertaken by the regions during the period 

covered by this guidance. 

Commitment CAA 16: Regions should ensure that delegated agencies have written 

agreements to provide complete, accurate, and timely data consistent with the CMS, HPV 

Policy and the AFS ICR; identify the agreement; and provide copies of the relevant 

language. 

Commitment CAA 17: Regions and delegated agencies should enter all MDRs in AFS 

consistent with the Agency policies and the ICR. If for some reason a delegated agency 

Final 53 June 2005 
does not agree to enter the MDRs, the region is responsible for ensuring that the data is 

entered into AFS in a timely manner. If the region is responsible for entering 

state/local/tribal data, identify the agency. 

The regions must provide an explanation if the region will not be undertaking these 

activities. This explanation will be discussed with regional air compliance/enforcement managers 

during national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and one-on-one conversations with 

individual regions. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

Consistent with the CMS and HPV Policy, regions should assess annually the performance 

of compliance monitoring programs and enforcement activities against the negotiated and agreed 

upon work plans to ensure that commitments are met. In addition, regions should conduct more 

in-depth analyses of the overall programs periodically to ensure that resources are being utilized as 

efficiently and effectively as possible. These analyses should address issues such as whether 

adequate inspector training is available; targeting strategies are being utilized to focus on 

environmentally significant sources; written procedures/guidelines are consistent with Agency 

policy and are available to guide activities; adequate QA/QC programs are in place; quality 

evaluations that meet the definition of an FCE are being conducted; stack tests are being 

conducted according to Agency guidance; investigations are conducted as appropriate; violations 

are being identified and appropriate enforcement action is being taken; HPVs are being identified 

and tracked; appropriate penalties are being assessed; and data are accurately reported to AFS in a 

timely manner. These evaluations should assess trends; recognize successes as well as document 

areas for improvement; and provide concrete recommendations for improvement. Evaluations 

should be based on activities such as monthly conference calls; quarterly/annual reviews; file 

audits; oversight inspections; and management and staff interviews. Results should be 

documented in a written report and provided to Headquarters. For further guidance in this area, 

see the CMS and the HPV Policy. Also, see the sections on EPA/State relations and core program 

activities. 

Performance Expectations: 

The following commitments need to be undertaken by the regions during the period 

covered by this guidance. These commitments are critical in light of the Inspector General’s 

findings and recommendations for the air compliance and enforcement program and the need to 

periodically evaluate implementation of the CMS. 

Commitment CAA 18: Consistent with the CMS and HPV Policy, regions should evaluate 

annually whether compliance monitoring and enforcement commitments were met, and if 

not, why not. Regions also should evaluate how these commitments compare to previous 

years. The results should be documented in writing and shared with Headquarters. 

Commitment CAA 19: Consistent with the CMS, regions should conduct at least one indepth evaluation of a delegated program per year and provide the written results to 

Final 54 June 2005 
Headquarters. The delegated agency should be identified. 

The regions must provide an explanation if the region will not be undertaking any of these 

activities. This explanation will be discussed with regional air compliance/enforcement managers 

during national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and one-on-one conversations with 

individual regions. 

8. RCRA PROGRAM 

RCRA Hazardous Waste Subtitle C Program 

EPA is committed to ensuring that hazardous waste is managed in a manner that is 

protective of human health and the environment. Agency compliance assurance and enforcement 

activities will focus on those facilities posing the greatest risk to human health and the environment. 

However, all identified non-compliance with RCRA Subtitle C should be addressed by the Agency 

in accordance with its policies governing enforcement and compliance monitoring. 

The goal of state and federal compliance assurance and enforcement activities is to attain 

and maintain a high level of compliance within the regulated community. Generally, federal 

compliance assurance and enforcement activities will complement state activities, where and as 

appropriate. Regions should refer to the federal facilities section of this attachment (Section 10) for 

guidance on including federal facilities in core program activities where applicable. 

Core Program Elements 

• Inspections of treatment, storage and disposal facilities, as required under RCRA §3007(e), 

and state and local government operated treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, as 

required under RCRA §3007(d), to verify compliance with the following requirements 

established as standards per RCRA §3004(a) : 

S maintaining records of all hazardous waste which is treated, stored, or disposed of, 

and the manner in which such wastes were treated, stored, or disposed of; 

S satisfactory reporting and compliance of the manifest system; 

S treatment, storage, or disposal of all waste received by the facility in accordance 

with the law; 

S establishing contingency plans for effective action to minimize unanticipated 

damage from any treatment, storage, or disposal of any such hazardous waste; 

S Training for personnel; 

S Financial responsibility. 

• Inspections of generators to verify compliance with the following requirements established 

as standards per RCRA § 3002(a): 

S proper characterization of the hazardous waste; 

Final 55 June 2005 
S furnishes information on the general chemical composition of hazardous waste to 

persons transporting, treating, storing and disposing of such wastes; 

S record keeping on the management and disposition of waste; 

S proper labeling and identification of waste for storage, transport and disposal; 

S use of proper containers, tanks and drip pads for the hazardous waste; 

S use of the manifest system and all other means necessary to assure that hazardous 

waste is sent to the appropriate treatment, storage and disposal facility; and 

S submission of reports to the Administrator reporting the waste generated. 

• Inspections of transporters to verify compliance with the following requirements established 

as standards per RCRA § 3003(a): 

– record keeping;

S properly labeled waste;

S use of the manifest system;

S proper management of hazardous waste during transportation;

S hazardous waste is delivered to treatment, storage and disposal facility that is

permitted by law to take such waste. 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I Program 

EPA is committed to ensuring that underground storage tanks (USTs) are operated in a 

manner that is protective of human health and the environment. Agency compliance assurance and 

enforcement activities will focus on those facilities posing the greatest risk to human health and the 

environment. However, all identified non-compliance with RCRA Subtitle I should be addressed 

by the Agency in accordance with its policies governing enforcement and compliance monitoring. 

Regions should maintain an enforcement presence concerning leak prevention, leak 

detection, corrective action and closure, and financial responsibility violations3

. Owners and 

operators that do not meet UST requirements are not only in violation of federal and state laws but 

also have USTs that present a threat of release (or have had a release requiring corrective action). 

These non-compliant USTs are gaining an economic advantage over competitors that are in 

compliance with environmental laws. These efforts will ensure that owner/operators of RCRA 

Subtitle I regulated facilities properly prevent and detect releases and take appropriate corrective 

action when releases occur. 

The goal of state and federal compliance assurance and enforcement activities is to attain 

and maintain a high level of compliance within the regulated community. Generally, federal 

compliance assurance and enforcement activities will complement state activities, where and as 

appropriate. Regions should refer to the federal facilities section of this guidance (Section 10) for 

guidance on including federal facilities in core program activities where applicable. 

3

Regions should focus financial responsibility compliance monitoring activities in states that do not have a state fund. 

Final 56 June 2005 
COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-objective 5.1.1) 

RCRA Hazardous Waste Subtitle C Core Program 

Compliance assistance activities should focus on newly regulated persons, persons subject 

to new regulations, and persons owning small businesses with compliance problems. 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I Program 

Investments in outreach and assistance should be strategically focused (e.g., persons 

operating facilities on tribal lands where the tribes have a proprietary interest, persons owning small 

businesses with compliance problems). 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-objective 5.1.2) 

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives activities description in Section III. B -

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 

Monitoring 

RCRA Hazardous Waste Subtitle C Core Program 

The RCRA hazardous waste core program includes the compliance monitoring activities set 

forth in Part I and II below. Both state and federal compliance monitoring activities will be 

required in implementing the activities in Part I (i.e., maintaining the annual level of inspections of 

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities). To ensure a level playing field and oversight of state 

compliance assurance and monitoring activities, regions should maintain a federal presence in the 

hazardous waste core program, conducting the compliance monitoring activities set forth in Part II.

