EPA POLICY ON OVERSIGHT
OF DELEGATED ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
PURPOSE
The purpose of this oversight policy is to establish
overall goals and objectives for Agency oversight of delegated
programs. The policy describes the approach to oversight
of authorized state programs toward which the Agency will
strive. While implementation will require a transition period,
this policy provides the framework for development or revision
of program-specific oversight approaches, methods, and activities,
This policy statement builds on and complements the Agency's
delegation policy.
After delegation, EPA remains responsible and accountable
to the President, the Congress, and the public for progress
toward meeting national environmental goals and for ensuring
that federal statutes are adequately enforced. EPA thus has
the responsibility to oversee the conduct of delegated,
inter-governmental programs, in order to enable excellence
in the delivery of environmental protection services in the
field. While the Agency has had oversight responsibilities
for many years, the extent and importance of this function
is greatly enhanced because of the increcising number of
delegated programs.
Substantial progress has been made in carrying out effective
oversight activities. However, criticism of EPA has focused
on confusion regarding appropriate oversight methods and
activities, and on the possibility of diminished environmental
protection in delegated programs. The importance of EPA's
oversight efforts requires that the Agency develop a
comprehensive, consistent, and constructive approach to over-
sight of state programs. Such an approach necessitates both
a continuing strong EPA presence and a workable State-EPA
relationship that takes advantage of the particular strengths
and capabilities of each, in order to deliver more efficient
and effective environmental protection.
.SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS
This policy specifically addresses EPA's responsibility for
oversight of delegated state environmental programs. The policy
does not address EPA's oversight of other state activities
funded by EPA grants, although the principles and approaches
discussed here may also be useful and appropriate in carrying
out these other oversight responsibilities.
-------
-2-
"Delegation" is the review and "approval" or "authori-
zation" process by which EPA assigns to competent and willing
states the responsibility to operate a program mandated by
federal statute. Since delegation usually involves state
governments, the discussion in this policy refers to states.
However, in the few cases of delegation to local governments,
as in the air program, references to states generally apply
to local governments as well.
"Oversight" of delegated s;tate programs is broadly
defined as the set of activities conducted by EPA after
delegation in order to ensure that state programs adequately
pursue progress toward national environmental goals and
enforcement of federal statutes, and in order to provide a
national and regional description and analysis of the status
of environmental quality.
GOALS AND APPROACH TO OVERSIGHT
It is the policy of EPA to conduct oversight of delegated
state programs in order to:
1. Ensure adequate environmental protection, through
continued development and enforcement of national
standards, and use of direct enforcement action
against polluters as necessary to reinforce state
action and authority.
2. Enhance state capabilities to administer sound
environmental protection programs, through increased
communication and a combination of support and
evaluation activities.
3. Describe and analyze the status of national and
regional environmental quality, through continued
collection and dissemination of information from
state agencies and other major sources.
EPA's oversight responsibility to ensure that federal
environmental laws are enforced is best pursued in ways that
effectively share responsibility with delegated states, that
minimize the need for direct EPA action or intervention, and
that provide support for and participation by states. EPA
needs to operate with states using clear rules and mutually
agreed-upon criteria for action, and to be as responsive to
states as possible. In delegated programs, EPA's success
depends in large part on the success of state programs in
effectively carrying out the work of pollution control and
abatement in the field.
-------
-3-
Enhancing state capacity for success requires a strong,
predictable, and dependable system of support and evaluation.
Given the nature of inter-governmental programs and the
complexity of environmental protection activities, EPA cannot
depend on review and evaluation activities alone to produce
quality state programs. But federal assistance activities
alone are also not sufficient to foster quality state programs,
since that approach ignores states' responsibilities to meet
commitments and enforce national environmental standards.
Support and evaluation activities are thus equally
necessary, and should reinforce each other. Formal and
informal evaluations of state programs should be supportive
in terms of helping the states identify needs and means for
improvement, while assistance activities should help the
states meet agreed-upon priority commitments and objectives.
