Page 1 of 82

FY 2011

Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance (OECA) 

National Program Manager (NPM) Guidance 

April 30, 2010
Page 2 of 82

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................5

A. PROGRAM OFFICE ................................................................................................................................................5

B. INTRODUCTION/ CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................................5

C. PROGRAM PRIORITIES ..........................................................................................................................................5

D. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES............................................................................................................................8

E. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM FY 2010 ..............................................................................................................11

F. CONTACTS ..........................................................................................................................................................12

SECTION I: OECA GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT AND FEEDBACK PROCESS ........................................13

SECTION II: SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS

.....................................................................................................................................................................................14

1. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities ...........................14

2. Reset Relationship with States and Tribes by Enlisting Our Partners to Meet Community Needs........15

3. Improve Transparency...........................................................................................................................16

SECTION III: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIS TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROBLEMS FROM AIR POLLUTION.................................................................................................................17

A. CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA)......................................................................................................................................17

1. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives .........................................................................................17

2. Link with Top Office of Air and Radiation Priorities ............................................................................18

3. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities ...........................18

4. Reset Our Relationships with States ......................................................................................................21

5. Improve Transparency...........................................................................................................................22

6. Relevant Policies and Guidances...........................................................................................................23

SECTION IV: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROBLEMS FROM WATER POLLUTION.........................................................................................................25

A. CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) ...............................................................................................................................25

1. Clean Water Act Action Plan.................................................................................................................25

2. High Priority Performance Goal...........................................................................................................25

3. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives .........................................................................................26

4. Link with Top Office of Water Priorities ...............................................................................................27

5. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities ...........................28

6. Reset Our Relationships with States ......................................................................................................32

7. Improve Transparency...........................................................................................................................33

8. Relevant Policies and Guidances...........................................................................................................34

B. SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA)...............................................................................................................34

1. Link with Top Office of Water Priorities ...............................................................................................35

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities ...........................35

3. Reset Our Relationships with States ......................................................................................................36

4. Improve Transparency...........................................................................................................................37

5. Relevant Policies and Guidances...........................................................................................................37

SECTION V: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROBLEMS FROM WASTE, TOXICS, AND PESTICIDES POLLUTION .....................................................38

A. RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA) ................................................................................38

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements................................................................................................38

2. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives .........................................................................................39

3. Link with Top OSWER Priorities...........................................................................................................40

4. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities ...........................40

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

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

7. Relevant Policies and Guidances...........................................................................................................45
Page 3 of 82

B. TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA) ......................................................................................................45

1. Link with Top Office of Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxics Priorities ..................................................46

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities...........................46

3. Reset Our Relationships with States ......................................................................................................52

4. Improve Transparency...........................................................................................................................54

5. Relevant Policies, and Guidances..........................................................................................................54

C. FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE AND RODENTICIDE ACT (FIFRA) ................................................................55

1. Link with Top Office of Pesticide Programs Priorities..........................................................................55

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities ...........................56

3. Reset Our Relationships with States ......................................................................................................61

4. Improve Transparency...........................................................................................................................62

5. Relevant Policies and Guidances...........................................................................................................62

D. SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA)

ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS......................................................................................63

1. Link with Top OSWER Priorities...........................................................................................................63

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities ...........................64

3. Working With States, Tribes and Local Communities ...........................................................................64

4. Improve Transparency...........................................................................................................................65

SECTION VI: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROBLEMS THROUGH CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT...................................................................................66

1. Criminal Enforcement Priorities ...........................................................................................................66

2. Link with Top Program Office Priorities...............................................................................................66

3. Reset Our Relationships with Law Enforcement Partners That Support State Environmental Crimes 

Investigations and Prosecutions............................................................................................................66

4. Improve Transparency...........................................................................................................................67

SECTION VII: NATIONAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL OECA PROGRAMS 

UNDER GOAL 5 .......................................................................................................................................................68

A. SPECIFIC FEDERAL ACTIVITIES PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS.........................................................68

B. SPECIFIC EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW ACT (EPCRA) PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 

EXPECTATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................70

1. Link with Top Office of Environmental Information Priorities..............................................................70

2. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities ...........................70

3. Reset Our Relationships with States ......................................................................................................72

4. Improve Transparency...........................................................................................................................72

5. Relevant Policies and Guidances...........................................................................................................72

C. SPECIFIC MULTIMEDIA PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS .....................................................................72

D. SPECIFIC INDIAN COUNTRY PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS ..............................................................73

1. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities ...........................73

2. Maintain Our Relationships with Tribes................................................................................................73

3. Improve Transparency...........................................................................................................................74

4. Relevant Policies and Guidances...........................................................................................................74

F. SPECIFIC FEDERAL FACILITIES ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS .................................74

1. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities ...........................75

2. Reset Our Relationships with States ......................................................................................................76

3. Improve Transparency...........................................................................................................................77

G. SPECIFIC COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES PROGRAM PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS .................................................77

1. Aggressively Go After Pollution Problems That Make a Difference in Communities ...........................77

2. Reset Our Relationships with States ......................................................................................................78

3. Improve Transparency...........................................................................................................................78

H. SPECIFIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND TRAINING EXPECTATIONS..........................................................................78

I. SPECIFIC STATE REVIEW FRAMEWORK (SRF) EXPECTATIONS ............................................................................79

J. STATE GRANT RESULTS AND REPORTING............................................................................................................80

SECTION VIII. FY2010 OECA WORKPLAN SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS ............................................81
Page 4 of 82

A. ANNUAL COMMITMENT SYSTEM........................................................................................................................81

B. FTE RESOURCE CHARTS ....................................................................................................................................81
Page 5 of 82

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. Program Office

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

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional enforcement programs, States and Tribes 

implementing EPA-approved inspection and enforcement programs1. OECA designs, develops, 

implements and oversees national enforcement programs, while the regional offices work with 

States, Tribes, and others to implement these programs. The OECA National Enforcement 

Program Managers Guidance (NPMG) for fiscal year (FY) 2011 describes how the (EPA) 

should work with state and tribal governments to enforce environmental laws that protect and 

improve the quality of the Nation’s environment and public health. 

B. Introduction/ Context

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

breadth. The national program maximizes compliance with ten distinct federal environmental 

statutes through the use of compliance assistance, incentives, monitoring, and civil and criminal 

enforcement. OECA implements a total of 28 separate program areas dealing with prevention 

and control of air pollution, water pollution, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides. 

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

regulated entities. 

The majority of the work in the FY 2011 NPMG is accomplished under the strategic goal 

―Enforcing Environmental Laws‖ in the draft FY 2010-2015 EPA Strategic Plan (Goal 5). Goal 

5 of the Strategic Plan addresses how EPA will address pollution problems through vigorous and 

targeted civil and criminal enforcement, promotes compliance and deters violations by achieving 

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

on potential environmental justice concerns and those in Indian country.

The FY 2011 NPMG is organized to describe, for each statutory authority, the national 

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

enforcement goals.

C. Program Priorities 

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

 Taking Action on Climate Change: Enforcement supports the Agency’s climate strategy 

by recognizing reductions of global warming pollution in settlements of enforcement 

actions. OECA will be working to support the integrity of the monitoring and reporting 

 

1

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

inspection and enforcement program. 
Page 6 of 82

system for global warming pollution by assuring compliance with the greenhouse gases 

reporting rule.

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

targeting large pollution sources, especially in the utility, refinery, cement and glass 

industries, and taking aggressive action to bring them into compliance and install controls 

that will benefit communities and improve emission monitoring. OECA is working 

closely with the Office of Air and Radiation to reduce toxic air pollution, through 

protective enforcement, permitting and standards, especially in communities that are 

disproportionately affected by pollution now. OECA will continue to work with States 

and Tribes to improve monitoring of compliance with air pollution standards and make 

sure that action is taken against serious violations that affect community air quality. 

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

and pushes for reform, OECA will work closely with OCSPP to achieve its goals. The 

enforcement program will take action when we find violations of standards for highconcern chemicals.

 Cleaning Up Our Communities: Enforcement ensures that parties responsible for 

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

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

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

use enforcement to spur clean up at RCRA corrective action sites where the clean up 

progress is stalled.

 Protecting America’s Waters: OECA is revamping the water enforcement program to 

focus on the problems that are the biggest threat to the nation’s waters. At the same time, 

OECA will increase oversight of the States and work to define the shared accountability 

of EPA, States and Tribes for clean water. OECA will improve transparency, to enlist the 

public in holding sources and government accountable. 

 Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental 

Justice: In all the enforcement work OECA does, as described above, OECA can help 

protect communities by targeting enforcement in areas where we find serious 

noncompliance and where communities face multiple pollution threats. OECA works 

with other federal agencies to make sure environmental justice considerations are 

included in their decision-making process as they prepare environmental analyses 

(environmental impact statements or environmental assessments) under NEPA. OECA 

also will make more available and understandable information on facility compliance and 

government response, so that people have the information they need to take action to 

improve their own communities. 

 Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships: EPA shares accountability with States and 

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

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

the most we can with the resources we have. At the same time, OECA will strengthen 
Page 7 of 82

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

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

all States to a comparable standard.

OECA’s overall enforcement goals for FY 2011 are to:

 Aggressively go after pollution problems that make a difference in communities. Use 

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

chemical hazards; and advance environmental justice by protecting vulnerable 

communities. 

o Clean water

 Clean water act action plan: revamp enforcement and work with 

permitting to focus on the biggest pollution problems, including

 Get raw sewage out of the water

 Cut pollution from animal waste

 Reduce polluted storm water runoff 

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

country

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

o Clean air

 Cut toxic air pollution in communities

 Reduce air pollution from largest sources, including coal fired power 

plants, cement, acid and glass sectors

o Climate and clean energy

 Assure compliance with greenhouse gas reporting rule 

 Encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions through settlements

 Target energy sector compliance with air, water and waste rules

o Protect people from exposure to hazardous chemicals

 Prevent releases of hazardous chemicals that threaten public health or the 

environment

 Press for clean up of hazardous sites in communities: polluter pays

 Reform chemical management enforcement and reduce exposure to 

pesticides focus on specific areas aimed to help achieve clean water, clean 

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

hazardous chemicals. 

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

to a clean and healthy environment.

o Shared accountability

 Make joint progress with States and Tribes toward clean air and water 

goals, protection from exposure to hazardous chemicals

 Work toward shared focus on protecting vulnerable communities

o Strengthened oversight

 Assure strong and effective State enforcement of federal environmental 

laws
Page 8 of 82

 Press for consistent enforcement across States and Regions: fairness and 

level playing field

o Establish new model for shared accountability and strengthened oversight, 

starting with water

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

permitting agreements

 Define clear expectations for state performance

 Take federal action where not meeting minimum expectations

 Improve transparency

o Make meaningful facility compliance information available and accessible using 

21st century technologies

o Hold government accountable through public information on state and federal 

performance

o Promote better federal environmental decisions and public engagement through 

NEPA

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

Enforcement Initiatives based upon significant environmental risks and noncompliance patterns. 

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

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

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

Initiatives. After consulting with EPA programs and Regions, States, Tribes, and the public, 

OECA adopted the following National Enforcement Initiatives for 2011 through 2013. More 

information on each is found in the media sections of this guidance:

 Keeping raw sewage and contaminated stormwater runoff out of our waters

 Cutting animal waste to protect surface and ground waters

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

utility, cement, glass, and acid sectors

 Cutting toxic air pollution that affects communities’ health

 Assuring energy extraction sector compliance with environmental laws

 Reducing pollution from mineral processing operations

The initiative implementation strategies are currently under development. The initiative 

implementation teams are in the process of developing goals and measures for each initiative. 

Additionally, the teams are exploring options for innovative approaches to implementing the 

initiatives. The draft initiative strategies and draft ACS commitments will be distributed to all 

Regions for comment. OECA projects finalizing the FY2011-2013 initiative goal statements and 

measures in mid-June.

D. Implementation Strategies

Internal Enforcement Goals
Page 9 of 82

In implementing the enforcement and compliance assurance program, OECA encourages all 

EPA enforcement programs to consider the following internal goals:

 Build innovation into the work: Explore new ideas for improving performance and 

increasing efficiency, encourage experimentation within the accountability framework, 

and to target actions for deterrence 

 Strengthen measures: Adopt outcome goals and measures that connect to what people 

care about, use evidence based internal measures that are aligned to outcomes, and 

include States in environmental and compliance outcomes.

 Revitalize communications: Use clear and consistent external messages that reaches 

and resonates with communities, open two way communications with States and Tribes, 

and when communicating outside of EPA, work with the concept of one EPA, with 

headquarters, Regions, and programs all on the same page 

 Work with programs: Work with other EPA programs to make regulations clear and 

enforceable, ensure permitting and enforcement work together, and adopt shared 

priorities.

Integrated Approach

Through enforcement and compliance assurance, OECA seeks to change the non-compliance 

behavior of regulated entities through an overall integrated approach using a variety of tools, 

including:

 Compliance assistance to educate entities by developing and delivering tools, activities or 

technical assistance to attain and go beyond compliance, and using pollution prevention, 

environmental management systems and innovative approaches;

 Incentives to encourage entities to monitor their own compliance and take prompt 

corrective action when violations are detected;

 Monitoring to ensure accountability by determining compliance status under the law;

 Civil and criminal enforcement to require compliance at particular facilities, and to 

achieve widespread compliance through deterrence by taking aggressive action and 

assessing penalties that make it more expensive to violate than to comply; and

 Innovative approaches to address noncompliance and improve the environment.

While ensuring compliance, EPA and States should consider the use of all available tools to 

address specific environmental risks and non-compliance patterns. The integrated use of tools 

and the development of new ones enables us to address environmental noncompliance problems 

as efficiently and effectively as possible. The integrated approach requires regulators to consider 

the reasons for noncompliance and identify the mix of tools that will most effectively improve 

compliance among the target audience. An integrated approach allows a team of experts to 

create a strategy that leverages resources and uses the appropriate combination or sequencing of 

individual tools to optimize success in addressing the problem. 
Page 10 of 82

An integrated approach benefits regulators by: 1) targeting limited inspection and enforcement 

resources on the bad actors; 2) building capacity and coordination across programs, regions and 

agencies through the planning process, resulting in the sharing of information and mutually 

working toward shared goals; 3) expanding governments’ presence and demonstrating 

governments’ commitment by strategically applying a range of tools to correct significant 

problems. 

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

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

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

compliance assistance, compliance audits, and compliance monitoring, including relevant 

policies and guidances for implementing the enforcement and compliance program, can be found 

at the following OECA web sites:

 Compliance Assistance: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/index.html

 Compliance Incentives: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/incentives/index.html

 Compliance Monitoring: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/index.html

 Enforcement: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/index.html

Program Reviews

OECA monitors regional and state activities in a set of annual commitments at mid-year and at 

the end of a fiscal year based upon Region and State results entered in OECA databases, the 

Annual Commitment System, and data collected in the implementation of national enforcement 

initiatives. In addition, OECA senior managers conduct an annual program review of each 

regional office. The performance expectations and activities outlined in this guidance are the 

starting point from which headquarters and the regional offices 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 manager for 

achieving performance expectations for the fiscal year.

Regional Priorities

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

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

working together to address them. For example, Regions 3, 4, and 5 are working on the Port of 

Huntington Tri-State Collaborative Geographic Initiative. The Port is located in KY, OH and 

WV. This enforcement and compliance assistance Initiative was undertaken to more fully and 

comprehensively address the impacts of noncompliance on land, air, and water resources by Port 

facilities and to promote environmental stewardship in the Port of Huntington area. There is 

increasing concern related to public health and environmental issues within the Port of 

Huntington’s boundaries related to: air toxics, air quality near schools, NOx emissions related to 

nitrogen loading in Chesapeake Bay, Port-related storm water discharges, coal-fired utilities, coal 

and chemical product processing/handling facilities, and the effects of these activities on the 

community and Environmental Justice populations within the Port’s boundaries.
Page 11 of 82

Another example involves the Chesapeake Bay. In response to the President’s May 12, 2009, 

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

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

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

initiatives to evaluate the compliance of power plants and other industrial sources in the 

Chesapeake Bay airshed emitting more than 1000 tons of NOx per year. Any resulting 

enforcement actions would seek to achieve significant NOx reductions through complying 

actions, as appropriate. In addition, Region 3 will take steps to evaluate the potential impacts on 

the Bay of ammonia (NH3) emissions from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

E. Significant Changes from FY 2010

The most significant change from the FY 2010 guidance is to focus the NPMG on the 

Administrator’s and Assistant Administrator’s goals, and on aligning enforcement and 

compliance priorities with those of the other EPA national program managers. To this end, the 

FY 2011 NPMG is organized to 1) describe the specific expectations for Regions that implement 

the Assistant Administrator’s priorities, 2) explain how the enforcement program supports the 

priorities of other EPA national programs, and 3) identify the new National Enforcement 

Initiatives for FY 2011 through FY 2013. In addition, this guidance now itemizes the relevant 

enforcement guidances and policies in a list instead of describing each one.

Clean Water Action Plan: OECA is currently working with EPA Regions, States and the 

Office of Water to implement the Clean Water Act Action Plan (―the Action Plan‖) issued in 

October 2009. Since work is ongoing under the Action Plan, FY2011 will be a transition year 

as we revamp the Clean Water Act compliance and enforcement program to better address 

our nation’s water quality challenges. This NPMG includes more immediate 

recommendations arising from the implementation of the Action Plan to improve 

identification of serious non-compliance problems, identify new approaches to address water 

source violations, and to strengthen oversight of state programs.

New National Enforcement Initiatives: OECA will start work on the National 

Enforcement Initiatives selected for FY 2011-13 in FY 2011. Regional expectations for the

Initiatives will be made available in the third quarter of FY 2010 before the commitment 

levels must be agreed upon. 

Environmental Justice Expectations: The NPMG includes a new environmental justice 

section that contains expectations for implementing the Agency’s goals to advance 

environmental justice. In addition, each of the media chapters now addresses environmental 

justice expectations for using screening tools/approaches and other information to support 

targeting of enforcement actions and to enhance performance reporting. 

Federal Facilities Expectations in Media Chapters: For the past several years, OECA has 

focused the Federal Facilities expectations in a separate section. Each of the media chapters 

in this NPMG now specifically list expectations for the Regions regarding Federal Facilities. 
Page 12 of 82

Indian Country Expectations in Media Chapters: For the past several years, OECA has 

focused the Indian Country expectations for drinking water, compliance at schools, and 

dumps in a separate section. Each of the media chapters in this NPMG now specifically list 

expectations for the Regions regarding Indian country.

F. Contacts 

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

Annual Commitments please contact:

Ginger Gotliffe

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Office of Compliance

National Planning, Measures, and Analysis Staff

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, M2221A

Washington, DC 20460

Email: Gotliffe.ginger@epa.gov
Page 13 of 82

SECTION I: OECA GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT AND FEEDBACK PROCESS 

The OECA NPM Guidance is structured and developed to define program goals, priorities, 

strategies, and performance measures in accordance with the Strategic Plan and the FY 2011

Annual Plan and Budget. Most of OECA’s work is in response to the objectives of Goal 5 of the 

Strategic Plan and is covered by this Guidance. 