 In light of continuing concerns regarding threats to human health and the environment 

posed by improper management of hazardous waste, regions should focus their compliance 

monitoring efforts on the following: 

• never inspected generators; 

• facilities that are significant non-compliers; 

• facilities that are the subject of citizen complaints; 

• non-notifier facilities that are believed to be generating hazardous waste; 

• persons that generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose of significant quantities of hazardous 

Final 57 June 2005 
wastes, in particular those in proximity to population centers or environmentally sensitive 

areas; and 

• recalcitrant or repeat violators. 

In each fiscal year, the regions (in consultation with OECA) may conduct fewer or 

additional compliance monitoring activities if it is determined that such a deviation is warranted. 

All efforts should be made to adhere to the guidelines that are detailed below. 

Performance Expectations 

The states and EPA regions should work together to determine the appropriate mix of 

federal and state compliance monitoring activities to meet hazardous waste core program activities. 

In making its determinations, each region should examine the compliance status of facilities within 

its region. 

Part I. Combined State and Federal Core Activities 

A. Statutory mandated inspections -

S Treatment, storage and disposal facilities: Inspect at least once every two years each 

operating treatment, storage and disposal facility, as required under SWDA 

§3007(e), i.e., 50% of TSDF universe annually. 

Commitment RCRA01: Project by state the number of federal TSDF inspections 

conducted once every two years. 

Commitment RCRA01.s: Project by state the number of state TSDF inspections conducted 

once every two years. 

Note: Ground water monitoring inspections (CMEs) should be conducted at any new or 

newly regulated land disposal facility, defined under §3004(k). Once it is determined that a 

ground water monitoring system is adequately designed and installed, an operation and 

maintenance (O&M) inspection may become the appropriate ground water monitoring 

inspection. More frequent CMEs should be conducted in situations involving complex 

compliance or corrective action requirements; inadequate ground water monitoring systems, 

significant changes to ground water monitoring systems, and actual or suspected changes in 

local ground water regimes. When hazardous waste is no longer being received, and the 

regulated unit has a ground water monitoring program in place, physical inspections can be 

replaced by record reviews of the sampling/analysis data and the quarterly/annual ground 

water monitoring reports generated from the detection monitoring activities. Where 

information from the reports indicates a potential problem, or there are changed 

circumstances, a physical inspection would generally be warranted. 

Final 58 June 2005 
B. Generators (LQGs): Annually inspect at least 20% of the large quantity generator universe, 

so that the entire universe is inspected in five years. The large quantity generator universe 

is the total number of generators that reported in the most recent biennial report. 

Commitment RCRA02: Project by state the number of federal LQG inspections. 

Commitment RCRA02.s: Project by state the number of state LQG inspections. 

If inspection coverage is not expected to be provided for 20% of LQGs on an annual basis, 

the regions must provide an explanation that should include the following: 

• Information on how the RCRA compliance monitoring resources will be redirected 

(e.g., national priority facilities, state priority facilities, never-inspected SQGs); and 

• How LQGs will otherwise be monitored (e.g., file reviews, watch list); and 

• For states proposing to redirect resources to never-inspected SQGs, information that 

shows no uninspected LQGs in RCRAInfo (not including facilities that notified in 

the last five years). 

Because inspections at LQGs generally require more resources than an inspection at an 

SQG, inspection tradeoffs - the number of SQGs substituted for LQGs - should be at a 2:1 

or greater ratio. 

Part II. Federal Core Only 

A. Statutory mandated inspections -

1. State or Local Government Operated Facilities 

Commitment RCRA03: Annually inspect each treatment, storage or disposal facility 

operated by states or local governments as required under SWDA §3007(d). 

2. Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities: 

Commitment RCRA04: Annually inspect at least 2 TSDs per state.

3. Federal Facilities 

Commitment FED.FAC04 and FED.FAC04.s- Statutorily-mandated inspections of 

federal facilities are discussed in Section 10 

B. Generators (LQGs): 

Commitment RCRA05: Annually inspect at least 6 generators per state. 

Final 59 June 2005 
The regions are encouraged to perform these inspections for the following: national priority 

sectors, to support state referrals, to address illegal recycling, entities with violations in 

more than one state, environmentally sensitive environments, areas subject to environmental 

justice concerns, and particularly recalcitrant violators. 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I Program 

Regions should work with states to assure compliance with UST requirements. EPA should 

continue to focus its federal inspection resources in areas that could produce the greatest 

environmental and human health benefits. Generally, EPA should focus its inspection resources on 

leak prevention, leak detection, corrective action and closure, and financial responsibility 

requirements. 

Recommended factors to consider in identifying facilities to be inspected under the UST 

program include: 

• owners and operators of multiple UST facilities; 

• owners and operators of USTs located in Indian Country; 

• owners and operators of large facilities with multiple USTs; 

• owners and operators of facilities with USTs that are endangering sensitive 

ecosystems or sources of drinking water; and 

• federal facilities. 

Enforcement 

RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Program 

Regions should refer to the Core Activities section of the Introduction to the Core Program 

for general information regarding these activities. Regions should also follow the January 2004 

RCRA Enforcement Response Policy (and subsequent revisions) which provides information 

regarding the classification of a facility’s non-compliance and in the taking of timely and 

appropriate enforcement actions. 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank Program 

Regions should take prompt and effective action on all UST violations discovered. Regions 

should utilize the appropriate enforcement tools, taking into account the seriousness of the 

violations, to address any detected non-compliance with the UST requirements. Regions should 

also refer to Agency policies regarding the appropriate enforcement response. 

Imminent and Substantial Endangerment 

Though not a specific element of the RCRA core programs, regions should utilize RCRA 

§7003 when appropriate for endangerments posed by solid wastes, hazardous waste and 

Final 60 June 2005 
underground storage tanks. Regions should refer to the appropriate EPA policies and guidances 

regarding the use of this authority. 

DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 

RCRA Hazardous Waste Subtitle C Core Program 

Federal and state enforcement personnel are required to report into RCRAInfo and ICIS the 

essential data elements to accurately reflect program activities and measure RCRA program 

performance. All RCRA federal enforcement cases must be entered into ICIS and should be 

entered into RCRAInfo to allow states to access the data. Reporting guidance will be provided in 

the annual Enforcement and Compliance Reporting Memorandum. (Refer to Section III.D). 

Regions should enter their compliance assistance activities in ICIS. The regions should also 

enter their facility specific on-site compliance assistance activities in RCRAInfo. States are not 

able at this time to enter their compliance assistance into ICIS so they should continue to use 

RCRAInfo. Headquarters will generate RCRA compliance assistance numbers for federal activities 

out of ICIS. 

All EPA-led inspections conducted under the 3007 authority should be reported on the 

Inspection Conclusion Data Sheet (ICDS) even if the inspection discloses that the facility is not a 

Subtitle C facility. As detailed in the September 10, 2004 ICDS Expansion, Implementation and 

Reporting memo (http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/campd/inspector/index.html), regions must report 

all ICDS data collected from on-site RCRA Hazardous Waste Subtitle C inspections/evaluations by 

either of the following methods: 

• Manual reporting: Submit summary ICDS information at mid-year and end-of-year using 

the form in Attachment A of the memo. First-line supervisors need to review the ICDS 

forms prior to compiling the ICDS data for mid-year and end-of-year reporting to verify its 

completeness and accuracy. 

• Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS): Use ICIS to enter the ICDS data. 

See Attachment B of the memo. HQ will then pull the ICDS information from ICIS for 

mid-year and end-of-year reporting. 

ICDS data, both manually reported and directly entered into ICIS, are compiled in regional 

workbooks which are sent to the regions for certification. Regions should have in place a quality 

assurance process to verify that the ICDS data is correct and accurate. 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I Program 

For 2005-2007, all federal enforcement activity should be entered into ICIS. Inspection 

Conclusion Data Sheet (ICDS) forms should be completed for all federal inspections, including 

Final 61 June 2005 
UST Expedited Settlements4

 and Case Conclusion Data Sheets (CCDS) should be completed for all 

federal UST cases. OECA is striving to have all federal inspections that are currently reported 

manually entered into ICIS during this planning cycle and will provide separate guidance on UST 

inspection reporting. Reporting guidance on other UST activities will be provided in the annual 

Enforcement and Compliance Reporting Plan memorandum. (Refer to Section III. E) 

As detailed in the September 10, 2004 ICDS Expansion, Implementation and Reporting memo 

(http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/campd/inspector/index.html), regions must report all ICDS data 

collected from on-site RCRA Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I inspections/evaluations by 

either of the following methods: 

• Manual reporting: Submit summary ICDS information at mid-year and end-of-year using 

the form in Attachment A of the memo. First-line supervisors need to review the ICDS 

forms prior to compiling the ICDS data for mid-year and end-of-year reporting to verify its 

completeness and accuracy. 

• Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS): Use ICIS to enter the ICDS data. 

See Attachment B of the memo. HQ will then pull the ICDS information from ICIS for 

mid-year and end-of-year reporting. 

ICDS data, both manually reported and directly entered into ICIS, are compiled in regional 

workbooks which are sent to the regions for certification. Regions should have in place a quality 

assurance process to verify that the ICDS data is correct and accurate. 

Regions should report 100% of all EPA-led UST results on the ICDS. 

UST Expedited Settlements and CCDS should be completed and entered into ICIS for 

federal UST cases. 

Regions should enter the number and type of planned compliance assistance activities and 

outcome measurement projects into the compliance assistance module in ICIS and report all 

on-site visits using the CACDS. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

RCRA Hazardous Waste Subtitle C Core Program 

In reviewing the program performance, EPA will consider the activities undertaken by the 

regions and states and the results reported back into RCRAInfo on those activities. EPA will 

review whether the regions and states are meeting the compliance monitoring commitments and 

whether the enforcement response, with regard to the type of enforcement tool utilized (e.g., 

administrative complaint, expedited settlement, NOV) and the response time taken to address the 

identified non-compliance, is appropriate. In particular, as the EPA is looking to quickly address 

4

Expedited Settlements include UST field citations. 

Final 62 June 2005 
those violations that pose the greatest risk to human health and the environment, the Agency will 

also be looking at: 

• number of inspections, investigations, and citizen complaints; 

• number of SNC’s identified (and percent of universe); 

• number (and percent of universe) addressed and resolved in a timely and appropriate 

manner; and 

• EPA’s Watch List. 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I Program 

In reviewing the program performance, EPA will consider the activities undertaken by the 

regions and states and the results reported into ICIS or by other means to EPA regarding those 

activities. EPA will be looking at the enforcement response with regard to the type of enforcement 

tool utilized (e.g., administrative complaint, expedited settlement, NOV, etc) and the response time 

to address the identified non-compliance. EPA will also be taking into consideration programs 

under Subtitle I that have been developed to ensure compliance (e.g., significant operational 

compliance (SOC). 

9. FEDERAL ACTIVITIES PROGRAM

The Federal Activities core program for FY2005-2007 is built around the following major 

areas: 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) IMPLEMENTATION (Subobjective 5.2.1)

 • Fulfill the Agency obligations under NEPA, Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, and related 

laws, directives and Executive Orders (all regions).

 • Target high impact federal program areas (e.g., transportation and energy projects) to

promote cooperation and innovation toward a more streamlined environmental review

process (all regions).

NEPA / CAA §309 Review: Carry out EPA’s responsibilities to review and comment on all 

major proposed federal actions to ensure that significant adverse effects are identified and are either 

eliminated or mitigated. 

NEPA Compliance and “Cross-cutters”: Carry out EPA’s responsibilities to comply with 

NEPA and “cross-cutters” (e.g., Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, 

Executive Orders on wetlands, flood plains, and farmland). 

Prepare environmental assessments (EISs or EAs) for new source National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, where a state/tribe has not assumed the NPDES 

program; off-shore oil and gas sources, including permits for deepwater ports EPA laboratories and 

facilities; and Clean Water Act wastewater treatment plant grants. 

Final 63 June 2005 
Prepare environmental assessments (EISs or EAs) for Special Appropriation grants 

(including the Colonias Wastewater Construction and Project Development Assistance programs) 

for wastewater, water supply and solid waste collection facilities; Border Environment 

Infrastructure Fund for the US/Mexico Border Environment Cooperation Commission projects; and 

reviews conducted under the "voluntary NEPA policy.” 

NEPA CAA 309 Review and NEPA Compliance: Regions shall input the results of their 

§309 EIS reviews and NEPA compliance actions into the Lotus Notes EIS Tracking Database 

maintained by HQ OFA, and the SAAP system maintained by HQ OW, respectively. Additionally, 

regions will report to the Office of Federal Activities quarterly on the status of their 309 reviews 

and NEPA actions pursuant to OFA’s GPRA reporting process. 

Performance Expectations 

• GPRA Performance Measure: 70 percent of the significant impacts identified by EPA 

during the NEPA review of all proposed major federal actions will be mitigated in order to 

preserve air and water quality, wetlands, aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and endangered 

species; to protect Environmental Justice communities; and to prevent degradation of valued 

environmental resources. 

Exception: Provide an explanation if the region will not meet the benchmark.

 • GPRA Performance Measure: 90 percent of EPA projects subject to NEPA 

Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement requirements (water 

treatment facility project and other grants, new source NPDES permits and EPA facilities) 

result in no significant environmental impact. 

Exception: Provide an explanation if the region will not meet the benchmark. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-objective 5.1.3)

 • Improve environmental performance and cooperation with Goal 6 of the U.S./Mexico

Border 2012 plan (Regions VI and IX). 

• Enhance 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., PCBs, mercury), and other regulated substances (Border 

Regions).

 • Improve performance of joint responsibilities along the border and points of entry into the 

United States by working with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (all regions).

 • Fulfill International agreements and the Agency’s RCRA obligations regarding notification 

of trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste (all regions). 

International Enforcement Capacity Building: The majority of requested commitments 

fall to Regions VI and IX for U.S. Mexico border work in connection with the La Paz Agreement. 

Regions VI and IX will continue the implementation of U.S.-Mexico work plans for enforcement 

and compliance cooperation in the border region and work with the Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection to improve performance of joint responsibilities along the border. 

Final 64 June 2005 
Import/Export Program: All regions will review 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 their review, recommend consent or objection to 

notifications within the time periods allowed under applicable international agreements. 

