June 12, 2006 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Update to the FY2005 - 2007 National Program Managers=

Guidance 

FROM: Granta Y. Nakayama /s/ 

Assistant Administrator 

TO: Regional Administrators 

State Environmental Commissioners 

Attached is the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance=s (OECA) FY 2007 

update to the 2005-2007 National Program Managers= (NPM) Guidance released in April 2004. 

This update outlines the activities and core commitments for the core program and national 

priorities for FY2007, the last year of the current planning cycle. EPA has started the process for 

developing the FY2006 - FY2011 Strategic Plan, and next year=s NPM guidance will be revised 

accordingly in keeping with the Agency=s decision to synchronize program guidances with the 

Strategic Plan. In keeping with the three year planning cycle, OECA will also begin the 

selection process for new national priorities. You will be asked in the very near future to assess 

the progress of the existing priorities, as well as consult with your states and tribes on 

suggestions for new or potential priorities, so we can determine OECA=s national priorities for 

the FY2008 - FY2010 time frame. 

The petroleum refineries= performance-based strategy has been assessed this year, and it 

has been determined that the priority has met the goal of addressing 80% of the refining 

capacity. Therefore, the remaining work within this priority will be completed within the core 

air program. The petroleum refining strategy implementation team has developed the exit 

strategy for this priority. It outlines how to address compliance for the remaining 20% of this 

industry which is typically, but not necessarily, characterized by companies that operate only a 

few refineries (many are only single-refinery operations); operate facilities with relatively 

smaller refining capacities; and are more likely to have a local or regional, rather than a national, 

base of operations. 
 -2- 

The performance based goal for the new source review/prevention of significant 

deterioration (NSR/PSD) priority is currently being revised. OECA will work with the regions 

to select new areas to investigate for noncompliance with NSR/PSD requirements for FY2007. 

Once identified, compliance approaches tailored specifically to bring the newly selected areas 

into compliance with federal NSR/PSD requirements will be developed. 

 Like last year, the regions are required to enter commitments into the Annual 

Commitment System (ACS). Regions are expected to enter their draft commitments for both the 

OECA National Program Priorities and core program targets into EPA=s online system by July 

17, 2006. The core commitments are included in the FY2007 update. The strategy 

implementation teams will be asked to put forth commitments for FY2007 in the next few weeks. 

 We received a number of comments requesting that the core and priority commitments be 

finalized and released at the same time. The OECA Planning Council discussed this issue at a 

recent meeting, and the priority teams all felt strongly that they needed to review mid-year 

FY2006 data before making decisions about FY2007 targets. For that reason, the final priority 

commitments will lag behind the core commitments by a few weeks. OECA and the regions will 

have until September 30, 2006 to complete their negotiations and finalize all commitments in the 

system. 

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

Nicholas Franco, Acting Director, in OECA=s Office of Compliance National Planning, 

Measures and Analysis Staff, by e-mail at franco.nicholas@epa.gov or phone at (202)564-0113. 

Your continued commitment to achieving our enforcement and compliance assurance 

goals for FY 2006 is sincerely appreciated. 

Attachments 

cc: Assistant Administrators 

Deputy Regional Administrators 

Catherine McCabe 

OECA Office Directors 

OECA Deputy Office Directors 

 OECA Division Directors 

Regional Enforcement Division Directors 

Regional Media Division Directors 

Regional Counsels 

Regional ACS Coordinators 

Regional Compliance Assistance Coordinators 

Regional Tribal Coordinators 
US Environmental Protection Agency 

Final FY07 Update to 

Office of Enforcement 

Compliance Assurance (OECA) 

National Program Managers’ Guidance 

April 2006 
Table of Contents 

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 4

SECTION II: ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE NATIONAL 

PRIORITIES 5

National Priority: Financial Responsibility 5

National Priority: 6

Wet Weather 6

National Priority: Air Toxics - Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 6

National Priority: New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD) 7

National Priority: Mineral Processing 8

National Priority: Tribal 9

National Priority: Petroleum Refineries 10

SECTION III: CORE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 11

Guidance Applied to All Core Programs: 11

A. Guidance: Compliance Assistance (Sub-objective 5.1.1) 11

B. Guidance: Compliance Incentives (Sub-objective 5.1.2) 13

C. Guidance: Monitoring and Enforcement (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 14

D. Guidance: Technical Support and Training 18

E. Guidance: Data Quality and Reporting 19

F. Guidance: EPA State Relations 20

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

Liability Act (CERCLA) and RCRA Corrective Action Enforcement Program Commitments 24

National Program Core Requirements: 24

A. Requirements: Clean Water Act (CWA) Programs 25

B. Requirements: Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Program 31

C. Requirements: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Program 37

D. Requirements: Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) Programs

39

E. Requirements: Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Program 40

F. Requirements: Clean Air Program 45

G. Requirements: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program 53

2

Final April 2006 
H. Requirements: Federal Activities Program 60

I. Requirements: Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance Program 62

J. Requirements: Multimedia and Rapid Response Program 67

K. Requirements: Environmental Justice Program 70

L. Requirements: Tribal Program 74

SECTION IV. FY2007 OECA WORKPLAN SUBMISSION 

INSTRUCTIONS 77

O. Annual Commitment System 77

M. Support and Training Requests 78

N. FTE Resource Charts 79

3

Final April 2006 
Executive Summary 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) - FY 2007 Update to the National 

Program Managers= Guidance 

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 

EPA=s national enforcement and compliance assurance program is characterized by its multimedia scope and breadth. The national program is responsible for maximizing compliance with 10 

distinct federal environmental statutes dealing with prevention and control of air pollution, water 

pollution, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and pesticides. Most of these statutes have multiple 

program elements, and OECA carries out compliance and enforcement activities in a total of 28 

separate program areas. The statutory and regulatory requirements of these programs apply to an 

enormous and diverse universe which needs to achieve and maintain compliance. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

constitute the agreed upon approach between the regions and the national program managers for 

achieving performance expectations in both the core program and the national priorities for the fiscal 

year. 

FY 2007 Update to the FY2005 - 2007 NPM Guidance 

This is the final out-year of the current three year planning cycle, and OECA will 

completely revise the NPM guidance next year to prepare for the FY2008-FY2011 Strategic 

Plan. 

The petroleum refining priority, begun in 1996, has reached its goal to address 80% of 

the domestic refining capacity through settlements or filed civil actions. In FY2006, the 

priority’s performance-based strategy was assessed to determine if the priority has met the goal 

of addressing 80% of the refining capacity. Because the priority has met its 80% goal, it has 

been decided that the remaining work within this priority will be completed within the core air 

program. 

The performance based goal for the NSR/PSD priority is currently being revised. EPA is 

currently in the process of identifying new areas to investigate for noncompliance with 

NSR/PSD requirements. Once these new areas are identified the national priority strategy will 

be updated to reflect the new focus areas. 

4

Final April 2006 
For more detailed information on the strategy changes for the petroleum refining and 

NSR/PSD priorities refer to Section II below. 

SECTION II: ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE NATIONAL PRIORITIES 

OECA selected its national priorities for the FY2005 - FY2007 planning cycle in 2003. 

Strategy implementation plans have been developed for all of the priorities and activities are fully 

underway to meet the priorities= goals. Below are short summaries of the priority topic areas. For 

the most up to date information on the priorities, priority-specific goals, and the national priority 

selection process go to http://epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/priorities/index.html 

National Priority: Financial Responsibility 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

compliance with the law, as well as the Agency=s long standing Apolluter pays@ principle, an 

enforcement strategy for obtaining full compliance with financial responsibility requirements 

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

responsible parties to state and federal taxpayers. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

an FY2006-2007 enforcement priority. 

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

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

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

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

(CERCLA). In FY2007 OC will continue with CA efforts for RCRA Subtitle I (UST) that were 

initiated in FY2006. These efforts focus on working with trade associations and other 

stakeholders to provide compliance assistance in States which do not have approved programs. 

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

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

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

5

Final April 2006 
creating a screening process to assess risks caused by a failure to have financial responsibility so 

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

inspected entities are in compliance or on a path to compliance. 

National Priority: Wet Weather 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

justice areas, and other sensitive areas. 

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

our nation=s watersheds where CSO=s, SSO=s, CAFO=s, and stormwater sources may adversely 

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

significant risks to the environment or human health. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the compliance dates, can ensure that the requirements are clearly understood and that guidance 

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

community. 

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

6

Final April 2006 
objective of the priority has been to distribute the substantial MACT implementation workload 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

effort to compliance monitoring and enforcement. 

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

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

important component of meeting this general goal will be to implement the Performance- Based 

Air Toxics Enforcement Strategy; key provisions will include: 

• Identification and addressing of high risk pollutants of concern; 

• Focus on major Maximum Achievable Control Technology (AMACT@) sources while 

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

including area sources; 

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

• Utilization and further development of targeting tools which identify and prioritize high risk 

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

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

• Coordinate enforcement efforts with states and tribes as appropriate. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

policy. 

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

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

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

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

7

Final April 2006 
with relatively clean air are not significantly degraded by the influx of new air pollution sources. 

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

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

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

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

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

Investigations conducted by EPA at coal-fired utilities, refineries, and other industrial facilities 

reveal that many made modifications that were subject to NSR or PSD but failed to obtain the 

required permits or install necessary controls. 

OECA is revising the current performance based strategy for NSR/PSD. Through the 

revised strategy Headquarters and the Regions will continue to pursue filed cases and cases in 

active negotiation against coal fired utilities. In deciding which additional cases to pursue, we 

will focus on those that would violate our NSR reform and out latest utility proposal. We will 

begin to redirect compliance assurance activities to other industrial areas which display similar 

patterns of noncompliance with NSR/PSD requirements and have the potential to produce 

significant human health and environmental benefits. 

Performance-Based Strategy Goal: 

The performance based goal for the NSR/PSD Priority is currently being revised. Through the 

revision process OECA and the Regions will select new areas to investigate for noncompliance 

with NSR/PSD requirements. Once identified, compliance approaches tailored specifically to 

bring the newly selected areas into compliance with Federal NSR/PSD requirements will be 

developed. 

National Priority: Mineral Processing 

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

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

fish kills and the arsenic and cadmium that these wastes often contain have been found in 

elevated levels in residential wells. Evidence gathered in recent inspections indicates that 

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

their wastes. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8

Final April 2006 
mined out voids. These sinkholes interrupt surface water drainage, affecting ponds and streams. 

Performance-Based Strategy Goal: By the end of FY 2007, ensure that high-risk facilities in 

the mineral processing and mining sectors are in compliance or on a path to compliance, or are 

otherwise working to reduce risk to human health and the environment through measures such as 

the implementation of best management practices. For purposes of the Strategy, "on a path to 

compliance” means: (1) EPA initiated the enforcement process and the facility is working 

cooperatively with regulators to resolve its violation(s) or reduce environmental risk, or (2) the 

facility is auditing its facility(ies) for compliance and correcting and disclosing any violations 

that it discovers, or (3) the facility is on an enforceable schedule to return to compliance or 

assess any contamination from environmental releases. This goal will be achieved through the 

following activities: 

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

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

compliance status. Select 25 non-phosphoric acid mineral processing facilities and 

five mining sites for investigation. 

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

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

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

substantial endangerment. 

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

ones) are in compliance or, if not in compliance, have been addressed through 

settlement, civil action or referral to DOJ for filing and are subject to an order to 

assess a substantial hazard and address any imminent and substantial 

endangerment. 

• In FY07, at five mining facilities, assess compliance, evaluate whether there is a 

potential imminent and substantial endangerment, and take appropriate action to 

protect human health and the environment. The Agency will use this information, 

in conjunction with other existing Agency information, to help focus possible 

compliance assistance activities for other mining sites in FY07. 

• Identify waste management practices that cause health and environmental 

problems and work closely with local, state, tribal and federal authorities to 

provide that information to other regulated entities so that they can improve their 

environmental management practices. 

• Aggregate information on Amarquee@ compliance problemsCthose that occur 

throughout an industryCand best management practices and disseminate it to the 

regulated community and all state and private providers of assistance. 

National Priority: Tribal 

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

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

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

9

Final April 2006 
other authorities, including Alaska (hereinafter referred to as “Indian country and other tribal 

areas”). There are currently 562 federally-recognized Indian tribes (tribes) in the United States 

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

tribes can maintain their own environmental protection programs and can seek program approval 

for certain federal environmental programs, EPA generally directly implements federal 

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

environmental compliance issues and seeks to identify and ensure compliance at facilities in Indian 

country and other tribal areas. 

Performance-Based Strategy Goal: The tribal strategy’s primary goal is to significantly improve 

human health and the environment in Indian country through EPA working with tribes on 

compliance assistance, compliance monitoring and enforcement activities. To enhance the ability 

of EPA and tribes to monitor compliance with federal and tribal laws, Regions worked to ensure 

that accurate and reliable facility data exists in EPA’s data systems; regions completed this work in 

FY 2006. In FY 2007, the increased quality of facility data will better enable OECA and the 

Regions to target compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities in 

Indian country and other tribal areas. To build tribal capacity, EPA continues to focus on 

providing high quality compliance assurance and enforcement training to tribal environmental 

professionals and increasing the number of tribal inspectors who are authorized to conduct 

inspections on behalf of the Agency. EPA’s direct implementation efforts continue to focus on 

three areas: tribal drinking water, schools and waste management. In FY 2007, the increased 

number of EPA-authorized inspectors, on-site compliance assistance visits and sanitary surveys at 

drinking water systems, and EPA inspections, particularly at schools in Indian country and other 

tribal areas, should lead to an increased number of inspection reports submitted to EPA and the 

subsequent number of compliance determinations. Regions should review the Guidance on the 

Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy and various Regional Indian policies 

before proceeding with civil enforcement actions in Indian country and other tribal areas. 

National Priority: Petroleum Refineries 

Return to Core Program: The Agency has now achieved the goal of covering 80% of the 

petroleum industry’s refining capacity by global settlement (lodged or entered), referral or filed 

action. However, to ensure a level playing field within this sector, efforts are required to address 

“marquee issue” compliance in the remaining 20% of the refining industry. This segment of the 

industry is typically, but not necessarily, characterized by companies that operate only a few 

refineries (many are only single-refinery operations); operate facilities with relatively smaller 

refining capacities; and are more likely to have a local or regional, rather than a national, base of 

operations. Therefore, the segment of the refining sector is more likely to have smaller overall 

capacities, operate completely within a single EPA region, and present a different profile than those 

generally covered by global settlements achieved to date. Given the make-up of the remainder of the 

refining industry to be addressed, the activities to address these remaining facilities will be 

conducted as part of OECA's Core Program, ending the national priority. In addition, core program 

activities will focus on tracking compliance of, and confirming emissions reductions by, refiners 

who are implementing measures required by entered settlement agreements. The purpose of the 

10 

Final April 2006 
ongoing work in the refining sector is to ensure a level playing field, and continued emissions 

reduction in the petroleum refining sector 

SECTION III: CORE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 

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

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

aspects of national guidance which apply across all core program areas, and provides a discussion 

about individual program elements under various environmental statutes. 

The performance expectations and required regional commitments defined in this core 

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

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

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

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

there are very real, credible reasons for a region=s nonparticipation. There are many factors that can 

influence the level of a region=s participation. For example, geographic or sector initiatives, the 

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

initiatives can all directly impact the regions= contributions to national core and priority activities. The 

regional plans, prepared in FY04, provide more information on the region=s use of compliance 

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

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

guidance activities laid out below, in conjunction with the regional plans, provide the best context for 

a region=s contribution to the national program and to program activities in areas unique to the region. 

To access the regional plans, go to http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/regionplans/regionalplans2.htm 

Guidance Applied to All Core Programs: 

Ensuring compliance involves the use of all available tools including compliance assistance, 

compliance incentives, compliance monitoring, and civil and criminal enforcement that are appropriate 

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

national program there are certain fundamental activities and requirements that need to be carried out 

for all core program areas. 

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

Compliance Assistance includes activities, tools or technical assistance that provides clear 

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

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

helping other compliance assistance providers to aid the regulated community in complying with 

environmental regulations. Assistance may also help the regulated community find cost-effective 

ways to comply with regulations and go beyond compliance through the use of pollution 

prevention techniques, improved environmental management practices, and innovative 

technologies, thus improving environmental performance. 

11 

Final April 2006 
The compliance assistance core program in the regions should include the following: 

1. A strong regional compliance assistance core program infrastructure: 

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

planning and coordination of compliance assistance efforts; 

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

states, tribes, and external environmental assistance providers; 

• Mechanisms to coordinate and strategically build compliance assistance into 

national, regional, state and tribal planning processes. 

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

in addressing environmental problems: 

• Plan and coordinate compliance assistance across organizational and programmatic 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strategies). 

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

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

3. Tracking and measuring results of compliance assistance activities: 

• Report on planned and actual compliance assistance projects into the compliance 

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

completed CA projects, report all outputs and outcomes into ICIS. For onsite visits 

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

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

• Conduct appropriate measurement activities to collect outcome information for 

direct assistance activities to determine increased understanding, improved 

environmental management practices and pollution reduction outcomes achieved as 

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

follow up communication. 

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

assistance workshops/training, onsite visits and revisits which support the OECA 

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

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

12 

Final April 2006 
4. Providing compliance assistance targeted to appropriate problems, sectors, and geographic 

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

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

onsite visits and/or distribute outreach materials; 

• Share compliance assistance tools and opportunities within the regions and 

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

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

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

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

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

success stories. 

Detailed descriptions of the above compliance assistance activities undertaken by the 

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

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

B. Guidance: Compliance Incentives (Sub-objective 5.1.2) 

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

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

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

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

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

pollution or improve facility environmental management practices (EMPs). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disclosure requirements as a means of promoting improved environmental performance. 

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

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

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

compliance incentives: 

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

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

to result in measurable pollution reductions. 

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

13 

Final April 2006 
policy), with the assistance of state, tribal, and local agencies, to encourage the 

regulated community to voluntarily discover, disclose and correct violations before 

they are identified by regulatory agencies for enforcement investigation or response. 

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

OECA audit policy and small business policy. 

C. Guidance: Monitoring and Enforcement (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 

Compliance Monitoring: 

All regional programs should conduct appropriate compliance monitoring activities, which 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

compliance assurance and enforcement programs occurs throughout the year. 

Examples of important compliance monitoring activities include: 

Inspector support 

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

Orders (1440.1, 1440.2, etc.); 

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

manuals; 

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

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

Inspections, June 25, 2003; 

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

Monitoring planning and execution 

• developing compliance monitoring strategies that include targeting and information 

gathering techniques; 

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

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

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

14 

Final April 2006 
non-delegated programs; 

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

entities, and non-governmental organizations; 

• identifying potential environmental crimes through the civil compliance monitoring 

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

Data collection, review and reporting 

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

• reviewing and evaluating self-reported data and records, environmental permits, and 

other technical information relating to compliance with environmental laws and 

regulations; 

• maintaining compliance files and managing compliance records; 

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

databases; 

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

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

compliance monitoring activities; 

Program coordination/review/oversight/support 

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

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

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

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

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

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

High Priority Violators, or Watch List facilities; 

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

grants; 

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

inspectors; 

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

Performance Track; 

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

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

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

Policy Framework for State/EPA Enforcement Agreements, August 25, 1986); and 

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

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

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

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

tribal governments. 

