Detailed Information on the
EPA Enforcement of Environmental Laws (Civil) Assessment

Direct funds toward completion of the Permit Compliance System (PCS)

Direct funds toward completion of the Permit Compliance System (PCS)

Direct funds toward completion of the Permit Compliance System (PCS)

Direct funds toward completion of the Permit Compliance System (PCS)

Direct funds toward completion of the Permit Compliance System (PCS)

Direct funds toward completion of the Permit Compliance System (PCS)

Direct funds toward completion of the Permit Compliance System (PCS)

Continue to expand and improve use of statistically valid non-compliance rates.

Develop meaningful baseline and targets for outcome oriented performance measures, with particular emphasis on pounds of pollutants reduced characterized for risk.

Target resources based on workload analysis and take into account recommendations by the intra-agency Superfund Review completed in April 2004.

Direct funds toward completion of the Permit Compliance System (PCS)

EPA will consider contracting for an independent evaluation of the program that can serve as the basis for further improvements.

Direct funds toward completion of the Permit Compliance System (PCS)

Direct funds toward completion of the Permit Compliance System (PCS)

Direct funds toward completion of the Permit Compliance System (PCS)

Direct funds toward completion of the Permit Compliance System (PCS)

Direct funds toward completion of the Permit Compliance System (PCS)

Direct funds toward completion of the Permit Compliance System (PCS)

Direct funds toward completion of the Permit Compliance System (PCS)

Begin to transition from a tool-oriented to a problem-oriented GPRA Architecture.

Calculate and evaluate recidivism rates.

Measure: Pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated

Explanation:To be revised for risk; 5% increase in pounds of pollution reduced, treated, or eliminated by 2008

Measure: Change in behavior as measured by the percentage of entities making improvements in management practices.

Explanation:5% increase by 2008, baseline set in 2005

Measure: Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated per FTE

Explanation:To be revised for risk. (Units are pounds of pollutant reduced per workyear)

Measure: Pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated, as a result of audit agreements.

Explanation:This exact measure did not exist prior to FY 2005, therefore, there is no target data for 200, 2003, or 2004.

Measure: Pounds of pollution estimated to be reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of concluded enforcement actions

Explanation:To be revised for risk

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of EPA's Civil Enforcement Program (i.e., compliance assistance, compliance incentives, compliance monitoring, and civil and administrative enforcement actions) is to protect human health and the environment by ensuring that regulated entities achieve full compliance with the nation's environmental laws; and by assisting and overseeing our state, tribal, and local partners in achieving maximum compliance with federal and state environmental laws. All major environmental laws provide the Agency enforcement and oversight authority, as well as authority to achieve compliance through other means (e.g., compliance assistance). The program purpose is embodied in the Agency's strategic plan, and the mission statements of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and its subsidiary offices.

Evidence: EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan (EPA-190-R-03-003), Goal 5, Objective 5.1, Subobjectives 5.1.1 - 5.1.3, pp. 111-113; Goal 3, Objective 3.2, Subobjective 3.2.3, p. 65; EPA 2000 Strategic Plan (EPA 190-R-00-002), goal 5 and goal 9; Citations to Regulatory Authority (Appendix C, EPA Strategic Plan); OECA mission statements

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: Though progress has been made addressing the nation's environmental problems over the past 30 years, the Agency is still faced with significant environmental challenges. In June of 2003 The Agency released its first draft 'State of the Environment.' The report 'describes what EPA knows ' and doesn't know ' about the current state of the environment at the national level, and how the environment is changing.' The report shows that though significant progress has been made there are still many challenges that remain, and many areas where we don't have data needed to assess the state of the environment.In order to protect human health and the environment the United States has a vast array of environmental statutes and regulations covering a regulated universe numbering more than 41 million entities. An effective national system for environmental protection depends on compliance of these entities with the nation's environmental laws and regulations. The Civil Enforcement Program is responsible for maximizing compliance with 10 distinct federal environmental statutes, covering 28 separate program areas. The program focuses on environmental risks and noncompliance patterns that contribute to environmental and public health problems associated with industry sectors, specific pollutants, geographic areas, and particular facilities or companies. In addition, the program works with, and provides assistance to, our state, tribal, and local partners to help them improve compliance. Compliance assistance is also provided directly to regulated entities to help them understand and meet their environmental obligations. Assistance is targeted to specific environmental problems, industry sectors, and particular entities such as small business and local governments.

