United States
Environmental Protection Agency
FISCAL YEAR 2021
Justification of Appropriation
Estimates for the Committee
on Appropriations
Tab 14: Appendix
February 2020
EPA-190-S-20-001	www.epa.gov/ocfo

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
2021 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Table of Contents - Appendix
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies	747
Major Management Challenges	774
EPA User Fee Programs	782
Working Capital Fund	787
Acronyms for Statutory Authority	789
FY 2021 STAG Categorical Grant Programs	793
Program Project By Program Area	803
Eliminated Programs	813
Eliminated Program/Projects	813
Eliminated Sub-Program/Projects	817
Expected Benefits of E-Government Initiatives	818
FY 2021 Administrator's Priorities	823
Proposed FY 2021 Administrative Provisions	824
Attorney Fee and Cost Payments	830
Physicians' Comparability Allowance (PCA) Plan	831
Physicians' Comparability Allowance (PCA) Worksheet	834
IT Resources Statement	835
IG's Comments on the FY 2021 President's Budget	839
EPA Budget by National Program Manager and Major Office	841
FY 2021: Consolidations, Realignments, or Other Transfer or Resources	846
S. 2276 - Good Accounting Obligation in Government Act	847
745

-------
746

-------
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies
Air and Radiation Programs
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Implementation
EPA cooperates with other agencies to achieve goals related to ground level ozone and particulate
matter (PM), and to ensure the actions of other agencies are compatible with state plans for
attaining and maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Agency
works closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A), Department of the Interior (DOI),
and Department of Defense (DOD) on issues such as prescribed burning at silviculture and
agricultural operations. EPA, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) also work with state and local agencies to integrate transportation
and air quality plans, reduce traffic congestion, and promote livable communities.
Air Quality in the Agricultural Sector
To improve EPA's understanding of environmental issues in the agricultural sector, the Agency
works with the USD A and others to improve air quality while supporting sustainable agriculture.
Regional Haze
EPA works with the DOI, National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in
implementing its regional haze program and operating the Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE) visibility monitoring network. The operation and analysis of
data produced by this air monitoring system is an example of the close coordination of efforts
between EPA and state and tribal governments. EPA also consults with the DOI's Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on potential endangered species issues.
Air Quality Assessment, Modeling, and Forecasting
For pollution assessments and transport, EPA works with the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) on technology transfer using satellite imagery. EPA further distributes
NASA satellite products and NOAA air quality forecast products to states, local agencies, and
tribes to provide a better understanding of daily air quality and to assist with air quality forecasting.
EPA works with NASA to develop a better understanding of PM formation using satellite data.
EPA also has worked with the Department of the Army on advancing emission measurement
technology and with NOAA for meteorological support for our modeling and monitoring efforts.
EPA collects real-time ozone and PM measurements from state and local agencies, which are used
by both NOAA and EPA to improve and verify Air Quality Forecast models.
EPA's AIRNow Program (the national real-time Air Quality Index reporting and forecasting
system) works with the National Weather Service (NWS) to coordinate NOAA air quality forecast
guidance with state and local agencies for air quality forecasting efforts and to render the NOAA
model output in EPA's Air Quality Index (AQI), which helps people determine appropriate air
747

-------
quality protective behaviors. In wildfire situations, EPA and the USFS work closely with states to
deploy monitors and report monitoring information and other conditions on AIRNow. TheAIRNow
Program also collaborates with the NPS and the USFS in collecting air quality monitoring
observations, in addition to over 130 state, local, and tribal air agency observations, and with
NASA in a project to incorporate satellite data with air quality observations.
EPA, the USD A, and the DOI established a collaborative framework to address issues pertaining
to wildland fire and air quality. The agreement recognizes the key roles of each agency, as well as
opportunities collaboration. For example, the partnership explains that the agencies seek to reduce
the impact of emissions from wildfires, especially catastrophic wildfires, and the impact of those
emissions on air quality. In addition, the partnership highlights opportunities for enhancing
coordination among the agencies through information sharing and consultation, collaboration on
tools and information resources, and working together to collaborate with state and other partners,
among others on strategic goals.
Mobile Sources
EPA works with the DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the
coordinated national program establishing standards to improve fuel efficiency for light-duty
vehicles. Specifically, EPA, in coordination with the DOT's fuel economy and fuel consumption
standards programs, implements vehicle and commercial truck greenhouse gas standards with a
focus on industry compliance to ensure the standards are realized.
To address criteria pollutant emissions from marine and aircraft sources, EPA works
collaboratively with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO), as well as with other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). EPA also collaborates with the
USCG in the implementation of Emission Control Area (ECA) around the U.S., and with Mexico
and Canada in the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) to evaluate
the benefits of establishing a Mexican ECA.
To better understand the sources and causes of mobile source pollution, EPA works with the DOE
and DOT to fund applied research projects including transportation modeling projects. EPA also
works closely with the DOE on refinery cost modeling analyses to support clean fuel programs,
and coordinates with the DOE regarding fuel supply during emergency situations.
For mobile sources program outreach, the Agency participates in a collaborative effort with DOT's
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to educate the public and communities about
the impacts of transportation choices on traffic congestion, air quality, and human health. These
partnerships can involve policy assessments and toxic emission reduction strategies in different
regions of the country. EPA works with the DOE, DOT, and other agencies, as needed, on the
requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007, such as the Renewable Fuel Standard. EPA also has worked with other agencies on biofuel
topics through the Biomass Research and Development Institute.
748

-------
To develop air pollutant emission factors and emission estimation algorithms for military aircraft,
ground equipment, and vehicles, EPA partners with the DOD. This partnership provides for the
joint undertaking of air-monitoring/emission factor research and regulatory implementation.
Air Toxics
EPA works closely with other health agencies such as the CDC, the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) on health risk characterization for both toxic and criteria air pollutants. The
Agency also contributes air quality data to the CDC's Environmental Public Health Tracking
Program, which is made publicly available and used by various public health agencies.
Addressing Transboundary Air Pollution
In developing regional and international air quality projects, and in working on regional
agreements, EPA works with the Department of State (DOS), NOAA, NASA, DOE, USD A, U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), and with regional organizations. In addition, EPA has partnered with other organizations
and countries worldwide, including the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the
European Union (EU), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), the CEC, Canada, Mexico,
China, and Japan. EPA also partners with environment and public health officials and provides
technical assistance through UNEP to facilitate the development of air quality management
strategies to other major emitters and/or to key regional or sub-regional groupings of countries.
Stratospheric Ozone
EPA works closely with the DOS and other federal agencies in international negotiations among
Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, with the goal of
protecting the ozone layer and through managing ozone depleting substances (ODS) it controls.
EPA also supports several multinational environmental agreements working closely with the DOS
and other federal agencies, including OMB, Office of Science Technology and Policy (OSTP),
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), USDA, Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
Department of Commerce (DOC), NOAA, and NASA.
EPA works with other agencies, including the Office of the United States Trade Representative
(USTR) and the Department of Commerce (DOC), to analyze potential trade implications in
stratospheric protection regulations that affect imports and exports. EPA has coordinated efforts
with the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of
Treasury (U.S. Treasury), and other agencies to curb the illegal importation of ODS.
Radiation and Radiation Preparedness and Response
EPA works primarily with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), DOE, and the DHS on
multiple radiation-related issues. EPA has ongoing planning and guidance discussions with DHS
on emergency response activities, including exercises responding to nuclear related incidents. As
749

-------
the regulator of DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), EPA is charged with coordinating with
DOE to ensure the facility is operating in compliance with EPA regulations. EPA is a member of
the Interagency Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force, established in the Energy
Policy Act, to improve the security of domestic radioactive sources. EPA also is a working member
of the interagency Nuclear Government Coordinating Council (NGCC), which coordinates across
government and the private sector on issues related to security, communications and emergency
management within the nuclear sector.
For emergency preparedness, EPA coordinates with other federal agencies through the Federal
Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee and the Advisory Team for Environment,
Food and Health which provides federal scientific advice and recommendations to state and local
decision makers, such as governors and mayors, during a radiological emergency. EPA participates
in planning and implementing exercises including radiological anti-terrorism activities with the
NRC, DOE, DOD, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and DHS.
EPA is a charter member and co-chairs the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation
Standards (ISCORS), which was created at the direction of Congress. Through its activities,
member agencies are kept informed of cross-cutting issues related to radiation protection,
radioactive waste management, and emergency preparedness and response. ISCORS also helps
coordinate U.S. responses to radiation-related issues internationally.
During radiological emergencies, EPA works with expert members of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA). EPA also works with OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) on two
committees: the Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC) and the Committee on
Radiation Protection and Public Health (CRPPH). Through participation on the CRPPH, EPA is
successful in bringing U.S. perspectives to international radiation protection policy.
Research Supporting the Air and Radiation Program
EPA continues to coordinate with other agencies, such as NOAA, DOE, USD A, National Institutes
of Health (NIH), and FHWA to develop sustainable approaches to manage risks from air pollution.
Water Programs
Collaboration with Public and Private Partners on Water Infrastructure Preparedness, Response
and Recovery
EPA coordinates with other federal agencies, primarily DHS, CDC, FDA, and DOD, on biological,
chemical, and radiological contaminants of high concern, and how to detect and respond to their
presence in drinking water and wastewater systems. EPA maintains a close linkage with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and DHS, particularly with respect to ensuring the timely
dissemination of threat information through existing communication networks.
EPA works with US ACE and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to refine
coordination processes among federal partners engaged in providing emergency response support
to the water sector, including maintaining clear roles and responsibilities under the National
750

-------
Disaster Recovery Framework. In addition, EPA continues to work with FEMA, USACE, and
other agencies, on the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force regarding water
resources and floodplain management.
As the agency in charge of water sector security, EPA works with DHS Cyber and Infrastructure
Security Agency (CISA) and other government agencies on the Industrial Control System (ICS)
working group to develop an ICS interagency Strategy and Implementation Plan. EPA also
collaborates with CISA on various working groups and cybersecurity issues such as roles and
responsibilities, ICS supply chain, cyber workforce, cybersecurity standards, and cyber response.
Drinking Water Programs
EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) established an Interagency Agreement to coordinate
activities and information exchange in the areas of unregulated contaminants occurrence, the
environmental relationships affecting contaminant occurrence, protection area delineation
methodology, and analytical methods. This effort improves the quality of information to support
risk management decision-making at all levels of government, generates valuable new data, and
eliminates potential redundancies. EPA also collaborates with the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) to develop strategies to decrease drinking water lead exposure in
homes. The partnership promotes the exchange of information, leverages funding, and reviews
processes to facilitate better-informed and coordinated decisions and investments.
In addition, EPA collaborates with DHHS to better understand, characterize, and manage public
health risks from Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs), with activities spanning from
assessing CDC's waterborne disease surveillance data related to legionella and other biofilm-
related pathogens to partnering with FDA on antibiotic resistance-related issues. EPA collaborates
with multiple federal agencies to address Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) issues
including the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, USD A, FDA, DHHS, the NIH,
the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Small Business Administration (SBA), NASA,
FA A, and OMB.
Sustainable Rural Drinking and Wastewater Systems
EPA and USD A work together to increase the sustainability of rural drinking water and wastewater
systems to ensure the protection of public health, water quality, and sustainable communities. The
two agencies facilitate coordinated funding for infrastructure projects that aid in the compliance
of national drinking water and clean water regulations.
National Water Sector Workforce Development: Department of Veterans Affairs
EPA and Departments of Education, Interior, Agriculture, and Veterans Affairs (VA) are building
on existing collaborations, exploring new opportunities and actions, and identifying potential
additional federal programs and partners to support the nation's water sector professionals.
751

-------
Coordination with Department of Defense on Analytical Methods for Detecting PFAS
EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) analytical methods program is collaborating with the DOD on
their efforts to develop an analytical method for detecting certain PFAS compounds in wastewater.
Source Water Protection and Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)
To combat HABs and hypoxia, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control
Amendments Act of 2014 (HABHRCA 2014, P.L. 113-124, recently reauthorized through the
National Integrated Drought Information System [HABHRCA 2017, Public Law 115-423])
emphasizes the mandate to advance the scientific understanding and ability to detect, predict,
control, mitigate, and respond to HABs and hypoxia. This legislation established the Interagency
Working Group on HABHRCA (IWG-HABHRCA). It tasked the group with coordinating and
convening federal agencies to discuss HAB and hypoxia events in the U.S., and to develop action
plans, reports, and assessments of these situations. The IWG-HABHRCA is co-chaired by
representatives from EPA, NOAA, and the OSTP, and it is composed of the following member
agencies and departments: CDC, FDA, NIEHS, USACE, USGS, BOEM, NPS, FWS, NASA,
USD A, DOS, and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
2018 Farm Bill Source Water Protection Provisions
EPA collaborates with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), state and
utility partners to develop implementation strategies and guidance to comply with the 2018 Farm
Bill provisions. These provisions dedicate at least 10 percent of total funds available for
conservation programs (with the exception of the Conservation Reserve Program) to be used for
source water protection. In addition, the Agency partners with NRCS to foster collaboration at the
state and local levels to identify priority source water protection areas in each state to address
agriculture-related impacts to drinking water sources. EPA also is collaborating with USFS in
developing strategies to implement the 2018 Farm Bill (Title VIII, Subtitle D, Section 8404)
Source Water Protection provisions requiring a "Water Source Protection Program" on National
Forest Service (NFS) lands. EPA is supporting USFS by fostering partnerships with state, utilities,
and other water stakeholders.
Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS)
EPA supports the Internal Revenue Service's development of regulations and guidance addressing
45Q, the IRS tax code section that gives companies tax credits for geologic sequestration of CO2.
EPA's role has been to provide them regulatory background on the Underground Injection Control
program. The Agency also participates in quarterly and ad hoc meetings with DOE and DOI to
share information on carbon capture and storage developments. In addition, EPA serves as a liaison
to DOE's National Risk Assessment Partnership to advance its work in developing tools to
improve collective understanding of risk at CO2 storage projects and inform science- and risk-
based decision-making at geologic sequestration projects; and to explore opportunities to integrate
the partnership work into EPA's Class VI permitting process.
752

-------
National Water Reuse Action Plan Development and Implementation
EPA is leading the development of the National Water Reuse Action Plan (WRAP) in close
partnership with federal partners. By FY 2021, the Federal WRAP Team will have held multiple,
multi-stakeholder meetings to guide and facilitate development. The team also uses the
Interagency Water Working Group and the Interagency Sustainability Working Group as forums
to coordinate federal interests in Water Reuse. Federal Partners actively engaged in the
development of the WRAP with EPA include but are not limited to: DOI, DOE, NOAA, USD A,
CDC, FDA, NASA, GSA, and DOS.
Watersheds Restoration and Nonpoint Source Pollution
EPA and USDA are co-implementing the National Water Quality Initiative in about 200
watersheds nationwide. EPA also co-implements the coastal nonpoint source pollution program
with NOAA. EPA also co-chairs, with NOAA, the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force's Watershed
Working Group to reduce land-based source pollutants to coral reef watersheds.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
Since inception of the NPDES Program under the CWA, EPA maintains relationships with various
federal agencies to implement pollution controls for point sources under NPDES. EPA works with
the FWS and NMFS on consultation for protection of endangered species. EPA works with the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on National Historic Preservation Act implementation.
EPA and its stakeholders rely on USGS monitoring data to help inform pollution control decisions.
The Agency also works closely with SBA and OMB to ensure that regulatory programs are fair
and reasonable. The Agency coordinates with NOAA on efforts to ensure that NPDES programs
support coastal and national estuary efforts, and with the DOI on mining issues. The Agency also
coordinates with the FHWA to reduce the impacts of stormwater from roads.
Vessel Discharges
EPA addresses vessel discharges under Section 312 of the CWA. EPA and DOD jointly regulate
incidental discharges from vessels of the Armed Forces, and coordinate with the USCG, FWS, and
NOAA. EPA, in consultation with USCG, is responsible for developing national performance
standards for categories of discharges from certain commercial vessels and for ballast water from
commercial vessels.
Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
EPA's State Revolving Fund programs work with HUD and USDA to foster collaboration on
jointly funded infrastructure projects. In many states, coordination committees have been
established with representatives from the three programs.
753

-------
Monitoring and Assessment of Nation's Waters
EPA and USGS co-chair the National Water Quality Monitoring Council, a national forum for
scientific discussion of strategies and technologies to improve water quality monitoring and data
sharing. The Council membership includes other federal agencies, state and tribal agencies, non-
governmental organizations, academic institutions, and the private sector. Under an MOU, EPA
and USGS operate the national Water Data Portal, providing USGS and EPA ambient water quality
data in a common format. EPA has an Interagency Agreement with the USGS for the development
of NHDPlus version 2, which includes all U.S. state and territory data, with the exception of
Alaska. EPA also collaborates with the USGS, NOAA, NPS, USD A, FWS, BLM, and the USFS
on implementation, analysis and/or interpretation of the results of the National Aquatic Resource
Surveys - an EPA, state and tribal partnership to assess and report on the condition of the Nation's
waters and changes over time using nationally consistent and regionally relevant methods.
Wetlands
EPA, FWS, USACE, NOAA, USGS, USDA's NRCS, USFS, FEMA, and FHWA coordinate on a
range of wetlands activities, including: studying and reporting on wetlands trends in the U.S.;
diagnosing causes of coastal wetland loss and identifying opportunities to stem the losses;
statistically surveying the condition of the Nation's wetlands; and developing methods for better
protecting wetland function. Additionally, EPA and USACE work together in implementing the
CWA Section 404 regulatory program. EPA also works with the FWS and NOAA on permitting
matters. EPA and USACE are working with other agencies, including USGS, NASA, NOAA,
FWS, and NRCS to develop geospatial maps of wetlands and other aquatic resources.
Natural Resources Damage Assessment and the Restore Council
EPA works in partnership with fellow federal and state trustees and their representatives to support
the ongoing Natural Resources Damage Assessment and the Restore Council (Gulf Coast
Ecosystem Restoration Council). Partners include NOAA, DOI, and USD A.
Water Quality Standards
EPA coordinates with the DOI and DOC to protect listed species and critical habitats. If EPA
determines that its approval of water quality standards may affect listed species or designated
critical habitat, EPA engages with the FWS and NMFS to conduct consultation consistent with
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Environmental Contaminants in Fish and Shellfish
EPA and FDA work in close cooperation to ensure a unified U.S. Government message regarding
the risks and benefits of consuming commercial and noncommercial fish and shellfish. The two
agencies collaborate on activities intended to address environmental contaminants in fish and
shellfish and the safety of fish and shellfish for consumption by consumers.
754

-------
Research to Support Water Programs
While EPA is the federal agency mandated to ensure safe drinking water, other federal and non-
federal entities conduct research that complements EPA's research on priority contaminants in
drinking water. Cooperative research efforts have been ongoing with the American Water Works
Association, Water Research Foundation, and other stakeholders to coordinate drinking water
research where the private sector is conducting research in areas such as analytical methods,
treatment technologies, and the development and maintenance of water resources. EPA also has
worked with the USGS to evaluate performance of newly developed methods for measuring
microbes in potential drinking water sources.
Interagency coordination in research also is occurring in developing sediment criteria. Here, EPA
has joint research initiatives with NOAA and USGS for linking monitoring data and field study
information with available toxicity data and assessment models for developing sediment criteria.
EPA also conducts studies with the USGS to monitor the occurrence of CECs. Research efforts to
monitor the effects of chemical mixtures continue, increasing our understanding of wastewater
effluent impacts to human and aquatic health and prioritizing future research on developing
solutions for the removal of CECs in wastewater treatment operations.
Land and Emergency Management Programs
Brownfields
EPA's Brownfields and Land Revitalization Programs partner with the Department of Labor
(DOL) and the NIEHS to support environmental workforce development and fund job training and
placement programs in brownfield communities. The Programs work with the USD A, DHHS, and
the ATSDR to identify ways communities can work with federal programs to increase food access
in all communities and improve access to quality health care, in response to community requests.
Improved access to healthy food and health care services can catalyze redevelopment and
employment that contribute to healthier and more sustainable communities. The Programs also
partner with the NPS's River, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program to support Groundwork
USA and individual Groundwork Trust organizations in their efforts to engage youth in
brownfields redevelopment and community revitalization. The Programs participate with DOC's
Economic Development Integration (EDI) team to identify opportunities for greater interagency
collaboration for coordinated and effective investment of federal economic development
resources. EPA leads the Brownfields Federal Partnership, which includes more than 20 federal
agencies dedicated to the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields properties. Partner agencies
work together to prevent, assess, safely clean up, and redevelop brownfields.
Economically Distressed Communities
EPA provides expertise to HUD, DOT, DOC, DHHS, DHS, DOJ, SB A, DOL, and other agencies
and departments on the importance of land revitalization, the use of green infrastructure strategies,
755

-------
green demolition, Opportunity Zone efforts, and sustainable development strategies so that the
federal government can better assist economically distressed communities.
Superfund Remedial Program
The Superfund Remedial Program maintains ongoing coordination with the ATSDR, NIEHS, and
USACE to promote information sharing and greater efficiencies. There are several areas where
collaboration and sharing resources are of mutual benefit. For example, ATSDR has a statutory
mandate to complete health assessments on sites listed on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL),
while EPA conducts site characterization and performs site work. Moreover, EPA site managers
strive to work with their ATSDR counterparts to coordinate messages for the public. For NIEHS,
EPA collaborates with NIEHS in collaborating with academia and conducting research related to
the toxicity of contaminants, site characterization, and site remediation, as well as explaining risk
information to communities and other parties. EPA collaborates with USACE on a wide range of
technical, management, and acquisition support functions to implement or oversee responsible
party Superfund project implementation for the remedial and removal programs. Most notably, the
USACE has the technical design and construction expertise and contracting capability needed to
assist the Superfund Program in implementing complex remedial action projects. USACE also
provides technical on-site support to EPA in the enforcement oversight of numerous construction
projects performed by private Potentially Responsible Parties.
Superfund Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Program
The Superfund Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Program coordinates closely with other
Federal Agencies (OFAs), states, tribes, state associations, and others to implement its statutory
responsibilities to ensure protective and efficient cleanup and reuse of federally contaminated land
on the NPL. In addition, EPA continues to work to streamline and improve the Superfund process
through the Superfund Task Force recommendations. Successful implementation of these
recommendations requires strengthening partnerships and enhancing engagement with OF As,
states, and tribes by having regularly-scheduled meetings that focus on targeting and resolving
critical programmatic issues, emphasizing protective cleanups, and recognizing site reuse
opportunities and successes. EPA, OF As, states, and tribes have committed to early meeting
planning and focusing on issues with a problem-solving and action-oriented approach.
The Program coordinates with national organizations that help to improve engagement with other
OFAs such as Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
(ASTSWMO) and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS). ASTSWMO has a Federal
Facilities Research Center Subcommittee which promotes and improves state and territory
involvement in the cleanup and reuse of contaminated federal facilities and facilitates information
exchange by and between states, territories, and federal agencies. This includes: identifying and
researching emerging issues related to state and federal cleanup programs at federal facilities;
producing and disseminating resource documents, tools; and working with EPA and OFAs on a
variety of federal facilities issues and forums.
EPA participates in a dialogue with ECOS and DOE for the purpose of enhancing ongoing working
relationships among partners involved in the cleanup of DOE Environmental Management sites.
756

-------
The Dialogue focuses on the dispute resolution, waste disposition, and environmental indicators.
The Dialogue is an example of how each agency can advance DOE site cleanups and foster an
understanding of challenges and successes nationally. EPA also participates with OF As on the
Munitions Response Dialogue, partners with DOD research and development programs on the
munitions management track, and participates on the Intergovernmental Data Quality Task Force.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Poly chlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Programs
The RCRA Corrective Action Program coordinates closely with OF As, primarily DOD and DOE,
which have many corrective action sites. A top Agency priority is to help federal facilities meet
the Program's goals of investigating and cleaning up hazardous releases. EPA also coordinates
with other agencies on cleanup and disposal issues posed by PCBs under the authority of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Emergency Preparedness and Response
EPA plays a major role in reducing the risks that accidental and intentional releases of harmful
substances and oil pose to human health and the environment. EPA's leadership in federal
preparedness begins with its co-chairing the National Response Team (NRT) and the 13 Regional
Response Teams with the USCG. These teams, which have member participation from other key
federal agencies, deliver federal assistance to state, local, and tribal governments to plan for and
respond to natural disasters and other major environmental incidents. This requires coordination
with many federal, state, and local agencies. The Agency participates with other federal agencies
to develop national planning and implementation policies at the operational level.
The National Response Framework (NRF), under the direction of the DHS, provides for the
delivery of federal assistance to states to help them deal with the consequences of terrorist events,
acts of malfeasance, as well as natural and other significant disasters. EPA maintains the lead
responsibility for the NRF's Emergency Support Function #10 (covering inland hazardous
materials and petroleum releases) and participates in the Federal Emergency Support Function
Leaders Group which addresses NRF planning and implementation at the operational level.
Oil Spills
Under the Oil Spill Program, EPA provides assistance to agencies such as FWS and the USCG
and works in coordination to address oil spills nationwide. EPA also assists agencies with judicial
referrals when enforcement of violations becomes necessary. In addition, EPA and the USCG work
in coordination to address oil spills nationwide.
Strengthen Human Health and Environmental Protection in Indian Country
EPA, DOI, DHHS, USDA, and HUD work through several MOUs as partners to improve
infrastructure on tribal lands. All five federal partners have committed to continue federal
coordination in delivering services to tribal communities. The Infrastructure Task Force has built
on prior partner successes, including improved access to funding and reduced administrative
757

-------
burden for tribal communities through the review and streamlining of Agency policies, regulations,
and directives as well as improved coordination of technical assistance to water service providers
and solid waste managers through regular coordination meetings and web-based tools.
Homeland Security
EPA's Homeland Security, Preparedness and Response Program continues to develop and
maintain Agency assets and capabilities to respond to and support nationally significant incidents
with emphasis on those involving chemical warfare agents. The Program implements abroad range
of activities for a variety of internal and multi-agency efforts consistent with the NRF and the
Homeland Security Presidential Directives that EPA leads or supports. This includes being the
lead analytical agency for environmental sampling during a CWA incident. EPA also coordinates
its preparedness activities with DHS, FEMA, FBI, and other federal, state and local agencies.
Research to Support Homeland Security
EPA collaborates with numerous agencies on Homeland Security research in order to leverage
funding across multiple programs and produce synergistic results. EPA's Homeland Security
Research Program works with DHS to back decisions made in its role as a lead agency responsible
for cleanup during a Stafford Act declaration under ESF-10 and as the lead agency for water
infrastructure. EPA also works with the DOD and its sub-organizations in its research work related
to biological and chemical warfare agents. Further, EPA participates in a tri-agency research
partnership (Technical Coordination Working Group [TCWG]) with the DOD and DHS that
focuses on chemical and biological defense needs and gaps. TCWG activities include: information
sharing; joint science and technology research projects; and complementing policies. EPA also
collaborates with the CDC in conducting biological agent research.
EPA works with these aforementioned entities and others to address areas of mutual interest and
concern related to both homeland security cleanup and water infrastructure protection issues. The
Program conducts joint research with USDA and DOI focusing on addressing homeland security
threats at the intersection of the environment/public health and agriculture/natural resources. EPA
also works with DOE to access and conduct research at the DOE's National Laboratories
specialized research facilities, such as to establish the Water Security Test Bed and develop
analytical capabilities for biological and chemical agents in environmental matrices.
Research to Support Land and Emergency Management Programs
EPA has complementary and joint programs with the USFS, USGS, USDA, NOAA, BLM, and
many others to minimize duplication, maximize scope, and maintain a real-time information flow
for land and emergency management issues. EPA coordinates its research to support a range of
environmental priorities at other federal agencies, including work with DOD in its Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program and the Environmental Security Technology
Certification Program, and works with DOE and its Office of Health and Environmental Research.
EPA also conducts collaborative laboratory research with DOD, DOE, DOI, and NASA to improve
characterization and risk management options for dealing with subsurface contamination. EPA,
USACE, and the U.S. Navy signed an MOU to increase collaboration and coordination in
758

-------
contaminated sediments research. EPA also works through the Interstate Technology Regulatory
Council (ITRC) in defining continuing research needs through its teams on topics including
permeable reactive barriers, radionuclides, and brownfields.
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Programs
General Coordination for Chemical Safety
Following enactment of the TSCA amendments in June 2016, EPA established an Interagency
Policy Group comprised of other federal agencies with interest and expertise in chemical issues to
hold periodic meetings to obtain input on significant actions such as the TSCA Risk Evaluations
rules and potential existing chemical candidates for Prioritization under TSCA. The agencies on
the Interagency Policy Group include: CPSC, DOD, OMB, NASA, DOL, SBA, NIH, FDA and
CDC. In FY 2021, EPA intends to use this group to review TSCA materials including, but not
limited to: risk evaluations, and documents related to scoping of existing chemicals for risk
evaluation.
EPA also engages in biannual meetings with the OMNE1 Committee, which includes the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Mining Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA), NIOSH, and the NIEHS. The OMNE Committee exists to provide a
venue for federal agencies to share information and coordinate activities regarding proposed rules,
risk assessments, and risk management strategies for controlling exposure to chemicals.
Federal Lead Action Plan
Established in 1997 by Executive Order 13045, the President's Task Force on Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children comprises 17 federal departments and offices and is
co-chaired by the Secretary of DHHS and the EPA Administrator. In December 2018, through
cross-governmental collaboration, the Task Force unveiled the Federal Action Plan to Reduce
Childhood Lead Exposures and Associated Health Impacts (Federal Lead Action Plan). The
Federal Lead Action Plan is a blueprint for reducing lead exposure and associated harms by
working with a range of stakeholders, including states, tribes and local communities, along with
businesses, property owners and parents. In 2019, EPA released the Implementation Status Report
and the Progress Report on EPA-specific goals, objectives and actions under the Federal Lead
Action Plan. In FY 2021, the Agency will continue to lead those goals and actions, coordinate with
federal, state, tribal and community partners to amplify the impacts, and report on activities and
implementation, as appropriate.
Participation in International Agreements addressing Chemical Safety
To participate more effectively in international agreements addressing chemical safety (e.g.,
persistent organic pollutants [POPs] and mercury), EPA coordinates with other federal agencies,
including the USTR, DOS, DOC, and DHHS. EPA also coordinates with ATSDR, NIH, and CPSC
on matters relating to the work of the OECD on test guideline harmonization and other chemical
safety program work. EPA also engages in bilateral cooperation and information exchange with
1 The OMNE Committee is named for the first letter in each participating agency's name.
759

-------
the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Canada, China, Australia, and others. EPA works
closely with the DOS in leading the technical and policy engagement for the United States in the
Minamata Convention on Mercury, as well as with the DOE, FDA, and USGS.
EPA engages in trilateral cooperation with Canada and Mexico through the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Technical Working Group (TWG) on Pesticides to promote trade and
regional cooperation among governments through harmonization and work sharing. EPA
continues to participate in the development, validation, and adoption of new assays as well as new
test procedures that have led to global harmonization of test guidelines via the OECD Test
Guidelines Programme (TGP). EPA works with EU countries in support of OECD TGP's mutual
acceptance of data in efforts to reduce the need to repeat safety studies due to incompatible test
protocols. Additionally, EPA will continue international engagement in the OECD Working Group
on Pesticides (WGP) to share pesticide registration work and develop tools to monitor and
minimize pesticide risk to human health and the environment. EPA collaborates with international
organizations, such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Australian Pesticide
and Veterinary Medicine Authority to provide scientific advice and sett international standards
related to food and feed safety, animal health and welfare, plant health and nutrition.
Certification and Training, Worker Protection, IPM, and Environmental Stewardship
EPA's Pesticide Program will continue to coordinate with USD A, DOD, DOI, DOE, tribes,
territories, and state lead agencies for pesticides, in order to implement the Certification and
Training Program for pesticide applicators who use the riskiest pesticides. EPA provides technical
guidance and assistance to the states and tribes in the implementation of all pesticide program
activities, such as protecting workers, promoting Integrated Pest Management and environmental
stewardship. EPA also provides grants, cooperative agreements with, or interagency agreements
to states, tribes and other partners, including universities, non-profit organizations, other federal
agencies, pesticide users, environmental groups, and other entities, as necessary, to assist in
strengthening and implementing EPA's pesticide activities, such as worker protection, pollinator
protection and certifying pesticide applicators.
Assessing Potential Pesticide Risks with Supplemental Data
EPA relies on data from DHHS and USD A to supplement data from the pesticide industry in order
to assist the Agency in assessing the potential risks of pesticides in the diets of adults and children.
Specifically, EPA relies on food consumption data developed by the DHHS as part of their
NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Survey) survey, and is a part of EPA's dietary risk
assessment for pesticides and pesticide residue (concentration) data in food commodities, which
is generated by the USDA in its Pesticide Data Program (PDP).
Endangered Species & Pollinator Protection
EPA's Pesticides Program will continue collaborating with the USDA, FWS, and NMFS on
developing methods for assessing potential risks and effects of pesticides to endangered and
threatened species. EPA, in cooperation with USDA, other federal agencies, state agencies, tribes,
territories, and other entities, will continue to address pesticide risks to bees and other pollinators
760