Headquarters will process notifications for import and export of hazardous waste to ensure 

compliance with domestic regulations and international agreements; consent or object to import 

notifications and acknowledge consent/objection to export notifications; track the flow of 

hazardous waste both in and out of the United States based on manifests received from the Bureau 

of Customs and Border Protection; and conduct compliance monitoring and prepare memoranda of 

referral for appropriate enforcement action. Upon receipt of the referrals, each region is responsible 

for determining whether or not to pursue an enforcement action against apparent violations of the 

law relating to transboundary movements of hazardous waste and must inform Headquarters of its 

decision and the ultimate outcome of each case. 

In order to ensure a coordinated approach between EPA and the Bureau of Customs and 

Border Protection, regions must also alert headquarters regarding interactions they may have with 

the Bureau. 

10. FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAM

Background 

As an integral process of EPA’s on-going efforts to improve environmental compliance at 

the 8,000 plus federal facilities nation-wide, FFEO and the regional federal facilities program 

managers/staff have developed this core program guidance for FY2006. The FY2006 activities 

outlined below were developed to advance the goals outlined in the National Federal Facilities 2006 

Program Agenda. 

This program guidance identifies the nationally-coordinated activities under OECA’s 

purview. This guidance reflects that environmental stewardship and pollution prevention activities 

should largely be staffed by others (including OPPTS) with more responsibility for these particular 

areas. Compliance assistance activities should be carefully targeted on a priority basis, and 

leveraged as much as possible, including through more partnerships with FedCenter and other 

arrangements. It is imperative to maintain an appropriate enforcement presence through a targeted 

inspection program, with swift and meaningful follow-up. 

These activities are anticipated to serve as a baseline of priority activity from a national 

program perspective, in addition to which the regions may pursue their own regionally-identified 

priorities (including regional activity in support of the national priorities, regional integrated 

strategies, and geographically-based inspection “sweeps”). All federal facility activities will be 

measured using the relevant CCDS and counted in achieving OECA’s overall goal of a 5% 

increase in the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, and achieving a 5% increase in 

the number of regulated entities making improvements in environmental management practices. 

Final 65 June 2005 
COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-objective 5.1.1) 

Compliance assistance remains a vital tool in abetting improved environmental compliance 

at federal facilities. With continuing budgetary constraints, it is imperative that compliance 

assistance efforts be targeted to support priority areas, which include the Federal Facility Integrated 

Strategy areas (listed below) as well as implementation of Environmental Management Systems 

(EMS). With respect to EMS, we support continual improvements in federal EMSs, in particular 

by including Environmental Management Reviews (EMRs) in integrated strategies, including EMS 

improvements in enforcement action settlements and including EMS questions in multimedia and 

single media inspection checklists. FFEO will also work to develop, in conjunction with the EO 

13148 Interagency Work group, metrics to measure environmental progress at facilities with EMSs. 

The recent creation of an independent federal facility environmental compliance assistance 

and stewardship center - FedCenter (http://www.fedcenter.gov) will be pivotal to future 

collaborative compliance assistance efforts. FedCenter will serve as the catalyst for increased 

cooperative compliance assistance efforts both within EPA and other federal partners. FedCenter 

will increasingly become the federal portal for dissemination of environmental compliance 

information and tools. 

Performance Expectations 

• Compliance Assistance Activities 

Each region will develop at least three compliance assistance activities (such as a seminar, 

training, workshop, education/outreach activity, etc.). One activity should address EMS 

implementation and two activities should support the integrated strategy areas. These 

compliance assistance activities can be developed for delivery through the region or through 

FedCenter. 

Commitment FED-FAC01: Each region will conduct at least three compliance assistance 

activities for federal facilities. 

A. One activity to address EMS implementation; and 

B. Two activities to address Integrated Strategy areas.

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-objective 5.1.2) 

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives’ activities description in Section III. B -

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 

Compliance Monitoring 

Performance Expectations 

Final 66 June 2005 
• Multi-media inspections 

Each region will conduct two multi-media inspections to support the Integrated Strategy 

areas. Regions may substitute four single media inspections in lieu of one multi-media 

inspection. FFEO encourages including EMS questions in multi-media and single media 

inspection checklists. 

A multimedia inspection consists of (1) a CAA, CWA, or RCRA program inspection plus at 

least one additional program under a different statute for the same facility; or (2) some 

combination of two or more CAA, CWA, or RCRA program inspections at the same 

facility. To count as a multi-media inspection, no more than three months may have elapsed 

between an inspection by one program and subsequent inspection by another program. 

FFEO encourages including EMS questions in multi-media and single media inspection 

checklists. 

Commitment FED-FAC03: Number of multi-media inspections, or single media 

inspections to be conducted; provide an explanation if below the target level. 

• Annual inspections of Federal RCRA treatment, storage or disposal facilities as required by 

RCRA Sec. 3007(c) 

Commitment FED-FAC04 and FED-FAC04.s: Each region will conduct inspections at 

100% of the region’s universe of federal facility RCRA treatment, storage or disposal 

facilities, or arrange with an authorized state program that has been approved to carry out 

RCRA 3007(c) inspections to conduct such inspections. 

NOTE: These RCRA TSDF inspections, if done by the region, can qualify as part of a 

multi-media inspection. EPA RCRA inspectors shall complete Sec. 6002 survey forms for 

100% of EPA RCRA inspections at federal facilities, and return the form to FFEO within 

two weeks of completing the inspection. EPA RCRA inspectors shall give the Sec. 6002 

facility survey to a representative at the inspected facility and request their completion of the 

survey and mailing to FFEO. 

• Single media inspections 

In addition to the RCRA TSDF inspections, each region will perform six single media 

inspections of federal facilities (in addition to any single media inspections conducted under 

multi-media inspections above and in addition to the RCRA TSDF inspections). Of these 

six inspections, at least three should support the Integrated Strategy areas. FFEO encourages 

including EMS questions in multi-media and single media inspection checklists. 

Commitment FED-FAC05: Number of federal facility inspections to be conducted (in 

addition to any single media inspections conducted under multimedia inspections above); 

provide an explanation if below the target level. 

Final 67 June 2005 
• The inspections identified here are those that are unique to the federal facilities core 

program and are in addition to those outlined in other OECA core program guidances. 

These inspections may, however, simultaneously satisfy inspection commitments required 

in other OECA core program guidances (e.g., the requirement for inspection of 100% of all 

NPDES major facilities). 

Enforcement 

FFEO strongly encourages the regions to take swift and meaningful enforcement actions to 

improve compliance at federal facilities. For FY2006, federal facility resources should be focused 

on taking appropriate and timely enforcement actions, as defined within relevant media-specific 

statues for each federal facility: 1) on the Watch List; 2) inspected as a result of FFEO’s Multimedia Inspection Initiative; or 3) inspected as a consequence of FFEO’s Integrated Strategies 

efforts. Where appropriate, FFEO advocates including EMS improvements as part of enforcement 

action settlements. 

INTEGRATED STRATEGIES 

Integrated strategies, which align enforcement, compliance, and stewardship activities 

toward maximum effect, can help the federal facilities program guide its actions toward greater 

environmental and health benefits. Integrated strategies include activities focused on: (i) assisting 

facilities to achieve and maintain compliance; (ii) inspecting and monitoring compliance; and (iii) 

prosecuting enforcement actions to correct and deter non-compliance. 

VHA Integrated Strategy 

In FY2004, FFEO and the regions developed an EPA-Veteran’s Health Administration 

(VHA) integrated strategy. FY2004 activity consisted primarily of compliance assistance activity. 

