June 19, 2007 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 National Program Manager Guidance 

FROM: Granta Y. Nakayama /s/ 

Assistant Administrator 

TO: Regional Administrators 

State Environmental Commissioners 

I am attaching the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance=s (OECA) FY 2008 

National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance. This guidance outlines OECA’s core program 

activities and their associated commitments and provides a brief overview statement on each of 

the national priorities. Development of the national priority implementation strategies for FY 

2008 is still ongoing, and the strategy implementation teams (SITs) are on target to complete the 

final problem statements and goals by the end of July. 

Regions are expected to enter their draft commitments for both the OECA core and 

national priority targets into the ACS by July 9, 2007. The core commitments are included in the 

FY 2008 NPM guidance in Attachment A. The SITs will be developing commitments for FY 

2008 in the next few weeks. OECA and the regions will have until September 21, 2007 to 

complete their negotiations and finalize all commitments in the system. 

There have been a number of activities over the past few months that impact the type and 

number of commitments that OECA will track in the annual commitment system (ACS) in FY 

2008. Since its inception in FY 2005, the ACS has been expanded to include measures with a 

broader Agency scope than the original programmatic commitments that OECA uses for the core 

and national program priorities, which have primarily been focused on inspections. Examples of 

measures that support wider Agency performance tracking include the senior management 

measures and state grant template measures. 

Additionally, OECA conducted an FY 2008 ACS measures reduction exercise earlier this 

year, making this the third year in a row that such an effort was undertaken. Based on feedback 

received from regions and states as part of this exercise, OECA reduced the number of FY 2007 
2
 


annual commitments by twenty one. The final FY 2008 NPM Guidance contains sixty-nine 

commitments. For the remaining commitments, every effort was made to clarify their language 

and to more clearly define the stakeholders for each commitment. 

 If you have questions about the Guidance or require additional information, please 

contact Nicholas Franco, Director, National Planning, Measures and Analysis Staff, by e-mail at 

franco.nicholas@epa.gov or (202)564-0113. 

Your continued commitment to achieving our enforcement and compliance assurance 

goals for FY 2008 is sincerely appreciated. 

Attachments 

cc: 	 Assistant Administrators 

Deputy Regional Administrators 

Catherine McCabe 

OECA Office Directors 

OECA Deputy Office Directors 

OECA Division Directors 

Regional Enforcement Division Directors 

Regional Media Division Directors 

Regional Counsels 

Regional ACS Coordinators 

Regional Compliance Assistance Coordinators 

Regional Tribal Coordinators 
Revised June 2008 

FY 2008 

Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA) 

National Program Manager Guidance 

1
Revised June 2008 

Executive Summary 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) - FY 2008 National Program 

Manager Guidance 

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 

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

breadth. The national program maximizes 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 an enormous and diverse universe of regulated 

entities. 

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

priorities and activities for the enforcement and compliance regulatory programs for FY 2008. 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 regional commitments for a specific level of 

activity for the fiscal year. These commitments 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. 

I. Updating National Priority Strategies 

OECA selects multi-year national priorities; the current set of priorities runs from FY 2005 through 

the end of FY 2007. OECA has solicited feedback from EPA regions, and from state and tribal coregulators through their regions, regarding priority areas for the FY 2008 – FY 2010 period. In 

addition, a Federal Register notice requesting feedback on our proposed FY 2008-2010 national 

enforcement and compliance assurance priorities was published on February 9, 2007. Feedback 

endorses OECA continuing the existing national priorities in FY 2008 – FY 2010 as described in 

Section II of this guidance. For priorities that continue, their goals and performance based strategies 

will be updated to reflect progress made and lessons learned during the first three years of 

implementation. 

II. Measures 

Based on feedback received from regions and states as part of the FY 2008 annual 

commitment streamlining exercise OECA reduced the number of annual commitments in this 

guidance by twenty-two over what appeared in the FY 2007 Guidance. In addition, a handful of 

2
Revised June 2008 

commitments were revised or clarifications were provided based on feedback from this exercise. 

Addition of OECA’s Senior Management Measures, and an expansion of measures 

included in the state grant templates has led to the addition of 8 new measures in the FY 2008 

Guidance. 

Many of the annual commitments in the measures appendix and activities associated with 

our core enforcement and compliance assurance program support regional priorities, such as 

concentrated animal feeding operations and tribal enforcement and compliance assurance. 

III. Tracking Progress 

The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance monitors progress toward annual 

commitments under each statute of our core program, at a minimum, at mid-year and at the end of 

a fiscal year based upon regional results entered in OECA databases, our Annual Commitment 

System, and data for national priorities. 

IV. Program Contacts 

For general questions or comments on the National Program Guidance for the Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance or our Annual Commitments in the Annual Commitment 

System please contact: 

Elizabeth Walsh 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

Office of Compliance 

National Planning, Measures, and Analysis Staff 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, M2221A 

Washington, DC 20460 

Email: Walsh.Elizabeth@epa.gov 

SECTION II: ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE NATIONAL PRIORITIES 

OECA will continue the majority of our existing national priorities for the period of FY 

2008-2010. The performance-based strategies are in the process of being updated, and these 

updates will be posted on OECA’s web site at the following address: 

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

The Petroleum Refining National Priority met its primary goal of addressing 80% of U.S. 

refining capacity by the end of FY 2006 and was returned to the OECA Core Program at the 

beginning of FY 2007. Any additional activity to address the remaining 20% of the Petroleum 

Refining Sector will be carried out as part of the Core Air Program. 

3
Revised June 2008 

National Priority: Financial Responsibility 

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 Apolluter 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 revealed that there are significant issues related to compliance with 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) in Federal Register comments on our FY 2008-2010 national priorities. 

EPA has phased-in its approach in the examination of compliance and enforcement 

financial responsibility issues under the federal laws. OECA initiated the 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). In FY2008, EPA will continue with RCRA Subtitle I (UST) efforts initiated in 

FY2006. These efforts focus on working with trade associations and other stakeholders to provide 

compliance assistance in states which do not have approved programs. 

National Priority: Wet Weather 

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 combined sewer overflows (CSOs), 

sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO), and stormwater 

run off. EPA’s wet weather priority strategies focus on key environmental risks and 

noncompliance problems in each of these areas. 

SSOs pose a substantial risk to public health and the environment – the raw sewage in 

SSOs contains a host of pollutants (bacteria, viruses and other pathogens, oil, pesticides, debris) 

and can cause serious water quality problems. There is also a high potential for human exposure 

from SSOs due to their location in communities and the frequency of occurrence (often SSOs 

occur in parks, city streets, and backyards, or backup into homes and commercial establishments). 

4
Revised June 2008 

Like SSOs from separate sewer systems, CSOs, which are composed of both polluted stormwater 

and untreated human and industrial waste from combined sewer and storm water systems, are a 

significant cause of water quality impairment and often affect parks, beaches, backyards, city 

streets and playgrounds. CSOs are a major cause of beach and shellfish bed closures and 

advisories, as well as fish kills and can contribute to pathogens in quantities that exceed water 

quality standards. Discharge of nitrogen, phosphorous and fecal coliform bacteria from CAFOs to 

water bodies can occur through poor maintenance of waste lagoons, inadequate design, 

construction, operation, or storage and containment of animal waste, excessive and improper land 

application of manure, and excessive rainfall resulting in spills and leaks from manure 

management areas. Discharge of stormwater runoff can significantly impact water quality. 

Several studies reveal that storm water runoff from urban areas includes a variety of pollutants, 

such as sediment, bacteria, organic nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals, oil, and grease. These 

pollutants harm the environment and public health. The discharge of stormwater runoff from 

construction activities (e.g., land development, road construction) can have significant impact on 

rivers, lakes, and wetlands. Construction alters natural landscapes. During construction, earth is 

compacted, excavated and displaced, and vegetation is removed. These activities increase runoff 

and erosion, thus increasing sediment transport to receiving waters. In addition to sediment, as 

stormwater flows over a construction site, it picks up other pollutants like debris, pesticides, 

petroleum products, chemicals, solvents, asphalts, and acids, which may also contribute to water 

quality problems. 

National Priority: Air Toxics - Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

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 promulgated approximately 90 MACT 

standards. After establishing MACT standards, 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 the compliance dates, ensures that 

regulated entities clearly understand new requirements and that guidance and compliance 

assistance tools are available to regulatory agencies and the regulated community. 

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

distributing the substantial MACT implementation workload between headquarters and the regions 

through a regional Adopt-a-MACT program was the objective of this national priority. Through 

the program, the regions adopted MACT standards and developed compliance monitoring and 

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

implementation tools, such as inspector check lists, applicability flowcharts and compliance time 

lines. With compliance dates in place for more than 40 MACT standards, and implementation 

tools available for the majority of these standards, the focus of the Air Toxics priority shifted from 

primarily a compliance assistance and tool development effort to compliance monitoring and 

enforcement beginning in FY 2005. 

5
Revised June 2008 

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

New Source Review (NSR) requirements in the CAA ensure that the construction of new 

sources or modification of existing air pollution sources does not jeopardize attainment of National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in non-attainment areas. Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) requirements ensure that the influx of new air pollution sources do not 

degrade areas with relatively clean air. 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, VOCs, 

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 coal-fired utilities, 

refineries, and other industrial facilities, reveal that many facilities fail to obtain permits or install 

necessary controls for modifications subject to NSR or PSD.. 

National Priority: Mineral Processing 

The mishandling of mineral processing wastes causes significant environmental damage 

and results in costly cleanups. These highly acidic wastes cause fish kills and elevate levels of 

arsenic and cadmium in residential wells. Evidence gathered in recent inspections indicates that 

mineral processing facilities are failing to obtain the necessary permits and adequately manage 

waste. 

Environmental impacts caused by the mineral processing and mining sectors are 

significant. The mineral processing sector generates more wastes that are corrosive or contain 

toxic metals than any other industrial sectors. Over the past decade, many of the facilities that 

manage these wastes, due either to noncompliance with state or federal environmental 

requirements or legally permissible waste management practices, create groundwater, surface 

water, and soil contamination. In addition, the Agency has many mineral processing and mining 

sites on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) and, along with states, undertakes expensive 

cleanups using other authorities. Environmental damages are especially prevalent in mineral 

processing and mining operations and often include severe impacts on water supplies and wildlife. 

Damages tend to be more pronounced at large scale operations, however, some small facilities also 

cause significant environmental damage. Many facilities are in close proximity to populations, 

and the health risk to people living near these facilities is of significant concern to EPA. 

National Priority: Tribal 

Significant human health and environmental problems, associated with several media 

programs, are present in Indian country and other tribal areas where tribes and tribal members 

have recognized rights and interests protected by treaty, statute, judicial decisions, or other 

authorities, including Alaska (hereinafter referred to as “Indian country and other tribal areas”). 

There are currently 565 federally-recognized Indian tribes (tribes) in the United States responsible 

for almost 77 million acres of land in Indian country and other tribal areas. While tribes can 

6
Revised June 2008 

maintain their own environmental protection programs and can seek program approval for certain 

federal environmental programs, EPA generally directly implements federal environmental laws in 

Indian country. As such, the tribal priority focuses on a variety of environmental compliance 

issues and seeks to identify and ensure compliance at facilities in Indian country and other tribal 

areas. 

The tribal strategy’s primary goal is to significantly improve human health and the 

environment in Indian country through EPA working with tribes on compliance assistance, 

compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities. Increasing the quality of Indian Country 

facility data and information from tribes on off-reservation non-compliance problems will enable 

OECA and the regions to establish baseline information and target compliance assistance, 

compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities. To build tribal capacity, EPA continues to 

focus on providing high quality compliance assurance and enforcement training to tribal 

environmental professionals and increasing the number of tribal inspectors authorized to conduct 

inspections on behalf of the Agency. The increased number of EPA-authorized inspectors, on-site 

compliance assistance visits, and EPA inspections should lead to an increased number of 

inspection reports submitted to EPA and a subsequent number of compliance determinations. 

SECTION III: CORE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 

Core activities implement elements of environmental laws and 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, and 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 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 all directly impact the regions= contributions to national core and 

priority activities. 

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 to 

address specific environmental risks and noncompliance patterns. In using these tools in the 

national program, there are certain fundamental activities and requirements for all core program 

areas. 

7
Revised June 2008 

A. Guidance: Compliance Assistance (Sub-objective 5.1.1) 

Compliance assistance includes activities, tools, or technical assistance that provide clear 

and consistent information for: 1) helping the regulated community, including regulated entities in 

Indian country, understand and meet obligations under environmental regulations; and 2) helping 

other compliance assistance providers 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, state, and tribal 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 

February, 2007, Guide for Addressing Environmental Problems: Using an

 Integrated Strategic Approach). 

• 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 into the compliance 

assistance module of the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS). For 

completed CA projects, report all outputs and outcomes into ICIS. For on-site visits 

and revisits, the Compliance Assistance Conclusion Data Sheet (CACDS) can be 

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

• Conduct appropriate measurement activities to collect outcome information for 

8 
Revised June 2008 

direct assistance activities to determine increased understanding, improved 

environmental management practices, and pollution reduction outcomes achieved as 

a result of the compliance assistance provided. Often collecting outcomes requires 

follow up communication. 

