*	' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	13-P-0431
f JHL \ Office of Inspector General	September26, 2013
s
—'—'J"
\ vjv "
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
The purpose of this review
was to evaluate how the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and
Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) enforcement tools
achieve intended outcomes;
and whether penalty
negotiations are managed to
protect human health and the
environment. This briefing
report contains findings and
recommendations related to
FIFRA and TSCA good faith
reductions and ability to pay
penalties. FIFRA regulates the
distribution, sale and use of
pesticides. TSCA provides the
EPA with authority to require
reporting, recordkeeping and
testing requirements, and
restrictions to chemical
substances and mixtures.
This report addresses the
following EPA theme:
• Taking action on toxics and
chemical safety.
For further information,
contact our public affairs office
at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2013/
20130926-13-P-0431.pdf
EPA Needs to Update Its Pesticide and Chemical
Enforcement Penalty Policies and Practices
What We Found
We found that EPA regions differed in how they documented decisions and
justified penalties related to FIFRA and TSCA enforcement penalty reductions.
EPA regions generally did not consistently determine and document reductions in
proposed penalties based on good faith of the violators, and in some regions
reductions appeared automatic without adequate justification. The lack of
adequate guidance for determining good faith reductions and supporting
documentation for good faith reductions creates a risk that violators may not be
treated equitably. In addition, EPA may be losing opportunities to fully collect all
penalties due.
We found that the EPA lacks a sufficient policy to address violators who are
unable to pay FIFRA and TSCA penalties. The current "ability to pay" model and
policy are limited to cases where an individual may not have the cash to pay a
penalty. However, no guidance exists for applying non-monetary penalty
alternatives such as public service for FIFRA and TSCA inability to pay cases
when cash is not available to pay a penalty. Also, training for enforcement staff
needs to be updated to include more guidance on ability to pay cases. Therefore
EPA's enforcement actions for FIFRA and TSCA ability to pay cases may be
limited by its outdated policy, model and training, which could impact the regions'
consistent handling of the growing number of ability to pay claims being received
from individuals.
Recommendations and Planned Corrective Actions
We recommend that the EPA provide adequate guidance for determining a good
faith reduction, develop a systematic approach to ensure that justifications for
good faith reductions are documented, revise the EPA's ability to pay penalty
policy and evaluate the individual violator model, and provide regional staff with
updated training for case development.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance agreed with two of our
five recommendations and provided alternative actions that meet the intent of the
remaining recommendations. All recommendations are resolved and open with
corrective actions underway. No further response to this report is required.

-------