In FY2005, the strategy shifted from compliance assistance to focus on monitoring and 

enforcement. FFEO requested at least one inspection to be done per region at a VHA facility in 

FY2005. In FY2006, we are requesting that each region determine: 1) whether additional 

inspection activity is appropriate for their region; and 2) whether appropriate follow-up 

enforcement activity has been pursued in follow-up to each VHA inspection, and if not, ensure such 

follow-up is pursued. FFEO will be focusing on collecting data on VHA environmental 

compliance. 

NPDES Wastewater Integrated Strategy 

In FY2005, FFEO initiated the development of this strategy. Activities consisted primarily 

of an effort to compile available current and historic data followed by a collaborative review of the 

data findings with federal agencies. FFEO will identify preliminary root causes of non-compliance. 

Regions were encouraged to utilize multi-media inspections to deal with lack of CWA penalty 

authority. Sample documents (NOV and FFCA) were developed by FFEO. In FY2006, regions are 

Final 68 June 2005 
asked to develop compliance assistance tools, conduct multi-media inspections and/or single media 

inspections to address NPDES wastewater requirements, and focus on follow-up enforcement 

activity for prior inspections. 

NPDES Stormwater Integrated Strategy 

In FY2005, FFEO reviewed the Wet Weather National Priority to determine the potential 

for a federal facility focus. Regions indicated that some compliance assistance has already been 

done in this area. Regions have also identified federal construction projects as a strong area of 

potential for focusing our stormwater efforts. FFEO is coordinating with the Stormwater National 

Priority Team to determine the next steps. 

NOTE: Where a region demonstrates that their federal facilities universe is not applicable for the 

Integrated Strategies, the region should work with FFEO through the ACS process to determine 

appropriate substitutes. 

DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 

OECA will provide reporting guidance in the annual Enforcement and Compliance 

Reporting Process Memorandum. (Refer to Section III.D above.) 

In accordance with this guidance, all federal enforcement cases, including those for federal 

facilities, must be entered into ICIS, the database of record, and also entered in the associated 

legacy systems (e.g., AFS, PCS, RCRAInfo). OECA also requires all applicable CCDS 

information on all concluded actions to be entered into ICIS and applicable CACDS information be 

entered into ICIS. 

Although the legacy systems are the database of record for many federal inspections, a large 

percentage of these are reported manually because there is no corresponding program database 

(e.g., RCRA USTs, CWA SPCC and Wetlands). Manually reported inspections are entered into the 

OC Workbooks at the middle and end of each fiscal year. OECA is striving to have all manually 

reported federal inspections entered into ICIS during the current planning cycle and will provide 

separate guidance on reporting these inspections through the annual Enforcement and Compliance 

Reporting Process memorandum referenced above. The legacy data systems also serve as the 

database of record for violations, significant violators (SNCs) and high priority violators (HPVs). 

For 2005-2007, regions must manually report all federal facility multimedia inspections through the 

OC Workbooks. Workbooks will be available to the regions for data entry at the midyear and endof-year cycles. 

At mid-year, FFEO will communicate the available data on federal facility core program 

accomplishments to each respective region. To accomplish this review, FFEO will pull regional 

performance data (e.g., enforcement actions, multi-media and single media inspections, and 

compliance assistance activities) from the available database of record or from the OC Workbooks 

to serve as a basis of discussion with the region. As mentioned above some data (e.g., certain 

Final 69 June 2005 
inspections that don’t have a database of record, or have not yet been reported into the OC 

workbooks) must be reported manually by the region in order for FFEO to acknowledge progress 

on certain commitments. The core program commitments that will be communicated to the region 

will include: compliance assistance activities, multi-media inspections, single-media inspections, 

status of Watch List sites, RCRA TSDF inspections, and formal enforcement actions. At the end of 

the fiscal year, FFEO will compile an end-of-the year report to help evaluate the federal facility 

program performance and document regional accomplishments. This data will periodically be 

published in FFEO-issued reports and reported to OECA senior management. 

11. MULTIMEDIA AND RAPID RESPONSE PROGRAM

The multimedia compliance and enforcement programs are designed to foster a 

comprehensive approach to the resolution of environmental problems. “Comprehensive” means 

that applicable provisions of all environmental laws are used to achieve broad-based environmental 

benefits. This approach recognizes that many facilities and companies are operating in violation of 

more than one environmental statute. A multimedia strategy to target and address compliance 

problems and environmental harm results in a more effective overall management of a facility's or a 

company’s environmental liabilities and is ultimately more cost-effective than bringing two or more 

independent media-specific enforcement actions. Multimedia-focused activities, including 

enforcement actions, reflect the goals of federal innovation and underlie much of the Agency’s 

enforcement reorganization. 

The Agency has been, and continues to be, successful in developing cases and initiatives 

that have brought significant environmental results in all media. While it remains critical to be able 

to develop large scale, nationwide actions, we also need the capability to have a more rapid 

enforcement response in order to have a truly effective program. The objective of the Rapid 

Response Program will be to “work backwards” from finding an environmental problem to reacting 

with the appropriate mix of authorities, in a more direct fashion than previously. The Office of 

Civil Enforcement’s (OCE) Special Litigation and Projects Division (SLPD) will work with other 

Divisions and with the regions to identify cases where streamlined case development and a rapid 

response can produce more effective results. We anticipate that these actions will be brought in 

both administrative and judicial forums, and that we will partner with states in appropriate cases. 

In some instances, the SLPD will work with the regions to develop the Agency’s first 

enforcement response, with more traditional enforcement actions to follow. The cases may be 

streamlined, so that there will be fewer counts brought against violators in order to obtain speedy 

resolution, reserving our rights to bring additional actions or additional counts. 

Compliance Assistance (Sub-objective 5.1.1) 

The areas that Headquarters believes warrant compliance assistance have been identified 

within specific program discussions. The primary focus of the federal multimedia program should 

be on compliance monitoring and enforcement. However, the results of a multimedia analysis of 

specific facilities or entire companies might prove useful in planning future compliance assistance 

Final 70 June 2005 
activities. 

Compliance Incentives (Sub-objective 5.1.2) 

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives’ activities description in Section III. B -

Core Program Activities. 

Performance Expectations 

With regard to compliance incentives, regions will be expected to report on the number of 

voluntary disclosures received and resolved pursuant to incentive policies. To ensure that the 

Agency will achieve its goals, the regions are expected to perform activities that will increase the 

use of EPA incentive policies to conduct environmental audits or other actions that reduce, treat, or 

eliminate pollution or improve facility environmental management practices. 

Each region will lead a regional Compliance Incentive Program or participate in a national 

Compliance Incentive Program directed at a particular sector and/or noncompliance problem, with 

emphasis on violations that, once corrected, are likely to result in measurable pollution reductions. 

Compliance Monitoring 

The multimedia program will rely on the compliance monitoring efforts in existence for 

each media program. However, each region’s multimedia targeting strategy and operational plan 

should establish protocols for coordinating multimedia investigations and actions among the 

individual media programs. Headquarters will continue to assist the regions in promoting a 

process-based approach as well as a more targeted and efficient approach to multimedia inspections 

in general. The goal is to achieve the best environmental result while using resources efficiently. 

Participation in Rapid Response Program Activities could entail the dedication and possible 

reprogramming of compliance monitoring resources. 

Performance Expectations 

Regions will be expected to continue to develop and refine their multimedia targeting 

strategy and operational plan for initiation of multimedia enforcement activities. Elements of this 

plan should include projected multimedia inspections, case development training, and projected 

numbers of multimedia cases. Use of a multimedia checklist is not considered to be a multimedia 

inspection, but a tool for identification of potential multimedia targets. 

