FY 2016- 

2017

April 22, 2015 

Publication 300S15001

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

National Program Manager Guidance 
Table of Contents 

I. EPA Overview to the FY 2016-2017 NPM Guidance..............................1 

II. Introduction.......................................................................................1 

III. National Areas of Focus..................................................................4 

This section discusses OECA’s national enforcement priorities: 

1. Implementing Clean Air Act National Enforcement Initiatives.........................................5 

2. Implementing Clean Water Act National Enforcement Initiatives.....................................6 

3. Assuring Safe Drinking Water.............................................................................7 

4. Reducing Pollution from Mineral Processing Operations..............................................10 

5. Assuring Energy Extraction Sector Compliance with Environmental Laws.........................10 

6. Implementing the Clean Water Act Action Plan........................................................11 

7. Advancing Next Generation Compliance................................................................13 

8. Strengthening State Performance and Oversight........................................................15

IV. Program-Specific Guidance...............................................................17

This section provides critical national direction on the following program areas: 

1. Field Operations Guidance (FOG) Guidelines.........................................................17 

2. Environmental Justice......................................................................................18

3. Federal Facilities............................................................................................19 

4. CWA NPDES Program for Compliance Assurance and Enforcement...............................21

5. CWA Section 404 Discharge of Dredge and Fill Material............................................24 

6. CWA Section 311 Oil Pollution Act......................................................................25 

7. SDWA Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program...............................................26

8. CAA Program for Compliance Assurance and Enforcement..........................................26 

9. RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Program...........................................................29

10. RCRA Underground Storage Tank (UST) Subtitle I Program.......................................31 

11. RCRA Corrective Action...................................................................................32 

12. TSCA Chemical Risk Reduction Programs.............................................................34 

A. TSCA Lead Risk Reduction Program................................................................34 

B. TSCA New and Existing Chemicals Program.....................................................36 

C. TSCA PCB Program..................................................................................37 

D. TSCA Asbestos Program/AHERA...................................................................39 

13. FIFRA Program for Compliance Assurance and Enforcement.........................................40 

A. Pesticide Product Integrity ...........................................................................41 

B. Border Compliance.....................................................................................42 

C. Worker Protection Standards.........................................................................43 

14. CERCLA......................................................................................................43 

15. EPCRA 313 Toxics Release Inventory...................................................................45 

16. EPCRA 304, 311/312 and CERCLA 103................................................................46 

17. Federal Activities............................................................................................47 

18. Criminal Enforcement Program...........................................................................48 

Appendix 1: Projects Aligning with E-Enterprise Goals 

Appendix 2: OECA’s FY 2016 ACS Measures

Appendix 3: Explanation of Changes between FY 2015 and FY 2016-2017 Guidance 

Appendix 4: OECA Key Contacts for each section of FY 2016-2017 NPM Guidance
I. EPA Overview to the FY 2016-2017 NPM Guidance

The EPA Overview to the National Program Manager (NPM) Guidances communicates 

important agency-wide information and should be reviewed in conjunction with this fiscal year 

(FY) 2016-2017 NPM Guidance as well as other applicable requirements. Read the overview at:

http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/national-program-manager-guidances. 

II. Introduction 

This National Program Manager Guidance applies to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance (OECA), all U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional enforcement 

programs, and states and federally-recognized Indian tribes (tribes) implementing EPA-approved 

inspection and enforcement programs1

. OECA coordinates with the EPA program offices, 

regions, states and local agencies and engages in consultation and coordination with tribal 

governments as it designs, develops, implements and oversees national compliance and 

enforcement programs. Regional offices also work with states and local agencies and consult 

with tribes to implement and review these programs.2 Headquarters and regional program 

coordination includes providing assistance on regulatory interpretations and applicability issues 

upon request from regions, states, tribes and local agencies. OECA’s National Program Manager 

(NPM) Guidance provides clear direction for FY 2016-2017. It identifies the national 

compliance and enforcement priorities, discusses national direction for all compliance assurance 

programs, identifies activities to be carried out by authorized programs, and describes how the 

EPA should work with states and tribes to ensure compliance with environmental laws. Once 

implemented, the priorities and activities described in the NPM Guidance serve to protect the 

Nation’s environment and public health and provide a level playing field for responsible 

businesses. Most of the work in the NPM Guidance is accomplished under the Agency’s Goal 5 - 

“Protecting Human Health and the Environment by Enforcing Laws and Assuring Compliance” 

in the FY 2014-2018 EPA Strategic Plan. 

The EPA’s national enforcement and compliance assurance program continues to assure 

compliance with federal environmental statutes using a variety of tools, including civil and 

criminal enforcement. These tools advance OECA’s overall national goals for: 

• Tough civil and criminal enforcement for violations that threaten communities and the 

environment. 

• Next Generation Compliance: achieving greater compliance and protection using advanced 

monitoring and information technologies. Next Generation Compliance tools are intended to 

supplement and advance strong enforcement programs. 

• Strong EPA/State/Tribal environmental protection: working together toward shared 

environmental goals. 

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

authorized to implement federal programs. 

2 EPA consults with tribes consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes and 

Executive Order 13175.

1 

 
To help achieve these enforcement goals, OECA will continue to focus on high priority work 

where significant environmental risk and noncompliance patterns are known to exist or where 

there are important opportunities to improve performance. This work includes: 

1. Implementing Clean Air Act National Enforcement Initiatives; 

2. Implementing Clean Water Act National Enforcement Initiatives; 

3. Assuring Safe Drinking Water; 

4. Reducing Pollution from Mineral Processing Operations; 

5. Assuring Energy Extraction Sector Compliance with Environmental Laws; 

6. Implementing the Clean Water Act Action Plan; 

7. Advancing Next Generation Compliance; and 

8. Strengthening State Performance and Oversight. 

These priorities continue from FY 2015. 

As part of the process for identifying national priorities, OECA and the EPA regions sought early 

input from states, tribes and associations on priorities, suggestions for FY 2017-2019 National 

Enforcement Initiatives and the remaining content of the FY 2016-2017 NPM Guidance. The 

EPA took this input into account when developing the NPM Guidance and responded to each 

state, association and tribal partnership group who provided comments. Several sections of the 

NPM Guidance were influenced by stakeholder comments, including comments to continue our 

safe drinking water priority area and other priorities, and comments related to the sections on the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) Underground Storage Tanks program. Stakeholders submitted several 

ideas for the FY 2017-2019 National Enforcement Initiatives, which are still under discussion. 

OECA will identify the FY 2017-2019 national initiatives in an FY 2017 Addendum to the NPM 

Guidance. The EPA looks forward to working together with its state and tribal partners to 

achieve our shared environmental goals, including Next Generation Compliance. 

Robust compliance monitoring and enforcement continue and are critically important for 

addressing violations and promoting deterrence. But this alone will not solve our noncompliance 

problems. To address these problems, OECA is continuing to implement Next Generation 

Compliance which will enable the EPA and states to better address large regulated universes 

with approaches that go beyond traditional single facility inspections and enforcement. Advances 

in emissions monitoring and information technology are foundations of this new approach. The 

EPA will increase the use of advanced monitoring technologies, and other Next Generation 

Compliance tools, in rules, permits and inspections to detect, correct and report pollution 

problems. Use of advanced emissions/pollutant detection technology will make pollution that is 

currently “invisible,” “visible.” Industry can then more effectively prevent and reduce pollution 

and often make their operations more efficient. Developing more effective regulations and 

permits using electronic reporting, public accountability and third party verification, and 

continuing to develop innovative enforcement approaches and increase transparency are all 

encompassed under Next Generation Compliance. The EPA, states, and other partner agencies 

continue to implement this transformation together -- realizing both efficiencies and cost savings 

in the longer term while protecting public health and the environment. 

2 
Next Generation Compliance complements the Agency-wide E-Enterprise for the Environment3

effort described in EPA’s Overview to the FY 2016-2017 NPM Guidance. Both focus on 

expanding electronic reporting, advanced monitoring and transparency. Appendix 1 to this 

Guidance identifies examples of projects in which OECA is participating or leading which align 

with the E-Enterprise goals. Over the period of this NPM Guidance, EPA will complete or 

modify some of these activities, and develop and/or implement new projects. OECA encourages 

states and tribes to coordinate with EPA on these projects where they see the same or 

complementary priorities, processes, or objectives. 

During FY 2016-2017, regional enforcement programs will also work with their state, tribal, and 

local partners to implement each region’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan in conjunction with 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Adaptation Plan, available at: 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/fed-programs/Final-EPA-Adaptationplans.html. OECA will strive to integrate climate adaptation planning into its programs, policies, 

and operations where appropriate to protect human health and the environment as the climate 

changes.

It’s important to note that, in 2014, OECA issued updated Compliance Monitoring Strategies 

(CMSs) which provide increased compliance monitoring flexibility for the Clean Water Act, the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Clean Air Act programs. They were issued 

after OECA held a national dialogue about flexibility in the CMSs and how compliance 

monitoring activities could be further expanded while maintaining program integrity. The revised 

CMSs provide increased flexibility to EPA and state agencies when conducting compliance 

monitoring activities through an expanded set of tools for determining compliance and to address 

local pollution and compliance concerns. The revised strategies provide additional flexibility to 

address the most important pollution problems within each media program, an expanding 

universe of regulated entities and resource limitations. In response to state comments and at the 

request of the states, OECA also developed more specific guidance on the process for states to 

request alternative CMS plans and for regions to review and approve state alternative plans. This 

guidance has been distributed to states and associations is accessible at: 

http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/resources-and-guidance-documents-compliance-monitoring

OECA and the Office of Pesticides Programs (OPP) jointly issue FIFRA Cooperative Agreement 

Guidance, which explicitly discusses parameters for flexibility. The FIFRA Cooperative 

Agreement Guidance attempts to balance support for National Pesticide Program priorities, goals 

and performance measures, with providing flexibility to grantees to focus on those national 

program areas which present the greatest concern locally. The specific parameters for flexibility 

are discussed in the Guidance Framework on page 2 of the FIFRA Cooperative Agreement 

Guidance (http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-10/documents/15-17guidance.pdf).

Grantees may also negotiate a Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) in lieu of pesticide program 

and enforcement cooperative agreements. Under the PPG system, regions and grantees should 

continue to use our FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance to ensure that program areas are 

addressed consistent with the Guidance. 

3 See “About E-Enterprise for the Environment” at http://www2.epa.gov/e-enterprise/about-e-enterpriseenvironment

3 

 
OECA, in coordination with the EPA regions, established the Regional Strategic Plan process to 

provide a vehicle for meaningful and efficient strategic planning dialogue at senior management 

levels in the regions and within OECA across all civil regulatory enforcement programs. The 

Regional Strategic Plans provide a concise overview of regional strategy and rationale for 

deployment of enforcement resources consistent with national priorities, regional priorities, state 

oversight and resource constraints. The Regional Strategic Planning process seeks to align 

priorities with ACS commitments, recognizing the need to focus on the highest priority work; 

flexibility and elevation of issues are integral parts of that planning process. 

Finally, beyond the discussion of Regional Plans, in implementing the NPM Guidance, if issues 

or questions arise beyond those discussed above, OECA has also established general guidelines 

for seeking approval for flexibilities and elevating issues, as needed. If resources do not allow for 

activities in the Guidance to be implemented, then EPA regional management should raise the 

specific activities for discussion with the appropriate OECA Office Director(s) (ODs). If 

agreement cannot be reached at the OD level, then the discussion will be elevated to the 

Assistant Administrator’s office. Similarly, delegated or authorized state, tribal or local agencies 

that are facing resource challenges can raise specific activities for discussion with the appropriate 

senior regional manager(s) when developing their annual work plans with the EPA regions. The 

appropriate OECA Office Director is ready to assist if regional management wants to discuss any 

state, tribal or local issues with OECA. These guidelines are necessary to help ensure EPA 

consistency, as appropriate, in implementing critical activities across media programs and

ensuring a level playing field nationally.

III. National Areas of Focus

Every three years, the EPA selects National Enforcement Initiatives (NEIs) to address specific 

environmental problems, risks, or patterns of noncompliance. These initiatives are reevaluated 

every three years in order to assure that federal enforcement resources are focused on the most 

important environmental problems where noncompliance is a significant contributing factor, and 

where federal enforcement attention can have a significant impact. After reviewing input from 

tribes, states and other external stakeholders, OECA chose the FY 2014-2016 NEIs which 

conclude at the end of FY 2016. Although the initiatives have made substantial progress in 

addressing noncompliance within their respective sectors, more work remains to be done in FY 

2016. 

The next cycle of National Enforcement Initiatives will be implemented in FY 2017-2019. 

OECA solicited early input on these initiatives from states, tribes, associations and tribal 

partnership groups. OECA intends to seek additional comment from all interested parties through 

a Federal Register (FR) Notice to be published in 2015. OECA will take into account all early 

input received to date and in response to the FR Notice during the process of selecting the FY 

2017-2019 national initiatives; discussions are still underway. The FY 2017-2019 national 

initiatives will be identified in the FY 2017 Addendum to this National Program Manager (NPM) 

Guidance; the Addendum will be published around April, 2016. The FY 2017 Addendum will 

highlight any significant changes or new decisions impacting FY 2017 which could not be 

predicted when EPA released the final FY 2016-2017 NPM Guidance. 

4 
This section discusses each of OECA’s FY 2014-2016 NEIs, as well as other national priorities 

for FY 2016-2017, and identifies critical supporting activities, responsibility for implementation, 

and associated measures for tracking. If resources do not allow for activities in the guidance to 

be implemented, then regional management should raise the specific activities for discussion 

with the appropriate OECA Office Director(s) per the discussion above. Similarly, delegated or 

authorized state, tribal or local agencies that are facing resource challenges can raise specific 

activities for discussion with the appropriate senior regional manager(s) when developing their 

annual work plans with the EPA regions. 

1. Implementing Clean Air Act (CAA) National Enforcement Initiatives 

Description: The following is a discussion of work in 2 CAA-specific National Enforcement 

Initiative areas. 

Cutting Toxic Air Pollution that Affects Communities’ Health: 

In 1990, Congress identified hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), currently totaling 187, that present 

significant threats to human health and have adverse ecological impacts 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/188polls.html). The CAA and EPA’s regulations impose strict 

emission control requirements (known as “Maximum Achievable Control Technology” or 

“MACT”) for these pollutants, which are emitted by a wide range of industrial and commercial 

facilities. The EPA will target and reduce emissions of toxic air pollutants in three areas where 

the agency has determined there are high rates of noncompliance: (A) leak detection and repair; 

(B) reduction of the volume of waste gas to flares and improvements to flare combustion 

efficiency; and (C) excess emissions, including those associated with startup, shut down and 

malfunction. Through this Air Toxics Initiative, the EPA will undertake compliance monitoring 

and enforcement activities to maximize environmental and human health benefits, which is 

particularly important for disproportionately burdened communities. OECA will utilize 

innovative monitoring and evaluation techniques and partner with the EPA’s Office of Air and 

Radiation (OAR) and Office of Research and Development. OECA will also provide equipment 

and training to inspectors to enhance the effectiveness of on-site activities.

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

Utility, Cement, Glass, and Acid Sectors: 

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

CAA require certain large industrial facilities to install state-of-the-art air pollution controls 

when they build new facilities or make “significant modifications” to existing facilities. 

However, many industries have not complied with these requirements, leading to excess 

emissions of air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. These 

pollutants can be carried long distances by the wind and can have significant adverse effects on 

human health, including asthma, respiratory diseases and premature death. These effects may be 

particularly significant for communities overburdened by exposure to environmental risks and 

vulnerable populations, including children. In recent years, the EPA has made considerable 

progress in reducing excess pollution by bringing enforcement actions against coal-fired power 

plants, cement manufacturing facilities, sulfuric and nitric acid manufacturing facilities, and 

5 
glass manufacturing facilities. However, work remains to be done to bring these sectors into 

compliance with the CAA and protect communities burdened with harmful air pollution. 

Activities: 

EPA regions will:

• Implement the strategy for the Air Toxics National Enforcement Initiative. 

• Implement the strategy for the National Enforcement Initiative on New Source Review – 

Coal Fired Electric Utilities, Cement, Glass, Sulfuric and Nitric Acid.

 

Measures: For the Air Toxics Initiative, see Annual Commitment System (ACS) measures 

PBS-ATX03 and ATX04. For the initiative addressing the largest sources, see ACS measures 

PBS-NSR01-NSR09. Both sets of measures are in Appendix 2, pages 1-2. 

2. Implementing Clean Water Act (CWA) National Enforcement Initiatives

Description: The following is a discussion of work in 2 CWA-specific National Enforcement 

Initiative areas. 

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

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

contaminated stormwater into our nation’s rivers, streams and lakes. This National Enforcement 

Initiative focuses on reducing discharges from combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sanitary 

sewer overflows (SSOs), and municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) by obtaining 

cities’ commitments to implement timely, affordable solutions to these problems. In FY 2012, 

the EPA developed the Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Planning Approach 

Framework, posted at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/integrated_planning_framework.pdf, 

to provide further guidance on developing and implementing effective integrated planning 

solutions to municipal wastewater and stormwater management. This approach allows 

municipalities to prioritize CWA requirements in a manner that addresses the most pressing 

public health and environmental protection issues first, while maintaining existing regulatory 

standards. All or part of an integrated plan may be incorporated into the remedy of enforcement 

actions. These remedies may include expansion of collection and treatment system capacity and 

flow reduction measures including increased use of green infrastructure and other innovative 

approaches. The EPA is committed to working with communities to incorporate green 

infrastructure, such as green roofs, rain gardens, and permeable pavement into permitting and 

enforcement actions to reduce stormwater pollution and sewer overflows where applicable. 

Regions should consider and promote the opportunity to utilize green infrastructure controls in 

municipal enforcement actions. See information on green infrastructure at 

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/index.cfm. Building on the Integrated 

Planning Framework, EPA released the Financial Capability Assessment Framework (FCA 

Framework) in November of 2014. The FCA Framework provides clarifications on the 

flexibilities built into EPA existing guidance on how to evaluate financial capability when 

developing Clean Water Act compliance schedules. As envisioned by that guidance, it also 

6 
provides examples of additional information that could be submitted to give a more complete 

picture of a permittee’s unique circumstances so as to better inform schedule development. 

Preventing Animal Waste from Contaminating Surface and Ground Waters: 

Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are a subset of livestock and poultry animal 

feeding operations (AFOs) that meet the regulatory thresholds of number of animals for various 

animal types. The EPA’s goal is to take action to reduce animal waste pollution from livestock 

and poultry operations that impair our nation’s waters, threaten drinking water sources, and 

adversely impact vulnerable communities. EPA’s regulations require permit coverage for any 

CAFO that discharges manure, litter, or process wastewater into waters of the U.S. CAFOs that 

discharge to U.S. waters but do not have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits are in violation of the CWA. The EPA will continue to focus federal 

enforcement investigations primarily on existing large and medium CAFOs identified as 

discharging without a permit to waters of the U.S., particularly in areas impacted by CAFO/AFO 

wastes. In addition, EPA’s resources will be used to assure that CAFOs that already have permits 

are in compliance with those permits. Each EPA region, in coordination with the states and tribes 

where appropriate, will consider a variety of factors to prioritize its CAFO activities. These 

factors include, but are not limited to, identifying watersheds or water bodies where CAFO/AFO 

wastes are negatively affecting surface water quality, proximity of CAFOs to drinking water 

sources and vulnerable communities, and status of states or tribes with NPDES-authorized

CAFO programs.

Activities: 

EPA regions, coordinating with their states and tribes where appropriate, will: 

• Implement the strategy for the Municipal Infrastructure National Enforcement Initiative. 