OECA restructured the NPM Guidance to focus on the performance expectations of the national 

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

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

of EPA program offices in achieving their environmental and public health goals. EPA posted

the FY 2011 NPM draft Guidance (www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance) to allow Regions, States, 

Tribes, and others to review and comment on the draft. OECA received comment from Regions, 

States, Tribes, and other stakeholders. OECA responded to the comments and incorporated

changes, as needed, in the final documents. The final guidance and a Response to Comments 

Summary was posted on the Internet showing the action taken in the final guidance as a result of 

comments.

Because EPA’s Strategic Plan is not expected to be finalized until later in the Fiscal Year, there 

may be later changes that impact this NPMG. OECA will develop and issue addendums 

explaining any changes and implications for Regions, States, and Tribes as a result of a changed 

Strategic Plan. 
Page 14 of 82

SECTION II: SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 

EXPECTATIONS

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

OECA oversees national and regional enforcement programs. In this role, OECA ensures that 

facilities in communities disproportionately burdened by pollution are complying with the law. 

OECA aggressively applies regulatory tools to protect vulnerable communities, enlists partners 

to meet community needs, and fosters community involvement in EPA’s decision-making 

processes by making information available.

Second, OECA is the National Program Manager for the Environmental Justice (EJ) Program. 

The Environmental Justice Program facilitates headquarter and regional efforts to achieve 

measurable environmental or public health benefits/results for communities disproportionately 

burdened by pollution. EPA achieves this goal by: (1) Engaging communities in EPA decisionmaking, and enlisting partners, including federal and state agencies, to meet community needs; 

(2) Supporting community efforts to build healthy, sustainable and green neighborhoods; and (3) 

Applying EPA’s regulatory tools to protect vulnerable communities. OECA will address these 

goals through the following performance expectations.

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

EPA will apply regulatory tools to protect vulnerable communities and enlist partners to

aggressively go after pollution problems that will make a difference to communities. FY2011 

regional enforcement work will protect communities disproportionately impacted by pollution by 

targeting enforcement in areas where there are serious non-compliance and multiple pollution 

threats. In addition, Regions are encouraged to work with other federal agencies to make sure 

environmental justice considerations are included in their decision-making process as they 

prepare environmental analyses (EISs or EAs) under NEPA.

 In FY2011, OECA will begin to use the Environmental Justice Strategic Enforcement 

Assessment Tool (EJSEAT) or similar screening tools/approaches and other information, 

e.g., community input, to support targeting of enforcement actions and to enhance 

performance reporting. 

 Regions should take enforcement action against priority environmental justice pollution 

problems in sectors as identified in the FY2011 – FY2013 National Enforcement Initiatives. 

By the end of FY2010, regional enforcement programs should identify and establish 

commitments towards strategic measures that enable tracking of progress to reduce pollution 

and risk in communities disproportionately impacted by pollution. Instructions and guidance 

on how to establish measurable commitments will be provided by the Office of 

Environmental Justice in FY2010.
Page 15 of 82

 In the first quarter of FY2011, Regions should report progress on environmental justice 

commitments. Instructions will be provided by the Office of Environmental Justice in the 

fourth quarter of FY2010.

2. Reset Relationship with States and Tribes by Enlisting Our Partners to Meet 

Community Needs

Regional enforcement programs should work with other EPA programs, federal agencies, States 

and Tribes to ensure that EJ informs permitting, standards, and enforcement. Regions are 

encouraged to work with other federal agencies to make sure environmental justice informs their 

decision making as they do environmental assessments under NEPA. In addition, Regions 

should take into consideration the federal trust responsibilities to federally-recognized Tribes, 

including Alaska native Tribes and Villages, when preparing environmental assessments on 

Tribal lands.

 Conduct regular regional enforcement office engagement with States, Tribes, and local EJ 

agencies to discuss EJ concerns that arise at sites or facilities where EPA is involved.

 Ensure EJ concerns are properly addressed in all actions where EPA must comply with 

NEPA (i.e., water treatment facility projects and other grants, new source NPDES permits, 

and EPA facilities).

 Meet with and provide communities with information on site-specific issues or particular 

interest of concern as they arise, particularly when compliance concerns are reported or 

suspected.

 Engage with States in annual planning processes and negotiation of grant agreements to 

identify communities facing multiple pollution burdens and target actions to improve the 

environment in such overburdened communities.

 Regions should engage state and local regulatory partners on enforcement and compliance 

issues in highly impacted areas where multiple jurisdictional authorities should be applied in 

a more coordinated fashion. Building on its FY09-FY10 EJ Showcase Community work, 

each Region should enlist state/local agencies to work with communities to identify 

environmental and health threats to achieve maximum compliance with environmental 

regulations and protect human health and the environment. EPA will promote use of an 

integrated strategy that makes appropriate use of all of the compliance assurance tools it has 

at its disposal including compliance assistance and monitoring, incentives, administrative, 

civil judicial and criminal actions. The Regions should also coordinate enforcement efforts 

with other available means (e.g., community involvement, stewardship and voluntary 

programs) to address issues that can't be effectively met through enforcement alone. Regions 

should engage with States in annual planning processes and negotiation of grant agreements 

to identify communities facing multiple pollution burdens and target actions to improve the 

environment in such overburdened communities.
Page 16 of 82

3. Improve Transparency 

OECA will enhance its efforts to make available information on facility compliance and 

government enforcement actions more accessible so people have the information they need to 

take action in their communities. Transparency, openness, and engagement with communities on

where EPA should focus enforcement efforts will enable communities to know what EPA is 

doing, participate in decision-making processes, and create pressure for better compliance. 

Regions and NPMs should promote the use of integrated problem solving strategies in their EJ 

Showcase Communities. (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/grants/ejshowcase.html) Such strategies engage all appropriate EPA programs as well as state, local, 

tribal and nongovernment partners. An integrated strategy coordinates the use of all appropriate 

tools to address the issues identified in the Showcase Communities. These tools include 

meaningful community involvement, outreach and education, environmental research, risk 

assessment, monitoring and modeling, alternate dispute resolution, permitting and regulatory 

tools, as well as many voluntary efforts. The Showcase Communities provide a unique 

opportunity for collaboration with clearly defined measures and outcomes to be managed and 

reported by the Regions.

Regions should:

 Ensure the public has access to compliance and enforcement documents and data that they 

can understand, particularly in disproportionately impacted communities, through access to 

mapping tools and through technical assistance support programs, as available.

 Seek input in the identification of facilities or areas of concern (i.e., through periodic 

listening sessions, hotlines, outreach efforts, blogs, etc) and during other appropriate phases 

of compliance and decision-making processes. 

 Ensure that EPA public meetings on enforcement issues address the concerns of potentially

affected populations, including those living in minority and/or low-income areas and tribal 

communities.
Page 17 of 82

SECTION III: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIS TO ADDRESS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM AIR POLLUTION 

A. Clean Air Act (CAA)

OECA addresses air pollution problems through the following CAA programs:

 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

 Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT)

 New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NRS/PSD)

 Enforcement of State Implementation Plans and plans developed and approved under 

Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. 

 Title V Operating Permits

 Stratospheric Ozone Protection

 Section 112(r) Risk Management Plans (RMPs)

 Title II (Emission Standards for Moving Sources)

1. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives

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

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

187 hazardous air pollutants that present significant threats to human health. See, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/188polls.html. These pollutants are known or suspected to cause 

cancer and other serious health effects, such as reproductive or birth defects. This threat may be 

particularly important for communities with disproportionate exposure to environmental risks 

and those with greater concentrations of sensitive populations, including urban minority and lowincome communities. The Clean Air Act and EPA’s regulations impose strict emission control 

requirements (known as ―Maximum Available Control Technology‖ or ―MACT‖) for these 

pollutants, which are permitted by a wide range of industrial and commercial facilities. For 

FY2011-13, EPA will use a national enforcement initiative to focus on excess emissions caused

by facilities’ failure to comply with EPA’s leak detection and repair requirements, restrictions on 

flaring, restrictions for benzene, and failure to address excess emissions during start-up, 

shutdown and malfunction events. OECA will partner with EPA’s Office of Air and Office of 

Research and Development on this effort, and will give particular emphasis to problems affecting

local communities that are disproportionately impacted by pollution from multiple sources.

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

Utility, Cement, Glass, and Acid Sectors: The New Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration requirements of the Clean Air Act require certain large industrial 

facilities to install state-of-the-art air pollution controls when they build new facilities or make 

―significant modifications‖ to existing facilities. However, many industries have not complied 

with these requirements, leading to excessive emissions of air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. These pollutants can be carried long distances and can 
Page 18 of 82

have significant adverse effects on human health, including asthma, respiratory diseases and

premature death. These effects may be particularly significant for communities with

disproportionate exposure to environmental risks and vulnerable populations, including children. 

In recent years EPA has made considerable progress in reducing this excessive pollution by 

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

sulfuric and nitric acid manufacturing facilities and glass manufacturing facilities. However, 

more work remains to be done to bring these sectors into compliance with the Clean Air Act and 

protect communities burdened with harmful air pollution. Therefore EPA will continue this work 

as a National Enforcement Initiative for FY2011-2013. 

2. Link with Top Office of Air and Radiation Priorities

OECA addresses top Office of Air and Radiation priorities in the following ways:

 Greenhouse Gases: OECA is developing an implementation strategy for the Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gases Reporting Rule to provide guidance to Regions on compliance 

monitoring and assistance activities, and the appropriate enforcement response to support 

the integrity of the monitoring and reporting system. OECA continues to support the 

Agency climate strategy by recognizing reductions of global warming pollution in 

settlements of enforcement actions. 

 Air Toxics in Communities: OECA will address this OAR priority through one of the 

2011 – 2013 National Enforcement Initiatives. OECA also is working closely with the 

Office of Air and Radiation and the Office of Research and Development to reduce toxic 

air pollution through standards, permitting, compliance monitoring and assistance 

activities, and enforcement, especially in communities that are disproportionately 

affected by pollution. This initiative represents a new model for programmatically 

addressing the cross-cutting nature of EJ issues by systematically linking OECA 

enforcement efforts with permits, rules and other regulatory tools administered by the 

Agency’s media programs. 

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

Air pollution can spread with the wind and is therefore of great concern to communities both 

near its source and remotely located. Air pollutants that are emitted closer to the ground, for 

example as a result of equipment leaks or low stack height, can cause disproportionate exposure 

for neighboring communities. In industrial areas, these communities frequently have significant 

low income and minority populations. Serious health affects caused by air pollution include 

difficulty in breathing, exacerbation of respiratory and cardiac conditions, cancer and death.

Regions and delegated state/local agencies and Tribes should:

 Implement programs in accordance with existing national compliance and enforcement 

policy and guidance (e.g., the CAA Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy 

(CMS); the CAA National Stack Testing Guidance, the Timely and Appropriate 

Enforcement Response to High Priority Violations (HPV Policy); and the Area Source 
Page 19 of 82

Implementation Guidance (FY 2010 issuance) to address significant air pollution 

problems that adversely affect impacted communities by reducing such pollution from 

the largest sources with special attention directed toward reducing toxic air pollution. 

(Web links to these and other guidance documents are on page 18.) Regions should work 

with delegated agencies/tribes to ensure they are familiar with national guidance, aware 

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

guidance.

 Use targeting tools to identify the most important air pollution problems and the most 

serious violations, including use of screening tools/approaches, such as the 

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

information, such as community input, to support compliance monitoring activities. 

 Have a process for identifying, targeting, evaluating, and responding to illegal activities 

affecting priority air pollution problems.

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

whenever necessary to protect communities by addressing and ultimately resolving 

serious air violations in order to bring sources into compliance.

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

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

especially those facilities that are on the HPV Watch List. OECA will be issuing further 

guidance concerning implementation of the HPV Policy.

 Negotiate settlements and track compliance with consent decrees and administrative 

orders and take all necessary actions to ensure compliance with the terms of federal 

enforcement actions. 

 Utilize assistance, incentives, monitoring, and enforcement tools and other approaches 

that all are effective in achieving widespread compliance. The appropriate combination 

and sequencing of such compliance assurance tools should be considered when 

determining the best approach for addressing environmental problems and returning 

sources to compliance.

In addition, the Regions should:

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

reported as investigations should meet the definition of an investigation as provided in 

the CMS and minimum data requirements. Both initiated and completed investigations 

are to be reported to AFS.

 Review Title V permits consistent with national guidance and ensure the delegated 

agencies/tribes are reviewing the certifications consistent with the CMS. Regions also 

should ensure that Title V permits do not shield sources subject to a pending or current 

CAA enforcement action or investigation, and that draft Title V permits include 
Page 20 of 82

appropriate placeholder language for the applicable requirement at any affected units. 

Regions should ensure that consent decree requirements, including required schedules of 

compliance are incorporated into underlying federally enforceable non-Title V and Title 

V permits.

 Include evaluations of chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs) and other ozone depleting substances 

(ODS) as part of routine full compliance evaluations (FCEs) / partial compliance 

evaluations (PCEs) to the extent the regulations apply. 

 Provide assistance to delegated agencies, including initiating enforcement actions, to 

address non-compliance at federal facilities. Exercise the 1997 clarified penalty authority 

against federal agencies for CAA violations in appropriate circumstances. FFEO will 

complete new research on power plants operating on military bases.

 Perform CAA section 112(r) inspections at regulated facilities in the Region, including

high risk facilities. A high risk facility is one which meets one or more of the following 

criteria: 1) facilities who have reported RMP worst-case scenario population exceeds 

100,000 people; 2) any RMP facility with a hazard index greater than or equal to 25; 

and/or; 3) facilities that have had one or more significant accidental releases within the 

previous five years. (Note: facilities that have only program 1 process are not considered 

high risk). Inspections at high-risk facilities should also include an evaluation of 

compliance with applicable EPCRA and CERCLA requirements. 

 Focus on identifying RMP non-filers and initiating enforcement as appropriate. 

Headquarters will continue to provide support in this area. 

 Evaluate and bring to closure 100% of any self-disclosures received by the Region.

 Settle or litigate cases filed in years prior to FY 2011 and ensure investigation and 

issuance of appropriate action for any tips, complaints, or referrals received by EPA.

 Exercise authority in accordance with the 2008 Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation 

Adjustment Rule and the Amendments to the CAA Civil Penalty Policy to implement the 

2008 Penalty Inflation Rule. (Web links to these and other guidance documents are on 

page 23-24.)

 Ensure compliance with environmental statutes in Indian country unless and until a Tribe

obtains primacy. 

COMMITMENT CAA 4

2

-: Number of compliance evaluations to be conducted at majors, 80% 

synthetic minors, and other sources (as appropriate) by the Regions. [Note: Break out evaluation 

 

2 To insure data quality when comparing commitments and results between different fiscal years, measures that span 

more that one year retain the measure number. Numbers of measures that are discontinued cannot be used again. 

Therefore, the commitment measures are not in sequential order. Commitment CAA 04 captures core program 

activities previously reported under separate commitment that have been discontinued. Reporting under one 

commitment allows for a greater understanding of the core program as a whole and how regional 
Page 21 of 82

projections by source classification and by compliance monitoring category (FCE, PCE, and 

Investigations). In the comment section, provide the number of federal facility FCEs, PCEs and 

investigations. Projected investigations under this commitment are those investigations initiated 

by the Regions for the air enforcement program outside of the National Enforcement Initiatives, 

and identified by the air program (e.g., MACT, NSPS).

COMMITMENT CAA 11-: Regions are to conduct inspections at 5% of the total number of 

facilities in the Region required to submit RMPs. Of these inspections, 25% must be conducted 

at high-risk facilities. These inspections at high-risk facilities also must include an evaluation of 

compliance with Sections 304, 311, and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Rightto-know Act (EPCRA) and Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) requirements. If the Region is responsible for 

entering data for a delegated agency or Tribe, the Region should identify the delegated agency or 

Tribe. [Note: Section 68.220 audits conducted do not count towards the 5% inspection target.]

4. Reset Our Relationships with States

The Regions should work with the state/local agencies and Tribes to identify priorities and align 

resources to implement the above commitments. This includes:

 Holding annual planning meetings with senior federal and state management to discuss 

air quality standards, permitting, and enforcement when developing program goals and 

annual monitoring and enforcement work plans. Convening routine and regular 

(quarterly)3 meetings with senior state management to assess progress in how the State

has been performing overall in its implementation of the program.

 Where States are not meeting performance expectations, Regions should take 

enforcement actions to address serious violations. Regions should focus oversight 

resources to the most pressing performance problems in States and should work to 

demonstrably improve State performance through these actions. Regions need to take 

action when necessary to communicate what things need attention to achieve goals of the 

federal environmental laws and ensure a level playing field between States. Where States 

are not taking enforcement actions in response to serious violations, Regions are directed 

to take federal action.

 Ensuring delegated agencies implement compliance monitoring and enforcement 

programs in accordance with national guidance/policy (e.g., the CAA CMS; HPV Policy; 

CAA National Stack Testing Guidance; Area Source Implementation Guidance 

(anticipated FY 2010 issuance)). Regions should monitor the level and quality of efforts 

undertaken by the delegated agencies to ensure strong enforcement of environmental 

laws. Enforcement actions, whether taken by the Regions, delegated states/locals, or 

Tribes should always be timely and accurately reported.

 

activities/commitments are related to one another.

3 These meetings may be held in person or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. The quarterly 

frequency is strongly suggested as a best practice for ensuring progress in meeting goals. Regions may rely upon 

existing communications with states when they meet the intent of this section. 
Page 22 of 82

 Negotiating facility-specific CMS plans with all delegated agencies. Throughout the 

year, Regions are to be evaluating progress and working with delegated agencies to revise 

such CMS plans as necessary.

 Having frequent (at least monthly) discussions with delegated agencies to ensure 

consistent implementation of the HPV Policy.

 Implementing the State Review Framework for the CAA Program (see Section VI.G), 

and ensuring progress with corrective actions identified in the SRF reports. 

 Reviewing state program progress periodically throughout the year in meetings between 

EPA and the States.

 Consulting with Tribes on the central role that enforcement and compliance plays in 

EPA’s direct implementation program and oversight of approved tribal programs

COMMITMENT CAA 06

4

-: Ensure delegated agencies implement their compliance and 

enforcement program in accordance with the CAA CMS and have a negotiated facility-specific 

CMS plan in place. Regions are to provide the number of FCEs at majors and 80% synthetic 

minors to be conducted by individual state/local agencies to demonstrate program 

implementation consistent with CMS. However, if a delegated agency negotiates with a Region

an alternative CMS plan, this Commitment should reflect the alternative plan. [Note: Break out 

evaluation projections (e.g., FCEs; PCEs included in alternative plan) by source classification]. 

Prior to approving an alternative plan, Regions should consult with the Office of Compliance 

(OC) and provide OC with information on how the state/local agency compliance monitoring air 

resources will be redirected and the rationale for making the change. 

5. Improve Transparency

The Regions should:

 Work with the state/local agencies and Tribes to verify that their compliance and 

enforcement data is input into the Air Facility System (AFS), the national repository for 

air stationary source compliance monitoring and enforcement data.

 Enter complete, accurate, and timely data consistent with the AFS Information Collection 

Request (ICR) and Agency policies. Agreements with delegated agencies to provide 

complete, accurate, and timely data should be incorporated in documents such as 

memorandum of understanding (MOU), State Enforcement Agreements (SEAs), 

Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs)/ Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs) or 

Section 105 grant agreements.

 

4 Commitment CAA 06 captures activities of delegated agencies previously reported under separate commitments 

that have been discontinued. Reporting under one commitment allows for a great understanding of delegated agency 

programs as a whole and how activities are related to one another. 
Page 23 of 82

 Work with EPA Headquarters to modernize AFS.