Evidence: EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan (EPA-190-R-03-003), Goal 5, Objective 5.1, Subobjectives 5.1.1 - 5.1.3, pp. 111-113; Goal 3, Objective 3.2, Subobjective 3.2.3, p. 65; EPA 2000 Strategic Plan (EPA 190-R-00-002), regulatory citations in Appendix C; research on size of the regulated universe; EPA's Planned Compliance Assistance Activities for FY 2004: Preliminary Highlights of the Annual Plan and Inventory (EPA 305-F-03-014); Draft Report on the Environment 2003 (EPA-260-R-02-006), www.epa.gov/indicators/

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: While working closely with program partners the federal civil enforcement program makes a unique contribution to protecting the environment by ensuring compliance with environmental laws, and protecting human health and the environment. The federal role in the civil enforcement program is to: implement and enforce programs that cannot be delegated to states and tribes (e.g. the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, the Oil Pollution Act), and programs that have not yet been delegated to states and tribes; to handle more complex cases involving multiple states or trans-boundary issues; to deal with issues that require expertise or resources that only EPA can provide; and to provide enforcement when states and tribes are unable or unwilling. The Civil Enforcement Program is also responsible for ensuring that states and tribes maintain their enforcement programs in accordance with federal law, and delegation agreements.

Evidence: Fiscal Year 2005-2007 OECA National Program Guidance, www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/oeca/2005/oeca_npmguidance.pdf; Fiscal Year 2004 OECA Memorandum of Agreement Guidance Update, July 24, 2003; Memorandum, 'Revised Policy Framework for State/EPA Agreements,' August 25, 1986; Memorandum, 'Oversight of State and Local Penalty Assessments: Revisions to the Policy Framework for State/EPA Agreements,' July 20, 1993; Federal Register Notice requesting feedback for national priority selection (FR Vol. 68, No. 237, December 10, 2003).

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The program employs a set of four tools to ensure that program activities have a significant impact on the environmental problems addressed. Compliance assistance: through various forms of outreach including visits to regulated facilities, conferences, training sessions, targeted distribution of printed materials, online compliance assistance centers, and wholesaling of compliance assistance information to states and other partners; compliance incentives: through policies which motivate facility self-audits by providing penalty relief for self-disclosed and corrected violations; compliance monitoring: through inspections and investigations; and through civil and administrative enforcement to correct current and deter future violations. Planning and analysis is done to develop tailored strategies that apply the most effective mix of these tools to address specific environmental risks or noncompliance patterns. The 'Integrated Strategies' pilot is testing a template that encourages the consideration and integration of all appropriate tools when developing a compliance and enforcement strategy. The goal in each instance is to enable the civil enforcement program to use its limited resources to achieve the highest level of compliance among the greatest portion of the identified regulated community. Currently, 10 Integrated Strategies pilots are being run in eight EPA regions in sectors such as construction and auto salvage. Six month updates for the pilots were submitted in October of 2003, and each pilot is on track to complete baselining activities by the end of the year.

Evidence: EPA's Planned Compliance Assistance Activities for FY 2004: Preliminary Highlights of the Annual Plan and Inventory (EPA 305-F-03-014); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report (EPA 190-R-02-001), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report (EPA 190-R-03-001), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Report (EPA 190-R-03-002) for examples of sector initiatives, and tool specific results.; Memorandum from the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance: Operating Principles for an Integrated Enforcement and Compliance Assistance Program, November 27, 1996; Memorandum from the Director of the Office of Compliance: Integrating Compliance Assistance and Incentives with Enforcement in EPA and State Planning Meetings, June 11, 2002; Draft Framework for Developing Integrated Compliance Assurance Strategies for Consideration by the Compliance Assistance and Policy Infrastructure (CAPI) Steering Committee; from the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance: Using Integrated Strategies and Outcome Measurement to Address Environmental Problems, November 27, 2002