• Identify appropriate opportunities for implementing EPA’s Integrated Municipal Stormwater 

and Wastewater Planning Approach Framework. 

• Work with permittees to foster better understanding of EPA approaches to Financial 

Capability Assessment (FCA) through the implementation of the FCA Framework. 

• Implement the strategy for the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) National 

Enforcement Initiative. 

Measures: For the initiative addressing raw sewage and contaminated storm water, see ACS 

measures PBS M105-M108 in Appendix 2, page 2. For the CAFO initiative, see ACS measures 

PBS-CAF002, CAF007 and CAF008 in Appendix 2, page 2. 

3. Assuring Safe Drinking Water

Description: The EPA’s focus on public water systems (PWS), including those in Indian 

country, protects the public from the potential acute and chronic health effects of drinking water 

that fails to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The EPA’s Enforcement 

7 
Response Policy (ERP)4

 has the ultimate goal of returning non-compliant PWS’s to compliance. 

The ERP establishes a holistic approach for prioritizing systems to address through an 

enforcement action. Those PWS’s that reach a score of 11 or higher are identified as an 

enforcement priority and must return to compliance or be issued a formal enforcement action 

within six months. Scores for each PWS with unresolved violations are based upon the number, 

severity and length of violations. 

A quick response to violations of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations decreases 

the risks to public health and allows primacy agencies flexibility to use a variety of tools such as 

assistance and informal enforcement actions to bring the PWS back into compliance. Primacy 

agencies should be proactive in addressing violations to prevent systems from reaching a score of 

11 or greater. This approach is especially important in Indian country, as it allows for timely and 

appropriate consultation and coordination with the tribal government as soon as a violation is 

identified. It is also particularly important in responding to violations at small systems, which 

may require more assistance to return to compliance. 

The EPA realizes that some small systems remain in persistent noncompliance despite primacy 

agency efforts. EPA, states and tribes will be working together to explore root causes of 

noncompliance and options for resolving them in a concerted effort to ensure that all available 

tools, resources and partners are engaged to help these systems operate safely, comply with 

SDWA, and become sustainable, if possible. 

EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) makes public access to PWSs’ 

compliance status more readily available and highlights the importance of accurate and complete 

data. Inaccurate and incomplete data limits EPA’s and the public’s understanding of the state of 

compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This in turn limits the EPA’s ability to identify 

priorities, and evaluate program needs and effectiveness consistently and appropriately. OECA 

continues to coordinate with and support OW to improve data quality. EPA regions, states, 

territories and tribes should continue their efforts to improve the completeness, accuracy and 

timeliness of data reported. 

Activities: 

EPA regions will:

• Ensure that primacy agencies fulfill the enforcement conditions of their primacy agreements.

• Promote accurate, timely and complete reporting by each primacy agency, including the 

EPA. 

• Ensure that primacy agencies implement the ERP, and use the Enforcement Targeting Tool 

(ETT). 

• Collaborate with primacy agencies to ensure that the PWSs with the most serious violations 

are addressed and returned to compliance in a timely and appropriate manner, particularly 

4 The ERP is available at http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/proposed-revision-enforcement-response-policy-publicwater-system-supervision-pwss

8 

 
where PWSs are in substantial noncompliance with state, territorial, or tribal enforcement 

orders.

• Using the quarterly ETT, hold in-depth regular discussions with primacy agencies regarding 

compliance and enforcement matters. These exchanges should include progress in returning 

systems to compliance, monitoring implementation of orders, number of systems addressed, 

number of systems in violation, and overall performance in implementing the ERP. 

• Apply the ERP in Indian country, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia. When serving as 

the primacy agency for Indian country, ensure the ERP timeline for return to compliance 

(RTC) is accomplished while simultaneously implementing OECA’s Guidance on the 

Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy (January 17, 2001), which can be 

found at: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/transmittal-final-guidance-enforcementprinciples-outlined-1984-indian-policy-january-17. Application of the guidance, which 

contains threshold criteria for EPA’s consideration of formal civil enforcement actions, 

including appropriate consultation and compliance assistance, should not result in a lesser 

degree of human health and environmental protection in Indian country than elsewhere in the 

United States and must address and resolve drinking water violations on a schedule 

consistent with the ERP.

• When appropriate, authorize state and tribal inspectors to conduct inspections on EPA’s 

behalf. Ensure that state and tribal inspectors who conduct inspections on EPA’s behalf are 

trained and credentialed consistent with agency guidance, including the Guidance for Issuing 

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

Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004). Consistent with the EPA Order 3510, annually 

conduct an inventory of federal credentials which includes an annual physical possession 

check of 10 percent of the federal credentials issued to state and tribal inspectors and a count

of unused credentials stock. 

• Coordinate internally among enforcement programs in all media to protect drinking water 

sources.

• Perform the activities listed below under “State, territories and tribes with primacy” in 

circumstances where the EPA is the primacy agency. 

States, territories and tribes with primacy will:

• Fulfill the enforcement conditions of their primacy agreements. 

• Use the ETT and implement the ERP to ensure that priority systems, within six months of 

having reached a score of 11, either return to compliance or receive formal enforcement 

actions that compel the systems to return to compliance in a timely fashion. 

• Work to reduce their backlog of systems that have already been at a score of 11 or higher for 

more than six months.

• Return to compliance or address violations at non-complying PWSs before they become 

priority systems with a focus on schools and child care facilities, as resources allow.

• Report compliance and enforcement data to ensure that it is entered into SDWIS in a 

complete, accurate and timely manner.

• Coordinate internally among enforcement programs in all media to protect drinking water 

sources.

Measures: See ACS measure SDWA02 in Appendix 2, page 3. 

9 
4. Reducing Pollution from Mineral Processing Operations

Description: The following is a discussion of work in this National Enforcement Initiative 

area. 

Mining and mineral processing facilities generate more toxic and hazardous waste than any other 

industrial sector, based on the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory. Many of these facilities have 

impacted surrounding communities and continue to pose high risk to human health and the 

environment. For example, over 120 mining and mineral processing sites are on the Superfund 

National Priorities List and more sites are being added every year, including operating facilities. 

The EPA has spent over $2.4 billion to address the human health and environmental threats to 

communities as a result of mining and mineral processing. In some cases, the EPA had to sample 

drinking water wells due to potential impacts to children in low income communities. At some 

sites, EPA’s inspections have found significant non-compliance with hazardous waste and other 

environmental laws. Some of the more serious cases required alternative drinking water supplies 

or removal of lead-contaminated soil from residential yards. In other cases, toxic spills into 

waterways from mining and mineral processing caused fish kills and impacted the livelihood of 

low income communities. The EPA will continue its enforcement initiative to bring these 

facilities into compliance with the law and protect the environment and nearby communities.

Activities: 

EPA regions will:

• Implement the strategy for reducing pollution through the Mineral Processing National

Enforcement Initiative. 

Measures: See ACS measure PBS-MNP05 in Appendix 2, page 2. 

5. Assuring Energy Extraction Sector Compliance with Environmental Laws

Description: The following is a discussion of work in this National Enforcement Initiative 

area. 

Vast natural gas reserves, unlocked through technological advances, are a key part of the nation’s 

energy future. The full promise of this resource will be realized only if it is developed 

responsibly in a manner that protects the nation’s air, water, and land. 

OECA initiated the Energy Extraction National Enforcement Initiative in FY 2011 to address 

environmental compliance concerns with land-based natural gas extraction and production, and 

ensure that natural gas development proceeds in a manner protective of human health and the 

environment. The EPA will continue to monitor and assess compliance with regulatory 

requirements, and utilize a range of legal authorities to address violations. 

10
In addition, EPA will continue to utilize Next Generation technologies and reporting techniques 

to assess and quantify emissions at land-based natural gas extraction and production facilities, 

and develop and use innovative compliance and enforcement approaches. 

Activities: 

EPA regions will:

• Implement the Strategy for the Land-Based Gas Extraction and Production National 

Enforcement Initiative.

Measures: See ACS measures PBS-EE01 and EE03 in Appendix 2, page 3. 

6. Implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA) Action Plan

Description: OECA, together with the EPA regions, the Office of Water, states and tribes 

with program authorization, continues to implement the CWA Action Plan issued in October 

2009. The CWA Action Plan Steering Committee oversees implementation of the Action Plan 

through regular communication with and feedback to the EPA/state workgroups who are leading 

the individual action items associated with the four fundamental changes. The changes are 

designed to revamp the NPDES permitting, compliance and enforcement program to better 

address today’s serious water quality problems. They are:

1. Switch from existing paper reporting to electronic reporting, resulting in increased efficiency 

and improved transparency of the NPDES program. 

2. Use Next Generation Compliance approaches to create a new paradigm in which regulations 

and permits improve compliance via public accountability, self-monitoring, self-certification, 

electronic reporting and/or other innovative methods. 

3. Address the most serious water pollution problems by re-tooling key NPDES permitting and 

enforcement practices, while continuing to vigorously enforce against serious violators. 

4. Conduct comprehensive and coordinated permitting, compliance, and enforcement programs 

to improve state and EPA performance in protecting and improving water quality. (Related 

activities are discussed under Strengthening State Performance and Oversight, pages 15-16.) 

The EPA will engage in appropriate consultation and coordination with tribes on the Clean 

Water Act Action Plan consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes.

Activities: 

EPA regions should: 

• Prepare for implementation of the Proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule, including 

working to: 

a. Actively market NetDMR, NeT and other e-reporting tools to the regulated community. 

Train permittees;

11
b. Ensure state and regional general permit requirements are entered into the Integrated 

Compliance Information System (ICIS) (or the state NPDES program data management 

system); 

c. Review state and regional general permit paper forms to evaluate consistency with 

Appendix A in the Proposed NPDES e-reporting rule. 

d. Ensure states are preparing for the implementation of the electronic reporting rule by 

adopting the use of EPA electronic reporting tools (NetDMR, NeT), or developing their 

own state e-reporting tools; and 

e. Coordinate closely with the Office of Compliance to individually evaluate their states’ 

readiness to implement the electronic reporting rule, including: Cross-Media Electronic 

Reporting Regulation (CROMERR) compliant electronic reporting tools compliant with 

EPA’s electronic reporting regulations; state system readiness; and level of participation 

using the state e-reporting tools (e.g., 90 percent participation by NPDES-regulated 

facilities). 

• Require electronic reporting, as appropriate, for all permits written by the regions and all data 

required by enforcement actions, where appropriate and in accordance with national 

guidance.

• Provide relevant feedback to permitting offices regarding permit prioritization and 

modifications to consider when new permits are developed or a permit is renewed. Request 

that permit writers consider including e-reporting and comments provided by inspectors 

and/or enforcement personnel in developing appropriate permit conditions. 

• Actively participate in CWA Action Plan projects including those to address effluent 

violations reported on Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) using new strategies and tools. 

Consider innovative approaches to deal with more routine paperwork violations. 

• Participate with OECA in an effort to draft a new NPDES enforcement framework (i.e., 

criteria and method) for identifying and addressing serious violations that supports the 

principles described in the 2009 CWA Action Plan. Staff and managers in regions, states and 

tribes with program approval are encouraged to participate actively in this workgroup to 

develop this framework.

• Include in targeting, monitoring, enforcement and state oversight the complete array of the 

NPDES regulated universe, going beyond the historic focus on traditional NPDES majors. 

Use targeting tools, such as the DMR Pollutant Loading Tool, to determine the source, 

location and amount of discharged pollutants, including a subset of non-major facilities 

(www.epa.gov/pollutantdischarges).

State and EPA representatives on the CWA Action Plan Steering Committee and the various 

associated workgroups should: 

• Attend and participate in regular meetings.

• Assist in numerous aspects of workgroup responsibility including, as appropriate, drafting 

work products and deliverables and identifying appropriate timing for raising issues with the 

Steering Committee. 

• Represent states and regions, respectively, by engaging and providing meaningful input and 

direction on implementation issues. 

States should: 

• Work towards implementation of e-reporting. 

12
• Educate and train regulated community. 

• Develop e-reporting tools or use EPA tools (NetDMR; NeT). 

7. Advancing Next Generation Compliance 

Description: The health and environmental benefits envisioned by our statutes, regulations, 

and state and tribal programs are not being fully achieved. Although the available data is 

incomplete, high noncompliance is evident in much of the data we do have. State and federal 

resources for onsite compliance assistance, individual inspections, and enforcement actions are 

not adequate to address the large universe of regulated sources, especially the numerous small 

sources that are important contributors to environmental problems. Robust compliance 

monitoring and enforcement are critically important for identifying and addressing violations and 

promoting deterrence. While individual facility inspections and enforcement actions remain a 

critically important part of addressing noncompliance, this alone is not sufficient to achieve the 

improvements in compliance we need. Field operations and EPA regulations must consider 

emerging approaches and technology to be effective and efficient. Together with the program 

offices, regions, and states, OECA is implementing Next Generation Compliance, which takes 

advantage of advances in emissions monitoring and information technology. EPA has completed 

a Next Generation Compliance Strategic Plan and is proceeding to implement the Plan. See

http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/next-generation-compliance. The EPA is visiting states to 

discuss Next Generation Compliance and its benefits for states, to learn from states, and to 

explore possible collaborative projects to test or pilot Next Generation Compliance approaches. 

As of November 2014, the EPA has visited 8 states and expects to visit around 20 states by end 

of FY 2015. While there are no Next Generation Compliance implementation requirements for 

states, OECA and the regions need to perform work in five areas: 

1. Design more effective regulations and permits that are easier to implement, with a 

goal of improved compliance and environmental outcomes. OECA is working with 

the program offices and regions to design more effective regulations and permits that 

include Next Generation Compliance tools and approaches that will drive us towards 

better compliance and environmental outcomes. We are looking to pilot the use of Next 

Generation Compliance tools in air, water, and waste permits in FY 2015 and FY 2016. 

2. Use and promote advanced emissions/pollutant detection technology so that 

regulated entities, the government, and the public can more easily see pollutant 

discharges, environmental conditions and noncompliance. This technology will make 

“visible” pollution that is currently “invisible.” Industry can more effectively prevent and 

reduce pollution, and often make their operations more efficient, while government can 

better target significant pollution and noncompliance problems. Private sector 

development of monitoring technology that can be used by the public could empower 

citizens and encourage industry and government to reduce pollution. In addition, 

advanced monitoring technology, coupled with electronic reporting, will produce more 

complete universe data on regulated sources, their emissions and discharges, and 

environmental conditions. This data will support the development of new and improved 

compliance measures, allowing for more evidence-based approaches to compliance work 

and better assessment of compliance rates.

13
3. Shift toward electronic reporting by regulated entities so that we have more 

accurate, complete, and timely information on pollution sources, pollution, and 

compliance, saving time and money while improving effectiveness and public 

transparency. Electronic reporting should not be simply emailing files to the 

government. It is taking advantage of advances in IT to improve and streamline 

information submission, improving government while saving money and making the data 

more available for public use. For example, electronic “smart” tools will be deployed that 

guide the regulated entity through the reporting process. Error prevention and two-way 

communication can be integrated into reporting tools, allowing electronic compliance 

assistance, alerts on new regulations, and helping to ensure that only necessary data is 

collected. 

4. Expand transparency by making the information we have today more accessible, and 

making new information obtained from advanced emissions monitoring and electronic 

reporting publicly available. This will empower communities to play an active role in 

compliance oversight and improve the performance of both the government and regulated 

entities. 

5. Develop and use innovative enforcement approaches to achieve more widespread 

compliance. We are developing new enforcement approaches that help to increase the 

effectiveness of our compliance work, such as greater use of fenceline monitoring and 

publication of pollution information, to both track pollution that is important to 

communities and to engage the community in monitoring compliance. We are also using 

advanced monitoring and electronic reporting in our enforcement investigations and 

settlements and making greater use of targeted deterrence approaches, and self and third 

party certification tools, to help drive better compliance and reduce pollution. 

Next Generation Compliance complements the E-Enterprise for the Environment effort. Both 

focus on expanding electronic reporting, advanced monitoring, and transparency. Engaging 

states on our Next Generation Compliance work will help reinforce state-EPA collaboration 

under E-Enterprise. OECA is undertaking E-Enterprise aligned work with state involvement and 

input; examples include leading the NPDES electronic reporting pilot, as well as serving as a key 

participant in the Import-Export Hazardous Waste Rulemaking with e-reporting. OECA and the 

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) are also co-sponsors of a proposal to develop an Advanced 

Monitoring Integration Strategy, to be developed jointly between EPA and states. OECA is also 

participating on the scoping teams for Smart Tools for Inspectors and Pesticides Label Matching. 

Activities: 

EPA regions should: 

• When participating on regulation development workgroups, provide real-world inspection, 

compliance monitoring, and enforcement knowledge and advocate for Next Generation 

Compliance Rule Effectiveness approaches in the agency’s rules. 

• Actively participate in agency and OECA workgroups related to implementing Next

Generation Compliance components, such as electronic reporting, advanced monitoring and 

enforcement settlements.

14
• Identify and implement best practices to improve rule and permit implementation. Include 

Next Generation Compliance principles, tools, and approaches when issuing permits, 

reviewing permits, and training permit writers. 

• Work with OECA to ensure inspectors are trained in the effective use of advanced 

monitoring equipment. 

• Incorporate Next Generation Compliance tools such as electronic reporting, advanced 

monitoring at the facility and fence-line, third party verification, and public accountability in 

enforcement settlements pursuant to the January 2015 OECA Memorandum on Use of Next 

Generation Compliance Tools in Civil Enforcement Settlements. OECA will highlight 

examples of EPA enforcement cases that use different Next Generation Compliance 

approaches, especially those that maximize environmental and human health benefits for 

overburdened communities, including the protection of children’s health, and address 

potential disproportionate impacts to these communities.

• Actively market electronic reporting and e-tools to the regulated community and states. 

• Identify and use innovative enforcement approaches. 

• Coordinate with OECA and the national and regional Field Operation Guidelines 

Workgroups to develop smart mobile tools for our inspectors that improve the quality of our 

inspections and allow us to electronically submit inspection reports. 

States and tribes are encouraged to: 

• Expand their understanding and use of Next Generation Compliance by participating in 

OECA Next Generation Compliance visits. 

• Share with the EPA examples of current state or tribal efforts that demonstrate Next 

Generation Compliance tools in operation today to be included in a compilation of Next 

Generation Compliance NPDES Examples.

• To the extent interested, collaborate with OECA in designing and implementing Next 

Generation Compliance demonstration projects, evaluation projects or CWA Action Plan 

pilots. 

8. Strengthening State Performance and Oversight 

Description: Our nation’s environmental laws are based on the principle of cooperative 

federalism under which the EPA and states work in partnership to protect human health and the 

environment. Most major federal environmental laws require the EPA to establish minimum, 

nationwide standards, and then allow the agency to delegate authority to implement these 

standards to the states. The EPA retains broad enforcement authority under federal law, and

provides oversight of delegated state programs. 

As part of its oversight responsibilities, the EPA must clearly articulate expectations for state 

program performance and evaluate the states in a fair, consistent and equitable manner. This 

National Program Manager Guidance, working in conjunction with national enforcement policies 

and program grant agreements, is one place where these expectations are articulated. To evaluate 

state enforcement performance, states and the EPA worked in partnership to create the State 

Review Framework (SRF). The SRF is designed to ensure the EPA conducts oversight 

evaluations of state CWA, CAA and RCRA compliance and enforcement programs in a 

nationally consistent and efficient manner. Where regions directly implement the federal 

15
program in states that do not have authorized programs, OECA conducts the SRF review of the 

regions’ program using the same process and procedures as for all SRF reviews. A national 

approach to enforcement of the nation’s environmental laws assures that: (1) all states are treated 

equitably and held to the same standards as the EPA regions; (2) a level playing field exists 

across states and for regulated businesses; (3) the public has similar protection from impacts of 

pollution regardless of where they live or work; and (4) timely compliance with national 

environmental laws and regulations is widely achieved. 