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

assistance workshops/training, on-site 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. 

9
Revised June 2008 

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

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

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

on-site 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; 

• Continue partnerships with industry, academics and environmental groups to support 

the fifteen sector-specific Compliance Assistance Centers; initiate the development 

of a sixteenth Compliance Assistance Center to support the food-processing sector. 

• Explore collaborative opportunities between the Compliance Assistance Centers and 

EPA Program Offices to develop and promote compliance assistance resources. 

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

success stories. 

B. Guidance: 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 compliance incentive programs, compliance auditing protocols, 

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

pollution in the environment 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. 

EPA promotes the use of the Audit Policy and focuses on corporate-wide auditing agreements to 

implement the Policy, assess and maintain compliance, consolidate transactions, and maximize 

penalty certainty. EPA also is exploring ways to encourage audits and disclosures that achieve 

significant environmental outcomes, and to increase the focus on these disclosures, as well as ways 

to improve Audit Policy implementation. Under various Compliance Incentive Programs (CIPs), 

individual entities or members of a sector 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 

maintains a level playing field for companies, and raises company awareness concerning 

environmental issues. 

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

10 
Revised June 2008 

compliance incentives: 

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

problem, with emphasis on violations that impact areas with environmental justice concerns, and 

violations that, once corrected, are likely to result in measurable pollution reductions. 

• Promote EPA=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 

regulatory agencies identify entities for enforcement investigation or response. 

• Consider and follow-up on, as appropriate, self-disclosures submitted under the EPA 

Audit Policy and Small Business Policy. 

C. Guidance: 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, 

oversight, and review of delegated compliance assurance and enforcement programs (reference to 

delegated includes authorized programs or programs where a state or tribe has primacy) and 

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

for commitments made in previous years, including case preparation and enforcement support. 

The core compliance monitoring program includes a number of specific activities. 

Compliance monitoring comprises all regulatory agency activities 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 enforcement orders and settlement 

agreements. EPA documents and files compliance determinations using various methods (e.g., 

databases, inspection reports). Compliance monitoring activities occur before and at the point 

when either compliance or an actual violation is determined. Review and oversight of authorized 

compliance assurance and enforcement programs continues throughout the year. 

Examples of important compliance monitoring activities include: 

Inspector support 

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

(1440.1, 1440.2, etc.); 

• 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; 

11
Revised June 2008 

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

pursuant to the September 30, 2004 memorandum entitled Guidance for Issuing Federal 

EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of State/Tribal Governments to 

Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA and the August 5, 2005 memorandum Process for 

Requesting EPA Credentials for State/Tribal Inspectors Conducting Inspections on 

EPA's Behalf to ensure state inspectors are trained and credentialed. 

Monitoring planning and execution 

• developing compliance monitoring strategies that include targeting and information 

gathering techniques; 

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

(including sampling as necessary), surveillance, and civil investigations in all the 

environmental media (air, water, waste, toxics, wetlands, etc.) in both authorized and 

non-authorized programs; 

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

entities, and non-governmental organizations; 

• identifying potential environmental crimes through the civil compliance monitoring 

program, and referring to the Regional CID area; 

Data collection, review, and reporting 

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

• 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; 

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

databases; 

• reporting the outcomes of on-site inspections and evaluations using the Inspection 

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

compliance monitoring activities; 

Program coordination/review/oversight/support 

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

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

facilities and ensuring that the implementation of their programs are in accordance with 

statutory requirements and EPA policy (see also EPA State Relations for more detail); 

• 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; 

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

grants; 

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

12
Revised June 2008 

inspectors; 

• performing compliance screens for various headquarters and/or state/tribal 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); and 

• Conducting reviews under the State Review Framework (SRF). 

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

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

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. Information sharing and cooperation between 

EPA’s civil and criminal programs, consistent with all legal requirements, is critical to the success 

of the Agency's overall enforcement program. Each region must establish and operate a civil/ 

criminal case screening and coordination process. Civil and criminal enforcement personnel 

should not only conduct regularly-scheduled meetings, but should also meet on an ad hoc basis to 

receive debriefings related to significant and recently-completed inspections. In particular, 

attention should be devoted to information sharing related to the following types of cases: (1) 

National Enforcement Priority cases/inspections; (2) regional enforcement Priority 

cases/inspections; (3) Multimedia inspections/cases; (4) Cases involving violations at multiple 

facilities; (5) Cases/ Inspections involving large and sophisticated corporations whose violations 

have demonstrable environmental impact; (6) and cases involving facilities categorized as SNC, 

HPV, or another category of repeat "bad actor." 

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) guidance (where these exist), applicable penalty policies, the 

Final Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy, implementation of the Watch List 

13 
Revised June 2008 

project, and the SRF; 

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

necessary actions to ensure continued compliance; 

• entering 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 FY2008 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 B including cases or aspects of cases that were initially 

developed for administrative or civil enforcement but later reveal potential criminal 

wrongdoing B 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. 

D. Guidance: Technical Support and Training 

NETI - The National Enforcement Training Institute is committed to the continuing 

assessment of emerging training needs, strengthening its role as a clearinghouse for training 

information within the enforcement and compliance assurance program, exploring cost effective 

means of delivering both classroom and distance training, and working with regions and HQ 

offices to develop a strategic approach to enforcement and compliance assurance training. NETI 

also continues its role as developer, coordinator, publisher, and trainer for federal, state, local and 

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

tools for environmental compliance and enforcement. 

In 2006, NETI and the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Training Council decided that reestablishing a network of key players from the regions and OECA was important to effective 

training and continuous learning in the program. Communication and information exchange is 

vital to make these training relationships successful. Better exchange of information and reporting 

about training activities in the enforcement and compliance program promotes efficiencies, 

opportunities and reliability; NETI is in the best position to serve as a national clearinghouse for 

14
Revised June 2008 

enforcement and compliance training information. This network may also discuss and evaluate 

training needs and develop mechanisms to communicate about current and future training needs. 

All regions and OECA Offices designated contacts – for legal and nonlegal training interests – 

with the following roles: 

• serve as a voice, advocate, and source of expertise on enforcement and compliance 

training for the office; 

• have direct access to senior leadership on training matters; 

• coordinate and report requested training information from their office and report 

pertinent information to the office; 

• participate in regular training meetings/conference calls; and 

• assist in planning for enforcement and compliance training events held for and/or 

offered by the office (or delegate others to assist). 

In 2008, regions are asked to support this network in the following: 

• Assist the region representatives to identify training needs and carry out other informal 

information surveys for the network and the parallel legal training network; 

• Share strategic plans developed by a region for enforcement and compliance assurance 

training; 

• Consider announcing courses offered by the region on NETI’s website 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/training/neti/index.html, especially courses open to other 

regions’ attendance; 

• Work with NETI staff to ensure the accuracy and quality of data reporting for training 

activities (see below). 

NEIC - The civil and criminal enforcement programs draw upon the scientific and technical 

expertise of the NEIC in compliance monitoring and enforcement activities in both the national 

priority and core program areas. Assistant Administrator priorities , the Agency Strategic Plan, the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), and the national goals effort also guide NEIC 

project selection. Furthermore, NEIC will examine 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., multi-disciplined teams, 

in-depth process evaluations, complex analytical procedures, etc.). 

E. Guidance: Data Quality and Reporting 

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

assure this information is a useful tool to manage the program and to reliably report on 

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

information focuses on two areas: data quality and reporting. Data quality, accuracy and 

completeness are also elements of the SRF, and through Framework reviews, regions should 

ensure that states enter all required data into the national systems of record in a timely way. 

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

15 
Revised June 2008 

establishing the office’s 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 

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 (AEnsuring 

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., within two weeks after occurrence of the activity), 

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

accuracy, and 

• distribution of monthly ICIS manager reports, 

• In addition, other steps implemented to provide guidance to ensure data integrity include 

IPOD (ICIS Policy on Demand), a desktop accessible and searchable repository of 

information on data entry to ICIS 

OECA issues an annual Enforcement and Compliance Reporting Process memo each fiscal 

year that provides core and national priority reporting requirements, GPRA measures, 

schedules/deadlines, contacts, etc. This memo is OECA’s 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) in all media program areas (e.g., CAA, CWA, FIFRA, TSCA, CERCLA). 

Regions must enter all federal enforcement cases in ICIS, the database of record, and also 

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

actions must also be entered into ICIS and applicable CACDS data should be entered into ICIS. 

For CAA, RCRA, and CWA/NPDES inspections in states not yet migrated to ICIS-NPDES, the 

legacy systems (e.g., AFS, RCRAInfo) are the data base of record for Federal inspections, 

violations, significant violators (SNCs)/high priority violators (HPVs); ICIS-NPDES is the 

database of record for federal inspections for all states that moved from PCS to ICIS-NPDES, 

however, many regions also enter inspections into ICIS. Beginning in FY 2007, all federal TSCA, 

FIFRA, and EPCRA 313 compliance monitoring information previously tracked in and reported in 

the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System/National Compliance Data Base (FTTS/NCDB), is now 

reported into ICIS. See the September 29, 2006 memo regarding closure of the FTTS/NCDB 

database and use of ICIS for FIFRA and TSCA compliance monitoring and enforcement activities. 

Enforcement activities that, in the past, appeared in both ICIS and FTTS/NCDB no longer need to 

report information on enforcement activities in FTTS/NCDB, because ICIS replaces these legacy 

systems for the tracking of all federal activities. 

An October 11, 2005 memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Administrator of OECA, 

entitled “Entering Manually Reported Federal Inspections into ICIS” established ICIS as the 

16
Revised June 2008 

official database of record for all federal inspections and associated Inspection Conclusion Data 

Sheets (ICDS) information previously reported manually. This means that OECA will no longer 

accept manually reported inspections, and will pull federal inspection and ICDS results for the 

following programs from ICIS: RCRA Underground Storage Tanks, EPCRA 313, EPCRA non313, CWA Oil Spill Prevention (SPCC), CWA Wetlands, CWA NPDES (EPA and state 

inspections conducted in states migrated to ICIS-NPDES), CAA Mobile Sources, CAA Asbestos 

and Demolition, FIFRA, SDWA PWSS Inspections, SDWA UIC, CWA Pretreatment Industrial 

Users (IUs), and TSCA. Regions have the option to either enter ICDS data into ICIS or report 

manually using the Regional Mid-Year and End-of-Year Excel Reporting Workbook for the 

following media programs, which still employ the legacy database for inspections: CAA 

Stationary Sources (AFS), RCRA Hazardous Waste (RCRAInfo) and CWA NPDES (for EPA and 

state inspections conducted in states not migrated to ICIS-NPDES). 

Until a state or tribe with EPA-program approval successfully transitions over to use of the 

ICIS-NPDES system, the Permit Compliance System (PCS) will remain the database of record. 

Once a successful transition to ICIS-NPDES takes place, ICIS-NPDES will be the database of 

record. Enter minor data into PCS or ICIS-NPDES for regional, state, and tribal activities at 

majors traded for activities at national priority minor facilities (e.g., inspections). 

Since FY 2007, regions and headquarters offices will be expected to enter information into 

ICIS or a comparable data system regarding civil judicial, non-CERCLA consent decrees to 

demonstrate that EPA is effectively monitoring compliance with the terms of these decrees. This 

requirement applies only to consent decrees entered by a court after October 1, 2006. This action 

is in response to a 2001 Inspector General Report that encourages enhancement of efforts by the 

Agency to monitor compliance with enforcement instruments. Information regarding data entry 

into ICIS and a more detailed description of evaluation of measure performance will be issued 

separately. 

Training, Data, and Reporting 

Regions and OECA offices are encouraged to provide timely and accurate mid-year and endof-year reports of compliance and enforcement training activities through the national data 

reporting process. In FY 2008, NETI will work with the regions to enhance the reliability, 

consistency, and efficiency of this reporting process. Training data are compiled into an annual 

Training Accomplishments Report (available from Ray Brown at Brown.Alphonso@epa.gov), and 

are analyzed in order to inform needs assessments, strategic planning, and project development. 

F. Guidance: EPA State Relations 

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 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 

17
Revised June 2008 

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

country. In July of 2005, full implementation of SRF was initiated with the goal of completing 

reviews of all states and territories by the end of FY2007. At the beginning of FY2008 (i.e., 

October 2007), OECA will work with its partners to conduct an evaluation of the first full cycle of 

SRF implementation. This evaluation will be completed by the end of calendar year 2007. Regions 

are expected to begin the second round of evaluations in January 2008 and complete that round by 

the end of FY2010. 

The elements, criteria and protocols of the SRF are consistent with the 1986 ARevised 

Policy Framework for State/EPA Enforcement Agreements@ and the media-specific enforcement 

response policies, compliance monitoring strategies and penalty policies. These reviews constitute 

the primary mechanism by which regional oversight of state enforcement programs should be 

carried out in the three media programs. These reviews should be an integral part of the 

regional/state planning process. State/regional commitments for program improvements should be 

captured and tracked in appropriate negotiated PPAs, PPGs, or categorical grant agreements 

between the region and the state, 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 include a schedule in those agreements that incorporates the SRF process 

as part of program review activities using no more than a three year cycle for any state. Regions 

that have states submit proposals under Element 13 should consult with OECA on whether or not 

credit can be granted. 