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

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

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

15

Final April 2006 
activities fall under the civil and criminal enforcement programs. 

Civil and Criminal Enforcement: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for: 

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

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

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

and the SRF; 

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

necessary actions to ensure continued compliance; 

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

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

those in the CERCLA program, into ICIS; 

• continuing to resolve enforcement cases initiated prior to FY2007 and ensure 

investigation and issuance of appropriate action for any open tips/complaints/referrals 

received by EPA; 

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

complete outstanding judicial and administrative actions; 

• continuing and completing appropriate case development activities including issuing 

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

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

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

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

developed for administrative or civil enforcement but later reveal potential criminal 

wrongdoing B to the regional screening committee where discussions and decisions will 

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

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

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

to ensure the prompt prosecution of environmental crimes; and 

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

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

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

16 

Final April 2006 
kept secure in accordance with EPA policies for the custodial management of evidence. 

17

Final April 2006 
D. Guidance: Technical Support and Training 

Technical assistance and training can provide critical assistance to regions, states, tribes 

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

compliance assurance activities. It is recognized that the Regions and OECA offices promote a 

diversity of training and technical support opportunities. Both the National Enforcement 

Investigations Center (NEIC) and the National Environmental Training Institute (NETI) are 

available to provide expertise and training in both the core and priority program areas of OECA. 

Beginning in FY 2008, OECA, the Regions and other appropriate partners will be discussing the 

possible implementation of a more comprehensive and standard approach to training planning and 

implementation. In anticipation of possible movement in that direction, this guidance has some 

clarifications and options that will engage OECA and its regional partners during FY 2007 relating 

to the evaluation of current training activities. 

NETI - The National Enforcement Training Institute has completed its transition into the 

Office of Compliance. NETI has committed itself to the continuing assessment of emerging 

training needs, strengthening its role as a clearinghouse for training information within the 

enforcement and compliance assurance program, exploring cost effective means of 

delivering both classroom and distance training, working with regions to prepare a strategic 

training plan that parallels OECA’s annual planning process. NETI also continues its role 

as developer, coordinator, publisher, and trainer for federal, state, local and tribal attorneys, 

inspectors, civil and criminal investigators and technical experts in all the various tools for 

environmental compliance and enforcement. 

During FY 2007, NETI strongly encourages its regional training partners to pursue an 

opportunity to participate in the creation of a national environmental enforcement training 

and capacity building strategy to be developed and unveiled in draft during FY 2007 with 

plans of full implementation in FY 2008. This plan will likely consist of a number of 

elements that will require a regional/OECA partnership of innovation and delivery to meet 

the myriad challenges of environmental stewardship. Proposed major components of the 

plan consist of coordinated course planning, modification of selected existing courses, 

comprehensive evaluation-friendly course outcome reporting, creation with NETI of a 

training resource and course development advisory service and closer integration of a 

training strategic plan with OECA’s planning process that will improve the ability of NETI 

and its Regional training partners to plan, develop, and deliver training that will assist EPA 

and its state and tribal partners in successfully achieving the environmental goals of 

OECA’s national priorities. During FY 2007, regions are encouraged to enhance their 

focus and support related to training planning and implementation. 

Training Data and Reporting 

As has been the case for several years, regions and OECA offices are encouraged to 

provide mid-year and end of year reports of compliance and enforcement training activities 

through the national data reporting process. In FY 2007, NETI will work with the regions to 

18 

Final April 2006 
enhance the reliability, consistency and efficiency of this reporting process. 

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

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

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

new activities toward national priorities and regional initiatives as described in this guidance, 

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

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

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

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

degree to which activities provide opportunity to use or enhance NEIC’s unique capabilities 

(e.g., multi-disciplined teams, in-depth process evaluations, complex analytical procedures, 

etc.). 

E. Guidance: Data Quality and Reporting 

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

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

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

is focused on two areas: data quality and reporting. Data quality, accuracy and completeness are 

also elements of the SRF, and through Framework reviews regions should ensure that states are 

timely in entering all required data into the national systems of record. 

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

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

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

approach to systematically identify and address problems with the enforcement and compliance 

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

require regional, state, and tribal involvement. 

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

Integrity of Reported Enforcement and Compliance Data@) and established stringent procedures for 

reporting federal data including: 

• quarterly data quality reviews of enforcement and compliance data, 

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

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

accuracy, 

• distribution of monthly ICIS manager reports, 

• developing IPOD (ICIS Policy on Demand), a desktop accessible repository of 

information on data entry to ICIS, and 

• developing an ICIS Data Integrity Guidance. 

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

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

19 

Final April 2006 
measures, schedules/deadlines, contacts, etc. This memo is a comprehensive guide to the annual 

enforcement and compliance reporting requirements covering the various enforcement and 

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

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

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

and core program on a fiscal year basis. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

An October 11, 2005 memorandum from Phyllis Harris, former Deputy Assistant 

Administrator of OECA, entitled “Entering Manually Reported Federal Inspections into ICIS” 

established that ICIS would be the official database of record for all federal inspections and 

associated Inspection Conclusion Data Sheets (ICDS) information that had previously been 

reported manually. This means that OECA will no longer accept manually reported inspections, 

and will pull federal inspection and ICDS results for the following programs from ICIS: RCRA 

Underground Storage Tanks, EPCRA non-313, CWA Oil Spill Prevention (SPCC), CWA 

Wetlands, CAA Mobile Sources, CAA Asbestos and Demolition, SDWA PWSS Inspections, 

SDWA UIC, CWA Pretreatment Industrial Users (IUs). Inspections reported into AFS, 

RCRAInfo, and the National Compliance Database/FIFRA-TSCA Tracking System 

(NCDB/FTTS) will continue to be reported into these legacy databases. 

Until a state or tribe with primacy has successfully transitioned over to the use of the ICISNPDES system, the Permits Compliance System (PCS) will remain the database of record. Once a 

successful transition to ICIS-NPDES has taken place, ICIS-NPDES will then be the database of 

record. Where activities at majors have been traded for activities at national priority minor 

facilities (e.g., inspections), regions, states and tribes with primacy are expected to enter the minor 

data into PCS or ICIS-NPDES. 

Beginning in FY 2007, Regions and Headquarters offices will be expected to enter information 

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

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

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

is being taken in response to a 2001 Inspector General Report that encouraged enhanced efforts by 

the Agency to monitor compliance with enforcement instruments. Information regarding how this 

information should be entered into ICIS and a more detailed description of how this information 

will be evaluated to measure performance will be issued separately. 

F. Guidance: EPA State Relations 

20

Final April 2006 
Consistent with the process for developing national program guidances, regional plans and 

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

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

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

non-authorized programs, pursuant to the Ano surprises@ policy, are in place and may be included 

in work plans for Performance Partnership Agreements, Performance Partnership Grants 

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

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

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

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

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

discussions with states. 

State Review Framework (SRF) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reviews of all states and territories by the end of FY2007. 

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

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

response policies, compliance monitoring strategies and penalty policies. These reviews will be an 

integral part of regional oversight of state enforcement programs in the three media programs. It is 

envisioned that the reviews will be incorporated into existing program review activities, be the 

primary tool for determining adequacy in the core enforcement program, and will not constitute 

new state reporting. These reviews should be an integral part of the regional/state planning 

process and should be captured in appropriate negotiated PPAs, PPGs or categorical grant 

agreements between the region and the state. Any corrective actions or follow up commitments on 

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

those parties held accountable for carrying out those commitments. Regions with multiple year 

PPAs, PPGs or categorical grant agreements that are already in place should plan to include the 

SRF process as part of program review activities by the end of FY2007. Regions that have states 

submit proposals under Element 13 should consult with OECA on whether or not credit can be 

granted. 

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

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

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

21 

Final April 2006 
reviews. The capability to use OTIS management reports for national data to support CAA and 

CWA reviews is currently available. National management reports to support RCRA reviews will 

be developed from RCRAInfo later in FY2006. The regions should encourage states to 

periodically look at the data, ensure its accuracy and use it in managing their programs, and should 

themselves use OTIS to periodically ensure that states are maintaining adequate programs. 

Annual Commitment System (ACS) measures associated with the SRF will include the 

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

territories under the region=s jurisdiction). In the future, OECA will look to determine the value of 

the program improvements through the measurement of various outcomes. Recommendations and 

benefits arising from Framework reviews will be tracked and managed by OECA through a Lotus 

Notes database. 

 Grants Management 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

assistance agreements with states. 

Standardized Template for State Grant Agreements 

In order to improve program effectiveness and enhance accountability, OMB has required 

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

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

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

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

convened a workgroup to develop such a template. Draft templates have been developed; and the 

workgroup and National Program Managers are in the process of finalizing the templates and the 

accompanying materials. Further information will be provided to the regions as soon as this 

process is complete. 

22 

Final April 2006 
The OECA grants covered by this requirement are: the FIFRA Enforcement Grants, the 

TSCA Asbestos Grants, and the TSCA Lead Grants (see Attachment B). The templates include 

performance measures for the respective grants, and demonstrate the linkage between activities 

funded by the grant and the Agency Strategic Plan. Starting in FY 2007 these templates must be 

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

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

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

programs in order to maintain good program management. 

In the future, other Agency program offices may be required to include enforcement and 

compliance measures in their grant templates. OECA will work with the other program offices to 

help identify and develop appropriate compliance and enforcement measures for their grant 

programs as needed. 

Innovative Programs 

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

 Regions and states are encouraged to consider implementation of innovative projects for the 2007 

planning cycle. EPA=s Innovation Action Council (IAC) has endorsed three priority innovations 

for Ascale-up,@ (i.e., full scale implementation) and recommended their integration into OECA=s 

NPM Guidance. These priority innovations are: the National Performance Track Program, 

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

Details on these innovations are available at http://www.epa.gov/innovations. Regions, states, and 

tribes are encouraged to use these innovative approaches in the achievement of their program 

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 29, 2003. In support of PT, the regions, states and tribes (in concert with headquarters 

offices and DOJ) are expected to conduct comprehensive compliance screens of all applicant 

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

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

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

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

facility=s participation. 

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

participating facilities as Alow priority for routine inspections.@ Regions should incorporate these 

commitments in inspection targeting efforts, both in the context of regional targeting and planning 

agreements with OECA and to the extent possible in negotiating with state and tribal partners in 

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

23 

Final April 2006 
be interpreted to mean that Regions should not inspect PT facilities. A memorandum clarifying 

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

be available in FY2006. A list of the PT facilities in each region that are eligible for a lowinspection priority will be available from the Regional PT Coordinator. 

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

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

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

underlying regulatory requirements established in the applicable National Emission Standards for 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regions are reminded that Superfund enforcement and RCRA Corrective Action are 

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

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

direction for Superfund activities are developed and conveyed through the Superfund 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Program Core Requirements: 

Ensuring compliance involves the use of all available tools including compliance assistance, 

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

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

24 

Final April 2006 
tools in the national program there are certain fundamental activities and requirements that need to 

be carried out for all core program areas. 

A. Requirements: Clean Water Act (CWA) Programs 

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

(CWA). These programs are: 

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program 

• Pretreatment Program 

• Biosolids/Sludge Program 

• CWA Section 404 (Wetlands) Program 

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

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

and some do not), and, as a result, the Acore program@ varies somewhat from program to program. 

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

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

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

both sections to ensure they have complete details on all core program elements. Regional NPDES 

programs are responsible for referencing the 1989 Enforcement Management System (EMS) 

guidance in PPAs and PPGs, and thereby ensuring that states are implementing adequate core 

program requirements. 

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

should be implemented by regions, including direct implementation in Indian country, and 

states: 

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

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

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

described below; 

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

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

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

• Priority water areas include watersheds, public drinking water intakes or designated 

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

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

in environmental justice areas; 

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

appropriate actions against facilities in significant noncompliance (SNC), especially 

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

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-Objective 5.1.1) 

25 

Final April 2006 
Compliance assistance is an appropriate tool, in particular, when there are new rules, sector 

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

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

Activities. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.3) 

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

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3) 

Compliance Monitoring 

NPDES Program 

Performance Expectations 

Majors Inspection Coverage 

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

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

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

includes Indian country, and delegated state programs. The regulations found at 40 CFR 

123.26(e)(5) indicates: AState NPDES compliance evaluation programs shall have procedures and 

ability for . . . inspecting the facilities of all major dischargers at least annually.@

Beginning in FY 2007, there will be a new NPDES inspection year used for negotiating 

commitments, inspection coverage, etc. based on the EPA fiscal year. The new NPDES inspection 

year will begin on October 1, 2006 and end on September 30, 2007. 

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

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

following: 

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

national priority facilities, priority watersheds or facilities discharging to impaired 

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

and 

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

(DMR) reviews, Watch List). 

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

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

conversations with individual regions. State coverage of major and minor facilities is a major 

26

Final April 2006 
component of the SRF. 

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

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

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

Commitment CWA01: Project by state the number of federal inspections at NPDES 

major facilities. 

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

facilities. 

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

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

in these discussions. 

Oversight Inspections 

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

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

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

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

evaluating both the quality of an inspection program and inspector training." The documents also 

clarify that oversight inspections can be conducted in two ways: 1) by accompanying state inspectors 

during inspections, or 2) by conducting a separate inspection at the same facility at a later date to 

verify the same findings. The regions have flexibility to determine the appropriate number of 

oversight inspections needed to ensure that state inspections are being properly conducted and 

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

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

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

help to target reviews under the SRF and further explore identified issues. 

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

conducted. 

Biosolids/Sludge 

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

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

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

27 

Final April 2006 
inspections is to support the pre-treatment program. Metals and other elements in biosolids can be 

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

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

reporting process. 

Pretreatment Program 

Performance Expectations 

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

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

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

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

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

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

operation, effluent quality, or receiving body water quality. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

discussions. 

Section 404 (Wetlands) 

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

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

Since only two states and no tribes have been delegated parts of the Section 404 program, this is 

primarily a federal effort. The regions must also coordinate, as appropriate, with other federal 

agencies which have significant roles in wetlands protection through the use of memoranda of 

understanding and memoranda of agreement (e.g., Corps of Engineers, Natural Resources 

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

28

Final April 2006 
CWA Section 311 (Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Program 

CWA Section 311 provides statutory authority for program implementation and 

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

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

Waste and Emergency Response/ Office of Emergency Management at headquarters and, in a 

number of different regional divisions including: Emergency and Remedial Response; Superfund; 

Hazardous Waste Cleanup; Environmental Cleanup; Ecosystems Protection and Remediation; and 

Waste Management. 

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

sources have maintained and implemented the required Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasures (SPCC) plans. Regions should check compliance monitoring at facilities subject 

to SPCC requirements to ensure that plans are adequate, meet the regulatory requirements and are 

implemented, particularly with regard to physical security requirements. In light of continuing 

concerns regarding chemical safety, regions should also consider the following factors in focusing 

their targeting and inspection efforts: 

- significant quantities of oil 

- proximity to population centers 

- proximity to critical infrastructure 

Enforcement 

NPDES Program 

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

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

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

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

all water programs. 

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

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

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

State SNC identification and enforcement responses are major components of the Watch List 

and the SRF. Regions should monitor state performance through these tools and the use of OTIS 

management reports. 

Pretreatment 

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

Activities. 

29

Final April 2006 
Section 404 (Wetlands) 

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

Activities. 

CWA Section 311 (SPCC) 

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

Activities. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

NPDES Program 

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

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

reviewing the DMRs themselves as necessary.) 

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

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

requirements. 

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

enforcement programs by the end of FY 2007. 

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

currently based on data reported into PCS: 

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

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

• number of Watchlist facilities per region. 

Pretreatment Program 

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

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

appropriate action. 

Wetlands 

Since only two states and no tribes have been delegated parts of the Section 404 program, this 

is primarily a federal effort. The regions must coordinate, as appropriate, with other federal 

agencies which have significant roles in wetlands protection through the use of memoranda of 

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

30

Final April 2006 
Service). 

CWA Section 311 (SPCC) 

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

being adequately addressed by reviewing the Emergency Response Notification System database 

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

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

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

Section I for additional core program requirements. 

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

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

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

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

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

program, including all of Indian country except for those tribes with primacy. Where there are 

differences between this guidance and annual workplan guidance for the Tribal priority, regions 

should follow the Tribal priority guidance when addressing tribal water systems. 

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

common understanding of the program implementation requirements when negotiating the 

commitments: 

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

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

modernization of SDWIS/FED was completed in 2006. 

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

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

calculate exceptions or allow the SNCs to be addressed. If the SETS capability of the 

modernized SDWIS/FED is fully operation on October 1, 2006, the regions will be 

expected to address the additional SNCs for Filter Backwash, Interim Enhanced SWTR and 

Stage 1 Disinfection Byproduct Rule for the full year. If the SETS capability of the 

modernized SDWIS/FED is not fully operational then the regions will be expected to start 

addressing these SNCs the quarter after full implementation of modernized SDWIS/FED. 

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

negotiations may have to take this into consideration. 

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

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

that the regions will work primarily with the states and tribes with primacy to ensure that 

31 

Final April 2006 
they are addressing SNCs. The regions should not have to address all the SNC themselves. 

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

exceptions, and exceptions until such a time as a standardized pull is developed for use in 

the modernized SDWIS data system. 

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

from headquarters. 

• In all cases, non-transient and transient non-community systems serving 500 users or less 

are excluded from the Regions= commitments. Other exceptions may apply for each 

category of rules. It is possible that OECA will develop and implement a new SNC/ERP 

policy and that negotiations may have to take this into consideration. 

• On a quarterly basis, regions are to provide an explanation for each SNC at a large or 

medium system (serving more than 10,000 users and serving between 3,301 and 10,000 

users, respectively) that became an exception in the preceding quarter. 

The effort to address new SNCs before they become exceptions does not diminish the 

importance of addressing the backlog of systems in exception (all system sizes). As resources 

allow, the regions and states are encouraged to address backlog of systems in exception. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-Objective 5.1.1) 

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program

 Regions should target compliance assistance toward small drinking water systems (serving 

3,300 or fewer users). Using the data contained in SDWIS/FED to identify patterns of 

noncompliance, regions can both target the small systems most likely to benefit from compliance 

assistance and assemble compliance assistance materials suited to their particular needs. Regions 

should coordinate with the drinking water program office and work with the states and tribes to 

increase small system operators= awareness of their monitoring and reporting requirements, and to 

build small systems= technical and financial capacity to perform required activities. Regions 

should focus compliance assistance resources on helping small systems and tribal systems comply 

with microbial and new rules. Compliance assistance efforts will include outreach and education 

programs to ensure that sources understand both the requirements and the assistance available to 

help them comply. While the optimal time for compliance assistance is before a system violates a 

standard, compliance assistance is useful when a system fails to comply also. Where compliance 

assistance is likely to return a small system to compliance, the regions should incorporate 

compliance assistance in their tools for addressing SNCs at small systems, and encourage their 

states to do likewise. 