In FY 2013, OECA, the EPA regions, and states incorporated program changes that will improve 

SRF effectiveness while reducing the resources necessary to conduct reviews. Also, in 2013, 

OECA issued the National Strategy for Improving Oversight of State Enforcement Performance. 

The National Strategy clarifies that an integral part of the SRF is a consistent national approach 

for dealing with significant state enforcement performance issues, once they have been 

identified. The National Strategy describes three sets of actions aimed at improving state 

enforcement performance to achieve the above-stated goals: (1) an escalation approach to 

problem-solving; (2) the regular and periodic State Review Framework evaluation process; and 

(3) transparency efforts.

Activities: 

EPA regions will:

• Conduct all Round 3 SRF reviews of state CAA, CWA, and RCRA enforcement programs 

scheduled for 2016 and 2017, following Round 3 headquarters guidance issued in December 

2013 and available on the ECHO SRF page.

• Enter complete draft and final SRF reports, including data metric analyses, file reviews, 

recommendations and state comments into the SRF Tracker. 

• Monitor progress of states in carrying out the recommendations and record progress quarterly 

in the SRF Tracker. 

• Implement the National Strategy for Improving Oversight of State Enforcement 

Performance. 

• Use data verification and annual data metric analyses to inform regular discussions with 

states and to track performance.

• Focus oversight resources on the most pressing performance problems in states, working 

with them to demonstrably improve state performance. Where progress toward resolving 

significant state performance issues is not being made, regions should escalate their 

responses in accordance with OECA’s escalation strategy described in the National Strategy 

for Improving Oversight of State Enforcement Performance. 

• Ensure commitments to implement recommendations for program improvements are 

captured in appropriate negotiated PPAs, PPGs, categorical grant agreements or other written 

documents. 

• Implement any regional components to address agreed-upon national focus issues under the 

National Approach to Common State Enforcement Program Issues (Common Issues) project. 

• Per the June 22, 2010 memorandum from Cynthia Giles and Peter Silva “Interim Guidance to 

Strengthen Performance in the NPDES Program” and the October 22, 2010 memorandum 

from Lisa Lund and Jim Hanlon “Using the Results of NPDES Permit and Enforcement 

16
Reviews to Address Significant Issues,” regions should convene routine and regular meetings 

between the EPA region and authorized state to discuss progress towards meeting annual 

permitting and enforcement commitments and how the state has been performing overall. 

• Review the number of Significant Non-compliers (SNCs)/High Priority Violators (HPVs) 

identified (and percent of universe) by state and the number (and percent) addressed in a 

timely and appropriate manner. 

State and local agencies should: 

• Work cooperatively with the EPA regions to conduct SRF reviews as scheduled. 

• Implement recommendations within agreed upon time frames in the final SRF reports 

provided to the state or local agency. 

• Implement additional necessary work to resolve issues impeding effective implementation of 

their enforcement program. 

• Where EPA’s review of state-EPA MOAs determined that MOAs might require revision, 

updating or supplementation, states should work cooperatively with the EPA regions to 

identify and complete appropriate actions by the end of FY 2017. 

Measures: See ACS measure SRF01 in Appendix 2, page 3. 

IV. Program-Specific Guidance 

This section provides critical national direction on specific program areas not addressed in the 

preceding section. For each program area, the guidance identifies critical supporting activities, 

responsibility for implementation and associated measures for tracking implementation. If 

resources do not allow for activities in the guidance to be implemented, then regional 

management should raise the specific activities for discussion with the appropriate OECA Office 

Director(s). Similarly, delegated or authorized state, tribal or local agencies that are facing 

resource challenges can raise specific activities for discussion with the appropriate senior 

regional manager(s) when developing their annual work plans with the EPA regions. This 

discussion is necessary to help ensure national consistency, as appropriate, in implementing 

critical activities across media programs and ensuring a level playing field nationally.

1. Field Operations Group (FOG) Guidelines

Description: The EPA created a Field Operations Group (FOG) to promote national 

consistency among the Agency's field activities. The EPA’s FOG developed ten operational 

guidelines (referred to as the FOG Guidelines) for field activities to ensure consistency in 

managing field practices and to reduce potential vulnerabilities. The FOG Guidelines apply to 

any field sampling, measurements, and observations used by the EPA for any purpose, such as 

ambient monitoring, research, clean-ups, risk management, studying new/revised regulations, 

screening, compliance monitoring, and enforcement. In March 2013, EPA’s Deputy 

Administrator directed all EPA organizations conducting field activities to implement a 

sustainable management system that incorporates the ten Field Operations Group guidelines no 

later than February 15, 2016. Additional information is available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/policies/2105-p-02.pdf

17
Activities:

Regions and Headquarters offices should: 

• Complete development and implementation of policies, procedures and systems that fully 

address the ten Field Operations Group (FOG) Guidelines by the February 2016 deadline 

established by the Deputy Administrator. 

• Prepare for and participate in FOG gap assessments.

• Once completed, conduct regional and HQ field activities (e.g., compliance inspections and 

sampling) in accordance with the established procedures. 

• Implement process and procedures under Guidelines 9 and 10 to audit progress in 

implementing Guidelines 1 – 8, and address any needed corrective actions. 

• Provide training to new staff on the FOG guidelines and the established procedures, and 

annual refresher training to existing staff. 

 

2. Environmental Justice

Description: In addition to being the National Program Manager for the agency’s 

Environmental Justice Program, OECA oversees the implementation of environmental justice 

(EJ) within the compliance and enforcement program. In its enforcement role, OECA ensures 

that facilities in communities overburdened by environmental problems are complying with the 

law. OECA aggressively applies regulatory tools to protect these communities, engages our 

regional, federal, state and tribal partners to meet community needs, and fosters community 

involvement in the EPA’s decision-making processes by making information available, as 

appropriate. To ensure long-term, effective consideration of EJ within the enforcement and 

compliance program, OECA also leverages other initiatives and priorities that promote action in 

communities, such as Next Generation Compliance, EPA’s Cross-Agency Strategies and EPA 

strategies for protecting children’s environmental health, as appropriate. 

Activities: 

EPA headquarters and regions will: 

• Consider EJ in the implementation of the National Enforcement Initiatives (NEIs), consistent 

with the strategies for each NEI, to maximize environmental and human health benefits for 

overburdened communities. 

• Specifically consider overburdened communities and potential disproportionate impacts to 

these communities, including those in Indian country, when selecting enforcement actions to 

address other important compliance problems. Targeting evaluations should always use the 

best available data and methods to achieve enforcement program objectives.

• Review civil enforcement cases to be initiated in FY 2016 and 2017 for potential EJ concerns 

using the agency’s EJSCREEN tool, and record the results of these reviews in ICIS, in 

accordance with the Internal Technical Directive: Reviewing EPA Enforcement Cases for 

Potential Environmental Justice Concerns and Reporting Findings to the ICIS Data System 

(April 2013). 

• Identify specific opportunities to work with other federal agencies, state and local 

governments, tribal governments, and/or the business community to leverage the benefits to 

18
communities resulting from enforcement activities. Document and share recommendations 

and best practices for taking action on these opportunities. 

• Where appropriate, design compliance and enforcement actions to gain the greatest possible 

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

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

impacts from violations at a given facility, or incorporation of Next Generation Compliance 

principles, tools or approaches. 

• Seek appropriate remedies in enforcement actions to benefit overburdened communities and 

address environmental justice concerns. Increase efforts to address environmental justice 

concerns through appropriate injunctive relief, including seeking mitigation actions to redress 

harm caused by the violations being resolved, and/or by encouraging defendants to consider 

performing beyond-compliance Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) related to the 

violations. 

• Consider activities to effectively reach large numbers of small sources with environmental 

violations that have significant local impacts on overburdened communities. 

• Identify and address EJ concerns as appropriate when consulting with tribal governments. 

• Enhance communication with communities with EJ concerns and the public about 

enforcement strategies and actions that may affect them, consistent with the confidentiality 

requirements needed to protect the integrity of the enforcement process. 

• Specifically provide opportunities for community input on EJ concerns and remedies to be 

sought in enforcement actions affecting communities through the EPA’s website, local 

information repositories, and other appropriate means. 

• Effectively communicate the benefits of our enforcement actions for vulnerable and 

overburdened communities, consistent with the internal memorandum entitled Guidance on 

Characterizing and Communicating Environmental Justice Benefits Achieved in Enforcement 

Actions (September 2011). 

• Identify opportunities for the compliance and enforcement program to advance the EPA’s 

Cross-Agency Strategy on Working to Make a Visible Difference in Communities, as 

appropriate. 

• Coordinate with states, tribes and other partners to implement these activities, as appropriate. 

Measures: See ACS measure EJ01in Appendix 2, pages 3-4. [Note: Although we are tracking 

this measure, there is no specific target number or trend we expect to achieve. EJ is one of many 

factors the Agency considers in bringing an enforcement action.] 

3. Federal Facilities

Description: The EPA’s compliance and enforcement program is managed by the Federal 

Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) and involves more than 30,000 federal facilities and 

installations spread across nearly 30 percent of the nation’s territory, among which are some 

10,000 currently regulated under the agency’s various statutes. The EPA holds these federal 

agencies accountable to the same standard of environmental compliance as other members of the 

regulated community. This equal accountability is required by CERCLA, envisioned by most 

other statutes and affirmed under Presidential executive order. Federal agencies are now 

expected to go beyond compliance and serve as an example to others regarding environmental 

19
stewardship and management, as Presidential Executive Order No. 13514 on federal 

environmental sustainability makes clear. The federal facilities enforcement and compliance 

program is described at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/federalfacilities/index.html. The 

agency’s primary focus in this sector has been on monitoring and enforcement, given the 

extensive compliance assistance now offered by others, especially at FedCenter, 

http://www.fedcenter.gov/, the sector’s on-line environmental stewardship and compliance 

assistance center sponsored by more than a dozen federal agencies. 

Throughout FY 2014 and FY 2015, EPA’s federal facilities enforcement and compliance 

program, in conjunction with the regions, has reassessed its national Program Agenda, its 

traditional Integrated Strategies and other program components in an effort to “right-size” its 

activities in the face of recent resource reductions. In FY 2015, FFEO sought to more closely 

align its various federal facility sector activities, including its Annual Commitment System 

(ACS) obligations, with EPA’s National Enforcement Initiatives (NEIs) and other Agency-wide 

and regional environmental enforcement priorities whenever possible. As FFEO completes its 

“right-sizing” efforts, the EPA, in addition to increased emphasis on the NEIs and other Agency 

and regional environmental enforcement priorities, will continue its focus on a set of previously 

identified federal facility enforcement priority areas as established in FFEO’s FY 2015 Program 

Agenda, and identified in the activities below. FY 2016 commitments will reflect continued 

emphasis on some priority areas, while new priority areas may also be identified. 

Activities: 

EPA regions should: 

• Consult with FFEO on all federal facility enforcement actions. FFEO will focus its resources 

to make these consultations timely and effective, and bring clear value to these regional 

actions. 

• Utilize FFEO’s new inspection targeting capabilities for improved monitoring, especially of 

vulnerable communities associated with federal facilities. 

• Target federal facilities as part of implementing EPA’s National Enforcement Initiatives, 

regional priorities, federal facility enforcement priority areas or targets established in 

Regional (Enforcement) Plans. 

• Sustain a vigorous enforcement program at federal facilities, by integrating, as appropriate 

National Areas of Focus/National Enforcement Initiatives, federal facility enforcement 

priority areas and regional priorities into the region’s inspection and enforcement efforts. 

These priority areas align enforcement, compliance, and stewardship activities for maximum 

effect and help achieve environmental and health benefits by addressing those problems that 

matter to communities. 

 Continue to pursue federal facility enforcement priority areas dealing with vulnerable 

communities (where environmental justice issues are often most prevalent), CAA 122 (r) risk 

management plans, RCRA (medical waste and LQGs), SDWA, industrial stormwater, 

climate change/flood plain areas and Government Owned/Contractor Operated/Government 

Owned/Privately Operated (GOCO/GOPO) facilities and other potential areas still under 

consideration by FFEO and the Regional Federal Facility Program Managers. 

20
 Continue to use FFEO’s contractor inspection program and inspector travel funding support 

to the fullest extent possible as incorporated in the Regional Federal Facility Enforcement 

Plans.

• Continue to implement a 2011 enforcement settlement with the Department of the Interior’s 

Indian Affairs program for violations at its schools and water treatment plants across Indian 

country. 

• Adopt creative work sharing arrangements and exploit new Agency initiatives, such as the 

One EPA Skills Marketplace and SharePoint, to more fully utilize EPA resources to address 

compliance and enforcement needs at federal facilities. 

• Foster collaboration between OECA, FFEO, and the regions to identify and implement Next 

Generation Compliance opportunities under advanced monitoring, electronic reporting, 

transparency and innovative enforcement, to create more effective and efficient enforcement 

in this sector. 

• Encourage the use of Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in settlements, consistent 

with the SEP Policy, and as resources allow, as a means to achieve greater human health and 

environmental outcomes. 

• FFEO will continue to provide targeting, contractor inspection and travel funding support to 

the Regions to the fullest extent possible. Regions will incorporate their future activities for 

the federal facility ACS commitment in their Regional (Enforcement) Plans.

• Promote greater public awareness and consider greater public engagement through increased 

transparency of federal facility compliance activity, violations and enforcement actions, 

including press releases for enforcement actions. 

• Project at mid-year the number of formal: (1) federal facility enforcement case initiations; 

and (2) federal facility settlements for FY 2016. (These projections, which need not include 

Records of Decision at federal facility CERCLA sites, are not commitments but rather 

indicators of regional progress.) 

States and EPA regions should: 

• Continue to ensure adequate coverage of the federal facility sector through compliance 

monitoring and enforcement activity. Coordinate inspections, compliance monitoring or 

enforcement activity where appropriate. Regions should be a resource when questions of 

enforcement authorities arise, including questions of sovereign immunity. 

Measures: See ACS measure FED-FAC05 in Appendix 2, page 4. 

4. CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program 

for Compliance Assurance and Enforcement

Description: There are essential activities under the Clean Water Act NPDES program that 

help ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and associated regulations.

Activities: 

Authorized states and territories and EPA regions with direct implementation responsibilities 

(e.g., non-authorized states, federal facilities and Indian country) should: 

21
• Target serious sources of pollution and serious violations. Use appropriate tools, including 

those developed pursuant to the CWA Action Plan and the NPDES Compliance Monitoring 

Strategy (NPDES CMS) (issued July 21, 2014) for the Core Program and Wet Weather 

Sources to target the most significant sources of pollutants affecting those water bodies and 

watersheds where compliance and enforcement tools will be effective in addressing the 

problem. Give priority to discharges that affect: (1) water bodies that are not meeting water 

quality standards; (2) drinking water sources; or (3) individual communities. Available tools 

include ambient monitoring data, the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Pollutant Loading 

Tool and the Clean Water Act Inspection Targeting Model (available to EPA and states by 

logging in at Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO), http://echo.epa.gov/), as 

well as GIS resources on EPA’s GeoPlatform. 

• Develop annual compliance monitoring plans that take advantage of the flexibility available 

in the NPDES CMS (http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/npdescms.pdf)

• Ensure that all available data regarding violations are evaluated to determine the seriousness 

of the violation. Take appropriate enforcement responses, consistent with national policy, to 

address violations discovered. Ensure that civil enforcement actions are taken, where 

appropriate, to address serious violations contributing to a community’s water quality 

problems. 

• Ensure compliance with civil judicial consent decrees and administrative orders where 

applicable. 

• Implement targeted “real time” (quick response) enforcement activities to address CWA 

violations impacting communities’ waters where appropriate. 

• Ensure all required compliance and enforcement data are input or transmitted to the national 

data base (ICIS-NPDES) in a timely manner consistent with EPA national policy and, if 

promulgated, the NPDES e-reporting rule. All other data related to compliance and 

enforcement should be tracked and managed, as appropriate, to allow the region or state to 

effectively manage their program. The EPA encourages authorized states to expand their use 

of the national database to include compliance and enforcement data that pertains to the 

entire NPDES universe. 

• Continue implementation of integrated planning in accordance with EPA’s 2012 Integrated 

Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Planning Approach Framework, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/integrated_planning_framework.pdf. 

• Continue implementing the Federal Facility Enforcement Priority Area for Industrial 

Stormwater. 

EPA regions should also: 

• Implement existing CWA compliance and enforcement strategies for specific geographic 

areas, as applicable, including the Chesapeake Bay Compliance and Enforcement Strategy 

and other region-specific initiatives.

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

quality of each authorized state’s or tribe’s compliance monitoring program. See Part 2 of the 

NPDES CMS for more discussion of oversight inspections. 

• Ensure the full regulated universe of NPDES permittees is addressed in the state’s CMS plan, 

focusing on the most important sources and most serious noncompliance. Provide annual 

CMS plans for each authorized state and for regional direct implementation areas to OECA 

by December 31 of each year. 

22
• Provide draft alternative plans to OECA for consultation and review by August 15 of each 

year (in advance of the beginning of the plan coverage year), or a later date if agreed to by 

the region and OECA. Work with OECA as needed to address national consistency and 

program integrity issues identified through OECA’s review of draft alternative plans. 

• Track compliance monitoring activities and submit annual end of year reports for each state 

and for regional direct implementation to OECA by December 31 of each year. End of year 

reports should account for all compliance monitoring activities conducted in the prior year in 

accordance with the NPDES CMS.

• Coordinate with their authorized states to ensure that state partners who do not directly input 

data into ICIS-NPDES continue to use the National Environmental Information Exchange 

Network to report data to the EPA. 

• Utilize multi-sector general permit (MSGP) violation and benchmark data when available 

through ICIS-NPDES to support monitoring, targeting and enforcement in areas where the 

EPA has direct implementation authority.

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

requirements where the region directly implements the program, including Indian country. 

• Work with OECA to identify and evaluate new priority areas that could become CWA 

enforcement initiatives in the future. Assist OECA in collecting and reviewing data about 

core program areas that warrant further review and consideration as national initiatives.

• Directly implement the CWA/NPDES program in Indian country unless and until a tribe 

obtains program authorization. When directly implementing the program apply the NPDES 

CMS, applicable enforcement response policies, and the Guidance on the Enforcement 

Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy (January 17, 2001) 

(http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/transmittal-final-guidance-enforcement-principlesoutlined-1984-indian-policy-january-17). The latter policy contains procedures for 

consultation with federally-recognized tribes in the civil compliance monitoring and 

enforcement context and contains threshold criteria for EPA’s consideration of formal civil 

enforcement actions. The threshold criteria are not intended to, and should not result in, a 

lesser degree of human health and environmental protection in Indian country than elsewhere 

in the United States.

• When appropriate, credential state and tribal inspectors to conduct compliance evaluations on 

the EPA’s behalf. Ensure that state and tribal inspectors who conduct inspections on EPA’s 

behalf are trained and credentialed consistent with agency guidance, including the Guidance 

for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Authorize Employees of State/Tribal 

Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004) EPA Order 3500.1: Training 

Requirements for EPA Personnel Who Are Authorized to Conduct Civil Compliance 

Inspections/Field Investigations and EPA Inspector Supervisors (June 19, 2014), and EPA 

Order 3510: EPA Federal Credentials for Inspections and Enforcement of Federal 

Environmental Statutes and Other Compliance Responsibilities (October 31, 2012). 