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: A number of steps are taken to ensure that the civil enforcement program focuses on the most important environmental problems. The program conducts extensive analyses of enforcement and compliance data to identify trends and patterns of noncompliance. In-depth analyses are also done on 'emerging sectors;' those sectors that may, or have the potential, to pose significant environmental and human health problems in the future. To enhance the impact of the Civil Enforcement program, national compliance and enforcement priorities are selected to focus program efforts on a limited number of problems. Feedback on priority selection is gathered from States, Tribes, and other regulatory partners, the regulated community, and the interested public. Performance-based strategies, including performance goals and measures, are being developed for each national priority that will be implemented beginning in FY 2005. (For more detail on the National Priority setting process see the response to Question 8 in Section 2.) Regions have developed, and will begin using Regional plans in FY 2005. The regional plans outline regional priorities and areas where regions will focus their work in the coming year. The regional plans show how regional activities support Goal 5, Objective 5.1: Improve Compliance, of EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan.

Evidence: Federal Register Notice requesting feedback for national priority selection (FR Vol. 68, No. 237, December 10, 2003); Template for Developing a Performance-Based Strategy for National Compliance and Enforcement Priorities, February 18, 2004; Fiscal Year 2005-2007 OECA National Program Guidance, www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/oeca/2005/oeca_npmguidance.pdf (See Section II, p. 4 for National Priority Goals); EPA Regional Plans, www.epa.gov/ocfo/regionplans/regionalplans2.htm

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Long term PART measures are: pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated; and a change in behavior as measured by the percentage of regulated entities making improvements in environmental management practices. In addition, there is a long term efficiency measure which is the pounds of pollutants reduced/FTE. The pollutant reduction measure is an end outcome, and the environmental management practices measure is an intermediate outcome, as defined in EPA's six-level measures hierarchy. These measures focus on the EPA's broad mission of protecting human health and the environment.

Evidence: EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan (EPA-190-R-03-003), Goal 5, Objective 5.1, Subobjectives 5.1.1 - 5.1.3, pp. 111-113; Goal 3, Objective 3.2, Subobjective 3.2.3, p. 65; EPA 2000 Strategic Plan (EPA 190-R-00-002), goal 5 and goal 9

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Although measures are being developed, it is not yet clear that ambitious targets and timeframes have been chosen. Some long-term measures have been developed in the context of the Agency Strategic Plan, which covers a five-year timeframe. OMB is concerned that the targets proposed in Goal 5 of the Strategic Plan could be improved to be more ambitious. As the agency develops its baselines and targets OMB recognizes the case dependent nature of setting a baseline and targets, but expects a more rigorous approach than that outlined last year in the SP.

Evidence: EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan (EPA-190-R-03-003), Goal 5, Objective 5.1, Subobjectives 5.1.1 - 5.1.3, pp. 111-113; Goal 3, Objective 3.2, Subobjective 3.2.3, p. 65; EPA 2000 Strategic Plan (EPA 190-R-00-002), goal 5 and goal 9

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program's annual performance goals are a mix of output and outcome goals. Outcomes (e.g. pounds of pollutants reduced through enforcement actions, changes in behavior through assistance and incentives) contribute directly to the Agency's ultimate outcomes ' clean air, pure water, and protected land. The pounds of pollutants measure is also being revised to add a characterization of hazard and exposure to the current measure of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated. Improvement of the annual measure will also enable the same characterizations to be added to the long-term pollutant reduction measure identified in Question 2-1.

Evidence: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report (EPA 190-R-02-001), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report (EPA 190-R-03-001), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Report (EPA 190-R-03-002);Superfund/Oil Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year 2002/2003 (EPA 540-R-01-004), March 30, 2001; Compliance and Enforcement Data Systems; Attachments E

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: It is not clear that the baseline and targets under development are ambitious. Depending on the measure, the program will use as a baseline either the previous years performance, or an average of the previous three years performance. OMB suggests that EPA obtain some statistical expertise to devise a baseline and targets that are meaningful, and take into account the annual variations that occur. A target of 5%, when the variation from year to year can be as great as 300%, is not meaningful. OMB recognizes that setting baselines and targets may be difficult, especially when the measure is case dependent, however, we believe this challenge must be met.