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

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

32

Final April 2006 
(http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/) and the National Environmental Compliance Assistance 

Clearinghouse (www.epa.gov/clearinghouse) as sources of compliance assistance information and 

recommend marketing these resources to drinking water system operators as compliance assistance 

tools. We also encourage the regions to make available compliance information packages that can 

be distributed by sanitary survey inspectors. 

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

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

on-site assistance visits and outcomes using the CACDS. Please note that the core compliance 

assistance program sets out other general guidance and expectations the regions should follow 

when providing compliance assistance to public water systems. 

The Ameasures@ area of the National Environmental Compliance Assistance Clearinghouse 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/clearinghouse/) provides guidance documents, tools, and success stories 

regions can use to assess the effectiveness of their compliance assistance efforts. Regions should 

also encourage states and tribes to measure state compliance assistance performance and should 

facilitate states= and tribal efforts to report outcomes and outputs. 

Regions should report the percentage of small systems that have received compliance 

assistance. Regions should have a goal of reporting 100% of the four specific compliance 

assistance performance measures identified in the Data Quality and Reporting section below. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.2) 

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

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3) 

Monitoring 

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program 

The primary enforcement authority (i.e., a state with primacy, a tribe approved for 

treatment as a state, or EPA implementing the drinking water program) is required to ensure an 

effective sanitary survey program. When appropriate, regions should also incorporate a SDWA 

component in all multimedia inspections of federal facilities as outlined in the federal facilities 

core program section of this guidance (Section I). Significant deficiencies are to be corrected and 

regions are to ensure discovered regulatory violations are addressed in a manner consistent with 

timely and appropriate guidelines with annual workplan commitments. 

Performance Expectations for Sanitary Surveys 

In each fiscal year, regions should ensure sanitary surveys are performed at one third of the 

33 

Final April 2006 
public water systems that are on a three-year sanitary survey cycle and at one fifth of the 

public water systems that are on a five-year sanitary survey cycle. This should be done by 

ensuring that the annual workplans contain commitments to perform sanitary surveys at an 

appropriate number of systems. 

Commitment SDWA01: Number of surveys to be conducted, with a breakout for number 

on tribal lands. 

Actions Taken in Response to Lead Action Level Exceedances 

Each quarter Headquarters will provide a list of systems whose tap monitoring has 

exceeded the 90% percentile for 3 consecutive monitoring periods (we will provide the 

lead data at the same time we provide the SNC and Exceptions data). In turn, the regions 

are encouraged to follow up with the primacy agencies to monitor the progress community 

water systems and non-transient non-community water systems have made toward reducing 

lead in drinking water that exceeds the action level for lead. For direct implementation 

programs the regions should ensure that appropriate lead response actions are taken by the 

systems. The regions should report the results of any necessary follow-up at the same time 

they report on addressing their SNCs. 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 

Regions should ensure an effective field presence through routine inspections of all classes 

of wells. The actual number of inspections and the distribution by well class will depend on the 

region and whether or not all or part of the program has been delegated to the states or tribes. 

Enforcement 

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program 

Regions are to take timely and appropriate action to address all circumstances that present 

or have the potential to present, imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, 

regardless of whether the contaminant is an acute or chronic contaminant. To ensure national 

consistency and promote establishment of strong precedent, the region is strongly encouraged to 

consult with the Water Enforcement Division prior to issuance of an order to address any 

imminent and substantial endangerment to public health that may exist. 

Regions, states, and tribes with primacy should have a goal of addressing 100% of all 

drinking water SNCs before they become exceptions. To help prioritize efforts toward reaching 

this goal, OECA provides the below commitment target levels. The region is to provide an 

explanation in its annual workplan commitments if it does not anticipate meeting a benchmark. 

On a quarterly basis, regions are to provide an explanation for each SNC at a large or medium 

system (serving more than 10,000 users and serving between 3,301 and 10,000 users, respectively) 

that became an exception in the preceding quarter. The regions are not asked to commit to 

34 

Final April 2006 
addressing SNCs where SNC is not defined or where the SETS does not have the capability to 

calculate exceptions or allow the SNCs to be addressed. 

Commitment SDWA03.a and SDWA03.b Microbial SNCs: Ensuring compliance with 

the microbial rules (SWTR, TCR, IESWTR, FBR, LT1 and Stage 1 DBPR) is the first 

priority for regions, states, and tribes with primacy. Regions, states, and tribes with primacy 

are to address 100% of microbial SNCs at large and medium public water systems (CWS, 

NTNCWS, and TCNCWS), and at least 90% of microbial SNCs at small (serving up to 

3,300 users) public water systems, before they become exceptions. 

Commitment SDWA04.a and SDWA04.b Nitrates SNCs: Regions, states, and tribes 

with primacy are to address 100% of nitrates SNCs at large and medium public water 

systems (CWS, NTNCWS, and TCNCWS), and at least 85% of nitrates SNCs at small 

public water systems, before they become exceptions. 

Commitment SDWA05.a and SDWA05.b Lead SNCs: Regions, states, and tribes with 

primacy are to address 100% of lead SNCs (initial tap monitoring, optimization of corrosion 

control, and public education) at large and medium community and non-transient noncommunity water systems, and 85% of lead SNCs at small community and non transient 

non-community water systems, before they become exceptions. 

Commitment SDWA06.a and SDWA06.b Chronic Contaminant and CCR SNCs: 

Region, states, and tribes with primacy are to address 100% of all other chronic contaminant 

SNCs at large and medium community and non-transient non-community systems, and at 

least 85% of all other chronic contaminant SNCs at small community and non-transient noncommunity systems, before they become exceptions. Regions, states, and tribes with 

primacy are to address 100% of all CCR SNCs at large and medium community systems, 

and at least 85% of all CCR SNCs at small community systems, before they become 

exceptions. 

DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 

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

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

General Reportii notes, data verifications conducted on violations information for the period 

between 1999 and 2001 found that SDWIS/FED contained only 65% of all health-based violations 

and 23% of all monitoring and reporting violations that should have been reported. While the 

largest burden for improving the quality of data in SDWIS/FED falls on the states (and regions for 

Indian country), it is important that EPA also do its best to ensure data are reported accurately and 

completely. 

Compliance Assistance 

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

outcome measurement projects into the compliance assistance module in ICIS and report all onsite assistance visits using the CACDS. The regions should have a goal of reporting 100% of the 

35 

Final April 2006 
following information into either SDWIS, ICIS or on a CACDS, in accordance with this guidance. 

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

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

up activity. 

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

assistance, subsequently returned to compliance, and were not the subject of a reported 

enforcement follow up activity. 

• Number of public water systems that received compliance assistance. 

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program 

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

into SDWIS, including federal facilities as applicable. Regions with direct implementation 

programs, including those with authority for implementing the drinking water program in Indian 

country, are expected to input the data themselves. If regions are directly implementing any of the 

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

expected to continue to support the legacy system SDWIS/FED until the modernized system is in 

production. Regions should review reports as appropriate to ensure changes to data are 

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

into both ICIS and SDWIS. 

Starting in FY2006, all federal inspections, including those that were previously reported 

manually, must be entered into ICIS. Separate guidance on sanitary surveys was provided in a 

December 9, 2005 memorandum from James Edward and Steve Heare directing the regions to 

report sanitary surveys into ICIS as compliance assistance activities. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program 

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

review other information on compliance available to the region. 

In evaluating regional performance, OECA will look at: 

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

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

• number (and percent) exceptions; 

• number (and percent) exceptions addressed; and number remaining. 

If a drinking water Watch List is developed, the Watch List will replace the evaluation of 

36 

Final April 2006 
exceptions. 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 

Regions should routinely review inspection reports, mechanical integrity test results and 

other information available on the compliance status of injection wells. Regions should also 

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

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

targeted. 

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

EPA and states have complementary roles in pesticide enforcement. In general, EPA is 

responsible for pesticide products and states are responsible for pesticide use. EPA is responsible 

for investigating and enforcing pesticide registration and labeling, data quality requirements 

(FIFRA Good Laboratory Practice Standards), the effectiveness of hospital disinfectant products, 

pesticide producing establishment registrations and the annual submission of production data, 

import and export requirements, and registrant reporting of unreasonable adverse effects 

information. States conduct most field inspections, including product issues, and may take 

enforcement actions or in some cases, refer the case to EPA. The statute gives primary use 

enforcement responsibility to the states. However, regions are expected to follow up on all 

referrals received from headquarters, states, and tribes. 

A major focus of FIFRA is providing assistance, training, and oversight to states and tribes 

carrying out FIFRA related enforcement under cooperative enforcement agreements. This 

includes issuing credentials as appropriate and providing training and grants oversight. Regions 

should refer to the Federal Facilities section (Section I) for guidance on including federal facilities 

in core program activities where applicable. 

EPA and the public rely on pesticide manufacturers and formulators to provide accurate 

information about pesticides and their associated risks. Unregistered and ineffective 

antimicrobials, as well as products making false or misleading public health protection claims, 

pose a potential public health threat when the public makes inappropriate choices based on 

inaccurate or misleading information. Products used in agricultural or structural pest control 

settings may pose health risks to those working with or exposed to the chemicals. In particular, 

users must be informed about exposure to pesticides that are mixed, used, and stored or disposed 

of and must be informed how to properly handle and apply pesticides. 

In FY2003 and 2004, regions and headquarters agreed through a consensus process that the 

following five FIFRA program areas within the core should receive special focus: worker safety, 

e-commerce, antimicrobial testing, label enforceability, and unregistered sources and product 

integrity. For each area, regions and headquarters jointly developed work plans of activities to be 

undertaken and expected outcomes. Similarly, regions and headquarters agreed through a 

consensus process to the following three focus areas for 2005: measures, imports (including 

37 

Final April 2006 
product integrity), and enforcement infrastructure, with completion of remaining 2005 focus area 

work plan activities. Thereafter, the regions and headquarter will evaluate the progress in terms of 

planning for 2006-2007. 

In FY2007, implementing the recommendations of the Worker Protection Standard 

Program Review Report will be a program focus. In addition, ensuring that the Program 

Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures are fully integrated into the pesticide enforcement 

cooperative agreements will continue to be a significant regional effort. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-Objective 5.1.1) 

Although there is no target for assistance activities, assistance is an appropriate tool, in 

particular, to inform farm owners and workers about exposure to pesticides and how to properly 

handle and apply pesticides when there are new rules, sector specific compliance problems, or 

sectors with a preponderance of small businesses. Regions should refer to the Compliance 

Assistance activities description in Section III. A - Core Program Activities. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.2) 

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

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3) 

Regions should work with pesticide state lead agencies and tribal pesticide agencies to 

target and conduct inspections and investigations to support the pesticide focus areas identified 

above. Regions should ensure inspection coverage in states without EPA enforcement cooperative 

agreements. 

Regions are expected to track and prioritize tips and complaints, and follow-up, as needed. 

 Follow-up means that the region needs to evaluate the tip or complaint to determine the 

appropriate next step, and either: 1) refer the tip or complaint to a state as appropriate, and track it 

through resolution consistent with national guidance; or 2) obtain additional information through 

federal investigation or a show cause letter if necessary, and take federal action as appropriate; or 

3) determine that follow-up is not necessary. 

Performance Expectations 

Commitment FIFRA12: Project regional federal FIFRA inspections. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

Each region should conduct state enforcement program oversight. This can include joint 

end-of-year reviews with the pesticides program, joint inspections to monitor quality of field work 

38 

Final April 2006 
and training opportunities to standardize the knowledge-base of state inspectors. 

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

standardized template for reporting results in state grant agreements. The templates are for use by 

the states to report their state grant results. A copy of the FIFRA template is in Attachment B. 

Please refer to the Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance core program write up 

in Section I for additional core program requirements. 

D. Requirements: Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) 

Programs 

EPCRA includes two distinct programs, Community Right-to-Know under EPCRA 313 

and release notification and emergency preparedness under CERCLA 103 and EPCRA 304, 311 

and 312. EPA and the public rely on EPCRA for information on chemicals entering the 

environment, and on the storage of chemicals at facilities. EPA, state, tribes, local entities, and 

communities rely on the combined EPCRA/CERCLA authorities to prepare local chemical 

emergency response plans, and to more safely and adequately respond to chemical emergencies. 

EPA must ensure that companies report accurately and within required time frames. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-Objective 5.1.1) 

Although there is no target for assistance activities, assistance is an appropriate tool, in 

particular, for smaller entities who meet the reporting criteria. Regions should refer to the 

Compliance Assistance activities description in Section III. A - Core Program Activities. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-objective 5.1.2) 

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

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3) 

Monitoring 

EPCRA 313 

Regions are encouraged to use screening and targeting tools to focus limited federal 

resources on national and regional priority areas. A general area of emphasis is to target facilities 

that meet reporting criteria but have not reported. In the EPCRA 313 program, regions are 

expected to conduct at least 4 on-site Data Quality inspections each fiscal year as part of their 

overall inspection commitment. In the EPCRA 313 program, regions are expected to conduct at 

least 20 inspections each fiscal year as part of their overall inspection commitment. 

39

Final April 2006 
Performance Expectations 

Commitment EPCRA01: Number of federal EPCRA data quality inspections. 

Commitment EPCRA02: Number of federal EPCRA 313 inspections. 

EPCRA 304/311/312 CERCLA 103 

Regions are encouraged to use screening and targeting tools to focus limited federal 

resources on national and regional priority areas. A general area of emphasis is to target facilities 

that meet reporting criteria but have not reported. In light of continuing concerns regarding 

chemical safety, regions should also consider the presence of significant quantities of chemicals of 

concern and proximity to population centers in focusing their targeting and inspections efforts. 

Enforcement 

EPCRA 313; EPCRA 304/311/312 CERCLA 103 

Regions may be asked to participate in enforcement case initiatives or cluster filings. 

These tools are used to further focus effort and resources. In all circumstances, cases filed as part 

of an initiative or cluster filing count as part of the annual workplan commitment, not as an addon. OECA will remain sensitive to regional priorities when identifying initiatives or cluster 

filings. Regions will work with OECA to identify candidate issues, industries or sectors for 

enforcement case initiatives. OECA will use national meetings and conference calls as the means 

for selecting issues, industries or sectors for federal enforcement initiatives. 

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

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

AHERA, which covers asbestos in schools; and lead-based paint. Title III Radon activities will 

not be covered in this section 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-Objective 5.1.1) 

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

program in FY2005-2007. The EPA-supported Schools Compliance Assistance Center will be the 

primary vehicle for providing compliance assistance, with regions participating where resources 

permit. For lead-based paint, as part of the integrated strategy efforts, regions will continue to 

work with the regulated community to provide compliance assistance at appropriate opportunities 

such as home shows, meetings, and discussions with landlord associations. Inspectors will provide 

compliance assistance materials at inspections which will cover all aspects of the lead paint 

program. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.2) 

40 

Final April 2006 
Lead-based Paint: As part of the integrated strategy, the lead paint program will continue 

to focus its work with the regulated community to look for ways to achieve a lead-safe 

environment. Efforts for achieving a lead-safe environmental include voluntary actions on the part 

of the regulated community, compliance assistance to the regulated community, or when necessary 

negotiated settlements and enforcement actions. 

PCBs: As part of the Agency=s Persistent Bio-accumulative Toxics (PBTs) program, OECA 

will continue to work with regions to further decommission PCB-laden equipment. Federal 

compliance incentives programs will be initiated, as appropriate. Regions are encouraged to work 

with OECA when developing their own compliance incentive programs based on regional needs 

and priorities. 

Core TSCA: Regions should review and follow-up on, as appropriate, disclosures 

submitted under the OECA Audit Policy and Small Business Policy. Under Core TSCA, self 

disclosures received by minimally-invested regions may be forwarded to OECA for appropriate 

action. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3) 

Core TSCA 

Regions must stay current and informed of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 

Substances (OPPTS) and OECA=s TSCA program priorities. Regions must track and prioritize 

tips and complaints, and follow-up, as needed. Regions 2, 4 and 5 are also expected to follow-up 

on all referrals received from headquarters, states, tribes and the public. Follow-up includes 

evaluating the tip or complaint to determine the appropriate next step. Minimally-invested regions 

(all regions other than 2, 4, and 5) are to refer tips and complaints to the Core TSCA Enforcement 

Center for follow-up, and to respond to questions from the regulated community. Under special 

circumstances all regions may need to conduct limited inspections as resources allow, and to work 

with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection on the import/export program. 

For those regions (other than 2 and 5) who chose to continue to invest additional resources 

in Core TSCA compliance and enforcement, the Core TSCA Enforcement Center will assist in 

targeting inspections, but the region is expected to provide legal and technical enforcement case 

support, and either obtain additional information through federal investigation, show cause letter, 

subpoena if necessary and issue appropriate federal action as appropriate; or determine that followup is not necessary. 

Performance Expectations 

Commitment TSC01: Project the number of Core federal TSCA inspections for Regions 

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

41 

Final April 2006 
PCBs 

In FY2005-2007, the regions should use their enforcement resources to focus on the 

continued phase out of PCBs as well as monitoring PCB storage and disposal facilities. As 

appropriate, regional PCB personnel should coordinate with waste program personnel to ensure 

that the transfer of Brownfield properties are in compliance with PCB rules, guidance and policies. 

Using the Transformer Registration information, regions should target inspections toward users of 

high concentration PCBs and non-reporters. Enforcement follow-up to violations detected as a part 

of these inspections should promote, where possible, the retirement of PCB transformers through 

Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs). Tips and complaints should be followed-up as 

appropriate. 

In FY2006, OECA began to coordinate with the regions, Office of Prevention, Pesticides 

and Toxics Substances (OPPTS), and states to identify issues which would benefit from a 

coordinated compliance and enforcement effort and to identify criteria for targeting inspections 

based on an evaluation of the regulated community, potential risks, and enforcement data. During 

FY2007, pending new criteria for targeting inspections based on discussions between OECA, 

OPPT, regions, and states, regions will be expected to continue: targeting disposal facilities every 

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

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

address regional PCB priorities. Regions should work with states operating under TSCA 

compliance monitoring grants to address these priorities as well as state priorities. Regions that 

award TSCA compliance monitoring grants to states and tribes need to submit mid-year and endof-year reports to OC. In order to improve the efficiency of PCB inspections, OECA will 

continue to pilot the field use of the tablet computer to conduct inspections and write inspection 

reports. 

Performance Expectations 

During FY2005-2007, regions should inspect each PCB commercial storage and disposal 

facility in their region at least once so that a baseline of enforcement activity at these sites 

can be established. In addition, HQ requests the regions report the total number of planned 

PCB inspections other than those at commercial storage and disposal facilities in the 

comment field of TSC03 in the annual commitment system. 