• Consistent with the EPA Order 3510, annually conduct an inventory of federal credentials 

which includes an annual physical possession check of 10 percent of the federal credentials 

issued to state and tribal inspectors and a count of unused credentials stock. 

• Fully implement and oversee the pretreatment program:

 In non-authorized states and in Indian country, oversee all approved POTW pretreatment 

programs consistent with the NPDES CMS, including audits and inspections, and inspect 

23
Industrial Users (IUs) that discharge into POTWs without approved pretreatment 

programs. 

 In states authorized to implement the pretreatment program, evaluate the effectiveness of 

the state’s (i.e., the approval authority) program by inspecting and auditing POTWs with 

approved pretreatment programs (i.e., control authorities). In conjunction with POTW 

inspections, ensure that POTWs with control authority are carrying out their 

responsibilities, including annual inspections and sampling of all Significant Industrial 

Users (SIUs). 

 Where states are the control authority, assess each state program’s performance in 

conducting annual inspections and sampling of all SIUs. 

• Coordinate with the Center of Excellence for Biosolids to respond to work that may arise in 

this program and to access biosolid program annual reports that may be needed to support 

regional compliance monitoring activities, such as targeting for pretreatment inspections. 

• Investigate the CWA compliance status of surface mining facilities within each region, 

including mountaintop removal mining operations. Evaluate the compliance status of such 

facilities with respect to NPDES permitting requirements and CWA section 404 permitting 

requirements. Take appropriate enforcement actions in response to CWA violations. 

• Oversee compliance with the Vessel General Permit through coordination with the U.S. 

Coast Guard, as necessary, in implementing the Vessel General Permit MOU, reviewing 

Coast Guard deficiency data, and conducting joint inspections. 

• Support the agency’s Next Generation Compliance initiative by promoting advanced 

monitoring, electronic reporting, and transparency to improve compliance with regulations 

and enhance the ability to identify violations that may harm public health and/or the 

environment. Develop innovative regulation design and enforcement approaches to ensure 

regulations promote compliance and are implementable. 

• Conduct SRF consistent with the schedule outlined in the agreed-upon ACS commitments. 

Provide recommendations and conduct follow-up as appropriate in accordance with national 

SRF guidance.

Measures: See ACS measure CWA07 in Appendix 2, page 4. 

5. CWA Section 404 - Discharge of Dredge and Fill Material

Description: The compliance and enforcement activities related to CWA Section 404 which 

should be implemented are described below. 

Activities: 

EPA regions should: 

• Work with OECA in implementing the Section 404 Enforcement and Coordination Strategy.

• Coordinate, as appropriate, with other federal agencies [i.e., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(Corps), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS), and National Marine Fisheries (NMFS)] which have significant roles in wetlands 

protection through the use of MOUs/MOAs or other appropriate mechanisms. 

24
• Meet with Corps Districts on an annual basis to establish regional priorities and communicate 

priorities to OECA.

• Review field level agreements with Corps Districts, and revise them to ensure consistency with 

the Section 404 Enforcement and Coordination Strategy, as appropriate.

• Utilize the Office of Water’s DARTER (Data on Aquatic Resources Tracking for Effective 

Regulation) system as well as ICIS (Integrated Compliance Information System) to identify 

and track potential repeat violators. (ICIS continues to be the data base of record for tracking 

EPA information on CWA Section 404 enforcement actions.) 

• In addition to working with the Corps on developing cases under the 1989 MOA, regions 

should explore methods to effectively leverage other program resources (such as GIS and 

remote sensing resources, NWI map updates, and reports or studies of known stressors to 

wetlands in their regions) to more systematically identify potential serious Section 404 

violations, target areas or sectors of known wetland stressors, and take appropriate enforcement 

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

developing the national aquatic resources (including wetlands) enforcement strategy.

• Utilize existing regional cross training opportunities as well as opportunities identified by 

OECA to cross-train inspectors and to train other federal and state agencies and stakeholders 

to identify CWA Section 404 violations. 

 

6. CWA Section 311 – Oil Pollution Act

Description: The compliance and enforcement activities which should be implemented to 

help ensure compliance with the Oil Pollution Act are described below.

Activities: 

EPA regions should, where appropriate: 

• Participate in judicial enforcement cases to address spills from inter-state pipelines and 

others, such as production facilities, on a company-wide basis. Ensure these spill cases 

include company-wide injunctive relief requirements to prevent future spill violations at all 

facilities of the owner or operator. 

• Participate in judicial enforcement cases to address facility response plan (FRP) violations at 

facilities owned or operated by the same company. Ensure these FRP cases include companywide injunctive relief requirements to improve facility response planning and implementation 

at all facilities of the owner or operator. 

• Target and investigate facilities subject to the EPA spill prevention and facility response 

planning regulations, including offshore platforms within EPA jurisdiction, and take 

appropriate enforcement responses to address non-compliance with these regulatory 

requirements. 

• As necessary, target, investigate, and develop enforcement actions to address discharge 

violations (spills) wherever the violation occurs, whether or not the spill occurred at a facility 

subject to the EPA’s spill prevention or facility response planning regulations. 

• Conduct spill enforcement investigations to identify noncompliance and build cases for 

enforcement actions. 

25
• Whenever enforcement is pursued at facilities subject to EPA regulations, the case 

development staff should evaluate all potential violations of CWA Section 311 and 

underlying regulations and include claims in the enforcement case to address all 

noncompliance in these areas. Include penalties, injunctive relief and/or enforceable 

administrative obligations to prevent future violations from similar causes across all facilities 

of the same owner or operator. 

• Participate in OECA-led coordination and strategy meetings, as appropriate. 

7. SDWA Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program

Description: The EPA plans to focus UIC enforcement efforts on violations that pose the 

greatest threat to public health and shift away from enforcement work on more routine 

violations. Data generally show good compliance at most facilities that the EPA inspects, 

supporting a strategy of focusing our attention on the worst problems. Additionally, the agency 

will invest in new pollution detection and e-reporting technologies to more effectively address 

the large universe of pollution sources and empower communities. 

The EPA has approved primacy by rule for injection well Classes I - V for 33 states and three 

territories and, it shares responsibility in seven states and two tribes. EPA implements the UIC 

program for injection well Classes I - V in 10 states, two territories, the District of Columbia, 

and for most of Indian country. For Class VI Geologic Sequestration injection wells, the EPA 

implements the program in all states, tribes, and territories.

Activities: 

EPA regions should: 

• Directly implement the program where the EPA retains primacy. 

Authorized state and tribal programs should: 

• Implement the UIC program consistent with their specific authorization codified in 40 CFR 

Part 147. 

8. CAA Program for Compliance Assurance and Enforcement

Description: The CAA compliance assurance and enforcement activities, described below, 

should be implemented to help ensure compliance with the CAA and implementing regulations. 

Activities: 

Delegated state, tribal and local agencies and EPA regions should: 

• Implement programs in accordance with existing national compliance and enforcement 

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

26
(CMS)5

, the CAA National Stack Testing Guidance, the Area Source Implementation 

Guidance, the Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response to High Priority Violations 

(HPV Policy)6

, the asbestos NESHAP Demolition and Renovation Enforcement Strategy and 

the Guidance on Federally-Reportable Violations for Clean Air Act Stationary Sources7] to 

address air pollution problems that adversely affect impacted communities. 

• Identify and evaluate all violations, determine an appropriate response, address and 

ultimately resolve air violations in order to bring sources into compliance which includes 

taking timely and appropriate actions against facilities determined to have High Priority 

Violations. 

• Initiate civil and criminal enforcement actions, as appropriate, and whenever necessary to 

protect communities. 

• Ensure complete, accurate and timely compliance and enforcement data is reported into the 

Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) consistent with agency policies, the “Air 

Stationary Source Compliance and Enforcement Information Reporting” Information 

Collection Request (ICR) and agreements incorporated in documents such as Memorandums 

of Understanding (MOUs), State Enforcement Agreements (SEAs), EPA-Tribal Enforcement 

Agreements, Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs)/Performance Partnership Grants 

(PPGs) or Section 105 grant agreements. This reporting effort includes the verification of 

data used by the State Review Framework (SRF) and made available to the public. 

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

and take all necessary actions to ensure compliance with the terms of enforcement actions. 

• Incorporate new technologies and innovative compliance monitoring approaches in 

compliance monitoring programs, as appropriate and where feasible. 

• Continue work with EPA headquarters to provide input into the design and development of 

future versions of ICIS as it pertains to CAA compliance and enforcement information. 

EPA regions should also: 

• Work collaboratively with OECA and OAR to identify and address, as appropriate, 

noncompliance issues that arise in the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program. 

• Identify the most important air pollution problems and the most serious violations, using 

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

Assessment (NATA) data, chemical toxicity data, non-attainment areas, and EJ SCREEN. 

Consider EJ information, children’s health, tips/complaints, and community input. 

• Conduct evaluations as outlined in the agreed-upon ACS commitments, initiate enforcement 

actions to address non-compliance, and seek penalties, where appropriate, consistent with the 

5

The CAA Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy is accessible at 

http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/clean-air-act-stationary-source-compliance-monitoring-strategy

6

The revised HPV policy, issued August 25, 2014, is accessible at http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/airenforcement-policy-guidance-and-publications 7 The Guidance on Federally-Reportable Violations for Clean Air Act Stationary Sources is dated September 23, 

2014 and is accessible at http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/guidance-federally-reportable-violations-stationary-airsources

27

 
CAA Civil Penalty Policy (including the Amendments) and in accordance with the 2013 

Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule. 

• As the successor to the Air Facility System (AFS), ICIS is the data system of record for the 

national CAA stationary source compliance and enforcement program. The regions should 

continue to report all federal evaluations and enforcement actions, including FRVs, HPVs 

and penalties, into ICIS. 

• Continue any on-going investigations and initiate new ones, as appropriate. Report both 

initiated and completed investigations in AFS. Reported investigations should meet the 

definition in the CMS and minimum data requirements. 

• Review state implementation plan (SIP) submissions for enforceability and 

approve/disapprove as necessary. 

• When reviewing Title V permits consistent with national guidance, ensure permits do not 

shield sources subject to a pending or current CAA enforcement action or investigation. Also 

ensure that consent decree requirements, including required schedules of compliance, are 

incorporated into underlying federally enforceable non-Title V and Title V permits.

Furthermore, ensure the delegated agencies/tribes are reviewing Title V certifications 

consistent with the CMS.

• Conduct all RMP inspections in accordance with “Guidance for Conducting Risk 

Management Program Inspections Under Clean Air Act Section 112(r)” (EPA 550-K-11-001, 

January, 2011). Evaluate facilities that experience significant chemical accidents to 

determine compliance with CAA sections 112(r)(1) and (7) and pursue appropriate 

enforcement responses for violations. 

• All inspections at RMP facilities with Program 2 and/or 3 processes must evaluate a facility's 

compliance with some or all of the accident prevention and emergency response program 

requirements of Subparts C, D and E of 40 CFR Part 68, in addition to evaluating compliance 

with other 40 CFR Part 68 requirements as time and resources allow. For inspections at 

multi-process or high-risk facilities, conduct inspections where the field portion of the 

inspection involves the appropriate number of inspectors/technical experts and time to 

evaluate the RMP program compliance and chemical safety at the facility, as stated above. 

For inspections at larger and more-complex facilities, regions should devote additional staff 

and/or time as appropriate to the size and complexity of the facility.

• Continue implementing the June 30, 2010 memorandum titled ‘Identification of Facilities 

Subject to 40 CFR Part 68’. Settle or litigate cases filed in years prior to FY 2016. 

• Directly implement the CAA in Indian country unless and until a tribe obtains program 

approval and apply the various compliance monitoring strategies, enforcement response 

policies, and the OECA Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian 

Policy (January 17, 2001) (http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/transmittal-final-guidanceenforcement-principles-outlined-1984-indian-policy-january-17.) This guidance contains 

procedures for consultation with tribes in the civil compliance monitoring and enforcement 

context and contains threshold criteria for EPA’s consideration of formal civil enforcement 

actions. The guidance criteria are not intended to, and should not, result in a lesser degree of 

human health and environmental protection in Indian country than elsewhere in the United 

States.

• When appropriate, authorize state and tribal inspectors to conduct compliance evaluations on 

the EPA’s behalf. Ensure that state and tribal inspectors who inspect on EPA’s behalf are 

trained and credentialed per the Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to 

28
Authorize Employees of State/Tribal Governments to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA

(2004). 

• Consistent with the EPA Order 3510, annually conduct an inventory of federal credentials 

which includes an annual physical possession check of 10 percent of the federal credentials 

issued to state and tribal inspectors and a count of unused credentials stock. 

• In accordance with the HPV Policy, have frequent discussions with delegated agencies to 

ensure consistent implementation of the Policy, including consideration of the Watch List 

replacement tool when available. 

• Negotiate facility-specific CMS plans with all delegated agencies and ensure delegated 

agencies are aware of the flexibilities available within the CMS. Evaluate progress 

throughout the year and work with delegated agencies to revise such CMS plans as 

necessary. Work with headquarters to ensure that when delegated agencies use the 

flexibilities offered in the CMS to tailor their strategy to state/tribal/local specific 

circumstances, such use of flexibility is taken into account to accurately represent delegated 

agency performance in program reviews and to the public.

• Conduct a sufficient number of oversight inspections to ensure the integrity and quality of each 

authorized state’s or tribe’s compliance monitoring program.

• In follow-up to annual planning meetings with senior federal and state management, convene 

routine and regular (several times per year) meetings with senior state management to assess 

progress in how the state has been performing overall in its implementation of the program. 

• Ensure facility performance data is accessible to the public consistent with agency policy and 

regulations. 

• Support the agency’s Next Generation Compliance by identifying and promoting advanced 

monitoring and electronic reporting to improve compliance and enhance the ability to 

identify violations that may harm public health and/or the environment. Increase 

transparency and improve targeting for noncompliance. Develop innovative enforcement 

approaches and participate in agency rulemaking workgroups to ensure regulations are 

designed to promote compliance and are implementable. 

• Conduct SRF consistent with the schedule outlined in the agreed-upon ACS commitments. 

Provide recommendations and conduct follow-up as appropriate in accordance with national 

SRF guidance.

Measures: See ACS measures CAA04 and CAA06 in Appendix 2, page 5. 

9. RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Program

Description: The critical compliance monitoring and enforcement activities for the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Program are described 

below. 

Activities: 

Authorized states and EPA regions, in their oversight and direct implementation roles, including 

in Indian country, should: 

29
• Address RCRA problems that matter to communities, especially tips and complaints, and 

identify and follow-up on the highest priority concerns. 

• Meet statutory requirements to conduct a minimum number of thorough inspections annually 

including financial assurance requirements for Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities 

(TSDF), operated by federal, state/local governments, and biennially for non-governmental 

TSDFs.

• Follow the RCRA Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) available at 

http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/compliance-monitoring-strategy-resource-conservation-andrecovery-act. Note: states may use the flexibilities described in the RCRA CMS for Large 

Quantity Generators (LQGs) and TSDFs. 

• Undertake timely and appropriate enforcement actions that produce significant 

environmental benefits. 

• Complete on-going work in the mining/mineral processing priority area, consistent with the 

national strategy, unless continued noncompliance is detected. 

• Consider the following focus areas as a high priority when developing strategies for targeting 

compliance assurance work and annual plans for respective activities in the regions: 

 Improper treatment at TSDFs/Waste Analysis Plans at TSDFs: Ensure proper 

characterization of incoming wastes, treatment and stabilization techniques, and the 

sampling and analysis of hazardous waste treated to meet the Land Disposal 

Restriction (LDR) treatment standards for land disposal. 

 RCRA AA/BB/CC: Ensure compliance with RCRA air emission requirements. 

• Where resources allow and given regulated universe considerations of any particular 

region/state, other potential focus areas for regional and state consideration are:

 Surface Impoundments: hazardous waste in unlined surface impoundments. 

 Zinc Hazardous Secondary Materials Recyclers: zinc fertilizer manufacturing that 

use hazardous waste; sham recycling and recycling. 

 RCRA Corrective Action: facilities that have not made meaningful progress in 

achieving remedial objectives, and on financially marginal or bankrupt facilities. 

Monitor compliance with orders and permits, identify substantial noncompliance 

with such instruments, and take enforcement actions where appropriate. 

 Mercury from specific sources: sectors such as universal waste lamp handlers and 

recyclers. 

EPA regions should also: 

• Ensure that the most serious instances of noncompliance are addressed through planning with 

states, state oversight, regular (e.g. quarterly) meetings, targeted inspections and 

enforcement, and through direct implementation in states and Indian country. 

• Conduct a sufficient number of oversight inspections to ensure the integrity and quality of 

each state’s compliance monitoring program.

• Support the agency’s Next Generation Compliance by promoting advanced monitoring and 

electronic reporting to improve compliance and enhance the ability to identify violations that 

may harm public health and/or the environment. Increase transparency and improve targeting 

for noncompliance. Develop innovative enforcement approaches and participate in agency 

rulemaking workgroups to ensure regulations are designed to promote compliance and are 

implementable. 

30
• Conduct SRF consistent with the schedule outlined in the agreed-upon ACS commitments. 

Provide recommendations and conduct follow-up as appropriate in accordance with national 

SRF guidance.

• Take enforcement action, consistent with national policy, where states are not addressing 

serious noncompliance or when federal enforcement may provide a more comprehensive 

response than an individual state response (for example on issues that involve multiple 

states). 

• Use electronic reporting tools as feasible when monitoring compliance with orders/permits.

• Screen for potential environmental justice concerns at RCRA facilities. 

• Support, and encourage states to support RCRA inspector training development. 

• Ensure regional direct implementation in states and Indian country includes applying the 

RCRA compliance monitoring strategies and enforcement policies and OECA’s Guidance on 

the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy (January 17, 2001)

(http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/transmittal-final-guidance-enforcement-principlesoutlined-1984-indian-policy-january-17), which contains procedures for consultation with 

federally-recognized tribes in the civil compliance monitoring and enforcement context and 

threshold criteria for the EPA’s consideration of formal civil enforcement actions. The 

threshold criteria should not result in a lesser degree of human health and environmental 

protection in Indian country than elsewhere in the United States. 

• Ensure that state and tribal inspectors who inspect on behalf of the EPA are trained and 

credentialed consistent with agency guidance, including the Guidance for Issuing Federal 

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

Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004). Consistent with the EPA Order 3510, annually conduct 

an inventory of federal credentials which includes an annual physical possession check of 10 

percent of the federal credentials issued to state and tribal inspectors and a count of unused 

credentials stock. 

• As necessary, work with OECA to identify and evaluate program areas that could become 

national priorities/enforcement initiatives in the future.

• Participate in the development and implementation of nationally consistent field mobility 

business solutions such as electronic inspection software. 

Measures: See ACS measures RCRA02 and RCRA02s in Appendix 2, pages 6-7. Measures 

RCRA 01, RCRA 01s, RCRA03 support the statutory and regulatory requirements and are listed 

on pages 5-7. 

10. RCRA Underground Storage Tank (UST) Subtitle I Program

Description: A major focus of the RCRA UST program is to maintain an enforcement 

presence concerning leak prevention, leak detection, corrective action, closure and financial 

responsibility violations. States have primary responsibility for determining facility compliance, 

ensuring adequate inspection coverage of the regulated universe, taking appropriate actions in 

response to non-compliance and playing a vital role in alerting the EPA to regulatory 

implementation problems. The agency’s enforcement activities will focus on addressing 

violations that pose the greatest threat to human health and the environment where a federal 

response is necessary and maintaining compliance monitoring and enforcement resources to 

31
directly implement the UST program in Indian country. The enforcement program will also 

continue to support the Office of Underground Storage Tanks’ efforts on the implementation of 

the new final UST regulations such as helping to develop innovative approaches to promote and 

maintain compliance using next generation compliance and enforcement methods. The Leaking 

UST (LUST) program will continue its emphasis on corrective action and petroleum 

brownfields, and efforts to reduce the backlog of LUST sites. OECA headquarters has been 

involved in supporting work on abandoned tanks, bankruptcy, responsible party (RP) search, 

ability-to-pay (ATP), and enforcement at RP-lead cleanups.