-------
which are critical to our environment and the production of food crops.
Homeland Security - Protecting Food & Agriculture Sectors
EPA collaborates with the DOD, DHS, USD A, FDA, FEMA, and other federal, tribal and state
organizations on a variety of technical and policy homeland security issues. These issues focus on
protecting the public and food and agriculture sectors from threats associated with use of chemical
and biological agents or from natural disasters. EPA collaborates with these organizations on
research pertaining to effective disinfectants for high threat microorganisms, planning for response
to various potential incidents, training and development of policies and guidelines. EPA continues
to partner with the OSHA, NIOSH, and CPSC on risk assessment and risk mitigation activities.
Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC)
One of the Agency's methods for receiving input on pesticide issues has been the Pesticide
Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), a Federal Advisory Committee, that brings together a
broad cross-section of knowledgeable individuals from organizations that represent divergent
views in order to discuss pesticide regulatory, policy, and implementation issues. The PPDC
includes members from federal and state governments, industry/trade associations, pesticide user
and commodity groups, consumer and environmental/public interest groups, and others. The
PPDC provides a structured environment for meaningful information exchanges and discussions,
and keeping the public involved in decisions that affect them. Dialogue with outside groups is
essential for the Agency to remain responsive to the needs of its many partners.
General Research to Support Chemical Safety
EPA's Toxicity Forecaster (ToxCast™) is part of a multi-agency effort under the Tox21
collaboration MOU. Tox21 pools chemical research, data and screening tools from multiple federal
agencies including EPA, and the NIH and FDA. ToxCast™ utilizes existing resources to develop
faster, more thorough predictions of how chemicals may affect human and environmental health.
Tox21 and ToxCast™ are screening nearly 10,000 environmental chemicals for potential toxicity
in high-throughput screening assays at the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational
Sciences (NCATS). EPA has an agreement to provide funding to support the effort.
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) are a class of chemicals of emerging concern (CECs)
in the environment. In collaboration with NIEHS, EPA is conducting high throughput
computational toxicological screening assays on an initial set of 150 PFAS chemicals which have
been selected to represent the full array of chemical and physical structural properties of the entire
PFAS universe of compounds. The results will be used to identify subsets of PFAS chemicals with
potentially high toxicity in order to prioritize those for more detailed study, as well as enable
quantitative analyses to make inferences about toxicity of chemicals for which there are no
experimental data.
761

-------
Research to Support the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act
EPA collaborates globally with other federal agencies on research to accelerate the pace of
chemical risk assessment and to provide greater regulatory certainty for the public. EPA is working
with Health Canada and the European Joint Research Center on the development and testing of
new non-animal approach methodologies to quickly and cost-effectively evaluate chemicals for
safety. These new approach methods are a critical part of implementing the TSCA Strategic Plan
to reduce, refine, and replace the use of vertebrates in toxicity testing and evaluation. EPA also
commenced work with Health Canada and ECHA to promote sharing of non-confidential chemical
safety information with the intent of advancing chemical evaluations across regulatory
jurisdictions. This collaborative approach will help EPA and other federal agencies screen,
prioritize and evaluate chemicals, and promote implementation of alternative methods to replace
vertebrate animal testing under TSCA. Finally, EPA is engaged in multiple OECD chemical safety
groups that share information, expertise, and research results related to chemical safety.
Ultimately, these international efforts will work towards creating transparent data requirements for
industry and reducing the regulatory uncertainty of multiple regulatory environments globally.
Research to Support Agencywide Risk Assessment Activities
EPA consults and collaborates routinely with other federal agencies about the science of individual
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessments, as well as efforts to prioritize and
coordinate chemical evaluations. IRIS maintains an interagency working group that consists of
various federal agencies (e.g., DOD, NASA, SB A, DOT, DOE, DOI, etc.), and the White House.
EPA also coordinates, respectively, with: ATSDR, through an MOU on the development of
toxicological reviews and toxicology profiles; NIEHS and the National Toxicology Program, on
assessment methodology, software, and assay development platforms; FDA on advisories and
reports; and DOD on assessment development. In addition, EPA contracts with the National
Academy of Sciences' National Research Council (NRC) on very difficult and complex human
health risk assessments through consultation or review. EPA also participates in the Interagency
Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) to work towards
increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of U.S. federal agency test method review, eliminating
unnecessary duplication of effort, sharing experience among U.S. federal regulatory agencies, and
reducing, refining, and replacing the use of animals in testing.
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Programs
General Enforcement Coordination
The Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program coordinates closely with:
•	DOJ on all civil and criminal environmental enforcement matters. In addition, the Program has
coordinated with other agencies on specific environmental issues as described herein;
•	The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, OSHA, and ATSDR in preventing and
responding to accidental releases and endangerment situations;
•	DOI's Bureau of Indian Affairs, and DHHS's IHS on issues relative to compliance with
environmental laws in Indian country;
•	The DOC and SBA on the implementation of SBREFA. In addition, it has collaborated with
762

-------
the SB A to maintain current environmental compliance information at Business.gov, a website
initiated as an e-government initiative in 2004, to help small businesses comply with
government regulations. The IRS on cases that require defendants to pay civil penalties,
thereby assisting the IRS in assuring compliance with tax laws;
•	USACE on wetlands issues;
•	DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration on pipeline spills; and,
•	USDA on the regulation of animal feeding operations and on food safety issues arising from
the misuse of pesticides and shares joint jurisdiction with the Federal Trade Commission on
pesticide labeling and advertising.
International Trade
EPA works with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on implementing the secure
International Trade Data System (ITDS) across all federal agencies and on pesticide imports and
on hazardous waste and Cathode Ray Tube exports, as well as on a variety of other import/export
issues under the various statutes (e.g., imports of vehicles and engines).
Coordination on Issues Involving Shared Jurisdiction
EPA and FDA share jurisdiction over general-purpose disinfectants used on non-critical surfaces
and some dental and medical equipment surfaces. EPA and FDA also collaborate and share
information on Good Laboratory Program inspections to avoid duplication of inspections and
maximize efficient use of limited resources. The Agency has entered into an agreement with the
HUD concerning enforcement of the TSCA lead-based paint notification requirements. The
Agency has coordinated with the USCG under the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, and on
discharges of pollutant from ships and oil spills under the CWA. EPA also works with the DOI on
CWA permit enforcement on the Outer Continental Shelf, as well as both the Interior and
Transportation Departments on enforcement of CWA requirements for offshore facilities.
Criminal Enforcement
EPA's Criminal Enforcement Program coordinates with the FBI, CBP, DOL, U.S. Treasury,
USCG, DOI and DO J and with international, state, tribal, and local law enforcement organizations
in the investigation and prosecution of environmental crimes. EPA also works with DOJ to
establish task forces that bring together federal, state, tribal, and local law enforcement
organizations to address environmental crimes. EPA has an Interagency Agreement with DOJ's
Environment and Natural Resources Division to develop the first federal Environmental Crime
Victim Assistance Program. This allows both agencies to meet their statutory obligations under
the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA), to
make sure that environmental crime victims are notified of and accorded their rights under the
CVRA and VRRA. In addition, the Program has an Interagency Agreement with the DHS to
provide specialized criminal environmental training to federal, state, local, and tribal law
enforcement personnel at the Federal Law Enforcement Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia.
763

-------
Monitoring the Environmental Compliance of Federal Agencies
Executive Order 12088 on Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards directs EPA to
monitor compliance by federal agencies with all environmental laws. The Federal Facility
Enforcement Program coordinates with other federal state, tribal, and local agencies to ensure
compliance by federal agencies with all environmental laws. EPA works through the Federal
Facilities Environmental Stewardship and Compliance Assistance Center (www.fedcemter.gov),
which is governed by a board of more than a dozen contributing federal agencies. EPA also
partners with other federal agencies to identify ways to expedite cleanup of Superfund sites and
prevent and address regulatory compliance issues.
Superfund Enforcement
EPA coordinates with OF As in their use of CERCLA enforcement authority. This includes the
coordinated use of such authority at individual hazardous waste sites that are located on both non-
federal land (EPA jurisdiction) and federal lands (other agency jurisdiction). As required by
Executive Order 13016, EPA also reviews and concurs on the use of CERCLA Section 106
authority by other departments and agencies. In addition, EPA coordinates closely with Federal
Land Management Agencies (FLMAs), such as BLM and USFS, at mixed ownership sites {i.e.,
those sites located partially on privately-owned land and partially on federally-owned land)
pursuant to Executive Order 12580. EPA frequently enters into Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs) with FLMAs designed to provide a framework for agencies to coordinate response
actions. Most recently, as part of the Superfund Task Force Recommendations, EPA has been
working on an MOU with FLMAs to improve the efficient and effective use of federal resources
to cleanup at mixed ownership mining sites. EPA also meets with DOI and USDA as part of the
Federal Mining Dialogue, to discuss developments arising out of the CERCLA work at such sites.
EPA also coordinates with DOI, USDA, DOC, DOE, and DOD to ensure that appropriate and
timely notices, required under CERCLA, are sent to the Natural Resource Trustees notifying them
of potential damages to natural resources. EPA also coordinates with Natural Resource Trustees
on natural resource damage assessments, investigations, and planning of response activities under
Section 104 of CERCLA. When an enforcement action is initiated at a site where hazardous
substances are found to have caused damages to natural resources, EPA coordinates with the
Trustees by including them in negotiations with potentially responsible parties concerning the
releases that have caused those damages.
Under Executive Order 12580, EPA's Superfund Federal Facilities Enforcement Program assists
federal agencies in complying with CERCLA, and ensures that: (1) all federal facility sites on the
NPL have interagency agreements, also known as Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs) with
enforceable cleanup schedules; (2) FFAs are monitored for compliance; (3) federal sites are
transferred to new owners in an environmentally responsible manner; and (4) compliance
assistance is available to the extent possible. This program also ensures that federal agencies
comply with Superfund cleanup obligations "in the same manner and to the same extent" as private
entities. To enable the cleanup and reuse of such sites, the Federal Facilities Enforcement Program
also has coordinated creative solutions that help restore facilities, so they can once again serve an
important role in the economy and welfare of local communities, and the country.
764

-------
International and Tribal Affairs Programs
Supporting Global Policy to Reduce Pollution and Harmful Chemicals
EPA has a strong network of partners working to achieve reductions in global mercury use and
emissions, particularly when adverse U.S. impacts would be likely. EPA works closely with the
DOS in leading the technical and policy engagement for the United States in the Minamata
Convention on Mercury and the multi-stakeholder Global Mercury Partnership. In addition to the
DOS, EPA collaborates with several federal agencies including USGS and USAID to advance
robust implementation of the Minamata Convention by other countries. EPA also continues to
share information through the Arctic Council on reducing releases of mercury which
disproportionally impact indigenous arctic communities.
Similarly, EPA is engaged in a multi-pronged effort to address the growing global problem of
marine litter. Here, EPA works with the DOS, NOAA, Peace Corps, and USAID to advance policy
and technical solutions for marine litter in global fora. EPA also is working with USDA and FDA
on the Winning on Reducing Food Waste initiative which includes international cooperation on
measuring food waste reductions and pilot activities that can create market opportunities for U.S.
technologies and innovation.
Supporting Environmental Priorities in Global Trade Policy and Implementation of
Environmental Cooperation Agreements
EPA plays a key role in ensuring that trade-related activities sustain environmental protection since
the 1972 Trade Act mandated interagency consultation by USTR on trade policy issues. EPA is a
member of the Trade Policy Staff Committee and the Trade Policy Review Group, interagency
mechanisms that are organized and coordinated by USTR to provide advice, guidance, and
clearance to the USTR in the development of U.S. international trade and investment policy.
EPA works with DOS and other agencies to support implementation of environmental, ecosystem,
and human health protections in environmental cooperation agreements, or their equivalent,
associated with U.S. Trade Agreements. In North America, EPA will be involved in implementing
the Environment Chapter of the new USMCA. EPA represents the U.S. on the CEC and
collaborates with the U.S. interagency (NOAA, CDC, DOI, FWS, DOS, USTR, DOC, and others)
to promote environmental, ecosystem, human health and sustainable growth cooperation with
Canada and Mexico. EPA also works with the DOC to promote the export of U.S. environmental
technologies, and with the Treasury to ensure adherence to environmental safeguards involving
multilateral development bank project lending.
Addressing Transboundary Pollution
EPA collaborates with countries around the world to address foreign sources of pollution in
coordination with DOS, USAID, DOJ, Treasury, and others. EPA works closely with DHHS to
advance recognition of environmental risk factors of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and how
to mitigate the risks, including from lead and mercury. In addition, EPA continues to strengthen
765

-------
its activities in the Arctic by working with Alaska, tribes, federal agencies, and the private sector
to build international support for U.S. environmental policy objectives through the Arctic Council.
These objectives cover a range of topics, including reducing emissions and exposure to mercury.
EPA also plays a leadership role with other agencies including NOAA, DOS, and USAID in
crafting sound programs to address marine litter globally, ensuring that sound waste management
and recycling strategies are advanced in key source countries.
Working in Indian Country
EPA works under a five-federal agency MOU to better coordinate the federal government's efforts
in providing access to safe drinking water and basic wastewater facilities for tribal communities.
EPA, DOI, DHHS, USD A, and HUD work as the Federal Tribal Infrastructure Task Force (TITF)
to use their combined authorities to maintain a framework to enhance interagency efficiency and
coordination, and to cultivate greater cooperation in carrying out their tribal infrastructure
responsibilities. Since 2007, the TITF has: maintained procedures necessary for a common
understanding of the programs pertaining to funding infrastructure construction, solid waste
management efforts, and technical assistance to tribes; worked together to improve the capacity of
tribal communities to operate and maintain sustainable infrastructure; enhanced the efficient
leveraging of funds; worked directly with tribes to promote an understanding of federal programs;
identified ways to improve construction, operation, and maintenance of sustainable infrastructure;
and worked to allow and facilitate the exchange of data and information amongst partners.2
Central Planning, Budgeting and Finance Programs
Working with Federal Partners on Improving Management and Accountability throughout the
Federal Government
EPA participates and makes active contributions to standing interagency management committees,
including:
•	the Chief Financial Officers Council focuses on improving resources management and
accountability throughout the federal government;
•	the Performance Improvement Council coordinates and develops strategic plans, performance
plans, and performance reports as required by law;
•	OMB-led E-Government initiatives such as the Financial Management and Budget
Formulation and Execution Lines of Business;
•	the Bureau of Census-maintained the Federal Assistance Awards Data System; and
•	the President's Management Council oversees developing and implementing Cross-Agency
Priority (CAP) goals.
Provide Government-to-Government Employee Relocation Services
EPA provides government-to-government employee relocation services via interagency
agreements through EPA's Federal Employee Relocation Center (FERC) as a Working Capital
Fund (WCF) activity. EPA-FERC provides "one-stop shop" domestic and international relocation
2 For additional information, please visit: https://www.epa.gov/tribaWederal-infrastructure-task-force-improve-access-safe-
drinking-water-and-ba sic-sanitation.
766

-------
services to other federal agencies to increase operational efficiency and save the government
money. EPA-FERC currently provides relocation services internally to all EPA offices, and
externally to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), DOL, Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), DHHS, and the
USDA. EPA also coordinates appropriately with Congress and other federal agencies, such as the
U.S. Treasury, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and GSA.
Mission Support Programs
Working with Federal Partners on Improving Management and Accountability throughout the
Federal Government
EPA provides leadership and expertise to government-wide activities in various areas of human
resources, grants management, contracts management, suspension and debarment, and homeland
security. These activities include specific collaboration efforts through:
•	The Chief Human Capital Officers Council, a group of senior leaders that discuss human
capital initiatives across the federal government.
•	The Legislative and Policy Committee, a committee comprised of other federal agency
representatives who assist OPM in developing plans and policies for training and development.
•	The Chief Acquisition Officers Council, the principal interagency forum for monitoring and
improving the federal acquisition system. The Council also is focused on promoting the
President's specific initiatives and policies in all aspects of the acquisition system.
•	The Award Committee for E-Government (E-Gov) provides strategic vision for the portfolio
of systems/federal wide supporting both federal acquisition and financial assistance. Support
also is provided to the associated functional community groups, including the Procurement
Committee for E-Gov, the Financial Assistance Committee for E-Gov, and the
Intergovernmental Transaction Working Group.
•	The Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC), a representative committee
of federal agency leaders in suspension and debarment. The Committee facilitates lead agency
coordination, serves as a forum to discuss current suspension and debarment related issues,
and assists in developing unified federal policy. Besides participating in the ISDC, EPA: 1)
provides instructors for the National Suspension and Debarment Training Program offered
through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and 2) supports the development of
coursework and training on the suspension and debarment process for the Inspector General
Academy and the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.
•	The Financial Management Line of Business (FMLoB) has been expanded to also encompass
the Grants Management Line of Business. The combined FMLoB, with U.S. Treasury as the
managing partner, will more closely align the financial assistance and financial management
communities around effective and efficient management of funds. EPA also participates in the
Grants.gov Users' Group, as well as the Federal Demonstration Partnership which is designed
to reduce the administrative burdens associated with research grants.
767

-------
The Partnership for Sustainable Communities initiative, a collaborative effort with HUD and
DOT, improves the alignment and delivery of grant resources to communities designated under
certain environmental programs. It also helps identify cases in the Program that may warrant
consideration of suspension and debarment.
The Interagency Committee on Federal Advisory Committee Management (Committee
Management Officer Council) provides leadership and coordination on federal advisory
committee issues and promotes effective and efficient committee operations government-wide.
In addition to serving on the Council, EPA works with the GSA Committee Management
Secretariat to establish and renew advisory committees, conduct annual reviews of advisory
committee activities and accomplishments, maintain committee information in a publicly
accessible online database, and develop committee management regulations, guidance, and
training. Further, EPA participates on the GSA Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
Attorney Council Interagency Workgroup to keep abreast of developments in the statutory
language, case law, interpretation and implementation of the FACA.
The Interagency Security Committee (ISC) is the leading organization for nonmilitary federal
departments and agencies in establishing policies for the security and protection of federal
facilities, developing security standards, and ensuring compliance with those standards. EPA
participates in the ISC as a primary member and in sub-committees and workgroups to
facilitate EPA's compliance with ISC standards for facilities nationwide.
The OPM Background Investigations Stakeholder Group (BISG) is a collaborative
organization that is derived from the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004. The BISG is comprised of senior security officials across the federal government who
are responsible for the submission, adjudication and/or oversight of personnel security
programs. EPA works with this group to discuss topics regarding background investigations,
focusing on standardizing and improving the Agency's personnel security program.
EPA manages the Senior Environmental Employment (SEE) Program's interagency
agreements with other federal agencies. The interagency agreements are with the CEQ, the
FHWA, NOAA, and the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council. SEE participants provide
administrative, technical, and professional support to these agencies for projects relating to
pollution prevention, abatement, and control.
EPA's Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) partners with the USPTO, NOAA, the
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to serve as Presiding Officers for proceedings to
adjudicate complaints brought before the partner organizations. This collaboration allows
partner organizations the ability to provide constitutionally guaranteed legal due process and
review without staffing and supporting their own office of Administrative Law Judges, while
EPA's judges expand their experience and knowledge in the area of administrative law. The
services OALJ provides to other agencies are reimbursed by the borrowing organization.
768

-------
Work with the Department of Interior's Interior Business Center
Throughout FY 2020 and FY 2021, EPA will continue working with DOI's Interior Business
Center (IBC), an OPM- and OMB-approved Human Resources Line of Business shared service
center. IBC offers HR transactional processing, compensation management and payroll
processing, benefits administration, time and attendance, HR reporting, talent acquisition systems,
and talent management systems. EPA also continues its charter membership on the OPM HR Line
of Business Multi Agency Executive Strategy Committee (MAESC), providing advice and
recommendations to the Director of OPM as well as additional government-wide executive
leadership, for the implementation of the HR Line of Business vision, goals, and objectives.
Partnering with GSA on the US Access Program
EPA is partnering with GSA on the USAccess Program for Personal Identity Verification cards
and identity credential solutions, which provides an efficient, economical and secure infrastructure
to support its credentialing needs, and migrations to the Enterprise Physical Access Control
System, allowing the Agency to control access in EPA space, including restricted and secure space.
Environmental Information Programs
To support EPA's overall mission, the Agency collaborates with federal, state, and tribal agencies
on a variety of initiatives focused on making government more efficient and transparent in
protecting human health and the environment. EPA's Environmental Information programs are
primarily involved in the information technology (IT), information management (IM), and
information security aspects of the projects on which it collaborates.
The Chief Information Officer (CIO) Council
The CIO Council is the principal interagency forum for improving practices in the design,
modernization, use, sharing, and performance of federal information resources. The Council
develops recommendations for IT/IM policies, procedures, and standards; identifies opportunities
to share information resources; and assesses and addresses the needs of the federal IT workforce.
eRulemaking
The eRulemaking Program's mission encompasses two areas: (1) to improve public access,
participation in, and understanding of the rulemaking process; and (2) to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of Agency partners' notice and comment process when promulgating
regulations. The eRulemaking Program maintains a public website, http://www.reeulations.gov/.
which enables the public to access and submit comments on various documents that are published
in the Federal Register, including proposed regulations and Agency-specific notices. The Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) is the agency side of Regulations.gov. FDMS enables
agencies to administer public submissions regarding regulatory and other documents posted by the
agencies on the regulations.gov website. The increased public access to the agencies' regulatory
process enables a more informed public to provide supporting technical/legal/economic analyses
to strengthen the agencies' rulemaking vehicles.
769

-------
At the beginning of FY 2020, the Program Managing Organization transitioned from EPA to the
GSA. EPA will partner with GSA to participate in the eRulemaking Program for efficient and
transparent public access to EPA's regulations.
The National Environmental Information Exchange Network (EN)
EPA's EN Program and CBP are coordinating on using the Automated Commercial Environment
(ACE) system. This coordination will lead to automated processing of over 2.8 million EPA-
related electronic filings needed to clear legitimate imports and exports. With the move from paper
filings to electronic filings combined with automated processing through ACE, filing time can be
reduced from weeks/days to minutes/days. This significant processing improvement directly
impacts the movement of goods into commerce and the economy while helping to ensure
compliance with environmental and CBP laws and regulations. It also helps the U.S. Government
keep pace with the speed of business. The EN also is coordinating with multiple agencies via the
Broadband Interagency Working Group chaired by the National Transportation and Information
Agency to increase broadband access. Access to broadband is critical to fully participating in the
EN and is of particular concern for tribes who often lack this access. EPA will participate on
current and future workgroups to implement Presidential actions to promote the use of broadband
in rural America. This includes tribal lands. EPA is currently represented on the Leveraging
Federal Assets workgroup co-chaired by DOI and GSA.
Automated Commercial Environment/International Trade Data System (ACE/ITDS)
ITDS is the electronic information exchange capability, or "single window," through which
businesses will transmit data required by participating agencies for the import or export of cargo.
ACE is the system built by CBP to ensure that its customs officers and other federal agencies have
the information they need to decide how to handle goods and merchandise being shipped into or
out of the United States. It also will be the way those agencies provide CBP with information about
potential imports/exports. ITDS eliminates the need, burden, and cost of paper reporting. It also
allows importers and exporters to report the same information to multiple federal agencies with a
single submission and facilitates movement of cargo by automating processing of the import and
exports. ITDS provides the capability for industry to consolidate reporting for commodities
regulated by multiple agencies. For these consolidated reports, the industry filers will receive the
appropriate status response when their filings meet each agency's reporting requirements. Once
all agency reporting requirements have been met, filers can receive a coordinated single U.S.
government response to proceed into the commerce of the United States.
EPA has the responsibility and legal authority to make sure pesticides, toxic chemicals, vehicles
and engines, ODS, and other commodities entering and hazardous waste exiting the country meet
its human health and environmental standards. EPA's ongoing collaboration with CBP on the
ACE/ITDS effort will improve the efficiency of processing these shipments through information
exchange between EPA and CBP and automated processing of electronic filings. As resources
permit, EPA will continue to work with CBP towards the goal to automate the current manual
paper review process for admissibility so that importers and brokers (referred to collectively as
Trade) can know before these commodities are loaded onto an airplane, truck, train, or ship if their
770

-------
shipment meets EPA's reporting requirements. Because of this automated review, trade can greatly
lower its cost of doing business and customs officers at our nation's ports will have the information
on whether shipments comply with our environmental regulations.
Geospatial Information
EPA works with DOI, NOAA, USGS, NASA, USD A, and DHS on developing and implementing
geospatial approaches to support various business areas. It also works with 25 additional federal
agencies through the activities of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and the OMB
Geospatial Line of Business (Geo LoB), for which EPA leads several key initiatives. EPA also
participates in the FGDC Steering Committee and Executive Committee and is part of the
Geospatial Data Act Implementation Tiger Team. A key component of EPA's work with FGDC
is developing and implementing the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) and the National
GeoPlatform. The key objective of the NSDI is to make a comprehensive array of national spatial
data - data that portrays features associated with a location or tagged with geographic information
and can be attached to and portrayed on maps - easily accessible to both governmental and public
stakeholders. Use of this data, in tandem with analytical applications, supports several key EPA
and government-wide business areas. These include ensuring that human health and environmental
conditions are represented in the appropriate contexts for targeting and decision making; enabling
the assessment, protection and remediation of environmental conditions; and aiding emergency
first responders and other homeland security activities. EPA supports geospatial initiatives through
efforts such as EPA's Geospatial Platform, EPA's Environmental Dataset Gateway, the EN,
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Assist, EPA Metadata Editor, Facilities Registry
System (FRS) Web Services, and My Environment. EPA also works closely with its state, tribal,
and international partners in a collaboration that enables consistent implementation of data
acquisition and development, standards, and technologies supporting the efficient and cost-
effective sharing and use of geographically-based data and services.
The Administrator's Office
Regulatory Management and Economic Analyses
EPA's Policy Office (OP) interacts with federal agencies during its rulemaking activities. Per
governing statutes and Agency priorities, OP submits "significant" regulatory actions to OMB for
interagency review prior to signature and publication in the Federal Register. In addition, OP
coordinates EPA's review of other agency's regulatory actions submitted to OMB for review.
Under the Congressional Review Act, rules are submitted to each chamber of Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. For regulations that may have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, OP collaborates extensively with SBA and OMB.
OP also collaborates with other federal regulatory and natural resource agencies to collect data
used in economic cost-benefit analyses of environmental regulations and policies and to foster
improved interdisciplinary research and reporting. Activities include representing EPA on
interagency workgroups or committees tasked with measuring the economic costs and benefits of
federal policies and programs. Occasionally, OP also provides technical reviews of other agencies
research and analyses.
771

-------
Children's Health
The Administrator of EPA and the Secretary of DHHS co-chair the President's Task Force on
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. The Task Force comprises 17 federal
departments, agencies and White House offices. A senior staff steering committee, co-chaired by
the Director of EPA's Office of Children's Health Protection (OCHP), coordinates interagency
cooperation on Task Force priority areas. As part of this effort, OCHP coordinates with other
agencies to improve government-wide support in implementing children's health legislative
mandates and outreach, including providing children's environmental health expertise on
interagency activities and coordinating EPA expertise. OCHP also coordinates with ATSDR to
support provision of training and hands on consultations with doctors, nurses, and other medical
professionals to address issues of potential exposures of children to environmental contaminants,
such as lead and asthma triggers including mold and vermin. OCHP also works with other federal
agencies to address emerging risks to children's environmental health and supports federal
interagency information exchange and cooperation, such as on lead and wildfires.
White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council
The Administrator of EPA serves as a member of the Opportunity and Revitalization Council
which was established to encourage public and private investment in urban and economically
distressed areas, including qualified opportunity zones. As part of this effort, EPA coordinates
with other federal agencies to further facilitate investment in economically distressed
communities, protect taxpayers by optimizing use of federal resources, expanding quality
educational opportunities, and improving economic development and environmental outcomes.
The Inspector General
Work with the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE)
EPA's Inspector General is a member of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and
Efficiency (CIGIE), an organization comprised of federal Inspectors General (IGs), GAO, and the
FBI. The CIGIE coordinates and improves the way IGs conduct audits, investigations, and internal
operations. The CIGIE also promotes joint projects of government-wide interest and reports
annually to the President on the collective performance of the IG community.
Activity Coordination, Information Exchange and Training
EPA's OIG coordinates criminal investigative activities with other law enforcement organizations
such as the FBI, Secret Service, and DOJ. In addition, the OIG participates with various inter-
governmental audit forums and professional associations to exchange information, share best
practices, and obtain or provide training. The OIG also promotes collaboration among EPA's
partners and stakeholders in its participation of disaster response and its outreach activities.
772

-------
Collaborative Work with Inspectors General and Other Partners
EPA's OIG initiates and participates in collaborative audits, program evaluations, and
investigations with OIGs of agencies with an environmental mission such as the DOI, USD A, as
well as other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies as prescribed by the IG Act, as
amended.
Statutory Duties
As required by the IG Act, EPA's OIG coordinates and shares information with the GAO. EPA's
OIG currently serves as the Inspector General of the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigations Board (CSB). EPA's OIG will continue to perform its duties with respect to the
CSB until otherwise directed.
773

-------
Major Management Challenges
Introduction
Consistent with requirements in the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, the Office of Inspector
General identifies what they consider the most serious management challenges facing the Agency
and assesses the Agency's progress in addressing those challenges. The Environmental Protection
Agency has established procedures for addressing its major management challenges. The Agency
uses audits, reviews, and program evaluations conducted internally and by the OIG, the
Government Accountability Office, and the Office of Management and Budget to assess program
effectiveness and identify potential management issues. The Agency recognizes that management
challenges, if not addressed adequately, may prevent the Agency from effectively meeting its
mission. EPA remains committed to addressing all management issues in a timely manner and to
the fullest extent of its authority.
The following discussion summarizes each of the FY 2019 management challenges identified by
the OIG and presents the Agency's responses.
1. EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of States, Territories and Tribes Authorized to
Accomplish Environmental Goals
Summary of Challenge: The OIG believes the EPA leadership needs to demonstrate an
organizational commitment to correcting problems with the Agency's oversight of key state,
territorial and tribal programs by aligning the proper people, resources and processes, and
developing a framework for addressing oversight issues. The Agency also needs to develop a
system for monitoring state, tribal and territorial oversight effectiveness so that it can consistently
work toward demonstrating its progress in correcting this management challenge across all
program offices.
Agency Response: In 2017, an EPA workgroup tasked with improving the oversight of state-
delegated programs determined that EPA lacks a framework for assessing the effectiveness of its
oversight activities. This results in inconsistent application of oversight activities across the
Regions of environmental programs delegated to states.
In October 2018, the Acting Administrator issued a memo to Agency leadership, emphasizing key
principles for EPA's oversight of programs delegated to states and tribes. EPA is working with
two programs to pilot a method for ensuring programmatic reviews adhere to the principles of this
memo and a core set of standardized work elements designed to effectuate a more consistent
approach to oversight activities.
The Agency has taken the following efforts to address this management challenge:
•	Regions are using a template to organize discussions with states on NPDES real-time
reviews, and an SOP for CAA Title V programmatic reviews.
•	EPA is working with states to identify the next program areas to target for oversight
reviews.
774

-------
• The Agency is developing a national permitting oversight policy to standardize its review
of the quality and timeliness of federal permits issued by states.
EPA has a long-term performance goal supporting Goal 2/Objective 2.1, Enhance Shared
Accountability in the FY 2018 - 2022 EPA Strategic Plan: "By September 30, 2022, increase the
use of alternative shared governance approaches to address state, tribal, and local community
reviews" and a supporting FY 2020 annual performance goal "Number of alternative shared
governance approaches to address state, tribal, and local community reviews." This measure tracks
the number of program areas where EPA has used the oversight framework for EPA's oversight
of state implemented federal programs and/or where EPA has worked with the states to solve a
jointly identified issue. EPA will define, develop, pilot, evaluate, and launch a comprehensive
system to evaluate state and local implementation of federal environmental programs by 2020. The
"comprehensive system" is defined as the overarching principles as laid out in the principles
memo, coupled with a template or checklist populated with state-and regional specific details on
the review activity in question. The purpose of this effort is twofold: to begin to standardize EPA's
oversight work across EPA regions, and to maximize state and federal resources by focusing on
the most important work.
Responsible Agency Official: Robin Richardson, Principal Deputy Associate Administrator,
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
2. EPA Needs to Improve Its Workload Analysis to Accomplish Its Mission Efficiently and
Effectively
Summary of Challenge: The EPA has not addressed the workforce planning requirements of 5
CFR Part 250, Subpart B, Strategic Human Capital Management, April 11, 2017. In the rule,
workforce analysis is a component of workforce planning. The EPA's ability to assess its
workload—and subsequently estimate workforce levels necessary to carry out that workload—is
critically important to mission accomplishment. Prior to the rule, the EPA OIG and GAO had
reported that the EPA had not incorporated workload analysis into its resource allocations.
Specifically, the EPA had not fully implemented controls and a methodology to determine
workforce levels based upon analysis of the Agency's workload. Due to the broad implications for
accomplishing the EPA's mission, the Agency has included this management challenge since 2012.
Agency Response: The EPA has addressed the workforce planning requirements of 5 CFR Part
250, Subpart B, Strategic Human Capital Management by completing an EPA FY 2019 HCOP
(Human Capital Operation Plan) and beginning work to update the plan for FY 2020. The EPA
believes it also is using workload analyses as one factor to plan workforce levels and examine
critical processes.
To implement 5 CFR Part 250 "Personnel Management in Agencies", particularly Subpart B
"Strategic Human Capital Management", the Office of Personnel Management requires agencies
to conduct workforce analyses that: 1) describe the current state; 2) project human resources
needed to achieve organizational goals; and 3) identify potential shortfalls.
775