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

universe. 

AHERA (asbestos) 

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

federal program in FY2005-2007 with a secondary focus on traditional enforcement as 

appropriate. For FY2007, the regions are expected to provide inspection coverage in each 

state. In addition, the regions will continue to track and prioritize tips and complaints. If 

42

Final April 2006 
the regions receive a complaint containing allegations which provide a reasonable basis to 

believe that a violation has occurred, the region shall investigate and respond (including 

taking enforcement action where appropriate) to the complaint within a reasonable period of 

time. Regions are also expected to follow-up on all referrals received from headquarters, 

states, and tribes. Follow-up includes evaluating the tip or complaint to determine the 

appropriate next step, and either: 1) refer the tip or complaint to a state as appropriate and 

track it through resolution consistent with national guidance; or 2) obtain additional 

information through phone calls, inspections, federal investigation, show cause letter, 

subpoena if necessary and issue appropriate federal action as appropriate; or 3) determine 

that follow-up is not necessary. Special attention should be given to tips alleging asbestos 

contamination at schools. Where EPA is the lead for inspections and enforcement, 

resources should be targeted to ensure coverage in each state for the AHERA (Asbestos in 

Schools) requirements. Inspections should address charter schools, public schools, private 

schools and religious schools. Inspections may be conducted for the Model Accreditation 

Plan, Worker Protection Standards and other Section 6 regulations. 

In non-waiver states with grants, the regions will follow-up on violations referred by the 

states, and develop appropriate enforcement responses. Where applicable, the regions should 

encourage states to apply for the Awaiver@ program. 

Performance Expectations 

During the FY2007 national guidance period, HQ is asking the regions to ensure 

compliance monitoring activities are undertaken in each state. The compliance monitoring activity 

can be met by regional inspections or having states inspect on behalf of the regions. HQ will rely 

on the regions to determine the number and mix of compliance monitoring activities to be 

conducted in each state. 

Commitment TSC05: Report the number of federal TSCA asbestos inspections. 

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

whether it is the region or the state on behalf of the region, the region must provide an explanation 

based on facts and provide a rationale for: 

• How the compliance monitoring TSCA resources will be redirected (e.g., regional or 

state priority facilities); 

• Why it is not necessary to evaluate specific facilities or source categories subject to the 

minimum frequencies. 

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

OECA and the regional toxics managers at national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and oneon-one conversations with individual regions. 

Lead-Based Paint Program 

43 

Final April 2006 
The national lead-based paint (LBP) program will focus on meeting the 2010 goals 

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

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

enforcement tools, working with HUD, States, and Tribes, as appropriate. The regions are 

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

activities, such as partnering with State/Tribal and local health care providers to identify 

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

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

through compliance and enforcement. 

The Region’s current compliance and enforcement scheme and resources (including SEE’s) 

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

applied to violations in non-authorized State and Tribal areas for the Section 402 Abatement, 

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

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

appropriate oversight of authorized State/Tribal 402 and 406 programs. Headquarters has 

broadened the language in the State Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) guidance so the Regions can 

work with the authorized programs to fund a full range of compliance and enforcement activities 

and not just compliance monitoring activities. 

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

complaints alleging potential 1018 violations, and Sections 402 and 406 violations in nonauthorized States and Tribal areas. 

Performance Expectation 

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

inspections of training providers and inspect work sites; this activity should be briefly described in 

the work plan submission as rationale for any trade-offs with available compliance and 

enforcement resources. 

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

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

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

compliance and enforcement program to ensure that resources are being utilized as efficiently and 

effectively as possible. These analyses should address whether TSCA compliance and 

enforcement activities are addressing program priorities; effective targeting strategies are being 

utilized; violations are being identified and appropriate enforcement action is being taken; tips and 

complaints are priority and are being tracked and responded to; appropriate penalties are being 

assessed; written procedures/guidelines are consistent with Agency policy and are available to 

guide activities; adequate QA/QC programs are in place; adequate inspector training is available; 

44 

Final April 2006 
and inspectors are in compliance with the EO 3500.1 training requirements; and data are 

accurately reported to the appropriate data systems in a timely manner. 

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

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

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

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

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

Section I for additional core program requirements. 

F. Requirements: Clean Air Program 

The regional Clean Air Act (CAA) stationary source compliance and enforcement program 

focuses primarily on the following areas: New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), Maximum Achievable Control 

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

Title V Operating Permits, Stratospheric Ozone Protection, and Section 112(r) Risk Management 

Plans (RMPs). 

For the FY2005/2007 planning cycle, the MACT and NSR/PSD programs have been 

identified as priorities, and the discussion of, and performance expectations for, those programs 

can be found in Section II - National Priority Activities. 

 For the remaining programs, the regions should continue to maintain a minimum level of 

activity consistent with the resources available for implementing the program and Agency policies, 

monitoring the level and quality of effort by the delegated agencies, and participating in regionspecific initiatives that may require greater EPA involvement. In designing these programs, the 

regions should take into consideration all aspects of the program (e.g., compliance evaluations, 

applicability determinations, assistance, incentives, enforcement), and focus on those activities that 

will yield the greatest benefit and are not duplicative of efforts by delegated agencies. Regions 

should conduct the SRF in each of their states and territories by the end of FY2007. Regions 

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

effort. Regions should also ensure that delegated programs are being implemented consistent with 

the delegation agreements and that states are meeting grant work plan commitments. Both the 

SRF and the CMS require the regions to evaluate whether states/locals met their commitments, and 

in those cases where they did not, determine why they did not, and make adjustments for the 

following year. Regions should use available SRF data when they conduct the CMS analysis of 

the state/local compliance monitoring program as a whole including whether: adequate inspector 

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

available data is being used; and regions are able to quantify the impact of the compliance 

monitoring program on parameters such as compliance rates; specific and general deterrence; and 

moving beyond compliance. 

45 

Final April 2006 
COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub- Objective 5.1.1) 

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

sector-specific compliance problems, and sectors with a preponderance of small businesses. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.2) 

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

Core Program Activities. 

COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-Objective 5.1.3) 

NSPS/NESHAP/MACT PROGRAMS 

Compliance evaluations should be conducted at Title V major sources and synthetic minor 

sources that emit or have the potential to emit emissions at or above 80% of the Title V major 

source threshold (80% synthetic minors) consistent with the CMS, and the biennial plans 

developed by the delegated agencies. Emphasis should be placed on ensuring that delegated 

agencies provide and maintain an accurate universe of sources subject to the policy; develop 

facility-specific CMS plans; maintain records of compliance monitoring activities; and report all 

Minimum Data Requirements (MDRs) in a timely manner consistent with Agency policies, and the 

business rules and Information Collection Request (ICR) of AFS. Once an evaluation is 

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

national database of record, AFS, within 60 days per the 2005 AFS ICR. The results of 

evaluations conducted by either the regions or delegated agencies should not be held until the end 

of the fiscal year and input into the data system all at once. Regions should encourage those states 

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

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

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

end of the fiscal year. 

Separate from investigations associated with the PSD/NSR Priority and discussed in the 

section on National Priority Activities, regions should continue any on-going investigations, and 

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

data requirement in the AFS ICR. 

During the FY2007 time frame, special emphasis should be placed on implementing the 

National Stack Testing Guidance. The guidance was developed in response to a report by the OIG 

which criticized the Agency for not issuing national guidance on stack testing, or providing 

sufficient oversight of state and local stack testing programs. The OIG concluded that this lack of 

guidance and oversight had an adverse effect on the use of stack testing as a tool in determining 

compliance. 

In partial response to the concerns raised in the OIG report, the CMS addressed the issues 

46 

Final April 2006 
of testing frequencies and the reporting of test results. Consistent with this policy, regions and 

delegated agencies should report all stack tests and the results in AFS. The Stack Testing 

Guidance addresses the remaining issues raised by the OIG, and thus focuses on those issues 

associated with the conduct of stack tests and the interpretation of the test results. For example, it 

addresses issues such as the time frames for conducting stack tests, the issuance of waivers, 

notification requirements, observation of tests, representative performance, and stoppages and 

postponements of tests. 

During the first year of implementation, this guidance was treated as interim guidance to 

provide OC and the regions with an opportunity to evaluate its usage and monitor any potential 

problems that may arise as individual states/locals or tribes applied the provisions. The guidance 

became final on September 29, 2005, and reflected any necessary changes stemming from the oneyear evaluation. Regions should ensure that delegated agencies are familiar with the Stack Testing 

Guidance, and implement their programs consistent with the guidance. 

Performance Expectations:

 Consistent with the CMS, the regions should provide projections for: (1) the number of 

Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) at Title V majors, 80% synthetic minors, and other sources 

(as appropriate) by region and state; (2) the number of Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs) to 

be conducted by the regions (this is a minimum data requirement); and (3) the number of state 

PCEs to be conducted that were negotiated between the region and the state in the biennial plan 

(i.e., where states negotiated PCEs in lieu of conducting a certain number of FCEs at Title V 

majors or 80% synthetic minors). The state numbers should include delegated local agencies as 

appropriate. The default in CMS is 50% of the universe for majors, and 20% of the universe for 

80% synthetic minors per year. This default applies only to the state projections. However, this 

default may vary from state-to-state depending on what is negotiated between regions and states 

under the CMS. 

Commitment CAA 01: Number of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be conducted 

at Title V majors by region per year; 

Commitment CAA 01.s: Number of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be 

conducted at Title V majors by state per year; 

Commitment CAA 02: Number of Full Compliance Evaluations to be conducted at the 

80% synthetic minors, and other sources (as appropriate) by region per year; 

Commitment CAA 02.s: Number of Full Compliance Evaluations to be conducted at the 

80% synthetic minors, and other sources (as appropriate) by state per year; 

Commitment CAA 03: Number of Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs) to be 

conducted by the regions. This is a minimum data requirement; 

Commitment CAA 03.s: Number of PCEs to be conducted by the states that were the 

result of the negotiation process for the year (could be the result of redirecting resources 

from FCEs to PCEs). This is a minimum data requirement. 

If the states/locals cannot meet the above commitments, the regions must provide a written 

47 

Final April 2006 
explanation that should include the following: 

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

national priority facilities, state air priorities); 

• How majors and/or 80% synthetic minors will otherwise be monitored; and 

• Why it is not necessary to evaluate specific facilities or source categories subject to 

the recommended minimum frequencies. 

This explanation will be discussed with regional air compliance/enforcement managers 

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

individual regions. 

Commitment CAA05: Regions should project the number of investigations to be 

initiated in FY2007. Investigation projections should be provided by air program (e.g., 

MACT, NSPS). 

The regions should enter both initiated and completed investigations into AFS, and identify 

the targeted air program(s). This is a minimum data requirement. OECA uses this information to 

evaluate the overall health of the stationary source compliance monitoring program by comparing 

the number of FCEs, PCEs, and investigations. The region must provide an explanation if no 

activity is projected in this area. This explanation will be discussed with regional air 

compliance/enforcement managers during national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and oneon-one conversations with individual regions. 

The following activities are critical components of the core program. OECA will continue 

to collect and analyze information on these activities from either AFS, ICIS, or through SRF and 

CMS evaluations. The regions should be prepared to discuss any concerns or questions arising 

from the collection and analysis of the data. 

• Regions should report 100% of the compliance results of all FCEs and PCEs into AFS 

within 60 days per the 2005 AFS ICR, and if feasible, in the next regularly scheduled 

update of AFS after an evaluation is completed and a compliance determination is made. 

• Regions should ensure that 100% of the delegated agencies report the compliance results 

of all FCEs and negotiated PCEs into AFS within 60 days per the 2005 AFS ICR, after a 

compliance determination is made. 

• Regions should negotiate facility-specific CMS plans with 100% of delegated agencies, 

periodically evaluate progress, and work with delegated agencies to revise the plans as 

necessary. 

• Regions should utilize and encourage delegated agencies to use stack tests as a means of 

determining compliance. Regions and delegated states/locals should report 100% of the 

stack tests and the results (pass/fail) in AFS when a compliance determination has been 

made. 

Title V Operating Permits Program 

48 

Final April 2006 
Regions should continue to review Title V permits, both new ones as well as renewals, to 

ensure that they have adequate monitoring provisions consistent with the statute, underlying 

regulations, agency policies and judicial decisions. Although regions are no longer required to 

review all Title V certifications, they are still responsible for reviewing a subset of certifications, 

and ensuring that states/tribes/locals review them pursuant to the CAA CMS. In addition, they are 

responsible for ensuring that all permit program MDRs are entered into AFS in a timely manner. 

Performance Expectations: 

Regions should review and comment as appropriate to the permitting authority on the 

compliance and enforcement provisions of a subset of the initial Title V permit applications they 

receive each year, as well as all renewals. Regions should ensure sources subject to a pending or 

current CAA enforcement action or investigation are not shielded by the Title V permit, and that 

draft Title V permits include appropriate placeholder language for the applicable requirements at 

any affected units. Further, regions should ensure that draft Title V permits include compliance 

schedules addressing consent decree requirements. OECA will collect information and discuss 

these activities with regional air managers during national meetings, scheduled conference calls, 

and one-on-one conversations with individual regions. 

Regions, states and tribes with program approval should report results of 100% of 

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

Stratospheric Ozone Protection 

Consistent with CMS, all regional FCE=s at major sources and 80% synthetic minors 

should include an evaluation of compliance with regulations promulgated to protect the 

stratospheric ozone layer if such regulations apply. When CFCs or other ozone depleting 

substances (ODS) are known or suspected to be present at a facility of concern, available regional 

resources also may be used to conduct PCEs at these facilities. The regions are reminded that this 

program is not delegable to states/locals or tribes. Nevertheless, some states/locals or tribes may 

have promulgated similar requirements, and thus should be evaluating compliance with their own 

requirements. 

Performance Expectations: 

Regions should include evaluations of CFCs and other ODS as part of routine FCEs to the 

extent the regulations apply. This does not apply to states since this program is not delegable. The 

regions must provide an explanation if no CFC or other ODS evaluations will be conducted. 

OECA will collect information and discuss these activities with regional air 

compliance/enforcement managers during national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and oneon-one conversations with individual regions. 

SECTION 112(r) RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS (RMPs and General Duty Clause) 

49 

Final April 2006 
Although section CAA 112(r) is a Clean Air Act authority, responsibility for compliance 

and enforcement varies from region to region, and may not reside with the regional division 

responsible for the air compliance and enforcement program. Past compliance and enforcement 

efforts in section 112(r) have focused on ensuring that regulated sources have submitted the 

required Risk Management Plans. Regions are currently focused on ensuring that submitted plans 

are adequate and meet the regulatory requirements. Headquarters will continue to provide support 

in this area. In light of continuing concerns regarding public safety, regions should consider the 

following factors in focusing their compliance monitoring efforts: 

• significant quantities of chemicals of concern in a process; 

• proximity to population centers of facilities that have significant quantities of chemicals 

of concern; 

• accident history of facility or industrial sector. 

Performance Expectation: 

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

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

at 5% of the total number of regulated facilities in the region during FY 2007. If the program is 

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

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

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

conversations with individual regions. 

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

required to submit RMPs. 

ENFORCEMENT 

Federal enforcement will be considered where delegated agencies fail to take appropriate 

action. In addition, regions should take appropriate federal enforcement actions in situations 

where federal involvement could be particularly helpful in bringing the matter to a successful and 

environmentally beneficial resolution (e.g., a company with violations in more than one state or 

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

and equal environmental protection mandated by law. 

For all cases newly listed in accordance with the APolicy on Timely and Appropriate 

Enforcement Response to High Priority Violations (HPVs)@, regions should adhere to the 

requirements of the Policy, and ensure that all MDRs are reported in AFS in a timely manner. 

Regions should work with delegated agencies to ensure that they are familiar with the HPV Policy, 

and implement their programs consistent with the guidance. OECA will collect information and 

discuss these activities with regional air compliance/enforcement managers during SRF reviews, 

national meetings, scheduled conference calls, and one-on-one conversations with individual 

regions. 

50 

Final April 2006 
Performance Expectations: 

The following activities are critical components of the core program. OECA will continue 

to collect and analyze information on these activities from either AFS or ICIS. The regions should 

be prepared to discuss any concerns or questions arising from the collection and analysis of the 

data. The regions must provide an explanation if the region will not be undertaking any of these 

activities. This explanation will be discussed with regional managers during national meetings, 

scheduled conference calls, and one-on-one conversations with individual regions. 

• Evaluate and bring to closure 100% of any self-disclosures received by the region; 

• Settle or litigate cases issued in years prior to FY2007 and ensure investigation and 

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

EPA; 

• Exercise 1997 clarified penalty authority against federal agencies for CAA violations 

in appropriate circumstances; 

• Report 100% of MDRs accurately and in a timely manner in AFS consistent with the 

HPV policy and ensure that delegated agencies do the same. 

DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 

Data is an integral part of the CAA compliance and enforcement program; therefore, it is 

essential that regions and delegated agencies enter complete and accurate information into the 

national database in a timely manner. Complete, accurate and timely data is necessary for EPA, 

delegated agencies and the public to evaluate programs and institute corrections. For a complete 

list of MDRs for the program, please consult CMS, the HPV Policy, and the ICR for the program. 

A summary of the requirements can be found at the following website: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/planning/data/air/mdrshort.pdf 

The region must provide an explanation if no activity is projected in this area. 

As stated previously, once an evaluation is completed and a compliance determination is 

made, all evaluations should be reported as soon as practicable, and if feasible, in the next 

regularly scheduled update of AFS. The results of evaluations conducted by either the regions or 

delegated agencies should not be held until the end of the fiscal year and input into the data system 

all at once. Regions should work with delegated agencies to ensure that they are familiar with the 

data aspects of CMS, the HPV Policy, and the ICR, and implement their programs consistent with 

them. This is critical since the air program is structured differently than other media programs in 

that the type and timing of compliance data that must be reported into the national database are not 

specified by statute or regulations, but through Agency policy and an ICR for the program. 

Agreements with delegated agencies to provide complete, accurate and timely data should be 

incorporated in documents such as SEAs, PPAs or Section 105 grant agreements. 

Performance expectations: 

51

Final April 2006 
The following commitments need to be undertaken by the regions during the period 

covered by this guidance. 

Commitment CAA 16: Regions should ensure that delegated agencies have written 

agreements to provide complete, accurate, and timely data consistent with the CMS, HPV 

Policy and the AFS ICR; identify the agreement; and provide copies of the relevant 

language. 

Commitment CAA 17: Regions and delegated agencies should enter all MDRs in AFS 

consistent with the Agency policies and the ICR. If for some reason a delegated agency 

does not agree to enter the MDRs, the region is responsible for ensuring that the data is 

entered into AFS in a timely manner. If the region is responsible for entering 

state/local/tribal data, identify the agency. 