The second cycle of reviews will begin January 2008 and end in September, 2010. During 

FY2008, regions should plan to review the states where the most significant issues were identified 

the first review cycle. Annual Commitment System (ACS) measures associated with the SRF will 

include the number of reviews completed within a Fiscal Year (compared to the number of states 

and territories under the region=s jurisdiction). Reports, data metrics and analysis, 

recommendations and benefits arising from Framework reviews should be entered by the region in 

the Lotus Notes SRF Tracker database upon completion of a review, and will continue to be 

tracked and managed by OECA. 

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 regions manage. 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, 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 EPA to 

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 

18
Revised June 2008 

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 need to consider 

these new and upcoming policies when preparing assistance agreements with states. 

Standardized Template for State Grant Agreements 

In order to improve program effectiveness and enhance accountability, OMB requires EPA 

to develop a standardized template for states to report and submit the results from state grant 

agreements. This request only covers continuing environmental grants, not project grants. To 

address the OMB requirement the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of 

Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, and the Office of Grants and Debarment 

convened a workgroup to develop such a template. Final guidance on state grant templates 

appears on the following web site: http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/template.htm. 

The OECA grants covered by this requirement are: FIFRA Pesticide Enforcement Grants, 

TSCA Asbestos Grants, TSCA PCB Grants, and TSCA Lead Grants (see Attachment B). The 

templates include performance measures for the respective grants, and demonstrate the linkage 

between activities funded by the grant and the Agency Strategic Plan. These templates must be 

included in all state grant agreements in FY 2008. It is expected that most of the data for the grant 

template measures will be reported into the Annual Commitment System. The grant templates for 

the most part use existing measures, and states are expected to maintain all other data flows 

required by the programs in order to maintain good program management. 

Innovative Programs 

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

 Regions, states, and tribes are encouraged to consider implementation of innovative projects for 

the 2008 planning cycle. EPA=s Innovation Action Council (IAC) endorsed three priority 

innovations for Ascale-up,@ (i.e., full scale implementation) and recommended 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/innovation. Regions, 

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

program goals. OECA works closely with the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovations on 

one of the Agency-wide programs, the National Environmental Performance Track Program 

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

three relevant guidance memos: AEnforcement and Compliance Operating Principles for the 

National Performance Track Program,@ January 19, 2001, ANational Environmental Performance 

Track Program,@ April 23, 2002, and “National Environmental Performance Track Program,” 

October 29, 2003. In support of PT, the regions, states, and tribes (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 

19
Revised June 2008 

coordination with state and tribal partners to the fullest extent possible. The region will assess the 

findings against the PT entry criteria, and make recommendations as to the appropriateness of each 

facility=s participation. 

One of the incentives offered through PT is the Agency=s commitment to consider all 

participating facilities as Alow 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 and tribal partners in 

their performance agreements and work plans. “Low priority for routine inspections” should not 

be interpreted to mean that regions should not inspect PT facilities. A memorandum clarifying the 

implementation of low priority for routine inspections is being developed by OECA and will be 

available in FY2007. A list of the PT facilities in each region that are eligible for a low-inspection 

priority will be available from the Regional PT Coordinator. 

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, or tribal 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 

http://www.epa.gov/permits/ 

G. Guidance: Planning for Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) and RCRA Corrective Action Enforcement Program Commitments 

Superfund enforcement and RCRA Corrective Action are covered under Goal 3 of the 

Agency’s Strategic Plan. It is important for regions to address Superfund and RCRA Corrective 

Action program commitments for Goal 3. EPA develops and conveys national program direction 

for Superfund activities through the Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment Planning (SCAP) 

process. RCRA Corrective Action is in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

(OSWER) NPM Guidance. 

The commitments for Superfund enforcement 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 annual commitment system. The 

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

The commitments for RCRA Corrective Action address two RCRA environmental indicators 

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

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

20
Revised June 2008 

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

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

annual commitment system and accomplishments are reported manually. 

21
Revised June 2008 

National Program Core Requirements: 

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. Requirements: 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 Acore program@ varies somewhat from program to program. 

Therefore, in order to provide clarity, shared core program elements are listed Section III: 

“Guidance Applicable to all Core Programs,” while this section includes descriptions of 

compliance and enforcement activities unique to each water program. Regions should refer to 

both sections for complete details on all 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 and tribes with primacy implement adequate core 

program requirements. 

All CWA programs share the following core program requirements and should be 

implemented by regions, including direct implementation in Indian country, 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 

22
Revised June 2008 

in areas with environmental justice concerns; 

• 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. 

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, which includes Indian country and delegated state programs. The regulations found at 

40 CFR 123.26(e)(5) indicate: AState NPDES compliance evaluation programs shall have 

procedures and ability for . . . inspecting the facilities of all major dischargers at least 

annually.@ The new policy to guide the use of NPDES inspection resources [also know as the 

NPDES Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS)] is not final at the time of issuance of the FY 

2008 National Program Managers Guidance. Upon issuance of the new NPDES CMS, OECA 

will provide any necessary additional guidance and timetables for transition from the goals 

contained in the FY 2008 National Program Managers Guidance to the goals in the new policy. 

 At the discretion of the regional offices, regions and states may begin to develop long term 

inspection goals and plans that incorporate the general approaches contained in the January 26, 

2007 draft of the CMS. 

In FY 2008, the NPDES inspection year used for negotiating commitments, inspection 

coverage, etc. based on the EPA fiscal year will begin on October 1, 2007 and end on September 

23
Revised June 2008 

30, 2008. 

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. State coverage of major and minor facilities is a major 

component of the SRF. 

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.i 

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 in 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 proper state inspection conduct and documentation. The 

documents also clarify that oversight inspections are not "joint" inspections. 

24
Revised June 2008 

Oversight inspections should be conducted in coordination with the SRF. Oversight 

inspections provide valuable insight into the quality of a state inspection program, and help target 

reviews under the SRF and further explore identified issues. 

25
Revised June 2008 

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 report these 

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

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 biosolid 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 

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. 

The EPA/State Enforcement and Compliance Data Standards workgroup defines 

investigations as: Aan 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. 

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

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

the universe, since OW flagged this issue as a program deficiency. 

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. 

26
Revised June 2008 

Section 404 (Wetlands) 

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

to illegal activities. Since only two states and no tribes 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., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.) 

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

Response Plan (FRP) Program 

CWA Section 311 provides statutory authority for program implementation and 

enforcement. However, responsibility for program implementation (including most of the 

compliance monitoring and compliance assistance responsibilities) resides with the Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response/Office of Emergency Management at headquarters and, 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 maintain and implement the required Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasures (SPCC) plans and/or Facility Response Plans (FRP). Typically, regions should 

check compliance monitoring at facilities subject to SPCC or FRP requirements to ensure that 

plans are adequate, meet the regulatory requirements, and are implemented as shown by a 

commitment to resources and training. In light of continuing concerns regarding chemical safety, 

regions should also ensure that some FRP facilities are targeted for compliance monitoring and 

compliance assistance considering that these facilities have large quantities of oil and may have a 

close proximity to population centers and/or critical infrastructures (such as drinking water 

intakes). 

Enforcement 

NPDES Program 

The underlying tenet of the enforcement program is that each violation deserves some type of 

enforcement response. Guidance on the appropriate response to different types of violations is 

contained in the Enforcement Management System http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/ 

policies/civil/emscwa-jensen-rpt.pdf. Regions are expected to evaluate all violations, determine an 

appropriate response per the EMS, and take that action. Regions 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 

27
Revised June 2008 

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. 

State, and where they exist, tribal SNC identification and enforcement responses are major 

components of the Watch List and the SRF. Regions should monitor state performance through 

these tools and the use of OTIS management reports. 

Section 404 (Wetlands) 

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

Activities. 

CWA Section 311 (SPCC & FRP) 

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

Activities. 

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. 

Regions should conduct an SRF review of their states’ and territories’ NPDES compliance and 

enforcement programs by the end of FY 2010. 

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 state programs for evaluating local control authority operation 

during the FY 2008 period of this Guidance. If problems regions discover problems, the regions 

should take appropriate action. 

28
Revised June 2008 

Wetlands 

Since only two states and no tribes have 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., U.S Army Corps of Engineers, NRCS, Fish and 

Wildlife Service). 

CWA Section 311 (SPCC & FRP) 

Regions should routinely review the program to determine if the risk of spills from oil storage is 

being adequately addressed by reviewing the Emergency Response Notification System database 

and, reviewing SPCC inspection reports and results of Expedited Settlement Agreements and other 

enforcement settlements to determine if routine non-compliance is being addressed. 

Please refer to the Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance core program narrative in 

Section I for additional core program requirements. 

B. Requirements: Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Program 

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

assistance and enforcement commitments for annual workplans. 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, including all of Indian country except for those tribes with primacy. 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 Operational Database System (SDWIS/ODS) 

is the main database system used by EPA, states, and tribes with primacy to track public 

drinking water systems. The modernization of SDWIS/ODS was completed in 2006. 

• Based upon discussions with the regions a “Fixed Base” SNC/Exception List will be 

generated from the frozen July SDWIS database. The list will include PWSs of all sizes 

and types. Using this list the regions will commit to a specific number of systems that the 

region along with their states and tribes with primacy will address or resolve between July 

2007 and June 2008. The regions do not need to specify the names of PWSs that they plan 

to address. 

29
Revised June 2008 

• The regions, states, and tribes need to all address actions in SDWIS by June 30, 2008, so 

the numbers achieved will be available for the October End-of-Year results 

• The expectation is that the regions will work primarily with the states and tribes with 

primacy to ensure that they are addressing SNC/Exceptions. The regions should not have 

to address all the SNC/Exceptions themselves. 

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

new exceptions until such a time as a standardized pull is developed for use in the 

modernized SDWIS/ODS data system. The regions can use the quarterly data to determine 

if recently identified SNCs are higher priorities than some SNCs listed on the Fixed Base 

List. When these high priority SNCs are addressed by a region or state, these count toward 

the regional commitment number for the Fixed Base List as a substitute for systems on the 

July Fixed Base list. 

• Regions will report to headquarters at midyear on the number of PWSs addressed from the 

fixed base list and the number of PWSs addressed. 

• It is possible that OECA will develop and implement a new SNC/ERP policy and that 

negotiations may have to take this into consideration. 

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, states, and tribes with primacy 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/ODS 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 

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 and new rules. 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 

30
Revised June 2008 

states and tribes to do likewise. 

We encourage the regions to use the Local Government Environmental Assistance Network 

(LGEAN) (http://www.lgean.org), the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse 

(http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/), and the National Environmental Compliance Assistance 

Clearinghouse (http://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 Ameasures@ 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 and tribes to measure state compliance assistance performance and should 

facilitate states= and tribal 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. 

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 I). 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. 

31
Revised June 2008 

32 
Revised June 2008 

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 or tribes. 

Enforcement 

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. 

Commitment SDWA02: States and EPA will address or resolve Public Water Systems listed on a 

‘Fixed Base’ SNC/Exceptions list. It is recommended that high priority systems be substituted for 

lower priority systems on the fixed base list. The regions should provide a break out number by 

state in the comment field 

DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 

Efforts to assess the quality of the data in the SDWIS/FED indicate that the data in the 

system are highly accurate, but many violations are not in the system. As a recent Inspector 

General Reportii notes, data verifications conducted on violation 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 (and regions for 

Indian country), 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/ODS, ICIS, or on a CACDS, in accordance with this 

guidance. 

• Number of public water system SNCs that return to compliance as a result of an on-site 

compliance assistance visit and which were not the subject of a reported enforcement follow 

33
Revised June 2008 

up activity. 

• Number of small and tribal public water systems in violation that receive direct compliance 

assistance, subsequently return to compliance, and are not the subject of a reported 

enforcement follow up activity. 

• Number of public water systems that receive compliance assistance. 

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program 

Regions, states, and tribes with primacy are expected to ensure that all required data is 

entered or uploaded into SDWIS/ODS, including federal facilities as applicable. Regions with 

direct implementation programs, including those with authority for implementing the drinking 

water program in Indian country, are expected to enter the data. If regions direct implement any of 

the new drinking water regulations, they must ensure that the required data is in SDWIS/ODS. 

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 successfully accepted in SDWIS/ODS. All PWSS federal enforcement cases should be entered 

into both ICIS and SDWIS/ODS. Regions should report sanitary surveys into ICIS as compliance 

assistance activities. 

All federal inspections, including those that previously reported manually, must be entered 

into ICIS in FY 2008. Separate guidance on sanitary surveys is in a December 9, 2005 

memorandum from James Edward and Steve Heare directing the regions to report sanitary surveys 

into ICIS as compliance assistance activities. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program 

To ensure adequate program oversight, regions should review data in the SDWIS/ODS and 

review other information on compliance available to the region. 

In evaluating regional performance, OECA will look at: 

• the number of SNCs identified in the fixed based SNC/Exception list 

• the number of SNCs addressed from fixed base SNC/Exception list 

• the number of SNCs addressed from quarterly data which were identified as higher 

priority 

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 

34
Revised June 2008 

review other available information which suggests the existence of Class V well or wells. Based 

on review of this information, appropriate inspections or enforcement actions should be targeted. 