Activities:

 

EPA regions will focus on: 

• Owners and operators of USTs located in Indian country. Regional direct implementation in 

Indian country should take place pursuant to the applicable enforcement policies and OECA’s 

Guidance on the Enforcement Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy (January 17, 

2001), which contains procedures for consultation with federally-recognized tribes in the 

civil compliance monitoring and enforcement context and threshold criteria for EPA’s 

consideration of formal civil enforcement actions. The threshold criteria should not result in a 

lesser degree of human health and environmental protection in Indian country than elsewhere 

in the United States. 

• UST inspections that will produce the greatest environmental and human health benefits. 

Factors to consider in identifying facilities for inspection under the UST program include: 

 Owners and operators managing UST facilities in multiple states;

 Mid-level distributors operating multiple UST facilities;

 Problem non-compliers (i.e. repeat violators; owners/operators who fail to cooperate 

in an effort to return to compliance); 

 Owners and operators of facilities with USTs that endanger sensitive ecosystems or

sources of drinking water; 

 Corporate, government-owned and federal central fueling facilities; and

 Owners and operators of UST facilities in areas with potential environmental justice 

concerns.

 Ensuring timely and accurate reporting of state/tribal performance data (following guidance 

provided by OUST) and entering federal inspection and enforcement data into ICIS. 

 Issuance of enforcement actions and assessment of penalties, as appropriate. Focus on 

developing large complex cases involving noncompliance on a corporate-wide basis or 

noncompliance in multi-state operations. Regions will consult with the states when they plan 

to use delivery prohibition in those states, when appropriate, to address significant 

noncompliance. 

 Where action is appropriate in smaller cases (e.g. in Indian Country), regions will consider 

utilizing cost-effective tools such as field citations or expedited settlements, when 

appropriate. 

 Regions should encourage their states to optimize deterrence from the impact of enforcement 

utilizing efficiencies within their authority including the use of delivery prohibition and 

addressing noncompliance on a corporate-wide basis statewide or other opportunities. 

11. RCRA Corrective Action

32
Description: RCRA corrective action is implemented by the EPA and 44 authorized states 

and territories. On April 27, 2010, OECA and OSWER jointly issued the “National Enforcement 

Strategy for Corrective Action” (NESCA). This strategy encourages the EPA and states to 

continue to work in partnership to achieve the 2020 Corrective Action goals and emphasizes the 

need for close communication and coordination between the EPA and states to meet these goals. 

NESCA provides guidance to regions and states for targeting enforcement efforts and addressing 

special considerations that arise in the enforcement arena, such as ensuring enforceable 

requirements and deadlines in permits and orders are clearly identified, focusing on companies 

having financial difficulties, using CERCLA authorities, where appropriate, ensuring 

institutional controls are effective and enforceable and long-term stewardship requirements are 

met, and increasing the transparency and community involvement of enforcement efforts. OECA 

will continue to provide training to regions and states on how to review financial assurance 

submissions for compliance, and in particular, the financial test and corporate guarantee. In 

addition, OECA has updated its Model 3008(h) administrative order on consent (AOC) and will 

explore updating or developing other model orders. 

To help achieve the RCRA Corrective Action program goals and ensure that meaningful 

progress is being made at facilities subject to corrective action, regions and authorized states 

should work closely together and continue implementing NESCA in FY 2016-2017. On 

September 27, 2012, the EPA issued a NESCA assessment report that recommended the 

following future actions: increase emphasis on communication and coordination within the EPA 

and with state partners, explore opportunities for compliance monitoring, and increase the state 

role in corrective action compliance monitoring and enforcement (see 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/nesca-assessment-2012.pdf). In FY 2016 

and 2017, OECA will continue to implement the next steps included in the September 27, 2012 

NESCA assessment report with an emphasis on enhancing compliance monitoring in the 

corrective action program. OECA’s compliance monitoring activities will include continuing its 

Corrective Action inspection training efforts, encouraging long-term stewardship inspections and 

addressing environmental justice issues through Corrective Action inspections and enforcement 

actions, as appropriate.

Activities: 

Authorized states and regions should: 

• Enhance coordination within your offices and amongst regulatory partners. When permits or 

orders are being developed, renewed or modified, coordinate to ensure that they contain clear 

schedules for corrective action and enforcement processes as appropriate.

• Emphasize compliance monitoring, including reviewing permits and orders to determine 

whether noncompliance with cleanup milestones exists, and taking appropriate action in 

cases of noncompliance.

• When establishing potential enforcement targets, regions are encouraged to focus attention 

on identifying and addressing disproportionate impacts on minority, low income, tribal and 

other vulnerable populations. 

• Leverage federal, state, tribal, local and other partnerships to maximize resources; improve 

cleanups using greener and more resilient and sustainable practices; and revitalize sites through 

policy, guidance and, when appropriate, agreements and comfort letters. 

33
• Implement specific actions designated in EPA’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan to more fully 

integrate climate change adaptation activities, greener remediation, and sustainability efforts 

into the cleanup enforcement program (e.g. consent decrees, comfort letters or other 

enforcement instruments), where appropriate.

Measures: See ACS measure HQ-VOL in Appendix 2, page 7. 

12. TSCA Chemical Risk Reduction Programs

Description: The EPA regions and when authorized, states and tribes are expected to 

implement the National Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) for the four major Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) programs. The New and Existing Chemical program (core 

TSCA) and PCB programs are generally implemented by the EPA. The asbestos program, and 

the Lead-based Paint program are implemented by the EPA except where states or tribes have 

been authorized to implement those programs in lieu of the Agency. 

The CMS creates a “One-TSCA” program framework for regional compliance monitoring 

programs that gives each region the flexibility to shift its priority focus as needed to address its 

most significant compliance, human health, and environmental issue(s). It is important for each 

region to be knowledgeable about the array of environmental problems across their region and 

the regulated universe subject to each of its TSCA focus areas (e.g., the universe size, constituent 

sectors), compliance levels, the roles and effectiveness of authorized state and tribal programs 

and to consider and address the potential impact that directing most of its resources to its priority 

issue(s) likely will have on its other TSCA programs and activities. With these factors in mind, 

the regions are to develop a plan for their inspections and other compliance activities based on 

the resources available and that prioritizes the problems to be addressed along with how the 

regions are providing oversight of state programs. If a region chooses not to develop a plan for 

its TSCA programs then the region shall use the following distribution for resource allocation. 

For FY 2016-2017, 90 percent of the region’s overall TSCA resources should focus on the lead 

compliance assurance program. However, up to 20 percent of these same resources may be 

shifted by the region to other TSCA compliance assurance activities consistent with this NPM 

Guidance. The intent here is to provide flexibility for regional TSCA initiatives and to take into 

account unique regional situations while still maintaining a national TSCA program. Where 

regions choose to exercise this flexibility they should provide a rationale and articulate how this 

flexibility is consistent (or why inconsistent) with the CMS.

A. TSCA Lead Risk Reduction Program

Description: In 1992, Congress enacted Title X: Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 

Reduction Act. Among other things, The Act authorized four key programs for EPA to 

implement: the Section 1018 – Lead-Based Paint Risk Disclosure Program; the Lead-Based 

Paint Activities Program; the Lead-Based Paint Pre-Renovation Education Program; and the 

Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Program. The EPA will focus its efforts on 

addressing the most serious violations of the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting 

34
Program in order to protect children’s health. For FY 2016-2017, 90 percent of the region’s 

TSCA resources should focus on the lead compliance assurance program. 

Activities: 

EPA regions should: 

• Focus primarily on compliance with the LBP Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule 

/Pre-Renovation Education (PRE) Rule. With regard to the regions’ lead based paint 

compliance efforts, regions should direct 95 percent of their efforts in the lead program

towards RRP/PRE, and no more than 5 percent to new § 1018-only compliance. Regions 

should prioritize their activities to assure compliance with RRP work practices requirements. 

Regions may employ targeting that, while focusing on RRP/PRE, allows for concomitant 

compliance monitoring with other LBP rules (the § 1018 and § 402 Abatement rules), as 

appropriate. 

• Implement the program priorities and activities, including those set out in detail in the

National Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) for Lead Based Paint (LBP)8

, to balance 

the various types of inspections and other compliance assurance activities. The effective and 

efficient targeting of inspections, particularly work practice inspections, requires that the 

regions know the regulated universe, and prioritize the problems to be addressed. Regions 

should attempt to maximize their enforcement presence by focusing on larger violators, as 

appropriate. 

• Use the inspection targeting principles set forth in the CMS with a focus on monitoring 

contractors’ actual compliance with required work practices. Focus efforts in high-priority 

lead “hot spots” as described in the CMS [e.g., geographical areas with evidence or 

indicators of significant or wide-spread Elevated Blood Lead Levels (EBLLs)]. 

• Respond appropriately to tips and complaints and actively follow-up on the highest priorities. 

• Coordinate with OECA to bundle press activities related to cases from multiple regions, as 

appropriate. 

• Partner with state and local government code enforcement and building permit programs and 

state/local health departments to conduct joint inspections. 

• Partner with health departments and health care providers to identify lead hot spots and 

individual properties associated with EBLL children. 

• Initiate civil enforcement actions, consistent with national policy, to eliminate any regional 

inspection backlog and expeditiously bring facilities into compliance.

• Work with their LBP program to encourage states to seek authorization for the RRP program. 

• Conduct appropriate oversight of authorized state § 402 and § 406 programs. 

• Consistent with the EPA Order 3510, conduct an annual inventory of federal credentials 

which includes a physical possession check of 10 percent of the federal credentials issued to 

state inspectors and a count of unused credentials stock. 

8 Please see Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the Toxic Substances Control Act (September 16, 2011), 

including Appendix E – Lead-based Paint Program and Appendix F – Lead-based Paint Program 

Resources, at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-01/documents/tsca-cms.pdf. 

.

35

 
• Enter all federal inspection and enforcement cases into the national database ICIS in a timely 

and accurate manner.

• As necessary, work with OECA to identify and evaluate program areas that could become 

national priorities/enforcement initiatives in the future.

Measures: See ACS measures TSCA 01OC and TSCA 02OC in Appendix 2 on pages 7-8. 

The Lead Based Paint component of ACS commitment TSCA 01OC will serve as an OECA FY 

2016 measure of compliance work being done to protect children's health. 

B. TSCA New and Existing Chemicals Programs

Description: The TSCA New and Existing Chemicals Program is exclusively a federal 

program that provides for review of the risk of chemicals prior to their manufacture and 

importation to prevent unreasonable risk to human health and the environment and requires a 

series of notifications and submissions from regulated industry. For FY 2016-2017, 90 percent of 

the region’s TSCA resources should focus on the lead compliance assurance program9

. However, 

up to 20 percent of these same resources may be shifted by the region to other TSCA compliance 

assurance activities consistent with this NPM Guidance. The intent here is to provide flexibility 

for regional TSCA initiatives and to take into account unique regional situations. Where regions 

choose to exercise this flexibility they should provide a rationale and articulate how this 

flexibility is consistent (or why inconsistent) with the Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) 

for the Toxic Substances Control Act. 

Activities: 

EPA regions opting to engage in compliance monitoring and assurance activities for TSCA New 

and Existing Chemicals should: 

• Focus on chemical manufacturing (including importing), distribution, processing, use, or 

disposal of new chemicals. Focus monitoring and enforcement efforts on ensuring facility 

compliance with TSCA § 5 - new chemicals requirements such as Pre-manufacturing Notice 

(PMN); Significant New Use Rules (SNUR’s); Low Volume Exemptions (LVE’s), and on 

chemicals of concern including short chained and other chlorinated paraffins, fractions, Work 

Plan and other priority or Action Plan chemicals or targets. 

• Implement the Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(September 16, 2011)10 including Appendix B which addresses New and Existing Chemicals. 

• Obtain information through inspections and/or subpoena as appropriate. Increase the use of 

TSCA subpoenas for investigation of potential noncompliance. 

• Initiate civil enforcement actions, as appropriate, to bring facilities into compliance, 

consistent with national policy.

9 Please see the description section for the TSCA Chemical Risk Reduction Programs on page 34.

10 The TSCA CMS, including Appendix B, can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-

01/documents/tsca-cms.pdf. 

36

 
• Target existing chemical reporting and record keeping requirements such as TSCA § 4, 8 

and the 2016 Chemical Data Reporting Rule. 

• Evaluate and prioritize tips and complaints and follow-up as appropriate. Regions not 

implementing this program should refer tips and complaints to the Waste and Chemical 

Enforcement Division within the Office of Civil Enforcement. 

• Strengthen program integrity through enhanced chemical data collection, reporting and 

coordination between headquarters and regions. In particular, increase coordination on 

targeting between OPPT, OECA and the participating regions to focus on the chemical 

manufacturing sector. Additionally, coordinate when setting program priorities and 

communicating best practices.

• Enter all federal inspection and enforcement cases into the national database ICIS in a timely 

and accurate manner.

Measures: See ACS measures TSCA 01OC and TSCA 02OC in Appendix 2 on pages 7-8. 

C. TSCA PCB Program

 

Description: The TSCA PCB enforcement program is a federal only program. However, nine 

states through cooperative agreements inspect on behalf of the EPA. TSCA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations aim to minimize risks posed by the use, storage, handling, and disposal 

of PCBs and PCB-containing items. The EPA’s enforcement program will focus its PCB 

enforcement resources on nationally-significant situations involving the greatest threats to health

in each region. The EPA will pursue nationally-significant PCB civil and criminal violations that 

may present a significant risk of injury to health or the environment and maintain some field 

presence at EPA-approved commercial PCB storage and disposal facilities. For FY 2016-2017, 

90 percent of the region’s TSCA resources should focus on the lead compliance assurance 

program11. However, up to 20 percent of these same resources may be shifted by the region to 

other TSCA compliance assurance activities consistent with this NPM Guidance. The intent here 

is to provide flexibility for regional TSCA initiatives and to take into account unique regional 

situations. Where regions choose to exercise this flexibility they should provide a rationale and 

articulate how this flexibility is consistent (or why inconsistent) with the Compliance Monitoring 

Strategy (CMS) for the Toxic Substances Control Act. OECA will continue to evaluate 

enforcement options for PCBs in building materials used in schools and will update existing 

guidance or provide new guidance at a later date.

Activities: 

EPA regions opting to engage in compliance monitoring and assurance activities for the TSCA 

PCB program should: 

• Address nationally-significant PCB civil and criminal violations that may present a 

significant risk to human health or the environment, consistent with national policy. 

• Dependent on regional resources devoted to this program, focus inspections, case 

development and enforcement on the following areas of potential significant risk: 

11 Please see the description section for the TSCA Chemical Risk Reduction Programs on page 34. 

37

 
1. PCB treatment, storage and/or disposal facilities targeted based on potential for releases, 

cumulative burden on EJ communities, or associated with approvals (permitting): 

a. At facilities conducting approved PCB treatment, storage, disposal, or cleanups 

(the regions should inspect all approved commercial PCB treatment, storage, and 

disposal facilities at least once every three years); 

b. As appropriate, at oil recyclers through coordinated joint TSCA/RCRA PCB 

inspections to efficiently use resources. 

2. Non-TSD Locations:

a. Natural gas pipelines;

b. Used oil facilities that receive and dilute PCB contaminated oil, and related 

possible distribution in commerce, contamination, decontamination, and disposal; 

c. Follow-up where improperly or unmanifested PCB waste was turned away by 

disposal sites and was either returned to the generator or taken in by the storer/

disposer, as well as facilities that have the potential to receive unmanifested 

shipments; 

d. Potential PCB-containing abandoned buildings, textile mills, and other facilities 

located in close proximity to residential communities assuming the existence and 

location of these facilities is known to the EPA region. 

3. Follow-up on tips/complaints that involve potential for illegal disposal and significant 

risk.

4. As appropriate, coordinating joint TSCA/RCRA PCB inspections at oil recyclers to 

efficiently use resources.

• Taking into account the aforementioned focus for the FY 2016-2017 program, implement the 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the Toxic Substances Control Act (September 16, 2011) 

including Appendix C – PCBs12. 

• Monitor, evaluate and take action on compliance requirements/submittals/schedules under 

Consent Decrees and Consent Agreements.

• Ensure that any state and tribal inspectors who inspect on behalf of the EPA are trained and 

credentialed consistent with agency guidance, including the Guidance for Issuing Federal 

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

Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004). 

• Consistent with the EPA Order 3510, conduct an annual inventory of federal credentials 

which includes a physical possession check of 10 percent of any federal credentials issued to 

state and tribal inspectors and a count of unused credentials stock. 

• Enter all federal inspection and enforcement cases into the national database ICIS in a timely 

and accurate manner.

States with EPA cooperative agreements should: 

• Implement the agreed-upon work plan in their cooperative agreements. 

Measures: See ACS measures TSCA 01OC and TSCA 02OC in Appendix 2 on pages 7-8. 

12 The TSCA CMS, including Appendix C, can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-

01/documents/tsca-cms.pdf. 

38

 
D. TSCA Asbestos Program/AHERA

Description: Since 1986, the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) amended 

TSCA to require schools to inspect their buildings for asbestos-containing materials and 

implement asbestos-management programs. The EPA will focus its efforts on addressing the 

most egregious violations of AHERA in order to protect human health and the environment. For 

FY 2016-2017, 90 percent of the region’s TSCA resources should focus on the lead compliance 

assurance program13. However, up to 20 percent of these same resources may be shifted by the 

region to other TSCA compliance assurance activities consistent with this NPM Guidance. The 

intent here is to provide flexibility for regional TSCA initiatives and to take into account unique 

regional situations. Where regions choose to exercise this flexibility they should provide a 

rationale and articulate how this flexibility is consistent (or why inconsistent) with the 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) for the Toxic Substances Control Act. 

Activities: 

EPA regions opting to engage in compliance monitoring and assurance activities for the TSCA 

Asbestos/AHERA program should: 

• Address the most egregious violations of AHERA consistent with national policy. 

• For states and tribes that do not have a cooperative agreement with the EPA, taking into 

account regional resources devoted to this program, investigate and respond appropriately 

(including taking enforcement action as appropriate) within a reasonable amount of time to 

tips/complaints containing allegations that provide a reasonable basis to believe that a 

violation has occurred. 

• For states and tribes that do not have a cooperative agreement with the EPA, taking into 

account regional resources devoted to this program, consider conducting compliance 

inspections at state and local government facilities to monitor compliance with the asbestos 

worker protection requirements in states where state and local government employees are not 

protected by the OSHA Asbestos Standards. 

• In states that have non-waiver status, review and evaluate inspection reports for enforcement 

action.

• Taking into account the aforementioned focus for the FY 2016-2017 program, implement the 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy for the Toxic Substances Control Act (September 16, 2011) 

including Appendix D – Asbestos14. 

• Ensure that any state and tribal inspectors who inspect on behalf of the EPA are trained and 

credentialed consistent with agency guidance, including the Guidance for Issuing Federal 

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

Inspections on Behalf of EPA (2004). 

• Consistent with the EPA Order 3510, conduct an annual inventory of federal credentials 

which includes a physical possession check of 10 percent of the federal credentials issued to 

state and tribal inspectors and a count of unused credentials stock. 