Evidence: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report (EPA 190-R-02-001); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report (EPA 190-R-03-001); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Report (EPA 190-R-03-002); EPA FY 2005 Congressional Budget Justification, Goal 5, www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2005/2005cj.htm

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: In the past, national priorities were selected every two years. Beginning with FY 2005 national priorities will be selected to run concurrent with the three-year strategic planning cycle. The selection of national priorities is the primary planning tool employed by the enforcement program to direct activities to achieve long-term goals (See Attachment A for a list of the FY 2005 -2007 national priorities). The national priorities are incorporated into the Enforcement and Compliance Program's National Program Guidance, which also contains guidance for the Core Program. The Core Program guidance has been extensively revised for FY 2005 so that Regions are now required to make commitments to: quantitative goals, performance benchmarks, and, in some cases, project activity levels. National priorities now have performance goals and measures, and regions will also make commitments to ensure national priority goals are met. Regional commitments will be recorded in an online system, which will be used to track progress. The National Program Guidance, and individual regional plans serve as the basis for discussions between regions and states about use of program grant funds, and program planning. States and EPA sign these "performance agreements", and State actions are evaluated to ensure compliance.

Evidence: Fiscal Year 2005-2007 OECA National Program Guidance, www.epa.gov/ocfo/npmguidance/oeca/2005/oeca_npmguidance.pdf; Superfund/Oil Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year 2002/2003 (EPA 540-R-01-004), March 30, 2001; Fiscal Year 2004 OECA Memorandum of Agreement Guidance Update, July 24, 2003; Memoranda of Agreement from Regions 1 through 10

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Although independent evaluations as defined in the PART instructions are not available, the civil enforcement program routinely collects and uses performance information to evaluate program effectiveness. There are compliance data systems in place tracking the performance of significant portions of the regulated community; and data analysis tools such as the Online Tracking Information System (OTIS) and the Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) system that enable holistic multimedia analysis of facility-level compliance information, and sector and industry trends. For a complete description of the programs data systems, data analysis tools, and data quality activities please see the response to Question 1 in Section 3. In February of 2003 OECA completed an in-depth performance analysis of the NPDES Majors portion of the water program covering the period 1999-2001. The analysis used as a template the six performance-based questions outlined in the OECA report Using Performance Measurement Data as a Management Tool (see Attachment B). The key findings and conclusions illustrated patterns of enforcement activity, compliance levels, data quality, and program management. The report included 13 reommendations for improving the performance and management of the NPDES program; 12 of these recommendations have been implemented, or are in the process of being implemented (see Attachment D). Two additional performance analyses will be completed in FY 2004. An analysis of the Combined Sewer Overflow program is currently underway, and work has begun to narrow the focus of an analysis of some portion of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program. (See the response to Question 8 in Section 2 for more information on the Planning Council). In late 2003, the Deputy Administrator initiated a 120 Day Study on Superfund Program Management. The goal of the study is to identify specific options for using Superfund resources most efficiently in order to accomplish more site cleanups with existing resources. The study is scheduled for completion in mid-2004.

Evidence: Using Performance Measurement Data as a Management Tool, June 10, 2002; Final Report on the NPDES Majors Performance Analysis, February, 2003; See Attachment D for status on the implementation of recommendations from the NPDES Majors analysis

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The Program's budget is aligned with EPA's Strategic Plan and requests are tied to annual and long-term performance goals. The Agency's budget structure aligns resources by goal, objective and sub-objective, presenting a clear and concise outline of needs at each level. The Agency estimates and budgets for the full annual costs of operating the civil enforcement program, taking into consideration any changes in funding, policy and legislative changes. All spending categories and the resource levels and activities associated with them are included in the annual Congressional Justification. Performance data are considered at every step in EPA's planning and budgeting process (i.e., developing the OMB submission, Congressional Justification, annual Operating plan, and reporting results in the Annual Report). The Agency's financial information is integrated with performance and other program data to support day-to-day decision making of managers and executives. If funding levels change, this budgeting structure enables the program to easily estimate the impact on specific program components. The resource allocation supports specific performance outputs, which translate into outcomes.