C. Requirements: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Program 

EPA, states, and tribes have complementary roles in pesticide enforcement. 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. States and tribes, working with EPA under cooperative enforcement agreements, 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. EPA directly implements primary use enforcement responsibility in Indian country. 

However, regions are expected to follow up on all referrals received from headquarters, states, and 

tribes. 

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, as appropriate, authorizing state and tribal inspectors to conduct FIFRA inspections on 

behalf of EPA and providing training and grants oversight. Regions should refer to the Federal 

Facilities section (Section I) 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 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, stored, or disposed of, and must be 

informed how to properly handle and apply pesticides. 

In FY 2008, implementing the recommendations of the Worker Protection Standard 

Program Review Report will be a program focus. In addition, two new areas will be priorities for 

the pesticide compliance and enforcement program. These are implementation of the recently 

promulgated pesticide container/containment rules, and endangered species enforcement. 

Ensuring that the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are fully integrated into the 

pesticide enforcement cooperative agreements will continue to be a significant regional and 

headquarters focus. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-Objective 5.1.1) 

Although there is no target for compliance assistance activities, assistance is an appropriate 

35
Revised June 2008 

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) 

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 areas where there is no coverage through 

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 or tribe 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 FIFRA-FED1: Project regional (federal) FIFRA inspections. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

Each region should conduct state and tribal 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 and tribal 

inspectors. 

The FIFRA Cooperative Enforcement Grants are covered by the new OMB requirement to 

include a standardized template for reporting results in state grant agreements. The templates are 

for use by the regions to report their state and tribal grant results. A copy of the FIFRA template is 

in Attachment B. 

Please refer to the Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance core program 

narrative in Section I for additional core program requirements. 

36
Revised June 2008 

D. Requirements: Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (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, states, 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. Targeting facilities that did not report and meet 

reporting criteria is a general area of emphasis. 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 

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 

37 
Revised June 2008 

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. 

E. Requirements: Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Program 

The Agency=s TSCA program consists of four major elements: Acore TSCA@; PCBs; TSCA 

Asbestos, which includes , Worker Protection Standards, the Model Accreditation Plan program 

and other requirements; and lead-based paint. Title III Radon activities will not be covered in this 

section 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-Objective 5.1.1) 

Compliance assistance is an important focus for the TSCA AHERA program in FY 2008. 

The EPA-supported Schools Compliance Assistance Center will be the primary vehicle for 

providing compliance assistance, with regions participating where resources permit. For leadbased 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 meet the 2010 goals. 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. 

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 

38
Revised June 2008 

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 Core federal TSCA inspections for regions 

maintaining an investment in core TSCA (sections 4, 5, 8, 12 and 13). 

PCBs 

In FY 2008, the regions should use their enforcement resources to focus on 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 to identify facilities which failed to register. Enforcement follow-up to 

violations detected as a part of these inspections should promote, where possible, the retirement of 

39
Revised June 2008 

PCB transformers through Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs). Tips and complaints 

should be followed-up as appropriate. 

The regions must ensure that authorization agreements, which authorize employees of state 

and tribal governments to conduct inspections on EPA’s behalf are in place with states/tribes that 

receive TSCA Compliance Monitoring grants for PCBs programs (except those states with 

identical laws and regulations). Regions must ensure that state and tribal inspectors who inspect 

on behalf of EPA are trained and credentialed according to the September 30, 2004 memorandum 

entitled Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of 

State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA. Also, please see the August 

5, 2005 memorandum for the Process for Requesting EPA Credentials for State/Tribal Inspectors 

Conducting Inspections on EPA's Behalf. In addition, regions must review inspection reports from 

states and tribes and provide feedback per the September 30, 2004 guidance. Feedback should 

address the quality of the inspection/reports and the action taken by the region. 

During FY 2008, regions will be expected to continue: targeting disposal facilities every 

three years (i.e., inspect one third of the facilities in their region); responding to tips/complaints 

and environmental incidents involving PCBs; following up on food/feed contamination referrals; 

conducting oversight inspections; investigating building renovations where PCB caulking is found; 

and addressing regional PCB priorities. Regions should work with states/tribes operating under 

TSCA compliance monitoring grants to address these priorities as well as state/tribal priorities. 

Regions that award TSCA compliance monitoring grants to states/ tribes are reminded to submit 

mid-year and end-of-year grant evaluation reports to OC. 

In order to improve the efficiency of PCB inspection data, the National Compliance 

Monitoring Policy Branch in conjunction with Region 5 PCB inspectors and state of Indiana PCB 

inspectors developed an MS Access program for use on Tablet computers to collect on-site 

compliance monitoring data and prepare various PCB-specific forms and inspection reports. 

OECA strongly encourages the regions and states that inspect on behalf of EPA to conduct 

inspections using the PCB Inspection software and hardware. The final version of the software 

should be available for distribution to the regions and states by July 1, 2007. 

Performance Expectations 

During FY 2008, regions should continue to inspect 33% of regional PCB commercial 

storage and disposal facilities. If the region will not inspect 33% of the commercial storage 

and disposal facilities, the region must explain its decision in the comments field. In 

addition, HQ requests that the regions report the total number of planned PCB inspections 

other than those at commercial storage and disposal facilities in the comment field of 

TSC03 in the Annual Commitment System. 

Commitment TSC03: Inspect 33% of the PCB commercial storage and disposal facility 

universe. 

40
Revised June 2008 

TSCA (asbestos) 

Compliance assistance will be an important focus of OECA activity for the TSCA AHERA 

federal program in FY 2008 with a secondary focus on traditional enforcement as 

appropriate. For FY 2008, the regions are expected to ensure inspection coverage in each 

state by either EPA, SEE, or state/tribal inspectors. In addition, the regions will continue 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 

TSCA statute, Subchapter II, Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response, Section 2647 – 

Enforcement, paragraph (d) Citizen complaints states: 

. . . .If the Administrator or Governor receives a complaint under this 

subsection containing allegations which provide a reasonable basis 

to believe that a violation of this chapter has occurred, the 

Administrator or Governor 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 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/tribe as appropriate and track it through resolution; or 2) 

obtain additional information, e.g., through phone calls, and inspect, if appropriate. Special 

attention should be given to tips alleging asbestos contamination at schools. Inspections 

should address charter schools, public schools, private schools, and religious schools. 

Inspections may be conducted for the Model Accreditation Plan, Worker Protection 

Standards, and other Section 6 regulations. In addition, the regions have flexibility to 

determine the appropriate number of oversight inspections. Also, regions that award TSCA 

compliance monitoring grants to states/tribes are reminded to submit mid-year and end-ofyear state grant evaluation reports to OC. 

Where applicable, the regions should encourage states/tribes to apply for the Awaiver@

program. The regions must ensure that authorization agreements, which authorize employees of 

state and tribal governments to conduct inspections on EPA’s behalf are in place with states/tribes 

that receive TSCA Compliance Monitoring grants for TSCA Asbestos (non-waiver states only). 

Regions must ensure that state and tribal inspectors who inspect on behalf of EPA are trained and 

credentialed according to the September 30, 2004 memorandum entitled Guidance for Issuing 

Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of State/Tribal Governments to 

Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA. Also, please see the August 5, 2005 memorandum for the 

Process for Requesting EPA Credentials for State/Tribal Inspectors Conducting Inspections on 

EPA's Behalf. In addition, regions must review inspection reports from states and tribes and 

provide feedback per the September 30, 2004 guidance. Feedback should address the quality of 

the inspection/reports and the action taken by the region. 

Performance Expectations 

41
Revised June 2008 

During the FY 2008 national guidance period, HQ is asking the regions to ensure 

compliance monitoring activities are undertaken in each state and in Indian Country. The 

compliance monitoring activity can be met by regional inspections or having states inspect on 

behalf of the regions. HQ will rely on the regions to determine the number and mix of compliance 

monitoring activities to be conducted in each state. 

Commitment TSCA05: Report the number of federal TSCA asbestos inspections. HQ 

requests the regions report the number of AHERA inspections to be conducted by states in 

support of compliance monitoring activities, by state, in the comment field of TSCA05. 

If the region cannot perform some level of compliance monitoring coverage in each state, 

whether it is the region or the state on behalf of the region, the region 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); 

OECA will discuss with regional toxics managers at national meetings, scheduled 

conference calls, and one-on-one conversations with individual regions the commitments, midand end-of-year results, and inspection priorities. 

Lead-Based Paint Program 

The national lead-based paint (LBP) program will focus on meeting the 2010 goals 

established in the President’s Task Force report by developing and implementing an integrated 

strategy which will include the full range of compliance assistance, incentives, monitoring and 

enforcement tools, working with HUD, states, and tribes, as appropriate. The regions are 

encouraged to develop an integrated strategy that includes methods to better target compliance 

activities, such as partnering with state/tribal and local health care providers to identify 

geographical lead poisoning “hot spots.@ Targeting may include establishing the baseline universe 

of lead poisoned children within a hot spot, with the goal of reducing the number of such children 

through compliance and enforcement. 

The region’s current compliance and enforcement scheme and resources (including SEEs) 

should focus primarily on Section 1018 Disclosure Rule violations. Secondary focus should be 

applied to violations in non-authorized state and tribal areas for the Section 402 Abatement, 

Training and Certification Rule; and the Section 406(b) Pre-renovation Notification Rule. 

Enforcement of Sections 402 and 406 in non-authorized states also should be coordinated with 

appropriate oversight of authorized state/tribal 402 and 406 programs. Headquarters broadened 

the language in the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) guidance so the regions can work 

with the authorized programs to fund a full range of compliance and enforcement activities and not 

just compliance monitoring activities. 

42
Revised June 2008 

In addition to targeted efforts, regions should screen for appropriate follow-up tips and 

complaints alleging potential 1018 violations, and Sections 402 and 406 violations in nonauthorized states and tribal areas. 

Performance Expectation 

In states without authorized Section 402 programs, regions should conduct targeted 

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 available compliance and 

enforcement resources. 

Commitment TSC10: Number of 1018/402/406 federal inspections. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

OECA and the regions should evaluate the overall effectiveness of the federal TSCA 

compliance and enforcement program to ensure the most efficient and effective utilization of 

resources possible. These analyses should address whether TSCA compliance and enforcement 

activities address program priorities; utilize effective targeting strategies; identify and take 

appropriate enforcement action on violations; prioritize and track tips and complaints; assess 

appropriate penalties; have written procedures/guidelines consistent with Agency policy to guide 

activities; have adequate QA/QC programs in place; offer adequate inspector training; inspectors 

comply with the EO 3500.1 training requirements; and accurately report data to the appropriate 

data systems in a timely manner. 

The TSCA Asbestos Grants and the TSCA Lead Grants are covered by the OMB 

requirement to include a standardized template for reporting results in state grant agreements. The 

templates are for use by the states to report their state grant results. A copy of the TSCA Asbestos 

Grants and the TSCA Lead Grants template are in Attachment B. 

Please refer to the Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance core program narrative in 

Section I for additional core program requirements. 

F. Requirements: Clean Air 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 FY 2008 planning cycle, the MACT and NSR/PSD programs may continue as 

priorities, and the discussion of, and performance expectations for, those programs is in Section II 

43
Revised June 2008 

- 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, 

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. Regions 

should conduct the SRF in each of their states and territories by the end of FY2010. Regions 

should coordinate SRF and CMS reviews to maximize efficiencies and avoid any duplication of 

effort. Regions should also ensure that delegated programs implement programs consistent with 

delegation agreements and that states meet grant work plan commitments. Both the SRF and the 

CMS require the regions to evaluate whether states/locals meet their commitments, and in those 

cases where states/locals did not, determine why not, and make adjustments for the following year. 

Regions should use available SRF data when conducting CMS analysis of state/local compliance 

monitoring programs as a whole including whether: adequate inspector training is available; an 

appropriate mix of compliance monitoring techniques is being used; all available data is being 

used; and regions are able to quantify the impact of the compliance monitoring program on 

parameters such as compliance rates; specific and general deterrence; and moving beyond 

compliance. 

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 

44
Revised June 2008 

completed, and a compliance determination is made, all evaluations should be reported into the 

national database of record, AFS, within 60 days per the 2005 AFS ICR. 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 encourage those states 

and tribes with program approval, which include a step in the evaluation process to ensure the 

evaluation is completed before reporting the information into AFS, to initiate this step shortly after 

the evaluation is completed. States and tribes should not wait to complete and report the 

evaluation until the end of the fiscal year. 

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 

initiate new ones as appropriate. These activities should be reported in AFS. This is a minimum 

data requirement in the AFS ICR. 

During the FY2008 time frame, special emphasis should be placed on implementing the 

National Stack Testing Guidance. The guidance is a 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 stoppage and 

postponement of tests. 

During the first year of implementation, this guidance served 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 

became final on September 29, 2005, and reflects any necessary changes stemming from the oneyear 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 

45
Revised June 2008 

(i.e., where states negotiate 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 negotiations 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; 

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). This is a minimum data requirement. 