The regions must provide an explanation if the region will not be undertaking these 

activities. This explanation will be discussed with regional air compliance/enforcement managers 

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

individual regions. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

Regions should review state CAA stationary sources’ compliance and enforcement 

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

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

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

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

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

ensure resources are used effectively and efficiently as possible. These evaluations should assess 

trends; recognize successes as well as document areas for improvement; and provide concrete 

recommendations for improvement. Evaluations should be based on activities such as conference 

calls, Watch list, grant workplan reviews, file audits, oversight inspections, and management and 

staff interviews. Results should be documented in a written report and provided to Headquarters. 

For further guidance in this area, see the SRF Overview and Implementation Guide, and the CMS 

and the HPV Policy. Also, see the sections on EPA/State relations and core program activities. 

Performance Expectations: 

The following commitments need to be undertaken by the regions during the period 

covered by this guidance. These commitments are critical in light of the Inspector General=s 

findings and recommendations for the air compliance and enforcement program and the need to 

periodically evaluate implementation of the CMS. 

Commitment CAA 19: Consistent with the CMS, regions should conduct at least one indepth evaluation of a delegated program per year and provide the written results to 

Headquarters. The delegated agency should be identified. 

52 

Final April 2006 
The regions must provide an explanation if the region will not be undertaking any of these 

activities. This explanation will be discussed with regional air compliance/enforcement managers 

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

individual regions. 

Please refer to the Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance core program write up 

in Section I for additional core program requirements. 

G. Requirements: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program 

RCRA Hazardous Waste Subtitle C Program 

EPA is committed to ensuring that hazardous waste is managed in a manner that is 

protective of human health and the environment. Agency compliance assurance and enforcement 

activities will focus on those facilities posing the greatest risk to human health and the 

environment. However, all identified non-compliance with RCRA Subtitle C should be addressed 

by the Agency in accordance with its policies governing enforcement and compliance monitoring. 

The goal of state and federal compliance assurance and enforcement activities is to attain and 

maintain a high level of compliance within the regulated community. Generally, federal 

compliance assurance and enforcement activities include all of Indian country and will 

complement state activities, where and as appropriate. State activities are to be monitored through 

the implementation of the SRF. Regions should refer to the federal facilities Section I of this 

guidance for information on how to include federal facilities in core program activities where 

applicable. 

Core Program Elements 

• Inspections of treatment, storage and disposal facilities, as required under RCRA 

'3007(e), and state and local government operated treatment, storage, and disposal 

facilities, as required under RCRA '3007(d), to verify compliance with the following 

requirements established as standards per RCRA '3004(a) : 

S maintaining records of all hazardous waste which is treated, stored, or disposed 

of, and the manner in which such wastes were treated, stored, or disposed of; 

S satisfactory reporting and compliance of the manifest system; 

S treatment, storage, or disposal of all waste received by the facility in 

accordance with the law; 

S establishing contingency plans for effective action to minimize unanticipated 

damage from any treatment, storage, or disposal of any such hazardous waste; 

S Training for personnel; 

53 

Final April 2006 
S Financial responsibility. 

• Inspections of generators to verify compliance with the following requirements 

established as standards per RCRA ' 3002(a): 

S proper characterization of the hazardous waste; 

S furnishes information on the general chemical composition of hazardous waste 

to persons transporting, treating, storing and disposing of such wastes; 

S record keeping on the management and disposition of waste; 

S proper labeling and identification of waste for storage, transport and disposal; 

S use of proper containers, tanks and drip pads for the hazardous waste; 

S use of the manifest system and all other means necessary to assure that 

hazardous waste is sent to the appropriate treatment, storage and disposal 

facility; and 

S submission of reports to the Administrator reporting the waste generated. 

• Inspections of transporters to verify compliance with the following requirements 

established as standards per RCRA ' 3003(a): 

S Record keeping; 

S properly labeled waste; 

S use of the manifest system; 

S proper management of hazardous waste during transportation; 

S hazardous waste is delivered to treatment, storage and disposal facility that is 

permitted by law to take such waste. 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I Program 

EPA is committed to ensuring that underground storage tanks (USTs) are operated in a 

manner that is protective of human health and the environment. Agency compliance assurance and 

enforcement activities will focus on those facilities posing the greatest risk to human health and the 

environment. However, all identified non-compliance with RCRA Subtitle I should be addressed 

by the Agency in accordance with its policies governing enforcement and compliance monitoring. 

Regions should maintain an enforcement presence concerning leak prevention, leak 

detection, corrective action and closure, and financial responsibility violations.iii Owners and 

operators that do not meet UST requirements are not only in violation of federal and state laws but 

also have USTs that present a threat of release (or have had a release requiring corrective action). 

These non-compliant USTs are gaining an economic advantage over competitors that are in 

compliance with environmental laws. These efforts will ensure that owner/operators of RCRA 

Subtitle I regulated facilities properly prevent and detect releases and take appropriate corrective 

action when releases occur. 

The goal of state and federal compliance assurance and enforcement activities is to attain 

54 

Final April 2006 
and maintain a high level of compliance within the regulated community. Generally, federal 

compliance assurance and enforcement activities will complement state activities, where and as 

appropriate. Federal compliance assurance and enforcement activities, however, cover all of Indian 

country because RCRA precludes EPA from authorizing tribal UST programs. Regions should, 

therefore, implement the UST program in Indian country. 

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

compliance monitoring and enforcement. The statute requires EPA and the states to conduct 

inspections at 100% of the universe of underground storage tanks (UST) that were not inspected 

from December 22, 1998 through August 8, 2005. These inspections must be performed by August 

8, 2007. The Regions may arrange with an appropriate state program (a program that receives 

funding under RCRA Subtitle I) to have these RCRA 9005(c)(1) inspections conducted. An EPA 

Workgroup has been established to address how to meet this requirement, and additional guidance 

will be forthcoming. For FY07, EPA Region should also focus on implementing the Indian country 

UST strategy that the statute requires the Agency to develop by August 2006. 

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

on including federal facilities in core program activities where applicable. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-objective 5.1.1) 

RCRA Hazardous Waste Subtitle C Core Program 

Compliance assistance activities should focus on newly regulated persons, persons subject 

to new regulations, and persons owning small businesses with compliance problems. 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I Program 

Investments in outreach and assistance should be strategically focused (e.g., persons 

operating facilities in Indian country where the tribes have a proprietary interest, persons owning 

small businesses with compliance problems). 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-objective 5.1.2) 

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

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 

Monitoring 

RCRA Hazardous Waste Subtitle C Core Program 

The RCRA hazardous waste core program includes the compliance monitoring activities set 

55 

Final April 2006 
forth in Part I and II below. Both state and federal compliance monitoring activities will be 

required in implementing the activities in Part I (i.e., maintaining the annual level of inspections of 

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities). To ensure a level playing field and oversight of state 

compliance assurance and monitoring activities, regions should utilize the tools available, such as 

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

maintain a federal presence in the hazardous waste core program, conducting the compliance 

monitoring activities set forth in commitments RCRA01 AND RCRA02 below. Part II sets forth the 

requirement of Federal only inspections. 

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

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

monitoring efforts on the following: 

• never inspected generators; 

• facilities that are the subject of citizen complaints; 

• non-notifier facilities that are believed to be generating hazardous waste; 

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

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

environmentally sensitive areas; and 

• repeat violators. 

In each fiscal year, the regions (in consultation with OECA) may conduct fewer or 

additional compliance monitoring activities if it is determined that such a deviation is warranted. 

All efforts should be made to adhere to the guidelines that are detailed below. 

Performance Expectations 

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

federal and state compliance monitoring activities to meet hazardous waste core program activities. 

In making its determinations, each region should examine the compliance status of facilities within 

its region. 

Part I. Combined State and Federal Core Activities 

A. Statutory mandated inspections -

S Treatment, storage and disposal facilities: Inspect at least once every two years each 

operating treatment, storage and disposal facility, as required under SWDA 

'3007(e), i.e., 50% of TSDF universe annually. This is meant to be a coverage 

56 

Final April 2006 
commitment so multiple inspections of the same facility count as only one 

inspection. 

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

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

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

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

during the year. 

For RCRA01 and RCRA01s, commitment levels are based on 2003 BRS universe for 

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

generally a compliance evaluation inspection).iv 

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

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

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

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

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

complex compliance or corrective action requirements; inadequate ground water monitoring 

systems, significant changes to ground water monitoring systems, and actual or suspected changes 

in local ground water regimes. 

B. EPA mandated inspections – 

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

the entire universe is inspected in five years. The LQG universe is the total number 

of generators that reported in 2003 BRS. This is meant to be a coverage 

commitment so multiple inspections of the same facility count as only one 

inspection. 

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

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

approval is obtained from headquarters to deviate from this requirement. Generally, these 

LQG inspections (or substitute SQG inspections) should be compliance evaluation 

inspections.v 

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

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

violations in more than one state, environmentally sensitive environments, areas subject to 

environmental justice concerns, and particularly recalcitrant violators. 

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

the year. 

57 

Final April 2006 
If inspection coverage is not expected to be provided for 20% of LQGs on an annual basis, 

the regions must provide an explanation that should include the following: 

$ Information on how the RCRA compliance monitoring resources will be redirected 

(e.g., national priority facilities, state priority facilities, never-inspected SQGs); and 

$ For states proposing to redirect resources to never-inspected SQGs, information that 

shows no uninspected LQGs in RCRAInfo (not including facilities that notified in 

the last five years). 

The number of SQGs substituted for LQGs - should be at a 2:1 or greater ratio and any 

trade-offs requested should be captured in the comment section of the ACS. 

Part II. Federal Core Only 

A. Statutory mandated inspections -

1. State or Local Government Operated Facilities 

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

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

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

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

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

measure as is counted for RCRA01. 

2. Federal Facilities 

Commitment FED.FAC04 and FED.FAC04.s- Statutorily-mandated inspections of 

federal facilities are discussed in Section I of this guidance. 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I Program 

Regions should work with states to assure compliance with UST requirements. EPA should 

continue to focus its federal inspection resources in areas that could produce the greatest 

environmental and human health benefits. Generally, EPA should focus its inspection resources on 

leak prevention, leak detection, corrective action and closure, and financial responsibility 

requirements. 

Recommended factors to consider in identifying facilities to be inspected under the UST 

program include: 

$ owners and operators of multiple UST facilities; 

$ owners and operators of USTs located in Indian country; 

58 

Final April 2006 
$ owners and operators of large facilities with multiple USTs; 

$ owners and operators of facilities with USTs that are endangering sensitive 

ecosystems or sources of drinking water; and 

$ federal facilities. 

Enforcement 

RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Program 

Regions should refer to the Core Activities section of the Introduction to the Core Program 

for general information regarding these activities. Regions should also follow the January 2004 

RCRA Enforcement Response Policy (and subsequent revisions) which provides information 

regarding the classification of a violator=s non-compliance and in the taking of timely and 

appropriate enforcement actions. 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank Program 

Regions should take prompt and effective action on all UST violations discovered. Regions 

should utilize the appropriate enforcement tools, taking into account the seriousness of the 

violations, to address any detected non-compliance with the UST requirements. Regions should 

also refer to Agency policies regarding the appropriate enforcement response. 

Imminent and Substantial Endangerment 

Though not a specific element of the RCRA core programs, regions should utilize RCRA 

'7003 when appropriate for endangerments posed by solid wastes, hazardous waste and 

underground storage tanks. Regions should refer to the appropriate EPA policies and guidances 

regarding the use of this authority. 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

RCRA Hazardous Waste Subtitle C Core Program 

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

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

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

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

critical. EPA will review whether the regions and states are meeting the compliance monitoring 

commitments and whether the enforcement response, with regard to the type of enforcement tool 

utilized (e.g., administrative complaint, expedited settlement, NOV), the amount and type of 

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

appropriate. In particular, as the EPA is looking to quickly address those violations that pose the 

greatest risk to human health and the environment, the Agency will also be looking at: 

59 

Final April 2006 
$ number of inspections, investigations, and citizen complaints; 

$ number of SNC=s identified (and percent of universe); 

$ number (and percent of universe) addressed and resolved in a timely and 

appropriate manner; and 

$ EPA=s Watch List. 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank Subtitle I Program 

In reviewing the program performance, EPA will consider the activities undertaken by the 

regions and states and the results reported into ICIS or by other means to EPA regarding those 

activities. EPA will be looking at the enforcement response with regard to the type of enforcement 

tool utilized (e.g., administrative complaint, expedited settlement, NOV, etc) and the response time 

to address the identified non-compliance. EPA will also be taking into consideration programs 

under Subtitle I that have been developed to ensure compliance (e.g., significant operational 

compliance (SOC). 

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

Section I for additional core program requirements. 

H. Requirements: Federal Activities Program 

The Federal Activities core program for FY2005-2007 is built around the following major 

areas: 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) IMPLEMENTATION (Subobjective 5.2.1) 

• Fulfill the Agency obligations under NEPA, Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, and 

related laws, directives and Executive Orders (all regions). 

• Target high impact federal program areas (e.g., transportation and energy projects) to 

promote cooperation and innovation toward a more streamlined environmental review 

process (all regions). 

NEPA / CAA '309 Review: Carry out EPA=s responsibilities to review and comment on all 

major proposed federal actions to ensure that significant adverse effects are identified and are either 

eliminated or mitigated. 

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

NEPA and Across-cutters@ (e.g., Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, 

Executive Orders on wetlands, flood plains, and farmland). 

Prepare environmental assessments (EISs or EAs) for new source National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, where a state/tribe has not assumed the NPDES 

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

60 

Final April 2006 
facilities; and Clean Water Act wastewater treatment plant grants. 

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

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

for wastewater, water supply and solid waste collection facilities; Border Environment 

Infrastructure Fund for the US/Mexico Border Environment Cooperation Commission projects; and 

reviews conducted under the "voluntary NEPA policy.@

NEPA CAA 309 Review and NEPA Compliance: Regions shall input the results of their 

'309 EIS reviews and NEPA compliance actions into the Lotus Notes EIS Tracking Database 

maintained by HQ OFA, and the SAAP system maintained by HQ OW, respectively. Additionally, 

regions will report to the Office of Federal Activities quarterly on the status of their 309 reviews 

and NEPA actions pursuant to OFA=s GPRA reporting process. 

Performance Expectations 

• Performance Measure: 70 percent of the significant impacts identified by EPA during 

the NEPA review of all proposed major federal actions will be mitigated in order to 

preserve air and water quality, wetlands, aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and endangered 

species; to protect Environmental Justice communities; and to prevent degradation of 

valued environmental resources. 

• Performance Measure: 90 percent of EPA projects subject to NEPA Environmental 

Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement requirements (water treatment facility 

project and other grants, new source NPDES permits and EPA facilities) result in no 

significant environmental impact. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 

• Improve environmental performance and cooperation with Goal 6 of the U.S./Mexico 

Border 2012 plan (Regions VI and IX). 

• Enhance enforcement, compliance and capacity building efforts with Mexico and Canada 

relating to trans-boundary compliance monitoring on the U.S. borders for hazardous 

waste, CFCs, selected chemicals (e.g., PCBs, mercury), and other regulated substances 

(Border Regions). 

• Improve performance of joint responsibilities along the border and points of entry into the 

United States by working with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (all regions). 

• Fulfill International agreements and the Agency=s RCRA obligations regarding 

notification of trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste (all regions). 

International Enforcement Capacity Building: The majority of requested commitments 

fall to Regions VI and IX for U.S. Mexico border work in connection with the La Paz Agreement. 

Regions VI and IX will continue the implementation of U.S.-Mexico work plans for enforcement 

and compliance cooperation in the border region and work with the Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection to improve performance of joint responsibilities along the border. 

61 

Final April 2006 
Import/Export Program: All regions will review the permit and compliance status of U.S. 

receiving facilities in connection with 100% of the notifications for the import of hazardous waste 

they receive from HQ EPA and, based on their review, recommend consent or objection to 

notifications within the time periods allowed under applicable international agreements. 

Headquarters will process notifications for import and export of hazardous waste to ensure 

compliance with domestic regulations and international agreements; consent or object to import 

notifications and acknowledge consent/objection to export notifications; track the flow of 

hazardous waste both in and out of the United States based on manifests received from the Bureau 

of Customs and Border Protection; and conduct compliance monitoring and prepare memoranda of 

referral for appropriate enforcement action. Upon receipt of the referrals, each region is responsible 

for determining whether or not to pursue an enforcement action against apparent violations of the 

law relating to transboundary movements of hazardous waste and must inform Headquarters of its 

decision and the ultimate outcome of each case. 

In order to ensure a coordinated approach between EPA and the Bureau of Customs and 

Border Protection, regions must also alert headquarters regarding interactions they may have with 

the Bureau. 

I. Requirements: Federal Facilities Enforcement and Compliance Program 

Background 

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

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

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

2007. The FY 2007 activities outlined below were developed to advance the goals outlined in the 

attached National Federal Facilities 2007 Program Agenda. 

This Program Guidance identifies the nationally-coordinated activities under OECA’s 

purview. This Guidance reflects that environmental stewardship and pollution prevention activities 

should largely be directed by others (including OPPTS) with more responsibility for these 

particular areas. Compliance assistance activities should be carefully targeted on a priority basis, 

and leveraged as much as possible, including through more partnerships with FedCenter and other 

arrangements. It is imperative to maintain an appropriate enforcement presence through a targeted 

inspection program, with swift and meaningful follow-up. 

These activities are anticipated to serve as a baseline of priority activity from a national 

program perspective, in addition to which the regions may pursue their own regionally-identified 

priorities (including Regional activity in support of the National Priorities, regional integrated 

strategies, geographically-based inspection “sweeps,” etc.). All Federal Facility activities will be 

measured using the relevant Conclusion Data Sheets and counted in achieving OECA’s overall goal 

of a 5% increase in the pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated, and achieving a 5% 

increase in the number of regulated entities making improvements in environmental management 

62 

Final April 2006 
practices. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-objective 5.1.1) 

Compliance Assistance remains a vital tool in abetting improved environmental compliance 

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

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

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

Management Systems (EMSs), we support continual improvements in federal EMSs, in particular 

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

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

(http://www.fedcenter.gov/Documents/index.cfm?id=4201&pge_prg_id=8584&pge_id=1863). 

 FFEO will also work to develop, in conjunction with the EO 13148 Interagency Work group, 

metrics to measure progress at facilities with EMSs. 

FedCenter, the multi-agency independent federal facility environmental compliance 

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

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

EPA and other federal partners. In FY2007, for example, FedCenter will provide a standardized 

template for Federal facilities to utilize in meeting the new reporting requirements of the 

Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2005. FedCenter will increasingly become the 

federal portal for dissemination of environmental compliance information and tools. 

 Performance Expectations 

• Compliance Assistance Activities 

Each Region shall conduct at least two compliance assistance activities (such as a seminar, 

training, workshop, education/outreach activity, etc.) to support the integrated strategy areas. These 

compliance assistance activities can be developed for delivery through the region or through 

FedCenter. 