Regions will be expected to participate in at least one rapid response activity per year, if 

requested. These activities will take one of three forms: a specific rapid response initiative to 

address a specific environmental or human health risk (e.g., worker protection), participation in a 

single multi-media, multi-regional nationally significant case, (e.g., a case against a national “bad 

actor”), or a multi-media, multi-regional case that directly supports a national priority (e.g., a case 

Final 71 June 2005 
that is nationally significant in support of NSR-PSD). 

Enforcement 

(a) General Approach

The multimedia or cross-statutory approach to case development can be employed in the 

context of three basic types of enforcement actions: 

• against single facilities, where entire industrial processes at a facility are examined as a 

whole; 

• against entire companies, where violations of different statutes that occur at various 

facilities indicate ineffective corporate-wide management of environmental compliance; and 

• geographically based enforcement efforts arising from a comprehensive multimedia analysis 

of the environmental problem(s) in a given area (enforcement activities resulting from this 

analysis may be single or cross-media). 

(b) Rapid Response Program

Each region should support the Rapid Response Program which will place emphasis on 

more targeted and quicker responses - in any geographic region. The enforcement model will be 

collaborative: the SLPD intends to work closely with and augment regional, state, and headquarters 

media teams. The focus will be on cooperation between SLPD, the regions, the media enforcement 

program and, where appropriate, the states working together to find and implement the most 

expeditious and effective response to a given situation. 

While the SLPD has substantial expertise in identifying sectors for enforcement actions, it is 

anticipated that most new matters will derive from those closest to the sources of the problem. 

SLPD will rely upon contacts within the regions and the states to identify potential areas for 

enforcement. In all instances, the goal will be the identification of potential harmful effects, and the 

coordinated, rapid resolution of problems. 

Participation in Rapid Response Program Activities could entail the dedication and possible 

reprogramming of compliance monitoring resources. 

Performance Expectations 

Regions will be expected to participate in at least one rapid response activity per year, if 

requested. These activities will take one of three forms: a specific rapid response initiative to 

address a specific environmental or human health risk (e.g., worker protection), participation in a 

single multi-media, multi-regional nationally significant case, (e.g., a case against a national “bad 

actor”), or a multi-media, multi-regional case that directly supports a national priority (e.g., a case 

that is nationally significant in support of NSR-PSD). 

Final 72 June 2005 
DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 

No new reporting is required. Current multimedia reporting requirements are outlined in 

RECAP. The Multimedia RECAP measure is the number of multimedia inspections reported by a 

region. The number of multi-program and multi-facility referrals and penalty order complaints must 

be reported pursuant to the “Revised Approach for Counting EPA Enforcement Case Initiations and 

Conclusions, September 2003". Reporting guidance will be provided annually in the Enforcement 

and Compliance Reporting Process memorandum. (Refer to Section III.E) Regions are similarly 

reminded to notify the SLPD at Headquarters of all multimedia referrals. 

All disclosures made through incentive policies and their resolutions must be entered into 

ICIS. Applicable CCDS information on concluded actions must also be entered into ICIS. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

State involvement in national multimedia and Rapid Response casework is strongly 

encouraged. Regions should assess the level of state-initiated compliance assistance and 

enforcement activity once case management teams are developed and, where practicable, encourage 

state participation in the National actions. Generally, although there is no oversight of state 

multimedia program development, the regions may encourage the development of such programs as 

they see fit, requesting Headquarters assistance and resources as appropriate. 

12. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM

Executive Order 128985 directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other 

federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their mission, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately 

high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Consistent with that mandate, the environmental laws that EPA implements and enforces 

direct it to protect all people from significant environmental hazards and risks. The Agency is 

keenly aware that minority and/or low-income and other sensitive populations frequently confront 

special environmental burdens caused by a host of factors including, but not limited to, those 

relating to: health, environmental conditions, and compliance assurance activities. Helping to 

satisfy its environmental justice mission to protect all people, including minority and/or lowincome populations, the EPA accounts for these and other issues under the environmental statutes 

that it implements and enforces. For example, OECA has already explicitly established 

environmental justice as a targeting factor under the Clean Water Act and the Resource 

5

“Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations” Executive Order, February 11, 1994 

Final 73 June 2005 
Conservation and Recovery Act.6

 Further, OECA has established environmental justice as a 

penalty consideration7

 and as a factor in approving Supplemental Environmental Projects in 

settlements.8 

On April 15, 2003, former OECA Assistant Administrator, JP Suarez outlined the Smart 

Enforcement approach to compliance assurance, requiring OECA to target compliance and 

enforcement efforts strategically, to ensure that the most significant impacts to human health and 

the environment are addressed first. The directive identifies environmental justice as a cornerstone 

of the Smart Enforcement program. Notably, OECA’s application of Smart Enforcement concepts 

provides for the use of existing environmental, compliance, and health data to target and prioritize 

compliance assurance activities to address significant environmental problems and to identify 

problems in communities with environmental and public health concerns. 

Subsequently, OECA’s Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Phyllis Harris, issued 

OECA’s Environmental Justice Policy.9

 This policy further underscores the importance of 

environmental justice in program implementation. 

In 2001 the EPA Environmental Justice Executive Steering Committee (a group composed 

of EPA Headquarters and regional leadership, including OECA’s Deputy Assistant Administrator) 

directed that each program office and region should develop an Environmental Justice Action Plan. 

These strategic planning documents help coordinate the environmental justice activities of the 

Agency and establish a basis for accountability and monitoring progress. The Action Plan 

framework elements, which each region and program office has developed into specific 

programmatic activities, include the following: 

1. Risk Reduction / Protect Environmental and/or Public Health - To ensure equal 

6

 Memorandum, FR: Assistant Administrator, “Compliance and Enforcement Strategy 

Addressing Combined Sewer Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows,” Section IV, B.2. 

“Priorities for SSO Enforcement Response” (April 27, 2000) (directing OECA to target 

compliance assurance/enforcement activities in areas raising environmental justice concerns). 

<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/cwa/strat312.pdf>; 

Guidance on the Use of Section 7003 of RCRA, § II, Bullet 1 (October 1997) (directing OECA 

to target compliance assurance/enforcement activities in areas raising environmental justice 

concerns). <http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/rcra/971020.pdf> 

7 See Memorandum from Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator, Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (September 30, 1997).

8 See, e.g., Environmental Protection Agency, Supplemental Environmental Projects

Policy 13-14 (May 1, 1998).

9

 “OECA Environmental Justice Policy” Memorandum, January 12, 2004. 

Final 74 June 2005 
implementation of environmental laws to achieve significant risk reduction which will improve the 

environment and/or public health of affected communities. 

2. Outreach and Communication - To provide opportunities for meaningful involvement and 

ensure effective communication between the Agency decision makers and stakeholders, including 

all affected communities. 

3. Training - To provide training for EPA managers and staff to enable them to incorporate 

environmental justice considerations into their decision making process. 

4. Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Government Coordination - To ensure effective 

coordination across all levels of government to address the environmental and public health 

concerns of affected communities. 

5. Grants and Contracts Administration - To promote effective and efficient management of 

all grants and contracts to ensure that the environmental and public health concerns of affected 

communities are addressed. 

6. Environmental Justice Assessment - To conduct an assessment of the environmental justice 

indicators within affected communities as part of the decision making process. 