If the states/locals or tribes 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 FY2008. 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 one46 
Revised June 2008 

on-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 SRF and 

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 into AFS 

within 60 days per the 2005 AFS ICR, 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 results 

of all FCEs and negotiated PCEs into AFS within 60 days per the 2005 AFS ICR, 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, delegated states/locals, and tribes 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/tribes/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 

received each year, as well as all renewals. Regions should ensure that Title V permits do not 

shield sources subject to a pending or current CAA enforcement action or investigation, and that 

draft Title V permits include appropriate placeholder language for the applicable 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, states and tribes with program approval should report results of 100% of 

certification reviews consistent with CMS and the MDRs identified for the program. 

47
Revised June 2008 

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. 

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 one-on-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) focused on ensuring that regulated sources submit the required Risk 

Management Plans. Regions currently focus on 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; 

• accident history of facility or industrial sector. 

Performance Expectation: 

Regions should conduct CAA 112 (r) RMP inspections and may include periodic 68.220 

audits as part of an overall program to determine compliance. Regions should perform inspections 

at 5% of the total number of regulated facilities in the region during FY 2008. If the program is 

delegated to a state, tribal or local agency, the regions should work closely with the delegated 

agency to avoid duplication of effort. OECA will collect information and discuss these activities 

48
Revised June 2008 

with regional managers during national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and one-on-one 

conversations with individual regions. 

Commitment CAA11: Conduct inspections at 5% of the total number of facilities in the region 

required to submit RMPs. 

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 or 

Indian reservation, transboundary issues, recalcitrant violators, etc.), or is essential to ensure fair 

and equal environmental protection mandated by law. 

For all cases newly listed in accordance with the APolicy 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 SRF reviews, 

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 FY2008 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 

49
Revised June 2008 

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 the CMS, the HPV Policy, and the ICR for the program. A 

summary of the requirements is on 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 agencies are familiar with 

the data aspects of the CMS, the HPV Policy, and the ICR, and implement delegated programs 

consistent with these policies. This is critical since the structure of the air program is different 

than other media programs in 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. 

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 

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 

50
Revised June 2008 

Regions should review state CAA stationary sources’ compliance and enforcement 

programs under the SRF, and in coordination with the CMS. Consistent with the SRF, the CMS, 

and HPV Policy, regions should assess annually the performance of compliance monitoring 

programs and enforcement activities against the negotiated and agreed upon grant work plans to 

ensure that commitments are met. In addition to the Framework review, regions should conduct 

more in-depth CMS analyses of the overall CAA compliance monitoring programs periodically to 

ensure the most effective and efficient use of resources possible. 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 conference 

calls, the Watch list, grant workplan 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 SRF Overview and Implementation Guide, 

and 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 CAA19: Consistent with the CMS, regions should conduct at least one indepth evaluation of a delegated program per year and provide the written results to 

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. 

Please refer to the Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance core program narrative 

in Section I for additional core program requirements. 

G. Requirements: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (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. To help 

ensure this, regions and states should capture the outcomes. All identified non-compliance with 

RCRA Subtitle C should be addressed by the Agency in accordance with its policies governing 

enforcement and compliance monitoring. 

51
Revised June 2008 

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 include all of Indian country. Federal compliance 

assurance and enforcement activities complement state activities, where and as appropriate. State 

activities are to be monitored through various mechanisms including the implementation of the 

SRF, the Watch List, and the annual commitment system. Regions should refer to the federal 

facilities Section I of this guidance for information on how to include federal facilities in core 

program activities where applicable. 

Core Program Elements 

• In general all RCRA inspections identified in this guidance should be thorough 

inspections that cover the complete facility. For example, a facility that is a TSD, 

generator and transporter should have a Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) that 

covers all of the requirements not just the TSD requirements to be counted as an 

inspection for purposes of meeting the commitments. 

• 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; 

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 

52
Revised June 2008 

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): 

S 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 violations.iii 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 had a release requiring corrective action). These 

non-compliant USTs gain 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 and provide oversight of state 

activities, where and as appropriate. Federal compliance assurance and enforcement activities, 

however, cover all of Indian country because RCRA precludes EPA from authorizing tribal UST 

programs. Regions should, therefore, implement the UST program in Indian country. 

NOTE: The UST Compliance Act of 2005 includes a number of new provisions regarding 

compliance monitoring and enforcement. The statute requires EPA and the state RCRA Subtitle I 

programs to conduct RCRA 9005(c)(1) inspections at 100% of the universe of underground storage 

tanks (USTs) that were not inspected from December 22, 1998 through August 8, 2005, and to 

complete these inspections by August 8, 2007. In addition, all USTs must be inspected every three 

years thereafter. EPA established a workgroup to produce guidance on meeting this requirement, 

and additional guidance will be forthcoming. For FY2008, regions should also focus on 

53
Revised June 2008 

implementing the “Strategy for an EPA/Tribal Partnership to Implement Section 1529 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005.” http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/Tribal%20Strategy_080706r.pdf. 

Regions should refer to the federal facilities section of this guidance (Section I) for guidance 

on including federal facilities in core program activities where applicable. 

54
Revised June 2008 

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 in Indian country and 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) 

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 utilize the tools available, such as 

the SRF, OTIS management reports, and the Watch List to monitor state performance, and also 

maintain a federal presence in the hazardous waste core program, including program 

implementation in Indian country, conducting the compliance monitoring activities set forth in 

commitments RCRA01 and RCRA02 below. Part II sets forth the requirement of Federal only 

inspections. 

 In light of continuing concerns regarding threats to human health and the environment 

posed by improper management of hazardous waste, regions and states should focus their 

compliance monitoring efforts on the following: 

• never inspected LQG generators; 

• facilities that are the subject of citizen complaints; 

• non-notifier facilities believed to generate hazardous waste; 

• persons that generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose of significant quantities of 

55 
Revised June 2008 

hazardous wastes, in particular those in proximity to population centers or 

environmentally sensitive areas; and 

• 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 adhere to the guidelines below. 

Performance Expectations 

The states and regions should work together to determine the appropriate mix of federal and 

state compliance monitoring activities to meet hazardous waste core program activities. Regions 

should work with tribes to determine the appropriate range of compliance monitoring activities in 

Indian country. In making determinations, each region should examine the compliance status of 

facilities within the region. For facilities that are multiple types (e.g. a facility that is a TSD, 

generator, and/or transporter), a CEI is deemed to be complete only when all aspects of that facility 

have been completed. Additionally, if a facility is a TSD as well as a generator and/or transporter, 

it is counted as a TSD for universe coverage. 

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. This is a coverage commitment so 

multiple inspections of the same facility count as only one inspection. For RCRA01 

and RCRA01.s, commitment levels are based on the RCRAInfo operating universe 

for TSDFs. Pursuant to RCRA Section 3007(e), TSDFs must be “thoroughly” 

inspected (i.e., a compliance evaluation inspection for operating TSDs). 

Commitment RCRA01: Project by state the number of TSDFs to be inspected by the 

region during the year. The regions must commit to inspecting at least 2 TSDFs in each 

state unless approval is obtained from headquarters to deviate from this requirement. 

Commitment RCRA01.s: Project by state the number of TSDFs to be inspected by the 

state during the year. 

Note: In addition to the CEIs expected for most of the TSDFs, groundwater monitoring evaluations 

(GMEs) should be conducted at any new or newly regulated land disposal facility, defined under 

'3004(k). Once it is determined that a groundwater monitoring system is adequately designed and 

installed, an operation and maintenance (OAM) inspection may become the appropriate ground 

56 
Revised June 2008 

water monitoring inspection. More frequent GMEs should be conducted in situations involving 

complex compliance or corrective action requirements; inadequate groundwater monitoring 

systems, significant changes to groundwater monitoring systems, and actual or suspected changes 

in local groundwater regimes. For TSDFs that are no longer in the operating universe but still have 

requirements to comply with, it is expected that the Regions/states will inspect (e.g., CEI, GME or 

OAM) those facilities every three years. 

B. EPA mandated inspections – 

S Annually inspect at least 20% of the large quantity generator (LQG) universe, so that 

the entire universe is inspected in five years unless approval to deviate from this 

requirement is approved as described below. The LQG universe is the total number 

of generators that reported in 2005 BRS (or if data in RCRAInfo is acceptable, the 

full enforcement universe for LQGs). This is meant to be a coverage commitment so 

multiple inspections of the same facility count as only one inspection. The regions 

are required to capture the outcomes of inspections and any follow-up enforcement 

in ICIS and are strongly encouraged to require the states to report the outcomes of 

their inspections and any follow-up enforcement actions in addition to reporting the 

number of inspections. These outcomes include approximate quantities of waste 

which were confirmed to being handled in accordance with the appropriate 

regulations and quantities of waste which were not being handled properly at the 

time of inspection but are now being handled properly because of complying actions 

taken by the regulated facilities and updating the generator status of the regulated 

facilities as necessary. 

Commitment RCRA02: Project by state the number of LQGs to be inspected by the region 

during the year. The regions must commit to inspecting at least 6 LQGs in each state unless 

approval is obtained from headquarters to deviate from this requirement (generally a 

reduced commitment is allowed where the generator universe in the state is small). These 

LQG inspections should be compliance evaluation inspections (CEIs).iv 

Note: The regions are encouraged to perform these inspections in the following areas: 

national priority sectors, to support state referrals, to address illegal recycling, entities with 

violations in more than one state, environmentally sensitive environments, areas with 

environmental justice concerns, and particularly recalcitrant violators. 

Commitment RCRA02.s: Project by state the number of state LQGs to be inspected during 

the year under state authority. Inspections should be identified by inspecting agency. These 

inspections should be CEIs. Only one inspection per facility counts towards this coverage 

measure. At least 20% of the LQG should be covered by combined federal and state 

inspections unless approval is obtained to deviate from this requirement. 

States may seek approval of pilot projects that allow for flexibility from the requirement in 

RCRA02.s to inspect 20% of the LQGs in order to improve the outcomes of their compliance 

57 
Revised June 2008 

assurance activities. To obtain flexibility, each state must present a plan to the Region which in 

consultation with Headquarters, will approve, ask for modifications or deny approval of the 

alternative plan. Complete guidance for developing an alternative plan will be issued under 

separate cover, but the alternative plan must include, as a minimum: 

• A description of the overall level of effort (inspections) and how it will decrease from the 

standard 20% LQG inspection approach; 

• The scope of the inspections to be conducted (e.g., the number of each type of generator to be 

inspected, industrial sectors to be focused on, etc.); 

• The expected outcomes from the alternative approach; and 

• A plan to measure the actual outcomes to show that the flexible approach is or is not achieving 

the desired outcomes. 

Part II. Federal Core Only 

A. Statutory mandated inspections -

1. State or Local Government Operated Facilities 

Commitment RCRA03: The regions are to annually inspect each treatment, storage or 

disposal facility operated by states or local governments as required under SWDA '3007(d). 

Pursuant to RCRA Section 3007(d), TSDFs operated by a state or local government for 

which a permit is required must be thoroughly inspected (i.e., generally a compliance 

evaluation inspection). The same type of RCRAInfo evaluations will be counted for this 

measure as is counted for RCRA01. 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I Program 

Regions should work with states and tribes to assure compliance with UST requirements. 

EPA should continue to focus its federal inspection resources in areas that 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 for inspection 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 endanger sensitive ecosystems or 

58
Revised June 2008 

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 violator=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 endangerment posed by solid waste, hazardous waste, and underground 

storage tanks. Regions should refer to the appropriate EPA policies and guidance regarding the use 

of this authority. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

RCRA Hazardous Waste Subtitle C Core Program 

For evaluating program performance, EPA will utilize the SRF as one of the tools to 

conduct consistent reviews of the monitoring, enforcement, data quality, accurateness, and 

completeness in the RCRA Subtitle C program. EPA will utilize activities and results reported to 

RCRAInfo and ICIS to conduct regional and state reviews, so timely entry into the database is 

critical. EPA will review whether the regions and states meet 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), the amount and type of 

penalties assessed, and the response time taken to address the identified non-compliance, is 

appropriate. In particular, as the EPA is looking to quickly address 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 SNCs identified (and percent of universe); 

59
Revised June 2008 

$ 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 to ensure compliance (e.g., significant operational compliance (SOC). 

Please refer to the Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance core program narrative in 

Section I for additional core program requirements. 

H. Requirements: Federal Activities Program 

The Federal Activities core program for FY 2008 focuses on 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 identification, elimination, or mitigation of significant 

adverse effects. 

NEPA Compliance and ACross-cutters@: Carry out EPA=s responsibilities to comply with 

NEPA and Across-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, for states/tribes without authorized NPDES 

programs; off-shore oil and gas sources, including permits for deepwater ports, EPA laboratories, 

and facilities; and Clean Water Act wastewater treatment plant grants. 

Prepare environmental assessments (EISs or EAs) for Special Appropriation grants 

(including the Colonias Wastewater Construction and Project Development Assistance programs) 

60
Revised June 2008 

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 enter 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 

• 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. 

• 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. 

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 transboundary 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. 

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 the review, recommend consent or objection to 

61
Revised June 2008 

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 with the Bureau. 