-------
To satisfy these requirements, EPA has drafted its FY2020-2023 Workforce Plan, which applies
to all full-time and part-time classified, "at will," and wage employees. The Plan presents an
overview of current and projected workforce trends, profiles core occupations and reflects
contemporary strategies and tools. It also includes proposed gap analyses and strategies to mitigate
and plan for future skill and occupational gaps. Plan implementation will support EPA in
acquiring, engaging, developing, and retaining the workforce talent necessary to meet Agency
goals and objectives, now and in the future.
In addition, to facilitate workforce planning, EPA has developed a Talent Enterprise Diagnostic
tool (a SharePoint web application) to help conduct competency assessments. The tool will collect
and present information to track, update, and assess both current skills required for positions
throughout EPA along with the corresponding skills of incumbents in those positions. EPA
completed two TED pilots over the past two years and updated the tool based on user
feedback. The Agency is implementing TED via a phased approach concentrating on its Mission
Critical Occupations, beginning the 1st Quarter of FY20 with cybersecurity positions, one of the
Agency's priority MCOs.
To further advance workforce planning, EPA developed a Workforce Diversity Dashboard and a
Workforce Demographics Dashboard for EPA managers' use. Both tools include visually dynamic
and integrated reports containing snapshots of the Agency's workforce in various demographic
categories. The Dashboard's data are updated monthly from the EPA's Federal Personnel and
Payroll System and the Office of Management and Budget's approved Applicant Race and
National Origin questionnaire. Data include, but are not limited to, aggregate self-identified
information on race, sex, national origin, age, targeted disability status, and education level as well
as aggregate information on employees' retirement eligibility, grade, salary, and program/office
location. The dashboards provide managers with essential tools to both view the current state of
their workforce and plan for future needs. Both actions are vital to workforce planning and
succession management, which are currently two very high-profile processes within the federal
government and EPA.
The EPA Lean Management System is designed to visualize, examine and understand factors
influencing the Agency's ability to sustain its work across offices and programs. Agency
leadership is building on ongoing ELMS implementation efforts by working with programs and
regional offices to look more comprehensively across Agency FTE allocations and identify
opportunities to standardize work where possible. Related Kaizen projects include state oversight,
EPA's field presence, state and tribal assistance flexibility, community and infrastructure
investments, FOIA responses, reporting requirements, EPA laboratories, environmental
permitting, and acquisitions.
EPA's largest recent workload analysis effort examined Superfund Remedial FTE levels. In FY
2020, the Superfund Program is implementing a multi-year national FTE redistribution plan to
inform the realignment of regional Superfund Remedial and Technical Enforcement FTE as
workloads shift among regions. Also, in the Superfund Program, a Lean Kaizen is looking to
standardize Superfund billing processes.
776

-------
Since grants represent the largest type of Agency spending with direct effects on EPA state and
tribal partners, grants management analyses continue to be an Agency priority. In FY 2019, the
Agency surveyed grants Project Officers (POs) to better understand the time required to complete
major components of Project Officer work and major challenges faced by POs at different stages
of the grants process. The Agency analyzed the results to inform continuing efforts to streamline
work and update policies, processes, and procedures. The information is presented to senior
management at semi-annual Grants Management Council meetings for their use in making
resource determinations.
As the OIG has acknowledged, EPA's highly variable, multi-year, and non-linear functions and
activities complicate using FTE-based workload analyses as tools to determine precise FTE levels.
The Agency believes that the IG's proposal "to determine workforce levels based upon analysis of
the agency's workload" doesn't consider that EPA, like all Federal Agencies, must operate within
detailed specifications and constraints of each year's Congressional appropriations.
In conclusion, the Agency believes it complies with the workforce planning requirements of 5 CFR
Part 250, Subpart B, Strategic Human Capital Management and uses workload planning tools
through the Agency efforts outlined above. The Agency believes it is important to design cost
effective workforce and workload efforts that support Agency priorities and streamlining efforts,
while remaining cognizant of Congressional constraints on flexibility.
Responsible Agency Official: Maria Williams, Acting Director, Office of Budget
3. Enhancing Information Technology Security to Combat Cyber Threats
Summary of Challenge: The OIG acknowledges that the Agency continues to initiate actions to
further strengthen or improve its information security program. However, the Agency lacks a
holistic approach to managing accountability over its contractors and lacks follow-up on
corrective actions taken.
Agency Response: The Agency is committed to protecting its information and technology assets.
EPA understands the prevalence and complexity of the ever-growing cyber security attacks and is
aware of the potential impact to the Agency's mission if information assets are compromised. EPA
has established and implemented processes and internal controls for monitoring and managing
contractor support actions to address concerns associated with this management challenge. At a
high level this includes:
•	Developing and implementing processes within the Office Mission Support/Office of
Resources and Business operations to improve management and oversight of audits and
corrective actions.
•	Working with the Office of General Counsel (OGC) to develop standard security language
into the Agency's Environmental Protection Agency Acquisitions Guide (EPAAG) Section
39.1.2.
•	Incorporating a verification for the cybersecurity requirements identified in the EPAAG
39.1.2. into the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA)
process.
777

-------
•	Developing training for contract officers and contract officer representatives on their
responsibilities for identifying contracts that require EPAAG Section 39.1.2 tasks.
•	Establishing a tracking and reporting process that ensures all contractors with access to
EPA information systems complete information security awareness training, and that
contractors with significant security responsibilities also complete role-based training.
•	Ensuring adequate cybersecurity is implemented on contractor operated systems by:
o Assessing systems for proper implementation and operation of adequate
cybersecurity controls.
o Monitoring for timely completion of corrective actions for identified cybersecurity
weaknesses.
o Managing risks at the tactical, mission and enterprise levels.
In addition, EPA has made significant strides addressing other recommendations highlighted in
the OIG report. At a high level this includes:
•	The Agency worked with the Department of Homeland Security regarding the risk of the
Electronic Manifest System. As a result, EPA maintained its original categorization but
agreed to annual reviews and when significant changes to the system occur to review the
system's categorization.
•	The Agency replaced the incident tracking system and implemented controls in the new
system to protect the confidentiality of PII and sensitive PII and enforce password
management requirements according to federal and agency guidance.
•	The Agency has fully documented the CIO's role in information security through policy
and procedures.
•	The Agency has documented and implemented controls to validate plans of action and
milestones for vulnerability testing results.
•	The Agency has established a process to periodically review the Agency's tracking
system's security settings to validate each setting meets the Agency's standards and has
implemented audit logging capabilities to capture data changes and a log review process.
These processes were reviewed by the OIG for the FY 2019 FISMA report and found to be
adequate.
Responsible Agency Official: Robert McKinney, Director, Office of Information Security and
Privacy
4. EPA Needs to Improve on Fulfilling Mandated Reporting Requirements
Summary of Challenge: OIG believes that the Agency faces challenges in tracking and submitting
reports mandated by law that contain key program information for Congress, the Administrator
and the public. Specifically, the Agency needs to make a comprehensive effort across the Agency
to identify the causes and implement targeted plans to address those causes. Additionally, EPA
must continue to work with Congress to eliminate duplicative reports.
Agency Response: EPA has taken the corrective actions identified in the 2018 OIG Report
regarding the BEACH Act Report to Congress. That Report has since been issued to Congress.
The Agency continues to implement the OIG's recommendations. For example, a memorandum
778

-------
was issued in March 2018 to remind EPA's Assistant Administrators and Associate Administrators
that the Agency's standard practice is to track Reports to Congress by using the Action
Development Process Tracker. The Agency is addressing issues related to the upcoming
replacement of the ADP Tracker. Additionally, EPA continues to provide a list of the unnecessary
and duplicative reports that we suggest eliminating from our statutes to OMB as part of the budget
process, in consultation with Congress. The Agency continues to implement the corrective actions
identified in the 2018 OIG Report, which will improve the tracking of Reports to Congress so that
statutory requirements are not missed in the future.
The Agency has taken the following efforts to address this management challenge:
•	In March 2018, a memorandum was issued reminding program offices of their tracking
requirements for Reports to Congress.
•	In September 2018, EPA engaged with Congress about eliminating the reporting
requirements for the 14 Reports to Congress that the Agency had identified as duplicative
or unnecessary.
•	Throughout 2018 and 2019, EPA coordinated management of the Agency's inventory of
Reports to Congress. The Agency identified the ADP Tracker and its upcoming
replacement as the appropriate tools for tracking statutorily-mandated Reports to Congress
and those required by appropriations law.
•	In September 2019, EPA provided OMB with a proposed list of unnecessary or duplicative
reports as part of the FY 2021 budget process.
•	In February 2020, EPA is preparing to issue a memorandum identifying new Reports to
Congress that should be included in ADP Tracker, if not already identified by program
offices.
Responsible Agency Official: Robin Richardson, Principal Deputy Associate Administrator,
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
5. EPA Needs Improved Data Quality and Should Fill Identified Data Gaps for Program
Performance and Decision-Making
Summary of Challenge: According to recent OIG reports poor data quality negatively impacts
EPA 's effectiveness in overseeing programs that directly impact public health. These reports point
to a systemic problem with data quality, making data analysis more difficult and less reliable.
Agency Response: Under the Clinger Cohen Act (1996), EPA Chief Information Officer in the
Office of Mission Support (OMS) has delegated authority for information quality including
oversight responsibility for the Agency's Quality Program, as described in EPA's Quality Policy
and Procedure. The Agency's Quality Program is decentralized and implemented by the National
Program Offices and Regions with specific responsibilities for assuring the quality of data
produced and used are appropriate for their programmatic decisions.
EPA does not view the data quality issue raised by the OIG as a management challenge. It is critical
that the data supporting enforcement, regulatory and other program decisions be based on sound,
defensible data. OMS has begun revising the Agency's Quality Directives to clarify that it is the
responsibility of program and regional offices senior management to ensure that these data are of
779

-------
the appropriate quality for those uses. The revised Directives will include a requirement for
Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators to certify annually that their organizations
are implementing the Agency's Quality Directives and that the quality of data supporting their
programmatic decisions are appropriate for the intended uses.
Through Quality System Assessments (QSA) OMS identifies findings requiring corrective actions;
areas needing improvement, and best practices that may impact performance of the Agency-wide
Quality Program. OMS is responsible for developing tools and processes to guide consistent
implementation of quality across the Agency. One such tool is the Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) that defines a documented, systematic approach for planning, collecting and using QA
data and information at the project level. OMS uses SharePoint and holds regular calls with
stakeholders to track progress and results. Cross-cutting Agency issues including risks, successes,
opportunities for improvement and resource needs are reported to the CIO.
Responsible Agency Official: Vincia Holloman, Director, Enterprise Quality Management
Division
6. The EPA Needs to Improve Risk Communication to Provide Individuals and
Communities with Sufficient Information to Make Informed Decisions to Protect their
Health and the Environment
Summary of Challenge: OIG notes that while the Agency has taken important steps to address
this important issue, recent audits indicate risk communication challenges across many EPA
programs. The OIG believes the Agency needs more effective risk communication strategies to
guide, coordinate and evaluate its communication efforts to convey potential hazards. Risk
communication tools can be written, verbal or visual statements containing information about risk.
Agency Response: EPA has established a cross-agency Risk Communication Workgroup charged
with institutionalizing a thoughtful, cohesive approach to how EPA plans for, pays for, and
conducts risk communication across the Agency. The goal is to identify next steps that will inform
and contribute to the development of better risk communications processes, strategies and training.
The strategy included hiring a highly experienced Senior Risk Communication Advisor in the
Agency. The Agency has taken the following efforts to address this management challenge:
•	Issued agencywide questionnaire to survey all EPA offices and regions to identify
ongoing risk communications activities, adherence to existing agency risk
communications practices, and consistency of practices across offices.
•	Distributed agencywide communications plan template that includes consideration of
risk communication messaging for all actions.
•	Presented risk communications charge to Children's Health Protection Advisory
Committee. A key recommendation of the committee is to: Know your audience,
know who the best messenger is for each audience, and measure and track results.
•	Presented risk communications charge to Local Government Advisory Committee. A
key recommendation of the committee is for the Agency to: Improve relationships
with state, local, tribal officials before there is a risk to public health; having these
relationships in place in advance will make it easier to coordinate and provide the
780

-------
public with one consistent message.
•	Met with the National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee to establish. A key
recommendation of the committee is to: Keep lines of communications open and
understand that each community is different, which means there is not one-size-fits-all
approach to risk communication.
•	Coordinated with E-Enterprise Leadership Council to form a new team on risk
communications to include state and tribal representatives.
•	In EPA's 2019 PFAS Action Plan the Agency committed to developing a risk
communication toolbox that includes materials and messaging for federal, state, tribal
and local officials to use to inform the public.
•	On-boarded a Senior Risk Communication Advisor in 2019.
•	The scoping of a cross-agency risk communication portfolio of activities is in process.
This portfolio will include inter- and intra-agency collaboration and learning
opportunities; the development of content-rich toolkits on priority issues for the
Agency using risk communication best practices; the development of a tiered risk
communication training system; improved evaluation and research mechanisms.
•	Both FTE and extramural funding are needed to develop training and implement risk
communications efforts agencywide.
•	Continued support from the Risk Communications Workgroup, program offices and
regional offices is critical for the Agency's risk communications efforts.
Responsible Agency Officials: Rosemarie Kelley, Director, Office of Civil Enforcement; and
Nancy Grantham, Principal Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Public Affairs
781

-------
EPA User Fee Programs
In FY 2021, EPA will have several user fee programs in operation. These user fee programs and
proposals are referenced below.
Current Fees: Pesticides
Fee collection authority exists under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of
1988, as amended by the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2018 (P. L. 116-8)
("PRIA-4"), which was passed in March 2019. PRIA-4 reauthorizes these fee authorities through
fiscal year 2023 and adjusts fee amounts for certain registration activities.
•	Pesticides Maintenance Fee (7 U.S.C. §136a-l(i))
The Maintenance Fee provides funding for the registration review programs, and a certain
percentage supports the processing of applications involving inert ingredients and expedited
processing of some applications, such as fast track amendments. PRIA-4 reauthorizes collection
of this fee through 2023 and raises the collection target by $3.2 million to $31 million.
•	Enhanced Registration Services (7 U.S.C. §136w-8(b))
Entities seeking to register pesticides for use in the United States pay a fee at the time the
registration action request is submitted to EPA, setting specific timeframes for the registration
decision service. This process has introduced new pesticides to the market more quickly. PRIA-4
reauthorizes collection of these fees through 2023 and adjusts fee amounts for certain types of
registrations. In FY 2021, EPA expects to collect approximately $18 million from this fee program.
Current Fees: Other
•	Clean Air Part 71 Operating Permits Program
Title 40 CFR Part 71 § 71.9 authorizes and establishes requirements for the Clean Air Part 71
program - a comprehensive Federal air quality operating permit program for air pollution control
agencies that do not have a delegated Title V program on charging and collecting user fees, as
required by Section 502(b)(3) of the Clean Air Act. All sources subject to the operating permit
requirements of Title V shall have a permit to operate that assures compliance with all applicable
requirements. The owners or operators shall pay annual fees that are sufficient to cover the permit
program costs, in accordance with the procedures described in this section.
•	Service Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA Fees
Rule)
On June 22, 2016, the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act" (P.L. 114-
182) was signed into law, amending numerous sections of TSCA, including providing authority
for the establishment of a new, broader TSCA User Fee program that replaces and expands the
former Section 5 Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fee. The law authorizes the Agency to collect
782

-------
fee revenues amounting to an estimated 25 percent of the Agency's costs for administering
Sections 4, 5, 6 and 14 of TSCA, as amended, and enables the revenues to be deposited in the
TSCA Service Fee Fund for direct use by EPA. Fees are charged for: issuance of Test Orders,
Test Rules and Enforceable Consent Agreements under TSCA Section 4; submission of Pre-
Manufacturing Notices, Significant New Use Notices and Microbial Commercial Activity Notices
and certain submissions for exemptions under TSCA Section 5; and development of Risk
Evaluations (EPA-Initiated and Manufacturer-Requested) under TSCA Section 6.
EPA finalized a rule implementing these fee collection authorities on September 27, 2018 and
began to charge fees on October 1, 2018. FY 2019 fee revenue totaled $2.8 million, all from
Section 5 fees. In FY 2020, fee revenues are estimated to be $7.75 million and will come from
several sources: $3 million estimated for EPA review of new chemical submissions; $3.75 million
for 3 manufacturer-requested risk evaluations (MRREs) for TSCA Work Plan Chemicals; and $1
million estimated for work under TSCA Section 4.
In FY 2021, fee revenues for Section 5 new chemical submissions are estimated to total $3 million
and revenues for work under Section 4 are estimated to total $1 million. For Section 6, $27 million
fee revenue is expected in the first quarter of FY 2021 following planned publication in June 2020
of Scoping documents for the 20 Section 6 EPA-Initiated Risk Evaluations that were commenced
in December 2019. However, if all manufacturers associated with one or more of those chemicals
elect and meet the requirements to cease production, estimated fee revenues in this category may
not be realized in FY 2021. Additional fees also may be received in FY 2021 for EPA-approved
MRREs, which do not count toward the 25 percent statutory cap on TSCA fee collections relative
to EPA's costs under TSCA Sections 4, 5, 6 and 14. For planning purposes, EPA is assuming that
it will approve 3 MRREs for Work Plan Chemicals in FY 2020 and FY 2021, for which the down-
payment fee amount for each is $1.25 million ($3.75 million total for each fiscal year). Payment
of remaining portions of 50 percent of EPA's actual costs for those evaluations will not be received
until they are completed three years later.
Fee collections from Section 6 EPA-Initiated Risk Evaluations will fluctuate considerably across
fiscal years because the initiations will come in batches corresponding to statutory deadlines for
the completion of ongoing risk evaluations and the implementation of new evaluations. Each risk
evaluation is required by law to be completed within three years, with the option of a six-month
extension. Since the Agency is required to have at least 20 risk evaluations ongoing at all times, a
new batch of evaluations is expected to be initiated at 3-year intervals, resulting in a spike in fee
collections at those times. Despite these fluctuations, the fees are structured to collect up to 25
percent of associated program costs over a three-year average, including agency indirect costs (not
counting fees for MRREs, which can recover 50 percent or 100 percent of the actual costs of those
evaluations).
• Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fee
This fee is authorized by the Clean Air Act of 1990 and is administered by the Office of
Transportation and Air Quality. Fee collections for manufacturers of light-duty vehicles, light- and
heavy-duty trucks, and motorcycles began in August 1992. In 2004, EPA promulgated a rule that
updated existing fees and established fees for newly-regulated vehicles and engines. The fees
783

-------
established for new compliance programs also are paid by manufacturers of heavy-duty and non-
road vehicles and engines, including large diesel and gas equipment (earthmovers, tractors,
forklifts, compressors, etc.), handheld and non-handheld utility engines (chainsaws, weed-
whackers, leaf-blowers, lawnmowers, tillers, etc.), marine (boat motors, watercraft, jet-skis),
locomotive, aircraft and recreational vehicles (off-road motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles,
snowmobiles) for in-use testing and certification. In 2009, EPA added fees for evaporative
emissions requirements for non-road engines. EPA intends to apply certification fees to additional
industry sectors as new programs are developed. In FY 2021, EPA expects to collect
approximately $23.4 million from this fee program based upon a projection of the original
rulemaking cost study adjusted for inflation. EPA is not currently authorized to expend these
collected funds but is proposing such authority.
•	Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest
The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act (P. L. 112-195) provides EPA with
the authority to establish a program to finance, develop, and operate a system for the electronic
submission of hazardous waste manifests supported by user fees. In accordance with the Act, EPA
established the e-Manifest program. EPA finalized the user fee rule, Hazardous Waste
Management System: User Fees for the Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest System and
Amendments to Manifest Regulations, in December 2017, and the e-Manifest system launched in
June 2018.
In FY 2021, EPA will continue to operate the e-Manifest system and the Agency anticipates
collecting and depositing approximately $26 million in e-Manifest user fees into the Hazardous
Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund. Based upon authority to collect and spend e-Manifest
fees provided by Congress in annual appropriations bills, the fees will fully support the e-Manifest
program, including the operation of the system, necessary program expenses, and future
development costs.
•	WIFIA Program Fees
The FY 2021 Budget requests authorization for the Administrator to collect and obligate fees
established in accordance with title V, subtitle C, sections 5029 and 5030, of Public Law 113-121,
the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. These funds shall be deposited in the
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program Account and remain available until
expended. WIFIA fee regulations were first promulgated in FY 2017. Fee revenue will be used for
the cost of contracting with expert services such as financial advisory, legal advisory, and
engineering firms.
The requested WIFIA program fee expenditure authority would be in addition to the $5 million
request for administrative and operations expenses. Fee revenue does not take the place of the
request for WIFIA administration. The appropriated administrative level and the anticipated fee
revenue are both needed to successfully implement the WIFIA program. In FY 2021, EPA
estimates that $10 million in WIFIA fees could be collected.
784

-------
Fee Proposals: Other
Motor Vehicle and Engine Compliance Program Fee
The FY 2021 Budget includes a proposal to appropriate a portion of the Federal Vehicle and Fuels
Standards and Certification program project funds from the Environmental Services Fund (ESF).
This change would more directly reflect the relationship between the Program's fee collections for
vehicle and engine certifications and its expenditures as described in the Clean Air Act (42 USC
7552(b)).
•	ENERGY STAR
By administering the ENERGY STAR program through the collection of user fees, the EPA would
continue to provide a trusted resource for consumers and businesses who want to purchase products
that save them money and help protect the environment. Product manufacturers who seek to label
their products under the Program would pay a fee that would support EPA's work to set voluntary
energy efficiency standards and to process applications. The fee collections provide funding to
cover an upfront appropriation of $46 million, and continued expenses to develop, operate, and
maintain the ENERGY STAR program.
•	FIFRA and PRIA Fee Spending Restrictions
Current statutory language in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
and Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) restricts what activities EPA can fund from
collections deposited in the Reregi strati on and Expedited Processing Revolving Fund and Pesticide
Registration Fund. The FY 2021 request carries forward the proposed statutory language from the
FY 2020 President's Budget to expand the range of activities that may be funded with these fees.
Language for pesticide registration service fees is included in the proposed Administrative
Provisions; since pesticide maintenance fees are mandatory, separate language has been prepared
for those fees that will be transmitted at a later date.
•	Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness, and Response
The FY 2021 Budget requests authorization for the Administrator to collect and obligate fees to
provide compliance assistance services for owners or operators of a non-transportation related
onshore or offshore facility located landward of the coastline required to prepare and submit Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans or Facility Response Plans (FRP) under section
311(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. There are approximately 3,800 FRP facilities
and over 540,000 SPCC facilities. Allowing these facilities to voluntarily request and pay for a
service will help expand awareness and understanding of accident prevention processes, improve
the safety of industrial operations, and reduce inadvertent regulatory compliance violations. These
fees will be deposited in the Inland Oil Spill Programs account and remain available until expended
for the expenses of providing compliance assistance services. These fees are discretionary, and the
proposed language is included in the Administrative Provisions section. When the Agency receives
Congressional authorization, the Administrator will establish procedures for making and accepting
a facility's request for voluntary assistance.
785

-------
• State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
The FY 2021 Budget requests authorization for the Administrator to collect and obligate fees to
provide compliance assistance services for owners or operators of a stationary source required to
prepare and submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP) under Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act.
There are approximately 12,000 RMP facilities. Allowing these facilities to voluntarily request
and pay for a service will help expand awareness and understanding of accident prevention
processes, improve the safety of industrial operations, and reduce inadvertent regulatory
compliance violations. These fees will be deposited in the Environmental Programs and
Management account and remain available until September 30, 2022 for the expenses of providing
compliance assistance services. These fees are discretionary, and the proposed language is
included in the Administrative Provisions section. When the Agency receives Congressional
authorization, the Administrator will establish procedures for making and accepting a facility's
request for voluntary assistance.
786

-------
Working Capital Fund
In FY 2021, the Agency will be in its 25th year of operation of the Working Capital Fund (WCF).
The WCF is a revolving fund authorized by law to finance a cycle of operations in which the costs
for goods or services provided are charged to the users. The WCF operates like a commercial
business within EPA where customers pay for services received, thus generating revenue.
Customers include EPA program and regional offices and other federal agencies. EPA's WCF was
implemented under the authority of Section 403 of the Government Management Reform Act of
1994 and the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997. EPA received permanent WCF
authority in the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998. The
Modernizing Government Technology (MGT) Act3 provided additional authority for information
technology development activities in agency working capital funds.4
EPA's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) initiated the WCF in FY 1997 as part of an effort to: 1) be
accountable to agency offices, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress; 2) increase
the efficiency of the administrative services provided to program offices; and 3) increase customer
service and responsiveness. The Agency has a WCF Board which provides policy and planning
oversight and advises the CFO regarding the WCF financial position. The Board, chaired by a
management representative within the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, is comprised of 22
voting members from program and regional offices.
In FY 2021, there will be 10 agency activities provided under the WCF. These are the Agency's
information technology, telecommunications operations, data services, agency postage costs,
Cincinnati voice services, and background investigations managed by the Office of Mission
Support; financial and administrative systems, employee relocations, and a budget formulation
system managed by the Chief Financial Officer; the Agency's Continuity of Operations (COOP)
site managed by the Land and Emergency Management program; regional information technology
service and support managed by EPA Region 8; and a legal services activity managed by the Office
of General Counsel.5
The Agency's FY 2021 budget request includes resources for these 10 activities in each National
Program Manager's submission, totaling approximately $270 million. These estimated resources
may be adjusted during the year to incorporate any program office's additional service needs
during the operating year. To the extent these increases are subject to Congressional
reprogramming notifications, the Agency will comply with all applicable requirements. In FY
2021, the Agency will continue to perform relocation services for other federal agencies in an
effort to deliver high quality services external to EPA.
It is anticipated in FY 2021 that there may be minor increases and decreases due to several IT
improvements, including increased cloud computing, cybersecurity requirements, continuous
diagnostic and mitigation program implementation, and discovery services. Other funding shifts
have been included in the FY 2021 WCF plan that relate to the necessary telecommunications and
3	The MGT Act was enacted as part of the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act on December 12, 2017.
4	EPA determined that the Agency's existing WCF meets the requirements of the MGT Act. EPA's WCF provides a range of
integral IT infrastructure, application, and hosting services. In addition, EPA's WCF possesses the structure and governance
framework to satisfy the requirements for the Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) identified in the MGT Act.
5	In August 2019, the WCF Board approved the creation of the legal services activity to begin in FY 2020, which includes certain
important central functions such as Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) management and ethics oversight activities with their
supporting systems.
787

-------
computer support needed by every employee. As part of an overall review and rebalancing of these
costs, funds have been shifted across programs to reflect FTE changes as well.
788

-------
Acronyms for Statutory Authority
The following is not an exhaustive list of [U. S.] statutory authorities but includes those commonly referred
to by acronym in this document.
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act
ADEA: Age Discrimination in Employment Act
AEA: Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and Reorganization Plan #3
AHERA: Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
AHPA: Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
APA: Administrative Procedures Act
ARRA: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
ASHAA: Asbestos in Schools Hazard Abatement Act
ASTCA: Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act
AWIA: America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018
BEACH Act of 2000: Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act
BRERA: Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act
BUILD Act: Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development Act
CAA: Clean Air Act
CAAA: Clean Air Act Amendments (1970 and 1990)
CCA: dinger Cohen Act
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (1980)
CFOA: Chief Financial Officers Act
CICA: Competition in Contracting Act
CRA: Civil Rights Act
CSA: Computer Security Act
CWA: Clean Water Act (1972)
CWPPR: Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990
CZARA: Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
CZMA: Coastal Zone Management Act
DPA: Deepwater Ports Act
DREAA: Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
ECRA: Economic Cleanup Responsibility Act
EFOIA: Electronic Freedom of Information Act
789

-------
EISA: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
EPAct: Energy Policy Act of 2005
EPAA: Environmental Programs Assistance Act
EPCA: Energy Policy and Conservation Act
EPCRA: Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (1986)
ERD&DAA: Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act
ESA: Endangered Species Act
ESECA: Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act
FACA: Federal Advisory Committee Act
FAIR: Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act
FASA: Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (1994)
FCMA: Fishery Conservation and Management Act
FEPCA: Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, enacted as amendments to FIFRA
FFDCA: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
FFMIA: Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996
FGCAA: Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act
FIFRA: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (1972)
FLPMA: Federal Land Policy and Management Act
FMFIA: Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (1982)
FOIA: Freedom of Information Act
FPA: Federal Pesticide Act
FPAS: Federal Property and Administration Services Act
FQPA: Food Quality Protection Act (1996)
FRA: Federal Register Act
FSA: Food Security Act
FSMA: Food Safety Modernization Act
FTTA: Federal Technology Transfer Act
FUA: Fuel Use Act
FWCA: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
FWPCA: Federal Water Pollution and Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act [CWA])
GISRA: Government Information Security Reform Act
GMRA: Government Management Reform Act
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act (1993)
790

-------
GPRAMA: Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010
HMTA: Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
HSWA: Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, enacted as amendments to RCRA
IGA: Inspector General Act
IPA: Intergovernmental Personnel Act
IPIA: Improper Payments Information Act
ISTEA: Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
ITMRA: Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996-aka Clinger/Cohen Act
MPPRCA: Marine Plastic Pollution, Research and Control Act of 1987
MPRSA: Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act
NAWCA: North American Wetlands Conservation Act
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act
NISA: National Invasive Species Act of 1996
ODA: Ocean Dumping Act
OPA: Oil Pollution Act of 1990
OWBPA: Older Workers Benefit Protection Act
PBA: Public Building Act
PFCRA: Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act
PHSA: Public Health Service Act
PLIRRA: Pollution Liability Insurance and Risk Retention Act
PPA: Pollution Prevention Act
PR: Privacy Act of 1974
PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act
PREA: Pesticide Registration Extension Act of 2012 (also known as PRIA 3)
PRIA: Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003
PRIA 4: Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2018
PRIRA: Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act
QCA: Quiet Communities Act
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, enacted as amendments to SWDA
RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act
RICO: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
RLBPHRA: Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act
791

-------
SARA: Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SBLRBRERA: Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act
SBREFA: Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act
SICEA: Steel Industry Compliance Extension Act
SMCRA: Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
SPA: Shore Protection Act of 1988
SWDA: Solid Waste Disposal Act
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UMTRLWA: Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Land Withdrawal Act
USTCA: Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act
VIDA: Vessel Incidental Discharge Act
WIFIA: Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
WIIN: Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act
WQA: Water Quality Act of 1987
WRDA: Water Resources Development Act
WSRA: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
WWWQA: Wet Weather Water Quality Act of 2000
792

-------
FY 2021 STAG Categorical Grant Programs
Statutory Authority and Eligible Uses
	(Dollars in Thousands)	
(¦mill Til In-
Sl;illllnr\
Aulhiirilk-s
I!li^il>k'
ki'iipii'iiis
Kli^iMc I si-s
n 2020
(¦ii;il/()l> jl'l'li\ i-
i \ 201 •)
.Ulll;il Dulhiis
(Mill III)
l'.slilll;ik'(l R
2020
l'.n;K'k'(l DiilknV'
(\IOOO)
i \ 2021
Pivsidi-iH's
liud^i'l Diilkirs
(\IOOO)
state and
Local Air
Quality
Management
CAA, Section
103.
Air pollution
control agencies
as defined in
section 302(b) of
the CAA
S/L monitoring and
data collection
activities in support
of the PM2.5
monitoring network
and associated
program costs.
Goal 1,
Obj. 1.1
$41,875.0
$41,968.0
$29,313.0
State and
Local Air
Quality
Management
CAA, Section
103.
Air pollution
control agencies
as defined in
section 302(b) of
the CAA
S/L monitoring and
data collection
activities in support
of air toxics
monitoring.
Goal 1,
Obj. 1.1
$4,019.0
$4,959.0
$6,271.0
State and
Local Air
Quality
Management
CAA, Section
103.
Air pollution
control agencies
as defined in
section 302(b) of
the CAA
S/L monitoring
procurement
activities in support
oftheNAAQS.
Goal 1,
Obj. 1.1
$3,102.2
$4,772.0
$2,780.0
6 Does not reflect STAG rescissions.
793

-------
(¦mill Tilli-
Sl;illllnr\
Aulhiirilk-s
I!li^il>k'
ki'iipii'iiis
Kli^iMc I si-s
n 2o2o
(¦Ii;il/()l> jl'l'li\ I-
i \ 201 •)
.Ullial Dollars
(\I000)
llslimak-d R
2020
Knai'k'd Dollars'1
(\I000)
i \ 2021
Pivsidi-iil's
liud^i'l Dollars
(\I000)
Sta Le and
Local Air
Quality
Management
CAA, Sections
103, 105, 106.
Air pollution
control agencies as
defined in section
302(b) of the CAA;
Multi-jurisdictional
organizations (non-
profit organizations
whose boards of
directors or
membership is
made up of CAA
section 302(b)
agency officers and
whose mission is to
support the
continuing
environmental
programs of the
States); Interstate
air quality control
region designated
pursuant to section
107 of the CAA or
of implementing
section 176A, or
section 184
NOTE: only the
Ozone Transport
Commission is
eligible.
Carrying out the
traditional prevention
and control programs
required by the CAA
and associated program
support costs, including
all monitoring activities,
including PM 2.5
monitoring and
associated program costs
(Section 103 and/or
105); Coordinating or
facilitating a multi-
jurisdictional approach
to carrying out the
traditional prevention
and control programs
required by the CAA
(Sections 103 and 106);
Supporting training for
CAA Section 302(b) air
pollution control agency
staff (Sections 103 and
105); Supporting
research, investigative,
and demonstration
projects (Section 103).
Goal 1,
Obj. 1.1
$170,239.0
Section 105
grants
$175,881.0
Section 105
grants
$113,177.0
Section 105
grants



$639.0
Section 106
grants
Total:
$219,874.2
$639.0
Section 106
grants
Total:
$228,219.0
$420.0
Section 106
grants
Total:
$151,961.0
794

-------
(¦mill Tilk-
Slallllor\
Aulhorilk-s
l!li^il>k'
Ki-ii|>k-nls
l!li^il>k' I si-s
n 2o2o
(¦Ii;il/()l> jl'l'li\ I-
i \ 201 •)
.Ullial Dollars
(\I000)
llslimak-d R
2020
Knai'k'd Dollars'1
(\I000)
i \ 2021
Pivsidi-iil's
liud^i'l Dollars
(\I000)
Tribal Air
Quality
Management
CAA, Sections
103 and 105;
Tribal
Cooperative
Agreements
(TCA) in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Tribes; Intertribal
Consortia;
State/Tribal
College or
University
Conducting air quality
assessment activities to
determine a Tribe's
need to develop a CAA
program; Carrying out
the traditional
prevention and control
programs required by
Goal 1,
Obj. 1.1
$8,556.1
Section 103
grants
$8,829.0
Section 103
grants
$6,163.0
Section 103
grants


associated program
costs; Supporting CAA
training for Federally-
recognized Tribes.