 Enter both draft and final State Review Framework (SRF) reports, which include 

Preliminary Data Analysis and file reviews, recommendations, state comments, and 

benefits arising from Framework reviews, including Element 13, into the Lotus Notes 

SRF Tracker database upon completion of a SRF review.

 Distinguish state information from Indian country information. 

 Make information available to communities, including Tribes, who may lack access to 

the internet.

COMMITMENT CAA 07

5

: Regions and delegated agencies should enter 100% of MDRs in 

AFS consistent with the Agency policies and the AFS ICR. The reporting of such complete, 

accurate, and timely data by delegated agencies should be reflected in written, up-to-date 

agreements with the Regions. If the Region is responsible for entering data for a delegated 

agency or Tribe, the Region should identify the delegated agency or Tribe. 

6. Relevant Policies and Guidances

Additional information about OECA’s CAA programs can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/index.html

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/caa/index.html

List of relevant CAA policies and guidance: 

 The Air Facility System Business Rules Compendium 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/data/systems/air/afsbusinessrulescompendium.p

df

 The Air Facility System Minimum Data Requirements 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/data/systems/air/mdrshort.pdf

 CAA Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/cmspolicy.pdf

 CAA National Stack Testing Guidance 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/caa/stacktesting.pdf

 Area Source Implementation guidance (anticipated to be issued in FY 2010)

 The Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to High Priority Violations 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/issue-ta-rpt.pdf

 The Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to High Priority Violations Workbook

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/hpvmanualrevised.pdf

 CAA Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/penpol.pdf

 

5 Commitment CAA07 captures under one commitment the regional and delegated agency responsibilities 

associated with data reporting that had been previously reported under separate commitments which are now 

discontinued.
Page 24 of 82

 CAA Section 112(r) Combined Enforcement Policy 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/caa12r-enfpol.pdf

 Guidance for Auditing Risk Management Plans/Programs under Clean Air Act Section 

112(r) www.epa.gov/oem/docs/chem/audit_gd.pdf

 Civil Penalty Policies http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/penalty/
Page 25 of 82

SECTION IV: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM WATER POLLUTION 

A. Clean Water Act (CWA)

OECA addresses water pollution problems resulting from noncompliance with our nation’s 

environmental statutes and regulations, including the following CWA programs:

 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program (including general 

and individual permits from sources such as municipal and industrial wastewater 

treatment facilities and their collection systems, concentrated animal feeding operations 

(CAFOs), industrial storm water, and vessels).

 Pretreatment Program

 Biosolids/ Sludge Program

 CWA Section 404 (Wetlands) Program

 CWA Section 311 (Oil Pollution Act, including the Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasures (SPCC) Program)

1. Clean Water Act Action Plan

OECA is currently working with EPA Regions, States and the Office of Water to implement the 

CWA Action Plan (―the Action Plan‖) issued in October 2009. The Action Plan’s three key 

elements are: 1) to focus our NPDES enforcement efforts on pollution sources that pose the 

greatest threats to water quality; 2) to strengthen oversight of state permitting and enforcement 

programs; and 3) to improve the accessibility and quality of information we provide to the 

public. These elements are consistent with the Assistant Administrator’s goals for the 

compliance and enforcement program, listed on pages 7 and 8 of this Guidance. 

Since work under the Action Plan is ongoing as this guidance is finalized, FY 2011 will be a 

transition year as we revamp the CWA compliance and enforcement program to better address 

our nation’s water quality challenges. OECA anticipates that, in the long term, existing policies, 

strategies and regulations may need to be revised to better identify and address the key water 

quality problems where NPDES compliance and enforcement efforts are critical components to 

protection and restoration. OECA also expects that the implementation of the Action Plan will 

identify more immediate opportunities to improve identification of serious noncompliance 

problems as well as new approaches to address these violations.

2. High Priority Performance Goal

For FY 2011, the Office of Management and Budget asked each federal department and agency 

to develop a set of High Priority Performance Goals (HPPGs) that will measure performance for 

a limited set of high priority activities. EPA has developed a HPPG that measures EPA’s actions 

to improve water quality through implementation of the Clean Water Act Action Plan. For FY 

2011, OECA has the following HPPG:
Page 26 of 82

 Increase pollutant-reducing enforcement actions in waters that don’t meet water quality 

standards, and post results and analysis on the web.

This HPPG aligns with the Clean Water Act Action Plan goal of targeting enforcement to the 

most important water pollution problems. The HPPG is not based on expected increases in 

enforcement actions, but rather a greater emphasis on taking enforcement actions against

facilities that discharge pollutants into waters not achieving water quality standards. The 

enforcement actions are concluded judicial and administrative enforcement cases that result in a 

reduction in pollutants. The HPPG is limited to EPA actions only because at present OECA does 

not have the necessary information to report on state enforcement actions. The HPPG is also tied 

to waters known to not achieve water quality standards, and thus do not measure enforcement 

actions that address water pollution problems in unassessed water bodies.

OECA will link relevant environmental information to facility location and compliance data to 

inform the targeting of compliance and enforcement efforts. The CWA section 303(d) lists are 

available to start targeting enforcement actions, but this information does not identify all 

impaired water. OECA will be adding to the CWA section 303(d) list those waters that have yet 

to achieve standards, but for which either a TMDL was completed or a TMDL was determined to 

not be necessary. The OTIS application to identify facilities discharging into these waters will 

be available in June 2010.

Starting in FY 2011, OECA will be tracking the performance of Regions to target enforcement 

actions on facilities discharging into waters not achieving water quality standards.

COMMITMENT CWA 10: Regions should identify the percentage of concluded federal 

judicial and administrative enforcement actions resulting in a reduction of pollutants that pertain 

to facilities discharging into waters that do not achieve water quality standards.

3. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives

The relevant FY 2011 – 2013 national enforcement initiatives for CWA programs are:

Keeping Raw Sewage and Contaminated Stormwater Out of Our Nation’s Waters: EPA 

will continue its enforcement focus on reducing discharges of raw sewage and contaminated 

stormwater into our nation’s rivers, streams and lakes. Older urban areas in particular have aging 

sewer systems that are not designed to handle heavy rainfall and snowfall, in addition to growing 

urban populations and industrial discharges. As a result, untreated sewage too frequently 

overflows from sewers into waterways, or backs up into city streets or basements of homes. Raw 

sewage contains pathogens that threaten public health, leading to beach closures and public 

advisories against fishing and swimming. This problem particularly affects older urban areas, 

where minority and low income communities are often concentrated. In addition, stormwater 

runoff from urban streets and construction sites carries sediment, metal, oil and grease, acid, 

chemicals, toxic materials and industrial waste into surface waters. Many cities use rivers as the 

source of their drinking water, and contaminants in the water increase the difficulty and expense 

of treating the water for drinking water use. The Clean Water Act requires municipalities to treat 

sewage before it is discharged and to control contaminated stormwater discharges, but many 
Page 27 of 82

municipalities are not complying with these requirements. EPA’s enforcement efforts in recent 

years have resulted in agreements by many cities to remedy these problems, but the problem 

remains in many other cities. This National Enforcement Initiative will focus on reducing 

discharges from combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and 

municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) in FY2011-13, by obtaining cities’

commitments to implement timely, affordable solutions to these problems, including increased 

use of green infrastructure and other innovative approaches.

Preventing Animal Waste from Contaminating Surface and Ground Waters: Concentrated 

Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are agricultural operations where animals live in a 

confined environment. CAFOs can contain large numbers of animals, feed, manure, dead 

animals and production operations on a small land area. The animals generate a large amount of 

manure, which typically is held in lagoons or spread on nearby fields. If not properly controlled, 

manure can overflow from lagoons or run off from the fields into nearby surface waters or seep

into ground water, carrying disease-causing pathogens, nutrients, or other contaminants into the 

water. This contaminates both surface waters and ground waters that may be used as drinking 

water sources and harms fish and other aquatic species in surface waters.

Several studies have found high concentrations of CAFOs in areas with low income and minority 

populations. This is typical in many rural areas of the country where livestock facilities are 

located. Children in these populations may be particularly susceptible to potential adverse health 

effects through exposure to contaminated surface waters or drinking water from contaminated 

ground water sources. The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of these pollutants into 

surface waters, and EPA’s regulations require larger CAFOs to have permits (which impose 

control requirements) if the waste produced by animals on the farm will run off into surface 

waters. However, many CAFOs are not complying with these requirements. Therefore, EPA will 

continue and strengthen its enforcement focus on these facilities. For FY2011-13, OECA will 

focus primarily on existing large and medium CAFOs identified as discharging without a permit. 

4. Link with Top Office of Water Priorities

OECA addresses top Office of Water priorities for the CWA in the following ways:

 Restoring and Protecting Urban Waters: As part of aggressively going after pollution 

that matters to communities, OECA’s enforcement and compliance will be particularly 

focused on protecting communities by getting raw sewage out of the water, cutting 

pollution from animal waste, and reducing polluted stormwater runoff.

 Focusing Efforts in Key Geographic Areas: OECA is improving protection of the 

Chesapeake Bay as part of the Chesapeake Bay Compliance and Enforcement Strategy 

(see http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/initiatives/chesapeakebay.html)

 Strengthening Protections for Our Waters: OECA is improving protection of water

through the Clean Water Act Action Plan (see item 1. above and 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/cwaenfplan.html).
Page 28 of 82

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

Communities across the country depend on clean water as a source of drinking water, a habitat to 

support healthy ecosystems and as a resource for recreation and fishing. They expect protection 

from exposure to water contaminated by raw sewage, animal waste and pollutants in urban storm 

water run-off. 

Direct exposure to raw sewage and associated high levels of disease-causing organisms can be a 

particular problem for communities located in older urban areas where the aging municipal 

wastewater infrastructure may be failing or unable to handle the demands of a growing urban 

population. When pipes break, equipment fails or the system exceeds capacity, untreated 

wastewater flows into waterways, homes and city streets, most significantly exposing the 

community to pathogens. Urban water bodies can also be assaulted by large volumes of 

uncontrolled polluted storm water from streets, parking lots, and commercial and industrial 

businesses. Many of these older urban areas include minority and low income communities. 

Exposure to animal waste from concentrated animal feeding operations may particularly affect 

low income and minority populations in rural areas. Water bodies polluted by the waste can 

cause human illness after swimming or wading and result in contaminated fish and shellfish. 

This is a particular problem with respect to subsistence fishing, which is most frequent in 

minority and low income populations. 

OECA, together with the Office of Water and state water control agencies will work to identify 

at-risk waters and use their appropriate regulatory tools, including setting strong water quality 

standards, issuing protective NPDES permits and addressing serious violations through effective 

enforcement to ensure water quality protection and restoration. 

A. CWA NPDES Program 

Regions in non-authorized States and Indian country, and authorized States and Tribes, should: 

 Target to identify the most serious sources of pollution and the most serious violations. 

Use tools, such as available ambient monitoring data and GIS, to target the most 

significant sources of pollutants on those water bodies and watersheds that are impaired.

 Develop annual compliance monitoring plans that take advantage of the flexibility 

available in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance 

Monitoring Strategy for the Core Program and Wet Weather Sources (issued October 17, 

2007), along with additional approaches identified in the CWA Action Plan, to target 

inspections aimed at identifying and addressing serious water quality problems where 

NPDES compliance and enforcement tools will be effective in addressing the pollution 

problem.

 Use existing national compliance and enforcement policy and guidance, e.g., the 1989 

National Enforcement Management System (EMS), the 2007 NPDES Compliance 

Monitoring Strategy (CMS) and the 2007 Interim Significant Non-Compliance Policy for 
Page 29 of 82

CWA Violations Associated with CSOs, SSOs, CAFOs, and Storm Water Point Sources

(Interim WWSNC Policy), to identify and address serious violations impacting water 

quality. The Interim WWSNC Policy is currently only being used by EPA Regions to 

prioritize federal wet weather violations, though States are encouraged to consider its use. 

OECA, working with OW, will also finalize new approaches to improve these efforts in 

relation to the CWA Action Plan, and will provide additional guidance to EPA Regions 

and States on implementation at that time. 

 Evaluate all violations to determine seriousness and determine an appropriate response.

Facilities in significant noncompliance (SNC), especially those causing facilities to be on 

the Watch List should be acted on, along with sources with serious effluent limit 

violations, unpermitted discharges, systemic reporting problems or violations at facilities

with potential to seriously impact to water quality. 

 Consider pilots or innovate approaches to deal with more routine, paperwork violations.

 Initiate and complete civil enforcement actions, where appropriate to address serious 

violations contributing to a community’s water quality problems. This includes judicial 

and administrative actions. Ensure compliance with consent decrees and administrative 

orders. 

 Implement targeted ―real time‖ (quick response) enforcement activities to address 

violations impacting communities’ waters, such as violations at concentrated animal 

feeding operations (CAFOs). OECA will provide additional training and guidance on 

this approach in FY 10 and FY 11.

 Utilize assistance, incentives, monitoring, and enforcement tools to address serious 

noncompliance problems causing water quality problems in targeted communities and 

watersheds.

 Implement the use of NetDMR or other e-DMR tools for the electronic transfer of 

Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) to ICIS-NPDES, supported by use of the National 

Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network), by all of their 

NPDES permitted facilities. Administrator Jackson , in her July 7, 2009 memorandum, 

―Achieving the Promise of the National Environmental Information Exchange Network,‖ 

requested cross-Agency commitment to make the Network the preferred way EPA, 

States, Tribes, and others share and exchange data while supporting an aggressive 

timetable to phase out other data submission and exchange methods. EPA Regions need 

to demonstrate leadership in implementing this strategic vision for the Agency.

In addition, Regions should:

 Implement CWA specific geographic compliance and enforcement strategies, as 

appropriate for their Region, including CWA Action Plan pilots, the Chesapeake Bay 

Enforcement Strategy, and other region-specific geographic initiatives.
Page 30 of 82

 Routinely review all DMRs and non-compliance reports received for compliance with 

permit requirements where the Region directly implements the program. (Note that 

Regions may accomplish this review through a routine screen of the PCS or ICIS-NPDES 

data and reviewing the DMRs themselves as necessary.)

 Where the Region has direct implementation responsibilities, they should inspect and 

audit pretreatment POTWs and Industrial Users (IUs) to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

regulatory authorities pretreatment program, either in conjunction with other compliance 

inspections at major and minor POTWs such as compliance evaluations (CEIs) or 

separately. 

 Where the Region has direct implementation responsibilities, they should inspect

biosolids/sludge facilities to evaluate the permittee’s compliance with sludge monitoring, 

record keeping and reporting, treatment operations, and sampling and laboratory quality 

assurance, either in conjunction with other compliance inspections at major and minor 

POTWs such as compliance evaluations (CEIs) or separately. 

 Use all available data to benchmark and monitor state performance using data from 

federal and state data systems, permitting and enforcement performance reviews, and 

other audit or evaluation reports. These include State Review Framework reviews, Office 

of Water Permit Quality Reviews, regular EPA/State meetings to review performance, 

state data not entered into national databases, and GAO and/or IG reviews of state 

performance. 

 Where States are not meeting performance expectations, Regions should take action to 

object to permits that are not protective of water quality and enforce to address serious 

violations. Regions should focus oversight resources on the most pressing performance 

problems in States which had been identified through permitting and enforcement 

reviews. Regions and States must work together to demonstrably improve state 

performance. Guidance will be made available under the Clean Water Act Action Plan to 

further clarify expectations. 

 Coordinate, as appropriate, with the Coast Guard and other federal agencies which have 

significant roles in addressing spills, and follow all related Memoranda of Agreement

including the MOU for the Vessels General Permit.

 Continue implementing the Federal Facility Integrated Strategy on Stormwater.

 Show support and encourage their States that are currently using the NPDES Permit 

Compliance System (PCS) to continue with their efforts to prepare to migrate to the 

modernized data system, ICIS-NPDES. The batch data flow capability from States to 

ICIS-NPDES through EPA’s National Environmental Information Exchange Network is 

currently under development and is scheduled to be implemented in three distinct 

releases. The first release, scheduled for April 2011, will provide functionality for the 

transmittal of Permit and Facility information. The second release, scheduled for January 

2012, will provide functionality for the transmittal of Inspection information. The final 
Page 31 of 82

release, scheduled for March of 2013, will provide functionality for the transmittal of 

remaining NPDES data families to include Enforcement Actions, Single Event 

Violations, and Program Reports. Regions should be working with their States to 

identify the appropriate release and schedule for data migration.

COMMITMENT CWA07: By December 31, 2010, provide a specific NPDES Compliance 

Monitoring Strategy (CMS) plan for each State in the Region. The plan should provide universe 

information for the CMS categories; sub-categories covered by the CMS and combined EPA and 

State expected accomplishments for each category and subcategory. The plan should identify 

trade-offs made among the categories utilizing the flexibility designed into the CMS policy to 

target the most significant sources with potential to impact water quality. At end of year provide 

for each State a numerical report on EPA and state inspection plan outputs, by category and 

subcategory. 

Indicator Measure CWA 08 for NPDES Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS). During 

FY 2011, OC and the Regions will complete work initiated in FY 2010 on development of a 

Compliance Monitoring Composite Index (CMCI) for the NPDES Compliance Monitoring 

Strategy (CMS). Starting in FY 2012, the CMCI will be used as a single summative end of year 

indicator of NPDES inspection program performance relative to program areas addressed in the 

CMS. 

B. CWA Section 404 – Discharge of Dredge and Fill material (Wetlands)

Regions should:

 Coordinate, as appropriate, with other federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Fish and Wildlife Service, 

etc.) which have significant roles in wetlands protection through the use of memoranda of 

understanding and memoranda of agreement or other appropriate mechanisms.

 Begin to use the new national tracking system if it is ready for implementation in FY 

2011, or modify the existing data base, in consultation with HQ, to more completely and 

transparently track EPA 404 enforcement actions, including referrals form the Corps of 

Engineers and the identification of repeat and flagrant violators

 Develop methods to effectively leverage other program resources to more systematically 

identify potential serious Section 404 violations and take appropriate enforcement 

response to address these violations. Share effective techniques with OECA for use in 

developing the national wetlands enforcement strategy.

 Implement existing Regional cross agency 404 enforcement training programs between 

state and federal agencies and begin implementing new efforts identified by HQ to crosstrain inspectors and to train other federal and state agencies and stakeholders to identify 

CWA 404 violations.
Page 32 of 82

C. CWA Section 311 – Oil Pollution Act 

Regions should:

 Check compliance monitoring at facilities that have large quantities of oil and may have a 

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

water intakes) and are subject to spill prevention and facility response planning 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.

 Routinely review spill notification reports, inspection reports, and other available data to 

determine if routine noncompliance or the risk of spills from oil storage, including 

pipelines, is being adequately addressed. Take appropriate action to address spills of oil 

and hazardous substances that have occurred. 

6. Reset Our Relationships with States

Every Region and State, working together, should conduct a CWA annual planning process that 

brings the different components of the regional and state NPDES program (water quality 

standards and assessment, permitting and enforcement) all to the table together, identifies and 

discusses national, regional, and state priorities versus available resources at both the state and 

federal levels, and results in collaborative annual work plans that use all available mechanisms to 

get work done, such as federal and state work-sharing, innovative approaches to monitoring 

facilities or addressing violations, etc. 

Regions should:

 Hold annual planning meetings with each State to develop collaborative annual work 

plans.

Convene routine and regular (quarterly)6 meetings between the Region and State to discuss 

progress towards meeting annual permitting and enforcement commitments, and how the State

has been performing overall in the NPDES program.