I. Requirements: Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance Program 

Background 

As an integral process of EPA’s on-going efforts to improve environmental compliance at 

the approximately 8,000 regulated federal facilities nation-wide, FFEO and the Regional Federal 

Facilities Program Managers/Staff developed this updated Core Program Guidance for FY 2008. 

The FY 2008 activities outlined below advance the goals outlined in the attached National Federal 

Facilities 2008 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 directed 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 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, geographicallybased inspection “sweeps,” etc.). As in the past, FFEO is willing to discuss changes necessitated 

by particular regional conditions. All Federal Facility activities will be measured using the relevant 

Conclusion Data Sheets and counted in achieving OECA’s overall goal of a five percent increase in 

the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, and achieving a five percent increase in the 

number of regulated entities making improvements in environmental management practices. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-objective 5.1.1) 

Compliance assistance remains a vital tool in abetting improved environmental compliance 

62
Revised June 2008 

at federal facilities. With continuing budgetary constraints, it is imperative that compliance 

assistance efforts be leveraged through others and targeted efforts to support priority areas, which 

include the Federal Facility Integrated Strategy areas (listed below). With respect to Environmental 

Management Systems (EMSs), EPA supports continual improvements in federal EMSs, in 

particular by including Environmental Management Reviews (EMRs) in integrated strategies where 

appropriate, including EMS improvements in enforcement action settlements and providing EMSrelated compliance assistance during multimedia and single media inspections at Federal facilities. 

FedCenter, the multi-agency independent federal facility environmental compliance 

assistance and stewardship center, is pivotal to future collaborative compliance assistance efforts. 

FedCenter serves as the catalyst for increased cooperative compliance assistance efforts both within 

EPA and other federal partners. In FY 2007 federal agencies completed initial electronic 

submissions related to the EMS scorecard. In FY 2008, expanded use of FedCenter for EMS 

reporting activities is expected as a result of new requirements related to the new Executive Order 

issued on January 24, 2007. 

 Performance Expectations 

• Compliance Assistance Activities 

Each region shall conduct at least two compliance assistance activities (such as a seminar, 

training, workshop, education/outreach activity, etc.) to support the Integrated Strategy areas. These 

compliance assistance activities can be developed for delivery through the region or through 

FedCenter. If regions do not initially use FedCenter to deliver the assistance, FFEO strongly urges 

the regions to provide assistance to FedCenter to reach additional facilities. 

Commitment FED-FAC01: Each region shall conduct at least two compliance assistance 

activities for Federal facilities to support the integrated strategy areas. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-objective 5.1.2) 

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

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 

 Performance Expectations 

• Multi-Media Inspections 

Each region must conduct two multi-media inspections to support the Integrated Strategy 

areas. Regions may substitute four single media inspections in lieu of one of their two multi-media 

inspections. FFEO encourages providing EMS-related compliance assistance during these 

inspections. 

63
Revised June 2008 

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 elapse between an inspection by one 

program and subsequent inspection by another program. 

Commitment FED-FAC03: Each region must conduct two multi-media inspections to support 

Integrated Strategy areas. Regions may substitute four single media inspections in lieu of one of 

their two multi-media inspections. 

• Annual inspections of Federal RCRA treatment, storage, or disposal facilities as required 

by RCRA Sec. 3007(c) 

For FY 2008 OECA deleted an annual commitment for regions to inspect Federal RCRA treatment, 

storage, or disposal facilities required by RCRA Sec. 3007(c). This deletion does not eliminate the 

statutory annual inspection requirement for Federal TSDFs of RCRA Sec. 3007(c). 

Single media inspections 

Each region shall perform six single media inspections of Federal facilities to support the 

Integrated Strategy areas. These inspections are in addition to any single media inspection 

conducted under multi-media inspections above. FFEO encourages providing EMS-related 

compliance assistance during these inspections. 

Commitment FED-FAC05: Number of Federal facility single media inspections to be conducted 

by EPA to support Integrated Strategy areas: CWA/NPDES Storm Water; Federal Laboratories; 

and Federal Underground Storage Tanks. 

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 sections. These 

inspections may, however, simultaneously satisfy inspection commitments required in other OECA 

core program guidance (e.g., the requirement for inspection of 100% of all major NPDES 

facilities). 

ENFORCEMENT 

FFEO strongly encourages the regions to take swift and meaningful enforcement actions to 

improve compliance at Federal facilities. For FY 2008, Federal Facility resources should focus on 

taking appropriate and timely enforcement actions, as defined within relevant media-specific 

policies for each federal facility 1) inspected as a result of FFEO’s multi-media Inspection Initiative 

or 2) inspected as a consequence of FFEO’s Integrated Strategies efforts. Where appropriate, 

FFEO advocates including EMS improvements and Supplemental Environmental Projects as part of 

enforcement action settlements. 

64
Revised June 2008 

Regions should continue reporting Federal facility CERCLA Records of Decision (RODs) 

into ICIS, first begun in FY 2006. It is especially important to report the substantial environmental 

benefits that result from those RODs. Guidance on calculating those benefits is in “Final 

Methodology for Estimating Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Case Conclusion Data Sheet 

(CCDS) Environmental Benefits” dated December 12, 2003. Instructions for inputting benefit data 

into ICIS is in the ICIS Policy on Demand (IPOD) database. 

 INTEGRATED STRATEGIES 

Integrated strategies that align enforcement, compliance, and stewardship activities toward 

maximum effect, 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. 

1. NPDES Storm Water Integrated Strategy 

 Stormwater: In FY 2008 FFEO will continue to implement its Federal Facility Stormwater 

Strategy as part of OECA’s National Stormwater Strategy. The strategy focuses on construction 

activities at Federal facilities and integrates compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, and 

enforcement to improve stormwater compliance. In addition to providing compliance tools, 

including model Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) and resources on FedCenter to 

regulated Federal agencies, EPA is also advocating increased inspections of Federal facilities to 

determine compliance with permitting requirements, Best Management Practices (BMPs), SWPPPs, 

monitoring, and record-keeping requirements. 

Actions: For FY2008, the regions are asked to conduct as many Federal facility 

construction stormwater inspections as possible based on the targeting package sent to the regions 

in mid FY20 07. Working with a contractor, FFEO identified Federal construction projects and 

contracts awarded at federal agencies nationwide – with a special emphasis on those sites located 

near impaired water bodies. 

Where appropriate, the regions are asked to pursue enforcement actions against both 

contractors and federal agencies for stormwater violations. (FFEO developed a suite of informal 

enforcement tools for use against federal agencies. The ordinary complement of enforcement tools 

remain available for use against private contractors). The use of SEPs – particularly those that 

prevent quantifiable amounts of pollution – is strongly encouraged. 

Where possible, regions are further encouraged to work with FFEO to identify the 

underlying causes of federal facility noncompliance with stormwater. It is possible that through 

interagency negotiations, federal stormwater contracting language can be modified and increased 

use of Environmental Management Systems can be encouraged to prevent future noncompliance. 

In addition, FFEO requests that regions ensure that the appropriate conclusion datasheets 

65
Revised June 2008 

are filled out and entered in ICIS for each and every federal facility stormwater compliance 

assistance action, inspection, and enforcement action. Please utilize the outcome measures and the 

stormwater benefits calculators and report, at a minimum, the number of stormwater cases settled, 

pounds of sediment reduced, EPA-assisted inspections, training courses offered, and compliance 

assistance activities conducted. 

2. Federal Laboratories Integrated Strategy 

Background: EPA found a pattern of hazardous waste management problems in 

laboratories, including widespread and serious problems during its enforcement initiative involving 

labs at universities and colleges. EPA discovered chemicals stored well past expiration dates, 

research laboratories with wastes in damaged containers, and laboratory staff pouring used 

chemicals into sinks and drains connected to public sewage systems. In several instances, serious 

mismanagement and storage of very dangerous waste chemicals and sometimes storage with 

incompatible chemicals occurred. The expected benefits of this initiative include: improved 

management of laboratory chemical substances and wastes to prevent injury to humans and a 

negative impact to the environment, and leveraging limited resources to improve laboratory 

compliance. In addition, this initiative provides an opportunity for the federal laboratories to more 

effectively manage resources by improving laboratory practices and environmental management. 

Actions: EPA is planning to develop and offer Federal Laboratory compliance assistance. 

While there is a focus on assistance efforts in FY 2007, inspections at labs are always a possibility. 

 FY2008 - 2009 will see increased emphasis on inspections/enforcement. We believe a 

combination of assistance, inspections, and enforcement related activities encourages Federal 

laboratories to make environmental compliance a vital part of their environmental management 

systems. 

3. Federal Underground Storage Tank Strategy 

Background: The new provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 identify underground 

storage tanks (USTs) as a priority for enforcement, both in the private sector and in the Federal 

sector. For the Federal sector, Federal agencies are required to submit compliance status reports to 

Congress and the EPA Administrator by August 8, 2006. Based on the reported data, EPA and 

state regulatory agencies are required to ensure a strong inspection presence. 

Actions: The UST Integrated Strategy created a reporting infrastructure on FedCenter for 

federal agencies to document UST environmental compliance status. These compliance reports are 

currently being reviewed and analyzed to determine appropriate compliance assistance and 

enforcement actions to be taken, such as targeted compliance assistance activities. The strategy 

encourages self-disclosure under EPA’s Audit Policy. FFEO and the Regions will coordinate with 

state regulators in performing inspections consistent with the Energy Act and insure appropriate 

follow-up. 

NOTE: Where a region demonstrates that their Federal facilities universe is not applicable 

66
Revised June 2008 

for the Integrated Strategies, the regions are encouraged to work with FFEO through the Annual 

Commitment System to determine an appropriate substitute commitment. 

67
Revised June 2008 

DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 

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, compliance 

assistance activities) from the available database of record to serve as a basis for discussion within 

the region. Some data (e.g., multi-media inspections) must be reported manually by the region in 

order for FFEO to acknowledge progress on certain commitments. At the end of the fiscal year, 

FFEO will compile an end-of-the year summary to help evaluate the Federal Facility Program 

performance and document regional accomplishments (see specific reporting requirements of 

Attachment 5 of the March, 2006 Enforcement and Compliance Reporting Plan). 

Use of Self-Audits at Federal Facilities under the ACS 

EPA policy encourages regulated entities to conduct self-audits. If a region determines it is 

obtaining self-audit disclosures that are similar in scope and quality to an inspection, the region 

may request a reduction in their inspection commitments during the FY 2008 Annual Commitments 

(March-April, 2008) midyear modification process. In responding to such a request, FFEO would 

consult with other OECA program managers on the implications of such a change. 

J. Requirements: Multimedia and Rapid Response Program 

Environmental harm often occurs across air, water and land. The multimedia compliance 

and enforcement programs foster a comprehensive approach to the resolution of environmental 

problems because many facilities and companies operate in violation of more than one 

environmental statute. AComprehensive@ means compliance with the applicable provisions of all 

environmental laws used to achieve broad-based environmental benefits. A multimedia strategy to 

target and address compliance problems and environmental harm results in more effective overall 

management of a facility's or a company=s environmental liabilities and is generally more costeffective than bringing separate 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 Office of Civil Enforcement’s (OCE) Special Litigation 

and Projects Division develops novel enforcement and compliance incentive approaches to address 

complex and emerging environmental problems. 

The Agency was, and continues to be, successful in developing cases and initiatives that 

bring significant environmental results in all media. While it remains critical to be able to develop 

large scale, nationwide actions, capability for more rapid enforcement response is necessary in 

order to have a truly effective program. The objective of the Rapid Response Program is to Awork 

backwards@ from finding an environmental problem to reacting with targeted and streamlined 

enforcement approaches. 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 

68
Revised June 2008 

streamlined case development and a rapid response can produce significant environmental benefits. 

EPA anticipates that these actions will be in both administrative and judicial forums, and that EPA 

will partner with states and tribes 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. EPA may streamline 

cases, so that there are fewer counts against violators in order to obtain speedy resolution, reserving 

EPA’s right to bring additional actions or additional counts. 

Compliance Assistance (Sub-objective 5.1.1) 

The areas that warrant compliance assistance from Headquarter’s perspective appear in 

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 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 relies 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 with approval from the OECA Planning 

Council. 

69
Revised June 2008 

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 Abad 

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). 

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 EPA examines entire industrial processes at a facility 

as a whole; 

$ against entire companies, where violations of different statutes occur at various 

facilities indicating 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, tribal, and 

headquarters media teams. The focus will be on cooperation between SLPD, the regions, the media 

enforcement program and, where appropriate, the states and tribes 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, states, and tribes to identify potential areas for 

enforcement. In all instances, the goal will be the identification of potential harmful effects, and the 

70
Revised June 2008 

coordinated, rapid resolution of problems. 

Participation in Rapid Response Program Activities could entail the dedication and possible 

reprogramming of compliance monitoring resources with approval from the OECA Planning 

Council. 

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 Abad 

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). 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

State and tribal 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 form, 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 regions see 

fit, requesting Headquarters assistance and resources as appropriate. 