$4,000.0
Section 105
grants
Total:
$12,556.1
$4,000.0
Section 105
grants
Total:
$12,829.0
$2,800.0
Section 105
grants
Total:
$8,963.0
Radon
TSCA,
Sections 10
and 306.
State Agencies,
Tribes, Intertribal
Consortia
Assist in the
development and
implementation of
programs for the
assessment and
mitigation of radon.
Goal 1,
Obj. 1.1
$7,453.4
$7,789.0
$0.0
Multipurpose
Grants
Appropriation
Act: FY 2018
(Public Law
115-141) and
all other major
environmental
legislation
including but
not limited to
CAA, CWA,
SDWA and
CERCLA
State Agencies,
Tribes
Implementation of
mandatory statutory
duties delegated by
EPA under pertinent
environmental laws.
Goal 2
Obj.: 2.1
$0.0
$13,000.0
$10,000.0
795

-------
(¦mill Tilk-
Sl;illllnr\
Aulhiirilk-s
I!li^il>k'
ki'iipii'iiis
l!li^il>k' I si-s
n 2o2o
(¦Ii;il/()l> jl'l'li\ I-
i \ 201 •)
.Ulll;il Dulhiis
(\I000)
l'.slilll;ik'(l R
2020
l'!ii;ii'k'(l DiilknV'
(\I000)
i \ 2021
Pivskk-m's
liud^i'l Diilkirs
(\I000)
Water
Pollution
Control
(Section 106)
FWPCA, as
amended,
Section 106;
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia,
Interstate
Agencies
Develop and carry out
surface and ground
water pollution control
programs, including
NPDES permits,
TMDLs, WQ
standards, monitoring,
and NPS control
activities.
Goal 1,
Obj. 1.2
$225,454.2
$223,289.0
$153,683.0
Nonpoint
Source (NPS -
Section 319)
FWPCA, as
amended,
Section 319(h);
TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Implement EPA-
approved State and
Tribal nonpoint source
management programs
and fund projects as
selected by the state.
Goal 1,
Obj. 1.2
$166,360.0
$172,348.0
$0.0
Wetlands
Program
Development
FWPCA, as
amended,
Section 104
(b)(3); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
States, Local
Governments,
Tribes, Interstate
Organizations,
Intertribal
Consortia, Non-
profit
Organizations
T o develop new
wetland programs or
enhance existing
programs for the
protection,
management, and
restoration of wetland
resources.
Goal 1,
Obj. 1.2
$12,772.7
$14,183.0
$9,762.0
Public Water
System
Supervision
(PWSS)
SDWA, Section
1443(a); TCA
in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Assistance to
implement and
enforce National
Primary Drinking
Water Regulations to
ensure the safety of
the Nation's drinking
water resources and
to protect public
health.
Goal 1,
Obj. 1.2
$96,689.7
$106,250.0
$67,892.0
796

-------
(¦mill Tilk-
Sl;illllnr\
Aulhiiriiii-s
I!li^il>k'
ki'iipii'iiis
Kli^iMc I si-s
n 2o2o
(¦Ii;il/()l> jl'l'li\ I-
i \ 201 •)
.Ulll;il Dulhiis
(\I000)
l'.slilll;ik'(l R
2020
l'!ii;ii'k'(l DiilknV'
(\I000)
i \ 2021
Pivsidi-iH's
liud^i'l Diilkirs
(\I000)
Underground
Injection
Control (UIC)
SDWA, Section
1443(b); TCA
in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Implement and
enforce regulations
that protect
underground sources
of drinking water by
controlling Class I-V
underground injection
wells.
Goal 1,
Obj. 1.2
$9,846.2
$10,164.0
$6,995.0
Beaches
Protection
BEACH Act of
2000; TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia, Local
Governments
Develop and
implement programs
for monitoring and
notification of
conditions for coastal
recreation waters
adjacent to beaches or
similar points of
access that are used
by the public.
Goal,
Obj. 1.2
$8,985.0
$9,238.0
$0.0
HABs
Reduction
Grant
Clean Water
Act

Prevention and
response efforts for
harmful algal blooms.
Goal,
Obj. 1.2
$0.0
$0.0
$15,000.0
Hazardous
Waste
Financial
Assistance
Solid Waste
Disposal Act,
as amended by
the Resource
Conservation
and Recovery
Act §3011;
Appropriation
Act: FY 2018
(Public Law
115-141).
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Development &
Implementation of
Hazardous Waste
Programs
Goal 1,
Obj. 1.3
$101,345.0
$96,446.0
$66,381.0
797

-------
(¦mill Tilk-
Sl;illllnr\
Aulhiiriiii-s
I!li^il>k'
ki'iipii'iils
Kli^iMc I si-s
n 2o2o
(¦Ii;il/()l> jl'l'li\ I-
i \ 201 •)
.Ulll;il Dulhiis
(\I000)
l'.slilll;ik'(l R
2020
l'!ii;ii'k'(l DiilknV'
(\I000)
i \ 2021
Pivsidi-iH's
liud^i'l Diilkirs
(\I000)
Brownfields
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and Liability Act
(CERCLA§
128(a).
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Establish and enhance
state and tribal
response programs
which will survey and
inventory brownfields
sites; develop
oversight and
enforcement
authorities to ensure
response actions are
protective of human
health and the
environment; develop
ways for communities
to provide meaningful
opportunities for
public participation;
and develop
mechanisms for
approval of a cleanup
plan and verification
and certification that
cleanup is complete.
Goal 1,
Obj. 1.3
$49,769.5
$46,190.0
$31,791.0
Underground
Storage Tanks
(UST)
Solid Waste
Disposal Act of
1976, as
amended by the
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act of 1986, §
2007(f); Energy
Policy Act, §
9011.
States
Provide funding for
States' underground
storage tanks and to
support direct UST
implementation
programs.
Goal 1,
Obj. 1.3
$1,590.1
$1,449.0
$0.0
798

-------
(¦mill Tilk-
Slallllor\
Aulhorilk-s
I!li^il>k'
Ki-ii|>k-nls
l!li^il>k' I si-s
n 2020
(¦Ii;il/()l> jl'l'li\ I-
i \ 201 •)
.Ullial Dollars
(\I000)
llslimak-d R
2020
Knai'k'd Dollars''
(\I000)
i \ 2021
Pivsidi-iil's
liud^i'l Dollars
(\I000)
Pesticides
Program
Implementation
FIFRA,
Sections
23(a)(1);
Federal Food,
drug and
Cosmetic Act
(FDCA); Food
quality
Protection Act
(FQPA);
Endangered
Species Act
(ESA).
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Implement the
following programs
through grants to
States, Tribes, partners,
and supporters for
implementation of
pesticide programs,
including:
Certification and
Training (C&T);
Worker Protection;
Endangered Species
Protection Program
(ESPP) Field
Activities; Pesticides
in Water; and tribal
Programs.
Goal 1,
Obj. 1.4
$11,821.5
- States formula
$11,051.0
- States formula
$7,350.0
- States formula
$613.9
HQ Programs:
-	Tribal
-PREP
-	School IPM
$1,236.0
HQ Programs:
-	Tribal
-PREP
-	School IPM
$1,107.0
HQ Programs:
-	Tribal
-PREP
-	Pollinator
Protection
Total: $12,435.4
Total: $12,287.0
Total: $8,457.0
Lead
TSCA, Sections
401-412.
States, Tribes,
Intertribal
Consortia
Aid states, territories,
the District of
Columbia, and tribes to
develop and implement
authorized lead-based
paint abatement
programs and
authorized Renovation,
Repair, and Painting
(RRP) programs. The
EPA directly
implements these
programs in all areas
of the country that are
not authorized to do so,
and will continue to
operate the Federal
Lead-based Paint
Program Database
(FLPP) of trained and
certified lead-based
paint professionals.
Goal 1,
Obj. 1.4
$11,576.9
404(g) State/
Tribal
Certification
$12,384.0
404(g) State/
Tribal
Certification
$8,815.0
404(g) State/
Tribal
Certification
$1,714.1
404(g) Direct
Implementation
Total:
$13,291.0
$1,665.0
404(g) Direct
Implementation
Total:
$14,049.0
$1,185.0
404(g) Direct
Implementation
Total:
$10,000.0
799

-------
(¦mill Tilk-
Sl;illllnr\
I!li^il>k'
I!li^il>k' I si-s
n 2o2o
i \ 201 •)
r.slimuk'il l \
i \ 2021

Aulhiirilk-s
ki'iipii'iiis

(¦Ii;il/()l> jl'l'li\ I-
.Ulll;il Dulhiis
(\I000)
2020
l'!ii;ii'k'(l DiilknV'
(\I000)
Pivskk-m's
liud^i'l Diilkirs
(\I000)
Toxic
Toxic
States, federally
Assist in developing,
Goal 2,
$4,597.4
$4,759.0
$3,276.0
Substances
Substances
recognized Indian
maintaining, and
Obj.2.1



Compliance
Control Act;
Tribes, Intertribal
implementing



TCA in annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Consortia, and
Territories of the
U.S.
compliance monitoring
programs for PCBs,
asbestos, and Lead
Based Paint. In
addition, enforcement
actions by: 1) the Lead
Based Paint program
and 2) States that
obtained a "waiver"
under the Asbestos
program.




Pesticide
FIFRA §
States, Federally-
Assist with
Goal 2,
$17,510.6
$24,000.0
$10,531.0
Enforcement
23(a)(1);
recognized Indian
implementation of
Obj.2.1




FY2000
Tribes, Intertribal
cooperative pesticide




Appropriations
Consortia, and
enforcement





Act (P.L. 106-
Territories of the
programs.





74); TCA in
U.S.





annual







Appropriations







Acts.






800

-------
(¦mill Tilk-
Sl;illllnr\
I!li^il>k'
l!li^il>k' I si-s
n 2o2o
i \ 201 •)
l'.slilll;ik'(l R
i \ 2021

Aulhiirilk-s
ki'iipii'iiis

(¦Ii;il/()l> jl'l'li\ I-
Ailll;il Dulhiis
(\I000)
2020
l'!ii;ii'k'(l DiilknV'
(\I000)
Pivskk-m's
liud^i'l Diilkirs
(\I000)
Pollution
Pollution
States, Tribes,
Provides assistance to
Goal 2,
$5,545.5
$4,610.0
$0.0
Prevention
Prevention Act
Intertribal
States and State
Obj.2.1




of 1990,
Consortia
entities (z. e., colleges




Section 6605;

and universities) and





TSCA Section

F ederally-recognized





10; FY 2000

Tribes and intertribal





Appropriations

consortia to deliver





Act (P.L. 106-

pollution prevention





74); TCA in

technical assistance to





annual

small and medium-





Appropriations

sized businesses. A





Acts.

goal of the program is
to assist businesses and
industries with
identifying improved
environmental
strategies and solutions
for reducing waste at
the source.




Tribal General
Indian
Tribal
Plan and develop
Goal 2,
$67,299.0
$65,476.0
$44,233.0
Assistance
Environmental
Governments,
Tribal environmental
Obj.2.1



Program
General
Assistance
Program Act
(42 U.S.C. §
4368b); TCA in
annual
Appropriations
Acts.
Intertribal
Consortia
protection programs.



801

-------
(¦mill Tilk-
Sl;illllnr\
l!li^il>k'
I!li^il>k' I si-s
n 2o2o
i \ 201 •)
l'.slilll;ik'(l R
i \ 2021

Aulhiirilk-s
ki'iipii'iiis

(¦Ii;il/()l> jl'l'li\ I-
.Ulll;il Dulhiis
(\I000)
2020
l'!ii;ii'k'(l DiilknV'
(\I000)
Pivskk-m's
liud^i'l Diilkirs
(\I000)
National
Reorganization
States, U.S.
Helps States, U.S.
Goal 3,
$9,619.7
$9,332.0
$6,422.0
Environmental
Plan No. 3 of
Territories,
Territories, Tribes,
Obj. 3.4



Information
1970, 84 Stat.
Federally
and intertribal



Exchange
2086, as
amended by Pub.
L. 98-80, 97
Recognized Tribes
and Native
consortia develop the




Network
Villages, Interstate
information




(NEIEN, aka
Stat. 485
Agencies, Tribal
management and




"the Exchange
(codified at Title
Consortia, Other
technology (EM/IT)




Network")
5, App.) (EPA's
organic statute)
Appropriation
Act: FY 2018
(Public Law
115-141)
Agencies with
Related
Environmental
Information
Activities.
capabilities they need
to participate in the
Exchange Network,
to continue and
expand data-sharing
programs, and to
improve access to
environmental
information.




802

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
FY 2021 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification
Program Project By Program Area
(Dollars in Thousands)
Science & Technology
dean Air
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Atmospheric Protection Program
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Federal Vehicle and Fuels Standards and Certification
Subtotal, Clean Air
Indoor Air and Radiation
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air
Subtotal, Indoor Air and Radiation
Enforcement
Forensics Support
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
Subtotal, Homeland Security
IT / Data Management / Security
IT / Data Management
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Pesticides Licensing
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
n 201 ¦> Uliwl-
$7,834.8
$8,044.4
$10,878.2
$92,789.2
$119,546.6
$16.7
$2,794.7
$2,545.0
$216.7
$5,573.1
$11,534.7
$7,957.5
$20,492.7
$410.0
$28,860.2
$3,092.6
$67,856.9
$3,098.5
$2,415.8
$354.6
$5,868.9
l-Mimalcd M
2020 I.IKKlllI
$7,463.0
$7,772.0
$6,039.0
$94,790.0
$116,064.0
$143.0
$1,781.0
$3,089.0
$136.0
$5,149.0
$13,592.0
$9,053.0
$23,593.0
$443.0
$33,089.0
$3,072.0
$65,372.0
$3,154.0
$2,327.0
$405.0
$5,886.0
n 2021 I'll-
liutliii-1
$5,739.0
$0.0
$3,712.0
$80,932.0
$90,383.0
$0.0
$1,047.0
$4,167.0
$0.0
$5,214.0
$11,723.0
$7,732.0
$25,542.0
$500.0
$33,774.0
$2,890.0
$67,908.0
$2,443.0
$2,616.0
$684.0
$5,743.0
n 2021 I'll-
liiidiicl
r.vlimiilrd M
2020 I'liiicU'il
-$1,724.0
-$7,772.0
-$2,327.0
-$13,858.0
-$25,681.0
-$143.0
-$734.0
$1,078.0
-$136.0
$65.0
-$1,869.0
-$1,321.0
$1,949.0
$57.0
$685.0
-$182.0
$2,536.0
-$711.0
$289.0
$279.0
-$143.0
803

-------
I'viiiimiril M
1^ 2 Ulna!" 2M2M l iKKlcd
n 2021 l'iv»
lillilllrl \.
1^ 2021 I'rr-	l.vliiiulcd 1^
lilltllil-1	2020 I.IKKlllI
Research: Air and Energy
Research: Air and Energy
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
Research: Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
Research: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Research: Chemical Safety for Sustainability
Health and Environmental Risk Assessment
Research: Chemical Safety for Sustainability
Endocrine Disrupters
Computational Toxicology
Research: Chemical Safety for
Sustainability (other activities)
Subtotal, Research: Chemical Safety for Sustainability
Subtotal, Research: Chemical Safety for Sustainability
Water: Human Health Protection
Drinking Water Programs
Congressional Priorities
Water Quality Research and Support Grants
Total, Science & Technology
$85,895.8
$100,123.7
$135,083.1
$37,003.7
$15,230.0
$22,262.3
$49,811.9
$87,304.2
$124,307.9
$3,227.6
$4,092.0
$695,063.1
$94,496.0
$110,890.0
$132,477.0
$37,351.0
$16,021.0
$21,089.0
$51,807.0
$88,917.0
$126,268.0
$4,094.0
$6,000.0
$716,449.0
$33,543.0
$78,948.0
$58,597.0
$24,694.0
$10,775.0
$18,181.0
$37,996.0
$66,952.0
$91,646.0
$4,364.0
$0.0
$484,733.0
-$60,953.0
-$31,942.0
-$73,880.0
-$12,657.0
-$5,246.0
-$2,908.0
-$13,811.0
-$21,965.0
-$34,622.0
$270.0
-$6,000.0
-$231,716.0
Environmental Programs & Management
dean Air
Clean Air Allowance Trading Programs
Atmospheric Protection Program
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
Stratospheric Ozone: Domestic Programs
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund
Subtotal, Clean Air
Indoor Air and Radiation
Indoor Air: Radon Program
Radiation: Protection
Radiation: Response Preparedness
$15,302.4
$90,985.1
$19,279.9
$132,513.9
$5,060.4
$8,326.0
$271,467.7
$2,642.6
$10,880.5
$2,078.1
$13,619.0
$95,436.0
$20,093.0
$130,588.0
$4,661.0
$8,711.0
$273,108.0
$3,136.0
$7,992.0
$2,196.0
$13,231.0
$14,512.0
$17,877.0
$114,095.0
$4,087.0
$0.0
$163,802.0
$0.0
$2,470.0
$2,350.0
-$388.0
-$80,924.0
-$2,216.0
-$16,493.0
-$574.0
-$8,711.0
-$109,306.0
-$3,136.0
-$5,522.0
$154.0
804

-------
Reduce Risks Jrom Indoor Air
Subtotal, Indoor Air and Radiation
Brownfields
Brownfields
Compliance
Compliance Monitoring
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Environmental Justice
NEPA Implementation
Subtotal, Enforcement
Geographic Programs
Geographic Program: Chesapeake Bay
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound
Geographic Program: Other
Lake Pontchartrain
S.New England Estuary (SNEE)
Geographic Program: Other (other activities)
Subtotal, Geographic Program: Other
Great Lakes Restoration
Geographic Program: South Florida
Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay
Geographic Program: Puget Sound
Subtotal, Geographic Programs
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Communication and Information
Homeland Security: Critical Infrastructure Protection
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
Subtotal, Homeland Security
Information Exchange / Outreach
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
TRI / Right to Know
n 21114 Uliwl-
SI 0,931.6
$26,532.8
$22,939.3
$100,132.8
$160,202.2
$46,342.0
$5,033.5
$13,827.4
$225,405.1
$72,800.7
$17,690.4
$10,995.0
$14,232.7
$947.0
$4,842.8
$1,401.5
$7,191.3
$292,571.0
$1,305.2
$8,381.7
$27,936.8
$453,104.8
$4,003.8
$444.4
$5,755.6
$10,203.8
$12,588.0
$12,136.9
l-Mimalcd M
2020 Kindled
$11,627.0
$24,951.0
$23,647.0
$101,665.0
$167,615.0
$47,635.0
$9,554.0
$15,833.0
$240,637.0
$85,000.0
$17,553.0
$13,390.0
$21,000.0
$1,089.0
$5,741.0
$2,736.0
$9,566.0
$320,000.0
$4,845.0
$5,922.0
$33,000.0
$510,276.0
$3,818.0
$840.0
$5,355.0
$10,013.0
$13,594.0
$12,155.0
n 2021 riv.
$0.0
$4,820.0
$17,816.0
$95,649.0
$157,820.0
$46,627.0
$2,729.0
$17,937.0
$225,113.0
$7,300.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$320,000.0
$3,206.0
$0.0
$0.0
$330,506.0
$3,677.0
$1,361.0
$4,986.0
$10,024.0
$10,862.0
$8,065.0
n 2021 I'll-
liiidurl \.
r.NlimiiU'd M
2020 r.niK'Icd
-$11,627.0
-$20,131.0
-$5,831.0
-$6,016.0
-$9,795.0
-$1,008.0
-$6,825.0
$2,104.0
-$15,524.0
-$77,700.0
-$17,553.0
-$13,390.0
-$21,000.0
-$1,089.0
-$5,741.0
-$2,736.0
-$9,566.0
$0.0
-$1,639.0
-$5,922.0
-$33,000.0
-$179,770.0
-$141.0
$521.0
-$369.0
$11.0
-$2,732.0
-$4,090.0
805

-------
I'vliiimlril M	1^ 2021 I'rr-
1^ 2 Ulna!"	2M2M l iKKlcd	liiiducl
Tribal - Capacity Building $13,780.0	$13,072.0	SI 4.099.0
Executive Management and Operations $51,243.2	$47,259.0	$43,784.0
Environmental Education $8,597.1	$8,580.0	$0.0
Exchange Network $17,090.3	$15,184.0	$12,328.0
Small Minority Business Assistance $1,411.3	$987.0	$1,080.0
Small Business Ombudsman $1,906.9	$1,824.0	$1,983.0
Children and Other Sensitive Populations: Agency
Coordination $5,903.7	$6,173.0	$2,704.0
Subtotal, Information Exchange / Outreach $124,657.4	$118,828.0	$94,905.0
n 2021 I'iv-
lillililrl \.
I.vliiiulcd M
2020 I'.iniclril
$1,027.0
-$3,475.0
-$8,580.0
-$2,856.0
$93.0
$159.0
-$3,469.0
-$23,923.0
International Programs
US Mexico Border
International Sources of Pollution
Trade and Governance
Subtotal, International Programs
$3,236.0
$7,011.4
$5,716.8
$15,964.2
$2,693.0
$6,553.0
$5,365.0
$14,611.0
$0.0
$10,628.0
$0.0
$10,628.0
-$2,693.0
$4,075.0
-$5,365.0
-$3,983.0
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security	$7,649.5	$7,593.0
IT / Data Management	$78,748.7	$80,223.0
Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security	$86,398.2	$87,816.0
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Integrated Environmental Strategies	$10,760.9	$10,152.0
Administrative Law	$4,527.9	$4,835.0
Alternative Dispute Resolution	$667.4	$870.0
Civil Rights Program	$8,972.5	$8,814.0
Legal Advice: Environmental Program	$51,526.8	$47,978.0
Legal Advice: Support Program	$14,926.0	$14,478.0
Regional Science and Technology	$1,224.3	$808.0
Science Advisory Board	$3,154.5	$3,214.0
Regulatory/Economic-Management and Analysis	$12,616.7	$13,094.0
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review	$108,377.0	$104,243.0
Operations and Administration
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance	$72,920.6	$71,423.0
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations	$321,500.4	$287,595.0
Acquisition Management	$33,799.8	$30,945.0
Human Resources Management	$43,339.9	$41,556.0
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management	$23,794.8	$23,802.0
Subtotal, Operations and Administration	$495,355.5	$455,321.0
$14,012.0
$79,064.0
$93,076.0
$14,200.0
$5,104.0
$0.0
$9,780.0
$50,263.0
$18,082.0
$0.0
$4,031.0
$17,294.0
$118,754.0
$76,603.0
$317,345.0
$29,621.0
$44,538.0
$21,452.0
$489,559.0
$6,419.0
-$1,159.0
$5,260.0
$4,048.0
$269.0
-$870.0
$966.0
$2,285.0
$3,604.0
-$808.0
$817.0
$4,200.0
$14,511.0
$5,180.0
$29,750.0
-$1,324.0
$2,982.0
-$2,350.0
$34,238.0
Pesticides Licensing
806

-------
Science Policy and Biotechnology
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
Subtotal, Pesticides Licensing
n 201 ¦> Uliwl-
SI,823.4
$55,368.2
$39,444.2
$7,193.6
$103,829.4
I'Mimjlcil M
2020 I.IKKlllI
$1,605.0
$58,753.0
$38,966.0
$7,722.0
$107,046.0
n 2021 l'iv»
liutliii-1
$0.0
$51,268.0
$32,100.0
$6,014.0
$89,382.0
n 2021 1'iv-
liud^i l \.
I.vliiiulcd M
2020 I'.iniclril
-$1,605.0
-$7,485.0
-$6,866.0
-$1,708.0
-$17,664.0
Research: Chemical Safety for Sustainability
Research: Chemical Safety for Sustainability
$131.9
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA: Corrective Action
RCRA: Waste Management
RCRA: Waste Minimization & Recycling
Subtotal, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)
$34,554.0
$58,728.3
$8,840.2
$102,122.5
$36,973.0
$66,819.0
$8,997.0
$112,789.0
$35,126.0
$50,399.0
$4,253.0
$89,778.0
-$1,847.0
-$16,420.0
-$4,744.0
-$23,011.0
Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
Endocrine Disruptors
Pollution Prevention Program
Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and
Reduction
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program
Subtotal, Toxics Risk Review and Prevention
$8,178.1
$11,657.5
$64,241.5
$11,663.0
$95,740.1
$7,533.0
$11,127.0
$60,488.0
$11,567.0
$90,715.0
$0.0
$0.0
$69,004.0
$0.0
$69,004.0
-$7,533.0
-$11,127.0
$8,516.0
-$11,567.0
-$21,711.0
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
LUST / UST
$11,089.8
$10,750.0
$6,863.0
-$3,887.0
Water: Ecosystems
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways
Wetlands
Subtotal, Water: Ecosystems
$26,425.7
$17,234.9
$43,660.6
$29,823.0
$19,241.0
$49,064.0
$0.0
$22,604.0
$22,604.0
-$29,823.0
$3,363.0
-$26,460.0
Water: Human Health Protection
Beach / Fish Programs
Drinking Water Programs
Subtotal, Water: Human Health Protection
$1,490.8
$92,373.1
$93,863.9
$1,584.0
$100,903.0
$102,487.0
$0.0
$97,462.0
$97,462.0
-$1,584.0
-$3,441.0
-$5,025.0
Water Quality Protection
Marine Pollution
Surface Water Protection
Subtotal, Water Quality Protection
$9,349.3
$196,146.1
$205,495.4
$9,258.0
$198,431.0
$207,689.0
$4,680.0
$201,799.0
$206,479.0
-$4,578.0
$3,368.0
-$1,210.0
Congressional Priorities
Water Quality Research and Support Grants
$0.0
$17,700.0
$0.0
-$17,700.0
807

-------
Total, Environmental Programs & Management
n 201 ¦>
$2,596,472.2
I'vlillliilril M
2020 I.IKKlllI
$2,663,356.0
n 2021 I'll-
lillilgrl
$2,236,224.0
n 2021 I'iv-
liud^i l \.
I.vliiiulcd M
2020 I'.niii'lril
-$427,132.0
Inspector General
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Total, Inspector General
$39,929.8
$39,929.8
$41,489.0
$41,489.0
$39,825.0
$39,825.0
-$1,664.0
-$1,664.0
Building and Facilities
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
$4,259.1
$6,676.0
$6,176.0
-$500.0
Operations and Administration
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Total, Building and Facilities
$23,017.8
$27,276.9
$26,922.0
$33,598.0
$33,377.0
$39,553.0
$6,455.0
$5,955.0
Hazardous Substance Superfund
Indoor Air and Radiation
Radiation: Protection
$1,768.6
$1,985.0
$2,122.0
$137.0
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Audits, Evaluations, and Investigations
Compliance
Compliance Monitoring
Enforcement
Criminal Enforcement
Environmental Justice
Forensics Support
Superfund: Enforcement
Superfund: Federal Facilities Enforcement
Subtotal, Enforcement
Homeland Security
Homeland Security: Preparedness, Response, and
Recovery
Homeland Security: Protection of EPA Personnel and
Infrastructure
Subtotal, Homeland Security
$8,875.9
$1,313.8
$7,492.9
$662.2
$1,402.3
$135,626.7
$6,046.9
$151,231.0
$31,526.7
$979.3
$32,506.0
$11,586.0
$995.0
$7,645.0
$633.0
$1,145.0
$152,591.0
$6,361.0
$168,375.0
$31,599.0
$1,017.0
$32,616.0
$9,747.0
$1,004.0
$8,479.0
$0.0
$1,312.0
$162,504.0
$7,330.0
$179,625.0
$33,454.0
$915.0
$34,369.0
-$1,839.0
$9.0
$834.0
-$633.0
$167.0
$9,913.0
$969.0
$11,250.0
$1,855.0
-$102.0
$1,753.0
808

-------
Information Exchange / Outreach
Exchange Network
IT / Data Management / Security
Information Security
IT / Data Management
Subtotal, IT / Data Management / Security
Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
Subtotal, Legal / Science / Regulatory / Economic Review
Operations and Administration
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
Acquisition Management
Human Resources Management
Financial Assistance Grants / IAG Management
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
Research: Sustainable Communities
Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Research: Chemical Safety for Sustainability
Health and Environmental Risk Assessment
Superfund Cleanup
Superfiind: Emergency Response and Removal
Superfund: EPA Emergency Preparedness
Superfund: Federal Facilities
Superfund: Remedial
Subtotal, Superfund Cleanup
Total, Hazardous Substance Superfund
n 201 ¦> Uliwl-
$1,424.8
$598.9
$13,755.5
$14,354.4
$573.3
$515.0
$1,088.3
$23,772.7
$82,243.2
$18,593.2
$6,163.7
$2,517.7
$133,290.5
$11,004.7
$2,864.9
$215,077.1
$7,679.9
$22,544.5
$604,659.0
$849,960.5
$1,209,683.4
I'Mimalcd M
2020 Linn-led
$1,328.0
$693.0
$13,792.0
$14,485.0
$710.0
$543.0
$1,253.0
$21,971.0
$76,473.0
$20,533.0
$6,548.0
$2,580.0
$128,105.0
$16,463.0
$12,824.0
$189,306.0
$7,636.0
$21,125.0
$576,673.0
$794,740.0
$1,184,755.0
n 2021 I'll-
liinlgcl
$1,293.0
$5,082.0
$13,874.0
$18,956.0
$0.0
$608.0
$608.0
$22,462.0
$76,831.0
$22,982.0
$5,704.0
$2,903.0
$130,882.0
$11,448.0
$6,159.0
$170,748.0
$7,700.0
$21,621.0
$482,329.0
$682,398.0
$1,078,611.0
n 2021 I'iv-
liiidurl \.
r.NlimiiU'd M
2020 Linn-led
-$35.0
$4,389.0
$82.0
$4,471.0
-$710.0
$65.0
-$645.0
$491.0
$358.0
$2,449.0
-$844.0
$323.0
$2,777.0
-$5,015.0
-$6,665.0
-$18,558.0
$64.0
$496.0
-$94,344.0
-$112,342.0
-$106,144.0
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Enforcement
Civil Enforcement
Operations and Administration
Central Planning, Budgeting, and Finance
$678.1
$258.3
$620.0
$321.0
$541.0
$450.0
-$79.0
$129.0
809

-------

n 2019 Uliwl-
I'Mimalcd M
2020 Linn-led
n 2021 riv.
Facilities Inlraslriicliire and Operations
$847.2
$868.0
$796.0
Acquisition Management
$70.2
$163.0
$138.0
Subtotal, Operations and Administration
$1,175.7
$1,352.0
$1,384.0
Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)



LUST / UST
$10,133.9
$9,240.0
$7,149.0
LUST Cooperative Agreements
$59,225.6
$55,040.0
$38,840.0
LUST Prevention
$26,829.1
$25,369.0
$0.0
Subtotal, Underground Storage Tanks (LUST / UST)
$96,188.6
$89,649.0
$45,989.0
Research: Sustainable Communities



Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
$130.5
$320.0
$304.0
Total, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
$98,172.9
$91,941.0
$48,218.0
Inland Oil Spill Programs



Compliance



Compliance Monitoring
$82.8
$139.0
$0.0
Enforcement



Civil Enforcement
$2,393.3
$2,413.0
$2,462.0
Oil



Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness and Response
$13,715.1
$15,700.0
$12,965.0
Operations and Administration



Facilities Infrastructure and Operations
$577.3
$665.0
$682.0
Research: Sustainable Communities



Research: Sustainable and Healthy Communities
$599.6
$664.0
$522.0
Total, Inland Oil Spill Programs
$17,368.1
$19,581.0
$16,631.0
State and Tribal Assistance Grants



State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)



Infrastructure Assistance: Alaska Native Villages
$24,469.5
$29,186.0
$3,000.0
Brownfields Projects
$91,319.3
$89,000.0
$80,000.0
Infrastructure Assistance: Clean Water SRF
$1,625,444.5
$1,638,826.0
$1,119,778.0
Infrastructure Assistance: Drinking Water SRF
$1,131,822.3
$1,126,088.0
$863,235.0
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border
$14,653.9
$25,000.0
$0.0
Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program
$99,701.8
$87,000.0
$10,000.0
Targeted Airshed Grants
$31,736.7
$56,306.0
$0.0
n 2021 l'iv»
liud^i l \.
I.vliiiulcd 1^
2020 I.IKKlllI
-S72.0
-$25.0
S32.0
-$2,091.0
-$16,200.0
-$25,369.0
-$43,660.0
-$16.0
-$43,723.0
-$139.0
$49.0
-$2,735.0
$17.0
-$142.0
-$2,950.0
-$26,186.0
-$9,000.0
-$519,048.0
-$262,853.0
-$25,000.0
-$77,000.0
-$56,306.0
810

