Law Offices
2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 100
Washington, D.C. 20006-6801

FAX 202-955-5564
Fort Lauderdale
Los Angeles
New York
International Offices:
Buenos Aires'
Mexico City
Rio de Janeiro
Northern Virginia
. St. Petersburg
San Antonio
San Francisco
Washington, D.C.
West Palm Beach

Sao Paulo
Tel Aviv*

May 23, 2001

Internet Address:
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building (MC 1101A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Administrator Whitman:

      On behalf of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology  (NACEPT),  I  am pleased  to  forward  the NACEPT Council's
comments on the Agency's proposed  Fiscal Year  2002 Enforcement Grant
Program  (see  enclosure).  The  review  was conducted  by the  Compliance
Assistance Advisory Committee (CAAC), a subcommittee under the auspices of

      The CAAC was convened under NACEPT to provide assistance to EPA in
the development of an annual EPA-wide compliance  assistance plan that will
outline agency priorities and commitments for compliance assistance activities.

      The CAAC recently had an opportunity to review a memorandum entitled
"Discussions with States and Tribes Regarding Proposed FY 2002 Enforcement
Grant Program," issued by

      Ms. Sylvia  K.  Lowrance,  Acting Assistant Administrator,  Office  of
Enforcement and  Compliance  Assurance (April 30, 2001). The memorandum
referenced the inclusion of $25 million in the President's FY 2002 Budget for
grants to state and tribal enforcement programs, and directed initiation of "a
broad consultation process to solicit views about options and issues associated
with the new program."


Administrator Christine Todd Whitman
May 23, 2001
Page 2
      The Council and  I look forward to receiving your response and  are
available to participate in EPA's discussions with stakeholders relevant to the
Enforcement Grant Program.

                                        Robert L. Rhodes, Jr.
                                        Chair, NACEPT
cc:    Sylvia Lowrance, Assistant Administrator/OECA (Acting)
      Mike Stahl, Deputy Assistant Administrator/OECA (Acting)
      Bruce Weddle, Deputy Director, Office of Compliance
      James Edwards, Director/Compliance Assistance Division
      Richard Sustich, Co-Chair/CAAC
      JoAnn Herman, DFO/CAAC
      Gwen Whitt, DFO/NACEPT


Administrator Christine Todd Whitman
May 23, 2001
                    Recommendations Regarding: Options
                     for Use of Funds by States and Tribes
      The memorandum described three potential options for the use of grant
funds.  Option 1 would allow use of funds  to address particular environmental
problems through assistance, incentives, inspection, and/or enforcement. Option
2 would allow use of funds for building capacity of state and tribal enforcement
and compliance assurance programs. Option 3, would give states and tribes the
choice of either problem-based or capacity-building approaches.

      Currently, the Federal government provides approximately $525 million
annually to  states  and tribes to carry  out delegated program activities.
Additionally,  $220 million is given to  tribes for a variety of purposes. Of this,
approximately $131 million is used for enforcement activities. Therefore, the FY
2002 Enforcement Grant Program will increase funding to states and tribes by
less than 20 percent overall.

      In considering the three options cited above, EPA noted that, while Option
1 (Problem-based strategies) would be somewhat more difficult  to  administer
because of the complexity in reviewing grant proposals, this option's  focus on
specific strategies and outcomes measurement would be more likely to produce
environmental benefits than Options 2 and 3.

      Due to the potential for greater environmental benefits,  the NACEPT
recommends that EPA focus on problem-based strategies in selecting projects for
funding under the  subject program.  Additionally,  because this  funding  is
supplemental to current funding for  traditional enforcement activities, EPA
should focus  on projects  that promote  alternatives to traditional enforcement.
Proposals  that  incorporate   integrated  strategies  using  a  well-balanced
combination  of compliance  assistance,  inspections and enforcement should be
preferred, particularly where compliance assistance promotes the  diffusion of
advanced pollution prevention practices in the regulated community.

      Options for Allocation of Funds:

      The memorandum described three potential options for allocation of funds
through a competitive grant process. Option 1 would allocate funds to states and
tribes proportionally based on  population or  other relevant factors. Option 2
would allocate a base share of funds to each approved project, with additional
funding dispersed based on the relative merits  of the approved projects. Option 3
would allocate funds on a tiered approach, with capacity-building projects being
funded within one range and problem-based projects within a higher range.


Administrator Christine Todd Whitman
May 23, 2001
Page 4
      Again, because problem-based strategies have the greatest potential for
environmental benefits, the NACEPT recommends that EPA allocate funds
strictly on a competitive basis, considering the relative environmental benefits of
each approved project.
WASl #976533 vl