K. Requirements: Environmental Justice Program 

Executive Order 12898v 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, EPA accounts for these and other issues under the environmental statutes that 

it implements and enforces. For example, OECA already explicitly established environmental 

justice as a targeting factor under the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Actvi. Further, OECA established environmental justice as a penalty considerationvii and 

as a factor in approving Supplemental Environmental Projects in settlements.viii Additionally, each 

implementation strategy developed for an OECA national priority should include an element on 

environmental justice to ensure that minority and/or low-income groups and communities are not 

71
Revised June 2008 

disproportionately placed at risk from environmental and/or human health threats. 

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 EPA addresses the most significant impacts to 

human health and the environment 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 Policyix. This policy further underscores the importance of 

environmental justice in program implementation and encouraged that environmental justice be 

integrated fully into OECA’s planning and budgeting process and that OECA seek input from 

groups outside EPA on how best to incorporate environmental justice into OECA’s work. 

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 

each headquarters program office and region to develop Environmental Justice Action Plans. These 

documents are prospective planning tools that identify measurable commitments to address key 

environmental justice priorities. These strategic planning documents coordinate the environmental 

justice activities of the Agency and establish a basis for accountability and monitoring progress. 

In 2005, the Executive Steering Committee directed that the Action Plans should: 

1. Follow EPA’s current Strategic Plan architecture to enhance the alignment of the Agency’s 

environmental justice activities with its overall planning and budgeting processes; and 

2. Include, as objectives to be addressed through the Action Plans: (a) areas of focus for each 

of the Regional or Headquarters Offices (e.g., Regional or Headquarters Program Office 

priorities); and (b) as applicable, the eight (8) specific national environmental justice 

priorities, as later identified in the EPA Administrator’s memorandum of November 4, 

2005. These national environmental justice priorities were identified as critical issues of 

nation-wide concern and are also addressed in the Agency’s FY 2006 - 2011 Strategic Plan 

of particular significance to OECA is ensuring compliance, which falls under Goal 5.x 

The Action Plans for 2007-2008 include strategies and activities to help ensure that the Agency’s 

efforts to address these priorities reach communities with potential environmental justice concerns. 

Annual commitments, regional workplan commitments, and state performance partnership 

agreements (or similar EPA-State/Tribe Agency agreement) and grants for FY 2008 should be 

consistent with OECA’s and each region’s respective Environmental Justice Action Plan. 

72
Revised June 2008 

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 noncompliance problems and the 

conditions and health of the resident population. 

For the last two years, OECA has been working to create an assessment tool known as the 

Environmental Justice Smart Enforcement Assessment Tool (EJSEAT) to help identify areas with 

potential environmental justice concerns. It builds upon the original guidelines of Smart 

Enforcement and the policy set-out in the “Toolkit for Assessing Allegations of Environmental 

Injustice.” This analysis tool will help OECA programs to consistently define areas and facilities 

with potential environmental justice concerns based on a set of health, environmental, compliance, 

and social demographics information. OECA anticipates that EJSEAT will greatly enhance its 

ability to protect minority and low-income communities, as well as other burdened populations, 

from adverse human health and environmental effects. In addition, OECA expects the new tool to 

help to more fully integrate environmental justice into all of its priorities, programs, policies, and 

activities. OECA has developed a prototype version of the EJSEAT that is available for testing on 

the OTIS web site. The EJSEAT will not be finalized until OECA obtains internal and external 

peer review of the tool. Expected to be operational in FY 2008, EJSEAT will provide 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 EJSEAT 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 

73
Revised June 2008 

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 the region 

sought and 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 noncompliance problems and 

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. The Strategy 

Implementation Teams (SITs) for the national priorities should include an environmental justice 

element. 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 and considered, 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 and decision-making 

processes; 

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 

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 

74
Revised June 2008 

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...); 

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; and 

9) Environmental justice-related activities should be reported to the appropriate tracking 

mechanisms and corresponding databases (e.g., Environmental justice Progress reports, 

Case Conclusion Data Sheets, etc.) 

Enforcement Actions 

If an inspection identifies violations consult the EPA Supplemental Environmental Projects 

Policy, the Guidance for Community Involvement in SEPs, 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 Planning, Policy, Analysis, and Communications, and the Office of Environmental Justice can be 

valuable sources of information to assist in integrating environmental justice issues into any 

regional enforcement program. 

OECA is committed to regularly assessing the effectiveness of our programs. Regular 

program evaluation is the best way to assure continuous program improvement and desired program 

performance. On September 18, 2006, EPA’s Office of Inspector General issued a final evaluation 

report entitled EPA Needs to Conduct Environmental Justice Reviews of Its Programs, Policies, 

and Activities. The report observes that, “No Agency-wide guidance exists on environmental 

justice program or policy review.” EPA has come to realize that a more systematic, broader-scale 

approach is needed to identifying and addressing disproportionate impacts to human health and the 

environment. Over the coming year, OECA and the regional offices will participate in an Agencywide effort led by OEJ to respond to this need and develop the tools needed to address, align, 

assess, review, and report progress on achieving the Agency’s national environmental justice 

priorities. 

L. Requirements: Tribal Program 

EPA’s enforcement and compliance assurance program works with tribes to promote 

compliance through the use of appropriate compliance and enforcement tools in Indian country and 

other tribal areas 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, 

75
Revised June 2008 

including Alaska (hereinafter referred to as “Indian country and other tribal areas”). Whether 

implemented directly by EPA or an approved tribe, selecting the appropriate tools - compliance 

assistance, incentives, monitoring, and enforcement - provide important gains in environmental and 

human health protection. In FY 2008, OECA and the regions intend to continue to increase their 

presence in Indian country and other tribal areas. 

In spring 2004, OECA issued Protecting Public Health and the Environment Through 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance in Indian Country: A Strategy for Results (Strategy). The 

Strategy develops a common understanding among EPA and tribal environmental managers and 

staff about how and why EPA works with tribes to maximize compliance and reduce threats to 

public health and the environment in Indian country and other tribal areas. The Strategy includes 

information on the EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian 

Reservations, the EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian 

Reservations (known as the 1984 Indian Policy) and the Guidance on the Enforcement Principles 

Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy (Tribal Enforcement Guidance), as well as the federal 

government’s trust and consultation responsibilities to tribes, and its government-to-government 

relationship with such tribes. 

As indicated above, the goal of OECA’s FY 2008 National Tribal Compliance Assurance 

Priority (Tribal Priority) is to significantly improve human health and the environment in Indian 

country and other tribal areas through EPA and tribal compliance assistance, compliance 

monitoring, and enforcement activity. In FY 2007, the completion of work to identify the universe 

of federally-regulated facilities in Indian country and other tribal areas should increase EPA’s 

ability to target compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement resources. 

Similarly, the emphasis on increasing the number of EPA-authorized inspectors and EPA 

inspections at tribal schools should lead to an increased number of inspection reports submitted to 

EPA and the subsequent number of compliance determinations. OECA’s Tribal Priority EPM 

resources, distributed by the Compliance Assistance and Sectors Programs Division (CASPD) are 

available to support this work. 

Tracking and measuring of all compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, and 

enforcement activities in Indian country is an essential component of OECA’s tribal program. 

OECA and the regions should use the tribal flag/identifier found in ICIS, CACDS, CCDS, or other 

applicable data tracking systems. Reporting on the outputs and outcomes of EPA activities is 

particularly crucial to measuring the progress and impact of EPA’s tribal enforcement and 

compliance assurance program. 

Following are the core activities that OECA and the regions should undertake in FY 2008. 

These activities are in addition to the ACS measures for the Tribal Priority. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-objective 5.1.1) 

OECA’s compliance assistance and capacity building efforts in Indian country and other 

tribal areas provide regulated facilities with the information and support necessary to maintain 

76
Revised June 2008 

compliance. To support EPA’s tribal compliance assistance efforts, OECA, regions, and tribes 

have access to the “on-line Tribal Compliance Assistance tool” and the Profile of Tribal 

Government Operations which are available at www.epa.gov/compliance/tribal/assistance. OECA 

and the regions should continue to use existing compliance assistance tools and tailor new 

compliance assistance tools for use by tribes and facilities in Indian country and other tribal areas. 

During FY 2008, OECA’s National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) will continue to 

implement its Tribal Training Strategy and reach out to tribal environmental professionals and 

serve as an on-line registration and course clearinghouse for all compliance assurance and 

enforcement training offered by OECA and the regions. OECA’s Tribal Priority EPM resources are 

available to fund compliance assistance activities in Indian country and other tribal areas. Funding 

“circuit riders” who provide on-site compliance and technical assistance is extremely effective to 

tribes and tribal consortia is a very effective mechanism for promoting compliance in Indian 

country and other tribal areas. Regions must measure and report into ICIS the outcomes of 100% 

of tribal workshops, training, and on-site (re) visits conducted in FY 2008. 

Consistent with the Tribal Enforcement Guidance, OECA and the regions typically use 

compliance assistance as the initial means of resolving non-compliance at tribally-owned or 

managed facilities. Shortly after identifying noncompliance at a tribal facility, a short written 

compliance plan should be used to communicate the steps necessary to return the facility to 

compliance and provide a timeline for initiating an enforcement action if compliance is not 

achieved. 

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) 

EPA conducts almost all compliance monitoring and enforcement of federal environmental 

programs and laws in Indian country because only a few tribes are currently authorized to operate a 

federal environmental program. As such, regions implement the compliance monitoring and 

enforcement National Program Core Requirements in Indian country. In the very limited cases 

where tribes have EPA-approved enforcement programs, regions oversee tribal enforcement 

compliance monitoring and enforcement in the same manner as they do with states as outlined in 

the National Program Core Requirements. However, EPA will retain federal criminal enforcement 

responsibilities, as these are not delegable. 

Geography and resources may impact the ability of EPA inspectors to conduct inspections 

as outlined in the National Program Core Requirements. As envisioned by the Tribal Priority, 

regions should consider authorizing tribal inspectors to conduct inspections on behalf of EPA. 

Regions should use the Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to States/Tribes 

and the Process for Requesting EPA Credentials for State/Tribal Inspectors Conducting Inspections 

on EPA's Behalf. EPA works closely with tribes in carrying out compliance monitoring activities 

77
Revised June 2008 

by consulting with tribes on inspection priorities and schedules and sharing information where 

appropriate. OECA’s Tribal Priority EPM resources are available to fund compliance monitoring 

activity, including the training of tribal inspectors. 

The Tribal Enforcement Guidance lays out an effective process for EPA to take civil 

enforcement action in Indian country and other tribal areas. Unless the exigencies of the situation 

suggest a different approach is necessary, regions should work with the tribe to implement a short, 

written compliance plan designed to promptly return noncompliant tribal facilities to compliance. 

Regions should take formal civil enforcement actions if the tribal facility fails to return to 

compliance as outlined in the compliance plan. As outlined in the Tribal Enforcement Guidance, 

regions obtain the concurrence of OECA’s Assistance Administrator prior to taking formal civil 

enforcement actions at tribal facilities. Noncompliant, non-tribal facilities in Indian country and 

other tribal areas are treated the same as facilities located outside of Indian country and other tribal 

areas. 

With respect to allegations of criminal violations of federal environmental laws in Indian 

country and other tribal areas, EPA offices and tribes will provide the EPA Criminal Investigation 

Division with investigative leads. Such leads will be investigated within the framework of the 

Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training's Policy on Investigative Discretion. 

Performance Expectations 

OECA and the regions will report on the Tribal Priority ACS measures and the following: 

• Reporting on the outputs and outcomes of EPA activities is particularly crucial to measuring the 

progress and impact of EPA’s tribal enforcement and compliance assurance program As such, use 

the tribal flag/identifier in ICIS, CACDS, CCDS or other applicable data system to track and 

measure all compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities in Indian 

country and other tribal areas. See the relevant tracking and measurement discussion in compliance 

assistance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement section of the NPM Guidance. 

• Regional enforcement and compliance managers should engage media and Indian program 

managers and staff in discussing how best to allocate the OECA Tribal Priority resources and in 

making of specific funding decisions. In addition, regions should, as appropriate, engage tribes – 

particularly the Regional Tribal Operations Committees – in a dialogue on the types of projects for 

which these resources are available, how to distribute information about the available funds, and 

sharing project results. 

• Review all inspection reports submitted by EPA inspectors and EPA-authorized tribal inspectors 

and determine whether an enforcement response is appropriate, and if so, what type. 

SECTION IV. FY2008 OECA WORKPLAN SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS 

O. Annual Commitment System 

78
Revised June 2008 

Following release of the final OECA NPM Guidance, regions should continue discussions 

with states and tribes to determine draft numbers for the commitments contained in the guidance. 

Attachment A is a listing of draft FY 2008 OECA annual commitments. Current schedules call for 

regions to enter their draft targets into the annual commitment system by July 9, 2007. NPMs can 

then review draft regional targets to ensure that all regional targets together Aroll up@ to result 

cumulatively in appropriate annual national targets. Headquarters and the regions will have 

approximately 2 months (July 9 through September 21) to resolve any issues and finalize annual 

regional targets. During this same time, regions will engage states and tribes in negotiations to 

complete the grant process (PPAs, PPGs, and Categorical Grants), including translating regional 

targets into formal commitments supported by state-by-state agreements. All commitments should 

be final by September 21, 2007. 