13 Please see the description section for the TSCA Chemical Risk Reduction Programs on page 34. 14 The TSCA CMS, including Appendix D can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-

01/documents/tsca-cms.pdf. 

39

 
• Enter all federal inspection and enforcement cases into the national database ICIS in a timely 

and accurate manner.

Waiver and non-waiver states are expected to:

• Within a reasonable period of time, investigate and respond appropriately to any 

tips/complaints containing allegations that provide a reasonable basis to believe that a 

violation has occurred. 

• Conduct inspections in each state to assure equitable protection and ensure compliance with 

the TSCA asbestos regulations. 

• In waiver states, take appropriate enforcement action under state law. 

• In non-waiver states, submit completed inspection reports to the EPA region for review and 

enforcement action as appropriate, consistent with the state’s cooperative agreement. 

Consider conducting compliance inspections at state and local government facilities to 

monitor compliance with the asbestos worker protection requirements in states where state 

and local government employees are not protected by the OSHA Asbestos Standards.

Measures: See ACS measures TSCA 01OC and TSCA 02OC in Appendix 2 on pages 7-8. 

13. FIFRA Program for Compliance Assurance and Enforcement

Description: The EPA will generally prioritize its compliance monitoring activities based on 

risk to human health and the environment. The region’s FIFRA resources should include a 

balance of compliance and enforcement activities covering: worker protection, pesticide 

registration and labeling, product efficacy (including enforcement follow-up of efficacy failures 

of antimicrobial products) and compositional integrity, producing establishment registration and 

reporting, import and export requirements, unreasonable adverse effects reporting, and other 

noncompliant pesticides. For FY 2016-2017, the three FIFRA Focus Areas are: a) Product 

Integrity; b) Border Compliance; and c) Worker Protection Standards; implementation of the 

FIFRA Focus Areas will generally be done through direct implementation activities or in support 

of state and tribal programs. 

Activities: 

For its direct implementation program, EPA regions should: 

• Participate in the three FIFRA Focus Areas: a) Product Integrity; b) Border Compliance; and 

c) Worker Protection Standards, discussed below. 

• Conduct inspections and perform sampling in support of the Focus Areas and other core 

FIFRA program areas, as appropriate, and in accordance with any final FIFRA Compliance 

Monitoring Strategy. 

• Initiate enforcement actions, consistent with the FIFRA ERPs and with emphasis on 

addressing risk, obtaining appropriate deterrence, and optimizing environmental benefits. 

• Apply the various FIFRA enforcement policies and OECA’s Guidance on the Enforcement 

Principles Outlined in the 1984 Indian Policy (January 17, 2001) 

(http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/state/84indianpolicy.pdf) when doing 

40
direct implementation in Indian country to ensure adequate human health and environmental 

protection in Indian country as elsewhere in the United States. 

• Ensure timely and accurate entry of federal inspection and enforcement data into ICIS. 

For its support of state and tribal programs, EPA regions should: 

• Encourage state and tribal involvement in supporting the EPA Focus Area activities, as 

appropriate and consistent with the cooperative agreement guidance. 

• Negotiate, oversee implementation of and review state and tribal performance under pesticide 

enforcement cooperative agreements following existing policies and guidance.

• Work with EPA Headquarters to document and improve upon current procedures and 

training to conduct: (1) program evaluations; and (2) grant performance evaluations, 

incorporating existing relevant protocols to the extent possible. Oversight resources should 

be focused on the most pressing performance problems and work to demonstrably improve 

state/tribal performance. Participate in development of FIFRA state performance dashboards 

based on 5700 data. 

• Convene routine and regular meetings between the region and state or tribe to discuss how 

the state or tribe has been performing overall in its implementation of the program, and in 

respect to its negotiated cooperative agreement. When appropriate and consistent with the 

Interpretive Rule and other national policy, take enforcement to address serious violations in 

the absence of appropriate state or tribal response or when significant state or tribal cases are 

referred to EPA for enforcement.

• Ensure timely and accurate reporting of state and tribal performance data. 

Measures: See ACS measure FIFRA-FED1 in Appendix 2, page 8. 

A. Pesticide Product Integrity 

Description: Pesticides are registered after undergoing a significant review and risk/benefit 

analysis intended to ensure that human health and environmental risks are adequately mitigated 

through the Agency’s registration and related labeling process. This focus area will address 

pesticides which potentially present significant risks to human health and the environment while 

safeguarding the basic integrity of the pesticide registration process. For this focus area, regions 

would be expected to monitor compliance against four prongs of product integrity: (1) product 

registration, (2) label/labeling compliance, (3) composition compliance, and (4) product efficacy, 

(apply only in cases dealing with the on-going antimicrobial testing program (ATP)). 

Activities: 

EPA regions should: 

• Conduct producer establishment inspections known to produce (1) supplemental distributor 

products, (2) RUP or Tox-1 pesticides, or (3) pesticides of regulatory concern. 

• Collect samples and submit to laboratory for formulation analysis to ensure product 

composition complies with terms of registration.

• Initiate enforcement actions, as appropriate, to address violations of registration, 

composition, and labeling requirements to ensure optimum deterrence effect and enforcement 

41
impact, including enforcement actions that address corporate-wide noncompliant behavior 

and high-risk unregistered pesticide products. 

• Address ATP efficacy failures through enforcement actions, in collaboration with OPP. 

Measures: See ACS measure FIFRA-FED1 in Appendix 2, page 8. 

B. Border Compliance 

Description: The EPA’s enforcement program addresses the illegal importation of 

unregistered or otherwise noncompliant pesticide products into the United States by bringing 

enforcement actions against importers and others and working with other governments, agencies 

and stakeholders to prevent and reduce risks of unsafe products entering our country, with 

special emphasis on enforcing against importers of high-risk unregistered pesticides. Illegal 

pesticide imports may present significant human health and environmental risks and have been 

linked to poisonings of children and pets, so prevention before they enter the United States is 

critical. The EPA regions are the primary source of inspections and enforcement for this area. 

States may become involved through region-to-state referrals to monitor post-entry import 

compliance or states may encounter imported products during the course of other compliance 

monitoring inspections. Regions should make their states aware of the EPA’s strong interest in 

import compliance and encourage collaboration with the EPA when situations warrant. This 

work helps to further the work of the Interagency Working Group on Import Safety established 

by Executive Order 13439 and the current "One U.S. Government at the Border" initiative. 

Currently, the EPA staff manually review FIFRA Notices of Arrival (NOAs) for pesticide 

products and devices entering the U.S. and provide direction and guidance to Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) as to whether the product should be allowed to enter U.S. commerce. 

The planned transition to an automated processing system in FY 2016 [Automated Commercial 

Environment in the International Trade Data System (ACE/ITDS)] creates opportunities to 

reduce the investment in manual processing of Notices of Arrival (NOAs). Once fully functional, 

ACE/ITDS will process the majority of NOAs, significantly reducing the need for manual review 

and approval by the EPA. 

Activities: 

Focus on importers with a history of noncompliance or significant importation activity from 

countries frequently associated with noncompliant shipments. EPA regions should: 

• Monitor import compliance through inspections at: 

o Entry ports, when appropriate. 

o Designated destination points (conducted after the imported products have been released 

by CBP and have entered into U.S. commerce, Foreign Trade Zones being used for 

storage, processing or packaging prior to release into U.S. commerce). 

• Collect samples and submit to laboratory for formulation analysis to ensure product 

composition complies with terms of registration.

• Screen NOAs for potential Confidential Statement of Formula discrepancies relating to 

source of active ingredient and countries of origin. Where potential discrepancies are noted, 

42
follow-up investigations may be warranted at U.S. registered agents for foreign producers 

and domestic producing establishments. 

• Take enforcement actions, as appropriate, to ensure optimum deterrence effect and 

enforcement impact, including enforcement actions that address corporate-wide 

noncompliant behavior and high-risk unregistered pesticide products. 

• Participate in Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center (CTAC) National Operations 

initiatives, as appropriate.

Measures: See ACS measure FIFRA-FED1 in Appendix 2, page 8. 

C. Worker Protection Standards 

Description: Addressing disproportionate risks of agricultural farm workers, handlers and 

pesticide applicators to pesticide exposure continues to remain a focus area for the EPA. 

Although most states have “primacy” to enforce pesticide use, including worker protection 

standards (WPS), regions should seek opportunities for federal cases to support state efforts. 

Where the EPA directly implements FIFRA, such as in Indian country and states without 

primacy status, EPA regions should monitor compliance and enforce pesticide use requirements, 

although tribes with cooperative enforcement agreements may conduct inspections under their 

own tribal codes. Regions are expected to place emphasis on farming activities that involve 

frequent use of highly toxic pesticides or significant worker exposure, such as fruit and vegetable 

production and on-farm fumigation. In FY 2016 and FY 2017, OECA will continue to address 

WPS noncompliance, but adjust the activities in several ways as described below. 

Activities: 

EPA regions should: 

• Monitor compliance and initiate enforcement in states and tribal lands where the EPA has 

direct implementation authority, placing emphasis on commercial applicators.

• Collaborate with states to monitor WPS compliance associated with the use of specific 

products of concern on specific farm commodities where worker exposure is of special 

concern (regions should encourage states to identify enforcement cases that could benefit 

from federal enforcement by the regional office). 

• Conduct federal compliance monitoring inspections of products subject to the new WPS 

labeling requirements. 

• Increase oversight of state activities addressing WPS use related violations consistent with 

EPA authorities under FIFRA Section 26 and 27. 

Measures: See new ACS measure FIFRA-FED2 in Appendix 2, page 8. The measure reads 

as follows: For EPA regions with direct implementation responsibilities in Indian country and 

states without primacy, project the number of regional (federal) FIFRA inspections focused on 

the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). 

14. CERCLA

43
Description: The EPA’s CERCLA Enforcement program ensures prompt site cleanup and 

uses an “enforcement first” approach that maximizes the participation of liable and viable parties 

in performing and paying for cleanups. The Superfund enforcement program protects 

communities by requiring responsible parties to conduct cleanups which helps preserve federal 

dollars for sites where there are no viable contributing parties. The EPA identifies potentially 

responsible parties and negotiates cleanup agreements at hazardous waste sites and, where 

negotiations fail, either takes enforcement actions to require cleanup or expends Superfund 

appropriated dollars to clean up the sites. In some cases, the EPA takes both actions. When the 

EPA uses appropriated dollars, it takes action against any viable responsible parties to recover 

cleanup costs. 

Activities: 

EPA regions will:

• Maintain focused enforcement efforts to compel cleanup early in the pipeline at nonemergency removal action and remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) stages; 

expedite remedial action by holding parties accountable to negotiation timeframes and 

scheduled cleanup commitments; and rejuvenate the process for identifying responsible 

parties at the site assessment stage where it appears likely that a removal or remedial 

response will be necessary. 

• Continue to focus on activities that maximize PRP involvement in all phases of response at 

Superfund sites. 

• Focus Superfund enforcement resources on the highest-priority sites and those enforcement 

activities that achieve the biggest return on our investment based on environmental risk. 

• Use Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs) or other applicable enforcement authorities (such as 

imminent and substantial endangerment orders in applicable circumstances), when federal 

facilities are not complying with the terms of the agreements or with other legal 

requirements. Additionally, regions and headquarters offices must collaborate to establish 

new agreements. The EPA has CERCLA Section 121 interagency agreements, known as 

FFAs, in place at all but one of 176 federal facility NPL sites. Those agreements govern the 

cleanups conducted by the facilities, delineate EPA’s oversight of those cleanups and identify 

procedures for resolving disputes and ensuring accountability. 

• Better utilize FFAs to make site performance data available to the public and otherwise 

empower citizen involvement to enhance cleanup oversight and accountability. 

• Implement the “nationally significant” consultation procedures; since all federal facility 

enforcement actions are “nationally significant” by OECA policy and require consultation 

with headquarters. This consultation will be even more important as the regions contemplate 

new work in this program. 

• Ensure that institutional controls are implemented at all appropriate sites including those in 

potential environmental justice areas of concern.

• Provide site-specific fact sheets, which include enforcement information that is finalized and 

available to the public on regional web pages. 

• Leverage federal, state, tribal, local and other partnerships to maximize resources; improve 

cleanups using greener and more resilient and sustainable practices; and revitalize sites through 

policy, guidance and, when appropriate, agreements and comfort letters. 

44
• Implement specific actions designated in the EPA’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan to more 

fully integrate climate change adaptation activities, greener remediation, and sustainability 

efforts into the cleanup enforcement program (e.g. consent decrees, comfort letters or other 

enforcement instruments), where appropriate. 

Measures: See ACS measures OSRE-01, OSRE-02 and HQ-VOL in Appendix 2, pages 7-8. 

15. EPCRA 313 Toxics Release Inventory

Description: The EPA and the public rely on EPCRA 313 for information on chemical 

releases entering the environment. The EPA must ensure that companies report accurately and 

within required time frames so the publicly available database remains timely, accurate and 

inclusive. Regions should ensure the compliance of facilities that may be contributing to 

pollution problems that matter to their respective communities, and develop enforcement cases 

that produce significant environmental benefits.

Activities: 

EPA regions should: 

• Physically inspect, send information requests or show cause letters, or use other agreed upon 

compliance monitoring activities (pursuant to the national dialogue on EPCRA 313 

compliance monitoring) to determine the compliance of enforcement targets developed by 

OECA/Office of Environmental Information (OEI) in collaboration with the regions. If a 

region, based on its own regional priorities, decides not to use OECA/OEI targets, and 

develops its own enforcement targets, the region should notify Headquarters of its intent, be 

able to summarize areas of enforcement targets and describe the improved enforcement 

outcomes of the regional targeting. Address the following categories of concern as resources 

allow:

 Potential never-reporters (such as targeting facilities in the same sectors where a facility 

may not have reported but a similar facility in the same sector did report); 

 Potential data quality issues (such as facilities with significant changes in release 

estimates or other waste management amounts from one year to the next or facilities in 

the same sector where a facility reports significantly more/less than a similar facility in 

the sector);

 Potential non/late-reporters (facilities that report in one year but failed to report the 

following year or any prior year up to the past five years);

 Additional OECA-provided targeting focusing on revisions, communities, chemicals, 

sectors of concern or new regulations, failures to comply with Notices of Noncompliance 

for non-certification and failures to correct Notices of Significant Errors. Regions may 

focus on facilities whose releases have the most impact on the TRI database (which is 

approximately 90 percent of the releases to be entered into the database). This will allow 

the regions flexibility in selecting their targets. 

• Track and prioritize tips and complaints and follow-up, as needed. 

• Work with the Air, RCRA and Water compliance and enforcement programs to add EPCRA 

questions to information requests where appropriate, evaluate the responses and take 

45
appropriate enforcement actions, consistent with national policy, or combine with other 

enforcement actions. 

• Respond to OECA’s requests for reviewing draft TRI regulations for enforceability, the 

revised draft section 313 enforcement response and penalty policy and any other documents 

or proposed actions where OECA requests regional input on enforcement matters. 

• Provide legal and technical enforcement case support; obtain additional information through 

investigations, show cause letters, subpoenas and other actions, as appropriate, or determine 

that follow-up is not necessary. 

• Enter all federal enforcement cases into national databases in a timely and accurate manner. 

• As necessary, work with OECA to identify and evaluate program areas that could become 

national priorities/enforcement initiatives in the future.

Measures: See ACS measures EPCRA 01 and 02 in Appendix 2, page 8. 

16. EPCRA 304, 311/312 and CERCLA 103 

Description: Chemical release notification and emergency preparedness are addressed under 

EPCRA 304, 311 and 312 and CERCLA 103. The EPA and the public rely on EPCRA for 

information on chemical releases entering the environment, and on the storage of chemicals at 

facilities. The EPA, states, tribes, local entities, and communities rely on the combined EPCRA 

and CERCLA information to prepare local chemical emergency response plans, and to more 

safely and adequately respond to chemical emergencies. EPCRA sections 311 and 312 will 

continue to require facilities to develop or have available Safety Data Sheets and to provide 

annual reports on a facility’s chemical inventory directly to state and local emergency response 

entities. The statute authorizes citizen suits and civil suits by state or local governments against 

owners or operators of a facility for failure to comply with specific EPCRA provisions. 

Regarding federal enforcement, the EPA will focus resources on the highest priority violations, 

and be available to respond to significant enforcement issues (e.g. violations that create 

significant risks to communities, workers and first responders or state or tribal requests for 

federal action against recalcitrant facilities). Furthermore, the EPA will leverage agency-wide 

resources, as appropriate, to address this program; both OSWER and OECA agree that Risk 

Management Plan inspections should also include an evaluation of the facility’s compliance with 

EPCRA sections 304 and 311/312 and CERCLA 103. 

Activities: 

EPA regions should: 

• Use screening and targeting tools to focus limited federal resources on national and regional 

priority areas. In targeting for inspections, regions should consider the presence of significant 

quantities of CERCLA hazardous or EPCRA extremely hazardous chemicals, proximity to 

population centers, a history of significant accidental releases and any other information that 

indicates a facility may be high-risk.

• Evaluate compliance with applicable EPCRA and CERCLA requirements during CAA 

section 112(r) inspections. 

46
• Within a reasonable period of time, evaluate and respond, if appropriate (including taking 

enforcement action where appropriate) to any tip or complaint containing allegations that 

provides a reasonable basis to believe that a violation has occurred. 

• Evaluate certain continuous release submissions for accuracy and compliance and take 

appropriate enforcement actions for non-compliance. 

• Focus resources on the highest priority violations and respond to significant enforcement 

issues.

• Enter timely, complete and accurate data into national databases.

17. Federal Activities

Description: The Office of Federal Activity’s (OFA’s) work focuses on three areas: 

fostering compliance and pollution prevention through international cooperation; assisting other 

federal agencies in making environmentally sound decisions which include early public 

involvement and transparency by complying with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA); and guiding the EPA’s own compliance with NEPA and applicable statutes and 

Executive Orders. 

Activities: 

EPA regions should work to assure international compliance and prevent illegal trans-boundary 

movement of hazardous waste by: 

• Improving environmental performance and cooperation in accordance with Goal 5 of the 

U.S./Mexico Border 2020 Plan (Regions 6 and 9). 

• Enhancing enforcement, compliance, and capacity building efforts with Mexico and Canada 

relating to trans-boundary compliance monitoring on the U.S. borders for hazardous waste, ewaste, ozone depleting substances, selected chemicals and products (e.g., mercury), engine 

imports that are non-compliant with air emission standards and other regulated substances 

(border regions). 

• Improving performance of joint responsibilities along the border and ports of entry into the 

United States by working with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) through 

appropriate contact channels (all regions). 

• Promoting international environmental enforcement by supporting foreign capacity building 

efforts, as appropriate, and through participation in relevant organizations and networks, such 

as the Enforcement Working Group of the North American Commission for Environmental 

Cooperation (CEC) and the International Network for Environmental Compliance and 

Enforcement (INECE) and, in particular, its Seaport Environmental Security Network 

(regional participation as appropriate). 

• Reviewing the permit and compliance status of U.S. receiving facilities, utilizing established 

guidance, in connection with 100 percent of the notifications for the import of hazardous 

waste they receive from EPA headquarters and, based on the review, recommending consent 

or objection to notifications within the time periods allowed under applicable international 

agreements (all regions). 

• As a regular part of regional inspection activities, conducting periodic inspections of U.S. 

facilities which receive imported hazardous waste (TSDFs) and generators and other primary 

47
exporters of hazardous waste, cathode ray tubes (CRTs) and spent lead acid batteries 

(SLABs), based on information provided by OFA which identifies those facilities 

participating in import and export shipments. 