 Where States are not meeting performance expectations, Regions should take action to 

enforce to address serious violations. Regions should focus oversight resources to the 

most pressing performance problems in States and should work to demonstrably improve 

state performance through these actions. Regions need to take action when necessary to 

communicate what things need attention to achieve goals of the federal environmental 

laws and ensure a level playing field between States. Where States are not taking 

enforcement actions in response to serious violations, Regions are directed to take federal 

action.

 

6 These meetings may be held in person or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. The quarterly 

frequency is strongly suggested as a best practice for ensuring progress in meeting goals. Regions may rely upon 

existing communications with states when they meet the intent of this section.
Page 33 of 82

 Conduct a sufficient number of oversight NPDES inspections to ensure the integrity and 

quality of each State or Tribe with primacy compliance monitoring programs. The 

Regions have flexibility to determine the appropriate number of oversight inspections 

needed to ensure proper state inspection conduct and documentation. Oversight 

inspections are not "joint" inspections. Oversight inspections can be conducted by

accompanying state inspectors during inspections, or conducting a separate inspection at 

the same facility at a later date to verify the same findings. 

 Implement the State Review Framework (SRF) for the NPDES program (see section 

VI.G.), and associated corrective actions identified in the SRF reports.

 Consider the following information when conducting state program oversight:

 number of SNCs identified (and percent of universe), especially those related to 

effluent exceedances or illegal discharges

 number (and percent) addressed in a timely and appropriate manner

 number of Watch List facilities per region

 results of SRF and permit quality reviews and progress in correcting identified issues.

 Consult with Tribes on the central role that enforcement and compliance plays in EPA’s 

direct implementation program and oversight of approved tribal programs.

COMMITMENT CWA 09: Regions should submit the collaborative EPA/State annual work 

plans addressing NPDES permitting, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities, 

including work-sharing, to the Office of Compliance and the Office of Wastewater Management 

by September 30, 2010 for FY 2011 activities.

7. Improve Transparency

 Data regarding state assessments, priorities and performance under the CWA should be 

made public by the Regions and Headquarters, where possible, on a regular basis in a 

manner easily understood and used by the public.

 If data systems are not able to support reporting at end-of-year FY 2010, the Regions 

should manually report using instructions specified in the multi-program fiscal year 

reporting guidance memorandum.

 Regions should use, and States should consider using:

 the Interim Significant Noncompliance Policy for CWA Violations Associated 

with CSOs, SSOs, CAFOs, and Storm Water Point Sources (i.e., Interim WW 

SNC Policy); and 

 the Regional Guidance for Tracking CWA NPDES Inspection-Related Violations 

and Wet Weather Significant Noncompliance 
Page 34 of 82

for reporting inspections conducted, violations identified (including single event violations or 

SEVs), and Wet Weather SNC determinations and resolutions in the national data system 

(i.e., PCS or ICIS-NPDES) as specified in the guidance.

 Regions should work with the States and Tribes to verify that their compliance and 

enforcement data is input into national databases.

 Regions should:

o Enter all federal enforcement cases into national databases.

o Enter all federal civil judicial, non-CERCLA consent decrees into ICIS.

o Enter SRF NPDES program information into the SRF Tracker (see section 

VI.G.).

o Distinguish State information from Indian country information.

o Encourage facilities and States to use NetDMR to report DMR information to 

ICIS-NPDES. 

 Compliance monitoring activities conducted pursuant to the goals in CMS and the statespecific plans should be reported into the appropriate national information system, either 

PCS or ICIS-NPDES, in accordance with documents which establish data requirements 

and reporting timeframes for those systems. States must ensure that all required 

compliance and enforcement data is input or transmitted to the national databases. EPA 

encourages States to expend their use of the national databases to include compliance and 

enforcement data that pertains to the entire NPDES universe. Regions will work with the 

States and Tribes to accomplish these goals.

 Regions should review reporting practices to ensure that oil and hazardous substance 

spills are timely and accurately reported to the National Response Center (NRC)

 Regions should make information available to communities, including Native American 

and Alaskan Natives, who lack access to the internet.

8. Relevant Policies and Guidances

Additional information about OECA’s Clean Water Act programs can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/cwa/index.html

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/cwa/index.html

B. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

OECA addresses drinking water pollution problems through the following SDWA programs:

 Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program

 Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program

EPA’s focus on drinking water systems, including those in Indian country, is essential to

protecting communities from the acute and chronic effects of drinking water that fails to comply 

with the SDWA. OECA worked with the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water 
Page 35 of 82

(OGWDW), Regions, States, and Tribes with primacy to implement a new Enforcement 

Targeting Tool (ETT) and Enforcement Response Policy (ERP). The ETT and ERP emphasize a 

focus on high-priority systems, those with health-based violations or monitoring or reporting 

violations that can mask acute health-based violations. 

The ETT assigns numerical values to violations based on their severity, applies the values in a 

formula, and generates a score for each violating public water system (PWS). The higher a PWS

(Public Water Supply) score, the more serious is its overall noncompliance. A PWS with a score 

of 11 or higher is a high priority system for primacy agency or EPA enforcement response and 

return to compliance. OECA’s long term goal is to ensure that all systems with scores of 11 or 

higher are returned to compliance or are put on a path to compliance (see the ERP for details) 

within 6 months. Additionally this approach is designed to better help OGWDW meet its GPRA 

measures.

The ETT and ERP apply equally to EPA direct implementation in States without primacy and 

Indian country and implementation by States and Tribes with primacy. 

1. Link with Top Office of Water Priorities

OECA addresses top Office of Water priorities for the SDWA in the following ways:

 Safeguarding Public Health: As part of aggressively going after pollution that matters to 

communities, OECA will be using all enforcement and compliance tools to assure clean 

drinking water, which is so essential to community health, with continued attention to 

clean drinking water in schools, to protect children’s health, and on tribal lands

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

The ETT’s scoring formula focuses enforcement resources on those systems with health-based 

violations, those with major monitoring and reporting violations, and those that show a history of 

violations across multiple rules. Its system-based methodology is intended to ensure consistency 

and the integrity of the PWSS national enforcement program and to provide increased protection 

for communities.

 Regions, States and Tribes with primacy will use the prioritized list produced by the ETT 

to identify the systems that will be addressed first, i.e., those with scores of 11 or greater, 

as they work to reduce the number of systems with violations that are not addressed and 

increase those that have returned to compliance. If all systems in a Region, State or Tribe 

with primacy with scores of 11 or greater are addressed, those primacy entities are 

expected to continue addressing the remaining systems in priority order and returning 

them to compliance.

Compliance at systems in Indian county should be considered a high priority for Regions and 

Tribes with primacy when developing strategies for targeting compliance assurance and 

enforcement work to ensure both sustained compliance and, where there are violations, a timely 

return to compliance. Regions should initiative return to compliance efforts at systems in Indian 
Page 36 of 82

country as soon as practicable after noncompliance is identified. This is essential as EPA 

transitions from drinking water systems in Indian country from being a national initiative back 

into the overall program. 

COMMITMENT SDWA02-: Regions, as the primacy authority (and States and Tribes with 

primacy, should commit to address a specific number of systems between July 2010 and June 

2011 (this number should be based on the historical number of ―new SNC systems‖ that were 

generated during an average year when EPA utilized the former SNC approach). The Regions 

should provide the numbers to be addressed broken down by State and Tribe with primacy, and 

by EPA in non-primacy areas (e.g., Wyoming and Indian country), in the comment field. The 

specific systems to be addressed will be identified using the prioritized list produced by the ETT, 

to ensure that the highest-priority systems are addressed first. The new ERP requires that 

systems with violations are addressed and returned to compliance.

At mid-year FY2011, EPA may implement a new commitment measure reflecting use of the 

ETT.

3. Reset Our Relationships with States

Using the new ETT and ERP, Regions should work with States and Tribes with primacy in an 

oversight capacity and through direct implementation in non-primacy States and Indian country 

to ensure that priority PWSs are identified, addressed, and returned to compliance.

 Convene routine and regular (quarterly)7 meetings between the Region and State to 

discuss progress towards meeting annual program and enforcement commitments, and 

how the State has been performing overall in its implementation of the program. 

 Where States are not meeting performance expectations, Regions should take action to 

ensure serious violations are addressed. Regions should focus oversight resources on the

most pressing performance problems in States and should work to demonstrably improve 

state performance through these actions. Regions should also take action when necessary 

to communicate what issues need attention to achieve the goals of federal environmental 

laws and ensure a level playing field between States.

 Regions should use strategic Performance Partnership Agreements/ Performance 

Partnership Grants, other grant workplans, and monthly or quarterly meetings/calls to 

review the results of using the ETT and ERP to establish expectations and to determine 

respective levels of effort. Headquarters will provide quarterly data to update the ETT so 

that the Regions, States and Tribes can determine which systems have a score of 11 or 

more points. When high priority systems are addressed by a Region, State, or Tribe, 

these count toward the Regional commitment number for the Fixed Base. 

 

7 These meetings may be held in person or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. The quarterly 

frequency is strongly suggested as a best practice for ensuring progress in meeting goals. Regions may rely upon 

existing communications with states when they meet the intent of this section.
Page 37 of 82

 For PWSs scoring 11 or more using the ETT, Regions should report to headquarters at 

midyear and end of year on the number of systems addressed (i.e., on the path to 

compliance) and returned to compliance. 

 EPA should consult with Tribes on the central role that enforcement and compliance 

plays in EPA’s direct implementation program and oversight of tribal primacy programs. 

As part of such consultation, Regions and Tribes should discuss plans to integrate the 

new ETT and ERP with the ―EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental 

Programs on Indian Reservations‖ and the ―Guidance on the Enforcement Principles 

Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy‖ to effectively address high priority violations at 

PWSs in Indian country.

4. Improve Transparency

OECA headquarters will report on progress in returning systems to compliance in its annual 

national compliance report posted on the EPA website at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/accomplishment/sdwa/

 Compliance data should distinguish State information from Indian country information. 

 Information should be made available to communities, including Native American and 

Alaskan Natives, who lack access to the internet.

 OECA will look at ways of making the PWS report more useable and understandable by 

the public.

5. Relevant Policies and Guidances

Additional information about OECA’s SDWA programs can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/sdwa/index.html

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/sdwa/index.html
Page 38 of 82

SECTION V: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FROM WASTE, TOXICS, AND PESTICIDES 

POLLUTION 

A. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

OECA addresses waste pollution problems through the following RCRA programs:

 Hazardous Waste Subtitle C Program

 Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I program

 Imminent and Substantial Endangerment

Readers are urged to review the RCRA Compliance Monitoring Strategy for detailed information 

about goals and measures, policies which allow flexibility from OECA’s expectations, program 

oversight, and other aspects of the RCRA compliance monitoring program.

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

RCRA dictates minimum inspection frequencies for TSDFs: annually for TSDFs operated by 

state/local governments, and biennially for non-governmental TSDFs. The first two 

commitments apply to TSDFs owned or operated by non-governmental entities, and to TSDFs 

owned but not operated by state/local/tribal governments. RCRA03 applies to TSDFs operated

by state/local/tribal governments. These inspections should be Compliance Evaluation 

Inspections (CEIs). 

COMMITMENT RCRA01: Project by State, and Indian country where appropriate, the 

number of operating TSDFs, to be inspected by the Region during the year8. Regions must 

commit to inspect at least two (2) TSDFs in each State/Indian country unless OECA approves a 

deviation from this requirement. Financial responsibility is a component of this inspection 

requirement (see also RCRA04).

COMMITMENT RCRA03: Inspect each operating TSDF operated by States, Tribal 

governments or local governments. 

COMMITMENT RCRA04: Project by State and Indian country the number of financial 

assurance mechanisms to be inspected by the Region during the year. Regions must commit to 

review at least four (4) financial test and/or corporate guarantee submissions per year in each 

State for compliance with the closure and post-closure regulations. Regions may instead choose 

to review other types of financial assurance instruments for facilities that did not have a financial 

assurance review during the FY 2008-FY 2010 national enforcement priority. The reviews 

should be formal Financial Records Reviews, and take place within 90 days after the 

submissions are received9.

 

8 Currently there is only one TSD in all of Indian country.

9 RCRA04 is based upon a general statutory requirement that financial responsibility compliance be included in 

TSDF compliance monitoring although the statute does not specify the number of evaluations. 
Page 39 of 82

 In FY2011, financial responsibility will transition from being an OECA National Priority to 

being an important part of the RCRA core program. 

 Under the financial assurance national priority, EPA inspected over half of the TSDF 

universe subject to financial assurance for closure/post-closure. EPA identified 

financial tests/corporate guarantees as the most prevalent financial assurance 

instruments. For closure/post-closure, the financial test/corporate guarantee made up 

39% of financial instruments used and 55% of the value of those instruments. These 

were also the instruments that presented the highest risk to EPA and States compared 

to third party instruments. Unlike other financial responsibility mechanisms, the 

financial test and corporate guarantee do not require facility owner/operators to set 

aside funds to ensure proper closure/post-closure.

 In returning financial responsibility to the core program, Regions should ensure 

continued review of financial test/corporate guarantee submissions since they present 

the greatest risk and are the most commonly-used instruments. 

 Regions are expected to focus on reviewing the universe of TSDFs not formally 

evaluated during the national priority, and on conducting in-depth reviews of 

financial test/corporate guarantee submissions. 

 Consistent with RCRA Section 3004(a), OECA has established an annual commitment for 

financial responsibility to ensure adequate, continuing attention to this issue.

Regions are to coordinate with States to conduct these financial assurance reviews.

2. Implement National Enforcement Initiatives

The relevant FY 2011 – 2013 national enforcement initiative for RCRA programs is:

Reducing Pollution from Mineral Processing Operations: Mining and mineral processing 

facilities generate more toxic and hazardous waste than any other industrial sector, based on 

EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory. Many of these facilities have impacted surrounding 

communities and continue to pose high risk to human health and the environment. For example, 

95 mining and mineral processing sites are on the Superfund National Priorities List and more 

sites are being added every year, including operating facilities. EPA has spent over $2.4 billion 

to address the human health and environmental threats to communities, such as exposure to 

asbestos and lead poisoning in children, as a result of mining and mineral processing. In some 

cases, EPA had to relocate families because of these threats, especially those to children in low

income communities. EPA has inspected 65 mining and mineral processing sites that pose 

significant risk to communities and found many to be in serious non-compliance with hazardous 

waste and other environmental laws. Contamination of groundwater and potable water has 

occurred at many sites, sometimes requiring alternative drinking water supplies or removal of 

lead-contaminated soil from residential yards. In other cases, toxic spills into waterways from 

mining and mineral processing caused massive fish kills and impacted the livelihood of low 

income communities. Some workers at mining and mineral processing facilities have been 
Page 40 of 82

exposed to spills and mismanagement of toxic and hazardous waste. EPA will continue its 

enforcement initiative to bring these facilities into compliance with the law and protect the 

environment and nearby communities. 

3. Link with Top OSWER Priorities

OECA addresses top OSWER priorities for RCRA in the following ways:

 Recycling, Waste Minimization and Energy Recovery: OECA maintains an overall 

enforcement presence in RCRA that indirectly supports OSWER in their work.

 Emergency Preparedness, Implementing the EPAct, Response and Homeland Security: 

OECA maintains an overall enforcement presence in RCRA that indirectly supports 

OSWER in their work. 

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

a. RCRA Subtitle C Program

Regions and States should inspect pollution problems that matter to their respective 

communities, and develop enforcement cases that produce significant environmental benefits. 

Regions, States and Tribes with authorization10 are expected to follow the guidance in the 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C 

Program (RCRA CMS). To enable States to address environmental problems of concern to 

communities, States may utilize flexibility in the RCRA CMS to deviate from their large 

quantity generator (LQG) requirements.

11

 RCRA facilities may cause air, surface and 

groundwater pollution. Because these facilities are frequently associated with industrial 

operations, surrounding communities are often low income and minority.

Issues of emerging environmental concern to EPA and communities are listed here. These focus 

areas should be considered a high priority for Regions and States when developing strategies for 

targeting compliance assurance work. These should also specifically be discussed between 

States and Regions when developing plans for respective activities in the Region. The areas of 

concern are:

 Surface Impoundments: OECA, with support from States, continues to focus on 

problems associated with illegal disposal of hazardous waste in unlined surface 

impoundments. There are thousands of industrial surface impoundments across the 

country, many of which adversely impact communities through air, surface water, and/or 

groundwater contamination, particularly in the chemical manufacturing and petroleum 

refining sectors.

 

 

10 Currently no Tribes are authorized to implement the RCRA Subtitle C program

11 See OECA’s Guidance for RCRA Core LQG Pilot Projects (2007), 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/
Page 41 of 82

 Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities: These facilities conduct treatment of industrial 

solid waste from third-parties. Through recent inspections, EPA has identified several 

such facilities that were grossly mismanaging hazardous wastes, and treating and 

discharging these wastes without permits.

 Hazardous Waste Recycling Facilities: EPA supports the environmentally beneficial 

recycling of hazardous wastes and secondary materials. However, sham recycling and 

recycling not done in compliance with RCRA requirements can result in significant 

adverse impacts to human health and the environment. 

 Electronic Waste Exports: Many electronic products constitute hazardous waste when 

discarded. EPA encourages safe recycling or reuse of these materials in compliance with 

RCRA; however, electronic waste is being increasingly illegally exported from the 

United States to operations in developing countries not equipped to properly manage 

these materials, resulting in substantial risks to human health and the environment in 

foreign communities. 

 RCRA Corrective Action: EPA and authorized States should focus on facilities that have 

made no meaningful progress in achieving remedial objectives, and on financially 

marginal or bankrupt facilities, where use of enforcement tools are needed in order to 

move the facility towards construction completion. EPA Regions should use the National 

Enforcement Strategy for Corrective Action when assessing EPA-lead facilities and 

prioritizing corrective action enforcement actions.

The following performance expectations apply to Regions for FY2011. (Readers should consult 

the RCRA CMS for additional information about, conditions applicable to, and approved 

deviations from, these performance expectations.)

 Regions are expected to continue to provide compliance assistance, conduct compliance 

monitoring, and pursue enforcement to ensure that pollution problems that matter to 

communities are aggressively addressed. 

COMMITMENT RCRA01.s: Project by State the number of operating TSDFs to be inspected 

by the State during the year. 

 The RCRA CMS establishes minimum annual inspection expectations for LQGs: The 

inspections for this commitment should be CEIs. Only one inspection per facility counts 

towards this coverage measure.

COMMITMENT RCRA02: Project by State and Indian country, the number of LQGs, 

including those at federal facilities, to be inspected by the Region during the year. Regions must 

commit to inspect at least six (6) LQGs in each State, and 20% in Indian country, unless OECA 

approves a deviation from this requirement. In the Comment Section, provide the number of 

federal facility LOG inspections.
Page 42 of 82

COMMITMENT RCRA02.s: Project by State the number of LQGs to be inspected by the 

State during the year. At least 20 percent of the LQG universe should be covered by combined 

federal and State inspections unless an alternative plan is approved under the RCRA CMS.12 

COMMITMENT OSRE-04: For 100% of the financial test submissions received each fiscal 

year for corrective action with cost estimates over $5 million, determine whether the submission 

is in compliance. Where the submission is noncompliant, take appropriate enforcement action to 

address noncompliance (e.g., notice of violation). If possible, return facility to compliance by 

end of fiscal year.