Commitment FED-FAC01: Each Region shall conduct at least two compliance assistance 

activities for Federal facilities to support the integrated strategy areas. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-objective 5.1.2) 

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

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 

 Performance Expectations 

63 

Final April 2006 
• Underground Storage Tanks 

See Section G -Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) Program for new 

requirements for USTs pursuant to the UST Compliance Act of 2005. Regions should 

contact Melanie Garvey (Garvey.Melanie@epa.gov) to confirm whether they will be able to 

meet the requirement to inspect all Federal Facility USTs by the August 8, 2007 deadline 

referred to in Section G above. 

• Multi Media Inspections 

Each Region must conduct two multi-media inspections to support the Integrated Strategy 

areas. Regions may substitute four single media inspections in lieu of one multi-media inspection. 

FFEO encourages providing EMS-related compliance assistance during these inspections. 

A multimedia inspection consists of (1) a CAA, CWA, or RCRA program inspection plus at 

least one additional program under a different statute for the same facility; or (2) some combination 

of two or more CAA, CWA, or RCRA program inspections at the same facility. To count as a 

multi-media inspection, no more than three months may have elapsed between an inspection by one 

program and subsequent inspection by another program. 

Commitment FED-FAC03: Each region must conduct two multi-media inspections to support 

Integrated Strategy areas. Regions may substitute four single media inspections in lieu of one 

multi-media inspection. 

• Annual inspections of Federal RCRA treatment, storage or disposal facilities as required by 

RCRA Sec. 3007(c) 

Each Region shall conduct inspections at 100% of the Region’s universe of Federal RCRA 

treatment, storage or disposal facilities, or arrange with an authorized state program that has been 

approved to carry out RCRA 3007(c) inspections to conduct such inspections. 

Commitment FED-FAC04: Number of inspections to be conducted at Federal RCRA treatment, 

storage or disposal facilities by region; 

Commitment FED-FAC04.s: Number of inspections to be conducted at Federal RCRA treatment, 

storage or disposal facilities by state. 

NOTE 1: These RCRA TSDF inspections, if done by the region, can qualify as part of a 

multi-media inspection. 

NOTE 2: EPA RCRA inspectors shall complete Sec. 6002 survey forms for 100% of EPA 

RCRA inspections at Federal facilities, and return the form to FFEO within two weeks of 

completing the inspection or EPA RCRA inspectors shall give the Sec. 6002 facility survey to a 

representative at the inspected facility and request their completion of the survey and mailing to 

64 

Final April 2006 
FFEO. 

 NOTE 3: If inspection coverage is not expected to be provided for 100 percent of the 

Region’s TSDFs as required by this commitment, the Regions must provide a detailed explanation 

as to why 100 percent of TSDFs will not be inspected. 

• Single media inspections 

Each Region shall perform six single media inspections of Federal facilities to support the 

Integrated Strategy areas, with up to three supporting the Federal Underground Storage Tank 

Integrated Strategy. These inspections are in addition to any single media inspections conducted 

under multi-media inspections above and in addition to the RCRA TSDF inspections. FFEO 

encourages providing EMS-related compliance assistance during these inspections. 

Commitment FED-FAC05: Number of Federal facility single media inspections to be conducted 

by EPA to support Integrated Strategy areas: CWA/NPDES Wastewater; CWA/NPDES Storm 

Water; Federal Laboratories; and Federal Underground Storage Tanks. 

The inspections identified here are those that are unique to the Federal Facilities Core 

Program and are in addition to those outlined in other OECA core program sections. These 

inspections may, however, simultaneously satisfy inspection commitments required in other OECA 

core program guidance (e.g., the requirement for inspection of 100% of all major NPDES 

facilities). 

ENFORCEMENT 

FFEO strongly encourages the regions to take swift and meaningful enforcement actions to 

improve compliance at Federal facilities. For FY07, Federal Facility resources should be focused 

on taking appropriate and timely enforcement actions, as defined within relevant media-specific 

policies for each federal facility 1) inspected as a result of FFEO’s multi-media Inspection 

Initiative or 2) inspected as a consequence of FFEO’s Integrated Strategies efforts. Where 

appropriate, FFEO advocates including EMS improvements and Supplemental Environmental 

Projects as part of enforcement action settlements. 

 INTEGRATED STRATEGIES 

Integrated strategies, which align enforcement, compliance, and stewardship 

activities toward maximum effect, can help the Federal Facilities Program guide its actions toward 

greater environmental and health benefits. Integrated strategies include activities focused on (i) 

assisting facilities to achieve and maintain compliance, (ii) inspecting and monitoring compliance, 

and (iii) prosecuting enforcement actions to correct and deter non-compliance. 

1. NPDES Wastewater Integrated Strategy 

65 

Final April 2006 
In FY05, FFEO initiated the development of this strategy in response to compliance 

indicators which suggested significant compliance problems and in response to inquiries from 

OMB. Activities consisted primarily of an effort to compile available current and historic data 

followed by a collaborative review of the data findings with Federal agencies. In FY06, FFEO 

obtained information from select facilities and held a workshop designed to identify preliminary 

root causes of non-compliance. Regions were encouraged to utilize multi-media inspections to deal 

with lack of CWA penalty authority, as well as continuing to conduct single media program 

inspections to increase scrutiny of the issue in the regions. A sample Notice of Violation and 

sample Federal Facility Compliance Agreement were issued by FFEO in FY06 (add link to 

website). In FY07, regions are asked to develop compliance assistance tools, conduct multi-media 

inspections and/or single media inspections to address NPDES wastewater requirements, and focus 

on follow-up enforcement activity for prior violations. 

2. NPDES Storm Water Integrated Strategy 

In FY2005, FFEO responded to evidence of Wet Weather noncompliance within the Federal 

Sector that extended beyond the realm of wastewater, into storm water. To that end, FFEO 

developed a Federal Facility Storm Water Enforcement and Compliance Strategy as a component to 

the already existing National Storm Water Strategy. Our strategy provides a more refined 

watershed approach that focuses on construction activities, specific high priority sectors, and Smart 

Enforcement targeting and compliance assistance where noncompliance is most pertinent and the 

threat to human health and the environment is greatest. 

In FY2006, the strategy provided Regions with tools and activities that aided in selecting 

adequate Federal facility targets to conduct storm water inspections and to direct compliance 

assistance resources. Regions are asked to take necessary enforcement actions against federal 

facilities and contractor operators, utilizing our model Clean Water Act (CWA) Notices of 

Violation (NOVs) and Federal Facility Compliance Agreements (FFCAs), and EPA’s full range of 

CWA enforcement tools against an operator for a given situation. In FY07, Regions are 

encouraged to continue to conduct inspections, perform compliance assistance, and take 

enforcement actions. FFEO will measure the results of the strategy in terms of storm water cases 

settled, pounds of sediment reduced, number EPA assisted inspections, amount of training courses 

offered and compliance assistance activities conducted. 

3. Federal Laboratories Integrated Strategy 

EPA has found a pattern of hazardous waste management problems in laboratories, 

including widespread and serious problems during its enforcement initiative involving labs at 

universities and colleges. We discovered chemicals forgotten in university stockrooms for decades, 

research labs with wastes in damaged containers, and labs pouring used chemicals into sinks and 

drains connected to public sewage systems. In several instances, very dangerous waste chemicals 

such as picric acid and other reactive chemicals were being seriously mismanaged and sometimes 

stored with incompatible wastes. The benefits of this initiative will include: preventing 

mismanagement of laboratory chemical substances and waste to prevent injury to humans and a 

66 

Final April 2006 
negative impact to the environment, and leveraging limited resources to improve laboratory 

compliance by using FedCenter as the platform for compliance assistance. In addition, this 

initiative provides an opportunity for the federal laboratories to more effectively manage resources 

by improving lab practices and environmental management. 

4. Federal Underground Storage Tank Strategy 

The new provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Act) have identified underground 

storage tanks (USTs) as a priority for enforcement, both in the private sector and in the federal 

sector. For the federal sector, federal agencies are required to submit compliance status reports to 

Congress and the EPA Administrator by August 8, 2006, and EPA/states are required to ensure a 

strong inspection presence. These new requirements form the impetus for this Integrated Strategy. 

The Strategy will consist primarily of: 

1) creating infrastructure on FedCenter for federal agencies to report on compliance (this 

satisfies the requirements for the report to Congress and the Administrator); 

2) reviewing/analyzing the information contained in these compliance reports; 

3) determining what actions are warranted based on analysis (e.g. targeted compliance 

assistance); 

4) encouraging self-disclosure under the Audit Policy; 

5) in coordination with states, performing inspections consistent with the new Act; 6) 

and ensuring appropriate enforcement follow up. 

NOTE: Where a region demonstrates that their Federal facilities universe is not applicable 

for the Integrated Strategies, the regions should work with FFEO through the Annual Commitment 

System to determine appropriate substitutes. 

DATA QUALITY AND REPORTING 

At mid-year, FFEO will communicate the available data on Federal facility core program 

accomplishments to each respective Region. To accomplish this review, FFEO will pull regional 

performance data (e.g., enforcement actions, multi-media and single media inspections, compliance 

assistance activities) from the available database of record to serve as a basis for discussion within 

the region. Some data (e.g., multi-media inspections) must be reported manually by the Region in 

order for FFEO to acknowledge progress on certain commitments. At the end of the fiscal year, 

FFEO will compile an end-of-the year summary to help evaluate the Federal Facility Program 

performance and document Regional accomplishments (see specific reporting requirements of 

attachment 5 of the March, 2006 Enforcement and Compliance Reporting Plan). 

J. Requirements: Multimedia and Rapid Response Program 

The multimedia compliance and enforcement programs are designed to foster a 

comprehensive approach to the resolution of environmental problems. AComprehensive@ means 

that applicable provisions of all environmental laws are used to achieve broad-based environmental 

67 

Final April 2006 
benefits. This approach recognizes that many facilities and companies are operating in violation of 

more than one environmental statute. A multimedia strategy to target and address compliance 

problems and environmental harm results in a more effective overall management of a facility's or a 

company=s environmental liabilities and is ultimately more cost-effective than bringing two or more 

independent media-specific enforcement actions. Multimedia-focused activities, including 

enforcement actions, reflect the goals of federal innovation and underlie much of the Agency=s 

enforcement reorganization. 

The Agency has been, and continues to be, successful in developing cases and initiatives 

that have brought significant environmental results in all media. While it remains critical to be able 

to develop large scale, nationwide actions, we also need the capability to have a more rapid 

enforcement response in order to have a truly effective program. The objective of the Rapid 

Response Program will be to Awork backwards@ from finding an environmental problem to reacting 

with the appropriate mix of authorities, in a more direct fashion than previously. The Office of 

Civil Enforcement=s (OCE) Special Litigation and Projects Division (SLPD) will work with other 

Divisions and with the regions to identify cases where streamlined case development and a rapid 

response can produce more effective results. We anticipate that these actions will be brought in 

both administrative and judicial forums, and that we will partner with states in appropriate cases. 

In some instances, the SLPD will work with the regions to develop the Agency=s first 

enforcement response, with more traditional enforcement actions to follow. The cases may be 

streamlined, so that there will be fewer counts brought against violators in order to obtain speedy 

resolution, reserving our rights to bring additional actions or additional counts. 

Compliance Assistance (Sub-objective 5.1.1) 

The areas that Headquarters believes warrant compliance assistance have been identified 

within specific program discussions. The primary focus of the federal multimedia program should 

be on compliance monitoring and enforcement. However, the results of a multimedia analysis of 

specific facilities or entire companies might prove useful in planning future compliance assistance 

activities. 

Compliance Incentives (Sub-objective 5.1.2) 

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

Core Program Activities. 

Performance Expectations 

With regard to compliance incentives, regions will be expected to report on the number of 

voluntary disclosures received and resolved pursuant to incentive policies. To ensure that the 

Agency will achieve its goals, the regions are expected to perform activities that will increase the 

use of EPA incentive policies to conduct environmental audits or other actions that reduce, treat, or 

eliminate pollution or improve facility environmental management practices. 

68 

Final April 2006 
Each region will lead a regional Compliance Incentive Program or participate in a national 

Compliance Incentive Program directed at a particular sector and/or noncompliance problem, with 

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

Compliance Monitoring 

The multimedia program will rely on the compliance monitoring efforts in existence for 

each media program. However, each region=s multimedia targeting strategy and operational plan 

should establish protocols for coordinating multimedia investigations and actions among the 

individual media programs. Headquarters will continue to assist the regions in promoting a 

process-based approach as well as a more targeted and efficient approach to multimedia inspections 

in general. The goal is to achieve the best environmental result while using resources efficiently. 

Participation in Rapid Response Program Activities could entail the dedication and possible 

reprogramming of compliance monitoring resources. 

Performance Expectations 

Regions will be expected to continue to develop and refine their multimedia targeting 

strategy and operational plan for initiation of multimedia enforcement activities. Elements of this 

plan should include projected multimedia inspections, case development training, and projected 

numbers of multimedia cases. Use of a multimedia checklist is not considered to be a multimedia 

inspection, but a tool for identification of potential multimedia targets. 

Regions will be expected to participate in at least one rapid response activity per year, if 

requested. These activities will take one of three forms: a specific rapid response initiative to 

address a specific environmental or human health risk (e.g., worker protection), participation in a 

single multi-media, multi-regional nationally significant case, (e.g., a case against a national Abad 

actor@), or a multi-media, multi-regional case that directly supports a national priority (e.g., a case 

that is nationally significant in support of NSR-PSD). 

Enforcement 

(a) General Approach 

The multimedia or cross-statutory approach to case development can be employed in the 

context of three basic types of enforcement actions: 

$ against single facilities, where entire industrial processes at a facility are examined 

as a whole; 

$ against entire companies, where violations of different statutes that occur at various 

facilities indicate ineffective corporate-wide management of environmental 

compliance; and 

$ geographically based enforcement efforts arising from a comprehensive multimedia 

analysis of the environmental problem(s) in a given area (enforcement activities 

69 

Final April 2006 
resulting from this analysis may be single or cross-media). 

(b) Rapid Response Program 

Each region should support the Rapid Response Program which will place emphasis on 

more targeted and quicker responses - in any geographic region. The enforcement model will be 

collaborative: the SLPD intends to work closely with and augment regional, state, and headquarters 

media teams. The focus will be on cooperation between SLPD, the regions, the media enforcement 

program and, where appropriate, the states working together to find and implement the most 

expeditious and effective response to a given situation. 

While the SLPD has substantial expertise in identifying sectors for enforcement actions, it is 

anticipated that most new matters will derive from those closest to the sources of the problem. 

SLPD will rely upon contacts within the regions and the states to identify potential areas for 

enforcement. In all instances, the goal will be the identification of potential harmful effects, and the 

coordinated, rapid resolution of problems. 

Participation in Rapid Response Program Activities could entail the dedication and possible 

reprogramming of compliance monitoring resources. 

Performance Expectations 

Regions will be expected to participate in at least one rapid response activity per year, if 

requested. These activities will take one of three forms: a specific rapid response initiative to 

address a specific environmental or human health risk (e.g., worker protection), participation in a 

single multi-media, multi-regional nationally significant case, (e.g., a case against a national Abad 

actor@), or a multi-media, multi-regional case that directly supports a national priority (e.g., a case 

that is nationally significant in support of NSR-PSD). 

PROGRAM OVERSIGHT 

State and tribal involvement in national multimedia and Rapid Response casework is 

strongly encouraged. Regions should assess the level of state-initiated compliance assistance and 

enforcement activity once case management teams are developed and, where practicable, encourage 

state participation in the National actions. Generally, although there is no oversight of state 

multimedia program development, the regions may encourage the development of such programs as 

they see fit, requesting Headquarters assistance and resources as appropriate. 

K. Requirements: Environmental Justice Program 

Executive Order 12898vi directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other 

federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their mission, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately 

70 

Final April 2006 
high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Consistent with that mandate, the environmental laws that EPA implements and enforces 

direct it to protect all people from significant environmental hazards and risks. The Agency is 

keenly aware that minority and/or low-income and other sensitive populations frequently confront 

special environmental burdens caused by a host of factors including, but not limited to, those 

relating to: health, environmental conditions, and compliance assurance activities. Helping to 

satisfy its environmental justice mission to protect all people, including minority and/or lowincome populations, the EPA accounts for these and other issues under the environmental statutes 

that it implements and enforces. For example, OECA has already explicitly established 

environmental justice as a targeting factor under the Clean Water Act and the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Actvii. Further, OECA has established environmental justice as a 

penalty considerationviii and as a factor in approving Supplemental Environmental Projects in 

settlementsix. 

On April 15, 2003, former OECA Assistant Administrator, JP Suarez outlined the Smart 

Enforcement approach to compliance assurance, requiring OECA to target compliance and 

enforcement efforts strategically, to ensure that the most significant impacts to human health and 

the environment are addressed first. The directive identifies environmental justice as a cornerstone 

of the Smart Enforcement program. Notably, OECA=s application of Smart Enforcement concepts 

provides for the use of existing environmental, compliance, and health data to target and prioritize 

compliance assurance activities to address significant environmental problems and to identify 

problems in communities with environmental and public health concerns. 

Subsequently, OECA=s Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Phyllis Harris, issued 

OECA=s Environmental Justice Policyx. This policy further underscores the importance of 

environmental justice in program implementation. 

In 2001 the EPA Environmental Justice Executive Steering Committee (a group composed 

of EPA Headquarters and regional leadership, including OECA=s Deputy Assistant Administrator) 

directed that each program office and region should develop an Environmental Justice Action Plan. 

 These strategic planning documents help coordinate the environmental justice activities of the 

Agency and establish a basis for accountability and monitoring progress. The Action Plan 

framework elements, which each region and program office has developed into specific 

programmatic activities, include the following: 

1. Risk Reduction / Protect Environmental and/or Public Health - To ensure equal 

implementation of environmental laws to achieve significant risk reduction which will improve the 

environment and/or public health of affected communities. 

2. Outreach and Communication - To provide opportunities for meaningful involvement and 

ensure effective communication between the Agency decision makers and stakeholders, including 

all affected communities. 

71 

Final April 2006 
3. Training - To provide training for EPA managers and staff to enable them to incorporate 

environmental justice considerations into their decision making process. 

4. Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Government Coordination - To ensure effective 

coordination across all levels of government to address the environmental and public health 

concerns of affected communities. 

5. Grants and Contracts Administration - To promote effective and efficient management of 

all grants and contracts to ensure that the environmental and public health concerns of affected 

communities are addressed. 

6. Environmental Justice Assessment - To conduct an assessment of the environmental justice 

indicators within affected communities as part of the decision making process. 