EPA regions should implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by: 

• Fulfilling EPA’s obligations under NEPA and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act by reviewing 

and commenting on all major proposed federal actions to promote identification, elimination

or mitigation of significant adverse effects, and making the comments available to the public. 

• Providing recommendations to assist federal decision-makers in ensuring that projects likely 

to have significant impacts (e.g., transportation, mountaintop mining, and energy) receive 

sound environmental analysis, use cooperation among agencies to resolve differences, 

consider environmental justice, incorporate innovation and support public involvement 

through a more streamlined and transparent environmental review process. 

• Writing clear and effective comments on EISs with the goal of influencing federal decisionmakers to mitigate at least 70 percent of the significant impacts identified by the EPA during 

the NEPA process. 

• Ensuring that at least 90 percent of EPA projects subject to NEPA environmental assessment 

or EIS requirements (e.g., water treatment facility projects and other grants, new source 

NPDES permits and EPA facilities) are expected to result in no significant environmental 

impact. 

• Promoting environmental justice considerations throughout the environmental decisionmaking process and encouraging public involvement early in the process to maximize 

transparency. 

• Preparing environmental analyses (EISs or EAs) and posting them on the internet or making 

categorical exclusion determinations for EPA-issued National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits for new sources, for states/tribes without authorized 

NPDES programs; off-shore oil and gas sources, including permits for deep water ports, EPA 

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

• Preparing environmental analyses (EAs or EISs) and posting them on the internet or making 

categorical exclusion determinations for Special Appropriation grants for wastewater, 

drinking water supply and solid waste collection facilities; Border Environment 

Infrastructure Funds (for the US/Mexico Border Environment Cooperation Commission 

projects); and reviews conducted under “EPA’s Voluntary NEPA Compliance Policy.”

• Entering the results of their 309 reviews and NEPA compliance actions into the EIS Tracking 

Database maintained by headquarters OFA. Regions should report to the Office of Federal 

Activities quarterly on the status of their 309 reviews and NEPA compliance actions pursuant 

to the Government Performance Reporting Act reporting process. 

• Assisting other federal agencies to improve the analysis of climate change issues under 

NEPA, including estimating greenhouse gas emissions associated with federal actions and 

consideration of mitigation measures, as well as fostering climate resiliency.

18. Criminal Enforcement Program

Description: The criminal enforcement program investigates and assists in the criminal 

prosecution of knowing violations of environmental laws as well as any associated violations 

48
of the U.S. criminal code, such as wire fraud, smuggling, obstruction of justice, etc. The program 

works with other federal law enforcement agencies on cases of mutual interest, e.g., the 

Department of Homeland Security related to the illegal importation of banned pesticides. The 

program will continue to work with civil enforcement to look for criminal enforcement 

opportunities to advance National Enforcement Initiatives and instances of behavior on the part 

of regulated entities that represent inherently criminal conduct, such as falsifying data. The 

program will work with EPA civil enforcement and program offices in headquarters (HQ) and 

the regions to enhance the case screening process so that decisions to prosecute civilly or 

criminally are based on the best way to respond to the violation; the program will focus on 

securing the best results by providing clarity on when civil investigators should refer a matter to 

criminal enforcement and sharing criminal enforcement information with the civil enforcement 

program, where appropriate. The program will integrate environmental justice (EJ) concerns in 

assessments of criminal investigations and will use the EPA's screening tools, regional input and 

other relevant information. Cases that meet the threshold level for heightened analysis are 

considered to have potential EJ concerns for criminal enforcement purposes. 

Activities: 

EPA regions and OECA’s Headquarters Civil Program coordinate with the Office of Criminal 

Enforcement, Forensics and Training to: 

• Refer to the criminal enforcement program for consideration any matter that appears to be 

criminal in nature.

• Revise/update existing case screening policy memos to ensure that the criminal and civil 

enforcement programs are coordinating to ensure the optimal enforcement response to 

violations of federal environmental laws. 

• Develop incentives and measures to ensure efficient sharing of information and resources 

between civil and criminal enforcement programs.

• Develop a shared civil/criminal case screening database, similar to the one developed in 

Region 1, for use in every region. 

• Conduct case screening sessions to agree upon the appropriate enforcement response to a 

potential criminal offense.

The Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics and Training will:

• Develop/refine criteria for Tier 1 (TI) and Tier 2 (T2) cases as well as for opening lower Tier 

cases. Identify NON-T1/T2 cases that offer high deterrent value because of cumulative 

impacts of many similar smaller cases. 

• Conduct semiannual case and docket reviews, by headquarters’ Criminal Investigation 

Division, of SAC offices to advance and track high impact cases, including T1 and T2. 

Determine which cases, if any, should be closed (especially Tiers 3 and 4); reallocate 

resources to higher-impact cases. 

• Develop and provide training for civil EPA counterparts to identify and share information 

regarding criminal conduct. 

• Through NEIC, evaluate new and emerging technologies needed to implement enhanced 

targeting and compliance assurance approaches. 

• Analyze emissions and compliance information to identify potential criminal violations by 

certain industrial sectors and individual facilities.

49
• Work with Department of Justice to: (1) explore innovative uses of criminal sentencing 

options, e.g., community service or environmental compliance plans; and (2) use information 

obtained pursuant to the Crimes Victim’s Rights Act (CVRA) when developing 

environmental crimes case resolutions, e.g., restitution. 

• Provide targeted training to state, tribal and law enforcement partners, particularly the 

International Association of Chiefs of Police, to enhance their abilities to safely spot, report 

and address environmental violations. 

• Continue international enforcement efforts, e.g., working with INTERPOL to combat the 

illegal shipment of e-wastes.

50
Appendix 1: Projects Aligning with E-Enterprise Goals in which OECA Participates or Leads

This appendix highlights examples of projects, current as of April 2015, which align with E-Enterprise goals and in which OECA is 

participating or leading. Over the period of this NPM Guidance, EPA will complete or modify some of these activities, and develop 

and/or implement new projects. OECA encourages states and tribes to coordinate with EPA where they see the same or 

complementary priorities, processes or objectives. Advancing Next Generation Compliance complements E-Enterprise and is 

discussed in OECA’s NPM Guidance. More information on E-Enterprise for the Environment is accessible at: http://www2.epa.gov/eenterprise/about-e-enterprise-environment. Additional information is available at: http://www2.epa.gov/e-enterprise and 

http://www.exchangenetwork.net/e-enterprise/. 

Project in Alignment with 

E-Enterprise

Sponsor 

or 

Initiators

Key EPA

Offices

Shared 

Service

Integration 

EPA/State/Tribal Involvement

Scoping projects selected by the joint state-EPA E-Enterprise Leadership Council (EELC)

Smart Tools for Inspectors EELC, AR OECA, OEI Facility ID, 

Substance, 

CROMERR

States and EPA currently participating on scoping 

team.

Pesticides Label Matching EELC, IN OCSPP, OECA, EPA 

Regions 5 and 7

TBD States and EPA currently participating on scoping 

team.

Ongoing projects with early achievements illustrating alignment with E-Enterprise Goals 

NPDES e-reporting Pilot with States OECA OECA, OEI CROMERR 

and creation of 

a new shared 

service (new ereporting tool)

Existing mechanism for state/EPA involvement. 

Pilot participants: Florida, South Dakota, Maine, 

New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, New Mexico, 

Pennsylvania, EPA Regions 1, 2 and 6.

Import-Export Hazardous Waste Rule 

with e-reporting

OSWER OSWER, OECA CROMERR Primarily federal but states will benefit as a result 

of project implementation.

New Opportunity Evaluation

Advanced Monitoring

Integration Strategy

OAR, 

OECA

OAR, OECA, OW, ORD Joint team evaluating opportunity

1 
Aligned Projects Funded in FY 2015 Enacted

NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule OECA OECA, OEI, OW N/A EPA has an internal workgroup under the 

regulation development process that includes the 

majority of the Regions and EPA programs. 

States have been extensively involved including 

an EPA-State Technical Workgroup that meets 

weekly to discuss various aspects of the proposed 

rule such as the data elements that will be 

implemented. Tribes have been consulted.

Smart Tools for RCRA Inspectors OECA OEI, OECA This tool is intended for EPA RCRA Inspectors.

2 
Appendix 2: FY 2016 Annual Commitment System (ACS) Measures

This appendix includes measures for FY 2016. Revisions from last year are underlined. When OECA identifies the National 

Enforcement Initiatives (NEIs) for FY 2017-2019 in the FY 2017 Addendum to the NPM Guidance, the EPA will also identify ACS 

measures for the new NEIs. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

FY 2016 NPM GUIDANCE MEASURES APPENDIX

G/

O/S

* 

ACS 

Code Measure Text

NonCommitment 

Indicator 

(Y/N)

State 

Performance 

Measure 

(Y/N)

Planning Target15 National Target (FY 

2016 Pres. Bud)

 

5 

PBSATX03 Number of facilities evaluated for compliance within the 

national focus areas.

N N Y N 

 

5 

PBSATX04 Number of addressing actions at facilities within the national 

focus areas.

N N Y N 

 

5 

PBSNSR01 Number of NSR/PSD investigations of cement plants. N N Y N 

 

5 

PBSNSR02 Number of investigation completion reports or referrals to 

DOJ for cement plants.

N N Y N 

 

5 

PBSNSR03 Number of NSR/PSD investigations of glass manufacturing 

plants.

N N Y N 

 

5 

PBSNSR04 Number of completion reports or referrals to DOJ for glass 

manufacturing plants.

N N Y N 

 

5 

PBSNSR05 Number of NSR/PSD investigations of nitric and/or sulfuric 

acid plants.

N N

Y N 

15 Annual Commitment System (ACS) planning targets for FY 2016 are negotiated between the EPA regions and headquarters during 2015. For the measures 

which encompass state activities, the EPA regions coordinate with the affected states on the planning targets as applicable.

1 

 
 

5 

PBS-

NSR06 Number of investigation completion reports or referrals to 

DOJ for nitric and/or sulfuric acid plants.

 

 N

 N Y N 

 

5 

PBS-

NSR07 Number of NSR/PSD investigations of coal

-fired electric 

utilities.

N N Y N 

 

5 

PBS-

NSR08 Number of completion reports or referrals to DOJ for coal

-

fired electric utilities.

N N Y N 

 

5 

PBS-

NSR09 Number of facilities reviewed for prospective projects that 

trigger NSR.

N N Y N 

 

5 

PBS-

M105 Number of Phase 1 municipal separate storm sewer system 

permit assessments conducted.

N N Y N 

 

5 

PBS-

M106

Number of civil judicial referrals and/or addressing actions 

for sanitary sewer systems (SSS) with total treatment 

capacity ≥10 mgd.

N N Y N 

 

5 

PBS-

M107 Number of civil judicial referrals and /or addressing actions 

for CSS communities serving populations ≥50,000.

N N Y N 

 

5 

PBS-

M108 Number of civil judicial referrals and/or addressing actions 

for Phase I and II MS4s. 

N N Y N 

 

5 

PBS-

CAF002 Number of federal AFO/CAFO inspections. N N Y N 

 

5 

PBS-

CAF007 Number of federal CAFO addressing actions. N N Y N 

 

5 

PBS-

CAF008 Submit 1 progress report per federal fiscal year. N N Y N 

 

5 

PBS-

MNP05 Number of targeted mines, mineral processing facilities, or 

both, inspected. 

N N Y N 

 

5 

PBS-

EE01

Number of compliance evaluations/inspections conducted in 

the air and water programs at land-based natural gas 

extraction and production facilities (e.g., wells, compressor 

stations, gas plants), and at disposal sites (e.g., injection 

wells, lagoons, ponds, land application). Land impacts and 

N N Y N 

2 
inspections conducted under other media programs may be 

included per discussion and agreement with the EEPI 

Strategy Implementation Team.

 

5 

PBS-

EE03 Number of land

-based natural gas extraction and production 

addressing actions.

N N Y N 

5 SDWA02

 

During FY 2016, the primacy agency must address with a 

formal enforcement action or return to compliance the 

number of priority systems equal to the number of its PWSs 

that have a score of 11 or higher on the July 2015 ETT 

report. State, territory and tribal breakouts shall be indicated 

in the comment field of the Annual Commitment System.

Please note: A primacy agency’s success at addressing 

violations will be tracked by means of the quarterly ETT 

reports. Numerical targets may be adjusted at mid-year. 

While it remains the ERP’s goal that all of a priority 

system’s violations will be returned to compliance, a primacy 

agency has met its commitment under the FY 2016 SDWA 

ACS measures with respect to a priority system if the score 

for that system has been brought below, and remains below, 

11.

N Y Y 

 

 N 

5 SRF01

Finalize all Round 3 SRF reports for state CAA, CWA and 

RCRA enforcement programs scheduled for calendar year 

2015 no later than December 31, 2015 (first quarter of FY 

2016). By September 30, 2016, complete draft reports for all 

Round 3 SRF reviews scheduled for calendar year 

2016. (Final reports are to be completed by December 31, 

2016 (first quarter of FY 2017).) Regions in FY 2013 

developed a plan to complete all Round 3 state reviews by 

the end of calendar year 2017. OC and OWM will hold 

annual discussions with regions to establish whether any 

modifications to the schedules are necessary. 

N N Y N 

 

 

5 

 EJ01

Percentage of non-exempt cases brought by the EPA in areas 

determined by the EPA to have potential EJ concerns. 

[Note: While we are tracking this measure, there is no 

specific target number or trend we expect to achieve. EJ is 

one of many factors the Agency considers in bringing an 

enforcement action.]

Y N N N 

3 
5 FED

-

FAC05

Conduct ten (10) federal facility inspections. These 

inspections may be done in federal facility enforcement 

priority areas, national areas of focus, national enforcement 

initiatives, regional priority areas, priorities established in 

federal facility regional enforcement enhancement plans, or

as otherwise deemed necessary by the region. These 10

inspection commitments can be achieved through any

combination of single media or multimedia inspections. For 

any multimedia inspection conducted, it shall count as up to 

four inspections toward this goal if up to four of the 

individual inspections support priority areas as listed above. 

All of these inspections may simultaneously satisfy 

inspection commitments required in any National 

Enforcement Initiative or other core program area. FFEO 

will be as flexible as possible in assisting the regions in 

meeting this vital federal facility commitment.

N N 100 federal facility 

inspections nationally

 N 

5 CWA07 

By December 31, provide to OECA a specific NPDES 

Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS) plan for the current 

year for each authorized state in the region and a regional 

plan wherever EPA direct implementation occurs (e.g., non-

authorized states, territories, Indian country, pretreatment, 

etc.). Each CMS plan should be developed in accordance 

with the guidelines in Part 1 of the 2014 revised NPDES 

CMS. Any proposed alternative CMS plan should be 

provided to OECA for consultation and review by August 

15, unless the region and OECA agree upon a later date. 

By December 31, provide for each state and EPA direct 

implementation area, a numerical end of year report on EPA 

and state CMS plan outputs from the prior year, by category 

and subcategory, corresponding to each of the planned CMS 

activities. The ACS commitment for each region should reflect the total 

number of state and regional CMS plans and end of year 

reports to be submitted to OECA for the year (e.g., an annual 

ACS commitment of 12 for a region that will submit six state 

and regional CMS plans and six state and regional CMS end-

of-year reports).

N N Y N 

4 
5 CAA04 

The number of compliance evaluations to be conducted by 

the regions at majors sources, 80% synthetic minors, and 

other sources (as appropriate). [Note: Region should break 

out evaluation projections by source classification and by 

compliance monitoring category (FCE, PCE, and 

Investigations). For the total number of evaluations to be 

conducted, the region should also identify how many of these 

evaluations are in Indian country.] Projected investigations 

under this commitment are those investigations initiated by 

the regions for the air enforcement program outside of the 

National Enforcement Initiatives, and identified by the air 

program (e.g., MACT, NSPS).

N N Y N 

5 CAA06 

Ensure that delegated state, tribal and local agencies 

implement their compliance and enforcement programs in 

accordance with the CAA CMS and have negotiated facility-

specific CMS plans in place. The regions are to provide the 

number of FCEs at majors and 80% synthetic minors to be 

conducted by individual state/local agencies to demonstrate 

program implementation consistent with CMS. However, if a 

delegated agency negotiates with a Region an alternative CMS 

plan or alternative activities (pursuant to the CAA CMS 

national dialogue), this commitment should reflect the 

alternative plan. [Note: Break out evaluation and activity 

projections (e.g., FCEs; PCEs included in alternative plan) by 

source classification. Please indicate when a commitment is 

pursuant to an approved alternative plan.] Prior to approving 

an alternative plan, regions should consult with the Office of 

Compliance (OC) and provide OC with information on how 

the state, tribal or local agency compliance monitoring air 

resources will be redirected and the rationale for making the 

change. 

N Y Y N 

5 RCRA01

Project by state, and Indian Country where applicable, the 

number of operating non-governmental TSDFs, to be 

inspected by the region during the year. Regions must 

commit to inspect at least two (2) TSDFs in each state or 

Indian country unless OECA approves a deviation from this 

requirement, as indicated in the initial OECA opening

bid. Financial responsibility is an important component of 

the RCRA core program and evaluating compliance with 40 

CFR Parts 264/265 Subpart H and corrective action financial 

N N Minimum of 100 

TSDFs nationally

 N 

5 
responsibility should be included in the RCRA core program 

inspections. Regions must commit to inspect at least the 

same number of financial assurance instruments at RCRA 

operating facilities as the region inspects for operating CEIs. 

Once a region exceeds the number of CEIs and FA 

instrument reviews from the final agreed upon bid, any 

additional CEIs will not require a corresponding FA 

instrument review. The determination of which financial 

assurance instruments to review should take into account the 

potential risk posed by the facility, the type of financial 

assurance instrument provided by the facility, and whether 

the financial assurance instrument has been previously 

reviewed and is the same type of instrument (this does not 

apply to the financial test, which may be reviewed each 

year). The review of financial assurance instruments is for 

RCRA Subtitle C closure and post-closure and includes 

corrective action if there is a corrective action obligation at 

the facility under review

5 RCRA01. s 

Project by state the number of operating TSDFs to be 

inspected by the state during the year. 

Note: Only one inspection per facility counts towards this 

coverage measure. The RCRA CMS establishes minimum 

annual inspection expectations for TSDFs. At least 50 percent 

of the operating non-governmental TSDFs in the state must be 

inspected annually. The onsite inspections for RCRA01 and 

RCRA01.s should be CEIs. Completing the commitment 

includes evaluating compliance with the financial assurance 

requirements, 40 CFR Parts 264/265 Subpart H. Financial 

responsibility is an important component of the RCRA core 

program and should be included as part of the inspection of 

each TSDF (although the financial responsibility reviews do 

not have to occur at the same time nor be conducted by the 

same people who conduct the field inspections).

N Y Y N 

5 RCRA02

Project by state and Indian country, the number of LQGs, 

including those at federal facilities, to be inspected by the region during the year. Each region must commit to inspect 

at least six (6) LQGs in each state, and 20% of the region’s 

LQGs universe in Indian country, unless OECA approves a 

deviation from this requirement. For example, deviations are 

N N 

Minimum of 300 

LQG inspections 

nationally and 20% 

of LQGs in Indian 

Country

 N 

6 
given for states with small universes where it doesn’t make 

sense for a region to inspect 6 LQGs per year or 20% of the region’s LQG universe in Indian country. Regions should 

select at least 2 of the region's total LQG inspections at 

facilities described in the high priority section as areas of 

emerging environmental concern. Regions may work with 

OECA to coordinate these inspections, including whether the 

inspection will be conducted at a TSDF or LQG. In the 

Comment Section, provide the number of federal facility LQG 

inspections. 