Annual commitments, regional workplan commitments, and state performance partnership 

agreements (or similar EPA-State/Tribe Agency agreement) and grants for FY2005/2007 should be 

consistent with OECA’s and each region’s respective Environmental Justice Action Plan. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-objective 5.1.1) 

Regions should appropriately target compliance assistance activities to address issues of 

environmental justice, consistent with smart enforcement principles. Prior to planning and 

targeting compliance assistance activities, among other things, regions should consider the 

following: (1) does the activity impact compliance with all health and environmental statutes; (2) 

has there been sufficient public input regarding the compliance assistance activity; (3) should other 

levels of government, including Tribal Government, be involved with the activity or consulted; (4) 

how have health, environmental, and compliance data sources been evaluated to determine 

priorities; (5) have priorities been established to ensure that disproportionately impacted areas are 

being targeted; and (6) have issues of Limited English Proficiency among minority populations and 

low-income populations or the regulated community been considered and addressed. Compliance 

assistance activities should be targeted to diminish risk relative to the conditions and health of the 

resident population. 

In 2004, OECA and the regions created an environmental justice targeting approach based 

on health, compliance, environmental and demographic data. The approach, Environmental Justice 

Smart Enforcement Targeting Strategy (EJSETS) builds upon the original guidelines of Smart 

Final 75 June 2005 
Enforcement and the policy set-out in the "Toolkit for Assessing Allegations of Environmental 

Injustice." EJSETS provides the regions with consistent information and may be used in the 

context of targeting and planning; crafting specific remedies based on local conditions; helping to 

apply penalty considerations; developing supplemental environmental projects (SEPs); and 

measuring outcomes. The regions are encouraged to utilize EJSETS and its draft screening tool as 

another discretionary targeting approach as they consider how best to identify, address 

environmental justice concerns and measure results. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-objective 5.1.2) 

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives activities description in Section III.B -

Core Program Activities. 

COMPLIANCE MONITORING (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 

Regions should appropriately target compliance monitoring activities to address issues of 

environmental justice, consistent with smart enforcement principles. Prior to planning and 

targeting inspections, among other things, regions should consider the following: (1) does the 

monitoring activity impact enforcement of all health and environmental statutes; (2) has there been 

sufficient public input regarding compliance assurance activities; (3) should other levels of 

government, including Tribal Government, be involved with the activity or consulted; (4) how have 

health, environmental, and compliance assurance activity data sources been evaluated to determine 

priorities; (5) have priorities been established to ensure that disproportionately impacted areas are 

being targeted; and (6) have differential patterns of consumption of natural resources among 

minority populations and low-income populations been identified. Inspections should be targeted 

to diminish risk relative to the conditions and health of the resident population. 

Performance Expectations 

To ensure that the goals of environmental justice are accomplished, enforcement and compliance 

personnel should incorporate environmental justice concerns into ongoing enforcement/compliance 

activities. Moreover, enforcement/compliance activities addressing issues of environmental justice 

should be included in the region’s Environmental Justice Action Plans and identified in annual 

commitments as having measurable environmental justice components. To address environmental 

justice concerns, regions should ensure that: 

1) The public has access to compliance and enforcement documents and data, particularly in 

high risk communities, through multimedia data integration projects, other studies, and 

communication/outreach activities; 

2) Public input is solicited, as appropriate, in the identification of facilities or areas of 

concern (i.e., through periodic listening sessions, hotlines, outreach efforts, etc...) and 

during other appropriate phases of the compliance assurance process; 

3) EPA’s policies, programs and activities, including public meetings, address the concerns 

of the potentially affected populations, including those living in minority and/or low-income 

Final 76 June 2005 
areas; 

4) Noncompliance is deterred and environmental and human health improvements are 

achieved by: (a) maintaining a strong, timely and active enforcement presence across all 

areas, including those with minority and/or low-income populations, and (b) targeting 

compliance activities in areas with high levels of noncompliance; 

5) Enforcement and other compliance assurance actions are prioritized using environmental, 

compliance, and health data so as to minimize risk to human health and the environment and 

to maximize compliance, consistent with the goals of smart enforcement; 

6) When possible, enforcement actions result in environmental or human health 

improvements, through pollution reductions and/or physical or management process 

changes; 

7) When practical, participate in collaborative problem solving with other federal, state, 

tribal, and/or local agencies to address environmental justice concerns; participate in the 

environmental justice training efforts; and continue to participate in national, state, Tribal, 

or local dialogue around the issue of environmental justice (i.e., NEJAC, listening sessions, 

etc...); and 

8) Consider issues such as cumulative risk, health disparities, and appropriate demographic 

issues in the context of gravity based penalties, case development, referrals to the 

Department of Justice, and Supplemental Environmental Projects. 

Enforcement Actions 

If an inspection identifies violations consult the EPA Supplemental Environmental Projects 

Policy and other enforcement memoranda (addressing penalty determinations) regarding the 

appropriate consideration of environmental justice issues. Issues pertaining to environmental 

justice, identified in cases of potential civil or criminal violation, should be documented and 

transmitted to the Department of Justice for use in case development, establishment of penalties, 

and remedy selection. 

Program Leadership and Evaluation 

Training and Technical Assistance: regional Environmental Justice Coordinators, the Office 

of Policy, Analysis, and Communication, and the Office of Environmental Justice can be valuable 

sources of information to assist in integrating environmental justice issues into any regional 

enforcement program. 

13. TRIBAL PROGRAM

EPA’s enforcement and compliance assurance program works with federally-recognized 

Indian tribes (tribes) to employ the Smart Enforcement approach to promote compliance through 

the use of appropriate compliance and enforcement stewardship in Indian country and in areas 

outside of Indian country where tribes and tribal members have recognized rights and interests 

protected by treaty, statute, judicial decisions or other authorities, including Alaska. (hereinafter 

Indian country). Whether implemented directly by EPA or an approved tribe, selecting the 

Final 77 June 2005 
appropriate tools - compliance assistance, incentives, monitoring, and enforcement - can provide 

important gains in environmental and human health protection. During FY2005-2007, OECA and 

the regions intend to continue to increase their presence in Indian country. 

In spring 2004, OECA finalized the enforcement and compliance assurance program’s 

Protecting Public Health and the Environment Through Enforcement and Compliance Assurance in 

Indian Country: A Strategy for Results (Strategy), based upon comments received from tribes, 

states, and EPA regions and program offices. The Strategy, which will be issued under separate 

cover, is designed to help develop a common understanding among environmental managers and 

staff at the federal and tribal level about the nature of enforcement and compliance assurance 

programs. In addition, the Strategy outlines how EPA works with tribes to maximize compliance 

and reduce threats to public health and the environment in Indian country and other areas where 

Indian tribes and their members have rights and resources. This work is undertaken consistent with 

the federal government’s trust and consultation responsibilities to tribes, government-togovernment relationship with such tribes, EPA’s authorizing statutes and implementing regulations, 

the EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations, and 

EPA’s Strategic Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship. 