-------

n 21114 Ulual-
I'Mimjlcil M
2020 r.niK'Icil
n 2021 riv.
n 2021 I'll-
liuilllrl \.
I.vliiiulcd M
2020 r.niK'Icil
Gold King Mine Walor Moniloring
S4,687.3
$4,000.0
$0.0
-$4,000.0
Safe Water for Small & Disadvantaged Communities
$167.0
$25,408.0
$0.0
-$25,408.0
Reducing Lead in Drinking Water
$62.0
$19,511.0
$20,000.0
$489.0
Lead Testing in Schools
$995.0
$26,000.0
$15,000.0
-$11,000.0
Healthy Schools
$0.0
$0.0
$50,000.0
$50,000.0
Drinking Water Infrastructure Resilience and
Sustainability
$0.0
$3,000.0
$2,000.0
-$1,000.0
Drinking Fountain Lead Testing
$0.0
$0.0
$10,000.0
$10,000.0
Technical Assistance for Treatment Works
$0.0
$12,000.0
$7,500.0
-$4,500.0
Sewer Overflow Control Grants
$0.0
$28,000.0
$61,450.0
$33,450.0
Water Infrastructure and Workforce Investment
$0.0
$1,000.0
$1,000.0
$0.0
Subtotal, State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG)
$3,025,059.3
$3,170,325.0
$2,242,963.0
-$927,362.0
Categorical Grants




Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)
$166,360.0
$172,348.0
$0.0
-$172,348.0
Categorical Grant: Public Water System Supervision
(PWSS)
$96,689.7
$106,250.0
$67,892.0
-$38,358.0
Categorical Grant: State and Local Air Quality
Management
$219,874.2
$228,219.0
$151,961.0
-$76,258.0
Categorical Grant: Radon
$7,453.4
$7,789.0
$0.0
-$7,789.0
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec. 106)




Monitoring Grants
$17,925.5
$17,267.0
$11,884.0
-$5,383.0
Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec.
106) (other activities)
$207,528.7
$206,022.0
$141,799.0
-$64,223.0
Subtotal, Categorical Grant: Pollution Control (Sec.
106)
$225,454.2
$223,289.0
$153,683.0
-$69,606.0
Categorical Grant: Wetlands Program Development
$12,772.7
$14,183.0
$9,762.0
-$4,421.0
Categorical Grant: Underground Injection Control
(UIC)
$9,846.2
$10,164.0
$6,995.0
-$3,169.0
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Program Implementation
$12,435.4
$12,287.0
$8,457.0
-$3,830.0
Categorical Grant: Lead
$13,291.0
$14,049.0
$10,000.0
-$4,049.0
Categorical Grant: Hazardous Waste Financial
Assistance
$101,345.0
$96,446.0
$66,381.0
-$30,065.0
Categorical Grant: Pesticides Enforcement
$17,510.6
$24,000.0
$10,531.0
-$13,469.0
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention
$5,545.5
$4,610.0
$0.0
-$4,610.0
Categorical Grant: Toxics Substances Compliance
$4,597.4
$4,759.0
$3,276.0
-$1,483.0
Categorical Grant: Tribal General Assistance Program
$67,299.0
$65,476.0
$44,233.0
-$21,243.0
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks
$1,590.1
$1,449.0
$0.0
-$1,449.0
Categorical Grant: Tribal Air Quality Management
$12,556.1
$12,829.0
$8,963.0
-$3,866.0
Categorical Grant: Environmental Information
$9,619.7
$9,332.0
$6,422.0
-$2,910.0
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection
$8,985.0
$9,238.0
$0.0
-$9,238.0
Categorical Grant: Brownfields
$49,769.5
$46,190.0
$31,791.0
-$14,399.0
Categorical Grant: Multipurpose Grants
$0.0
811
$13,000.0
$10,000.0
-$3,000.0

-------
Categorical Uranl: Nulrionls and Harmful Algal Blooms
Reduction Grants
Subtotal, Categorical Grants
I'MimjIcil 1^
1^ 2 Ulna!" 2020 Kiiaclrd
$0.0
$1,042,994.7
$0.0
$1,075,907.0
n 2021 I'll-
liutliii-1
$15,000.0
$605,347.0
n 2021 I'iv-
liud^i l \.
I'.Nliiiialcil 1^
2020 I'.nai'lril
$15,000.0
-$470,560.0
Congressional Priorities
Congressionally Mandated Projects
Total, State and Tribal Assistance Grants
$619.6
$4,068,673.6
$0.0
$4,246,232.0
$0.0
$2,848,310.0
$0.0
-$1,397,922.0
Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA: Waste Management
$14,485.5
Total, Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System
Fund
$14,485.5
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Fund
Water Quality Protection
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
$32,565.9
$60,000.0
$25,023.0
-$34,977.0
Total, Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Fund
$32,565.9
$60,000.0
$25,023.0
-$34,977.0
Subtotal, EPA
$8,799,691.4	$9,057,401.0	$6,817,128.0	-$2,240,273.0
Cancellation of Funds
-$159,057.0
-$159,057.0
TOTAL, EPA
$8,799,691.4	$9,057,401.0	$6,658,071.0	-$2,399,330.0
*For ease of comparison, Superfiind transfer resources for the audit and research functions are shown in the Superfond account.
812

-------
Eliminated Programs
Eliminated Program/Projects
Alternative Dispute Resolution (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $1.6 M, 5.9 FTE)
This program provides alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services to EPA Headquarters, EPA
Regional Offices, and external stakeholders. This elimination of funding reflects the
centralization of conflict prevention and the ADR program. Programs across the Agency may
pursue ADR support services and training individually.
Beach / Fish Programs (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $1.6 M, 3.2 FTE)
This program provides science, guidance, technical assistance and nationwide information to state,
Tribal, and federal agencies on the human health risks associated with eating locally caught
fish/shellfish or wildlife with excessive levels of contaminants, as well as beach monitoring and
notification programs. The Agency will encourage states to continue this work within ongoing
core programs.
Categorical Grant: Beaches Protection (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $9.2 M, 0.0 FTE)
Grants authorized under the BEACH Act support continued development and implementation of
coastal recreational water monitoring and public notification programs. After over 17 years of
technical guidance and financial support, state and local governments now have the technical
expertise and procedures to continue beach monitoring without federal support.
Categorical Grant: Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319) (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $172.3 M, 0.0
FTE)
This program provides grants to assist states and tribes in implementing approved elements of
Nonpoint Source Programs including: regulatory and non-regulatory programs, technical
assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfers, and demonstration
projects. The Agency will continue to coordinate with the United States Department of Agriculture
to target funding, where appropriate, to address nonpoint sources.
Categorical Grant: Pollution Prevention (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $4.6 M, 0.0 FTE)
The Pollution Prevention (P2) program is a tool for advancing environmental stewardship by
federal, state and Tribal governments, businesses, communities and individuals. In FY 2021, EPA
will focus its resources on core statutory environmental work.
Categorical Grant: Radon (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $7.8 M, 0.0 FTE)
The Program provides funding for the development of state radon programs and disseminates
public information and educational materials. The program also provides information on
equipment training, data storage and management, and toll-free hotlines. For over 30 years, EPA's
radon program has provided important guidance and funding to help states establish their own
programs. States could elect to maintain core program work by using state resources rather than
using federal resources.
813

-------
Categorical Grant: Underground Storage Tanks (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $1.5 M, 0.0
FTE)
The Program provides funding for petroleum and hazardous substance release prevention and
detection activities including: compliance assistance, state program approvals, and technical
equipment reviews and approvals. States could elect to maintain core program work with state
resources rather than federal.
Endocrine Disruptors (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $7.5 M, 7.6 FTE)
The Program develops and validates scientific test methods for the routine, ongoing evaluation of
pesticides and other chemicals to determine their potential interference with normal endocrine
system function. The Program recently developed and validated some tier 1 and tier 2 testing
approaches for endocrine disruption. The ongoing functions of the Program will be absorbed into
the pesticides program using the currently available tiered testing.
Environmental Education (EE) (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $8.6 M, 9.2 FTE)
This program promotes delivery of environmental education through science-based methodologies
that promote public engagement. In recognition of the significant guidance and financial support
the EE program has provided to non-profit organizations, local education agencies, universities,
community colleges, and state and local environmental agencies, funding for some of the
environmental stewardship activities could be leveraged at the state or local level.
Geographic Program: Gulf of Mexico (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $17.6 M, 14.7 FTE)
The Program is a partnership of the five Gulf states, Gulf coastal communities, citizens,
nongovernmental organizations, and federal agencies working together to initiate cooperative
actions by public and private organizations to achieve specific environmental results. EPA will
encourage the five Gulf of Mexico states to continue to make progress in restoring the Gulf of
Mexico from within core water programs.
Geographic Program: Lake Champlain (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $13.4 M, 0.0 FTE)
The Program creates a pollution prevention, control, and restoration plan for protecting the Lake
Champlain Basin. EPA will encourage New York and Vermont to continue to make progress in
restoring Lake Champlain from within core water programs.
Geographic Program: Long Island Sound (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $21.0 M, 0.0 FTE)
The Program supports the implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan for the Long Island Sound National Estuary Program. EPA will encourage Long Island Sound
states and local entities to continue to make progress in restoring the Sound from within core water
programs.
Geographic Program: Other (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $9.6 M, 4.7 FTE)
The Program provides funding to develop and implement community-based approaches to mitigate
diffuse sources of pollution and cumulative risk for geographic areas including: Lake
Pontchartrain, Southern New England Estuary (SNEE), and the Northwest Forest Program. EPA
will encourage states and local entities to continue to make progress in restoring these aquatic
ecosystems from within core water programs.
814

-------
Geographic Program: Puget Sound (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $33.0 M, 5.7 FTE)
The Program works to protect and restore the Puget Sound, focusing on environmental activities
consistent with the State of Washington's 2020 Puget Sound Action Agenda. EPA will encourage
state, tribal, and local entities to continue to make progress in restoring the Puget Sound from
within core water programs.
Geographic Program: San Francisco Bay (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $5.9 M, 1.8 FTE)
The Program is aimed at protecting and restoring water quality and ecological health of the San
Francisco Bay estuary through partnerships, interagency coordination, and project grants. EPA
will encourage the state of California and local entities to continue to make progress in restoring
the San Francisco Bay from within core water programs.
Gold King Mine Water Monitoring (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $4.0 M, 0.0 FTE)
This non-recurring program provided grants that supported the development and implementation
of a program for monitoring of rivers contaminated by the Gold King Mine Spill. The Agency will
continue coordinating with the involved states and tribes from within core water programs.
Indoor Air: Radon Program (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $3.3 M, 9.0 FTE)
Within this program, EPA studies the health effects of radon, assesses exposure levels, sets an
action level, provides technical assistance, and advises the public of steps they can take to reduce
exposure to radon. For over 30 years, EPA's radon program has provided important guidance and
funding to help states establish their own programs.
Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $25.0 M, 0.0 FTE)
The Program provides for the planning, design, and construction of water and wastewater
treatment facilities along the U.S. Mexico border. The State Revolving Funds are a source of
infrastructure funding that can continue to fund water system improvements in U.S. communities
along the border.
LUST Prevention (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $25.4 M, 0.0 FTE)
The Program provides resources to states, tribes, territories, and intertribal consortia for their
Underground Storage Tank (UST) programs, with a focus on inspections, enforcement,
development of leak prevention regulations, and other program infrastructure. States could elect
to maintain core program work with state resources rather than federal.
National Estuary Program / Coastal Waterways (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $29.8 M, 36.9
FTE)
The Program works to restore the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of estuaries and
coastal watersheds. EPA will encourage states to continue this work and continue to implement
conservation management plans.
Pollution Prevention Program (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $11.1 M, 49.2 FTE)
The program promotes environmentally sound business practices and the development of safer
(green) chemicals, technologies, and processes. Partners can continue the best practices that have
been shared through this program and continue efforts aimed at reducing pollution.
815

-------
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $11.8 M, 37.2 FTE)
This program addresses indoor environmental asthma triggers, such as secondhand smoke, dust
mites, mold, cockroaches and other pests, household pets, and combustion byproducts through a
variety of outreach, education, training and guidance activities.
Regional Science and Technology (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $808 K, 1.7 FTE)
The Program supplies laboratory analysis, field monitoring and sampling, and builds Tribal
capacity for environmental monitoring and assessment. Central approach will be replaced with ad
hoc efforts.
Safe Water for Small and Disadvantaged Communities (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $25.4
M, 1.0 FTE)
The Safe Water for Small and Disadvantaged Communities Program provides grants to eligible
entities for use in carrying out projects and activities to assist public water systems in small and
disadvantaged communities. EPA will continue to work on awarding the funds appropriated by
Congress in FY 2018 and FY 2019. In FY 2021, EPA will continue to request the use of flexible
subsidization funding authorities to target small and disadvantaged communities through the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) mechanism.
Science Policy and Biotechnology (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $1.6 M, 4.6 FTE)
The Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) organizes and conducts reviews (typically six to ten each
year) by independent, outside scientific experts of science documents, science policies, and/or
science programs that relate to EPA's pesticide and toxic program activities. Statutory
requirements will be absorbed by the pesticides and toxics programs.
Stratospheric Ozone: Multilateral Fund (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $8.7 M, 0.0 FTE)
This program promotes international compliance with the Montreal Protocol by financing the
incremental cost of converting existing industries in developing countries to cost-effective ozone
friendly technology. EPA will continue domestic ozone-depleting substances reduction work.
Targeted Airshed Grants (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $56.3 M, 0.0 FTE)
This program offers competitive grants to reduce air pollution in the top five most polluted
nonattainment areas relative to annual ozone or PM 2.5. This program is regional in nature and
affected states can continue to fund work through EPA's core air grant programs and statutes.
Toxic Substances: Lead Risk Reduction Program (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $11.6 M, 62.9
FTE)
The program addresses exposure to lead from lead-based paint through regulations, certification,
and training programs and public outreach efforts. Lead paint certifications will continue under
the Chemical Risk Review and Reduction program and at the State level with support from EPA's
Lead Categorical Grant, a partially restored program in FY 2021. Other forms of lead exposure
are addressed through other targeted programs such as the State Revolving Funds to replace lead
pipes.
816

-------
Trade and Governance (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $5.4 M, 15.3 FTE)
This program promotes trade related activities focused on sustaining environmental protection. In
FY 2021, EPA will focus its resources on core statutory work.
U.S. Mexico Border (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $2.7 M, 12.4 FTE)
The Program addresses environmental protection of the U.S Mexico border in partnership with the
ten (10) Border States, U.S. Tribal government, and the Government of Mexico. In FY 2021, EPA
will continue to engage both bilaterally and through multilateral institutions to improve
international cooperation to prevent and address the transboundary movement of pollution. The
State Revolving Funds also may continue to fund water system improvements in U.S. communities
along the border.
Water Quality Research and Support Grants (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $23.7 M, 0.0 FTE)
The program focuses on the development and application of water quality criteria, the
implementation of watershed management approaches, and the application of technological
options to restore and protect water bodies. States have the ability to develop technical assistance
plans for their water systems using Public Water System Supervision funds and set-asides from
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF).
Eliminated Sub-Program/Projects
Atmospheric Protection Program (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $66.0 M)
The following voluntary climate-related partnership programs are proposed for elimination:
AgSTAR, Center for Corporate Climate Leadership, Coalbed Methane Outreach Program,
Combined Heat & Power Partnership, Global Methane Initiative, GreenChill Partnership, Green
Power Partnership, Landfill Methane Outreach Program, Natural Gas STAR, Responsible
Appliance Disposal Program, SF6 Reduction Partnership for Electric Power Systems, SmartWay,
State and Local Climate Energy Program, and Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership. (Note:
The FY 2021 President's Budget includes a proposal to authorize the EPA to administer the
ENERGY STAR program through the collection of user fees.)
Global Change Research (Research: AE) (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $19.3 M, 42.5 FTE)
The Program develops scientific information that supports policy makers, stakeholders, and
society-at-large as they respond to climate change. This elimination prioritizes activities that
support decision-making related to core environmental statutory requirements.
STAR Research Grants (Research: AE, CSS, SSWR, SHC) (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted:
$28.6 M, 0.0 FTE)
The Science to Achieve Results, or STAR, funds research grants and graduate fellowships in
environmental science and engineering disciplines through a competitive solicitation process and
independent peer review. EPA will prioritize activities that support decision-making related to core
environmental statutory requirements, as opposed to extramural activities.
WaterSense (Surface Water Protection) (Estimated FY 2020 Enacted: $4.5 M, 8.0 FTE)
WaterSense is a voluntary partnership program to label water-efficient products as a resource for
helping to reduce water use.
817

-------
Expected Benefits of E-Government Initiatives
eRulemaking
The eRulemaking Line of Business is designed to: enhance public access and participation in the
regulatory process through electronic systems; reduce the burden on citizens and businesses in
finding relevant regulations and commenting on proposed rulemaking actions; consolidate
redundant docket systems; and improve agency regulatory processes and the timeliness of
regulatory decisions. EPA has served as the managing partner for this Line of Business; however,
in FY 2020, EPA transferred management services to the General Services Administration (GSA).
EPA continues to be involved as a partner agency.
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Service Fee
(in thousands)
2019
020-99-99-99-99-0060-24
$1,000.0
2020
020-99-99-99-99-0060-24
$1,000.0
2021
020-99-99-99-99-0060-24
$1,064.0
Geospatial Line of Business
The Geospatial Line of Business is an intergovernmental project to improve the ability of the
public and government to use geospatial information to support the business of government and
facilitate decision-making. This initiative will reduce costs and improve agency operations in
several areas.
With the implementation of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure Strategic Plan, the geospatial
data sets known as National Geospatial Data Assets (NDGA) and associated analytical services
have become available on the National Geospatial Platform. These additional datasets and services
are easily accessible by federal agencies, their partners, and stakeholders. EPA uses the National
Geospatial Platform to obtain data and services for internal analytical purposes as well as to publish
outward-facing geospatial capabilities to the public.
While the Department of the Interior is the managing partner, EPA is a leader in developing the
vision and operational plans for the implementation of the Geospatial Data Act as well as OMB
guidance on Coordination of Geographic Information and Related Spatial Data Activities and the
National Geospatial Platform which incorporates many national geospatial data and analytical
services for federal agencies, their partners, and stakeholders. EPA is expected to contribute to the
operation of the National Geospatial Platform in FY 2021. The intent is to reduce base costs by
providing an opportunity for EPA and other agencies to share approaches on procurement
consolidation and include shared services for hosting geospatial data, services and applications.
818

-------
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
2019
020-99-99-99-99-3100-24
$225.0
2020
020-99-99-99-99-3100-24
$225.0
2021
020-99-99-99-99-3100-24
$225.0
USA Jobs
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) USA Jobs simplifies the process of locating and
applying for federal jobs. USA Jobs is a standard job announcement and resume builder website.
It is the one-stop for federal job seekers to search for and apply to positions on-line. This integrated
process benefits citizens by providing a more efficient process to locate and apply for jobs and
assists federal agencies in hiring top talent in a competitive marketplace. The OPM USA Jobs
initiative has increased job seeker satisfaction with the federal job application process and is
helping the Agency to locate highly-qualified candidates and improve response times to applicants.
The Agency is required to integrate with USA Jobs, to eliminate the need for applicants to maintain
multiple user IDs to apply for federal jobs across agencies. The vacancy announcement format is
improved for easier readability. The system can maintain up to five resumes per applicant, which
allows them to create and store resumes tailored to specific skills. In addition, USA Jobs has a
notification feature that keeps applicants updated on the status of the application and provides a
link to the Agency's website for detailed information. This self-help USA Jobs feature allows
applicants to obtain up-to-date information on the status of their application upon request.
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Service Fee
(in thousands)
2019
020-00-01-16-04-1218-24
$130.0
2020
020-00-01-16-04-1218-24
$130.0
20217
020-00-01-16-04-1218-24
$0.0
Financial Management Line of Business
The Financial Management Line of Business (FM LoB) is a multi-agency effort whose goals
include: achieving process improvements and cost savings in the acquisition, development,
implementation, and operation of financial management systems. By incorporating the same FM
LoB-standard processes as those used by central agency systems, interfaces among financial
systems are streamlined and the quality of information available for decision-making is improved.
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
2019
020-00-01-01-04-1100-24
$96.0
2020
020-00-01-01-04-1100-24
$96.0
2021
020-00-01-01-04-1100-24
$96.0
7 EPA will allocate the expected agency contribution for E-Gov and LoB initiatives as provided by OMB.
819

-------
Grants.gov
The Grants.gov initiative benefits EPA and its grant programs by providing a single location to
publish grant opportunities and application packages, and by providing a single site for the grants
community to apply for grants using common forms, processes and systems. EPA believes that the
central site raises the visibility of its grants opportunities to a wider diversity of applicants.
The grants community benefits from savings in postal costs, paper and envelopes. Applicants save
time in searching for agency grant opportunities and in learning the application systems of various
agencies. In order to streamline the application process, EPA offers Grants.gov application
packages for mandatory state grants (i.e., Continuing Environmental Program Grants).
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
2019
020-00-04-00-04-0160-24
$276.0
2020
020-00-04-00-04-0160-24
$331.0
20218
020-00-04-00-04-0160-24
$335.0
Budget Formulation and Execution Line of Business
The Budget Formulation and Execution Line of Business (BFELoB) allows EPA and other
agencies to access budget-related benefits and services. The Agency has the option to implement
LoB-sponsored tools, training and services.
EPA has benefited from the BFELoB by sharing valuable information on how systems and
software being developed by the LoB have enhanced work processes. This effort has created a
government-only capability for electronic collaboration (Wiki) in which the Budget Community
website allows EPA to share budget information internally, with OMB, and with other federal
agencies. The Agency also made contributions to the Human Capital Workgroup, participating in
development of on-line training modules for budget activities - a valuable resource to all agency
budget staff. The LoB has developed the capability to have secure, virtual on-line meetings where
participants can view budget-related presentations from their workspace and participate in the
discussion through a conference line. The LoB provides regularly scheduled symposia as an
additional forum for EPA budget employees.
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
2019
020-99-99-99-99-3200-24
$110.0
2020
020-99-99-99-99-3200-24
$110.0
20219
020-99-99-99-99-3200-24
$120.0
8	EPA will allocate the expected agency contribution for E-Gov and LoB initiatives as provided by OMB.
9	EPA will allocate the expected agency contribution for E-Gov and LoB initiatives as provided by OMB.
820

-------
Federal Human Resources Line of Business
OPM's Human Resources Line of Business (HR LoB) provides the federal government the
infrastructure to support pay-for-performance systems, modernized HR systems, and the core
functionality necessary for the strategic management of human capital.
The OPM HR LoB offers common solutions that will enable federal departments and agencies to
work more effectively, and to provide managers and executives across the federal government an
improved means to meet strategic objectives. EPA will benefit by supporting an effective program
management activity which evaluates provider performance, customer satisfaction, and
compliance with program goals, on an ongoing basis.
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Contribution (in
thousands)
2019
020-00-01-16-04-1200-24
$68.0
2020
020-00-01-16-04-1200-24
$69.0
2021
020-00-01-16-04-1200-24
$69.0
Integrated Acquisition Environment
The Integrated Acquisition Environment (IAE) is currently comprised of nine government-wide
automated applications and/or databases that have contributed to streamlining the acquisition
business process across the government. In FY 2012, GSA began the process of consolidating the
systems into one central repository called the System for Award Management (SAM). Until the
consolidation is complete, EPA continues to leverage these systems via electronic linkages
between EPA's Acquisition System (EAS) and the IAE shared systems. Other IAE systems are
not linked directly to EAS but benefit the Agency's contracting staff and vendor community as
stand-alone resources.
EAS uses data provided by SAM to replace internally maintained vendor data. Contracting officers
can download vendor-provided representation and certification information electronically via
SAM as well, which allows vendors to submit this information once rather than separately for
every contract proposal. Contracting officers are able to access the Excluded Parties List (EPLS)
via SAM to identify vendors that are debarred from receiving contract awards.
Contracting officers also can link to the Wage Determination Online to obtain information required
under the Service Contract Act and the Davis-Bacon Act. EAS links to the Federal Procurement
Data System (FPDS) for submission of contract actions at the time of award. FPDS provides public
access to government-wide contract information. The Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System
supports vendor submission of subcontracting data for contracts identified as requiring this
information. EPA submits synopses of procurement opportunities over $25,000 to the Federal
Business Opportunities website, where the information is accessible to the public. Vendors use
this website to identify business opportunities in federal contracting.
Further, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) requires agencies to
unambiguously identify contract, grant, and loan recipients and determine parent/child relationship
821

-------
and address information. The FFATA taskforce determined that using both the Dun and Bradstreet
DUNS Number (standard identifier for all business lines) and Central Contractor Registration
(CCR, the single point of entry for data collection and dissemination) are the most appropriate
ways to accomplish this. This fee will pay for EPA's use of this service while reporting grants
and/or loans. Funds also may be used to consolidate disparate contract and grant systems into the
new SAM.
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Service Fee
(in thousands)
2019
020-00-01-16-04-0230-24
$944.0
2020
020-00-01-16-04-0230-24
$720.0
2021
020-00-01-16-04-0230-24
$720.0
Federal PKI Bridge
Federal Public Key Infrastructure (FPKI) provides the government with a common infrastructure
to administer digital certificates and public-private key pairs, including the ability to issue,
maintain, and revoke public key certificates. FPKI leverages a security technique called Public
Key Cryptography to authenticate users and data, protect the integrity of transmitted data, and
ensure non-repudiation and confidentiality.
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
2019
020-99-99-99-99-0090-24
$36.0
2020
020-99-99-99-99-0090-24
$41.0
202110
020-99-99-99-99-0090-24
$46.0
Freedom of Information Act Portal
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Improvement Act of 2016 directed the OMB and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) to build a consolidated online request portal that allows a member of
the public to submit a request for records to any agency from a single website. DOJ is managing
the development and maintenance of this National FOIA Portal. EPA and other federal agencies
were asked to contribute to this effort.
Fiscal Year
Account Code
EPA Contribution
(in thousands)
2019
020-99-99-99-99-0090-24
$34.0
2020
020-99-99-99-99-0090-24
$43.0
2021
020-99-99-99-99-0090-24
$43.0
10 EPA will allocate the expected agency contribution for E-Gov and LoB initiatives as provided by OMB.
822

-------
FY 2021 Administrator's Priorities
Funding for the Administrator's priorities are allocated by program project in the FY 2021
President's Budget with a total of $2,375 million in the Environmental and Program Management
Account and $125 thousand in the Science and Technology Account.
These funds, which are set aside for the Administrator's priorities, are used to address unforeseen
issues that may arise during the year. These funds are used by the Administrator to support critical
unplanned issues and the amounts shown in the below table will be reallocated as needed, in
accordance with reprogramming limits.
FY 2021 President's Budget Funding for Administrator's Priorities
Appropriation
Program Project
Dollars in Thousands
EPM
Acquisition Management
$150
EPM
Brownfields
$25
EPM
Civil Enforcement
$150
EPM
Civil Rights / Title VI Compliance
$75
EPM
Compliance Monitoring
$100
EPM
Criminal Enforcement
$145
EPM
Drinking Water Programs
$100
EPM
Exchange Network
$75
EPM
Federal Stationary Source Regulations
$100
EPM
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
$130
EPM
Human Resources Management
$25
EPM
International Sources of Pollution
$50
EPM
IT / Data Management
$175
EPM
Legal Advice: Environmental Program
$100
EPM
Legal Advice: Support Program
$75
EPM
NEPA Implementation
$100
EPM
Pesticides: Protect Human Health from Pesticide Risk
$150
EPM
Pesticides: Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk
$150
EPM
Pesticides: Realize the Value of Pesticide Availability
$100
EPM
RCRA: Waste Management
$25
EPM
Science Advisory Board
$100
EPM
State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
$100
EPM
Surface Water Protection
$50
EPM
TRI / Right to Know
$75
EPM
Tribal - Capacity Building
$50
S&T
Federal Support for Air Quality Management
$25
S&T
Research: Air and Energy
$50
S&T
Research: Chemical Safety and Sustainability
$50
Total

$2,500
823

-------
Proposed FY 2021 Administrative Provisions
To further clarify proposed Administrative Provisions that involve more than a simple annual
extension or propose a modification to an existing provision, the following information is
provided.
Establishment of Authority for Energy Star Fee Collection and Use
The FY 2021 Budget includes a proposal to authorize EPA to administer the ENERGY STAR
program through the collection of user fees. Fee collections would begin after EPA undertakes a
rulemaking process to determine which products would be covered by fees and the level of fees,
and to ensure that a fee system would not discourage manufacturers from participating in the
Program or result in a loss of environmental benefits. The fee collections would provide funding
to cover an upfront appropriation, and continued expenses to develop, operate, and maintain the
ENERGY STAR program. The legislative proposal to authorize collection and spending of the
fees is as follows:
Section 131 of The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §6294A, is
amended by inserting after paragraph (d):
"(e) User Fees
(1)	In General
In accordance with paragraph (a), the Administrator may prescribe by regulation,
for application in fiscal year 2021 and in subsequent fiscal years, reasonable fees
as the Administrator determines to be necessary to defray costs incurredfor entities
that participate in the ENERGY STAR program. The regulation will ensure that the
fee imposed on each entity is sufficient and not more than reasonably necessary to
cover a proportional share of ENERGY STAR program costs incurred in operating
and maintaining the Energy Star program, including collection and processing
fees. The Administrator shall amend this regulation periodically so as to ensure
that the schedule of fees covers such program costs.
(2)	Collection of Fees. The Administrator shall prescribe procedures to collect the
fees.
(3)	Availability of Fees.
(A) Such fees shall be collected and available for ENERGY STAR program
administration functions performed by the Agency in an amount and to the extent
provided in advance in appropriations acts. "
FIFRA and PRIA Fee Spending Restrictions
Statutory language in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and
Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2018 (PRIA 4), signed into law by the
President on March 8, 2019, restricts what activities EPA can fund from collections deposited in
the Reregi strati on and Expedited Processing Revolving Fund and Pesticide Registration Fund. The
FY 2021 Budget carries forward the proposed statutory language from the FY 2020 President's
Budget to allow pesticide maintenance fees and registration service fees to be spent on additional
824

-------
activities related to registration and reregi strati on of pesticides, such as processing and review of
submitted data, laboratory support and audits, and rulemaking support.
Statutory language would ease spending restrictions related to both FIFRA pesticide maintenance
fees and PRIA registration service fees. Since the FIFRA fees are mandatory, separate language
has been prepared that will be transmitted at a later date. The proposal to allow EPA to collect and
spend PRIA fees in FY 2021 and to authorize expanded use of PRIA fee collections is below. The
addition of language specifying that PRIA fees collected in FY 2021 will remain available until
expended would simplify aspects of budget execution.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to collect and obligate
pesticide registration service fees in accordance with section 33 of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, andRodenticide Act (7 U.S.C 136w-8), to remain available until expended.
Notwithstanding section 33(d)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (&
U.S.C. 136w-8(d)(2)), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may assess fees
under section 33 of FIFRA (7 U.S.C 136w-8) for fiscal year 2021.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in addition to the activities specified in section 33 of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136w-8), fees collected
in this and prior fiscal years under such section shall be available for the following activities as
they relate to pesticide licensing: processing and review of data submitted in association with a
registration, information submittedpursuant to section 6(a)(2) of FIFRA, supplemental distributor
labels, transfers of registrations and data compensation rights, additional uses registered by states
under section 24(c) of FIFRA, data compensation petitions, review of minor amendments, and
notifications; laboratory support and audits; administrative support; development of policy and
guidance; rulemaking support; information collection activities; and the portions of salaries
related to work in these areas.
Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest
The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act (Public Law 112-195) provides EPA
with the authority to establish a program to finance, develop, and operate a system for the
electronic submission of hazardous waste manifests supported by user fees. In FY 2021, EPA will
operate the e-Manifest system and the Agency anticipates collecting and depositing approximately
$26 million in e-Manifest user fees into the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Fund.
Based upon authority to collect and spend e-Manifest fees provided by Congress in annual
appropriations bills, the fees will be utilized for the operation of the system and necessary program
expenses. Fees will fully support the e-Manifest program, including future development costs. In
recent appropriations acts, Congress has provided an advance on the appropriation for the e-
Manifest program, to be reduced by the amount of fees collected so as to result in a final fiscal
year appropriation of $0. Because the program is now fully operational and fee-supported, this
language is no longer necessary. The language to authorize collection and spending of the fees is
below. Language specifying that e-Manifest fees collected in FY 2021 will remain available until
expended would simplify aspects of budget execution.
825

-------
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to collect and obligate
fees in accordance with section 3024 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6939g) for fiscal
year 2021, to remain available until expended.
Issuing Grants for PM2.5 Monitoring Network under Clean Air Act Sections 103 and 105
Per the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6), EPA is directed to use Section 103
of the Clean Air Act to provide grants to states for the PM2.5 monitoring network. Accordingly,
EPA continues to issue grants to states for the network exclusively under Section 103. EPA
requests the flexibility to use both Sections 103 and 105 authorities under the Clean Air Act to
issue grants to states for the PM2.5 monitoring network.
$151,961,000 shall be for grants, including associated program support costs, to states, federally
recognized tribes, interstate agencies, Tribal consortia, and air pollution control agencies for
multi-media or single media pollution prevention, control and abatement and related activities,
including activities pursuant to the provisions set forth under this heading in Public Law 104-134,
and for making grants under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act for particulate matter
monitoring and data collection activities subject to terms and conditions specified by the
Administrator.
Current statutory language directs EPA to issue grants in support of the PM2.5 monitoring under
Section 103 of the Clean Air Act. However, given the maturity of the PM2.5 monitoring network,
it is appropriate for EPA to provide grants to states to fund the network under Section 105 of the
Clean Air Act. The PM2.5 monitoring network is a continuing activity in support of air quality
management, which aligns with authorized activities under Section 105, whereas Section 103 is
intended to fund research, demonstration, and other similar activities. The proposed language gives
the Agency more flexibility to award grants under Section 103 and 105 authorities. The Clean Air
Act Section 105 authority provides for cost-sharing between EPA and the states with up to 60
percent of costs provided by EPA.
Service Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA Fees Rule)
On June 22, 2016, the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act" (P.L. 114-
182) was signed into law, amending numerous sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). The amendments provide authority to the Agency to establish fees for certain activities
under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of TSCA, as amended, to defray 25 percent of the costs of administering
these sections and requirements under Section 14. The amendments removed the previous cap that
the Agency may charge for pre-manufacturing notification reviews. Fees collected under the
TSCA Fees Rule will be deposited in the TSCA Service Fee Fund for use by EPA. Fees under this
structure began to be incurred through EPA rulemaking on October 1, 2018 and replace the former
Pre-Manufacturing Notification Fees. Fee revenue of $2.75 million was collected in FY 2019, all
from Section 5 fees for new chemicals reviews. In recent appropriations acts, Congress has
provided an advance on the appropriation for the TSCA program, to be reduced by the amount of
fees collected so as to result in a final fiscal year appropriation of $0. Because the Program began
collecting fees in FY 2019, this language is no longer necessary. Language specifying that TSCA
826