5 RCRA02. s

Project by state the number of LQGs to be inspected by the 

state during the year. At least 20 percent of the LQG universe 

should be covered by combined federal and state inspections 

unless an alternative plan is approved under the RCRA CMS. 

The region should identify in the “Comment” field of BAS 

any state that is following an approved Alternative Plan and a 

breakout of the inspection numbers in the plan. 

N Y Y N 

5 RCRA03 

Inspect each operating TSDF operated by states, local, or 

Tribal governments. N N Y N 

5 HQ

-VOL

Volume of Contaminated Media Addressed (VCMA). As 

part of the Goal 5 sub-objective, Support Cleaning up Our 

Communities, the following is the GPRA target: 

By 2015, obtain commitments to clean up 1.5 billion cubic 

yards of contaminated soil and groundwater media as a 

result of concluded CERCLA and RCRA corrective action 

enforcement actions. 

OECA has reported VCMA for contaminated soil and 

groundwater media as separate measures in its annual results 

since 2004. The GPRA target is a national target and regions 

are not required to post commitments in ACS.

N N 200 million cubic 

yards N 

5 

TSCA 

01OC

Project the total number of FY 2016 TSCA inspections. In 

the comment field of the Annual Commitment System 

(ACS), the region shall break out the number of projected 

inspections by TSCA program area (LBP, PCBs, Asbestos, 

New and Existing Chemicals). Note: The LBP component of 

this TSCA ACS commitment (TSCA 01OC) will serve as an 

N N Y N 

7 
OECA FY 2016 measure of compliance work being done to 

protect children's health.

5 

TSCA 

02OC

Report other compliance monitoring activities at the end of 

the year; and break-out the description of other such 

activities by TSCA program area. (See the CMS for more 

details). 

Y N N N 

5 FIFRAFED1

Project regional (federal) FIFRA inspections. Each region 

should conduct a minimum of ten (10) FIFRA inspections. 

In the Comment Section, provide the number of federal 

facility inspections.

N N 

Minimum of 100 

FIFRA federal 

inspections nationally

 N 

5 

NEW 

FIFRAFED 2

For EPA regions with direct implementation responsibilities 

in Indian country and states without primacy, project the 

number of regional (federal) FIFRA inspections focused on 

the Worker Protection Standard (WPS). 

N N N 

5 OSRE-01 Reach a settlement or take an enforcement action by the start of remedial action at 99% of non-federal Superfund sites that 

have viable, liable parties.

N N 99 percent N 

5 OSRE-02

Address all unaddressed costs in Statute of Limitations cases 

for sites with total past Superfund costs equal to or greater than 

$500,000 in value via settlement, referral to DOJ, filing a 

claim in bankruptcy, or where appropriate write-off. 

N N 100 percent of cases N 

5 EPCRA 

01 Conduct at least four (4) EPCRA 313 data quality 

inspections. 

N N Minimum of 40 

nationally N 

5 EPCRA 

02

Conduct at least twenty (20) EPCRA 313 non-reporter 

inspections (and/or other compliance monitoring activities as 

determined by the compliance monitoring national dialogue).

N N Minimum of 200 

nationally N 

*Goal/Objective/Sub-Heading 

8 
Appendix 3 - EXPLANATION OF CHANGES BETWEEN FY 2014-2015 AND FY 2016-2017 GUIDANCE

 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Change from FY 2015 Addendums and FY 2014 NPM 

Guidance Reason for Change Location of New/Modified Information

General

Addition: The introduction was expanded for 

FY 2016-2017 to summarize how early input 

from stakeholders influenced the draft NPM 

Guidance, reference regional Climate Change 

Adaptation Plans, highlight opportunities and 

guidelines for seeking flexibility when 

implementing OECA’s NPM Guidance and 

related activities, and highlight OECA 

projects that are in alignment with EPA’s EEnterprise Goals.

The updated language takes into account 

early input and necessary updates for FY 

2016-2017. 

Pages 1-4 of draft FY 2016-

2017 NPM Guidance. 

National 

Areas of 

Focus

Addition: The introduction to the National 

Areas of Focus was expanded to briefly 

summarize the process and timing for 

selecting OECA’s FY 2017-2019 National 

Enforcement Initiatives (NEIs). 

The updated language shares information 

with stakeholders on the process/timing for 

selecting FY 2017-2019 NEIs. 

Page 4

Modification: The description of the priority 

area Assuring Safe Drinking Water was 

updated to specifically address some small 

systems that remain in persistent 

noncompliance despite primacy agency 

efforts.

The description was updated to note that 

EPA, states and tribes will work together to 

explore root causes of noncompliance and 

options for resolving them to ensure all 

available tools, resources and partners are 

engaged to help these small systems operate 

safely, comply with SDWA and become 

sustainable if possible.

Page 8

Modification: The activities under 

Implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA) 

Action Plan were updated for FY 2016-2017 

to take into account the NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule. 

The activities were modified to take into 

account actively marketing NetDMR, Net 

and other e-reporting tools to the regulated 

community; training permittees; ensuring 

state and regional general permit 

requirements are entered into ICIS or state 

NPDES program data management system; 

Pages 11-12

1 
reviewing state and regional general permit 

paper forms to evaluate consistency with 

Appendix A in the Proposed NPDES ereporting rule.

Modification: State activities under 

Implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA) 

Action Plan were updated for FY 2016-2017 

to further address e-reporting. 

In FY 2016-2017, states should: work 

towards implementation of e-reporting; 

educate and train the regulated community; 

and develop e-reporting tools or use EPA 

tools (NetDMR; NeT).

Page 12

Modification: OECA updated the description 

and activities section on Advancing Next 

Generation Compliance for FY 2016-2017. 

OECA updated the activities for FY 2016-

2017. 

Pages 13-15

Modification: OECA added a State Review 

Framework activity for regions for FY 2016-

2017. 

During FY 2016-2017, regions will 

implement any regional components to 

address the agreed-upon national focus issues 

under the “National Approach to Common 

State Enforcement Program Issues (Common 

Issues) project.” OECA is coordinating with 

regions and ECOS on the common issues 

project.

Page 16

ProgramSpecific 

Guidance

Addition: A section on EPA’s Field 

Operations Group (FOG) Guidelines was 

added for FY 2016-2017. 

Regions and Headquarters intend to complete 

development and implementation of policies, 

procedures and systems that fully address 

EPA’s ten Field Operations Group (FOG) 

Guidelines by the February 2016 deadline 

established by EPA’s Deputy Administrator.

Pages 17-18

Modification: The Environmental Justice 

(EJ) section was revised to reference that 

OECA leverages other initiatives and 

priorities that promote action in communities, 

such as Next Gen Compliance and the EPA’s 

Cross-Agency Strategies, as appropriate. The 

language related to NEIs and Next Gen 

Compliance was updated for FY 2016-2017. 

Regions are asked to consider EJ in the 

implementation of the NEIs. Also, where 

appropriate, when designing compliance and 

enforcement actions to gain the greatest 

possible environmental benefits in 

overburdened communities, regions should 

incorporate Next Gen Compliance principles, 

tools or approaches as appropriate.

Pages 18-19

2 
Modification: OECA’s Federal Facilities 

Enforcement Office (FFEO) updated the 

description and regional activities within the 

FFEO section to reflect changes for FY 2016-

2017.

FFEO updated the regional activities section 

to reflect changes in focus for FY 2016-2017 

and to reference Regional Enforcement Plans. 

Pages 20-21

Modification: OECA updated regional 

activities in the CWA NPDES section.

Language on timing for submission of draft 

alternative Compliance Monitoring Strategy

plans was included. The existing bullet on 

coordinating with the Center of Excellence 

for Biosolids was revised to recommend 

accessing biosolid program annual reports as 

needed.

Pages 23, 24

Modification: In the RCRA Subtitle C 

Hazardous Waste Program section, OECA 

updated the regional focus areas.

OECA updated language on regional focus 

areas.

Page 30

Modification: The description section for the 

RCRA Underground Storage Tank (UST)

Subtitle I Program was updated for FY 2016-

2017. The regional activity bullets were 

updated to address factors to consider when 

prioritizing inspections, timely and accurate 

reporting of data into RCRAInfo and ICIS, 

and encouraging states to optimize deterrence 

from the impact of enforcement by utilizing 

efficiencies within their authority including 

the use of delivery prohibition and addressing 

noncompliance on a corporate-wide basis 

statewide or other opportunities.

OECA updated the RCRA UST 

description/background section and a few 

regional activity bullets to appropriately 

address the focus for FY 2016-2017, taking 

into account early input from the program 

office.

Pages 31-32

Modification: The description highlights that 

OECA has updated its Model 3008(h) 

administrative order on consent (AOC). A 

couple of regional activities for RCRA 

Corrective Action were updated for FY 

2016-2017. 

Regions were asked to leverage federal, state, 

tribal, local and other partnerships (e.g. EPAFEMA MOU) to better coordinate resources; 

improve cleanups using greener and more 

resilient and sustainable practices; and 

revitalize sites through policy, guidance and, 

when appropriate, agreements and comfort 

Pages 32-33

3 
letters. Implementation of Regional Climate 

Change Adaptation Plans were also 

referenced.

Modification: OECA updated the 

organization, heading and description/ 

background section for TSCA Chemical Risk 

Reduction Programs; the description

indicates that regions should develop a plan 

for their overall TSCA inspections and other 

compliance activities based on the available 

resources and that prioritizes the problems to 

be addressed along with how the regions are 

providing oversight of state programs. If a 

region chooses not to develop a plan for its 

TSCA program, then the region shall use the 

distribution discussed in the NPM Guidance 

for TSCA resource allocation. This language 

is referenced via footnote in each TSCA 

section.

The revised language provides flexibility to a 

regional office to develop a plan for their 

TSCA program (inspections and other 

compliance activities) based on resources 

available in lieu of using the TSCA resource 

allocation approach outlined in the TSCA 

section of the NPM Guidance. This language 

is referenced via footnote in each TSCA 

section.

Page 34

Modification: OECA updated and 

consolidated the FIFRA section of the FY 

2016-2017 Guidance taking into account early 

input received from stakeholders. The 

updated FIFRA section discusses activities 

under the following 3 focus areas: Pesticide 

Product Integrity; Border Compliance; and 

Worker Protection Standards.

The updated activities in each FIFRA area 

take into account the early input received 

from stakeholders.

Pages 40-43

Modification: A couple of regional activity 

bullets were updated in the CERCLA section.

Regions were asked to leverage federal, state, 

tribal or local and other partnerships (e.g. 

EPA-FEMA MOU) to better coordinate 

resources; improve cleanups using greener

and more resilient and sustainable practices; 

and revitalize sites through policy, guidance, 

and, when appropriate, agreements and 

comfort letters. Implementation of Climate 

Page 44

4 
Change Adaptation Plans were also 

referenced.

Annual 

Commitment 

Measures

Modification: Updated language for FY 2016 

was incorporated into the following ACS 

measures: PBS EEO1, FED-FAC05, CWA 

07 and CAA04. 

For 4 other measures (SDWA02, SRF01, 

TSCA01 OC, OSRE-02), the fiscal year 

reference was updated to FY 2016 or a nonsubstantive edit was made relative to the 

existing measure.

Language was updated for FY 2016. All 

revisions are underlined in Appendix 1. 

Appendix 2, pages 3, 4 and 5.

PBS EE01 – page 3

FED-FAC05 – page 4

CWA07 – page 4

CAA04 - page 5

Addition: A new ACS measure FIFRA-Fed2

was included for FY 2016 to address regional 

inspections focused on the Worker Protection 

Standard (WPS).

A new ACS measure was included for FY 

2016 to reflect the focus area of WPS. The 

ACS measure language reads as follows: For

EPA regions with direct implementation 

responsibilities in Indian country and states 

without primacy, project the number of 

regional (federal) FIFRA inspections focused 

on the Worker Protection Standard (WPS).

Appendix 2, page 8.

5 
Appendix 4 – OECA Key Contacts for each section of FY 2016-2017 NPM Guidance

Note: For the convenience of readers, more than one OECA contact is listed for most of the subject areas below. 

Contact Name Subject Area Phone Email

Scott Throwe

Phil Brooks

Clean Air Act (CAA) National Enforcement Initiative (NEI): 

Cutting Toxic Air Pollution that Affects Communities’ Health

202-564-7013

202-564-0652

throwe.scott@epa.gov

brooks.phil@epa.gov

Ed Messina

Phil Brooks 

Apple Chapman

CAA NEI: Reducing Widespread Air Pollution from the Largest 

Sources, Especially the Coal-fired Utility, Cement, Class, and 

Acid Sectors

202-564-2300

202-564-0652 

202-564-5666

messina.ed@epa.gov

brooks.phil@epa.gov 

chapman.apple@epa.gov 

Rick Duffy 

Loren Denton 

Seth Heminway

Clean Water Act (CWA) NEI: Keeping Raw Sewage and 

Contaminated Storm water Out of Our Nation’s Waters

202-564-5014

202-564-1148 

202-564-7017

duffy.rick@epa.gov

denton.loren@epa.gov 

heminway.seth@epa.gov

Mark Pollins

Martha Segall

Carol Galloway

Kathy Greenwald

CWA NEI: Preventing Animal Waste from Contaminating 

Surface and Ground Waters 

202-564-4001

202-564-0723 

913-551-5092 

202-564-3252

pollins.mark@epa.gov

segall.martha@epa.gov

galloway.carol@epa.gov

greenwald.kathryn@epa.gov

Martha Segall

Joyce Chandler

Carol King

Assuring Safe Drinking Water 202-564-0723

202-564-7073 

202-564-2412

segall.martha@epa.gov

chandler.joyce@epa.gov

king.carol@epa.gov

Van Housman Reducing Pollution from Mineral Processing Operations NEI 202-564-0143 housman.van@epa.gov

Mamie Miller 

Andrew Stewart

Rob Lischinsky

Assuring Energy Extraction Sector Compliance with 

Environmental Laws NEI 

202-564-7011

202-564-1463 

202-564-2628

miller.mamie@epa.gov

stewart.andrew@epa.gov

lischinsky.robert@epa.gov

Martha Segall

Seth Heminway

Joe Theis

Mahri Monson

Implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA) Action Plan 202-564-0723

202-564-7017 

202-564-4053 

202-564-2657

segall.martha@epa.gov

heminway.seth@epa.gov

theis@joseph@epa.gov

monson.mahri@epa.gov

David Hindin 

George Wyeth

Advancing Next Generation Compliance 202-564-1300

202-566-2203

hindin.david@epa.gov

wyeth.george@epa.gov

Chris Knopes

Mike Mason

Strengthening State Performance and Oversight 202-564-2337

202-564-0572

knopes.christopher@epa.gov

mason.michael@epa.gov

Rick Duffy

Tracy Back

Field Operations Guidance (FOG) Guidelines 202-564-5014

202-564-7076

duffy.rick@epa.gov

back.tracy@epa.gov

Arati Tripathi Environmental Justice 202-564-2044 tripathi.arati@epa.gov

1 
Lance Elson

Marie Muller

Federal Facilities 202-564-2577

202-564-0217

elson.lance@epa.gov

muller.marie@epa.gov

Martha Segall

Seth Heminway

Rebecca Roose

Joe Theis

Mahri Monson

CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Program for Compliance Assurance and Enforcement 

202-564-0723

202-564-7017 

202-566-1387 

202-564-4053 

202-564-2657

segall.martha@epa.gov

heminway.seth@epa.gov

roose.rebecca@epa.gov

theis.joseph@epa.gov

monson.mahri@epa.gov

Joe Theis CWA Section 404 – Discharge of Dredge and Fill Material 202-564-4053 theis.joseph@epa.gov

Martha Segall 

Joe Theis

Dan Chadwick

CWA Section 311 – Oil Pollution Act 202-564-0723

202-564-4053 

202-564-7054

segall.martha@epa.gov

theis.joseph@epa.gov

chadwick.dan@epa.gov

Loren Denton

Martha Segall

Dan Chadwick

SDWA Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 202-564-1148

202-564-0723 

202-564-7054

denton.loren@epa.gov

segall.martha@epa.gov

chadwick.dan@epa.gov

Julius Banks

Rob Lischinsky

CAA Program for Compliance Assurance and Enforcement 202-564-0957

202-564-2628

banks.julius@epa.gov

lischinsky.rob@epa.gov

Craig Haas

Todd Stedeford 

Greg Sullivan

Julius Banks

Rob Lischinsky

CAA Section 112(r) 202-564-6447

202-564-2977 

202-564-1298 

202-564-0957 

202-564-2628

haas.craig@epa.gov

stedeford.todd@epa.gov 

sullivan.greg@epa.gov 

banks.julius@epa.gov 

lischinsky.rob@epa.gov

Diana Saenz

Elizabeth Vizard

RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Program 202-564-4209

202-566-5940

saenz.diana@epa.gov

vizard.elizabeth@epa.gov

Yolaanda Walker RCRA Underground Storage Tank UST Subtitle I Program 202-564-4281 walker.yolaanda@epa.gov

Peter Neves

Paul Borst

RCRA Corrective Action 202-564-6072

202-564-7066

neves.peter@epa.gov

borst.paul@epa.gov

Todd Stedeford

Greg Sullivan

Elizabeth Vizard

Everett Bishop

Shirley Fan

TSCA16

• Lead Risk Reduction Program 

• New and Existing Chemicals Program

• PCB Program 

• Asbestos Program/AHERA

202-564-2977

202-564-1298 

202-566-5940 

202-564-7032 

202-564-2425 

stedeford.todd@epa.gov

sullivan.greg@epa.gov 

vizard.elizabeth@epa.gov

bishop.everett@epa.gov

fan.shirley@epa.gov 

Don Lott • FIFRA 202-564-2652 lott.don@epa.gov

16 The TSCA contacts can respond to questions on the TSCA subject areas. Everett Bishop is the Office of Compliance (OC) staff contact for PCB and asbestos 

program questions.

2 

 
James Miles

Elizabeth Vizard

Helene Ambrosino

202-564-5161

202-566-5940 

202-564-2627

miles.james@epa.gov

vizard.elizabeth@epa.gov

ambrosino.helene@epa.gov

Paul Borst CERCLA 202-564-7066 borst.paul@epa.gov

Kathy Clark

Greg Sullivan

Todd Stedeford 

Elizabeth Vizard

EPCRA 313 Toxics Release Inventory 202-564-4164

202-564-1298 

202-564-2977 

202-564-5940

clark.kathy@epa.gov

sullivan.greg@epa.gov

stedeford.todd@epa.gov 

vizard.elizabeth@epa.gov

Craig Haas

Greg Sullivan

Todd Stedeford

EPCRA 304, 311/312 and CERCLA 103 202-564-6447

202-564-1298 

202-564-2977

haas.craig@epa.gov

sullivan.greg@epa.gov

stedeford.todd@epa.gov

Kim DePaul

Bob Heiss* 

Federal Activities 

• NEPA compliance and Environmental Impact Statement 

reviews 

• Import/export of hazardous waste and international capacity 

building*

202-564-7128 

202-564-4108 

depaul.kimberley@epa.gov 

heiss.robert@epa.gov 

Pat Straw

Julie Lastra

Criminal Enforcement Program 202-564-2513

202-564-6510

straw.patricia@epa.gov

lastra.julie@epa.gov

Jonathan Binder

Fran Jonesi

OECA Tribal Issues 202-564-2516

202-564-7043 

binder.jonathan@epa.gov

jonesi.fran@epa.gov 

Michele McKeever

Maureen Lydon 

Kim Chavez

OECA’s FY 2016-2017 National Program Manager (NPM) 

Guidance 

202-564-3688

202-564-4046 

202-564-4298

mckeever.michele@epa.gov

lydon.maureen@epa.gov

chavez.kimberly@epa.gov

3