Support and evaluation activities should focus on achieving
quality state programs and performance, and on preventing and
solving environmental problems in the field.
Fostering quality state programs is not a static activity,
and will also vary across delegated states. Conditions in
states change, and program activities must change to respond to
new environmental problems and challenges. Consequently,
the methods used to oversee state programs must change over
time, depending on the maturity and complexity of national
programs and on the capability of delegated states. But the
goals and general approach described here should remain the
same.
POST-DELEGATION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF EPA AND STATES
It is the policy of EPA to pursue post-delegation roles
of national program designer and spokesperson, ally and supporter
of state programs, and ultimate enforcer of federal statutes and
regulations, because that approach provides the best way to
ensure excellence in the job of environmental protection. Of
course, EPA also remains responsible for resolution of inter-
state, national and international issues; and for carrying out
research and development activities and national information
collection and analysis.
EPA's oversight responsibility is to ensure the even-
handed application and enforcement of federal environmental
laws, regulations and standards, and to provide states with the
necessary assistance, tools, methods, and back-up support to
solve environmental problems. The responsibilities of major
EPA offices concerning delegated state programs are as follows:
-------
-4-
Headquarters Program Offices
EPA headquarters programs are responsible for developing
national goals, standards, regulations, and policy, and for
ensuring their consistent and effective implementation. To
achieve these objectives, program offices establish overall
program design and management, develop national program
guidance, evaluate regional offices, and establish a framework
for regional oversight of states. Headquarters program
offices may also provide states with specialized assistance
which cannot be effectively or economically supplied by
regional offices. All such activities should reflect early
and continuing consultation with regions and states.
Office of Research and Development
ORD and its laboratory personnel are responsible for pro-
viding strong scientific, engineering and other technical
support to headquarters programs, regions and states to
solve environmental problems. Research and development
priorities and projects should therefore be responsive to
regional and state needs, as well as program needs.
Regional Offices
Regional offices have an essential role in interpreting
and adapting national program objectives and requirements
to the needs and circumstances of individual states; in com-
municating with both states and headquarters offices,
raising issues, suggesting solutions, and resolving problems
with both parties; and in identifying multi-state needs for
research, training, and so forth.
Regional offices are responsible for oversight of delegated
state programs, including identification of state needs and
problems, review and evaluation of state program performance,
and provision of technical assistance and other appropriate
responses, including direct enforcement action. Regional
offices are best placed to tailor evaluations and assistance
to address specific state needs and take into account past
performance of state programs, within the context of meeting
national environmental goals and requirements. Regions
may either provide direct assistance to states, or identify,
coordinate, and facilitate access to assistance located
elsewhere, as appropriate.
Delegation gives the states the more visible, front-line
roles involved in environmental program implementation: permit
writer, inspector, enforcer, etc. States are responsible for
direct implementation of authorized programs consistent with
national strategy and policy; resolution of intra-state and
statewide issues; putting federal grants and technical assistance
to effective use; contributing meaningfully to the development
-------
_ c_
of national policy and strategy; and maintaining financial and
program records that are sufficient to provide EPA with timely
and accurate information necessary to evaluate state activities
relating to national program implementation.
For each responsibility at the federal or state level,
there is a corresponding responsibility at the other organiza-
tional level. This demonstrates the interactive nature of the
relationship. For example, development by EPA of appropriate
national priorities and objectives is dependent upon knowledge
about pollution and compliance problems in the real world; this
information is mainly collected and supplied by the states. For
EPA to evaluate state programs and to determine where additional
technical or other assistance is needed, states must provide
accurate information and cooperate in program reviews. For
states to effectively implement programs consistent with national
strategy and policy, EPA must provide timely and useful guidance,
and must negotiate realistic objectives and appropriate priorities.
OBJECTIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
1. Ensure continuing strong enforcement activity, with
states as the first line of action and EPA as strong
back-up for action when needed.