-------
fees collected in FY 2021 will remain available until expended would simplify aspects of budget
execution.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is authorized to collect and obligate
fees in accordance with section 26(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2625(b)) for
fiscal year 2021, to remain available until expended.
Oil and Chemical Facility Compliance Assistance
The 2021 Budget requests authorization for the Administrator to collect and obligate fees to
provide compliance assistance services for facilities who are required to prepare and submit Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans or Facility Response Plans under section 311 (j) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and for facilities who are required to prepare and submit
a Risk Management Plan under Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act. These fees are discretionary
and would start in 2021 after the Agency establishes procedures for making and accepting a
facility's request for voluntary assistance. The fees are offsetting collections and would provide
for necessary expenses, including the development, operation, and maintenance of this voluntary
compliance assistance service.
The legislative proposals to authorize collection and spending of the fees are as follows:
• Oil Spill: Prevention, Preparedness, and Response
The Administrator may collect fees to provide compliance assistance services for owners and
operators of a non-transportation related onshore or offshore facility located landward of the
coastline required to prepare and submit Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans or
Facility Response Plans under section 311(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1321Q)): Provided, That fees collectedfor compliance assistance services pursuant to the
authority provided in this paragraph by the Administrator shall be deposited in the Inland Oil Spill
Programs account and shall remain available until expended for the expenses of providing
compliance assistance services: Providedfurther, That the amount of such fees shall be based on
the amount of compliance assistance services provided by the Agency: Providedfurther, That the
owner or operator of a non-transportation related onshore or offshore facility located landward
of the coastline required to prepare and submit a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
Plan or a Facility Response Plan under section 31 l(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1321(j))may request that the Administrator conduct an on-site walk-through of the
facility to assist the owner or operator in complying with such section: Providedfurther, That the
walk-through shall be conducted within one year of an accepted request: Provided further, That
the Administrator may establish procedures for making and accepting such a request: Provided
further, That observations, findings, conclusions, and recommendations made by the
Administrator when conducting an on-site walk-through, including any report after an on-site
walk-through, shall not in any private action or suit for damages or bodily injury, or in any action
under section 505 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1365), be used or
admitted as evidence: Provided further, That the Administrator may, by guidance, establish
policies for the use of such evidence in actions under the Act.
827

-------
• State and Local Prevention and Preparedness
The Administrator may collect fees to provide compliance assistance services for owners or
operators of a stationary source required to prepare and submit a Risk Management Plan under
section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(7)): Provided, That fees collected for
compliance assistance services pursuant to the authority provided in this paragraph by the
Administrator in fiscal year 2021 shall be deposited in the Environmental Programs and
Management account and shall remain available until September 30, 2022 for the expenses of
providing compliance assistance services: Providedfurther, That the amount of such fees shall be
based on the amount of compliance assistance services provided by the Agency: Providedfurther,
That the owner or operator of a stationary source required to prepare and submit, or that has
prepared and submitted, a Risk Management Plan under section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(7)) may request that the Administrator conduct an on-site walk-through of the
stationary source to assist the owner or operator in complying with such section: Provided further,
That the walk-through shall be conducted within one year of an accepted request: Provided
further, That the Administrator may establish procedures for making and accepting such a request:
Provided further, That the observations, findings, conclusions, and recommendations made by the
Administrator when conducting an on-site walk-through, including any report after an on-site
walk-through, shall not in any private action or suit for damages or bodily injury, or in any action
under section 304 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S. C. 7604), be used or admitted as evidence: Provided
further, That the Administrator may, by guidance, establish policies for the use of such evidence
in actions under the Act.
Student Services Contracting Authority
In the FY 2021 Budget, the Agency requests authorization for the Office of Research and
Development (ORD), the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), and the
Office of Water (OW) to hire pre-baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate students in science and
engineering fields. This authority would provide ORD, OCSPP, and OW with the flexibility to
hire qualified students that work on projects that support current priorities, programmatic
functions, and the Agency's environmental goals.
Proposed Language to add to FY 2021 Budget:
The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and the Office of Water may, using funds
appropriated under the headings "Environmental Programs and Management" and "Science and
Technology", contract directly with individuals or indirectly with institutions or nonprofit
organizations, without regard to 41 U.S.C. 5, for the temporary or intermittent personal services
of students or recent graduates, who shall be considered employees for the purposes of chapters
57 and 81 of title 5, United States Code, relating to compensation for travel and work injuries,
and chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, relating to tort claims, but shall not be considered
to be Federal employees for any other purpose: Provided, That amounts usedfor this purpose by
the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and the Office of Water collectively may
not exceed $2,000,000.
828

-------
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
In the FY 2021 Budget, the Agency requests authorization to establish a minimum 10 percent cost-
share requirement for all grant funding awarded by EPA utilizing Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative funding except in cases of financial hardship.
Provided, That, EPA 's share of the costs of financial assistance funded from the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative shall not exceed 90 percent: Provided further, That the Administrator may
waive such cost share requirement in the cases of financial hardship.
829

-------
Attorney Fee and Cost Payments
Making Litigation Costs Transparent - Equal Access for Justice Act (EAJA) FY 2019
])iite of Final
Case N il me
Court
Case \umher
Judge
Case
Amount of
Source of
Was amount
Recipients
Nature of
Hourly Rate
Hourly rate
fee




Disposition
Fees and/or
Funds
negotiated or

Case
of Attorney
of Kxpert
agreement or





Costs Paid

court



Witness
court







ordered?




disposition












9/18/201811
A Community
Voice,
California
Communities
Against
Toxics,
Healthy
Homes
Collaborative,
New Jersey
Citizen
Action, New
York City
Coalition To
End Lead
Poisoning,
Sierra Club,
9th Circuit
16-72816
Schroeder,
Smith, and
Piersol
Court granted
the petition
for writ of
mandamus;
DOJ/EPA
negotiated fee
settlement
$110,000.00
EPA
Appropriation
s
Negotiated
Earthjustice
Petitioners
successfully
sought an
order from the
court
requiring EPA
to promulgate
a rule
updating the
dust-lead
hazard
standards and
the definition
of lead-based
paint under
the Toxic
Substances
Pnntrnl Apt
Various
Petitioners
requested
rates from
$300/hr to
$500/hr.
None
10/16/2018
Pineros y
Northern
17-cv-03434-
Judge Jeffrey
Parties could
$236,363.47
EPA
Court Ordered
Earthjustice
Petitioners
Court
None

Campesinos
District of
JSW
White (Laurel
not agree on

Appropriation


successfully
awarded the


Unidos Del
California

Beeler US
fees;

s


challenged
requested


Noroeste,


Magistrate
Magistrate




EPA's
rates ranging


United Farm


Judge)
recommended




decision to
from $350/hr


Workers,



$205,144.93




delay the
to $750/hr.


Farmworker



in fees and




effective date



Assoc. of FL



costs; EPA




of the



vs. EPA



Challenged
Magistrate's
recommendati
on; Court
increased fees
award to
$236,363.47




Certification
of Pesticide
Applicators
Rule, as
inconsistent
with APA
notice and
comment
requirements.


11 This Final fee agreement or court disposition was not included with the EPA's FY 2018 submission which was provided in EPA's FY 2020 Congressional Justification and titled
Attorney Fee and Cost Payments Obligated to FY 2018 Under Equal Access to Justice Act.
830

-------
Physicians' Comparability Allowance (PCA) Plan
	Department and component:	
Environmental Protection Agency	
Purpose: The purpose of this document is to describe the Agency's plan for implementing the
Physicians' Comparability Allowance (PCA) program. Per 5 CFR 595.107, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) must approve this plan prior to the Agency entering into any
PCA service agreement. Changes to this plan must be reviewed and approved by OMB in
accordance with 5 CFR 595.107.
Reporting: In addition to the plan, each year, components utilizing PCA will include their PCA
worksheet in the OMB Justification (OMBJ), typically in September. OMB and OPM will use this
data for Budget development and congressional reporting.
Plan for Implementing the PCA program:
la) Identify the categories of physician positions the Agency has established are covered by
PCA under § 595.103. Please include the basis for each category. If applicable, list and
explain the necessity of any additional physician categories designated by your agency
(for categories other than I through IV-B). List Any Additional Physician Categories
Designated by Your Agency: Pursuant to 5 CFR 595.107, any additional category of
physician receiving a PCA, not covered by categories I through IV-B, should be listed

Category of Physician
Position
Covered by Agency
(mark "x" if covered)
Basis for Category

Category I Clinical Position


Number of
Physicians
Receiving PCAs
by Category
(non-add)
Category II Research
Position
X
The small population of EPA
Research Physicians
experiences modest turnover.
The value of the physicians'
comparability allowance to
EPA is used as a retention tool.
The Agency is told regularly
that absent the allowance, some
EPA research physicians would
seek employment at federal
agencies that provide the
allowance.

Category III Occupational
Health



Category IV-A Disability
Evaluation



Category IV-B Health and
Medical Admin.


831

-------
Physicians' Comparability Allowance (PCA) Plan (continued)
2) Explain the recruitment and retention problem(s) for each category of physician in your
agency (this should demonstrate that a current need continues to persist). § 595 of 5 CFR
Ch. 1 requires that an agency may determine that a significant recruitment and retention
problem exists only if all of the following conditions apply:
-	Evidence indicates that the Agency is unable to recruit and retain physicians for the
category;
-	The qualification requirements being sought do not exceed the qualifications necessary
for successful performance of the work;
-	The Agency has made efforts to recruit and retain candidates in the category; and
-	There are not a sufficient number of qualified candidates available if no comparability
allowance is paid.

Category of Physician Position
Recruitment and retention problem
Number of
Physicians
Receiving
PCAs by
Category
(non-add)
Category I Clinical Position

Category II Research Position
The small population of EPA Research Physicians
experiences modest turnover. The value of the
physicians' comparability allowance to EPA is used as a
retention tool. The Agency is told regularly that absent
the allowance, some EPA research physicians would
seek employment at federal agencies that provide the
allowance.
Category III Occupational Health

Category IV-A Disability
Evaluation

Category IV-B Health and Medical
Admin.

3) Explain how the Agency determines the amounts to be used for each category of
physicians.

Category of Physician Position
Basis of comparability allowance amount
Number of
Physicians
Receiving
PCAs by
Category
(non-add)
Category I Clinical Position

Category II Research Position
EPA reviews the experience and technical expertise of
the candidates. Combined with other salary ranges in the
private sector and in review of other federal agencies, the
Agency tries to be within a range that allows the Agency
to retain the employees.
Category III Occupational Health

Category IV-A Disability
Evaluation

Category IV-B Health and Medical
Admin.

832

-------
4) Does the Agency affirm that the PCA plan is consistent with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
	5948 and the requirements of § 595 of 5 CFR Ch. 1?	
| Yes
833

-------
Physicians' Comparability Allowance (PCA) Worksheet
1)	Department and component:	
| Environmental Protection Agency
2)	Explain the recruitment and retention problem(s) justifying the need for the PCA pay
authority.	
(Please include any staffing data to support your explanation, such as number and duration of unfilled
positions and number of accessions and separations per fiscal year.)
Historically, the number of EPA Research Physicians is between three and seven positions. This small
population experiences modest turnover. The value of the physicians' comparability allowance to EPA is used
as a retention tool.
One physician retired in early FY 2019; EPA plans to use the PCA to recruit and retain a qualified candidate
to fill this vacancy.	
3-4) Please complete the table below with details of the PCA agreement for the following
years:

PY 2019
(Actual)
CY 2020
(Estimates)
BY* 2021
(Estimates)
3a) Number of Physicians Receiving PCAs
2
3
3
3b) Number of Physicians with One-Year PCA Agreements



3c) Number of Physicians with Multi-Year PCA Agreements
2
3
3
4a) Average Annual PCA Physician Pay (without PCA
payment)
$171,000
$176,300
$178,000
4b) Average Annual PCA Payment
$29,900
$29,900
$29,900
*BY data will be approved during the BY Budget cycle. Please ensure each column is completed.
5)	Explain the degree to which recruitment and retention problems were alleviated in your
	agency through the use of PC As in the prior fiscal year.	
(Please include any staffing data to support your explanation, such as number and duration of unfilled
positions and number of accessions and separations per fiscal year.)
The Agency is told regularly that absent the allowance, some EPA research physicians would seek
employment at federal agencies that provide the allowance.	
6)	Provide any additional information that may be useful in planning PCA staffing levels and
	amounts in your agency.	
An agency with a very small number of physician positions and a low turn-over rate among them still needs
the allowance authority to maintain the stability of the small population. Those who opt for federal
employment in opposition to private sector employment still want the maximum pay available in the federal
sector. Were it not for the PCA, EPA would regularly lose some of its physicians to other federal agencies
that offer the allowance, requiring EPA to refill vacant positions. Turn-over statistics should be viewed in this
light.	
834

-------
IT Resources Statement
IT Resource Statements
Environmental Protection Agency
IT Resource Statements for FY 2021 CJ Budget Submission
()M!>  also
reviewed all CPIC investments annually as part
of the OMB Submission process. Additionally,
the CIO annually reviews the toplines budget
numbers for the Agency "s I f Investment
Portfolio with a focus on tophnes by RPIOs, by
CPIC Investment Category level, bv Part 1.2,
and 3 of 1 f Portfolio, by appropriation, bv 11
spend type, by I f Tower, and by program. CIO
also reviews all new, consolidated, eliminated
and retired investments.
SisMiIillliV Usui1
f\jo) —-—¦ I fix fa
T3Svid Bloom	Date
Acting Chief Financial Officer
mio
l 2% Zoz-a
Vaughn Noga	Date
Chief Information Officer
Senior Agency Official for Privacy


flSlZoZO
Vaughn Noga	Date
Chief Information Officer
835

-------
OMH (iUKl.liUT
A joint statcmenl from the CK) and
CIO identifying the extent to which
the CIO had a significant role in
rev iewing planned 11 support for
major programs and significant
increases and decreases in 11
resources reflected in this budget.
¦ I'A *>1:111 iiu-NI
Siun.iliirt Date
i I'he OCR) and OCFO meet regularly to discuss
i top issues in 1 r funding. The OCFO met with
t the OCK) prior to the FY21 CJ Submission to
review the IT budget submission for planned IT
| resources for major programs and significant
1 increases and decreases in the overall IT budget.
_L_
An update of the ClO's common
baseline rating for iTement 1) (CIO
rev ievvs and approves major I I
portion of budget request) to show
whether the desired outcome is:
a.	Incomplete - Agency has not
started development of a plan
describing changes it will
make to ensure that all
baseline FITARA
responsibilities aie in place.
b.	Partial!} addressed ¦¦ Agency
is working to de\ elop a plan
describing the changes it will
make to ensure that all
baseline FIFARA
responsibilities are in place.
l/zl/zozo
David Bloom	Date
Acting Chief Financial Officer
\ -
_1_
J


/
f/z1/2aeo
Vaughn N'oga
Chief Information Officer
Date
Full_\ implemented - EPA has developed and
implemented its plan to ensure that Ibr Common
Baseline Flcment I) ("CIO reviews and
approves major 11 investment portion of budget
request"), all FITARA responsibilities are in
place.
V/-
"2-

Vaughn Noga
Chief Information Officer
Date
836

-------
<)Mli (^iiidiiiu-i-
c. Fully implemented - Agency
has developed and
implemented its plan to ensure
that all eotnmon baseline
FITAR \ responsibilities are in
place.
I T V MilU'liU'lii
Sisiiiiilnro'Dalr
The extent to which the CIO can
certify the use of incremental
development, lor example, if the CIO
can eertifs that all the Investments
from bureau ''component ¦'( )perating
Division/Mode A. B. and C\ but not
1). are using incremental development
practices then the statement must
identify that the CK) certifies that
Investments from
bureaus/components'Operating
Divisions/Modes A. B, and C are
using incremental development
practices.
I-PA has one major investment that has been
ClO-eertified as employing incremental
development. and the live additional major
investments have self-certified as employ ing
incremental development. li PA will create and
document a CIO certification process lor the use
of incremental development.
During Ft FARA acquisition rev iews and IF
Portfolio Reviews OMS has identified several
systems that use mature Agile development
practices. LiPA aeth ilies to promote Agile
practices include an IT Fellowship program and
standing up a Developer's Guild.
Vaughn Noga
Chief Information Officer
Date
837

-------
( >Mli < iuidanci-
A statement thai the SAOP has
reviewed the IT Budget submission
and that privacy requirements, as well
as am associated costs, are explicitly
identified and included with respect to
any IT resources that will be used to
create, collect, use. process, store,
maintain, disseminate, disclose, or
dispose of personally identifiable
information (PlI).
A statement explaining any planned
deviation, if applicable, from the
requirements specified in Nl-J 1_6
regarding agency solicitation of new
or modernized technology or services
for which a Quality Service
Management Office (QSMO) has
been pro-designated.
f.i'A
1 he cTO collaborates regularly with Senior 1 I
Leaders on IT ser\ ice and resource
priorities. For the I- Y21 C.F Submission
planning cycle, the OCR) reviewed all
investments in the Agency IT Portfolio
Summary (A!TPS) and provided feedback to all
Program offices" regarding their Major IT
Investments. The CIO also conducted IT
portfolio reviews. that coxered all CP1C
investments and their projected FY21 CJ
Submission figures, "lilt FY2 I C'PIC" major
estimates in this budget submission are
consistent with data presented in the IT
Portfolio Reviews.
Si:iiiatiirr/I.':!tf
\/-
—
'Zo^o
Vaughn Noga	Date
Ch ief Information Officer
Senior Agency Official for Privacy
liPA is delaying its migration to a grants
management shared service solution until there
is an identified grants management QSMO
solution that meets KPA's core business needs
whiie remaining cost-effective.
Vaughn Noga
Chief Information Officer
Date
Notes:
838

-------
IG's Comments on the FY 2021 President's Budget
^ 	.
jai 1 o aa
The Honorable Miek Mulvaney
Director
¦Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office of the President
725 17th Street- NW
Washington. D.C, 20503
Dear Mr. Mulvaney:
Pursuant to Section 6(g)(3)(E) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, I am submitting
comments concerning the President's proposed fiscal year (FY) 2021 budget for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Inspector General (OIG). Section 6(g)(3)(E) of
the Inspector Genera! Act of 1978 provides that:
The President shall include in each budget of the United States Government submitted to
Congress:—
(H) any comments of the affected Inspector General with respect to the proposal if the
Inspector General concludes that the budget submitted by the President would
substantially inhibit the Inspector General from performing the duties of the office.
The proposed FY 2021 budget, which reduces the OIG's budget by over $3 million from the FY 2020
enacted appropriations, can create a significant challenge for the KPA OIG and our ability to accomplish
our mission of oversight for the EPA and the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Hoard (CSB). A
budget at this level would destabilize the OIG and have an immediate negative impact on the OIG's
production capacity and ability to respond to ever-demanding and increased workload requirements. As
such, I do not agree with the President's budget request, and argue that such a proposal would
substantially inhibit the OIG from performing the duties of the office, including mandatory
responsibilities explicitly, required b> federal law.
The vision of the OIG is to be a premier oversight organization trusted to speak the truth, promote good
governance, and contribute to improved human health and the environment. The OIG's primary
deliverables are independent audits, evaluations, and criminal and employee misconduct investigations.
These activities are labor intensive. Many audits are mandated by Congress, and as the OIG attempts to
continue to balance its workload with a tight annual budget of $53 million, a budget of S49.6 million
would virtually eliminate our ability to perform many discretionary audits and evaluations.
The OIG's work adds value and enhances public trust and safety by keeping the heads of the EPA and
the CSB. along with Congress, fully and immedialeh informed of problems and deficiencies. Our work
also keeps agencv heat Is informed of I he necessity- for and progress of corrective actions, helps to hold
839

-------
the agencies accountable, and provides valuable management tools that represent a substantial source of
the OIG's ability to produce a positive return on investment to taxpayers. Further, the OIG's mandatorv
audits and investigations are not performed by an;- other entity within the HPA or the CSB. As a result,
responses that are not timely due to limited resources create an unacceptable risk to the agencies the
OIG oversees and the taxpayers* investment in them.
The OIG consistently provides a significant positive return on investment to the public b>
recommending improvements in the delivery of the HPA's and the CSB's respective missions such as
reduction in operation and environmental risks, costs savings and recoveries, and improvements in
program efficiencies and integrin, While the OIG receives multiple and varied inquires to review the
CPA's and the CSB's actions or inaction, in recent years, such requests have exceeded the OIG's ahilitv
to handle them ail, due to a significant lack of resources. The OIG has had to inform congressional and
other requestors that we cannot undertake a requested review, can only do a portion of the requested
work, or will try to do it at a later time. These requests include projects that we believe would have
significant value, but we must forego due to our significant lack of resources resulting in a diminished
capacity to adequately respond.
I urgently and respectfully request that the President's budget recognize the work the OIG has done in
reshaping the workforce, and the greater vulnerability to our agencies that any reduction of OIG funding
would create, along with the loss of return on investment. I also request that the OIG's budget request of
$59.3 million be recognized. If not, as provided by the Inspector General Act. I request that these
comments be included in transmitting the President's Budget to Congress.
If you or \our staff have any questions, or would like to meet to discuss this matter, you may reach me
at (202) 566-0394 or at
Sincerely.
Charles Sheehan
Acting Inspector General
cc: Michael Horowitz, Chair. Council of the Inspectors General on Integim and Kfficiency
Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel, HP A
David Bloom. Acting Chief Financial Officer, [ P s

-------
EPA Budget by National Program Manager and Major Office
I'Y 2021 President's Budget
NPM
Mii.joi- Office
P;i\ (SK)
\oii-I\i\ (SK)
1 (Mill (SK)
I- II.
OA
Immediate Office
$3,924
$536
$4,460
22.1

Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental
Relations
$7,094
$206
$7,301
40.3

Office of Public Affairs
$5,369
$147
$5,516
30.5

Office of Public Engagement
$2,112
$53
$2,165
12.0

Office of Policy
$27,402
$8,285
$35,688
137.2

Children's Health Protection
$1,498
$50,608
$52,106
7.9

Office of Civil Rights
$3,488
$346
$3,835
18.5

Executive Secretariat
$1,936
$42
$1,978
11.0

Executive Services
$2,623
$161
$2,784
14.9

Homeland Security
$2,024
$305
$2,329
9.3

Science Advisory Board
$3,853
$104
$3,957
18.7

Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
$1,434
$771
$2,204
10.0

Regional Resources
$39,324
$3,106
$42,431
222.3

OA TOTAL
MII2.IIHI
Sf.-U.72
SIM..753
554.7
OAR
Immediate Office
$7,952
$6,117
$14,069
47.7

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
$40,826
$8,655
$49,481
240.7

Office of Atmospheric Programs
$21,569
$12,488
$34,057
117.4

Office of Transportation and Air Quality
$52,033
$25,843
$77,876
296.7

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
$12,285
$5,553
$17,838
72.0

Regional Resources
$72,168
$175,342
$247,510
429.0

OAK TOTAL
S2iifi,N34
S233.WK
S44H.S32
1,2(13.5
OCFO
Immediate Office
$1,999
$2,723
$4,723
12.0

Office of Budget
$6,330
$2,003
$8,334
38.0

Office of Planning, Analysis and Accountability
$3,665
$347
$4,012
22.0

Office of Technology Solutions
$7,680
$27,350
$35,030
46.1

Office of Resource and Information Management
$22,224
$835
$23,059
11.0

Office of the Controller
$1,832
$2,928
$4,760
131.4
841

-------
NPM
Major Office
Pu\ (SK)
Non-I'sij (SK)
Tolsil (SK)
I- II.
OCFO
OCFO eEnterprise
$667
$329
$996
4.0

Regional Resources
$33,254
$1,190
$34,444
196.0

CK'I-'C) lohil
S77/.52
S37.705
SI 15,357
460.5



OCSPP
Immediate Office
$5,864
$1,963
$7,827
32.7

Office of Pesticide Programs
$73,694
$3,640
$77,335
410.9

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
$49,751
$21,272
$71,023
273.4

Office of Science Coordination and Policy
$883
$13
$896
4.9

Regional Resources
$13,339
$17,075
$30,413
75.6

OC SI>l> TOTAL
SI 43,531
S43/K.3
SIN7,4'J4
797.5



OECA
Immediate Office
$7,368
$1,364
$8,732
39.9

Office of Civil Enforcement
$17,635
$4,373
$22,009
98.8

Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training
$53,424
$10,701
$64,126
257.1

Office of Compliance
$18,013
$28,680
$46,694
104.4

Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
$2,321
$398
$2,718
12.7

Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
$11,619
$25,735
$37,354
65.4

Regional Resources
$296,313
$13,785
$310,098
1,670.3

OLCA Tohil
s4nr./.'J4
SS5.H37
S4'J 1,731
2,24H.r.



OGC
Immediate Office
$2,384
$130
$2,514
11.8

Air and Radiation Law Office
$6,869
$75
$6,944
33.8

Pesticides and Toxic Substances Law Office
$3,595
$50
$3,645
19.7

Solid Waste and Emergency Response Law Office
$2,346
$60
$2,406
11.5

Water Law Office
$3,535
$80
$3,615
17.4

Civil Rights - Title VI
$1,692
$50
$1,742
23.6

Other Legal Support
$16,694
$5,469
$22,163
66.3

Regional Resources
$27,837
$991
$28,828
137.4

o<;r TOTAL
SCi4,')52
Sft.'Jl 15
S71,857
321.5
842

-------
I V 2021 President's Budget


\P\1
Major Office
Psij (SK)
Noii-Psij (SK)
loliil (SK)
ill-:



OIG
Immediate Office
$530
$17
$547
3.3
Office of Audit
$24,119
$609
$24,728
136.9

Office of Congressional, Public Affairs and Management
$2,956
$69
$3,026
16.7

Office of Chief of Staff
$6,172
$3,955
$10,127
35.9

Office of Investigations
$10,640
$505
$11,145
49.2

ok; total
S44.4I7
S5.I55
S4'),572
242.(1



Immediate Office
$430
$52
$481
2.0
OITA
Office of Regional and Bilateral Affairs
$1,329
$3,167
$4,496
8.0

Office of Global Affairs and Policy
$1,433
$2,905
$4,338
8.5

Office of Management and International Services
$797
$884
$1,681
4.0

American Indian Environmental Office
$2,716
$940
$3,655
14.3

Regional Resources
$9,706
$44,591
$54,297
55.9

Oi l A TOTAL
SIMII
S52.53N
S(.N,'J4')
92.7




Immediate Office
$5,344
$5,001
$10,345
30.4
OLEM
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
$2,362
$626
$2,988
13.2

Office of Communication, Partnership, and Analysis
$1,940
$1,213
$3,154
11.1

Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation
$25,060
$70,224
$95,284
146.3

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
$20,755
$11,696
$32,452
115.5

Office of Underground Storage Tanks
$2,870
$761
$3,631
16.3

Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization
$2,116
$11,211
$13,327
12.1

Office of Emergency Management
$10,495
$26,196
$36,691
59.6

Regional Resources
$256,312
$595,190
$851,502
1,477.5

OLEM TOTAL
S327.253
S722.I2U
SI,114'), 373
I.SS2.H



843

-------
I'Y 2021 President's Budget



M'M
Mii.jor Office
l';i\ (SK)
\»ii-Pii\ (SK)
loliil (SK)

in:
OMS
Immediate Office
$14,294
$22,505
$36,800
81.6

Environmental Appeals Board
$2,400
$27
$2,427
11.3

Administrative Law Judges
$2,657
$35
$2,692
12.5

Office of Administration
$18,835
$341,137
$359,972
85.6

Office of Human Resources
$19,157
$7,519
$26,675
88.6

OARM - Research Triangle Park
$13,128
$34,409
$47,537
78.9

Office of Grants and Debarment
$8,994
$4,684
$13,678
53.5

OARM - Cincinnati
$11,603
$15,670
$27,273
70.5

Office of Acquisition Solutions
$30,162
$9,168
$39,330
181.9

Office of Enterprise Information Programs
$6,153
$9,593
$15,746
33.4

Office of Information Management
$10,883
$22,284
$33,167
57.5

Office of Digital Services & Technical Architecture
$3,984
$1,707
$5,691
22.1

Office of Customer Advocacy, Policy & Portfolio Management
$5,499
$2,146
$7,645
30.5

Office of Information Security & Privacy
$2,680
$17,039
$19,719
13.9

Office of Information Technology Operations
$1,823
$2,483
$4,307
10.0

Regional Resources
$80,583
$53,373
$133,956
431.4
OMSTOTAL
S232.N33
S543.7NI
S77ri.fl 14
l,2r.3.2

RD
ORD Headquarters
$39,326
$19,946
$59,272
208.2

Center for Computational Toxicology & Exposure
$21,714
$23,061
$44,775
132.5

Center for Environmental Measurements & Modeling
$44,793
$21,189
$65,982
251.5

Center for Public Health & Environmental Assessment
$54,077
$18,919
$72,996
304.8

Center for Environmental Solutions & Emergency
$39,024
$20,119
$59,143
218.5

Regional Resources*
$33,163
$12,039
$45,202
192.1

OKI)
TOTAL
S232.IW7
SI 15,273
S347.37H
I,3d7.r.

844

-------

VX 2021 President's Budget




Mii.jor Office
P«i\ (SK)
Non-Psij (SK)
loliil (SK)
I- II!
NPM


OW
Immediate Office
$10,294
$3,698
$13,992
60.0

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
$29,213
$74,897
$104,111
167.7

Office of Science and Technology
$18,124
$11,542
$29,665
105.4

Office of Wastewater Management
$21,500
$101,740
$123,240
123.7

Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
$14,159
$40,069
$54,228
83.1

Regional Resources
$184,362
$2,541,627
$2,725,990
1,077.9

OW TOTAL
S277/.52
S2,773,574
S3,H5l,22f.
I.M7.N
Sul)lol;il Resources
S2.132.4li7
S4,f.S4,721
S(i,NI7,12N
SII.W2

I.ess Rescission of Prior Year Funds


($159,057)


Reimbursable FIT!



618.6
Tolsil \
-------
FY 2021: Consolidations, Realignments, or Other Transfer or Resources
There are no consolidations, realignments, or other transfers of resources from one program project
to another associated with the FY 2021 budget submission. The Agency continues to consider
enhancements and administrative efficiencies. Areas for potential future consideration are outlined
below.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
In implementation of the requirements of the Foundations for Evidence Based Policy Act (P.L.
115-435), the Agency is working to establish a new Central Evaluation Office in the Office of
Chief Financial Officer and has requested targeted resources in FY 2021 to support the Central
Evaluation Office. As part of this work, EPA may consider a minor internal reorganization to
streamline operations to better support its EPA customers.
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
As part of EPA's long-term commitment to ensure the effective advancement of the chemicals
safety program to protect human health and the environment from potential risks of pesticides and
toxic chemicals, the Agency's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention will establish
a presence in Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina. Positions in RTP will be filled
competitively and will not involve reassignments or involuntary moves, and the effort will utilize
existing EPA space and resources. Establishing a presence in RTP is expected to improve
recruitment of scientific staff and increase capacity to meet OCSPP's statutory and regulatory
milestones under TSCA, FIFRA, FQPA, ESA, and associated statutes.
Office of Mission Support
The Office of Mission Support (OMS) was created on November 26, 2018 through a
reorganization that combined the functions of the Offices of Administration and Resources
Management and the Office of Environmental Information. In the year since the reorganization,
EPA has identified potential opportunities to further streamline operations. As the Agency
evaluates these options, OMS may consider a second internal reorganization to better support its
EPA customers.
846
-------
S. 2276 - Good Accounting Obligation in Government Act
Public Law No: 115-414, January 3, 2019
In accordance with the reporting requirements of the Good Accounting Obligation in
Government Act, Agencies are to submit reports on outstanding recommendations in the annual
budget submitted to Congress.
For the FY 2021 budget justification, EPA has developed a report listing each open, closed, or
unimplemented public recommendation for corrective action from the Office of the Inspector
General along with the implementation status of each recommendation.
EPA is also working to develop a report listing each open, closed, or unimplemented public
recommendation of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the implementation status
of each GAO recommendation, however the Agency requires additional time to complete this
report. EPA will publish an addendum to this Congressional Justification when the report on
GAO's recommendations is finalized.
The Agency's GAO-1G Act Report will be available at the following link:
https://www.epa.eov/ci
847
-------
EPA OIG Open Recommendations and Corrective Actions
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ite
17-P00378-001
Recommendation 1: We recommend that the Deputy Administrator:
5. Examine all of the EPA's web-based risk screening and mapping tools to ensure the need for each tool
and to avoid potential overlap, duplication and waste.
2017-09-07
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2019-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
On July 3, 2017, then acting Deputy Administrator, Mike Flynn issued a memorandum agreeing with the
OIG and asked OEI and the Chief Information Officer to review their existing policies and procedures to
ensure that sufficient mechanisms are in place to identify potential overlap or duplication during the
development or modification of any web-based risk screening and mapping tools. We have requested an
update from OMS on this matter. Status: Delayed
18-P00240-001
Recommendation 1: Establish a strategic vision and objectives for managing the use of citizen science that
identifies:
a.	Linkage to the agency's strategic goals,
b.	Roles and responsibilities for implementation, and
c.	Resources to maintain and build upon existing agency expertise
2018-09-05
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
The agency concurs with this recommendation and will establish an agencywide work group to establish a
more formal strategic vision and objectives for managing the use of citizen science, including policies,
procedures and clear objectives for how to collect, manage and use citizen science to support the agency's
mission. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 2: Through appropriate EPA offices, direct completion of an assessment to identify the
data management requirements for using citizen science data and an action plan for addressing those
requirements, including those on sharing and using data, data format/standards, and data testing/validation.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
The agency concurs with this recommendation and will complete an assessment and action plan to identify
and address data management requirements for citizen science. Status: Adhering
19-P00267-001
Recommendation 1: Amend guidance for the Regulatory Reform Task Force to specify: a) the frequency of
meetings.
2019-08-09
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-03-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
The Chair of the Regulatory Reform Task Force will send a message to the members of the TF that
addresses the issues identified in these recommendations. Status: Adhering
848
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

Recommendation 2: Amend guidance for the Regulatory Reform Task Force to specify: b) the public
dissemination of progress reports and regulatory and deregulatory recommendations.

Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2020-03-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
The Chair of the Regulatory Reform Task Force will send a message to the members of the Task Force that
addresses the issues identified in these recommendations. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 3: Amend guidance for the Regulatory Reform Task Force to specify: c) the frequency
and means of stakeholder outreach.
Corrective Action 3-1: Planned: 2020-03-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
The Chair of the Regulatory Task Force will send a message to the members of the TF that addresses the
issues identified in these recommendations. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 4: Establish or identify an accessible portal that can provide up-to-date information on
both the EPA's deregulatory and regulatory actions taken under Executive Order 13771.
Corrective Action 4-1: Planned: 2020-03-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
In addition to maintaining existing sources of information on EO 13771 regulatory actions, EPA will
establish a new web page that will list the final regulatory actions as they are completed. EPA will establish
the web page by Q2 FY20. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 5: Amend guidance for the Regulatory Reform Task Force to specify: a) the frequency of
meetings.
Corrective Action 5-1: Planned: 2020-03-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
The Chair of Regulatory Reform Task Force will send a message to the members of the Task Force that
addresses the issues identified in these recommendations. Status: Adhering
19-F00003-007
Recommendation 1: Implement controls to enforce the required verification of individuals' identity every
time individuals enter the computer rooms.
2018-11-14
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-03-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
Updates to badge readers are anticipated in the future, though a specific timeframe has not been established.
OMS will review this requirement as it relates to the new badge readers. In the interim, the computer room
referenced in this report is not a standalone facility, it is a controlled room within a controlled building.
Physical security is multi-layered for access to the campus, starting with the exterior, then within buildings,
then within rooms. The individual's identity is verified physically by visual inspection of a federal ID at
RTP Campus gates; by PIV swipe and guard verification that the face matches the picture that shows up on
their monitor; by PIV access to elevator to computer room floor; and finally, by PIV at computer room
entrance. This is an accepted physical security practice in accordance with Federal standards. Status:
Adhering
849
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile
16-F00040-130
Recommendation 1: Implement an internal control process for transferring the management of an
application's user access to the Application Management Staff.
2015-11-lh
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2017-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00 Upon availability of resources and
completion of other high priority IT projects (i.e., CVE and Account Code Structure Project), OCFO will
transfer the management of all application user access processes to the Office of Technology Solutions,
Application Management Staff. Status: Delayed
Recommendation 2: Conduct an inventory of OCFO systems managed by the Application Management
Staff and create or update supporting access management documentation for each application.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2017-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
Upon availability of resources and completion of other high priority IT projects (i.e., CVE and ACS),
OCFO will conduct an inventory of OCFO systems managed by OTS/AMS and create or update supporting
access management documentation for each application. Status: Delayed
17-F00046-130
Recommendation 1: Work with the Compass Financials service provider to establish controls for creating
and locking administrative accounts.
2016-11-15
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2021-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
The agency will work with the service provider to analyze alternatives for controls and establish an action
plan. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 2: Work with the Compass Financials service provider to develop and implement a
methodology to monitor accounts with administrative capabilities.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2021-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00 The agency will work with the
service provider to analyze alternative methodologies and establish an action plan. Status: Adhering
16-P00275-140
Recommendation 1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation: Determine
whether additional action is needed to mitigate any adverse air quality impacts of the Renewable Fuel
Standard as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act.
2016-08-18
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2024-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OAR agrees with this recommendation, and we acknowledge the statute's requirement to determine whether
additional action is needed to mitigate any adverse air quality impacts in light of the anti-backsliding study.
That study, discussed in Corrective Action 2, would need to be completed prior to any such determination
taking place. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation: Complete the
anti-backsliding study on the air quality impacts of the Renewable Fuel Standard as required by the Energy
Independence and Security Act.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2024-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
850
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

OAR agrees with this recommendation, and we acknowledge the statutory obligation for an anti-backsliding
study under Clean Air Act section 21 l(v) (as amended by EISA section 209). EPA has already taken a
number of time-consuming and resource-intensive steps that are important prerequisites for the anti-
backsliding study. For example, OAR conducted a vehicle emissions test program designed to evaluate the
impacts of gasoline properties (including aromatics and ethanol concentration) on vehicle exhaust
emissions, https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/epact.htm. This study is the largest, most
comprehensive, and most carefully designed and implemented study to date on the impacts of fuel changes
on emissions from recent model year gasoline vehicles. Using the data from this study, OAR then updated
the fuel effects model in its tool for estimating motor vehicle emissions, the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Simulator (MOVES). This update was released in 2014. However, as the OIG report correctly notes, there
are multiple intermediate research steps that still need to be completed before OAR can plan, fund and
conduct a comprehensive anti-backsliding study. These steps include development of baseline, current, and
projected scenarios for how renewable fuels have and might be produced, distributed, and used to fulfill the
RFS requirements, generation of emissions inventories, and air quality modeling, all of which are time-
consuming and resource-intensive. Furthermore, this work must be conducted on top of other statutorily-
required actions under the RFS program, many of which are carried out by the same group of staff and
managers. Status: Adhering

17-P00249-140
Recommendation 1: Revise the benzene regulations to require that attest engagements verify annual average
benzene concentrations and volumes with batch reports, to ensure that credits needed or generated are
correct.
2017-06-08

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OAR agrees that this recommendation could further enhance our oversight of the gasoline benzene program
but addressing this recommendation requires a change to our compliance regulations, which necessitates the
promulgation of a rule. OAR agrees to propose specifications to address this recommendation in the next
appropriate proposed fuels rule. However, OAR notes that all rules follow an established rule making
process so the content of final rules cannot be pre-determined. Status: Adhering


Recommendation 2: Revise the annual benzene report so that facilities must report the number of benzene
deficits or credits at the end of the current reporting year.


Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OAR agrees that this recommendation could further enhance our oversight of the gasoline benzene program
but addressing this recommendation requires a change to our compliance regulations, which necessitates the
promulgation of a rule. OAR agrees to propose specifications to address this recommendation in the next
appropriate proposed fuels rule. However, OAR notes that all rules follow an established rule making
process so the content of final rules cannot be pre-determined. Status: Adhering

851
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

Recommendation 3: Improve controls over the reporting system to assure facility-submitted data are of the
quality needed to assess compliance with the regulations. These controls should provide reasonable
assurance that the following occurs:
a.	Volumes and average benzene concentrations in facilities' annual benzene reports match those calculated
based on their batch reports.
b.	Benzene concentrations in facility batch reports and annual benzene reports contain two decimal places.
c.	Production dates match the compliance year in facility reports.
d.	Facilities use only valid product codes in their reports.
e.	Only valid company and facility identification numbers are used.
f.	Maximum average benzene concentrations for the second compliance period and beyond match the
corresponding annual average benzene concentrations.
g.	Import companies aggregate their facilities and submit just one annual benzene report.
h.	All required reports are submitted.

Corrective Action 3-1: Planned: 2020-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OAR agrees that this recommendation would further enhance our oversight of the gasoline benzene
program. Addressing this recommendation through an IT solution, however, would require substantial new
investment in our IT systems and neither the President's Budget Request for FY 2018 nor FY 2019
provided for an investment of the size necessary to implement the OIG s recommended IT improvements.
OAR continues to expect limited discretionary funds for IT projects going forward and is therefore focusing
on effectively operating and maintaining existing registration and compliance data systems for the fuels
programs. In lieu of IT investments for the current gasoline benzene program, the Agency commits to
issuing a guidance document and conducting a webinar to educate stakeholders not only on compliance
requirements of the current program but also potential changes under discussion as part of the Agency's
forthcoming fuels regulation streamlining rulemaking which is expected to be proposed in 2020
(https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=2018 10&RIN=2060-AT31). The guidance
and webinar are expected to cover the following subjects:
~	Gasoline benzene program requirements ~ what the requirements are and who is subject to them;
~	Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program;
~	Sampling, Tesing, and Retention requirements;
~	Recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including information on how to use EPA's reporting forms
and fuel compliance information systems;
~	Attest engagements; and
852
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

~ Violations and penalties. Status: Adhering

Recommendation 4: Ensure the integrity of benzene credit trading by developing and implementing a
process to verify that annual average benzene concentration and total volume values that facilities input into
the trading database are supported by batch reports.
Corrective Action 4-1: Planned: 2020-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OAR agrees that this recommendation would further enhance our oversight of the gasoline benzene
program. Addressing this recommendation through an IT solution, however, would require substantial new
investment in our IT systems and neither the President's Budget Request for FY 2018 nor FY 2019
provided for an investment of the size necessary to implement the OIG s recommended IT improvements.
OAR continues to expect limited discretionary funds for IT projects going forward and is therefore focusing
on effectively operating and maintaining existing registration and compliance data systems for the fuels
programs. In lieu of IT investments for the current gasoline benzene program, the Agency commits to
issuing a guidance document and conducting a webinar to educate stakeholders not only on compliance
requirements of the current program but also potential changes under discussion as part of the Agency's
forthcoming fuels regulation streamlining rulemaking which is expected to be proposed in 2020
(https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=2018 10&RIN=2060-AT31). The guidance
and webinar are expected to cover the following subjects:
~	Gasoline benzene program requirements ~ what the requirements are and who is subject to them;
~	Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program;
~	Sampling, Tesing, and Retention requirements;
~	Recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including information on how to use EPA s reporting forms
and fuel compliance information systems;
~	Attest engagements; and
~	Violations and penalties. Status: Adhering
18-POO181-140
Recommendation 1: Define performance measures to assess the performance of the EPA's light-duty
vehicle compliance program.
2018-05-15
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2021-03-31 Completed. 0000-00-00
OAR agrees with this recommendation. OAR currently uses in-use vehicle emissions testing data to track
light-duty emissions compliance overtime. OAR will develop additional performance measures to better
monitor emissions compliance and program success.
OAR will implement this recommendation in four phases: 1) develop the performance measures; 2)
implement, gather data, and evaluate; 3) revise measures as informed by evaluation, then fully implement
853
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

measures; and 4)use those measures to inform program management moving forward. We project that this
will be a three-year process. Step one will be completed by the end of Q2, FY2019. Step two will be
completed at the end of Q2, FY2020, and step three will be completed at the end of Q2, FY2021. Step 4 is
ongoing. Status: Adhering

18-P00241-140
Recommendation 1: Revise the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Quality Management Plan to
state whether the agency is developing quality assurance project plans or equivalent documents to meet
EPA Quality System requirements for developing or revising preferred air quality dispersion models.
2018-09-05
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-03-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
In response to this recommendation, EPA proposes the following action:
1. The AQMG Manager will coordinate with the OAQPS QA Manager to modify the OAQPS QMP so that
it clearly states how the process for developing and revising preferred air quality models is conducted and
adheres to EPA Quality System requirements. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 2: Develop a quality assurance project plan or equivalent documents describing the results
of systematic planning before developing a new air quality dispersion model or undertaking any significant
revisions in the future to existing preferred air quality dispersion models, which are codified in Appendix A
to Appendix W of 40 CFR Part 51.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2020-03-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
In response to this recommendation, EPA proposes the following action:
1.	EPA will develop the AERMOD System Development and Update Plan. The plan serves several
functions. In addition to generally describing the SOPs for model development, the plan will provide
detailed descriptions of the model development and update process outlined in EPA's Guideline which
relies upon EPA's ADP requirements for the federal rulemaking process. The ADP process provides a
robust process and documentation that ensures quality of its regulatory actions such that the model
development and update process meets EPA's Quality System requirements.
2.	As noted in the OIG report, EPA provides extensive documentation on model performance, function, and
application (e.g., the AERMOD User's Guide, the AERMOD Formulation and Evaluation Document, and
the AERMOD Implementation Guide). We believe these documents provide the documentation necessary
to meet EPA's Quality System requirements. The connections between these documents and these
requirements will be spelled out in updates to the OAQPS QMP (see response to recommendation 3).
Status: Adhering
18-P00283-140
Recommendation 1: Revise the vehicle inspection and maintenance rule to remove the cross reference to
Title 40 S51.353(b)(1) of the Code of Federal Regulations, and provide defined evaluation methodology
guidance to enable states to quantify emission reductions.
2018-09-25
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2019-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
854
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

OAR agrees with this recommendation and, as noted by OIG in its draft report, intends to direct OTAQ to
revise the I/M rule to remove the reference the next time the rule is revised for more substantial revisions.
Additionally, and in the interim, OAR will direct OTAQ to issue guidance to clarify this provision as well
as that enhanced I/M programs that are not already using some other approved program evaluation
methodology should be using the OTAQ guidance document issued in July 2004, Guidance on Use of
Remote Sensing for Evaluation of I/M Program Performance (EPA420-B-04-010).


Update 6/27/19 - While there was a delay due to the shutdown, beginning in February 2019, OAR directed
OTAQ to begin the response to this recommendation. OTAQ is currently drafting interim guidance to
clarify the regulatory reference and existing guidance and other potential methods for enhanced I/M
evaluation methodology requirements. OTAQ is consulting with EPA Regional Offices and OGC in the
developing of this guidance, which will be finalized and distributed by the fall of 2019. Status: Delayed


Recommendation 2: Develop and implement guidance on the calculation of individual test statistics in state
reports to provide consistency in state reports across regions.


Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2019-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OAR agrees with this recommendation and will respond by directing OTAQ to issue guidance clarifying
how program statistics such as the rates of vehicle failures, waivers, and disappearing vehicles should be
calculated.


Update 6/27/19 - While there was a delay due to the shutdown, beginning in February 2019, OAR directed
OTAQ to begin the response to this recommendation. OTAQ has drafted this guidance to improve the
calculation of individual test statistics and to provide national consistency in state reports. OTAQ is
consulting with EPA Regional Offices and OGC in the developing of this guidance, which will be finalized
and distributed by the fall of 2019. OTAQ also updated state jurisdictions on the draft concepts for this
guidance, and OTAQ will incorporate feedback received into its development. Status: Delayed


Recommendation 3: Issue guidance to address any trends or common problems identified by the outreach
conducted to states with deficiencies in program implementation.


Corrective Action 3-1: Planned: 2020-03-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
OAR agrees with the recommendation and views the appropriate response to it as an extension of our
response to Recommendation 6, with appropriate OTAQ guidance to be issued to address identified
deficiencies. Status: Adhering

19-P00168-140
Recommendation 1: Define performance measures to assess the performance of the EPA's on-road heavy-
duty vehicle and engine compliance program.
2019-06-03

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2022-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00

855
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

OAR agrees with this recommendation. OAR currently uses in-use vehicle emissions testing data to track
heavy-duty emissions compliance overtime. OAR will develop additional performance measures to better
monitor emissions compliance and program success. Status: Adhering

Recommendation 2: Conduct and document a risk assessment for the on-road heavy-duty vehicle and
engine compliance program that prioritizes risk and links specific control activities to specific risks. Update
the risk assessment on a scheduled and periodic basis.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2021-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OAR agrees with this recommendation. OAR currently conducts an informal risk assessment of its heavy-
duty vehicle compliance program and started implementing and documenting a formal process for both
light-and heavy-duty sectors in 2018 in response to OIG's recommendation for the light-duty program.
OAR will continue to expand and formalize this process and will develop protocols for its implementation
and documentation. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 3: Address the following risks as part of the on-road heavy-duty vehicle and engine
compliance program risk assessment, in addition to other risks that the EPA identifies:
a.	Non-criteria pollutants not being measured.
b.	Level of heavy-duty sector testing throughout the compliance life cycle.
c.	Marketplace ambiguity over regulatory treatment of rebuilt versus remanufactured engines.
d.	Different compliance challenges for heavy-duty compression-ignition and spark-ignition engines.
e.	Lack of laboratory test cell and in-house testing capacity for heavy-duty spark-ignition engines.
Corrective Action 3-1: Planned: 2021-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OAR agrees with this recommendation and will address each of these areas:
~	Non-criteria pollutants not being measured
Response: Under the Clean Air Act, manufacturers are responsible for measuring and reporting emissions of
nonregulated pollutants. OTAQ does not routinely measure noncriteria pollutants, but we will work to
enhance manufacturer reporting by establishing a new document type in our Engine and Vehicle
Compliance Information System (EV-CIS) to
collect the manufacturer reports; updating our guidance to announce the new EV-CIS capacity and to
remind manufacturers of their reporting obligation; and then reviewing and considering the reported
information as part of our ongoing risk assessment process. Planned Completion Date: End of Q4 2021.
~	Level of heavy-duty sector testing throughout the compliance life cycle
Response: OTAQ will continue to prioritize testing for all vehicle and engine sectors, including the HD
highway sector, as resources allow. We will formally document and periodically reassess the level of testing
as part of our periodic risk assessment. Planned Completion Date: End of Q3 2021.
856
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

~	Marketplace ambiguity over regulatory treatment of rebuilt versus remanufactured engines
Response: OTAQ believes the regulations are clear on this issue so we will engage stakeholders to improve
understanding of nomenclature and expectations, and we will work to educate manufacturers about
ambiguity resulting from their inappropriate use of terminology. Planned Completion Date: End of Q1
2021.
~	Different compliance challenges for heavy-duty compression-ignition and spark-ignition engines
Response: This recommendation concerns the technical differences between SI and CI engines, and the
resulting different challenges and tradeoffs in controlling emissions for the two types of technology. We
will formally document and periodically reassess concerns about different compliance incentives as part of
our periodic risk assessment.
Planned Completion Date: End of Q3 2021.
~	Lack of laboratory test cell and in-house testing capacity for heavy-duty spark-ignition engines
Response: Heavy-duty spark-ignition (HDSI) engines represent less than 4% of heavy-duty highway
production. NVFEL is able to test all the other sectors and can use contract laboratories or portable
emissions measurement systems to test HDSI engines if necessary. Therefore, investment in HDSI testing
capacity has not been a priority to date.
Going forward, we will formally document and periodically reassess decisions about investments in
laboratory capacity as part of a periodic risk assessment. Planned Completion Date: End of Q3 2021. Status:
Adhering

Recommendation 4: Evaluate the following issues, which may require regulatory or programmatic action, as
part of (1) the on-road heavy-duty vehicle and engine emission control program risk assessment and (2) the
EPA's annual regulatory agenda development process:
a.	Regulatory definition of on-road heavy-duty engine useful life may not reflect actual useful life.
b.	Not-to-Exceed standard may not reflect real-world operating conditions, especially for certain
applications.
c.	In-use testing requirements for heavy-duty spark-ignition engines may be needed.
d.	A particle number standard may more accurately control particulate matter emissions that impact human
health.
Corrective Action 4-1: Planned: 2022-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OAR agrees with this recommendation. We will consider the first three issues as part of the CTI rulemaking
process. We will also commit to considering approaches to best control particulate matter emissions that
affect public health and will continue to work toward improving ultrafine particulate matter measurement
techniques. Status: Adhering
857
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

Recommendation 5: Conduct and document an evaluation of opportunities to reassess the manufacturer in-
use testing program, including the use of targeted, nonstandard testing in areas of concern.

Corrective Action 5-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OAR agrees with this recommendation. OTAQ will address this issue through the CTI rulemaking process.
Status: Adhering
Recommendation 6: Develop and implement procedures for communicating potential compliance issues to
the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
a. Establish clear criteria for when compliance issues should be referred to the EPA's Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance.
Corrective Action 6-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OAR agrees with this recommendation and already does this informally. We will coordinate with OECA to
formalize and better document the process. Status: Adhering
19-P00207-140
Recommendation 1: Develop and implement electronic checks in the EPA's Emissions Collection and
Monitoring Plan System or through an alternative mechanism to retroactively evaluate emissions and
quality assurance data in instances where monitoring plan changes are submitted after the emissions and
quality assurance data have already been accepted by the EPA.
2019-06-27
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2025-03-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
The Office of Air and Radiation agrees with this recommendation. As OIG acknowledged in its report,
CAMD has already addressed this issue by implementing a post-submission data check that is run at the end
of each reporting period. The new check identifies any monitoring plan submissions containing changes to
monitoring span records that occur prior to the current emissions reporting period. If any changes were
made, the check recalculates quality assurance tests that were submitted prior to the span change and
verifies the pass/fail status of each test. If the status of any test changes, CAMD analysts will contact the
affected facility and request the correction and resubmission of the impacted data. As of February 2019,
CAMD had insured that the discrepancies in the data used in OIG s review were resolved and resubmitted.
In the long term, CAMD will implement an additional check in the ECMPS forcing retroactive span record
changes to require the reevaluation and resubmission of any affected quality assurance tests and hourly
emissions records. CAMD has initiated the process of re-engineering ECMPS. In order to minimize
additional expenditures on the current version of ECMPS, CAMD will focus on adding the check to the new
version of ECMPS. Status: Adhering
858
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile
19-P00251-140
Recommendation 1: Assess the training needs of EPA regions and state, local and tribal agencies
concerning stack test plans and report reviews and EPA test methods, and develop and publish a plan to
address any training shortfalls.
2019-07-3O
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2022-03-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
OAR will implement the following corrective action. OAR's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) will work with the EPA regions and state, local and tribal air agencies to review currently
available materials and assess training needs with respect to approval of stack test plans, review of stack test
reports, and conduct of EPA test methods, with respect to particulate matter compliance testing. OAQPS
will work with EPA regional, state, local and tribal agencies to identify current training shortfalls and
develop a plan to address these shortfalls. We anticipate two and one-half years to assess the training needs,
prepare a training plan, and begin enacting the plan. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 2: Develop stack test report checklists for EPA Method 5 and other frequently used EPA
methods to assist state, local and tribal agencies in their reviews of stack test plans and reports.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2021-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OAR will implement the following corrective action.
OAQPS will work with EPA regions, state, local and tribal air agencies to develop checklists useful for
review of stack test plans, and stack test reports for EPA Method 1, Method 2, Method 3, Method 4, Method
5, Method 7E, and Method 10. OAQPS will provide this content as informational and not to be used as
official Regulatory Guidance. We anticipate that it will take approximately 18 months for these checklists to
be finalized. Status: Adhering
19-P00252-140
Recommendation 1: (1) In consultation with the General Counsel, the Designated Agency Ethics Official,
and the Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development, revise EPA Delegation of Authority 7-170 to enable practical implementation
for the acceptance of donated property consistent with Section 104 of the Clean Air Act and address
pertinent ethics considerations.
2019-07-31
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OAR supports Recommendation 1 and has already begun consulting with the Director of the Ethics Office,
who is the Alternate Designated Agency Ethics Official, in support of this recommendation. OAR
acknowledges that existence of the delegation was not previously known to current OTAQ employees and,
now that we are aware of it, OTAQ also agrees that the current delegation is impractical. We commit to
work expeditiously with the Office of General Counsel (including the media, appropriations, and ethics
lawyers) to develop an Office level policy/process and to revise the existing delegation of authority.
859
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

Update 1/16/2020 - As part of the Corrective Action #1 in the OIG report "EPA's 2017 Glider Vehicle
Testing Complied with Standard Practices" (#19-P-0252), OTAQ agreed to consult with EPA's Ethics
Office to evaluate the need for an interim policy while it sought the revision to existing Delegation of
Authority 7-170 regarding the acceptance of donated property under section 104 of the Clean Air Act. As
part of this evaluation, an examination of research that would benefit from the acceptance of test articles
under existing Delegation of Authority 7-170 found that published rulemaking documents provided
adequate notice to potential sources of donations such that it was unnecessary in the near term to establish
an alternative process for notifying potential donors.


OTAQ therefore utilized the existing delegation to document the request to permit the acceptance of
donated property from the Acting Assistance Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation. This
concurrence from the Acting AA, in consultation with the Alternate Designated Agency Ethics Official, was
obtained in July of 2019 in writing and obviated the near term need for an office level policy. This met the
commitment to "evaluate and document" whether OTAQ needed further guidance or policies to implement
the Delegation of section 104 of the CAA by the end of Q1 of FY2020. OTAQ is currently working to
initiate a revised delegation that will be more practical by the end of Q4 FY 2020. Status: Adhering


Recommendation 2: (2) In consultation with the General Counsel and the Designated Agency Ethics
Official, evaluate and document whether the Office of Transportation and Air Quality needs to develop
further guidance or policies to implement the Delegation of Authority for the acceptance of donated
property under Section 104 of the Clean Air Act and, if determined necessary, develop further guidance or
policies as appropriate.


Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OAR agrees with this recommendation. OAR is currently working with the Office of General Counsel and
the Alternate Designated Agency Ethics Official to develop an interim OTAQ policy/process for the
acceptance of donated property under Section 104 of the Clean Air Act. OAR also intends to finalize an
office policy in conjunction with a revised delegation memo. OAR also agrees that the current delegation is
impractical and would benefit from revision. Status: Adhering

19-F00003-150
Recommendation 1: Perform a review of system requirements and evaluate the suitability of existing
technology to replace or implement updates to the computer room's surveillance system and generators.
Update or replace, if warranted, the equipment based on the results of the evaluation.
2018-11-14

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2022-01-15 Completed: 0000-00-00
The surveillance system will be upgraded and deficiencies corrected as part of the ePACs installation on
campus. Status: Adhering

860
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile
17-P00053-164
Recommendation 1: Conduct an assessment of clearance devices to validate their effectiveness in detecting
required clearance levels, as part of the Office of Pesticide Programs' ongoing re-evaluation of structural
fumigants.
2016-12-12

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2018-11-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
Within two years of the final report, by November 30, 2018, OCSPP will validate and implement new
device clearance guidance. Status: Delayed

17-P00395-164
Recommendation 1: Develop and implement a plan to reduce excess Pesticides Reregistration and
Expedited Processing Fund and Pesticide Registration Fund balances within the established target range.
2017-09-18

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
Assess progress in achieving 2020 spend down projections, as described in 11/13/17 memo from OCSPP to
OIG entitled "Response to Final Report: EPA Needs to Manage Pesticide Funds More Efficiently," Report
No. 17-P-0395. Status: Adhering


Corrective Action 1-2: Planned: 2021-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
Assess progress in achieving 2021 spend down projections, as described in 11/13/17 memo from OCSPP to
OIG entitled "Response to Final Report: EPA Needs to Manage Pesticide Funds More Efficiently," Report
No. 17-P-0395. Status: Adhering

18-P00080-164
Recommendation 1: The Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, in
coordination with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance:
1. Develop and implement a methodology to evaluate the impact of the revised Agricultural Worker
Protection Standard on pesticide exposure incidents among target populations.
2018-02-15

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2022-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
CA 1 -- OCSPP will: (1) collect and review data related to the extent to which agricultural workers obtain
knowledge through trainings; (2) collect and review incident data; and (3) after reviewing training and
incident data, analyze the need to collect additional information to help evaluate the impact of the revised
Worker Protection Standard. These efforts, as well as a detailed timeline for completion of specific
milestones, are described in the Agency's 2/25/19 Response to the OIG"s Final Report. After reviewing
training and incident data, OCSPP will consider the need to collect additional information to help evaluate
the impact of the revised Worker Protection Standard. EPA will examine the potential for additional sources
of information that might contribute to a better understanding of the rule's impact by December 2022.
Target Completion Date: OCSPP will complete a Final Report on the three efforts described below by
December 31, 2022. Status: Adhering

18-P00281-164
Recommendation 1: Develop and implement applicable outcome-based performance measures to
demonstrate the human health and environmental effects of the EPA's emergency exemption decisions.
2018-09-25
861
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
By June 30, 2020, OCSPP will develop a relevant outcome measure or measures that better demonstrates
the way the emergency exemption process, supported by scientific risk assessment, maintains environmental
and human health safeguards. Possible indicators include the number of Section 18s that transition to full
Section 3 approval (with exceptions) overtime. Status: Adhering

Recommendation 2: Develop concise emergency exemption application guidance that specifies the
minimum requirements of an application submission and is available on the Office of Pesticide Programs
Section 18 website.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
By September 30, 2020, OCSPP will identify and add additional information to its website that assists
applicants in accurately and consistently completing applications for Section 18 emergency exemptions on
their first submission. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 3: Provide clear guidance to state lead agencies on how and when they can use efficacy
data from other state lead agencies to satisfy the emergency exemption application criteria.
Corrective Action 3-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
By September 30, 2020, OCSPP will use the appropriate venue or information process to inform the
applicants and other stakeholders that data submitted in the emergency exemption application to address the
expected efficacy of a proposed use do not need to be state-specific. If suitable, this may be incorporated
into the additional information added to the website under Recommendation 5. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 4: Expand the data presented in the Office of Pesticide Programs Section 18 database by
considering additional data points, such as application acreage requested, actual acreage applied and
registration status of each exempted pesticide.
Corrective Action 4-1: Planned: 2020-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
By June 3, 2020, OCSPP will expand the Emergency Exemption Public Database by including, for
example, requested application acreage, actual application acreage, and current registration status of each
approved emergency exemption use. Status: Adhering
19-P00195-164
Recommendation 1: Complete the actions and milestones identified in the Office of Pesticide Programs'
PRIA Maintenance Fee Risk Assessment document and associated plan regarding the fee payment and
refund posting processes.
2019-06-21

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
OCSPP/OPP will complete the actions and milestones identified in the Office of Pesticide Programs' PRIA
Maintenance Fee Risk Assessment document and associated plan regarding the fee payment and refund
posting processes by 12/31/2020. Status: Adhering

862
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile
19-P00275-164
Recommendation 1: Using survey data, determine how the EPA will assist states with implementing their
Managed Pollinator Protection
Plans.
2019-08-15
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
Duplicate/erroneous entry. Please delete. Status: Adhering
Corrective Action 1-2: Planned: 2020-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OCSPP accepts this recommendation and plans to interact with and engage States and Tribal Nations that
choose to develop pollinator protection programs. OCSPP projects that this task can be completed in June
2020. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 2: Determine whether and how the EPA will help states address additional areas of
concern, such as chronic pesticide
risks and other limitations identified by stakeholders, through their Managed Pollinator Protection Plan
implementation efforts.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2020-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
CA 4: OCSPP accepts this recommendation to determine whether and how the EPA will help States and
Tribal Nations that choose to develop pollinator protection programs address additional areas of concern
(e.g., chronic pesticide risks), while respecting the boundaries in which the EPA works with States/Tribal
Nations to promote these voluntary plans. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 3: Develop and implement a strategy that will use Managed Pollinator Protection Plan
survey data to measure the national impact of the Managed Pollinator Protection Plans.
Corrective Action 3-1: Planned: 2020-02-28 Completed: 0000-00-00
CA 1: The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) accepts this recommendation and
will develop and implement a strategy that utilizes the AAPCO/SFIREG survey data to measure the
effectiveness of state Managed Pollinator Protection Plans from a national perspective. OCSPP will develop
and implement this strategy by February 2020. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 4: Using survey data, fully communicate to states what Managed Pollinator Protection
Plan implementation assistance is
available from the EPA and how this assistance will be provided.
Corrective Action 4-1: Planned: 2020-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OCSPP accepts this recommendation to communicate to states what Managed Pollinator Protection Plan
implementation assistance is available from EPA and how this assistance is to be provided in the future. To
accomplish this goal, OCSPP will develop a presentation on the results of the AAPCO/SFIREG survey and
on MP3 implementation assistance for states and will deliver that presentation to SFIREG by June 2020. In
863
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

addition, OCSPP will continue to communicate regularly with states on these issues and will maintain
pollinator protection as a standing agenda item in discussions with the SFIREG. Status: Adhering