Evidence: EPA's Annual Plan and Congressional Justification, Budget Automation System Reports, PERS, Operating Plan Guidance, OECA's spending plans. EPA was selected as a government-wide finalist for the 2002 President's Quality Award in the area of budget and performance integration.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The program has taken significant steps in several areas to improve its strategic planning efforts over the past year. National priorities are selected to focus the program on high-priority problems, and to ensure that greatest results are being reaped from the resources employed. In addition to the extensive outreach already done the program held a national meeting in January with states, tribes, and other stakeholders to give them an opportunity to discuss and provide input on the selection of national priorities. States and tribes, and EPA regions were very appreciative of this increased collaboration, which has led to a greater consensus on selected priorities. Beginning with the FY '05-07 priorities the program will be developing performance-based strategies for each of the priorities. The strategies will include performance goals and measures, a priority plan that identifies tools and techniques to address the problem, a communication plan, and an exit strategy. Also new this year, states and tribes are participating on all but one of the national priority strategy development teams. The program will begin working in 2004 on adding a characterization of hazard and exposure to the Program's current measure of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated as a result of compliance and enforcement activities. For a description of the long-term plans to improve this measure see the Measure Improvement Plan in Attachment E. In December of 2002 the OECA Planning Review Team (PRT) released its final report, including recommendations for improving OECA planning, priority setting, application of tools to address problems, and use of performance information to improve program management and effectiveness. The following improvements have been made: 1) testablishment of the OECA Planning Council to set priorities, 2) two additional in-depth performance analyses are underway for CSO's and the RCRA program; 3) the national priority setting process has been streamlined and synchronized with the strategic planning process .to help ensure they are aligned with and support the strategic plan.

Evidence: Federal Register Notice requesting feedback for national priority selection (FR Vol. 68, No. 237, December 10, 2003); Final Report of the OECA Planning and Review Team: Recommendations for Improving OECA Planning, Priority Setting, and Performance Measurement, December 18, 2002; Memorandum from the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance: Establishing the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Planning Council, February 25, 2003.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Agency collects performance information on a routine basis from state and federal partners, and on its own performance. Both baseline performance data and trend information is captured in national data systems to inform management and Congress of the state of the program, and the progress toward performance goals. Phase I of the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), allows headquarters and regional offices to collect, track and manage (in real-time) compliance information from inspections through settlement of enforcement actions. Phase II of ICIS is modernization of the CWA Permit Compliance System (PCS). . PCS Modernization will enable the tracking of additional enforcement and compliance CWA performance information. The Online Tracking Information System (OTIS) is a web interface that enables fast,tailored queries of the data in 12 data systems, enabling a multimedia approach to the analysis of environmental and enforcement trends. EPA and states use this system frequently (approx. 15,000 queries per month) A December 2002 audit report found that inspection data was very accurate in the CAA, CWA and RCRA data systems. A second random audit of formal enforcement action will review the quality of EPA and state formal enforcement action data in EPA data systems, data collection is schedule to be completed by the end of July. In April of 2003 OECA began distributing monthly management reports to headquarters and regional managers that contain key indicators of program performance. This was a recommendation of the OECA Planning and Review Team. A Watch List helps OECA better manage whether longstanding serious violators are being addressed with enforcement actions. The project ensures quarterly discussion between Regions and States of serious violators, and provides a new OECA review component in which Regions (in consultation with states) provide explanations for why particular cases are taking longer than expected. Senior management also uses Regional Profiles on delegated states.

Evidence: All of the measures used to evaluate the performance of the program are identified in Reporting for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Priorities (RECAP), which is issued bi-annually by the program. Subsets of the measures included in this report are used for different purposes including semi-annual program status reports, an annual measures of success report, and the annual accomplishments report required under GPRA. Slide Presentation: Statistically Valid Noncompliance Rates, April 29, 2002; Case Conclusion Data Sheet Training Booklet, November 2000; Quick Guide for the Case Conclusion Data Sheet, November 2000; Report: Results of the Random Audit of FY 2001 Inspection Data, December 18, 2002; ICIS Phase II: PCS Modernization Fact Sheet, April 22, 2004.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Performance standards for federal managers are based on program goals, and managers are evaluated on whether they have achieved program goals; bonuses and awards reflect program accomplishments as well. Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs), outlining regional goals and resource commitments, are used as a work planning tool between headquarters and regional senior managers. MOA goals are reviewed periodically by headquarters managers to ensure sufficient progress is being made towards achieving goals in the established time frame. Project Officers work closely with the Contract Officer to ensure that all billing and work is on schedule, within budgetary limitations, and meets contract requirements. See the response to question four in this section for an explanation of EPA's contractor assessment process and how it results in greater contractor accountability.