0 Delegated states have the lead responsibility for compliance
and enforcement activities, and EPA expects delegated
states to conduct strong compliance and enforcement programs.
The Agency's enforcement role is shifting from a primary
focus on performing inspections and taking enforcement
actions to an emphasis on conducting review and evaluations
and providing states with guidance and technical assistance,
in order to assure adequate performance of state compliance
and enforcement programs.
0 While delegated states have primary responsibility for
compliance and enforcement, EPA cannot abdicate its
responsibilities to the Congress to ensure that national
goals and objectives are met. EPA also has a role in the
enforcement area as a strong back-up to states to provide
direct enforcement actions when needed. EPA will endeavor
to assist state compliance and enforcement programs when
requested, but the Agency may also take direct enforcement
action in those cases where a state demonstrates it is
not willing to establish a strong enforcement presence or
is unable to do so due to a lack of necessary resources
or requisite legal authority.
-------
-6-
EPA should establish in advance with the states the general
criteria or guidelines for when EPA will take independent
enforcement action. Such criteria could identify, for
example, cases involving national precedents or other
factors of national significance, unusually large environ-
mental impacts, imminent hazard situations, or state
enforcement responses that are not "timely and appro-
priate." We must also coordinate our enforcement actions
with states, notifying states in advance, and taking
direct action in accordance with agreed-upon criteria
and not in a way that appears to states as random and
arbitrary or that duplicates state action.
EPA and the states should conduct annual joint planning
for compliance and enforcement activities, in order to
establish and coordinate priorities and strategies.
EPA headquarters should focus on developing, with
regional and state involvement, annual program strat-
egies and priorities for targeting compliance and
enforcement activities, including criteria for EPA
priorities such as types of facilities or types of
violations. EPA is also required to assure a continu-
ing, strong nationwide enforcement presence, in order
to correct specific instances of non-compliance and to
promote voluntary compliance by the regulated community
as a whole. Headquarters should work with regions and
states to develop agreed-upon criteria for, and measures
of, adequate overall state compliance and enforcement
programs, including the level of compliance monitoring
activities and the adequacy of state actions in specific
instances of non-compliance.
EPA regions will tailor national program criteria for an
adequate state compliance and enforcement program to fit
each state's unique circumstances, procedures and authori-
ties, for the purpose of annual state program evaluations.
For EPA's enforcement role to be effective, states must
provide the Agency with prompt and accurate information
on pollution sources not in compliance and on state plans
concerning enforcement actions; such information should be
focused especially on mutually established annual priorities.
Frequent and accurate state reporting of compliance informa-
tion is extremely important for both EPA and the states.
Having an accurate nationwide picture of compliance and
enforcement activities improves our collective ability to
assess our progress toward environmental protection goals
and to make informed adjustments and improvements in
national program direction and state implementation.
-------
-7-
2. Clearly define program goals, prioritiesf and measures of
success.
0 Program offices must work with regional offices and
states to clearly describe program goals, priorities,
measures of success, and specific types of work to be
performed by state agencies and EPA;, and to provide
annual program guidance that is timely and useful to
delegated states. Clearly describing objectives and
expectations for state environmental programs will in-
crease the ability of state agencies to successfully
implement program requirements, and will increase EPA's
ability to provide appropriate assistance and evaluation.
0 Program offices should involve states, to the maximum
extent allowed by law, in the development of regulations,
standards, program policy, and guidance that will affect
program implementation by states. Early and continuing
state participation is important in order to identify
potential impacts on states, and to provide an operational
perspective which can make the regulations much more
effective and enforceable.
0 Program offices should increase their ability to define
measures of program progress and success in terms of
environmental results, as well as in terms of programmatic
results required by statutes or regulations, such
as consistency, equivalence and adequacy of enforcement.