Annual commitments, regional workplan commitments, and state performance partnership 

agreements (or similar EPA-State/Tribe Agency agreement) and grants for FY2005/2007 should be 

consistent with OECA=s and each region=s respective Environmental Justice Action Plan. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-objective 5.1.1) 

Regions should appropriately target compliance assistance activities to address issues of 

environmental justice, consistent with smart enforcement principles. Prior to planning and 

targeting compliance assistance activities, among other things, regions should consider the 

following: (1) does the activity impact compliance with all health and environmental statutes; (2) 

has there been sufficient public input regarding the compliance assistance activity; (3) should other 

levels of government, including Tribal Government, be involved with the activity or consulted; (4) 

how have health, environmental, and compliance data sources been evaluated to determine 

priorities; (5) have priorities been established to ensure that disproportionately impacted areas are 

being targeted; and (6) have issues of Limited English Proficiency among minority populations and 

low-income populations or the regulated community been considered and addressed. Compliance 

assistance activities should be targeted to diminish risk relative to the conditions and health of the 

resident population. 

In 2004, OECA and the regions created an environmental justice targeting approach based 

on health, compliance, environmental and demographic data. The approach, Environmental Justice 

Smart Enforcement Targeting Strategy (EJSETS) builds upon the original guidelines of Smart 

Enforcement and the policy set-out in the "Toolkit for Assessing Allegations of Environmental 

Injustice." EJSETS provides the regions with consistent information and may be used in the 

context of targeting and planning; crafting specific remedies based on local conditions; helping to 

apply penalty considerations; developing supplemental environmental projects (SEPs); and 

measuring outcomes. The regions are encouraged to utilize EJSETS and its draft screening tool as 

another discretionary targeting approach as they consider how best to identify, address 

environmental justice concerns and measure results. 

72 

Final April 2006 
COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-objective 5.1.2) 

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

Core Program Activities. 

COMPLIANCE MONITORING (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 

Regions should appropriately target compliance monitoring activities to address issues of 

environmental justice, consistent with smart enforcement principles. Prior to planning and 

targeting inspections, among other things, regions should consider the following: (1) does the 

monitoring activity impact enforcement of all health and environmental statutes; (2) has there been 

sufficient public input regarding compliance assurance activities; (3) should other levels of 

government, including Tribal Government, be involved with the activity or consulted; (4) how have 

health, environmental, and compliance assurance activity data sources been evaluated to determine 

priorities; (5) have priorities been established to ensure that disproportionately impacted areas are 

being targeted; and (6) have differential patterns of consumption of natural resources among 

minority populations and low-income populations been identified. Inspections should be targeted 

to diminish risk relative to the conditions and health of the resident population. 

Performance Expectations 

To ensure that the goals of environmental justice are accomplished, enforcement and compliance 

personnel should incorporate environmental justice concerns into ongoing enforcement/compliance 

activities. Moreover, enforcement/compliance activities addressing issues of environmental justice 

should be included in the region=s Environmental Justice Action Plans and identified in annual 

commitments as having measurable environmental justice components. To address environmental 

justice concerns, regions should ensure that: 

1) The public has access to compliance and enforcement documents and data, particularly in 

high risk communities, through multimedia data integration projects, other studies, and 

communication/outreach activities; 

2) Public input is solicited, as appropriate, in the identification of facilities or areas of 

concern (i.e., through periodic listening sessions, hotlines, outreach efforts, etc...) and 

during other appropriate phases of the compliance assurance process; 

3) EPA=s policies, programs and activities, including public meetings, address the concerns 

of the potentially affected populations, including those living in minority and/or low-income 

areas; 

4) Noncompliance is deterred and environmental and human health improvements are 

achieved by: (a) maintaining a strong, timely and active enforcement presence across all 

areas, including those with minority and/or low-income populations, and (b) targeting 

compliance activities in areas with high levels of noncompliance; 

5) Enforcement and other compliance assurance actions are prioritized using environmental, 

compliance, and health data so as to minimize risk to human health and the environment and 

73 

Final April 2006 
to maximize compliance, consistent with the goals of smart enforcement; 

6) When possible, enforcement actions result in environmental or human health 

improvements, through pollution reductions and/or physical or management process 

changes; 

7) When practical, participate in collaborative problem solving with other federal, state, 

tribal, and/or local agencies to address environmental justice concerns; participate in the 

environmental justice training efforts; and continue to participate in national, state, Tribal, 

or local dialogue around the issue of environmental justice (i.e., NEJAC, listening sessions, 

etc...); and 

8) Consider issues such as cumulative risk, health disparities, and appropriate demographic 

issues in the context of gravity based penalties, case development, referrals to the 

Department of Justice, and Supplemental Environmental Projects. 

Enforcement Actions 

If an inspection identifies violations consult the EPA Supplemental Environmental Projects 

Policy and other enforcement memoranda (addressing penalty determinations) regarding the 

appropriate consideration of environmental justice issues. Issues pertaining to environmental 

justice, identified in cases of potential civil or criminal violation, should be documented and 

transmitted to the Department of Justice for use in case development, establishment of penalties, 

and remedy selection. 

Program Leadership and Evaluation 

Training and Technical Assistance: regional Environmental Justice Coordinators, the Office 

of Policy, Analysis, and Communication, and the Office of Environmental Justice can be valuable 

sources of information to assist in integrating environmental justice issues into any regional 

enforcement program. 

L. Requirements: Tribal Program 

EPA’s enforcement and compliance assurance program works with federally-recognized 

Indian tribes (tribes) to promote compliance through the use of appropriate compliance and 

enforcement tools in Indian country and other tribal areas and in areas outside of Indian country 

where tribes and tribal members have recognized rights and interests protected by treaty, statute, 

judicial decisions or other authorities, including Alaska (hereinafter referred to as “Indian country 

and other tribal areas”). Whether implemented directly by EPA or an approved tribe, selecting the 

appropriate tools - compliance assistance, incentives, monitoring, and enforcement - can provide 

important gains in environmental and human health protection. In FY 2007, OECA and the regions 

intend to continue to increase their presence in Indian country and other tribal areas. 

In spring 2004, OECA issued Protecting Public Health and the Environment Through 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance in Indian Country: A Strategy for Results (Strategy). The 

Strategy is designed to help develop a common understanding among EPA and tribal environmental 

74 

Final April 2006 
managers and staff about how and why EPA works with tribes to maximize compliance and reduce 

threats to public health and the environment in Indian country and other tribal areas. The Strategy 

includes information on the EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on 

Indian Reservations, the EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian 

Reservations (known as the 1984 Indian Policy) and the Guidance on the Enforcement Principles 

Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy (Tribal Enforcement Guidance), as well as the federal 

government’s trust and consultation responsibilities to tribes, and its government-to-government 

relationship with such tribes. 

As indicated above, the goal of OECA’s FY 2005/2007 National Tribal Compliance 

Assurance Priority (Tribal Priority) is to significantly improve human health and the environment 

in Indian country and other tribal areas through EPA and tribal compliance assistance, compliance 

monitoring, and enforcement activity. In FY 2007, the completion of work to identify the universe 

of federally-regulated facilities in Indian country and other tribal areas should increase EPA’s 

ability to target compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement resources. 

Similarly, the emphasis on increasing the number of EPA-authorized inspectors and EPA 

inspections at tribal schools should lead to an increased number of inspection reports submitted to 

EPA and the subsequent number of compliance determinations. OECA’s Tribal Priority EPM 

resources, distributed by the Compliance Assistance and Sectors Programs Division (CASPD) are 

available to support this work. 

Tracking and measuring of all compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, and 

enforcement activities in Indian country and other tribal areas is an essential component of OECA’s 

tribal program. OECA and the regions should use the tribal flag/identifier found in ICIS, CACDS, 

CCDS, ICDS, or other applicable data tracking systems. The tracking and measuring discussion 

found in each part of the NPM Guidance is applicable to the tribal program. Reporting on the 

outputs and outcomes of EPA activities is particularly crucial to measuring the progress and impact 

of EPA’s tribal enforcement and compliance assurance program. 

Following are the core activities that OECA and the regions should undertake in FY 2007. 

These activities are in addition to the ACS measures for the Tribal Priority. 

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE (Sub-objective 5.1.1) 

OECA’s compliance assistance and capacity building efforts in Indian country and other 

tribal areas are designed to provide regulated facilities with the information and support necessary 

to maintain compliance. To support EPA’s tribal compliance assistance efforts, OECA, Regions, 

and tribes can use OC’s “on-line Indian country tool” and the Profile of Tribal Government 

Operations which are available at www.epa.gov/compliance/tribal/resources. OECA and the 

Regions should continue to use existing compliance assistance tools and tailor new compliance 

assistance tools for use by tribes and facilities in Indian country and other tribal areas. During FY 

2007, OECA’s National Enforcement Training Institute (NETI) will continue to reach out to tribal 

environmental professionals and serve as an on-line registration and course clearinghouse for all 

compliance assurance and enforcement training offered by OECA and the regions. OECA’s Tribal 

75 

Final April 2006 
Priority EPM resources are available to fund compliance assistance activities in Indian country and 

other tribal areas. Funding “circuit riders” who provide on-site compliance and technical assistance 

is extremely effective to tribes and tribal consortia is a very effective mechanism for promoting 

compliance in Indian country and other tribal areas. Regions must measure and report into ICIS the 

outcomes of 100% of tribal workshops, training and on-site (re) visits conducted in FY 2007. 

Consistent with the Tribal Enforcement Guidance, OECA and the regions typically use 

compliance assistance as the initial means of resolving non-compliance at tribally-owned or 

managed facilities. Shortly after noncompliance is identified at a tribal facility, a short written 

compliance plan should be is used to communicate the steps necessary to return the facility to 

compliance and provide a timeline for initiating an enforcement action if compliance is not 

achieved. 

COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES (Sub-Objective 5.1.2) 

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

Core Program Activities. 

MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Sub-objective 5.1.3) 

EPA conducts almost all compliance monitoring and enforcement of federal environmental 

programs and laws in Indian country because only a few tribes are currently authorized to operate a 

federal environmental program. As such, regional compliance monitoring and enforcement 

programs should implement the compliance monitoring and enforcement National Program Core 

Requirements in Indian country and other tribal areas. In the very limited cases where tribes have 

EPA-approved enforcement programs, regions oversee tribal enforcement compliance monitoring 

and enforcement in the same manner as they do with states as outlined in the National Program 

Core Requirements. However, EPA will retain federal criminal enforcement responsibilities, as 

these are not delegable. 

Geography and resources may impact the ability of EPA inspectors to conduct inspections 

as outlined in the National Program Core Requirements. As envisioned by the Tribal Priority, 

Regions should, therefore, consider authorizing tribal inspectors to conduct inspections on behalf of 

EPA. Regions should use the Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to 

States/Tribes and the Process for Requesting EPA Credentials for State/Tribal Inspectors 

Conducting Inspections on EPA's Behalf. EPA works closely with tribes in carrying out 

compliance monitoring activities by consulting with tribes on inspection priorities and schedules 

and sharing information where appropriate. OECA’s Tribal Priority EPM resources are available to 

fund compliance monitoring activity, including the training of tribal inspectors. 

The Tribal Enforcement Guidance lays out an effective process for EPA to take civil 

enforcement action in Indian country and other tribal areas. Unless the exigencies of the situation 

suggest a different approach is necessary, Regions should work with the tribe to implement a short, 

written compliance plan designed to promptly return noncompliant tribal facilities to compliance. 

76 

Final April 2006 
Regions should take formal civil enforcement actions if the tribal facility fails to return to 

compliance as outlined in the compliance plan. As outlined in the Tribal Enforcement Guidance, 

regions obtain the concurrence of OECA’s Assistance Administrator prior to taking formal civil 

enforcement actions at tribal facilities. Noncompliant non-tribal facilities in Indian country and 

other tribal areas are treated the same as facilities located outside of Indian country and other tribal 

areas. 

With respect to allegations of criminal violations of federal environmental laws in Indian 

country and other tribal areas, EPA offices and tribes will provide the EPA Criminal Investigation 

Division with investigative leads. Such leads will be investigated within the framework of the 

Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training's Policy on Investigative Discretion. 

Performance Expectations 

OECA and the regions will report on the Tribal Priority ACS measures and the following: 

• Reporting on the outputs and outcomes of EPA activities is particularly crucial to measuring the 

progress and impact of EPA’s tribal enforcement and compliance assurance program As such, use 

the tribal flag/identifier in ICIS, ICDS, CACDS, CCDS or other applicable data system to track and 

measure all compliance assistance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement activities in Indian 

country and other tribal areas. See the relevant tracking and measurement discussion in compliance 

assistance, compliance monitoring, and enforcement section of the NPM Guidance. 

• Regional enforcement and compliance managers should engage media and Indian program 

managers and staff in discussing how best to allocate the OECA Tribal Priority resources and the 

making of specific funding decisions. In addition, regions should, as appropriate, engage tribes – 

particularly the Regional Tribal Operations Committees – in a dialogue on the types of projects for 

which these resources are available, how to distribute information about the available funds, and 

sharing project results. 

• Review all inspection reports submitted by EPA inspectors and EPA-authorized tribal inspectors 

and determine whether an enforcement response is appropriate, and if so, what type. 

SECTION IV. FY2007 OECA WORKPLAN SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS 

O. Annual Commitment System 

Following release of the final OECA NPM Guidance, regions should continue discussions 

with their states and tribes to determine draft numbers for the commitments contained in the 

guidance. Attachment A is a complete listing of all FY2007 OECA commitments. Current 

schedules call for regions to enter their draft targets into the annual commitment system by July 1, 

2006. NPMs can then review draft regional targets to ensure that all regional targets together Aroll 

up@ to result cumulatively in appropriate annual national targets. Headquarters and the regions will 

have approximately 2 months (July 1 through September 1) to resolve any issues and finalize 

annual regional targets. During this same time, regions will be engaging in negotiations with states 

77 

Final April 2006 
and tribes to complete the grant process (PPAs, PPGs, and Categorical Grants), including 

translating regional targets into formal commitments supported by state-by-state agreements. All 

commitments should be final by September 30, 2006; all grants should be final by October 1, 2006. 

The lead time before annual targets and commitments are finalized helps to provide regions, 

states, and tribes maximum flexibility in determining their commitments. Ultimately, headquarters 

and regions will share responsibility for identifying and resolving any conflicts over program 

priorities that present implications for the annual regional commitments. Issues that have not been 

resolved will be elevated to OECA=s Acting Assistant Administrator for decision. 

M. Support and Training Requests 

NEIC 

The regions should continue to send their annual requests for specific civil inspection, 

investigative, and technical support to NEIC=s Civil Program Coordinator. NEIC will evaluate the 

requests in order to develop the final list and schedule of support activities. To initiate discussions 

necessary to plan and schedule appropriate enforcement support for FY2005-2007, NEIC would 

like to receive requests from the regions by August 1, 2006. It is important that NEIC receive all 

regional submissions by August 1, 2006 to allow for an examination of all projects in line with 

resources. These requests should be as specific as possible, and include information to help NEIC 

determine whether they can provide the requested support. As completely as possible, this 

information should include: 

• facility/project name and location; 

• desired enforcement support (type of investigation, technical assistance, information 

request, etc.); 

• desired time frame (if critical); 

• desired outcome of project (enforcement, measurable environmental impact, corrective 

action, settlement, compliance, etc.); 

-- Regional/Headquarters priority(ies)/initiative(s) involved; 

• a brief description regarding how and why this particular facility/project was selected for 

NEIC support; and 

• a name and phone number of a contact for additional information. 

During the review of the requests, NEIC will have discussions with the various regional 

contacts regarding aspects of each request. The combination of information sent with the original 

request and that obtained during these discussions will enable NEIC to determine whether the 

requested support can be provided. The final decisions and commitments will be included in the 

negotiated workplans. 

If you have any questions regarding this process please contact Gene Lubieniecki, (303) 

236-6112, or Nicholas Franco (202) 564-0113. Please send NEIC support requests to both Gene 

and Nick. 

78 

Final April 2006 
Gene Lubieniecki Nicholas Franco 

Civil Program Coordinator National Performance Measurement 

US EPA-NEIC and Analysis Staff 

Denver Federal Center US EPA - OECA 

Building 53, PO Box 25227 Ariel Rios Building - South 

Denver, CO 80225 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

(MC2221A) 

N. FTE Resource Charts

 The regions will be asked to complete FTE charts similar to the charts completed in 

previous planning cycles. The charts are organized by goal, objective and sub-objective and then 

cross-walked to the media program elements. The importance of the FTE Resource Charts has been 

growing significantly because of increasing interest from the Office of Management and Budget, 

the Inspector General and Congress. The FTE templates will be sent to the regions in August 2006. 

 It is imperative that these charts be completed and submitted to Nicholas Franco and Lisa Raymer 

on September 30, 2007. 

2005 Final - This column should contain the region’s final FY2005 FTE allocation derived from the 

Agency’s FY2005 Enacted Operating Plan. 

2006 Enacted - This column should contain the region’s final FY2006 FTE allocation derived from 

the Agency’s FY2006 Enacted Operating Plan. 

2007 Proposed - This column should contain the region’s proposed FTE allocation for FY2007. 

Headquarters recognizes that FTE levels may change after the Agency receives the FY2007 enacted 

budget after October 1, 2007. Therefore this number is a “best guess” estimate. 

79 

Final April 2006 
ix

i

 This ratio is based on previous workload models that averaged the amount of resources needed to conduct major and 

minor inspections. All minor inspections that are traded-off for majors MUST be put into PCS/ICIS in order for the 

region/state to get “credit” for them. 

ii EPA Claims to Meet Drinking Water Goals Despite Persistent Data Quality Shortcomings; Report No. 2004-P-0008; 

March 5, 2004. 

iii Regions should focus financial responsibility compliance monitoring activities in states that do not have a state fund. 

iv For LDFs (land disposal facilities), a CEI or a groundwater monitoring evaluation (GME) will meet the statutory 

inspection requirement. For LDFs that are no longer accepting new wastes, a CEI, GME or an operation and 

maintenance inspection (OAMs) will qualify as an inspection. 

v

 RECAP (2003), which has been replaced by the current ACS system, also provided a measure for lQG inspections that 

was the equivalent of a CEI. 

vi “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations@ Executive 

Order, February 11, 1994 

vii Memorandum, FR: Assistant Administrator, ACompliance and Enforcement Strategy Addressing Combined Sewer 

Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows,@ Section IV, B.2. APriorities for SSO Enforcement Response@ (April 27, 

2000) (directing OECA to target compliance assurance/enforcement activities in areas raising environmental justice 

concerns). <http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/cwa/strat312.pdf>; 

Guidance on the Use of Section 7003 of RCRA, ' II, Bullet 1 (October 1997) (directing OECA to target compliance 

assurance/enforcement activities in areas raising environmental justice concerns). 

<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/rcra/971020.pdf> 

viii See Memorandum from Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

(September 30, 1997). 

See, e.g., Environmental Protection Agency, Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy 13-14 (May 1, 1998). 

x AOECA Environmental Justice Policy@ Memorandum, January 12, 2004. 