Evidence: EPA's Policy on Compliance, Review, and Monitoring dated August 2, 2002; Memorandum: OECA Post-Award Assistance Management Plan, January 28, 2002; Contract and grant spending plans; awards guidance.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the program develops an operating plan by activity that reflects how the program plans on spending its budget as requested in the President's Budget. Resources are allocated by goal, objective, and subobjective. Programs then adjust the operating plan to reflect appropriated levels. EPA's budget and annual Operating Plan are aligned with the Agency's Strategic Plan and approved by OMB and Congressional Appropriations Committees. Obligations and expenditures are tracked in the Agency's Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) against the Operating Plan. Material changes to the enacted spending plan require a formal reprogramming of funds. Fund transfers between program objectives in excess of Congressional established limits require Congressional notification and/or approval. In FY 2002, the program obligated over 97% of its budget. As part of the year-end close out process, the Agency sends guidance to programs including deadlines on spending funds, and when expiring funds might be swept if they are not obligated. EPA works with grantees to ensure that their work plans reflect the Agency's Strategic Plan and Operating Plan, and that recipient spending is consistent with the approved workplan. Each program office and grants management office conducts post-award monitoring of assistance agreements, including monitoring the draw-down of funds against grantee progress on workplan tasks and deliverables. This monitoring ensures that recipients are spending the funds designated to each program area for the intended purpose. All grantees are required to submit annual or more frequent financial status reports.

Evidence: EPA's Annual Operating Plan and Congressional Justification; EPA 2000 Strategic Plan (EPA 190-R-00-002); EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan (EPA-190-R-03-003), Goal 5, Objective 5.1, Subobjectives 5.1.1 - 5.1.3, pp. 111-113; Goal 3, Objective 3.2, Subobjective 3.2.3, p. 65; Budget Automation System Reports, EPA's Annual Report and Financial Statements; OECA's spending plans; FY 2003 Year-End Close Out Guidance (signed by David Bloom, Acting, Director, Annual Planning and Budget Division.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Due to the inherently governmental nature of much of our enforcement activities, OECA's declaration of commercial positions under the Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act has been relatively modest. OECA will continue to evaluate its portfolio of activities to determine the appropriate mix of Federal FTE and contract support to achieve program objectives in the most cost efficient manner. For the services the program does contract for OECA has a policy emphasizing the use of performance requirements and quality standards in defining contract requirements, source selection, and quality assurance. This approach provides the means to ensure that the appropriate performance quality level is achieved, and that payment is made only for services which meet contract standards. OECA tracks the past performance of its contractors in order to ensure that the most qualified contractor is selected in the future. Contractors are assessed on cost, schedule, technical performance (quality of product or service), and business relations including customer satisfaction. Since the contractor is aware of the rating system it provides an incentive to maintain a high-level of performance during the contract period in order to improve the chances of being selected again in the future. The program has demonstrated improved efficiencies in generating outcomes over the past several years. For more detail see the response to Question 3 in Section IV for measures of efficiency in program execution.

Evidence: Memorandum: OECA Post-Award Assistance Management Plan, January 28, 2002; contract and grant spending plans.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The civil enforcement program collaborates with groups that represent the interests of state program partners such as the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), and the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG); and with media specific associations such as STAPPA/ALAPCO, ASIWPCA, and ASTSWMO on a variety of policies and projects. The program works closely with EPA program offices when selecting national priorities (see Sec II, Q8), and when developing compliance assistance information for new regulations. Superfund enforcement work planning is done collaboratively with the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), and is carried out using the Superfund/Oil Program Implementation Manual (SPIM). Planning for RCRA Corrective Action Enforcement is also done collaboratively with OSWER and the Regions through the Mutual Performance Agreement (MPA) process. This includes a regional and headquarters Planning Council, and a streamlined planning process that more explicitly accounts for regional activities through the development of Regional Plans, and focuses on performance commitments. The program also collaborates with numerous Federal Agencies, and with states and tribes to ensure compliance with delegated Federal programs. The program works most closely with the Department of Justice (DOJ) who functions as legal counsel presenting the Federal Government in civil enforcement cases initiated and developed by the civil enforcement program. The program works closely with other Federal Agencies with which it shares program responsibilities for environmental protection, such as: the Department of Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the Coast Guard, and the Army Corp of Engineers through the Superfund, Section 117, Natural Resources Damages Assessment and Claims process. The program distributes $2.2 million in grants to build the capacity of state and tribal enforcement programs. Past grant have supported the development of outcome-based performance measures, public access to information, and data quality. The FY2004 grants support state activities to prepare them to use the new modernized PCS data system.