This will enable oversight of states by the regions to
focus more on program goals for environmental results and
less on procedural details, thus allowing the regions
greater flexibility to tailor national programs to fit
individual state conditions and priorities. The states
should be included in the development of measures of
program success, in order to increase the effectiveness
of these measures. Wherever possible, the Agency's
Strategic Planning and Management System should focus on
key environmental measures useful to EPA and the states
for improving the effectiveness of the work. An example
might be the reduction of emissions by a certain but
verifiable number of tons per year, in addition to the
more usual program performance measures such as numbers
of enforcement orders issued.
0 Program and regional offices must define, and specify in
delegation agreements or other inter-agency agreements
with states, which program areas or issues are to be
routinely within the province of state decision-making
in carrying out federal statutory requirements, and which
are to be routinely shared in a specific manner with EPA.
This will establish clear operating rules, will ensure
efficiency at all levels, and will prevent unnecessary
intrusion in state autonomy. Annual negotiated agreements
between the states and EPA, such as grant agreements and
-------
-8-
state-EPA agreements (SEAs), should establish agreed-on
priorities, measures of program success, and formal
commitments from each respective party.
3. Provide constructive evaluations of delegated state programs,
focused on problem-solving.
0 Evaluations should generally focus on overall program
performance and identifying patterns of problems, rather
than focusing on individual regulatory decisions by
states. Individual actions will be reviewed selectively
on an after-the-fact basis as part of an overall program
audit or evaluation, in order to identify patterns of
problems. EPA should generally avoid second-guessing
state actions as they are being made. However, there
may be some cases where EPA participation in an individual
state program decision is appropriate because the decision
is determined to have unusually large environmental
impacts or national significance, or because EPA is
required to participate by law; that category of issues
or decisions should be carefully defined in advance.
0 Evaluations should be based as much as possible on objec-
tive measures and standards that are agreed to in advance
with the states. Evaluation measures should reflect the
fundamental elements of national programs, delegation agree-
ments, and the commitments in annual negotiated agreements
with states, such as grant agreements and state-EPA agree-
ments (SEAs). Evaluation feedback to states should focus
on means of program improvement. However, proposed
solutions to identified problems need to match the nature
and extent of the problems, and should reflect individual
state conditions and circumstances.
0 Evaluations should be frequent enough to find problems
early, and thus be able to stimulate change while the
problems are still minor. Regularly scheduled evalua-
tions should occur at least once a year, and should occur
face-to-face in state offices, with written results.
They should involve senior EPA and state managers,
and should contain no surprises for the states regarding
content or expectations.
0 EPA should use experienced, skilled senior staff as much
as possible to conduct evaluations of state programs.
Evaluators with technical expertise, program experience,
and operational field experience will be most effective
in motivating improvement or maintenance of quality
performance in state programs, since experienced EPA
staff can provide more immediate and effective on-site
consultation or targeted follow-up assistance. Programs
and regions should recognize the importance of field
experience in their short and long-term resource plans.
-------
-9-
4. Ensure timely identification of state program needs and
state environmental problems and conditions.
0 Identification of state needs and problems should be
accomplished through a combination of methods, including
joint planning, annual priority-setting in negotiated
agreements, periodic evaluations, routine reporting
systems, and frequent communication.
0 Frequent communication with state staffs facilitates
early identification of problems, needs, and concerns
of state agencies; allows timely response and follow-
up by EPA to such problems and needs; and reinforces
program goals and objectives. Emphasis should be placed
on informal and face-to-face communication with state
staffs as well as formal and written communication. Fre-
quent communication is important even when state programs
are doing well, since local situations can change rapidly.
0 Timely and reliable reporting by states on the activities
of state programs and the status of state environmental
conditions is essential in order to keep EPA well informed
on the progress of national programs and the status of
national and regional environmental quality. Reporting
systems should focus on key activities or indicators that
make the biggest difference in the success of state programs
and the quality of the environment. Such information
should be useful to both EPA and the state agencies for
improving the work. EPA should use program activity
information and environmental monitoring data to report
to Congress, plan future strategies or changes in the work
to be performed, and identify current operational problems
that need program-wide attention.