The lead time before annual targets and commitments are final provides regions, states, and 

tribes maximum flexibility in determining commitments. Ultimately, headquarters and regions 

share responsibility for identifying and resolving conflicts over program priorities that present 

implications for the annual regional commitments. Issues not resolved by September 21, 2007 will 

be elevated to OECA=s Acting Assistant Administrator for decision. 

M. 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 FY 2008, NEIC would like to 

receive requests from the regions by August 1, 2007. It is important that NEIC receive all regional 

submissions by August 1, 2007 to allow for an examination of all projects in line with 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 timeframe (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 of the selection rationale, including how and why the region selected this 

particular facility/project for NEIC support; and 

• a contact name and phone number for additional information. 

During the review of the requests, NEIC will have discussions with the various regional 

79 
Revised June 2008 

contacts regarding aspects of each request. The combination of information sent with the original 

request and that obtained during these discussions enables NEIC to determine whether the 

requested support can be provided. The final decisions and commitments will be included in the 

negotiated workplans. 

80
Revised June 2008 

If you have any questions regarding this process please contact Gene Lubieniecki, (303) 

236-6112, or Nicholas Franco (202) 564-0113. Please send NEIC support requests to both Gene 

and Nick. 

Gene Lubieniecki, Civil Program Coordinator Nicholas Franco, Director 

US EPA – NEIC US EPA - OECA 

Denver Federal Center National Planning, Measures, and Analysis Staff 

Building 53, PO Box 25227 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, M2221A 

Denver, CO 80225 Washington, DC 20460 

N. FTE Resource Charts

 The regions will complete FTE charts similar to the charts completed in previous planning 

cycles. Charts organize FTE information by goal, objective, and sub-objective, and then cross-walk 

to the media program elements. The importance of the FTE Resource Charts is significant due to 

increased interest from the Office of Management and Budget, the Inspector General, and 

Congress. Regions will receive FTE templates in August 2007. It is imperative that regions 

complete these charts and submit these documents to Nicholas Franco and Elizabeth Walsh on 

September 30, 2007. 

2007 Final – Enter the region’s final FTE allocation for FY2007 in the 2007 Final column. 

2008 Proposed – Enter the region’s proposed FTE allocation for FY2008 in the 2008 Proposed 

column. Headquarters recognizes that FTE levels may change after the Agency receives the 

FY2008 enacted budget after October 1, 2007. Therefore this number is a “best guess” estimate. 

81
viii

Revised June 2008 

i

 This ratio is based on previous workload models that averaged the amount of resources needed to conduct major and 

minor inspections. All minor inspections that are traded-off for majors MUST be put into PCS/ICIS in order for the 

region/state to get “credit” for them. 

ii EPA Claims to Meet Drinking Water Goals Despite Persistent Data Quality Shortcomings; Report No. 2004-P-0008; 

March 5, 2004. 

iii Regions should focus financial responsibility compliance monitoring activities in states that do not have a state fund. 

iv RECAP (2003), which has been replaced by the current ACS system, also provided a measure for lQG inspections 

that was the equivalent of a CEI. 

v

 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations@ Executive 

Order, February 11, 1994 

vi Memorandum, FR: Assistant Administrator, ACompliance and Enforcement Strategy Addressing Combined Sewer 

Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows,@ Section IV, B.2. APriorities 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> 

vii See Memorandum from Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

(September 30, 1997). 

See, e.g., Environmental Protection Agency, Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy 13-14 (May 1, 1998). 

ix AOECA Environmental Justice Policy@ Memorandum, January 12, 2004. x

 The eight national environmental justice priorities are listed below as “objectives” under the 

relevant EPA Strategic Plan goal. The ninth objective, “Cross Cutting Strategies,” is one of the 

national environmental justice priorities, and should be included as one of the areas of focus for the 

program and regional offices. 

Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change 

Objective 1: Reduction in number of asthma attacks 

Objective 2: Reduce exposure to air toxics 

Goal 2: Clean and Safe Water 

Objective 1: Safe fish/shellfish 

Objective 2: Clean and safe drinking water 

Goal 4: Healthy Communities and Ecosystems 

Objective 1: Reducing elevated blood lead levels 

Objective 2: Collaborative problem-solving to address environmental justice issues 

Objective 3: Revitalization of brownfields and contaminated sites 

82 
Revised June 2008 

Goal 5: Compliance and Environmental Stewardship 

Objective: Ensuring compliance 

Goal: Cross Cutting Strategies 

Objective: Internal Capacity-Building (e.g., training, internal program 

management) 

In addition, each region and, to the extent applicable, program office should also address issues 

arising under Goal 3, Land Preservation and Restoration, of the EPA Strategic Plan. 

83
Enforcement and Compliance Assu

Region __

CWA CWA CWA CWA SDWA SDWA SDWA SDWA Stationary Stationary Hazardous Haz

NPDES NPDES Wetlands Wetlands UIC UIC PWSS PWSS Sources Sources Waste W

Objective/Sub-objective/ 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2

Program Component Enacted Proposed Enacted Proposed Enacted Proposed Enacted Proposed Enacted Proposed Enacted Pro

Goal 4: Communities/Ecosystems 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0Objective 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0Community Health 

57 Environmental Justice 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

GOAL 5: COMPLIANCE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0OBJECTIVE 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Improve Compliance 

44 Civil Enforcement 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 048 Compliance Assistance and Centers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 049 Compliance Incentives 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 050 Compliance Monitoring 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 052 Criminal Enforcement 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 085 International Capacity Building 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

OBJECTIVE 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Improve Environmental Performance 

90 NEPA Implementation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

ENABLING 

F8 IT/Data Management 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Final 
rance Resource Infor

mation 

Toxic Toxic EPCRA EPCRA Regional Regional Federal Federal Sector and Sector and Environ. Review Environ. Review Non-EnforcementNon-Enforc

SubstancesSubstances Counsel Counsel Facilities Facilities Multimedia Enforce. Multimedia Enforce. and Coordination and Coordination 

2007 

Enacted 

0.0 0.0 

2008 

Proposed 

0.0 0.0 

2007 

Enacted 

0.0 0.0 

2008 

Proposed 

0.0 0.0 

2007 

Enacted 

0.0 0.0 

2008 

Proposed 

0.0 0.0 

2007 

Enacted 

0.0 0.0 

2008 

Proposed 

0.0 0.0 

2007 

Enacted 

0.0 0.0 

2008 

Proposed 

0.0 0.0 

2007 

Enacted 

0.0 0.0 

2008 

Proposed 

0.0 0.0 

2007 

Enacted 

0.0 0.0 

2008 

Propose

0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Final 
NPM Guidance Measures Appendix


Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) FY 2008


G/O/S ACS Code Expected Text Nat. Target 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 

5.1.1 988 

Percentage of regulated entities receiving direct 

compliance assistance from EPA reporting that they 

improved EMP as a result of EPA assistance. 

50% 

5.1.1 ASST01 

Conduct outcome measurement for 100% of all compliance assistance workshops, training, onsite 

visits, and revisits which support the OECA national 

priorities. 

CA Activities 

5.1.1 FEDFAC01 

Each Region shall conduct at least two compliance assistance activities for Federal facilities to support the integrated strategy areas. 

CA Activities 

5.1.3 183 

Dollars invested in improved environmental performance or improved environmental management practices as a result of concluded enforcement actions (i.e., injunctive relief and SEPs) 

4.30 

Billion Dollars 

5.1.3 ASB01 Report the number of federal TSCA asbestos inspections. Inspections 5.1.3 CAA01 Number of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be conducted at Title V majors by region per year. Evaluation 5.1.3 CAA01.s Number of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be conducted at Title V majors by state per year. Evaluation 5.1.3 CAA02 

Number of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be conducted at "80% synthetic minors" and other sources, as appropriate, by region per year. 

FCEs 

5.1.3 CAA02.s 

Number of Full Compliance Evaluatiosn (FCEs) at "80% synthetic minors," and other sources (as appropriate), by state per year . 

FCEs 

5.1.3 CAA03 Number of Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs) to be conducted by the regions. PCEs 5.1.3 CAA03.s 

Number of Partial Compliance Evaluations (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). 

PCEs 

5.1.3 CAA05 Regions should project the number of investigations to be initiated in FY 2008. Investigations 5.1.3 CAA11 Conduct inspections at 5% of the total number of facilities in the region required to submit RMPs. Inspections 
5.1.3 CAA16 

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. 

Agreements 

5.1.3 CAA17 

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 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. 

MDRs 

5.1.3 CAA19 

Consistent with CMS, regions should conduct at least one in-depth evaluation of a delegated program per year and provide the written results to HQ. 

Delegated 

Program 

5.1.3 CWA01 Project by state the number of federal inspections 

at NPDES major facilities. Inspections 

5.1.3 CWA01.s Project by state the number of state inspections at NPDES major facilities. Inspections 5.1.3 CWA03 

Project by state the number of federal oversight inspections to be conducted. The regions must provide a detailed explanation if no oversight inspections are projected in this area. 

Inspections 

5.1.3 CWA05 

Project by state the number of federal inspections of POTWs with an approved pretreatment program in both approved and unapproved states. 

Inspections 

5.1.3 CWA05.s 

Project by state the number of state inspections of POTWs with an approved pretreatment program in both approved and unapproved states. 

Inspections 

5.1.3 EPCRA01 Number of federal EPCRA data quality inspections; 

provide an explanation if below the target level. Inspections 

5.1.3 EPCRA02 Number of federal EPCRA 313 inspections; provide 

an explanation if below the target level. Inspections 

5.1.3 FEDFAC03 

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. 

Inspections 

5.1.3 FEDFAC05 

Number of Federal facility single media inspections to be conducted by EPA to support Integrated 

Strategy areas: CWA/NPDES Storm Water; Federal 

Laboratories; and Federal Underground Storage Tanks. 

Inspections 

5.1.3 FIFRA-FED1 Project regional (federal) FIFRA inspections. Inspections 5.1.3 HQ-CC 

Number of concluded cases with value over 1 million (dollars or lbs) for injunctive relief or pollutants reduced, or $500K in penalties. 

Cases 

5.1.3 HQ-CR Number of civil referrals to the Department of Justice. Referrals 
5.1.3 HQ-LBS 

Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of audit agreements and concluded enforcement actions. 

550.40 Million 

Pounds 

5.1.3 HQ-VOL Volume of contaminated media addressed. Cubic Yards 5.1.3 LED01 

Number of 1018/402/406 federal inspections. In the 

regional comment field provide an explanation if no activity projected in this area or if Section 402 inspections in unauthorized states is the rationale for trade-offs with the Disclosure Rule or Section 406 inspections. 

Inspections 

5.1.3 PCB01 Inspect 33% of the PCB commercial storage and 

disposal facility universe. Inspections 

5.1.3 RCRA01 

Project by state the number of TSDFs to be inspected by the region during the year. The regions must commit to inspecting at least 2 TSDFs in each state unless approval is obtained from headquarters to deviate from this requirement. 

Inspections 

5.1.3 RCRA01.s Project by state the number of TSDFs to be 

inspected by the state during the year. Inspections 

5.1.3 RCRA02 Project by state the number of LQGs to be 

inspected by the region during the year. Inspections 

5.1.3 RCRA02.s 

Project by state the number of state LQGs inspections to be inspected during the year under state authority. 

Inspections 

5.1.3 RCRA03 

Annually inspect each treatment, storage or disposal facility operated by states or local governments as required under SWDA 3007(d). 

Inspections 

5.1.3 SDWA02 

Public Water Systems listed on a 'Fixed Base' SNC/Exceptions list will be addressed or resolved either by a state or tribe with primacy, or by EPA. 

SNCs 

5.1.3 SRF-01 The number of State Review Framework reviews to 

be completed in Fiscal Year 2007. Reviews 

5.1.3 TSC01 

Project the number of core federal TSCA inspections for Regions maintaining an investment in core TSCA (sections 4,5,8,12 amd 13). 

Inspections 

# of Commitments: 40 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 
State Grant Template Measures Appendix


Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) FY2008


Goal: 5 

Objective: 1 

Subobjective: 3 

FY05 Nat. FY06 FY07 Nat. FY05 State FY07 State Source of 

Code Commitment Text Baseline Commits Target Baseline Measurement Data Comments 

LEAD-G01 Number of 402/406 inspections by state. 

LEAD-G02 Number of enforcement actions taken by state. 

PST- G01 Percent of violators committing subsequent 

violations. 

PST- G02 

PST- G03 

TSC-G01 

TSC-G02.a 

Percent of compliance actions taken as a result 

of inspection/enforcement. 

Number of enforcement actions taken (federal 

& state) per millions dollars of cost (federal & 

state). 

Total number of PCB inspections conducted by 

state. (PCB TDFs need to be inspected once 

every 3 years) 

Number of asbestos inspections conducted by 

state with EPA credentials. 

TSC-G02.b Number of asbestos inspections conducted by 

state under own authority (waiver states). 

TSC-G03.a 

The number of PCB inspections conducted with 

EPA credentials that resulted in federal 

enforcement action (including civil penalties 

and Notices of non-compliance) 

TSC-G03.b 

The number of asbestos inspections conducted 

with EPA credentials that resulted in federal 

enforcement action (including civil penalties 

and Notices of non-compliance) 

# of Commitments: 10