 To lessen the reporting burden on the Regions, OECA will continue the current ACS 

commitment for RCRA correction action to review all financial test submissions as a 

measure in FY 2011, but will increase the threshold for all submittals over $5 million. 

The new RCRA corrective action financial responsibility measure includes the review of 

financial test submissions received by the States within each Region. For those States 

that are not authorized for corrective action, the Regions should be reviewing the 

financial test submissions as part of EPA’s role of implementing and enforcing the 

corrective action program in unauthorized States. Regions that conduct financial 

test/corporate guarantee reviews for the RCRA Subtitle C closure/post-closure regulatory 

program may also review any corresponding corrective action submissions as part of the 

completion of this program measure. 

 EPA reviewed 259 RCRA corrective actions financial responsibility instruments as part of 

the financial assurance priority. OECA identified financial tests/corporate guarantees as 

the most prevalent financial assurance instruments. For corrective action, the financial 

test/corporate guarantee made up 49% of financial instruments used and 70% of the value 

of those instruments. 

COMMITMENT RCRA-05: In combination, Regions should commit to investigating a total of 

10 high priority open dumps using OECA’s targeting strategy, to be developed in FY 2010. This 

commitment is intended for FY 2011 only, the transition year when the priority returns to the 

core program.

 Regions are expected to provide compliance assistance, conduct compliance monitoring, 

and pursue enforcement to address waste management and illegal dumps in Indian 

country and ensure effective transition of the Indian Country Priority Waste Focus area to 

the base program. In particular, Regions are expected to continue using the OECAsupplied list of high-priority open dumps to investigate and, as appropriate, use federal 

enforcement to facilitate their clean up or closure, and deter the creation of new illegal 

dump sites. OECA is coordinating these efforts with the Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response to address illegal and open dumps in Indian country.

 

12 See OECA’s Guidance for RCRA Core LQG Pilot Projects (2007), 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/
Page 43 of 82

COMMITMENT RCRA-06: For non-BIA schools in Indian country, project the number of 

compliance assistance visits designed to ensure the proper and compliant treatment, storage, and 

disposal of hazardous waste. This commitment is for FY 2011 only. (Note: Tied to, and reported 

with, OSWER Measures MW9, TR1, and TR2).

 Appropriate activities include at a minimum, ensuring that schools in Indian country with 

known or reported environmental compliance problems are inspected in a timely manner.

b. RCRA Underground Storage Tank (UST) Subtitle I Program

EPA is committed to ensure 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 environmental.

A major focus of the RCRA UST program is to maintain an enforcement presence concerning 

leak prevention, leak detection, corrective action, closure, and financial responsibility violations. 

Regions enforcement efforts should 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 the 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 will complement and provide oversight of state activities. EPA 

should implement the UST program in Indian country in coordination with Tribes and tribal 

consortium because RCRA precludes EPA from authorizing tribal UST programs.

States have primary responsibility for monitoring compliance and initiating enforcement action 

against violators of the UST requirements. Regions are encouraged to determine whether there 

are opportunities for federal cases to support state efforts. Federal involvement or support can 

provide significant benefits by addressing noncompliance from a national corporate-wide 

perspective, facilitating compliance efforts involving multiple States and/or Regions, and 

enhancing public awareness on a broader, more national forum. 

 Regions should work with States and Tribes to assure compliance with UST 

requirements.

 Regions should target UST inspections that will produce the greatest environmental and 

human health benefits (e.g., leak prevention, leak detection, corrective action, and 

financial responsibility). Factors to consider in identifying facilities for inspection under 

the UST program include:

 Owners and operators of 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 UST that endanger sensitive ecosystems or 

sources of drinking water; and
Page 44 of 82

 Federal facilities.

 Regions are expected to take enforcement actions and assess penalties, as appropriate, to 

ensure optimum deterrence effect and compliance impact.

5. Reset Our Relationships with States

RCRA compliance monitoring is a collaborative effort between OECA, Regions, and authorized 

States. (EPA has direct implementation responsibility in Indian country.) Each of these entities 

performs complementary but distinct roles. OECA provides national program leadership, and 

oversight of Regional and state programs, aimed at increasing program effectiveness and 

national consistency. 

 Regions help ensure that the most serious environmental problems caused by noncompliance are being addressed. Regions should accomplish this primarily through 

annual planning with States, state program oversight, strategic and targeted federal 

inspections and enforcement in States, and through direct implementation in Indian 

country. Regions provide capacity-building support to States on complex or multi-state 

issues; and consult with States to identify compliance problems that may warrant areas of 

national focus. Regions should meet and consult regularly13 (for example, quarterly) with 

each authorized State to maintain communication on progress towards meeting annual 

permitting and enforcement commitments, enhancing program performance and ensuring

fairness and a level playing field. 

 Where States are not meeting performance expectations, Regions should take action to 

ensure serious violations are addressed. Regions should focus oversight resources to the 

most pressing performance problems in States and should work to demonstrably improve 

state performance through these actions. Regions need to take action where States are 

not addressing serious violations to communicate necessary improvements to state 

programs in order to achieve goals of the federal environmental laws and ensure a level 

playing field between States.

 Authorized States have primary responsibility for determining facility compliance,

ensuring adequate inspection coverage of the regulated universe, taking appropriate 

actions in response to non-compliance, and playing a vital role in alerting EPA to 

regulatory implementation problems. 

 EPA consults with Tribes on the central role that enforcement and compliance plays in 

EPA’s direct implementation program and oversight of approved tribal programs

RCRA corrective action is implemented by EPA and 43 authorized States and territories. Under 

the National Enforcement Strategy for Corrective Action (NESCA) Regions should be working 

 

13 These meetings may be held in person or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. The quarterly 

frequency is strongly suggested as a best practice for ensuring progress in meeting goals. Regions may rely upon 

existing communications with states when they meet the intent of this section.
Page 45 of 82

closely with States to coordinate and assist them in their targeting and enforcement activities for 

RCRA corrective action. NESCA will provide support to Regions and States to address special 

considerations that arise in the enforcement arena, such as the importance of enforceable 

requirements in permits and orders, dealing with companies having financial difficulties, 

considerations for the use of CERCLA, enforceability of institutional controls, and increasing the 

transparency of enforcement efforts. As additional issues are encountered, OECA will 

supplement this effort with additional analysis. OECA in conjunction with the Association of 

State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) is developing training on 

RCRA corrective action enforcement. OECA will provide training to both Regions and States 

on how to review financial test and corporate guarantee submissions for compliance.

6. Improve Transparency

At the end of the fiscal year or when otherwise available, OECA will make essential information, 

such as the following, available to the public via OECA’s web page, or by other means:

 Results of the State Review Framework;

 Results of the Annual Commitment reporting;

 Results and highlights of compliance assistance efforts; and

 Highlights of significant EPA and State enforcement actions.

 Regions are expected to use their own comparable existing mechanisms to inform the 

public. States are encouraged to do likewise.

 Compliance data should distinguish State information from Indian country information.

 Information should be made available to communities, including Tribes, who lack access 

to the internet.

7. Relevant Policies and Guidances

Additional information about OECA’s RCRA programs can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/rcra/index.html

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/rcra.html

B. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 provides OECA with authority to enforce reporting, 

record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or 

mixtures and the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including lead, 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and asbestos.

OECA addresses toxics problems through the following TSCA programs:

 TSCA New and Existing Chemicals Programs (note: the term New and Existing 

Chemical Programs describes TSCA section 4, 5, 6, 8, 12 and 13).

 TSCA Lead Risk Reduction Program 

 TSCA Legacy chemicals Program (PCBs and Asbestos Program which includes Worker 

Protection Standards, the Model Accreditation Plan program and the Asbestos Hazard 

Emergency Response Act (AHERA))
Page 46 of 82

1. Link with Top Office of Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxics Priorities

OECA addresses the top Office of Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxics priority for TSCA 

programs in the following way:

 Reducing Lead Poisoning by pre-education renovation: OECA addresses the OPPTS 

priority by overall direction to Regions to enforce Section 406 in non-authorized States, 

including screening for appropriate follow-up to tips and complaints alleging potential 

Section 406 violations in tribal areas and non-authorized States. 

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

TSCA’s enforcement programs are significant to communities because they address chemicals 

that can pose serious risks to human health. Lead-based paint is particularly dangerous to 

children. Exposure may cause reduced intelligence, learning disabilities, behavior problems and

slowed physical development. Because lead-based paint is found in pre-1978 buildings, it is 

more common in low income and minority communities. Asbestos in schools, if not properly 

managed, can expose children, teachers and other school staff to harm that may not manifest for 

years. PCBs bioaccumulate and thus cause a variety of adverse health effects. All of these 

chemicals can also affect custodial workers, building renovators and similar workers. Asbestos 

and PCBs are generally found in older buildings.

a. TSCA New and Existing Chemicals Programs

The TSCA New and Existing Chemicals Program is exclusively a Federal program that provides 

for review of the toxicity of chemicals prior to the manufacture and importation of new chemical 

substances to prevent unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. Regions 

implementing the New and Existing Chemical Program should:

 Focus TSCA compliance activities on chemical manufacturing, distribution, processing, 

use, or disposal in emerging technologies and/or use of new chemicals.

 Through inspections, compliance assistance and appropriate enforcement actions, focus 

on ensuring facility compliance with new chemicals requirements such as Premanufacturing Notice (PMN); Significant New Use Rules (SNUR’s); Low Volume 

Exemptions (LVE’s), and on chemicals of concern including:

o Nanotechnology – especially carbon nanotubes,

o Short chained and other chlorinated paraffins, and 

o Other priority chemicals 

 Target existing chemical requirements for compliance with TSCA 8(e) violations.

 Track and prioritize tips and complaints and follow-up, as needed. Regions 

implementing this program are also expected to follow-up on all referrals received from 

headquarters, States, Tribes, and the public.
Page 47 of 82

In addition, Regions should:

 Review and follow-up, as appropriate, disclosures submitted under the OECA Audit 

Policy and Small Business Policy. Under TSCA New and Existing Chemicals Programs,

self disclosures received by all regions not implementing this program may be forwarded 

to OECA for appropriate action. 

 Regions not implementing this program are to refer tips and complaints to the TSCA 

New and Existing Chemicals Programs Enforcement Program for follow-up, and to 

respond to questions from the regulated community.

 Provide legal and technical enforcement case support, and either obtain additional 

information through inspections, subpoena and federal actions as appropriate, or 

determine that follow-up is not necessary. The TSCA New and Existing Chemicals 

Programs Enforcement Program will assist Regions in targeting inspections.

COMMITMENT TSC01: Project the number of federal TSCA New and Existing Chemicals 

Programs inspections, including those at federal facilities, for regions maintaining an investment 

in core TSCA (sections 4, 5, 8, 12 and 13). In the Comment Section, provide the number of 

federal facility inspections.

b. TSCA Lead Risk Reduction Program

Recent data show that tremendous progress has been made in the continuing effort to eliminate 

childhood lead poisoning as a public health concern. EPA has measured progress by tracking 

reductions in the number of children with elevated blood lead levels of 10 micrograms per 

deciliter or higher. Data released in 2009 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

indicate that the incidence of childhood lead poisoning, defined as above, has declined from 

approximately 1.6 percent of children in 2002 to 0.9 percent of children in 2006. The data show 

that EPA was on track to meet ambitious federal government-wide goals to eliminate childhood 

lead poisoning as a public health concern at those blood levels by 2010.

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

previously recognized.14 EPA, therefore, plans to begin measuring progress by tracking 

reductions in the number of children with elevated blood lead levels of 5 micrograms per 

deciliter or higher. Thus, even though initial gains have been encouraging, EPA wishes to 

achieve further reductions in the incidence of children with these lower, but still significantly 

elevated, blood levels. 

 

14 U.S.EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (September 29, 2006)

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=158823

Rogan WJ, Ware JH. Exposure to lead in children – how low is low enough? N Engl J Med.2003;348(16):1515-

1516 http://www.precaution.org/lib/rogan.nejm.20030417.pdf

Lanphear BP, Hornung R, Khoury J, et al. Low-level environmental lead exposure and children’s intellectual 

function: an international pooled analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2005; 113(7):894-899

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?doi=10.1289/ehp.7688
Page 48 of 82

EPA’s Lead Risk Reduction program contributes to the goal of alleviating the threat to human 

health, particularly to young children, from environmental lead exposure in the following ways:

 Establishes standards governing lead hazard identification and abatement practices 

and maintains a national pool of professionals trained and certified to implement 

those standards;

 Provides information to housing occupants so they can make informed decisions and 

take actions about lead hazards in their homes;

 Establishes lead-safe work practice standards for renovation, repair and painting 

projects in homes and child-occupied facilities with lead-based paint; 

 Works to establish a national pool of renovation contractors trained and certified to 

implement those standards.

For more information please visit http://www.epa.gov/lead.

Authorized States and Tribes, and Regions where States and Tribes are not authorized, are 

expected to:

 Target regulated activities located in areas of interest such as areas with known 

Elevated Blood Levels or concentrations of at-risk dwellings, to reduce their number 

through compliance monitoring and enforcement, regardless of the underlying source 

of contamination (i.e., lead in paint, water pipes, folk medicines, etc). 

 Implement an integrated strategy for reduction of lead poisoning in children, 

appropriate for the Region, State or Tribe, for enforcing all of the components of the 

lead-based paint and other lead poison control programs.

 Enforce Sections 1018, 402 and 406 in non-authorized States.

 Screen for appropriate follow-up to tips and complaints alleging potential Sections 

1018, 402 and 406 violations in tribal areas and non-authorized States. 

 In States without authorized Section 402 programs, regions should conduct 

compliance monitoring activities at renovation businesses and abatement firms, and 

audits of training providers. These activities should be briefly described in the work 

plan submission as a rationale for any trade-offs with current compliance and 

enforcement resources for the lead-based paint program.

 Develop integrated strategies for areas of concern, determine the compliance status of 

individual regulated entities; have primary responsibility for ensuring adequate 

inspection coverage of the regulated universe; and alert EPA to regulatory 

implementation issues in the field.

In addition, Regions should:
Page 49 of 82

 Develop integrated strategies that include methods to better target compliance 

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

identify geographical lead poisoning hot spots.

 Begin to commit at least 50% of current lead-based paint inspections to establish and 

demonstrate a credible Renovation, Repair and Painting (R, R & P) compliance 

monitoring and enforcement program.

 Encourage States to seek delegation.

 Appropriate oversight of authorized state/tribal Section 402 and 406 programs.

 Because of variations in housing arrangements at federal facilities, particularly at 

some military bases, regions should closely investigate the applicability of the lead 

regulations to the particular facilities housing.

COMMITMENT LED01: Number of Section 1018/402/406 federal inspections (including 

those conducted by Senior Environmental Employment Program personnel (SEEs), including 

those at federal facilities. In the Comment Section, provide the number of federal facility 

inspections.

c. Legacy Chemicals Program (PCBs and Asbestos)

The Legacy Chemicals Program attempts to lessen chemical risk and exposure through 

reductions in use and safe removal, disposal and containment of certain prevalent, high-risk 

chemicals, known generally as legacy chemicals. Some of these chemicals were used widely in 

commerce and introduced into the environment before their risks were known. The LCP 

currently focuses on providing assistance to Federal agencies and others with responsibility for 

ensuring proper use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and implementing statutory 

requirements to address asbestos risks in schools.

TSCA PCBs

PCBs are a persistent toxin (PBT) that bioaccumulates in food chains and poses serious risks to 

human health and the environment. Although PCB manufacture is banned, certain uses 

(transformers/capacitors) are allowed under conditions which ensure that PCBs are managed 

properly and not released into the environment. PCBs have also been identified in caulk used in 

schools, raising concerns over potential exposure to school children, teachers, and other school 

staff. PCBs (including export for disposal) are of international concern. 

Authorized States and Tribes, and regions where States and Tribes are not authorized, are 

expected to:

 Follow-up on tips and complaints based on potential risk, including spills. Response may 

include referral to States that have TSCA PCB compliance monitoring grants. 
Page 50 of 82

 Conduct inspections in each State and Indian country to assure equitable protection. For 

States with TSCA PCB grants, coverage may be provided by the State rather than EPA.

 Use targeting tools to identify the most important PCB sources of pollution problems and 

the most serious violations, including use of screening tools/approaches, such as the 

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

information, such as community input, to support targeting of enforcement actions and to 

enhance performance reporting. 

 Ensure that all PCB commercial storage and disposal facilities within the Region are 

inspected at least once every three years. These inspections may be conducted in 

conjunction with RCRA TSD inspections provided the inspector comprehensively 

evaluates compliance with both programs. Regions committing to inspect less than 33% 

of commercial storage and disposal facilities in a given year should provide a brief 

description in the comment field of how they will ensure that all commercial PCB storage 

and disposal facilities are inspected within a three year period. The description should 

address inspection targeting factors including data on prior compliance history, and/or 

environmental data.

 Report the total number of PCB inspections at facilities other than those at commercial 

storage and disposal facilities.

 Focus their enforcement resources to confirm that approved closure/post-closure plans 

and cost estimates reflect the current waste management and contamination situation at 

PCB storage and disposal facilities. 

 Address PCBs found in caulk in schools by providing information to Local Education 

Agencies/schools, responding to tips and complaints, and support to enforcement, as 

appropriate.

 Continue to implement use of PCB Tablets and PCB inspection software in inspections.

COMMITMENT PCB01: Report the total number of EPA PCB inspections, including those at 

TSDFs that are PCB disposal facilities and at federal facilities. In the Comment Section, provide 

the number of federal facility inspections. EPA data should be reported on a state-by-state basis. 

For States where the state agency will provide inspection coverage under PCB grant, indicate in 

the ACS Comment field the estimated number of inspections that the State will conduct. This 

number should not be included as part of the regional ACS PCB inspection commitment number.

TSCA Asbestos

Asbestos may be present in schools and, if disturbed and released into the air, poses a potential 

health risk to school children, teachers, custodial staff, and others in the school. There are no 

immediate symptoms of exposure; health effects may manifest 15 or more years after exposure. 

EPA requires Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to inspect for asbestos. When asbestos is found, 

LEAs must provide notification to parents and teachers, develop and implement management 
Page 51 of 82

plans so that asbestos is not disturbed, or is properly removed, during renovations or other 

activities (i.e., drilling to install electrical or communications lines).

Authorized States and Tribes, and Regions where States and Tribes are not authorized, are 

expected to:

 Investigate and respond (including taking enforcement action where appropriate) to any 

tips/complaints containing allegations which provide a reasonable basis to believe that a 

violation has occurred, within a reasonable period of time. Response may include 

referral to States that have TSCA asbestos compliance monitoring grants.

 Inspections should be conducted in each State to assure equitable protection, and action 

taken to ensure compliance. State inspections under the TSCA Asbestos/AHERA grant 

can provide coverage for those States instead of the Region.

In addition, Regions are to:

 Encouraged to coordinate, as appropriate, TSCA asbestos inspections at LEAs with 

inspections being conducted under other TSCA programs (e.g., lead, PCB in caulk) 

and/or Clean Air Act asbestos NESHAP inspections.

 Ensure compliance monitoring activities are undertaken in each State and in Indian 

country. 

 To further the goal of equitable protection, OECA recommends that Regions conduct 

inspections of LEAs in each State not receiving grants funds to conduct inspections. 

Regions will need to provide justification for the number of inspections being projected. 