Reporting requirements should be worked out in concert
with the states, since the resulting information should
be of significant use to the states in managing their
programs, as well as to EPA in monitoring the progress
and success of national programs. Requirements should be
as consistent and predictable as possible, since radical
changes in reporting requirements and new mid-year demands.
for data are difficult for the states to accommodate. Any
special reporting requirements should be proposed as part
of the annual program planning process in order to minimize
mid-year demands for information.
0 EPA should provide an opportunity for periodic state
evaluations of EPA's performance in providing assistance
and meeting commitments. This will provide EPA with
valuable additional feedback on state needs and concerns
and on areas for improvement in national programs.
Such evaluations by states can coincide with regular
evaluations of states by regional offices, and should
be circulated to program offices as well.
-------
-10-
5. Utilize a range of responses to state program performance
and state needs, focused on preventing large mistakes
and solving identified needs.
0 EPA has some strong sanctions if a state does not operate
an adequate program, such as taking back delegated
responsibilities or reducing or cancelling grant funds.
But a more constructive approach is to prevent problems
from occurring in state programs, by developing program
guidance that is more timely and useful to states,
establishing joint EPA/state program planning, and
enhancing state technical and management capabilities.
0 EPA must respond quickly and appropriately to identified
state needs and problems. Program and regional offices
must, in conjunction with states, develop a range of
possible responses, from tools and assistance to direct
action, and must clearly define when and how such responses
will be used. EPA's possible range of responses includes
technical, management or legal consultation, training,
initiation of a special study, increased or decreased
grant amounts, targeted program evaluation or audit, more
frequent evaluations or audits, formal or informal
communication, revision of program guidelines or manuals,
laboratory testing, field environmental monitoring, direct
technical assistance, and direct enforcement action,
among others.
0 Possible tools provided by EPA include detailed, up-front
guidance where needed on how program work should be
performed. Each program must simplify and standardize its
regulatory work as much as possible in order to maximize
efficiency and consistency, while still providing room for
appropriate flexibility in state implementation. This can
be accomplished through development of standard operating
procedures or other kinds of "how-to" manuals, developed
with extensive state participation. The work can then
be delegated to states more easily, and areas of responsi-
bility defined for state agencies.
0 If EPA believes that a state program has been ineffective,
the Agency must consult with the state before taking
action, to give the state a chance to explain and/or
correct the problem. All available solutions to state
problems short of taking back the program will be tried
first.
-------
-11-
Ultimately EPA is prepared to take back a delegated
program in case of clearly unacceptable performance by a
state, which shows lack of good faith or capacity on the
part of the state to correct the problems. Taking back
delegated responsibilities must, however, occur in a
consistent and predictable manner, under pre-defined
conditions and circumstances and in accordance with
federal law.
EPA should also encourage quality state programs and
innovative solutions to pollution problems by rewarding
success whenever possible. EPA should develop and use
a variety of responses to excellent state performance,
such as publicizing state progress and accomplishments;
conducting less frequent evaluations or audits (but not
less than some minimum level); or providing technical
or financial assistance to quality state programs for
innovative projects that address state problems and help
achieve national goals. Program and regional offices
should develop and carry out an organized program to
identify and transfer good ideas from one state to another.
This is an important form of assistance which also gives
national recognition to innovative solutions and successful
state programs.
I expect this oversight policy to be carried out by all EPA
headquarters and regional personnel. It will demonstrate our
desire to work with and assist states in a positive manner to
successfully implement delegated programs, while at the same time
retaining our commitment to maintain high national environmental
standards through appropriate sanctions and independent action, as
necessary. The success of our efforts to protect the environment
will depend, to a great extent, on the success of delegated state
programs. You will have my full support in your efforts to carry
out the oversight policies in this statement.
William D. Ruckelshaus Date
Administrator
------- |