Evidence: Memoranda of Understanding with other federal agencies; Fiscal Year 2004 OECA Memorandum of Agreement Guidance Update, July 24, 2003; Superfund/Oil Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year 2002/2003 (EPA 540-R-01-004), March 30, 2001; Notice of Availability for FY 03 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Multi-Media Assistance Agreements, Federal Register, March 28, 2003.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program follows EPA's financial management guidelines for committing, obligating, reprogramming, and reconciling appropriated funds. Agency officials have a system of controls and accountability, based on GAO and other principles, to ensure that improper payments are not made. At each step in the process, the propriety of the payment is reviewed. EPA trains individuals to ensure that they understand their roles and responsibilities for invoice review and for carrying out the financial aspects of program objectives. EPA provides guidance and directives on resource operation and management for each fiscal year. The 'Advice of Allowance Letter' provides specific information on the current operating plan, budget ceilings, reprogramming limitations, Congressional limits and directives, unliquidated obligations, and re-certification guidance. During the fiscal year, OECA updates its sub-objective descriptions, which are used by the program to guide where spending will be charged based on the type of work being performed. In addition, OECA holds status of funds meetings with the Assistant Administrator, Deputy Assistant Administrator, and Office Directors to discuss resource and spending issues throughout the fiscal year. EPA received an unqualified audit option on its FY02 financial statements and had no material weaknesses associated with the audit.

Evidence: Annual Congressional Justification, Budget Automation System reports, Unqualified audit option on EPA FY02 financial statements, Fiscal Year 2003 Advice of Allowance Letter, EPA's FY 2003 Integrity Guidance, signed by Acting Administrator Marianne Lamont Horinko, dated October 23, 2003; The Agency's resource policies can be found at: www.epa.gov/ocfo,

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The program continuously reviews its policies, procedures, and guidance to assure that they support Agency and OECA goals and objectives, and reviews management deficiencies (with associated corrective actions) per the guidelines of the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA). The results of each Office's reviews are provided to the Administrator, and discussions are held with OMB, GAO, and the OIG to outline steps for correcting FMFIA weaknesses, and improving management of OECA's Federal programs. OECA provides an annual letter to the Administrator to confirm that its policies, procedures, and guidance are adequate, and outlining any corrective actions needed to address weaknesses. Periodic updates on progress towards correcting weaknesses or meeting challenges are also reported.

Evidence: EPA's FY 2003 Integrity Guidance, signed by Acting Administrator Marianne Lamont Horinko, dated October 23, 2003.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Without adeuqate baselines and targets, progress is difficult to accurately measue, however, EPA is undertaking devloping and revising measures which are expected to produce more meaningful targets and a baseline. Over time the performance goals have changed and been refined. Over 1.52 billion pounds of pollution was eliminated from air, land, and water; 9.87 billion pounds of pollution was treated or removed; 6.5 billion gallons of polluted groundwater was treated; 2 million people are now served by drinking water systems brought back in to compliance; and 4,069 facilities disclosed and corrected violations under EPA's audit policies.

Evidence: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report (EPA 190-R-02-001), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report (EPA 190-R-03-001), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Report (EPA 190-R-03-002)

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Under Goal 9 of the FY 2000 EPA Strategic Plan the Civil Enforcement Program met or exceeded 7 of 8 (87.5%) of its annual performance goals (APGs) for FY 2003 [FY02 - 86%, FY01 - 100%, FY00 - 80%, FY99 - 100%]. This includes exceeding goals for pollutants reduced, treated or eliminated; number of facilities choosing to self-disclose and correct violations; and the number of facilities reached through targeted compliance assistance. Results for individual annual measures are outlined in Attachment H. The Program's annual performance goals are a mix of outputs and outcomes all of which contribute to achievement of long-term goals (see Attachment F for more detail on this linkage). Annual performance goals are set to be ambitious, while taking into account the case-dependent nature of many of the Program's outcomes. Annual performance goals are set as a annual percentage increase, which result in substantial absolute increases when the compounding nature of theses targets are considered (see response to Question 2.4). The Program is also submitting revising measures to characterize them as to risk.