Regional inspections are recommended to be targeted at LEAs with one or more of the 

following characteristics: building stock of an age that is more likely to contain asbestos, 

particularly those that are undergoing renovation or energy efficiency upgrades that may 

disturb asbestos; at LEAs that have never been inspected; at LEAs that have not been 

inspected within the past ten (10) years; at LEAs that have previously been found in 

violation and/or been subject to enforcement action; and at private, religious, and charter 

schools. Websites for TSCA Asbestos Information on LEAs:

o Department of Education – Public School LEAs: http://nces 

.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010306/tables.asp

o US Charter Schools – Current number of Charter Schools, by State: 

http://www.uscharterschools.org/pub/uscs_docs/sp/index.htm

o Parochial School and Diocesan Locator: 

http://www.ncea.org/news/SchoolDiocesanLocator.asp and 

http://www.catholicusa.com/catholic_schools_online/catholic_schools.htm

 Ensure that state and tribal inspectors who inspect on behalf of EPA are trained and 

credentialed per Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize 

Employees of State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA 
Page 52 of 82

(2004).

 Report their inspections commitments, by State, and consider the compliance monitoring 

effort being undertaken by a State that is inspecting on behalf of the Agency.

 For inspections conducted with EPA credentials, review and provide feedback that 

addresses the quality of the inspection/reports and the action taken by the Region. 

COMMITMENT ASB01: Report the number of federal TSCA asbestos inspections, including 

those at federal facilities. In the Comment Section, Regions should provide the number of 

federal facility inspections. For States where the state agency will provide inspection coverage 

under Asbestos grant, indicate in the ACS Comment field the estimated number of inspections 

that the State will conduct. This number should not be included as part of the ACS Asbestos 

inspection commitment number.

3. Reset Our Relationships with States

The Regions should work with States and Tribes to identify any obstacles to implementation of 

the expectations above and work to resolve them. This includes convening routine and regular 

(quarterly)15 meetings between the Region and State to discuss progress towards meeting annual 

program and enforcement commitments, and how the State has been performing overall in its 

implementation of the program. Where States are not meeting performance expectations, 

Regions should take action to enforce to address serious violations. Regions should focus 

oversight resources to the most pressing performance problems in States and should work to 

demonstrably improve state performance through these actions. Regions need to take action 

when necessary to communicate what things need attention to achieve goals of the federal 

environmental laws and ensure a level playing field between States. 

On a program specific basis:

a. PCBs

 Work with states/tribes operating under TSCA compliance monitoring grants to address 

these priorities as well as state/tribal priorities.

 Submit mid-year and end-of-year evaluation reports to OC for each TSCA compliance 

monitoring grant awarded to States and Tribes.

 Continue the use of electronic technology in the field.

 

15 These meetings may be held in person or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. The quarterly 

frequency is strongly suggested as a best practice for ensuring progress in meeting goals. Regions may rely upon 

existing communications with states when they meet the intent of this section.
Page 53 of 82

 Evaluate, through oversight inspection(s) or other means, the quality of inspections as 

part of good grant management for those States that receive the TSCA PCB compliance 

monitoring grants. 

 Ensure that authorization agreements, which authorize employees of state and tribal 

governments to conduct inspections on EPA’s behalf, are in place with States and Tribes 

that receive TSCA Compliance Monitoring grants for PCBs, and that training 

requirements are met.

 Where inspections are conducted by States with EPA credentials, review state inspection 

reports, provide feedback to States, and take action as appropriate. Regions should 

provide reports to OECA in accordance with Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector 

Credentials to Authorize Employees of State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections 

on Behalf of EPA (2004).

 Consult with Tribes on the central role that enforcement and compliance plays in EPA’s 

direct implementation program and oversight of approved tribal programs

b. TSCA Asbestos

 Ensure inspection coverage in each State by EPA, Senior Environmental Employment 

Program (SEE), or state/tribal inspectors. 

 Where States or Tribes utilize grant funds to conduct inspections on behalf of the 

Regions, Regions must ensure that the States or Tribes are implementing an adequate 

TSCA asbestos inspection program, provide a rationale where programs are not adequate,

and specify corrective measures. 

 Evaluate, through oversight inspections or other means, the quality of inspections as part 

of good grant management for those States and Tribes receiving grant funds to conduct 

TSCA asbestos inspections.

 Encourage States and Tribes to develop their own regulations and apply for a ―waiver‖ 

where applicable.

 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).

 Consult with Tribes on the central role that enforcement and compliance plays in EPA’s 

direct implementation program and oversight of approved tribal programs

c. TSCA Lead-Based Paint Program (LBP)
Page 54 of 82

To ensure national consistency, OECA’s role is to provide oversight of Regional LRRP 

programs.

 Regions are expected to provide updates on actions and outcomes through at least 

quarterly16 discussions with OECA (generally, through existing channels of 

communication). 

 Regions should focus primarily on State/Tribal program oversight and capacity-building 

to ensure States and Tribes are appropriately using tools to help ensure compliance, and 

more importantly, integrating those tools to help effectively reduce elevated blood lead 

levels (EBLLs) and LBP hazards particularly in identified ―areas of concern‖; ensure 

inspection coverage in federal jurisdictions; support States/Tribes on complex or multiState/Tribal compliance issues; and consult with States/Tribes to identify issues that may 

warrant areas of national focus in federal jurisdictions. 

 OECA will use a variety of mechanisms to ensure adequate oversight, including regular 

meetings and consultations with States/Tribes, Annual Commitment System (ACS) grant 

reviews, and oversight inspections. 

4. Improve Transparency

The Regions should:

 Work with the States and Tribes using EPA credentials to ensure that the data on 

inspections they conduct on EPA’s behalf is input into national databases. For waiver 

States, ensure compliance and enforcement data provided in aggregate form as part of 

midyear and end of year evaluation reports. (Not applicable to Lead program)

 Enter all federal inspections (including ICDS) and enforcement cases into ICIS.

 Publicize regional enforcement actions taken through press releases.

 Compliance data should distinguish State information from Indian country information.

 Information should be made available to communities, including Tribes, who may lack 

access to the internet.

5. Relevant Policies, and Guidances

Additional information about OECA’s TSCA programs can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/tsca/index.html 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/tsca/index.html

 

16 These meetings may be held in person or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. The quarterly 

frequency is strongly suggested as a best practice for ensuring progress in meeting goals. Regions may rely upon 

existing communications with states when they meet the intent of this section.
Page 55 of 82

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/tsca/asbestoes.html

Policies and guidance pertinent to OECA’s FY 2011 priorities are the following:

 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.

 August 5, 2005 memorandum for the Process for Requesting EPA Credentials for 

State/Tribal Inspectors Conducting Inspections on EPA's Behalf.

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

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 those chemicals. 

A major focus of the FIFRA program is to provide assistance, training, and oversight to States 

and Tribes carrying out FIFRA related compliance and enforcement activities under cooperative 

enforcement agreements. The statute gives States primary compliance monitoring and 

enforcement responsibility for the use of pesticides within their respective jurisdictions. Under 

FIFRA, EPA directly implements primary use enforcement responsibility in Indian country. 

However, through cooperative agreements, Tribes are allowed to enforce similar provisions 

under their own code.

1. Link with Top Office of Pesticide Programs Priorities

OECA addresses top Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) priorities for the FIFRA program in 

the following ways:

 Pesticide Occupational Worker Safety: FIFRA's Worker Protection Standards provide 

critical protection to certain workers and handlers of pesticides in agricultural, nursery, 

greenhouse, and forestry occupations. OECA addresses this priority area in both the 

State Grant Guidance and by including aspects of this priority in both the 

Fumigant/Fumigation and Worker Protection focus areas of the NPM Guidance.

 Antimicrobial Hospital Disinfectants Efficacy/Misbranding: This area directly impacts 

public health by ensuring the safe and effective use of disinfectants in hospitals. OECA 

has been cooperating with OPP for several years in this effort and will continue that 

support through recognition of the antimicrobial initiative as a specific expectation in the 

core FIFRA compliance monitoring and enforcement program.

Pesticides and Water Resource Protection: Protecting water bodies from pesticide 

contamination helps assure the safety of those water resources. OPP has focused regulatory 

efforts, including establishing restrictive use requirements, on key pesticides of concern. In 
Page 56 of 82

addition, a recent court ruling has determined that pesticides used in aquatic settings are not 

exempt from regulation under the Office of Water’s National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES). Activities are under way to develop a process to bring 

pesticide use into compliance with the NPDES regulations. 

 Soil Fumigation: Due to a re-evaluation of the risks associated with the use of soil 

fumigants, OPP has recently announced changes to product labeling and use directions 

for the use of these highly toxic pesticides. In addition to compliance monitoring and 

enforcement relating to the use of all fumigants, OECA is specifically addressing this 

priority in the NPM Guidance through outreach/compliance assistance activities to 

support implementation of the new label changes for soil fumigants. Soil fumigation is 

included in both the Fumigant/Fumigation and Worker Protection focus areas. OECA’s 

State Grant Guidance also addresses soil fumigation through outreach, education, and 

compliance activities.

 Pesticide Container-Containment Regulation Implementation: Regulations covering 

pesticide container and containment requirements are still being phased in and most 

states/tribes are actively engaged in outreach and compliance assistance activities. 

OECA addresses this priority in its State Grant Guidance but is not addressing it in the 

NPM Guidance at this time.

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

Agricultural farm workers, pesticide applicators, other lower paid workers, and these workers’ 

families are most likely to be at risk from failure to comply with FIFRA. For example, improper 

labeling or directions on fumigants can result in misapplication and serious exposure to acutely 

toxic pesticides, leading to hospitalization or death. Risks posed by fumigants and other 

pesticides to workers and nearby communities can last for several days or weeks after an 

application. Due to the proximity of housing to treated agricultural areas, farm worker families 

have been found to have higher levels of exposure to pesticides than non-farm families.

The goal of the FIFRA compliance monitoring and enforcement program is to assess the 

behavior and performance of the regulated universe and to address products that violate FIFRA 

that could adversely affect the quality of life in our communities. 

EPA pesticides programs are expected to maintain a strong core FIFRA compliance monitoring 

and enforcement program which ensures compliance with and effective enforcement of FIFRA 

regulatory requirements. The core program should include compliance and enforcement 

activities covering: pesticide registration and labeling, data quality requirements (FIFRA Good 

Laboratory Practice Standards), efficacy of hospital disinfectant products, pesticide producing 

establishment registration and annual production data reporting, import and export requirements, 

and registrant reporting of unreasonable adverse effects. The core program also supports efforts 

to protect human health and the environment, including water resources, through support and 

oversight of state and tribal monitoring and enforcement of pesticide use/misuse.
Page 57 of 82

In conducting this work, Regions are expected to place special emphasis on the key focus areas 

identified below. (State and tribal programs may also be involved in supporting these activities, 

as appropriate, by including relevant activities in the negotiated cooperative agreements.)

Focus Area A: Fumigants/Fumigation

Fumigants are a class of highly toxic pesticides that are efficacious in a gaseous stage, making 

them very hazardous to handle and use. These products have a wide range of application use, 

including treatment of residential structures, warehouses, transportation vehicles, grains and 

other agricultural commodities, and soil. Improper or inadequate use directions and safety 

precautions on the product labeling and improper use of these products often result in serious 

exposure incidents potentially leading to death or hospitalization. Due to the potential risk 

associated with fumigant use, it is critical that EPA and the States work collaboratively to 

proactively monitor compliance with existing product labeling requirements as well as proper 

use of fumigant products. 

In FY2008, OPP released a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) that requires important 

label changes incorporating significant new safety measures for soil fumigant pesticides to 

increase protections for agricultural handlers, workers and bystanders (e.g., people who live, 

work, or otherwise spend time near fields that are fumigated). The RED addresses the fumigant

pesticides chloropicrin, dazomet, metam-sodium/metam-potassium (including MITC), and 

methyl bromide. Labeling changes required by the RED are expected to be in the market place 

by 2010. Consistent with OPP’s fumigant initiative, outreach and compliance monitoring will be 

promoted to make users aware of future labeling changes for soil fumigants.

The fumigant focus area encompasses product regulatory compliance and use/application 

compliance for all areas of fumigation including structural (residential and commercial), 

transportation vehicles and containers, soil, agricultural commodities, and other products. 

Targeting should consider production factors (facility location, production volume, and product) 

as well as use/application factors (use patterns of concern and volume/frequency of use). For 

FY2011, Regions are expected to implement one or more of the compliance monitoring 

approaches identified below and to initiate appropriate enforcement actions. 

States have primary responsibility for monitoring compliance and initiating enforcement action 

against violators of pesticides use requirements (referred to as ―primacy‖). Regions are 

encouraged to determine whether there are opportunities for federal cases to support state efforts. 

Federal involvement or support can provide significant benefits by addressing noncompliance 

from a national corporate-wide perspective, facilitating compliance efforts involving multiple 

States and/or Regions, and enhancing public awareness on a broader, more national forum.

OECA will work with OPP to obtain FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) information across a broad class of 

pesticide fumigants including structural, grain, and soil, among others. Section 6(a)(2) 

information, together with information regarding fumigant incidents from the States, press and 

other available sources, will help target fumigant uses where an enforcement monitoring 

presence may significantly deter future violations. 
Page 58 of 82

 Regions should work with their States to identify federal and state Producer 

Establishment Inspection (PEI) inspection opportunities, with special emphasis 

placed on the priority fumigants frequently involved in exposure incidents (i.e., 

sulfuryl fluoride, methyl bromide, aluminum phosphide, zinc phosphide, metamsodium, and chloropicrin). State PEI inspections can be applied toward meeting 

negotiated PEI inspection commitments within existing cooperative agreements. PEI 

inspections conducted by regional inspectors will continue to help build regional 

expertise. Physical sampling and analysis is encouraged. 

 Regions should work with their States to identify opportunities for fumigation 

use/misuse inspections in a variety of venues, with special emphasis on those use 

patterns frequently associated with exposure incidents (i.e., residential buildings, 

commercial grain elevators and granaries, on-farm granaries, seed warehouses, and 

agricultural crop soils). Where appropriate, these State inspections may be applied 

toward negotiated cooperative agreement use/misuse inspection commitments. 

 When monitoring compliance in application settings subject to FIFRA’s Worker 

Protection Standards (WPS), such as on-farm use of grain or soil fumigants, 

compliance with the WPS labeling requirements should also be monitored.

 Consistent with the State Grant Guidance, States should conduct education, outreach

and compliance assistance activities for communicating the new labeling 

requirements for soil fumigants. Although implementation of the soil fumigant RED 

labeling requirements will focus on training and compliance assistance through mid2012, in instances of misuse or abuse, appropriate enforcement response should be 

taken. 

Enforcement actions should be pursued under both State and Federal authorities, as appropriate. 

Significant use or product compliance violations discovered during state investigations should be 

considered for referral to EPA for federal enforcement, when appropriate. Regions should work 

with States to identify opportunities within existing cooperative agreements for federal 

involvement or case support (particularly in cases involving human exposure, death, or other 

serious non-compliance). Headquarters will provide assistance, as needed, to States and Regions 

in support of enforcement actions. Headquarters will develop a plan to coordinate filing of 

enforcement cases to ensure optimum deterrence effect and compliance impact.

Focus Area B: Imports

EPA’s enforcement program continues to address the illegal importation of noncompliant 

pesticide products into the United States by bringing enforcement actions against importers and 

others; providing compliance assistance to manufacturers, importers and brokers; and working 

with other governments, agencies and stakeholders to prevent and reduce risks of unsafe 

products entering our country.

Importation of pesticides and devices is governed by FIFRA Section 17(c). All imported 

pesticides intended for use in the United States must be registered as required by Section 3 of 
Page 59 of 82

FIFRA before being permitted entry into the US. Pesticide devices that are imported, although 

not required to be registered, must not bear any statement, design, or graphic representation that 

is false or misleading in any particular. Pesticides and devices must be properly labeled in 

accordance with FIFRA and Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 156. When 

importing pesticides or devices to the U.S., the importer must submit to the appropriate EPA 

regional offices on EPA Form 3540-1 "Notice of Arrival (NOA) of Pesticides and Devices". 

Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations prohibit 

the importation of pesticides without a completed Notice of Arrival (NOA). 

Illegal pesticide imports include a wide range of products, such as naphthalene mothballs and 

related products (moth tablets, clothes hangers and urinal cakes), chlorine pool disinfectants, 

insecticidal chalk, roach killers, mosquito coils and rat poisons. Illegal pesticide imports, which 

can present significant human health and environmental risks, have been linked to poisonings of 

children and pets resulting from use of these products. 

EPA Regions will be the primary source of inspections and enforcement for this focus area, 

States may become involved through Region-to-State referrals to monitor import compliance or 

States may encounter imported products during the course of their other compliance monitoring 

inspections. States should be made aware of EPA’s strong interest in import compliance and be 

encouraged to cooperate and collaborate with EPA when situations warrant.

 Regions should work with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (USCBP) to identify 

pesticides and/or pesticidal devices in violation of FIFRA and prohibit illegal imports 

from entering the U.S. channels of trade. Regions should conduct pesticide import 

inspections based on identified targets at border crossings and other ports of entry, 

conduct sweeps and take samples, when appropriate. 

 Regions may also monitor import compliance through inspections at the designated 

destination point for the imported products. Such inspections would be conducted 

after the imported pesticides have cleared US Customs and have entered into the 

country. 

 While reviewing Notices of Arrival (NOAs), Regions should also screen for potential 

discrepancies concerning country of origin sources for active ingredients used to 

produce registered pesticides. Where potential discrepancies are noted, follow-up 

PEIs may be warranted to further investigate the matter.

 Regions may also conduct educational campaigns in urban neighborhoods that are at 

high risk for using illegal imports to facilitate reporting of tips/complaints from the 

public about the sale/distribution of illegal pesticide imports.

 Regions are expected to take enforcement actions, as appropriate, to ensure optimum 

deterrence effect and compliance impact.

Focus Area C: Worker Protection
Page 60 of 82

Agricultural farm workers and pesticide applicators face a disproportionately high risk of 

exposure to pesticides (from mixing, loading and applying pesticides; hand labor tasks in 

pesticide treated crops; and pesticide drift from neighboring fields). Studies show that farm 

worker families have higher levels of pesticide exposure than non-farm worker families (takehome exposure transfer of pesticide residues and proximity of housing to treated areas). There 

are 2 million farm workers in the US, over a million certified applicators, and 2–3 million 

noncertified applicators applying pesticides under the supervision of certified applicators. It is 

important to protect farm workers from occupational pesticide hazards to ensure their safety in 

the workplace and viability as a community.

Under FIFRA, States with primacy enforce pesticide use, including the worker protection 

standard. States with primacy also conduct compliance monitoring inspections. Regions are 

encouraged to determine whether there are opportunities for federal cases to support state efforts. 

Where EPA implements FIFRA, including in Indian country, the Agency enforces requirements 

governing pesticide use and conducts compliance monitoring inspections.

To optimize the risk reduction potential of compliance monitoring, Regions are expected to place 

particular emphasis on farming activities that typically involve frequent use of highly toxic 

pesticides, such as in fruit and vegetable production and on-farm grain and soil fumigation. 

Compliance monitoring and enforcement activities should include product compliance and use 

compliance inspections. Performance expectations for an active federal cooperative 

compliance/enforcement role with WPS include:

 Regions should work with their state partners to target federal and state PEI 

inspections (focusing on high toxicity pesticides subject to WPS labeling 

requirements and associated with high-risk applications/uses such as fruit and 

vegetable production or on-farm grain and soil fumigation) to ensure label 

compliance.