Following are the activities that OECA and the regions anticipate undertaking in FY2005-

2007 to implement the Strategy. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-objective 5.1.1) 

OECA’s compliance assistance and capacity building efforts in Indian country are designed 

to provide federal facilities, non-tribally-owned or operated facilities, and tribal governments that 

own or manage regulated facilities with the information and support necessary to maintain 

compliance. Consistent with the EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on 

Indian Reservations, and the Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian 

Policy, issued in January 2001, OECA and the regions utilize compliance assistance as the initial 

means of resolving non-compliance and maintaining compliance on the part of tribally-owned or 

managed facilities. To help implement this approach, during FY2005/2007, the regions plan to 

work with tribes to increase the compliance of tribal and non-tribal facilities in Indian country with 

environmental statutes through the use of compliance and technical assistance and to continue to 

tailor compliance assistance tools for use by tribes and facilities in Indian country. During FY 

2005-2007, OECA’s National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) will continue to provide 

classroom training and self-instruction training materials to tribal environmental professionals. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.2) 

Regions should refer to the Compliance Incentives activities description in Section III.B -

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 

Final 78 June 2005 
EPA conducts almost all compliance monitoring activities in Indian country because the 

Agency currently retains direct compliance and enforcement authority for most federal 

environmental programs in Indian country -- until such time as an EPA-approved program is in 

place for such areas. OECA will continue to work with the regions to address compliance 

monitoring issues in Indian country, including the potential authorization of tribal inspectors to 

conduct inspections on behalf of EPA. Regions should direct questions about authorization and the 

Guidance to OECA’s Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division. EPA works closely 

with tribes in carrying out compliance monitoring activities by consulting with tribes on inspection 

priorities and schedules and sharing information where appropriate. 

Until tribal governments are delegated the authority to implement enforcement programs, 

EPA will inspect and, where appropriate, take enforcement actions in Indian country under its 

direct implementation authority against federal facilities, privately-owned and tribally-owned 

facilities. Consistent with the EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on 

Indian Reservations, and the Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian 

Policy, headquarters and regions will take enforcement actions when necessary if compliance 

assistance fails to correct violations at tribally-owned facilities in a timely fashion. 

Performance Expectations 

The regions will be asked to report on FY2005-2007 Tribal Performance Measures. 

Specific reporting requirements will be issued at a later date. 

A. Regional Enforcement Coordinators should be directly involved in discussing the types of 

projects to fund with EPA’s enforcement and compliance assurance tribal resources; these 

resources are distributed by OECA’s Compliance Assistance and Sectors Programs Division 

(CASPD) each fiscal year. EPA’s enforcement and compliance assurance tribal resources 

are available to directly or indirectly support the compliance assurance and enforcement 

program in Indian country related to: (1) solid waste landfills consistent with section 

8001(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and (2) activities 

consistent with a particular (or multiple) federal environmental statutory or regulatory 

provision(s). Regions use a variety of mechanisms - grants, contracts, cooperative 

agreements, and interagency agreements - to support these activities. 

B. Regional enforcement programs should report project summary and measurement 

information about the enforcement and compliance assurance tribal resources in work 

planning documents or similar reports back to CASPD. 

C. OECA is currently developing/adapting additional, appropriate performances measures. 

These measures will be consistent with the Strategy and the FY2005-2007 national and 

regional priorities. 

DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 

Complete and reliable information about the compliance status of facilities in Indian country 

Final 79 June 2005 
is important to the success of enforcement and compliance assurance activities. Accurate 

information enables EPA and tribes to understand and determine their enforcement and compliance 

priorities. In addition to encouraging tribes to input and maintain data, EPA intends to work with 

tribes to help ensure that national enforcement and compliance data systems provide the accurate, 

timely and relevant information needed for effective prioritization. In FY2005-2007 the regions 

should use data developed through regional inspections and existing EPA databases to help identify 

and address potential areas of noncompliance. 

Regions should enter the number and type of planned compliance assistance activities and 

outcome measurement projects into the compliance assistance module in ICIS and report all on-site 

assistance visits using the CACDS. 

SECTION V. FY2006 OECA Workplan Submission Instructions 

A. Annual Commitment System 

Following release of the final OECA NPM Guidance, regions should continue discussions 

with their states and tribes to determine draft numbers for the commitments contained in the 

guidance. Attachment A is a complete listing of all FY2006 OECA commitments. Current 

schedules call for regions to enter their draft targets into the annual commitment system by July 1, 

2005. NPMs can then review draft regional targets to ensure that all regional targets together “roll 

up” to result cumulatively in appropriate annual national targets. Headquarters and the regions will 

have approximately 2 months (July 1 through September 1) to resolve any issues and finalize 

annual regional targets. During this same time, regions will be engaging in negotiations with states 

and tribes to complete the grant process (PPAs, PPGs, and Categorical Grants), including 

translating regional targets into formal commitments supported by state-by-state agreements. All 

commitments should be final by September 30, 2005; all grants should be final by October 1, 2005. 

The lead time before annual targets and commitments are finalized helps to provide regions, 

states, and tribes maximum flexibility in determining their commitments. Ultimately, headquarters 

and regions will share responsibility for identifying and resolving any conflicts over program 

priorities that present implications for the annual regional commitments. Issues that have not been 

resolved will be elevated to OECA’s Acting Assistant Administrator for decision. 

B. Support and Training Requests 

NEIC 

The regions should continue to send their annual requests for specific civil inspection, 

investigative, and technical support to NEIC’s Civil Program Coordinator. NEIC will evaluate the 

requests in order to develop the final list and schedule of support activities. To initiate discussions 

necessary to plan and schedule appropriate enforcement support for FY2005-2007, NEIC would 

like to receive requests from the regions by August 1, 2005. It is important that NEIC receive all 

regional submissions by August 1, 2005 to allow for an examination of all projects in line with 

Final 80 June 2005 
resources. These requests should be as specific as possible, and include information to help NEIC 

determine whether they can provide the requested support. As completely as possible, this 

information should include: 

-- facility/project name and location;

-- desired enforcement support (type of investigation, technical assistance, information

request, etc.);

-- desired time frame (if critical);

-- desired outcome of project (enforcement, measurable environmental impact, corrective

action, settlement, compliance, etc.);

-- Regional/Headquarters priority(ies)/initiative(s) involved;

-- a brief description regarding how and why this particular facility/project was selected for

NEIC support; and

-- a name and phone number of a contact for additional information.

During the review of the requests, NEIC will have discussions with the various regional 

contacts regarding aspects of each request. The combination of information sent with the original 

request and that obtained during these discussions will enable NEIC to determine whether the 

requested support can be provided. The final decisions and commitments will be included in the 

negotiated workplans. 

If you have any questions regarding this process please contact either Gene Lubieniecki, 

(303) 236-6112, or Robert Tolpa (202) 564-2337. Please send NEIC support requests to both Gene 

and Robert. 

Gene Lubieniecki

Civil Program Coordinator

US EPA-NEIC

Denver Federal Center

Building 53, PO Box 25227

Denver, CO 80225

Robert Tolpa, Chief 

National Performance Measurement 

and Analysis Staff 

US EPA - OECA 

Ariel Rios Building - South 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

C. FTE Resource Charts 

Attachment B contains the FTE resource charts similar to the charts completed in previous 

planning cycles. The charts are organized by goal, objective and sub-objective and then crosswalked to the media program elements. The importance of the FTE Resource Charts has been 

growing significantly because of increasing interest from the Office of Management and Budget, 

the Inspector General and Congress. It is imperative that these charts be completed and submitted 

to Robert Tolpa and Lisa Raymer on September 30, 2005. 

2005 Enacted - This column should contain the region’s final FY2005 FTE allocation derived from 

the Agency’s FY2005 Enacted Operating Plan. 

Final 81 June 2005 
2006 Proposed - This column should contain the region’s proposed FTE allocation for FY2006. 

Headquarters recognizes that FTE levels may change after the Agency receives the FY2006 enacted 

budget after October 1, 2005. Therefore this number is a “best guess” estimate. 

Final 82 June 2005