Evidence: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report (EPA 190-R-02-001), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Report (EPA 190-R-03-001), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Report (EPA 190-R-03-002)

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: Until there are adequate baselines and targets, it is hard to demonstrate efficiencies. Achievement of the Civil Enforcement Program's annual and long-term goals is highly dependent on the enforcement cases that are concluded each year. The case-dependent nature of annual and long-term program outcomes can result in significant variability in a measure from one year to the next. To address this variability the Civil Enforcement Program is basing its efficiency measures on three-year rolling averages where possible (i.e., sufficient historical data is available). Efficiency measures are based on results per Full Time Equivalent (FTE); the two time periods compared are FY00 - FY02 and FY01 - FY03. As part of the Agency's 2003 - 2008 Strategic Plan OMB has approved the use of two long-term measures to gauge the success of the Civil Enforcement Program: pounds of pollutants reduced, treated, or eliminated; and the number of regulated entities making improvements in environmental management practices. The three-year rolling average for pounds of pollutants reduced, treated or eliminated per FTE increased 118%; while the three-year rolling average for injunctive relief collected per FTE was up approximately 4%. The Civil Enforcement Program also tracks a number of other measures in order to gauge program efficiency. Sub-objective 5.1.1 of the new Strategic Plan covers the Civil Enforcement Program's compliance assistance activities. The average number of entities that were reached with compliance assistance activities between FY01-03 was up over 18% from the FY00-02 rolling average, and the three-year rolling average for the number of entities seeking compliance assistance was up over 27%. In FY02 the Program began measuring gallons of groundwater treated as a result of concluded enforcement cases, and number of people served by drinking water systems brought back in to compliance as a result of concluded enforcement cases. Since only two years of data is available, annual efficiency measures will be used for these enforcement outcomes. The FY03 value for gallons of groundwater treated per FTE is up 130% over the FY02 value; while the number of people served by drinking water systems brought back in to compliance per FTE in FY03 is down 37% as compared to the FY02 value. Both of these measures fall under Sub-objective 5.1.3: Monitoring and Enforcement, of the new Agency Strategic Plan, and roll up into the long-term measure on pollutant reductions.

Evidence: Data generated for PART analysis of the Civil Enforcement Program, comparing outcome trends and resource levels.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There are no other programs with 'similar goals and purposes' that offer a valid comparison to EPA's Civil Enforcement Program. While other federal regulatory agencies have enforcement programs, they are seeking compliance with laws and regulations different from those for which EPA is responsible. Further, these other agencies have regulated universes that do not align with the regulated universe covered by the laws in EPA's purview. Comparisons with state enforcement programs are also invalid since those programs also enforce a host of state environmental and natural resource statutes in addition to the Federal statutes they enforce under delegated agreements. Furthermore, very few state enforcement programs measure any outcomes associated with their activities.

Evidence:  

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Currently, there are no comprehensive, independent, quality evaluations, as defined in the PART Guidance, for the Civil Enforcement Program. As noted earlier, the Civil Enforcement Program encompasses 10 distinct federal environmental statutes, covering 28 separate program areas, making it very unlikely that any third party would attempt an evaluation of this scope. EPA's Inspector General (IG) has identified a review of Compliance Assurance and Enforcement in its multi-year plan. The IG has identified the following key question for the evaluation, ' Are the enforcement approaches optimized to ensure compliance with environmental rules and regulations, and designed to protect human health and the environment?' The first step in this process was an evaluation of the Civil Enforcement Program's activities to address the petroleum refining national priority, which should be released soon. The petroleum refining evaluation will serve as the basis for future evaluations in the broader Compliance Assurance and Enforcement area. The IG's assessment is planned to be of sufficient scope such that it would enable the program to respond this question once complete. Over the past several years evaluations of particular components, or aspects of the program have been conducted by the General Accounting Office, the National Academy of Public Administration, and EPA's Office of Inspector General. These are listed in Attachment C.

Evidence: Annual Plan, EPA Office of Inspector General, www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2004/20040315-annual-plan.pdf; Attachment C