 Monitor use compliance in application settings (e.g., on-farm grain or soil fumigation, 

applications to fruit and/or vegetable crops) subject to WPS and monitor compliance 

with the WPS labeling requirements. Focus should be on chemicals with high risk for 

exposure.

 Enforcement actions should be pursued under both State and Federal authorities, as 

appropriate.

 States should be encouraged to refer use and non-use cases to EPA, when appropriate. 

Regions are expected to work with States to identify opportunities within existing 

agreements for federal involvement or support (particularly cases involving exposure 

or death).
Page 61 of 82

 Significant use or product compliance violations discovered during State 

investigations should be considered for referral to EPA for federal enforcement, when 

appropriate.

 Headquarters will provide assistance, as needed, to States and Regions in support of 

enforcement actions. 

Commitment FIFRA-FED1: Project regional (federal) FIFRA inspections, including those 

at federal facilities. Each Region should conduct a minimum of 4 FIFRA inspections. In the 

Comment Section, provide the number of federal facility inspections.

3. Reset Our Relationships with States

The Regions should work with States and Tribes to implement the expectations above, including:

 Convene routine and regular (quarterly)17 meetings between the Region and State to 

discuss progress towards meeting annual program and enforcement commitments, and 

how the State has been performing overall in its implementation of the program. Note: 

meetings can be via conference calls but at least one meeting each year should be fact-toface.

 Where States are not meeting performance expectations, Regions should take action to 

enforce to address serious violations. Regions should focus oversight resources to the 

most pressing performance problems in States and should work to demonstrably improve 

state performance through these actions. Regions need to take action when necessary to 

communicate what things need attention to achieve goals of the federal environmental 

laws and ensure a level playing field between States. 

 Negotiate, oversee the implementation of and review state and tribal performance under 

the pesticide enforcement cooperative agreements following existing policy and 

guidance.

 Seek state and tribal cooperation on implementation of focus areas under this NPMG.

 When doing mid or end-of-year reviews, include review cases based on complaints by 

farm-workers; review complaints and violations of OECA priorities such as fumigants 

and high profile cases to evaluate whether the subsequent enforcement response was 

appropriate.

 When reviewing state or tribal producing-establishment inspection reports submitted to 

EPA, ensure that inspections evaluate compliance with FIFRA export requirements.

 

17 These meetings may be held in person or through conference calls or other venues, as appropriate. The quarterly 

frequency is strongly suggested as a best practice for ensuring progress in meeting goals. Regions may rely upon 

existing communications with states when they meet the intent of this section.
Page 62 of 82

 Provide States and Tribes targeting assistance, especially related to inspections of 

producing establishments.

 Consult with Tribes on the central role that enforcement and compliance plays in EPA’s 

direct implementation program and oversight of approved tribal programs

4. Improve Transparency

 

Currently, OECA is exploring ways to modernize and update databases that contain information

on pesticide inspections and enforcement action by state and tribal grantees (FTTS/NCDB) that 

will improve data quality, and provide more timely data entry and public access. Regions are 

expected to continue to assure the timely and accurate entry of state and tribal performance data 

and their own federal inspection and enforcement data. 

Regions should:

 Continue to assure the timely and accurate entry of state and tribal performance data and 

federal inspection and enforcement data. 

 Distinguish State information from Indian country information. 

 Make information available to communities and Tribes, who may lack access to the 

internet.

5. Relevant Policies and Guidances

Additional information about OECA’s FIFRA programs can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/fifra/index.html

http://wwwp.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/fifra/wps.html

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/fifra/index.html

Policies and guidance pertinent to OECA’s FY 2011 priorities are the following:

 FY2011-2013 Grant Guidance will be posted at: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/state/grants/fifra.html (2008-2010 is up currently)

 FIFRA State Primacy Enforcement Responsibilities: Final Interpretive Rule: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/grants/fifra/1983frnotice.pdf

 Procedures Governing the Rescission of State Primary Enforcement Responsibility for 

Pesticide Use Violations: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/grants/fifra/1981frnotice.pdf

 EPA WPS Agricultural Inspection Guidance: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/grants/fifra/08-10-

appendix4c.pdf

 Factors To Consider When Establishing A Risk-Based Targeting Strategy For Worker 

Protection Outreach And Compliance Monitoring Activities: 
Page 63 of 82

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/grants/fifra/08-10-

appendix4d.pdf

 Multilingual Labeling for Imports: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/fifra/imports/multilanglab

el.pdf

 Questions and answers on supplemental labeling, effective date, registration status for 

labeling purposes, foreign purchaser acknowledgement statements, and confidentiality:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/fifra/imports/supplabel.pd

f

 Questions and answers on research and development pesticides and active ingredient 

concentrations: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/fifra/imports/ai.pdf

 FIFRA Inspection Manual: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/fifra/manuals/fifra/ind

ex.html

 WPS Inspection Manual: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/fifra/manuals/wps/ind

ex.html

 Project Officer Manual: http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oc/ag/manual.html

D. Specific Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) Enforcement Program Performance Expectations

The majority of OECA Programs fall under Goal 5 of the Strategic Plan: Enforcing 

Environmental Laws. Planning for Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) enforcement and the RCRA Corrective Action program 

commitments were covered under Goal 3 of the Agency’s Strategic Plan through FY2010, and 

will be moved to Goal 5 starting in FY 2011. The decision to integrate CERCAL enforcement 

and RCRA Correction Action into Goal 5 occurred too late to move the national program 

guidance for these activities from the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) 

NPM guidance into the OECA NPM guidance by the time of publication. Therefore, Regions 

must consider the OSWER NPM guidance for FY 2011 Region program direction for Superfund 

enforcement and RCRA Corrective Action. 

1. Link with Top OSWER Priorities

OECA addresses top OSWER priorities for CERCLA in the following ways:

 Land Revitalization: Through its Brownfields program, EPA will continue to provide for 

the assessment and cleanup of Brownfield sites, to leverage redevelopment opportunities, 

and to help preserve green space, offering combined benefits to local communities. 

OECA can facilitate reuse by clarifying liability at sites of federal interest (or for 

communities particularly impacted by the economic downturn), when perceived liability 

remains an obstacle and EPA involvement is critical. Brownfields are described in more 

detail in the Goal 3 NPM Guidance published by OSWER.
Page 64 of 82

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

Enforcement assures that parties responsible for contamination step up to their cleanup 

responsibility. As part of the Integrated Cleanup Initiative, OECA will take early and focused 

enforcement efforts to compel cleanup. Those efforts include increasing enforcement earlier in 

the pipeline at non-emergency removal action and RI/FS stages; expediting remedial action by 

holding parties accountable to negotiation timeframes and scheduled cleanup commitments; and 

rejuvenating the process for early identification of responsible parties to support increased site 

assessment, NPL listings, and early enforcement activities

EPA’s Superfund enforcement GPRA goals and performance expectations for FY 2011 are: 

COMMITMENT OSRE-01: Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the start of 

remedial action at 95% of non-federal Superfund sites that have viable, liable parties.

COMMITMENT OSRE-02: Address all unaddressed costs in Statute of Limitations cases for 

sites with total past Superfund costs equal to or greater than $200,000 via settlement, referral to 

DOJ, filing a claim in bankruptcy, or where appropriate write-off. 

OSWER's National Program Managers Guidance for FY2011 establishes priorities for EPA's 

Federal Facilities Response program: conducting cleanup and response work at contaminated 

sites and rendering formerly contaminated sites Ready for Reuse. EPA has Federal Facility 

Agreements in place at almost all Federal facility NPL sites regarding the cleanups conducted by 

the facilities and EPA’s oversight of those cleanups. Those agreements lay out procedures for 

resolving disputes. Regions are expected to use the procedures of the agreements, or other 

applicable enforcement authorities (such as imminent and endangerment orders in applicable 

circumstances), when Federal facilities are not complying with the terms of the agreements or 

with other legal requirements. Additionally, Regions and headquarters offices should work 

together to get remaining NPL sites as well as new NPL sites under agreements or other legallyenforceable agreements.

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

environmentally sound conditions for all people. OECA will continue to integrate environmental 

justice into its Site Remediation Enforcement program by: 

 Affirming its commitment to ensure that Regions and States use EJ criteria when 

enforcing RCRA corrective action requirements to meet RCRA 2020 goals.

 Affirming its commitment to ensure that institutional controls are implemented at sites in 

environmental justice areas of concern.

 Conducting an environmental justice review of new policy and guidance documents 

before they become final. 

3. Working With States, Tribes and Local Communities 

EPA will be implementing its Community Engagement Initiative,

http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/cei_action_plan_12-09.pdf, designed to enhance headquarters 

and regional program engagement with States, local communities and stakeholders to 
Page 65 of 82

meaningfully participate in government decisions on land cleanup, emergency response, and the 

management of hazardous substances and waste. The initiative provides an opportunity for EPA 

to refocus and renew its vision for community engagement, build on existing good practices, and 

apply them consistently in EPA processes. Proactive, meaningful engagement with States, local 

governments and communities will enable EPA to obtain better information about the 

environmental problems and local situations - leading to more informed and effective policies 

and decisions.

4. Improve Transparency

The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System 

(CERCLIS) is the main database for Superfund information. The public can request specific 

reports by going to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/. In addition, Regions should continue to 

provide site-specific fact sheets, which include enforcement information, on regional web pages. 

Compliance data will distinguish State information from Indian country information. Information 

should be made available to communities and Tribes, who lack access to the internet.
Page 66 of 82

SECTION VI: KEY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS THROUGH CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT

1. Criminal Enforcement Priorities

The criminal enforcement program will emphasize these priority areas:

 EPA Enforcement Goals

 National Enforcement Initiatives for FY 2011-13

 Regional Enforcement Priorities

 Repeat or chronic civil noncompliance

 Import/export cases

During FY 2011, the criminal enforcement program will also continue to implement its ―tiering‖ 

approach to case selection and investigation. OCEFT collects data on a variety of case attributes 

to describe the range, complexity, and quality of our national docket. Data for selected attributes 

will be used to categorize cases into three tiers based on the severity of the crime associated with 

the alleged violation (Tier one being the most significant). 

The data elements used in the tier methodology are directly linked to the upward departures 

identified under the Federal Criminal Sentencing Guidelines. These include information about 

the human health and environmental impacts (e.g., death or serious injury), the nature of the 

pollutant and the release, (e.g., toxic pollutant, continuing violation) and the characteristics of the 

subject(s) (e.g., national corporations, repeat violators). The tier designation will be used 

throughout the investigative process including case selection and direction of resources for case 

support.

2. Link with Top Program Office Priorities

The criminal enforcement program works closely and in an integrated fashion with OECA’s civil 

enforcement program, and will work more closely with EPA’s regulatory programs in order to 

align environmental crimes investigations with program priorities. The criminal enforcement 

program will support program priorities through enhanced criminal case screening, coordination 

and communication. 

3. Reset Our Relationships with Law Enforcement Partners That Support State 

Environmental Crimes Investigations and Prosecutions

The criminal enforcement program will work cooperatively with the Regions and other law 

enforcement organizations as appropriate to: 

 Ensure States have adequate capacity and authority to pursue environmental crimes.

 Regions and States are expected to take enforcement actions, assess penalties, as 

appropriate, and refer matters for criminal investigation to ensure optimum deterrence 

effect and compliance impact
Page 67 of 82

 Emphasize and increase civil-criminal coordination and information sharing, including 

consistent and regular case screening conducted by regional civil enforcement and the 

criminal enforcement Special Agents-in-Charge (SACs), in which information is 

exchanged about potential violations to ensure they are addressed through the most 

appropriate enforcement tool – administrative, civil or criminal. 

 Adhere to OECA’s parallel proceedings policy when both civil and criminal violations are 

present in an individual case and ensure all civil and criminal staff are trained on parallel 

proceedings.

4. Improve Transparency

The criminal enforcement program will: 

 Leverage criminal enforcement’s field presence by publicizing the program with 

innovative press and outreach techniques. In addition to publicizing prosecutions through 

the media, criminal enforcement will continue several initiatives to enlist the public’s 

help in identifying environmental violations and violators and to provide more 

information about criminal cases prosecuted, including enhancements to the Report a 

Violation and Fugitives web sites.

 Expand the public information about successfully prosecuted criminal cases posted on the 

OCEFT website, including the geographic location of those cases.

 Maintain the Summary of Criminal Prosecutions.
Page 68 of 82

SECTION VII: NATIONAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL OECA 

PROGRAMS UNDER GOAL 5

In addition to the national initiatives and programs that can be specifically assigned to one of the 

four Strategic sub-objectives of water, air, waste/toxic/pesticides, and criminal enforcement, 

OECA has several programs that contribute to the goals of more than one sub-objective. These 

programs are: Federal Activities, Multi-media, Compliance Incentives, Indian country, and 

Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). In addition, OECA has 

specific training and state oversight program requirements.

A. Specific Federal Activities Program Performance Expectations

Federal activity enforcement work focuses on two areas: fostering pollution prevention through 

international cooperation and assisting federal agencies in making environmentally sound 

decisions which includes early public involvement. This work implements two of OECA’s FY 

2011 goals. Through the international work, OECA addresses pollution that can affect the health 

and welfare of people in the United States. Through its National Environmental Policy Act 

oversight, OECA promotes sound federal environmental decisions and maximizes mitigation 

through intense collaboration, ensures federal compliance of environmental statutes, and 

promotes public engagement to enhance transparency of federal proposals. 

Regions should work to assure international compliance and prevent illegal trans-boundary 

movement of hazardous waste by:

 Improve environmental performance and cooperation in accordance 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 (CBP) 

(all Regions).

 Promote international environmental enforcement through participation in relevant 

organizations and networks, such as the Enforcement Working Group of the North 

American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) and the International 

Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE), and, in particular, 

it’s Seaport Environmental Security Network (regional participation as appropriate, 

based on subject matter).

 Fulfill International agreements and the Agency’s RCRA obligations regarding 

notification of trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste (all Regions).
Page 69 of 82

 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 notifications within the 

time periods allowed under applicable international agreements (all Regions). 

Regions should implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by: 

 Fulfilling the Agency obligations under NEPA, Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, and 

related laws, directives, and Executive Orders.

 Targeting high impact federal program areas (e.g., transportation, Appalachian 

mountaintop mining, and energy projects) to promote cooperation and innovation, 

and public involvement toward a more streamlined and transparent environmental 

review process.

 Promoting Environmental Justice considerations throughout the environmental 

decision-making process.

 Fostering cooperation and promote collaboration with other Federal agencies to 

ensure compliance with applicable environmental statutes; promote better integration 

of pollution prevention, ecological risk assessment and Environmental Justice 

considerations into their programs; encourage public involvement early in the process 

to maximize transparency; and provide technical assistance in developing projects 

that prevent adverse environmental impacts to improve the Nation’s air quality and 

protect America’s waters.

 Carrying out EPA’s NEPA/CAA section 309 review responsibilities to review and 

comment on all major proposed federal actions to ensure identification, elimination, 

or mitigation of significant adverse effects, and make the comments available to the 

public. 

 Carrying out EPA’s responsibilities to comply with NEPA and address other crosscutting issues@ (e.g., Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, 

and Executive Orders on Environmental Justice, wetlands and flood plains). 

 Making categorical exclusion determinations or prepare environmental analyses (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.

 Making categorical exclusion determinations or prepare environmental analyses (EISs 

or EAs) for Special Appropriation grants (including the Colonias Wastewater 

Construction and Project Development Assistance programs) for wastewater, water 

supply, and solid waste collection facilities; Border Environment Infrastructure Fund 
Page 70 of 82

for the US/Mexico Border Environment Cooperation Commission projects; and 

reviews conducted under the ―voluntary NEPA policy‖.

 Entering 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 should report to the 

Office of Federal Activities quarterly on the status of their 309 reviews and NEPA 

compliance actions pursuant to the Office of Federal Activity’s GPRA reporting 

process, and provide other reports as may be required by the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

B. Specific Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) Program

Performance Expectations

EPCRA includes two distinct programs, Community Right-to-Know under EPCRA 313 and 

release notification and emergency preparedness under CERCLA 103 and EPCRA 304, 311 and 

312. 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. Although 

there is no target for assistance activities, assistance is an appropriate tool, in particular, for 

smaller entities who meet the reporting criteria. Regions and States should inspect facilities that 

may be contributing to pollution problems that matter to their respective communities, and 

develop enforcement cases that produce significant environmental benefits.

1. Link with Top Office of Environmental Information Priorities

OECA addresses the top Office of Environmental Information priority for the EPCRA programs 

by increasing compliance of non-reporters.

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

Authorized States and Tribes, and Regions where States and Tribes are not authorized, are 

expected to:

A. EPCRA 313: 

 Inspect or send enforcement information letters to enforcement targets developed by 

OECA and OEI for FY 2011 to address the following categories of concern:

o Potential non-reporters (facilities that report in one year but fail to report the 

following year).

o Potential data quality issues (facilities with significant changes in release 

estimates from one year to the next).

o Facilities that submit a Form A after having previously submitted a Form R, and 

concerns exist as to the accuracy of this change.
Page 71 of 82

o The submission of forms with errors significant enough to prevent the input of 

data into the Toxic Release Inventory.

 Track and prioritize tips and complaints and follow-up, as needed. OEI may provide 

additional targeting as part of an initiative focused on communities, chemicals or sectors 

of concern.

 Any inspections resulting from any of these targeting efforts will count towards the 

Region’s overall inspection commitments. 

In addition, Regions should:

 Review and follow-up on, as appropriate, disclosures submitted under the OECA Audit 

Policy and Small Business Policy.

 OECA 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 and issue appropriate federal actions as 

appropriate; or determine that follow-up is not necessary. 

 Conduct at least four on-site data quality inspections

 Conduct at least twenty on-site non-reporter inspections.

COMMITMENT EPCRA 01: Project the number of EPCRA 313 data quality inspections. 

COMMITMENT EPCRA 02: Project the number of EPCRA 313 non-reporter inspections. 

B. EPCRA 304/311/312 CERCLA 103

Regions should:

 Use screening and targeting tools to focus limited federal resources on national and 

regional priority areas. 

 As described in the CAA Section 112r guidance, inspections at CAA 112r high-risk 

facility should include an evaluation of EPCRA sections 304, 311, and 31 and CERCLA 

section 103.

 Consider high-risk facility criteria specific to facilities that are not required to submit an 

RMP, such as the presence of significant quantities of CERCLA hazardous or EPCRA 

extremely hazardous chemicals, proximity to population centers, a history of significant 

accidental releases, and any other information that indicates a facility may be high-risk. 
Page 72 of 82

 Investigate and respond (including taking enforcement action where appropriate) to any 

complaint containing allegations which provide a reasonable basis to believe that a 

violation has occurred, within a reasonable period of time. 

3. Reset Our Relationships with States

The Regions should continue coordinating with States and Tribes. 

4. Improve Transparency

The Regions should

 Enter all federal enforcement cases into national databases.

 Enter all federal civil judicial consent decrees into ICIS.

5. Relevant Policies and Guidances

Additional information about OECA’s EPCRA programs can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/epcra/index.html 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/civil/epcra/index.html

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/epcra.html

C. Specific Multimedia Program Performance Expectations

Environmental harm often occurs across air, water and land. The multimedia compliance and 

enforcement program fosters a comprehensive approach to the resolution of environmental 

problems because many facilities and companies operate in violation of more than one 

environmental statute. ―Comprehensive‖ 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 

cost-effective than bringing separate media-specific enforcement actions. Multimedia-focused 

activities, including enforcement actions, reflect the goals of federal innovation and can lead to 

novel enforcement and compliance incentive approaches to address complex and emerging 

environmental problems. 