80 

Final April 2006 
 

Final 

1

 OECA Final FY2007 CORE 

Compliance AssistanceASST01 Conduct outcome measurement for 100% of all compliance assistance workshops/training, onsite visits and 

OECA national priorities and report the results of these outcomes into ICIS. Report on exceptions to the 100

explanations in the ACS.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

CWA01 Project by state the number of federal inspections at NPDES major facilities. 

CWA01.s Project by state the number of state inspections at NPDES major facilities. CWA03 Project by state the number of federal oversight inspections to be conducted. 

CWA05 Project by state the number of federal and state inspections of POTWs with an approved pretreatment progra

unapproved states. 

Safe Drinking Water ActSDWA01 Number of surveys to be conducted, with a breakout for number on tribal lands.SDWA02 Public Water Systems listed on a 'Fixed Base' SNC/Exceptions list will be addressed or resolved either by a 

or by EPA. 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
 

Final 

2

EPCRA01 Number of federal EPCRA data quality inspections.

EPCRA02 Number of federal EPCRA 313 inspections. 

FIFRAFIFRA12 Project regional federal FIFRA inspection commitments. Toxics Substances and Control Act (TSCA)

TSC01 Project the number of Core federal TSCA inspections for Regions maintaining an investment in core TSCA 

TSC03 Inspect 33% of the PCB commercial storage and disposal facility universe. TSCA05 Report the number of federal TSCA asbestos inspections. TSC10 Number of 1018/402/406 federal inspections. Clean Air Act (CAA)

CAA01 Number of federal Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be conducted at Title V majors. 

CAA01.s Number of state FCEs to be conducted at Title V majors. CAA02 Number of federal FCEs to be conducted at >80% synthetic minors=, and other sources (as appropriate). CAA02.s Number of state FCEs to be conducted at >80% synthetic minors=, and other sources, as appropriate. CAA03 Number of Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs) to be conducted by the regions. This is a minimum data CAA03.s Number of PCEs to be conducted by the states that were the result of the negotiation process for the year (co

redirecting resources from FCEs to PCEs). This is a minimum data requirement. 

CAA05 Regions should project the number of investigations to be initiated in FY2007. Investigation projections sh

program (e.g., MACT, NSPS). 
 

Final 

3

CAA11 Conduct inspections at 5% of the total number of facilities in the region required to submit RMPs.CAA16 Regions should ensure that delegated agencies have written agreements to provide complete, accurate, and ti

the CMS, HPV Policy and the AFS ICR; identify the agreement; and provide copies of the relevant language

CAA17 Regions and delegated agencies should enter all MDRs in AFS consistent with the Agency policies and the I

delegated agency does not agree to enter the MDRs, the region is responsible for ensuring that the data is enmanner. If the region is responsible for entering state/local/tribal data, identify the agency. 

CAA19 Consistent with CMS, regions should conduct at least one in-depth evaluation of a delegated program per ye

results to Headquarters.

Resource Conservation and Recovery ActCombined State and Federal Core ActivitiesRCRA01 Project by state the number of federal TSDFs to be inspected during the year. The regions must commit to i

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

RCRA01.s Project by state the number of state TSDFs to be inspected during the year.

RCRA02 Project by state the number of federal LQGs to be inspected during the year. The regions must commit to in

each state unless approval is obtained from headquarters to deviate from this requirement. Generally, these substitute SQG inspections) should be compliance evaluation inspections. 

RCRA02.s Project by state the number of state LQG inspections to be inspected during the year. Federal Core Only ActivitiesRCRA03 Annually inspect each treatment, storage or disposal facility operated by states or local governments as requ

The Regions are to annually inspect each treatment, storage or disposal facility operated by states or local gounder SWDA '3007(d). Pursuant to RCRA Section 3007(d), TSDFs operated by a State or local governmen
 

Final 

4

required must be thoroughly inspected (i.e., generally a compliance evaluation inspection). The same type of be counted for this measure as is counted for RCRA01. 

Federal FacilitiesFEDFAC01 Each Region shall conduct at least two compliance assistance activities for Federal facilities to support the inFEDFAC03 Each region must conduct two multi-media inspections to support Integrated Strategy areas. Regions may su

inspections in lieu of one multi-media inspection. 

FEDFAC04 Number of inspections to be conducted at Federal RCRA treatment, storage or disposal facilities by region. FEDFAC04.s Number of inspections to be conducted at Federal RCRA treatment, storage or disposal facilities by state; FEDFAC05 Number of Federal facility single media inspections to be conducted by EPA to support Integrated Strategy a

Wastewater; CWA/NPDES Storm Water; Federal Laboratories; and Federal Underground Storage Tanks. 

State Review FrameworkSRF01 The number of State Review Framework reviews to be completed in Fiscal Year 2007. 
 

Final 

1

 OECA Final FY2007 CORE 

Compliance AssistanceASST01 Conduct outcome measurement for 100% of all compliance assistance workshops/training, onsite visits and 

OECA national priorities and report the results of these outcomes into ICIS. Report on exceptions to the 100

explanations in the ACS.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

CWA01 Project by state the number of federal inspections at NPDES major facilities. 

CWA01.s Project by state the number of state inspections at NPDES major facilities. CWA03 Project by state the number of federal oversight inspections to be conducted. 

CWA05 Project by state the number of federal and state inspections of POTWs with an approved pretreatment progra

unapproved states. 

Safe Drinking Water ActSDWA01 Number of surveys to be conducted, with a breakout for number on tribal lands.SDWA02 Public Water Systems listed on a 'Fixed Base' SNC/Exceptions list will be addressed or resolved either by a 

or by EPA. 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
 

Final 

2

EPCRA01 Number of federal EPCRA data quality inspections.

EPCRA02 Number of federal EPCRA 313 inspections. 

FIFRAFIFRA12 Project regional federal FIFRA inspection commitments. Toxics Substances and Control Act (TSCA)

TSC01 Project the number of Core federal TSCA inspections for Regions maintaining an investment in core TSCA 

TSC03 Inspect 33% of the PCB commercial storage and disposal facility universe. TSCA05 Report the number of federal TSCA asbestos inspections. TSC10 Number of 1018/402/406 federal inspections. Clean Air Act (CAA)

CAA01 Number of federal Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) to be conducted at Title V majors. 

CAA01.s Number of state FCEs to be conducted at Title V majors. CAA02 Number of federal FCEs to be conducted at >80% synthetic minors=, and other sources (as appropriate). CAA02.s Number of state FCEs to be conducted at >80% synthetic minors=, and other sources, as appropriate. CAA03 Number of Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs) to be conducted by the regions. This is a minimum data CAA03.s Number of PCEs to be conducted by the states that were the result of the negotiation process for the year (co

redirecting resources from FCEs to PCEs). This is a minimum data requirement. 

CAA05 Regions should project the number of investigations to be initiated in FY2007. Investigation projections sh

program (e.g., MACT, NSPS). 
 

Final 

3

CAA11 Conduct inspections at 5% of the total number of facilities in the region required to submit RMPs.CAA16 Regions should ensure that delegated agencies have written agreements to provide complete, accurate, and ti

the CMS, HPV Policy and the AFS ICR; identify the agreement; and provide copies of the relevant language

CAA17 Regions and delegated agencies should enter all MDRs in AFS consistent with the Agency policies and the I

delegated agency does not agree to enter the MDRs, the region is responsible for ensuring that the data is enmanner. If the region is responsible for entering state/local/tribal data, identify the agency. 

CAA19 Consistent with CMS, regions should conduct at least one in-depth evaluation of a delegated program per ye

results to Headquarters.

Resource Conservation and Recovery ActCombined State and Federal Core ActivitiesRCRA01 Project by state the number of federal TSDFs to be inspected during the year. The regions must commit to i

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

RCRA01.s Project by state the number of state TSDFs to be inspected during the year.

RCRA02 Project by state the number of federal LQGs to be inspected during the year. The regions must commit to in

each state unless approval is obtained from headquarters to deviate from this requirement. Generally, these substitute SQG inspections) should be compliance evaluation inspections. 

RCRA02.s Project by state the number of state LQG inspections to be inspected during the year. Federal Core Only ActivitiesRCRA03 Annually inspect each treatment, storage or disposal facility operated by states or local governments as requ

The Regions are to annually inspect each treatment, storage or disposal facility operated by states or local gounder SWDA '3007(d). Pursuant to RCRA Section 3007(d), TSDFs operated by a State or local governmen
 

Final 

4

required must be thoroughly inspected (i.e., generally a compliance evaluation inspection). The same type of be counted for this measure as is counted for RCRA01. 

Federal FacilitiesFEDFAC01 Each Region shall conduct at least two compliance assistance activities for Federal facilities to support the inFEDFAC03 Each region must conduct two multi-media inspections to support Integrated Strategy areas. Regions may su

inspections in lieu of one multi-media inspection. 

FEDFAC04 Number of inspections to be conducted at Federal RCRA treatment, storage or disposal facilities by region. FEDFAC04.s Number of inspections to be conducted at Federal RCRA treatment, storage or disposal facilities by state; FEDFAC05 Number of Federal facility single media inspections to be conducted by EPA to support Integrated Strategy a

Wastewater; CWA/NPDES Storm Water; Federal Laboratories; and Federal Underground Storage Tanks. 

State Review FrameworkSRF01 The number of State Review Framework reviews to be completed in Fiscal Year 2007. 
 

SRF01 The number of State Review Framework reviews to be completed in Fiscal Year 2007. 

Final 5 
Attachment B 

Performance Measures Template for State Grants 

Pesticide Enforcement Grants

GENERAL 

1. OECA is using three PART measures in the State Grant Template for the pesticide 

enforcement grant program. These measures have been jointly developed by EPA and 

state representatives from the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials 

(AAPCO). The measures have been approved by OMB through the PART process. The 

measure are already in use in this program, having been made a requirement for 2006 

grant workplans. 

2. OECA does not believe that any further outreach is necessary in that these measures have 

already been thoroughly discussed with state pesticide lead agencies at numerous 

meetings and conference calls throughout 2005. Our communications have been with 

AAPCO, which represents state pesticide regulators, and the National Association of 

State Departments of Agriculture. With a few exceptions, ECOS does not represent this 

program. 

TEMPLATE FORMAT 

1. These PART measures are new to the pesticide enforcement grant program, starting in 

FY 2006. OECA will be working with states to develop baselines once we have collected 

sufficient data to do so. 

2. As with baselines, OECA will work with the states to set targets once we have collected 

sufficient data to do so. 

MEASURES AND STRATEGIC PLAN 

1. These PART measures and architecture will reflect the EPA strategic plan under 

development. Accordingly, there will be no need to reconcile any differences between 

the strategic plan and PART measures. 

TEMPLATE REPORTING 

1. State-specific data will begin to be produced for each of these PART measures at the end 

of FY 2006. 

2. OECA intends that data for these measures will be collected by the regions as a part of 

EOY grant evaluations. Currently, data would be collected and reported manually as no 

database exists to input the information. OECA favors using ACS as the reporting 

system and is exploring this option. Data would be entered into ACS by the regions from 

information they have collected from the state pesticide regulatory agencies. 
Attachment B 

3. The template will facilitate comparisons across states and over time once OECA has 

several years of data in which to dos so. It will not be possible to compare performance 

to “pre-template” years because the data does not currently exist. 

TEMPLATE AND GRANT ADMINISTRATION 

1. For the pesticide enforcement grant program, the template will apply to the award of any 

FY 2007 funds. There should be no need to consider grandfathering in these measures in 

any multiyear grants because there are few if any in this program and we have already 

begun using the measures in 2006. 
Attachment B 

Performance Measures Template for STAG Grants 

Lead-based Paint 

GENERAL 

1. The OECA TSCA/STAG grants fund compliance monitoring and enforcement of the lead 

paint 402 and 406 program. Forty states have authorized 402 and 406 lead paint programs and 

receive STAG funding. 

2. At this time OECA is working with the Regions and States to come up with specific 

outcome measures although no measures that have been identified for the state programs and 

there is no mechanism to capture state accomplishments. 

TEMPLATE FORMAT 

OECA will work with its partners to develop a baseline for the 402 and 406 lead paint program. 

MEASURES AND STRATEGIC PLAN 

OECA will work with its partners to develop measures for the 402 and 406 lead paint program. 

TEMPLATE REPORTING 

1. OECA anticipates that state measures data will be included in the regions EOY grant 

evaluations. Currently data would be collected and reported manually since no data base exists 

to capture this information. 

2. The template will facilitate comparisons across states and over time once OECA has 

several years of data. It will not be possible to compare performance to Apre-template@ years 

because the data does not currently exist. 

TEMPLATE AND GRANT ADMINISTRATION 

For the TSCA Compliance Monitoring grant program, the template will apply to the award of 

future year funds. 
Attachment B 

Performance Measures Template for State Grants 

TSCA Compliance Monitoring Grants

GENERAL 

1. The Agency’s TSCA compliance monitoring grants consists of PCBs; AHERA, which 

covers asbestos in schools. At this time OECA is working with the Regions and States to come 

up with specific outcome measures. 

TEMPLATE FORMAT 

1. OECA will be working with states to develop baselines once we have collected sufficient 

data from the current commitment system to do so. 

2. As with baselines, OECA will work with the states to set targets once we have collected 

sufficient data to do so. 

MEASURES AND STRATEGIC PLAN 

1. In FY2006, OECA began to coordinate with the regions, Office of Prevention, Pesticides 

and Toxics Substances (OPPTS), and states to identify issues which would benefit 

from a coordinated compliance and enforcement effort and to identify criteria for 

targeting inspections based on an evaluation of the regulated community, potential 

risks, and enforcement data. 

2. During FY2007, pending new criteria for targeting inspections based on discussions 

between OECA, OPPT, regions, and states, regions will be expected to continue: 

targeting disposal facilities every three years (i.e., inspect one third of the facilities in 

their region); respond to tips/complaints and environmental incidents involving 

PCBs; follow-up on food/feed contamination referrals; and address regional PCB 

priorities. 2. 

3. During FY2005-2007, state should inspect each PCB commercial storage and disposal 

facility in their region at least once so that a baseline of enforcement activity at these 

sites can be established. 

4. For the TSCA AHERA federal program in FY2005-2007 the targets vary depending on 

the regions, since it depends on the number of LEAS in the region and if these have 

been inspected in the last 3 years. Measure will vary by region, so regional baselines 

will be done. 

TEMPLATE REPORTING 

1. OECA intends that data for these measures will be collected by the regions as a 

part of EOY grant evaluations. Currently, data would be collected and reported manually 

as no database exists to input the information. 
Attachment B 

2. The template will facilitate comparisons across states and over time once OECA 

has several years of data in which to dos so. It will not be possible to compare 

performance to “pre-template” years because the data does not currently exist. 

TEMPLATE AND GRANT ADMINISTRATION 

1. For the TSCA Compliance Monitoring grant program, the template will apply to the 

award of any FY 2007 funds. 
Categorical Grant: PESTICIDE ENFORCEMENT GRANTS 

ACS 

Code 

Outcome / Output Measure 

200x 

National 

Baseline 

200x 

National 

Target 

200x 

State 

Baseline 

200x 

State 

Measurement 

Measurement 

Period or 

date 

Sourc

Da

Goal : Goal 5 Compliance and Environmental Stewardship- Improve environmental performance through environmental requirements, preventing pollution, and promoting environmental stewardship. Protect human heencouraging innovation and providing incentives for governments, businesses, and the public that promote enviroObjective : Objective 5.1: Improve Compliance: By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and compliance assistance, compliance incentives, and enforcement by achieving a X percent increase in the pounds or eliminated, and achieving a X percent increase in the number of regulated entities making improvements in enpractices. 

Subobjective 

Sub-Objective 5.1.3: Monitoring and Enforcement. 

Strategic Targets 

Program Measures 

1. OMB PART Measure: Percent of violators committing subsequent violations. [Baseline and targets under development] 

TBD TBD TBD Measurement 

period: 

10/01/05 – 

09/30/06 

Man

reporti

states & 

AC

2. OMB PART Measure: Percent of compliance 

actions taken as a result of inspection/enforcement. [Baseline and targets under development] 

TBD TBD 

reportin

states & 

AC

 3.OMB PART Measure: Number of enforcement 

actions taken (Federal & State) per million dollars of costs (Federal & State). [Baseline and targets under development] 

TBD TBD TBD Manu

reportin

states & 

AC

TBD Manu
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Control Act (Led Program) 

ACS 

Code 

Outcome / Output Measure 

2007 

National 

Baseline 

2007 

National 

Target 

2007 

State 

Baseline 

2007 

State 

Measurement 

Measurement 

Period or 

date 

Sourc

Da

Goal : Goal 5 Compliance and Environmental Stewardship- Improve environmental performance through environmental requirements, preventing pollution, and promoting environmental stewardship. Protect human heencouraging innovation and providing incentives for governments, businesses, and the public that promote enviroObjective : Objective 5.1: Improve Compliance: By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and compliance assistance, compliance incentives, and enforcement by achieving a X percent increase in the pounds or eliminated, and achieving a X percent increase in the number of regulated entities making improvements in enpractices. 

Subobjective 

Sub-Objective 5.1.3: Monitoring and Enforcement. 

Strategic Targets 

Program Measures 

1. Measure: Number of 402/406 inspections conducted by state. 

TBD TBD TBD TBD Measurement 

period: 

10/01/06 – 

09/30/07 

Man

reportin

states & 

2. Measure: Number of enforcement actions taken by state. 

TBD N/A 

reporti

states & 

TBD TBD Man
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Control Act (PCB/Asbestos Program) 

ACS 

Code 

Outcome / Output Measure 

2007 

National 

Baseline 

2007 

National 

Target 

2007 

State 

Baseline 

200x 

State 

Measurement 

Measurement 

Period or 

date 

Sourc

Da

Goal : Goal 5 Compliance and Environmental Stewardship- Improve environmental performance through environmental requirements, preventing pollution, and promoting environmental stewardship. Protect human heencouraging innovation and providing incentives for governments, businesses, and the public that promote enviroObjective : Objective 5.1: Improve Compliance: By 2008, maximize compliance to protect human health and compliance assistance, compliance incentives, and enforcement by achieving a X percent increase in the pounds or eliminated, and achieving a X percent increase in the number of regulated entities making improvements in enpractices. 

Subobjective 

Sub-Objective 5.1.3: Monitoring and Enforcement. 

Strategic Targets 

Program Measures 

1. Measure: Number of PCB inspections conducted by state at PCB treatment and storage sites. 

TBD Inspect 

33% of the 

PCB 

commercial 

storage and 

disposal 

facility 

universe. 

TBD Inspection of 50% 

of storage and disposal sites 

Measurement 

period: 

10/01/05 – 

09/30/06 

Man

reportin

states & 

2. Measure: Number of inspections conducted by state at: - Charter schools - LEAs in EJ areas - Schools not inspected in last 6 years - Worker Protection 

TBD Dependent 

on the Region/ at least 20 inspections or 5% of LEAS 

the Region/ at least 20 inspections or 5% of LEAS 

period: 

10/01/05 – 

09/30/06 

reportin

states & 

TBD Dependent on Measurement Manu