OECA will work with Regions to develop a National Enforcement Initiative to assure 

compliance in the energy extraction sector.

Assuring energy extraction sector compliance with environmental laws: As the nation 

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

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

activities, such as new techniques for oil and gas extraction and coal mining, pose a risk of 

pollution of air, surface waters and ground waters if not properly controlled. For example, an 

unprecedented acceleration of oil and gas leasing and development has led to a significant rise in 

the level of air pollution throughout the intermountain West. Drilling activities have led to 

concerns about ground water pollution and the safety of drinking water supplies in various parts 
Page 73 of 82

of the country. To address these emerging problems, EPA will develop an initiative to assure that 

energy extraction activities are complying with federal requirements to prevent pollution of our 

air, water and land. This initiative will be undertaken in particular areas of the country where 

energy extraction activities are concentrated, and the focus and nature of our enforcement 

activities will vary with the type of activity and pollution problem presented

D. Specific Indian Country Program Performance Expectations

EPA directly implements federal compliance monitoring and enforcement activity in Indian 

country unless and until a Tribe obtains program approval. Only seven of over 300 eligible 

federally-recognized Indian Tribes (Tribes) are approved to implement the enforcement parts of 

multiple environmental programs. EPA, therefore, maintains direct implementation 

responsibilities for most statutes in the majority of Indian country. In developing this Guidance, 

OECA is clarifying the commitments of the Regions who implement the programs where Tribes 

do not currently have program approval, and the oversight activities for Regions to review and 

oversee approved tribal programs. The responsibilities and commitments of the authorized Tribes 

are also specified in each of the media discussions in Sections II, III, and IV. 

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

In FY 2011, EPA’s enforcement and compliance work in Indian country is included in each 

program area within this NPM Guidance. Each area includes language and commitments that 

clearly distinguish between EPA direct implementation, EPA oversight, and approved tribal 

program implementation (e.g., language distinguishing who conducts the work within Indian 

country (EPA or Tribe with an approved program). 

EPA’s work under the three Indian Country initiatives – Schools, Drinking Water and Waste –

over the past several years has led to increased understanding of environmental compliance and 

improved compliance. OECA expects the Regions to continue activities listed in the media 

sections of this Guidance to ensure the gains made in these priorities are reinforced with 

continued compliance, monitoring and enforcement activities.

2. Maintain Our Relationships with Tribes

Consultation between Tribes and EPA is essential to effectively address and prioritize the serious 

pollution problems facing Indian country. Consultation is particularly important as EPA 

emphasizes the central role that enforcement and compliance play in our direct implementation 

work in Indian country and oversight of approved tribal programs. Consultation is also crucial to 

facilitate complementary federal and tribal enforcement and compliance programs. 

In FY 2011, EPA will continue to consult with Tribes on how to integrate existing and new 

enforcement policies with Executive Order 13175, ―Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments, the ―EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on 

Indian Reservations‖ and the ―Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 

Indian Policy.‖ Integration will enable EPA to address, including through aggressive 

enforcement where needed, noncompliance at tribal and non-tribal facilities in a timely manner. 
Page 74 of 82

In that way, EPA and Tribes can ensure that people living in Indian country have clean air, water 

and land.

3. Improve Transparency

Regions and OECA should work with each EPA National Program Manager to provide tribes 

and tribal members with Indian-country specific information on compliance assistance, 

compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities in a user-friendly format. To ensure equal 

access to information, material should be available on-line (the Internet) and off-line (at schools, 

libraries, community centers, etc.). In addition, Regions should continue to verify facilityspecific information and ensure that compliance and enforcement data and work in Indian 

country are placed in the appropriate national databases and delineated as ―Indian country‖ or 

―tribal.‖

4. Relevant Policies and Guidances

Executive Order 13175 http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/eo/eo13175.htm

EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations‖ 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/rcra/epaindian-mem.pdf

Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/84indianpolicy.pdf

F. Specific Federal Facilities Enforcement Program Performance Expectations

EPA’s compliance and enforcement program involves more than 30,000 federal facilities and 

installations spread across nearly 30% of the nation’s territory, among which are some 10,000

currently regulated under the Agency’s various statutes. As such, it is one of the EPA’s largest 

and most diverse sectors to oversee. Given limited resources, the primary focus in this sector has 

been on monitoring and enforcement, given stewardship opportunities and reliable compliance 

assistance offered by others, including at FedCenter, the sector’s on-line environmental 

stewardship and compliance assistance center sponsored by more than a dozen federal agencies. 

Further, while these federal installations are sometimes subject to special provisions of 

environmental law, EPA’s general practice and policy is to hold them to the same standard of 

compliance as private facilities. EPA’s federal facilities enforcement and compliance programs 

are at http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/federalfacilities/index.html

FFEO, in partnership with other federal agencies, will operate and expand FedCenter as the 

central point for federal agency collaboration on greenhouse gas emission response and 

compliance with new Executive Order 13514 on federal sustainability. 

See http://www.fedcenter.gov/

In an effort to effectively focus limited resources, FFEO and the Regional Federal Facilities 

Managers annually negotiate Integrated Strategies as part of the National Federal Facilities 

Program Agenda. These integrated strategies align enforcement, compliance, and stewardship 
Page 75 of 82

activities and help achieve environmental and health benefits by addressing those problems that 

matter to communities. In recent years, FFEO and the Regions implemented Integrated 

strategies in several areas, including stormwater (started in FY 2006), federal underground 

storage tanks (FY 2007), federal prisons (FY 2009), RCRA non-TSDFs (FY 2009), and 

vulnerable populations (under consideration in FY 2010). In FY 2011, Regions are expected to 

continue to implement these Integrated Strategies.

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

Clean water action plan: Regions are expected to continue implementing the Integrated 

Strategies on stormwater and underground storage tanks. To support Regions in Assuring clean 

drinking water, especially on tribal lands, FFEO will research drinking water pollution and 

potential SDWA enforcement particularly at formerly used defense sites (FUDS). Regions and 

FFEO are expected to continue to implement an enforcement action against Bureau of Indian 

Affairs for violations at schools on BIA and tribal lands. In addition, FFEO will complete new 

inspection targeting capabilities for vulnerable communities.

Clean air: To reduce air pollution from largest sources and to support the Regions, FFEO will 

complete new research on power plants operating on military bases.

Climate and clean energy: FFEO, in partnership with other federal agencies, will operate and 

expand FedCenter as the central point for federal agency collaboration on greenhouse gas 

emission response and compliance with new Executive Order 13514 on federal sustainability. 

See http://www.fedcenter.gov/

In order to protect people from exposure to hazardous chemicals, Regions are expected to sustain 

a vigorous inspection and enforcement program at federal facilities. Regions and FFEO are 

expected to implement the Integrated Strategy on protecting vulnerable populations. 

FFEO will continue research into non-compliance at surface impoundment sites, RCRA 

corrective action sites and other RCRA non-TSDF facilities. FFEO will complete new research 

on greater compliance/enforcement activity at formerly used defense sites (FUDS). In order to 

reduce risks from mineral processing, Regions are expected to address contamination and

cleanup at federal abandoned mine sites. In an effort to reform chemical management 

enforcement, Regions are expected to address issues with PCBs in ships and asbestos and 

pesticides at military sites. FFEO will work to secure penalty authority against federal facilities 

through TSCA reauthorization. In addition, FFEO and Regions are expected to continue 

implementing the Integrated Strategy on federal prisons. 

FFEO strongly encourages the Regions to take enforcement actions to improve compliance at 

federal facilities. For FY 2011, federal facility resources should give first priority to taking 

appropriate and timely enforcement actions, as defined within relevant media-specific policies, 

for each federal facility inspected as a consequence of Federal Facility Integrated Strategies 

efforts. Where appropriate, FFEO advocates including environmental management system 

(EMS) improvements and SEPs as part of enforcement action settlements. FFEO also urges the 
Page 76 of 82

Regions to take timely and appropriate enforcement actions to address violations of clean up 

responsibilities. 

Enforcement Follow Up and Projections

At mid-year each Region must project the number of formal (1) federal facility enforcement case 

initiations and (2) federal facility settlements for FY 2011. The projections should not include 

Records of Decision at federal facility CERCLA sites. Projections can include issuance of 

Notices of Determinations regarding self-disclosures by federal facilities. The projections should 

be emailed by the Regional Enforcement Division Director to the Director of OECA’s Federal 

Facility Office at the end of the 2nd fiscal quarter. Since these projections are outside the ACS 

system, they are not commitments by the Regions. 

Please note the reference at Section V (D) on page 63 of this Guidance to OSWER’s NPMG 

which establishes priorities for EPA’s Federal Facilities CERCLA Enforcement program. Clean 

up at hazardous sites: Regions and FFEO are expected to work to ensure timely completion of 

CERCLA Federal Facility Agreements (FFA). Regions are expected to oversee compliance by 

federal agencies under FFAs. 

All federal facility enforcement actions are considered nationally significant and require 

consultation with FFEO. FFEO will focus its resources to make these consultations timely and 

effective.

Regions are encouraged to target federal facilities as part of National Enforcement Initiative 

areas, as well as Regional priorities, national initiatives targeted at geographic areas, EJ areas 

and federal facilities Integrated Strategies areas. Under Sections II, III, and IV of this Guidance, 

each Region must report the number of federal facilities evaluations, investigations and 

inspections included within commitments under the various Regional media program 

commitments.

COMMITMENT FED-FAC05: Each Region must conduct ten (10) federal facilities 

inspections to support integrated strategy areas, which include stormwater; federal underground 

storage tanks, federal prisons; RCRA surface impoundments, RCRA corrective action sites, nonTSDFs and vulnerable populations. These inspections can be achieved through any combination 

of single media or multimedia inspections with the following limitations: (1) a maximum of three 

UST inspections can count toward this goal and (2) for any multimedia inspection conducted, it 

shall count as two inspections toward this goal. These inspections may simultaneously satisfy 

inspections commitments required in National Enforcement Initiative or other core program 

areas.

2. Reset Our Relationships with States

Regions are expected to hold States accountable for responsible federal facility compliance 

monitoring and enforcement activity.
Page 77 of 82

3. Improve Transparency

Regions are expected to share environmental information appropriately with the public for 

federal facility environmental violations, including through press releases for all enforcement 

actions, and at federal facility cleanup sites. EPA will pursue legislative changes to ensure 

federal agency environmental accountability under federal laws.

G. Specific Compliance Incentives Program Performance Expectations

In addition to providing compliance assistance and taking enforcement actions, EPA promotes 

compliance through the use of the following incentive policies: (1) the policy on ―Incentives for 

Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations‖ (the Audit 

Policy); (2) ―Small Business Compliance Policy‖ (Small Business Policy); and (3) ―Small Local 

Governments Compliance Assistance Policy‖ (Small Local Governments Policy).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 these 

policies, particularly when used as part of sector-specific compliance incentive programs that 

result in actions that reduce, treat, or eliminate pollution in the environment or improve facility 

environmental management practices (EMPs). 

In most quarters, EPA receives slightly more self-disclosures than are recorded as resolved. 

Over time, this has led to an increasing inventory of unresolved disclosures. In recognition that 

we need to address this inventory, the Audit Policy Coordination Team (ACT), comprised of 

representatives from all ten Regions and Headquarters has developed a number of practice 

modifications, which should reduce transaction costs, streamline and speed up the processing of 

disclosures. In FY 2010, the Office of Civil Enforcement will be providing model documents to 

the Regions and Headquarters offices to expedite the processing and resolution of voluntary 

disclosures. In FY 2011, the Regions and Headquarters are expected to expeditiously process 

voluntary disclosures in order to prevent the increase of the pipeline, as well as to reduce the 

inventory. 

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

EPA’s Audit Policy, Small Business Policy and Small Local Governments Policy provide 

incentives for regulated entities 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 is encouraging audits and disclosures that achieve significant 

environmental outcomes, 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. Regions are expected 

to consider the use of CIPs directed at particular sectors and/or noncompliance problems, 

particularly key program priorities, with emphasis on violations that impact areas with 
Page 78 of 82

environmental justice concerns, and violations that, once corrected, are likely to result in 

measurable pollution reductions.

2. Reset Our Relationships with States

Regions are expected to promote EPA’s compliance incentive policies 

(http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/incentives), 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. Additionally, Regions are expected to consider and follow-up on, as 

appropriate, self-disclosures submitted under the EPA Audit Policy, Small Business Policy, and 

Local Government Policy.

3. Improve Transparency

EPA will continue to enter data into ICIS regarding the receipt and resolution of self-disclosures 

and, at the end of FY2011, EPA will continue to report on the number of self-disclosures 

received and resolved together with the environmental outcomes resulting from disclosing 

entities correcting their violations. 

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.

H. Specific Technical Support and Training Expectations

In 2011, Regions are asked to support the Enforcement Training Network in the following ways:

 With assistance from the National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI), develop the 

capability to train inspectors in Region and States. Assist in the development and delivery 

of the National Basic Inspector Training courses for regional inspectors as well as state 

inspectors where appropriate.

 Promote, advertise, and provide enforcement and compliance training to regional and 

state enforcement personnel through courses, webinars, on line training and other 

informational materials. Announce courses offered by the Region on NETI’s website 

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

other Regions or state attendance

 Identify training needs for the legal, state and tribal training network

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

activities below:

o National Training Plan (NTP): This plan links training with strategic goals, 

national initiatives and key elements of the core programs. Regions and OECA 

offices are expected to enter their training courses into the NTP. Throughout the 

year, Regions and OECA offices should update the NTP database as additional 
Page 79 of 82

training is planned. When creating or revising training products, please consider 

integrating overarching policies, such as environmental justice and coordination 

between the civil and criminal programs. Also please consider the updated 

inspector training requirements in EPA Order 3500.1. 

o Mid-Year and End-of-Year Statistics: Regions and OECA offices are expected to 

provide timely and accurate mid-year and end-of-year reports of compliance and 

enforcement training activities through the national data reporting process. 

o Training Year Evaluation Forms: Regions and OECA offices are expected to use 

OECA’s standard evaluation form for training events. By reporting and 

measuring outcomes of training, we will have information by which to evaluate 

the effectiveness of courses, and thereby motivate behavior changes and improve 

performance among trainers and trained personnel.

I. Specific State Review Framework (SRF) Expectations

In FY 2011, Regions are asked to support the SRF in the following ways:

 Conduct SRF reviews on state CAA, CWA, and RCRA enforcement programs, and 

ensure that commitments to implement significant recommendations for program 

improvements are captured in appropriate negotiated PPAs, PPGs, or categorical grant 

agreements between the Region and the State, with accountability for carrying out those 

commitments. SRF review results should be viewed and discussed with the State in 

coordination with regional and state program reviews (such as water quality standards 

and permit reviews).

 Regions should use all available data to benchmark and monitor the enforcement 

performance of their States. Data sources include (but are not limited to) federal and 

state data systems, permitting and enforcement performance reviews, and other audit or 

evaluation reports. 

 Enter both draft and final SRF reports, which include Preliminary Data Analyses, file 

reviews, recommendations, state comments, and benefits arising from Framework 

reviews, including Element 13, into the Lotus Notes SRF Tracker database upon 

completion of a SRF review.

 Monitor the progress of States and Tribes in carrying out the recommendations of rounds 

1 and 2 of the SRF, and record the progress quarterly in the Lotus Notes SRF Tracker 

database.

 Use results of reviews to inform annual planning and regular progress meetings with 

States. Where progress resolving SRF recommendations is not being made, plans and 

commitments should be strengthened and realigned and include appropriate corrective 

actions.

COMMITMENT SRF01: The number of Round 2 State Review Framework reviews to be 

conducted, consistent with SRF guidance in FY2011, by State. Where appropriate, program 
Page 80 of 82

improvements should be captured in appropriate negotiated PPAs, PPGs, or categorical grant 

agreements between the Region and the State, with accountability for carrying out those 

commitments. 

SRF guidances, policies, and templates for reporting are found at http://www.epaotis.gov/srf/srf_tracking.html.

J. State Grant Results and Reporting

In FY 2011 EPA remains committed to strengthening our oversight and reporting of results from 

state grants, not only linking state grant work plan commitments to EPA’s strategic plan, but also 

enhancing transparency and accountability. EPA and the States will continue working in FY 

2011 to achieve this through two related efforts:

State Grant Workplans: The Agency’s long-term goal is for EPA and the States to achieve 

greater consistency in workplan formats. 

The formats will be available for use beginning with the FY 2011 grants cycle. OGD will 

develop performance metrics to ensure that 100% of workplans under the 14 categorical grant 

programs use one of the approved formats by no later than the FY 2013 grants cycle. If a 

particular State agency has difficulties under State law in adopting one of the established 

formats, OGD will work with the affected Region and NPM to resolve the issue. 

State Grant Performance Measures (formally known as State Grant Template Measures): 

The current set of measures flagged as State Grant Template Measures in ACS will be retained 

for FY 2011 reporting. As in FY 2010, the use of the template to capture results for these 

measures is not required. 
Page 81 of 82

SECTION VIII. FY2010 OECA WORKPLAN SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Annual Commitment System

Following the release of the final OECA NPM Guidance, Regions should hold discussions with 

States and Tribes to discuss the highest priority work across the Region ands States for the 

upcoming year. This work should be an integration of national, regional and state priorities, and 

consider permitting and enforcement activities that will lead to improvements in compliance and 

in environmental conditions. The Regions and States should discuss how to work together to 

ensure that the highest priority work gets done, including consideration of this NPM Guidance. 

Regions and States should develop draft numbers for the commitments contained in the guidance 

that relate to state and tribal activities. Regions should also assess their own resource levels in 

relation to the priority work identified in the regional/state discussions and the state and tribal 

contributions to that work, and the work outlined in the NPM Guidance. 

OECA will hold a planning discussion with each Region at the senior management level during 

the spring of 2010 to discuss the strategic allocation of the Region’s resources, with the goal of 

informing the negotiation of the ACS commitments for the Region for the coming year. OECA 

understands that the demands of ensuring compliance with the myriad of environmental laws and 

programs covered by this NPM Guidance may exceed a Region’s resources, and wants to ensure 

that available resources are put towards addressing the most important sources and most serious 

violations that affect the environment and public health.

Current schedules call for Regions to enter their draft targets into the annual commitment system 

by July 9, 2010. By completing OECA and regional senior management discussions prior to this 

time, the process for resolving any issues and finalizing annual regional targets should be 

streamlined. During this same time, Regions should engage States and Tribes in negotiations to 

complete the grant process (PPAs, PPGs, and Categorical Grants), including translating regional 

targets into formal commitments supported by state-by-state agreements. All commitments 

should be final by October 22, 2010.

B. FTE Resource Charts

The Regions should complete FTE charts similar to the charts completed in previous planning 

cycles. Charts organize FTE information by goal, objective, and sub-objective, and then crosswalk 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 2010. It is imperative that Regions 

complete these charts and submit these documents to Christopher Knopes and Lisa Raymer on 

September 30, 2010.

 2010 Final – Enter the Region’s final FTE allocation for FY2010 in the 2010 Final 

column.
Page 82 of 82

 2011 Proposed – Enter the Region’s proposed FTE allocation for FY2011 in the 2011

Proposed column. Headquarters recognizes that FTE levels may change after the Agency 

receives the FY2011 enacted budget after October 1, 2010. Therefore this number is a 

―best guess‖ estimate.