Recommendation 5: Determine how the EPA can use the Managed Pollinator Protection Plan survey results
to advance its National Program Manager Guidance goals and its regulatory mission.
Corrective Action 5-1: Planned: 2021-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OCSPP accepts the recommendation to utilize the AAPCO/SFIREG survey results to advance the
program's National Program Management Goals (NPMG1). OCSPP will use the information provided from
the AAPCO/SFIREG survey to revise applicable NPMGs at the next available opportunity in the cycle of
NPMG planning. OCSPP projects this task will be completed in June 2021. Status: Adhering
19-P00302-164
Recommendation 1: Establish the Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule Program's
objectives, goals and measurable outcomes, such as measures to demonstrate the effectiveness of program
contributions toward decreasing elevated blood lead levels.
2019-09-09
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
OCSPP will develop one or more performance measures to meaningfully demonstrate the effectiveness of
the Lead RRP program's contributions to the protection of public health and the environment. Status:
Adhering
Recommendation 2: Establish specific guidelines for resources and funding allocated to the Lead-Based
Paint Renovation, Repair and
Painting Rule Program that will further the goals of the Federal Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead
Exposures and Associated Health Impacts.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
OCSPP will establish guidelines for resources and funding allocated to the Lead-Based Paint RRP Rule
Program that will further the goals of the Federal Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures and
Associated Health Impacts. Status: Adhering
18-P00240-166
Recommendation 1: Build capacity for managing the use of citizen science, and expand awareness of citizen
science resources, by:
a.	Finalizing the checklist on administrative and legal factors for agency staff to consider when developing
citizen science projects, as well as identifying and developing any procedures needed to ensure compliance
with steps in the checklist;
b.	Conducting training and/or marketing on the EPA's citizen science intranet site for program and regional
staff in developing projects; and
c.	Finalizing and distributing materials highlighting project successes and how the EPA has used results of
its investment in citizen science.
2018-09-05
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
864
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

ORD will consult with OGC and other relevant EPA programs and regions to finalize the checklist on
administrative and legal factors for agency staff to consider when developing citizen science projects. ORD
will conduct training and marketing for program and regional staff. Finally, ORD will have an active
communication and outreach strategy that will include communications materials highlighting project
successes and how EPA has used results of its investment in citizen science. Status: Adhering

Recommendation 2: Finalize, in coordination with the Office of Environmental Information and Region 1,
the Draft Quality Assurance Handbook for Citizen Science, and communicate to agency staff and citizen
science groups the availability and content of this handbook.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
ORD and OEI will jointly finalize the Draft Quality Assurance Handbook for Citizen Science because the
EPA's Office of Environmental Information has the responsibility for the Agency's Quality System,
including issuance of national Quality Assurance guidance, and EPA's Office of Research and Development
has the responsibility for building the Agency's capacity for managing the use of citizen science. After
issuing the report, EPA will implement an external and internal outreach and communications plan to help
EPA, states and tribes, and citizen science groups to strengthen quality assurance practices. Status:
Adhering
19-P00123-166
Recommendation 1: Verify and update information for Regional Applied Research Effort projects in the
Regional Science Program Tracker.
2019-04-18
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-10-01 Completed: 0000-00-00
ORD concurs with this recommendation. As the OIG highlighted in the report on page 6, the RSP Tracker
was launched in 2015 and includes new data fields that were not originally required for older projects. RSLs
and OSP will verify and update information for all RARE projects in the RSP Tracker that were funded in
2015 and beyond. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 2: Update the Regional Applied Research Effort Program Annual Process Guidelines to
require that Regional Science Liaisons use the Regional Science Program Tracker and increase awareness of
the system among regional staff as a one-stop source of information on regional research projects.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2020-10-01 Completed: 0000-00-00
ORD concurs with this recommendation. Prior to sending out the latest solicitation in October 2018, ORD
amended the RARE guidelines to clarify that RSLs are responsible for entering project data in the tracker
and that ORD leads are responsible for providing that information to RSLs. Additionally, the draft RSL
Implementation Plan identifies best practices for RSLs, including: 1) Hosting events in regions related to
RARE, RESES and other Regional Science Program opportunities. 2) Highlighting the RSP tracker
database as a one-stop source of information on regional research projects. ORD also plans to perform the
following outreach on the RSP Tracker: 1) Hosting webinars on the existing RSP tracker for ORD and the
865
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

regions in coordination with the RSLs. 2) Developing a communication plan to roll out the fully revised
RSP Tracker to ORD and the regions. Status: Adhering

Recommendation 3: Complete data entry of all Regional Sustainability and Environmental Sciences projects
into the Regional Science Program Tracker.
Corrective Action 3-1: Planned: 2020-10-01 Completed: 0000-00-00
ORD concurs with this recommendation. ORD will continue to work with the support contractor to expand
the RSP Tracker infrastructure to include RESES projects. ORD will work with the RSLs to complete data
entry of RESES project records into the RSP tracker. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 4: Update the Regional Science Program Tracker to improve Regional Applied Research
Effort/Regional Sustainability and Environmental Sciences project tracking by including:
a.	A timeline with significant dates/milestones and events.
b.	Significant products/outputs that stem from a project, including interim products/outputs to show project
progress prior to completion/final report.
c.	A feature to prompt staff to add impacts and/or evidence of use of project results in decision-making.
Corrective Action 4-1: Planned: 2020-10-01 Completed: 0000-00-00
ORD concurs with this recommendation. 3a and b: ORD will continue working with the support contractor
to redesign and reconfigure RSP Tracker data fields to more intuitively display key milestones, status
updates and interim and final project products. 3c: ORD plans to update the RSP Tracker data fields to
capture project impacts at project completion and post-completion. ORD will enable the system to send
post-completion prompts to RARE and RESES project teams to add evidence of use and impacts of project
results. Status: Adhering
19-P00277-166
Recommendation 1:1. Submit to the Office of Management and Budget for review an information
collection request to be allowed to survey more than nine nonfederal external customers regarding research
products meeting customer needs. Should the Office of Management and Budget not grant approval of the
information collection request, develop alternatives to assess non-federal external customer satisfaction to
more fully inform reporting under the strategic measure.
2019-08-19
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2021-07-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
ORD will complete the ICR to survey external stakeholders of ORD's scientific research products and
submit it to OMB for approval. In the event that OMB rejects the ICR, ORD will work to identify
alternative data collection methods that will capture non-federal customer satisfaction. If this were the case,
ORD would plan to begin collecting non-federal customer satisfaction data in accordance with Fiscal Year
2021 data collection. July 30, 2021 in the event that OMB rejects the ICR. Status: Adhering
866
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile
12-P00253-167
Recommendation 1: Id. Improve oversight of facilities regulated by EPA's oil pollution prevention program
by: Producing a biennial public assessment of the quality and consistency of SPCC Plans and FRPs based
on inspected facilities.
2012-02-0^
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2013-10-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
A summary of findings will be developed by October, 2013. These findings will help to identify areas
where additional guidance and outreach are needed to improve the quality and consistency of SPCC Plans.
July 2017 Update: The OLEM Acting AA approved the revision of this milestone date from 06/30/2017 to
06/30/2020. OEM is initiating work on the SPCC corrective action and will complete it by the end of
December 2018. OEM will then, based on the process developed for the SPCC corrective action, initiate
and complete the FRP corrective action by the end of June 2020. However, reduced extramural resources,
available personnel, program implementation priorities (including program/inspection support and training)
and new program priorities delay completion of this milestone. In addition, while the regulatory work
associated with and the SPCC rule amendments due to the Water Resources Reform and Development Act
(WRRDA) have been put on hold, any regulatory changes to the SPCC rule due to the pending FUELS
ACT may also shift priorities on the SPCC program.
(The OLEM Acting AA notified the OIG AIG, Carolyn Copper, via email on 07/07/2017.)
December 2014 Update: The OSWER AA approved the revision of this milestone date from 10/30/13 to
12/31/14. However, reduced extramural resources and available personnel, program implementation
priorities including inspections, and new priority concerns for oil spill response associated with increased
oil transportation have delayed, and will continue to delay, effort on this milestone for at least a year or
more. In addition, recent enactment of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) place
priority responsibilities on the SPCC program for the next 2 years. Consequently, action on this corrective
action cannot begin before June, 2017.
December 2013 Update: The OSWER AA approved the revision of this milestone date from 10/30/13 to
12/31/14. Work to complete revisions to the Guidance for Inspectors, review of Keystone pipeline
environmental impact analyses, reduced extramural resources and available personnel, completion of
targeting and close-out inspection memo policy guidelines, program implementation priorities including
inspections, and furloughs have delayed effort on this milestone. By June 2014, we will collect SPCC Plans
and Inspection reports from the regions according to a pilot protocol we've developed. This step will be
followed by review, assessment, determination of next steps and summarization of findings for completion
867
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

by 12/31/14. (The OIG was notified via an email from the OSWERAAto Art Elkins on 12/19/13.) Status:
Delayed

Corrective Action 1-2: Planned: 2013-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
The model developed for the SPCC program will then be used to develop a review protocol for FRPs by
September, 2013, to examine FRP inspections conducted during the FY 2013 inspection cycle.
July 2017 Update: The OLEM Acting AA approved the revision of this milestone date from 06/30/2017 to
06/30/2020. OEM is initiating work on the SPCC corrective action and will complete it by the end of
December 2018. OEM will then, based on the process developed for the SPCC corrective action, initiate
and complete the FRP corrective action by the end of June 2020. However, reduced extramural resources,
available personnel, program implementation priorities (including program/inspection support and training)
and new program priorities delay completion of this milestone. In addition, while the regulatory work
associated with and the SPCC rule amendments due to the Water Resources Reform and Development Act
(WRRDA) have been put on hold, any regulatory changes to the SPCC rule due to the pending FUELS
ACT may also shift priorities on the SPCC program.
(The OLEM Acting AA notified the OIG AIG, Carolyn Copper, via email on 07/07/2017.)
December 2014 Update: The OSWER AA approved the revision of this milestone date from 10/30/13 to
12/31/14. However, reduced extramural resources and available personnel, program implementation
priorities including inspections, and new priority concerns for oil spill response associated with increased
oil transportation have delayed, and will continue to delay, effort on this milestone for at least a year or
more. In addition, recent enactment of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) place
priority responsibilities on the SPCC program for the next 2 years. Consequently, action on this corrective
action cannot begin before June, 2017.
December 2013 Update: The OSWER AA approved the revision of this milestone date from 12/31/13 to
12/31/14. Work to complete revisions to the Guidance for Inspectors, review of Keystone pipeline
environmental impact analyses, reduced extramural resources and available personnel, completion of
targeting and close-out inspection memo policy guidelines, program implementation priorities including
inspections, and furloughs have delayed effort on this milestone. By June 2014, we will collect SPCC Plans
and Inspection reports from the regions according to a pilot protocol we've developed. This step will be
followed by review, assessment, determination of next steps and summarization of findings for completion
by 12/31/14. (The OIG was notified via an email from the OSWER AA to Art Elkins on 12/19/13.)
868
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

September 2013 Update: The OSWER AA approved the revision of this milestone date from 09/30/13 to
December 31, 2013. Although preliminary work of an SPCC pilot is essentially complete, collection of
Plans from the regions and their review and evaluation is delayed due to availability of HQ staff and
furloughs, and other priority assignments including Keystone XL review, an oil pipeline spill, SPCC and
FRP compliance reviews, responses to legislative initiatives on farms and SPCC and completion of the
SPCC Guidance for Inspectors. Status: Delayed

Corrective Action 1-3: Planned: 2014-10-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
A summary of findings will be developed by October 2014. These findings will help to identify areas where
additional guidance and external outreach are needed to improve the quality and consistency of FRPs.
July 2017 Update: The OLEM Acting AA approved the revision of this milestone date from 06/30/2017 to
06/30/2020. OEM is initiating work on the SPCC corrective action and will complete it by the end of
December 2018. OEM will then, based on the process developed for the SPCC corrective action, initiate
and complete the FRP corrective action by the end of June 2020. However, reduced extramural resources,
available personnel, program implementation priorities (including program/inspection support and training)
and new program priorities delay completion of this milestone. In addition, while the regulatory work
associated with and the SPCC rule amendments due to the Water Resources Reform and Development Act
(WRRDA) have been put on hold, any regulatory changes to the SPCC rule due to the pending FUELS
ACT may also shift priorities on the SPCC program.
(The OLEM Acting AA notified the OIG AIG, Carolyn Copper, via email on 07/07/2017.)
December 2014 Update: The OSWER AA approved the revision of this milestone date from 10/30/13 to
12/31/14. However, reduced extramural resources and available personnel, program implementation
priorities including inspections, and new priority concerns for oil spill response associated with increased
oil transportation have delayed, and will continue to delay, effort on this milestone for at least a year or
more. In addition, recent enactment of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) place
priority responsibilities on the SPCC program for the next 2 years. Consequently, action on this corrective
action cannot begin before June, 2017.
December 2013 Update: The OSWER AA approved the revision of this milestone date from 12/31/13 to
12/31/14. Work to complete revisions to the Guidance for Inspectors, review of Keystone pipeline
environmental impact analyses, reduced extramural resources and available personnel, completion of
targeting and close-out inspection memo policy guidelines, program implementation priorities including
inspections, and furloughs have delayed effort on this milestone. By June 2014, we will collect SPCC Plans
869
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

and Inspection reports from the regions according to a pilot protocol we've developed. This step will be
followed by review, assessment, determination of next steps and summarization of findings for completion
by 12/31/14. (The OIG was notified via an email from the OSWER AA to Art Elkins on 12/19/13.) Status:
Delayed

13-P00178-167
Recommendation 1: Revise inspection guidance to recommend minimum inspection scope for the various
types of facilities covered under the program and provide more detailed examples of minimum reporting.
2013-03-21
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2014-07-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
Publish final guidance which specifies minimum inspection scope and examples for various types of
inspections to assist Regions in focusing their limited resources on the most significant issues at facilities.
May 2018 Update: The OLEM Acting AA approved the revision of this milestone date from February 28,
2019 to June 30, 2022. The new date is based on the completion date of RMP Reconsideration rule. OLEM
will need at least 2 years after its completion to start the development of guidance which will specify the
minimum inspection scope for each of the facility types regulated by the RMP program and revise reporting
guidance to provide detailed examples of compliance. Following completion of the final regulation, EPA
will be required to revise the RMP on-line reporting system and over a dozen guidance documents to
incorporate the regulatory changes. This effort will take 2-3 years and must be completed in that timeframe
to give facilities time to review the guidance and comply with the new requirements under the RMP
program. Therefore, this action item should be delayed until after the completion of that work. (The OLEM
Acting AA notified the OIG via email on May 15, 2018.)
For recommendation #1: July 2017 Update: The OLEM Acting AA approved the revision of this milestone
date from September 30, 2018 to February 2019. This action requires development of guidance which will
specify the minimum inspection scope for each of the facility types regulated by the RMP program and
revise reporting guidance to provide detailed examples of compliance. Recently, EPA published a final rule
extending the effective date on the January 2017 revised RMP rule to February 2019. For the next 20
months, EPA will be engaged in drafting and publishing a proposed and final rule. Following completion of
the final regulation, EPA will be required to revise the RMP on-line reporting system and over a dozen
guidance documents to incorporate the regulatory changes. This effort will take 2-3 years and must be
completed in that timeframe to give facilities time to review the guidance and comply with the new
requirements under the RMP program. Therefore, this action item should be delayed until after the
completion of that work. (The OLEM Acting AA notified the OIG AIG, Carolyn Copper, via email on
07/07/2017.)
870
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

March 2016 Update: The OLEM AA approved to revise the corrective action milestone date from
September 30, 2016, to September 30, 2018. This action requires development of guidance which will
specify the minimum inspection scope for each of the facility types regulated by the RMP program and
revise reporting guidance to provide detailed examples of compliance. Currently the Administration's
priority is to complete a final RMP regulation by late 2016/early 2017. Following completion of the final
regulation, EPA will be required to revise the RMP on-line reporting system and over a dozen guidance
documents to incorporate the regulatory changes. This effort will take 2-3 years and must be completed in
that timeframe to give facilities time to review the guidance and comply with the new requirements under
the RMP program. Therefore, this OIG action item must be delayed until after the completion of that work.
(The OIG was notified via an email from the OLEM AA to Art Elkins on 03/11/2016.)
July 2014 Update: The OSWER AA approved to revise the corrective action date from 07/31/14 to
09/30/16. This corrective action has been overtaken by actions and deadlines associated with
implementation of Executive Order 13650, Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security, which lays
out a comprehensive set of actions to advance chemical facility safety and security, including federal
coordination on inspections. We anticipate the guidance will take a year to complete once we start. (The
OIG was notified of this delay via an email from the OSWER AA to the Inspector General dated 07/30/14).
Status: Delayed

Recommendation 2: Develop and implement an inspection monitoring and oversight program to better
manage and assess the quality of program inspections, reports, supervisory oversight, and compliance with
inspection guidance.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2014-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
OSWER and OECA are working with the Regions to identify key components of a repository of inspection
reports in order to better ensure and assess the quality of RMP inspections. This repository system will be
developed by the end of FY2014.
May 2018 Update: The OLEM Acting AA approved the revision of this milestone date from February 28,
2020 to June 30, 2023. The new date is based on the completion date of RMP Reconsideration rule. OLEM
will need at least 3 years after its completion to start the development of an on-line system for the Regions
to file/submit each of their inspection reports. This system must allow for quality control and the ability to
not only assess the quality of the inspection reports but identify trends and issues at RMP facilities in order
to better target our inspection efforts. Following completion of the final regulation, EPA will be required to
revise the RMP on-line reporting system and over a dozen guidance documents to incorporate the regulatory
changes. This action will take approximately one year to complete following the completion of the guidance
871
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

in corrective action 1-1 above. Therefore, this action item should be delayed until after the completion of
that work. (The OLEM Acting AA notified the OIG via email dated May 15, 2018.)
For recommendation #2: July 2017 Update: The OLEM Acting AA approved the revision of this milestone
date from September 30, 2019 to February 2020. This action requires the development of an on-line system
for the Regions to file/submit each of their inspection reports. This system must allow for quality control
and the ability to not only assess the quality of the inspection reports but identify trends and issues at RMP
facilities in order to better target our inspection efforts. Recently, EPA published a final rule extending the
effective date on the January 2017 revised RMP rule to February 2019. For the next 20 months, EPA will be
engaged in drafting and publishing a proposed and final rule. Following completion of the final regulation,
EPA will be required to revise the RMP on-line reporting system and over a dozen guidance documents to
incorporate the regulatory changes. This action will take approximately one year to complete following the
completion of the guidance in corrective action 1-1 above. Therefore, this action item should be delayed
until after the completion of that work. (The OLEM Acting AA notified the OIG AIG, Carolyn Copper, via
email on 07/07/2017.)
March 2016 Update: The OLEM AA approved to revise the corrective action milestone date from March
30, 2017, to September 30, 2019. This action requires the development on an on-line system for the Regions
to file/submit each of their inspection reports. This system must allow for quality control and the ability to
not only assess the quality of the inspection reports but identify trends and issues at RMP facilities in order
to better target our inspection efforts. Currently the Administration's priority is to complete a final RMP
regulation by late 2016/early 2017. Following completion of the final regulation, EPA will be required to
revise the RMP on-line reporting system and over a dozen guidance documents to incorporate the regulatory
changes. This effort will take 2-3 years and must be completed in that timeframe to give facilities time to
review the guidance and comply with the new requirements under the RMP program. Therefore, this OIG
action item must be delayed until after the completion of that work. This action will take approximately one
year to complete following the completion of the guidance in corrective action 1-1 above. (The OIG was
notified via an email from the OLEM AA to Art Elkins on 03/11/2016.)
July 2014 Update: The OSWER AA approved to revise the corrective action date from 09/30/14 to
03/31/17. This corrective action has been overtaken by actions and deadlines associated with
implementation of Executive Order 13650, Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security, which lays
out a comprehensive set of actions to advance chemical facility safety and security, including federal
coordination on inspections. We anticipate the repository will take 18 months to 2 years to complete once

872
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

we start. (The OIG was notified of this delay via an email from the OSWER AA to the Inspector General
dated 07/30/14). Status: Delayed

18-P00059-167
Recommendation 1: RECOMMENDATION 2. Once the study in Recommendation 1 is complete, use the
information to develop appropriate risk management actions to mitigate any identified problems in line with
Agency practices for enterprise risk management under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123,
and determine whether additional controls, such as the requirement for full disclosure of all self-insured
environmental liabilities over corporate self-insurance, should be implemented and if corporate self-
insurance should continue as an option
2017-12-22
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
2. Once Recommendation 1 is complete, OLEM, with support from OECA, will use the information to
develop appropriate risk management actions to mitigate any identified problems in line with Agency
practices for enterprise risk management under OMB Circular A-123, and determine whether additional
controls, such as a requirement for full disclosure of all self-insured environmental liabilities in corporate
self-insurance demonstrations and/or disallowance of corporate self-insurance, should be pursued at that
time. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 2: RECOMMENDATION 3. Update standard operating procedures and data systems to
accommodate the implemented risk management actions.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2021-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
3. OLEM, with support from OECA, will update standard operating procedures and data systems to
accommodate the implemented risk management actions. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 3: RECOMMENDATION 4. Train staff on the implemented risk management actions.
Corrective Action 3-1: Planned: 2021-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
4. OLEM, with support from OECA, will train staff on the implemented risk management actions.
Status: Adhering
Recommendation 4: RECOMMENDATION 6. Develop and include procedures for checking with other
regions for facilities/sites with multiple self-insured liabilities in the standard operating procedures created
for Recommendation 5.
Corrective Action 4-1: Planned: 2020-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
6. In the RCRA program, EPA will inventory and assess existing guidance and/or SOPs, outline OLEM and
OECA roles and responsibilities for overseeing the validity of RCRA financial assurance instruments,
communicate existing guidance and/or SOPs to financial assurance community, and develop or update
SOPs and provide to financial assurance community. The RCRA program will develop and include
procedures for checking with other regions or states when facilities/sites with multiple self-insured
liabilities exist.
873
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

May 2019 Update: The OLEM Acting AA approved the revision of this milestone date from June 20, 2020
to September 30, 2021 as a result of the delay in launching the RCRAInfo Financial Assurance module
upgrade to version 6. New expected date delivery is 09/30/21. Acting OLEM AA, Barry Breen, notified
Acting IG Charles Sheehan on Tuesday, May 7, 2019. Status: Delayed

Recommendation 5: RECOMMENDATION 5. Develop standard operating procedures that outline the
Office of Land and Emergency Management and Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance roles
and responsibilities for overseeing the validity of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Superfund
financial assurance instruments.
Corrective Action 5-1: Planned: 2020-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
5. EPA will, for the RCRA program, inventory and assess existing guidance and/or SOPs, outline OLEM
and OECA roles and responsibilities for overseeing the validity of RCRA financial assurance instruments,
communicate existing guidance and/or SOPs to financial assurance community, and develop or update
SOPs and provide to financial assurance community.
May 2019 Update: The OLEM Acting AA approved the revision of this milestone date from June 20, 2020
to September 30, 2021 as a result of the delay in launching the RCRAInfo Financial Assurance module
upgrade to version 6. New expected date delivery is 09/30/21. Acting OLEM AA, Barry Breen, notified
Acting IG Charles Sheehan on Tuesday, May 7, 2019. Status: Delayed
Recommendation 6: RECOMMENDATION 7. Develop and include instructions on the steps to take when
an invalid financial assurance instrument (expired, insufficient in dollar amount, or not provided) is
identified in the standard operating procedures created for Recommendation 5 and collect information on
the causes of invalid financial assurance.
Corrective Action 6-1: Planned: 2020-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
7. In the RCRA program, EPA will inventory and assess existing guidance and/or SOPs, outline OLEM and
OECA roles and responsibilities for overseeing the validity of RCRA financial assurance instruments,
communicate existing guidance and/or SOPs to financial assurance community, and develop or update
SOPs and provide to financial assurance community.
The RCRA program will develop and include in the guidance and/or SOPs: (1) instructions on the steps to
take when an invalid financial assurance instrument (expired, insufficient in dollar amount, or not provided)
is identified and (2) where and when to collect and document causes of invalid financial assurance.
May 2019 Update: For corrective actions 5, 6 and 7, the OLEM Acting AA approved the revision of this
874
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

milestone date from June 20, 2020 to September 30, 2021 as a result of the delay in launching the
RCRAInfo Financial Assurance module upgrade to version 6. New expected date delivery is 09/30/21.
Acting OLEM AA, Barry Breen, notified Acting IG Charles Sheehan on Tuesday, May 7, 2019.
Status: Adhering


Recommendation 7: RECOMMENDATION 8. Train staff on the procedures and instructions developed for
Recommendations 5 through 7.


Corrective Action 7-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
8. In the RCRA program, EPA will hold webinar for EPA regions and states, add SOPs to existing training
materials, and evaluate financial assurance training needs and develop training plan for recommendations 5
through 7.


May 2019 Update: the OLEM Acting AA approved the revision of this milestone date from September 30,
2020 to December 31, 2021 as a result of the delay in launching the RCRAInfo Financial Assurance module
upgrade to version 6. New expected date delivery is 12/31/21. Acting OLEM AA, Barry Breen, notified
Acting IG Charles Sheehan on Tuesday, May 7, 2019. Status: Adhering

17-P00174-168
Recommendation 1:1. Provide updated guidance to states and tribes on clear and effective risk
communication methods for fish advisories, especially for high-risk groups. This guidance could
recommend posting fish advisory information at locations where fish are caught; and using up-to-date
communication methods that include social media, webinars, emails, newsletters, etc.
2017-04-12

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-03-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
Develop a draft updated version of Volume 4: Risk Communication of the Guidance for Assessing
Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Status: Adhering


Recommendation 2:2. Working with states and tribes, develop and disseminate best practices they can use
to measure evaluate the effectiveness of fish advisories in providing risk information to subpopulations,
such as subsistence fishers, tribes and other high fish-consuming groups.


Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2020-03-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
EPA concurs with the end goal of the recommendation - making sure high-risk subpopulations receive
information on risks of eating certain fish. EPA understands the benefits of evaluating the effectiveness of
fish advisory programs and agrees that working with the states and tribes in that area would benefit the fish
advisory programs as well as the fishing population. Status: Adhering

18-P00221-168
Recommendation 1:2. Include in the revised Lead and Copper Rule the most protective protocols for
monitoring and corrosion control.
2018-07-19

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2019-02-28 Completed: 0000-00-00
OW concurs with this recommendation regarding the importance of proper implementation of the protocol

875
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

for monitoring and corrosion control, and we continue to work on the long-term revisions to the existing
LCR. Most recently, OW engaged stakeholders as part of a federalism consultation. The Agency is
evaluating input we received from our state, local and tribal partners as well as the best available peer-
reviewed science to ensure the Rule reflects the best ways to
improve public health protection. Status: Delayed


Recommendation 2: 9. Improve oversight by establishing a clear and credible escalation policy for EPA
intervention in states. The policy should provide steps the EPA will take when states do not act.


Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2019-07-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
OECA and OW concur with this recommendation. On August 15, 2017, Administrator Pruitt reaffirmed
EPA's Policy on Elevation of Critical Environmental and Public Health Issues. The Administrator directed
EPA staff to elevate concerns quickly and directed the Regions to inform headquarters of any issues that are
elevated under this policy.
OECA is providing training on the use of SDWA Section 1431 authority. In implementing the
recommendation from the OIG's SDWA Section 1431 Management Alert in October 2016 for 18-P-0221
57
OECA to update the 1991 SDWA Section 1431 guidance, over the past year, OECA worked with several
Regions, OW and OGC to develop updates to the guidance. OECA is also conducting trainings on Section
1431 and the updated guidance. OECA is currently considering the possibility of a national initiative to
promote improved drinking water compliance. EPA has initiated a workgroup with participation from
OECA, OW and the Regions. The workgroup will explore how best to use drinking water data and
measures to identify public water systems that present or are likely to present a significant risk to public
health. The workgroup will develop procedures and strategies to ensure timely and effective EPA
intervention where a state's response to the risk is insufficient to protect the public's health. OECA will
seek state input on whether to create a new national initiative to improve drinking
water compliance starting in June 2018, and then will seek public comment in November 2018. OECA
expects to make a decision after this engagement process by July 2019. Status: Delayed




Recommendation 3:1. Establish controls to annually verify that states are monitoring compliance with all
Lead and Copper Rule requirements, including accurately identifying tier 1 sampling sites and maintaining
continuous corrosion control.


Corrective Action 3-1: Planned: 2019-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
In December 2018, EPA will hold a meeting with the regional branch chiefs to review and update the
protocol used for the FY2018 annual Public Water System program reviews. As part of this review, EPA
will amend the Public Water System program review protocol as needed to verify that states are

876
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

implementing Lead and Copper Rule requirements. The changes made will be implemented in the FY2019
and future annual program reviews. Status: Delayed

19-P00002-168
Recommendation 1: Issue updated and consistent guidance on biosolids fecal coliform sampling practices.
2018-11-15
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
Recommendation #8 Status: Adhering
Recommendation 2: Publish guidance on the methods for the biosolids pathogen alternatives 3 and 4.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
Recommendation #6 Status: Adhering
Recommendation 3: Develop and implement a plan to obtain the additional data needed to complete risk
assessments and finalize safety determinations on the 352 identified pollutants in biosolids and promulgate
regulations as needed.
Corrective Action 3-1: Planned: 2022-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
For Recommendation 4, the EPA agreed with this recommendation. The initial corrective action did not
fully address the intent of the recommendation. After our meeting on September 17, 2018, the EPA
provided acceptable corrective actions and a planned completion date. In addition to the EPA's work on
improving the biennial review process, the Office of Water established a performance measure for biennial
reviews. This recommendation is resolved with corrective actions pending. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 4: Complete development of the probabilistic risk assessment tool and screening tool for
biosolids land application scenarios.
Corrective Action 4-1: Planned: 2021-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
For Recommendation 3, the agency agreed with the recommendation and offered an acceptable corrective
action but did not provide a specific completion date. After our meeting on September 17, 2018, the Office
of Water provided an acceptable completion date. This recommendation is resolved with corrective actions
pending. Status: Adhering
19-P00318-168
Recommendation 1: Define for primacy agencies and public water systems acceptable methods and
conditions under which the electronic
delivery of Tiers 2 and 3 notices meet the Safe Drinking Water Act's direct delivery requirement.
2019-09-25
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
3.1	The EPA will issue a memorandum that discusses and clarifies the appropriate electronic delivery
methods for Tier 2 and Tier 3.
3.2	Following the issuance of the memorandum, the EPA will host a training session for primacy agencies,
public water systems and other water sector stakeholders to understand the appropriate mechanisms to
utilize for electronic delivery of public notifications. Status: Adhering
877
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

Recommendation 2: Update the EPA's drinking water program review protocols to include steps for
reviewing Tier 3 notices and for citing
primacy agencies that do not retain complete public notice documentation.

Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2021-01-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
4.1	The EPA will update the review protocol to address PN record keeping requirements in the summary
report.
4.2	The Agency recommends using the SDWA PWSS Annual Program Review as the most effective tool
for reviewing Tier 3 PN implementation. After discussion between the OIG and the EPA, the OIG agreed
with the EPA recommendation, and intends to update the report to reflect this. The EPA will update the
PWSS program review protocol to include review for Tier 3 PN for the next two consecutive fiscal years.
Status: Complete
Recommendation 3: Update and revise the 2010 Public Notification Handbooks to include:
a.	Public notice delivery methods that are consistent with regulations.
b.	Information on modern methods for delivery of public notice.
c.	Public notice requirements for the latest drinking water regulations.
d.	Procedures for public water systems to achieve compliance after violating a public notice regulation.
e.	Up-to-date references to compliance assistance tools.
f.	Additional resources for providing public notice in languages other than English.
Corrective Action 3-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
6.1 The EPA will revise the Public Notification Handbook per OJG"s Status: Adhering
Recommendation 4: Update and revise the 2010 Revised State Implementation Guidance for the Public
Notification Rule to include:
a.	Public notice delivery methods that are consistent with regulations.
b.	Information on modern methods for delivery of public notice.
Corrective Action 4-1: Planned: 2020-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
5.1 The EPA will revise the State Implementation Guidance per OIG"s
recommendation. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 5: Implement a strategy and internal controls to improve the consistency of public notice
violation data available in the EPA's new national drinking water database, including the review and update
of open public notice violations prior to migrating
the data to the new database.
878
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

Corrective Action 5-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
9.1	The EPA will identify appropriate methods for primacy agencies to resolve outstanding PN violations.
OECA and OW will jointly issue a new memo similar to the 2011 memo "Guidance for SDWA Primacy
Agencies on How to Enter Resolving Action Codes into SDWIS for Past Public Notice Violations and
Clarification on How to Address Public Notification Violations in Certain Circumstances."
9.2	Following the issuance of the memorandum, the OECA and OW will provide training for regional and
primacy agency staff. Status: Adhering

Recommendation 6: Conduct a national review of the adequacy of primacy agency implementation,
compliance monitoring, reporting and
enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act's public notice requirements.
Corrective Action 6-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
7.1	The EPA's OECA and OW will conduct a national review of the
adequacy of primacy agency implementation, compliance monitoring, reporting, and enforcement of the
SDWA PN requirements.
7.2	OECA will pilot test a new framework for regional review of
primacy agency response to violations, including whether public notice
requirements are met. Upon completion of the pilot, OECA will review the results and, if the approach is
effective, will finalize the framework and implement a national program for periodic regional reviews of
primacy agencies. Status: Adhering
17-P00412-180
Recommendation 1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance: 1. Establish national compliance monitoring goals based on assessment and consideration of
available regional resources.
2017-09-28
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2019-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
September 2019 -OECA continues to draft the responsive document and additional reviews must be
completed. The time expected to complete reviews and revisions, requires an extension.
Assessment and consideration of available regional resources for inspections are already conducted and is
represented by Annual Commitment System. (For non-inspection import related compliance assurance
activities, identify opportunities for strengthening internal controls, establishing goals, communicating
progress of regional accomplishments). Status: Delayed
Recommendation 2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance: 2. Implement internal controls to monitor and communicate progress on regional goals.
879
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2019-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
September 2019 -OECA continues to draft the responsive document and additional reviews must be
completed. The time expected to complete reviews and revisions, requires an extension.
Assessment and consideration of available regional resources for inspections are already conducted and is
represented by Annual Commitment System. (For non-inspection import related compliance assurance
activities, identify opportunities for strengthening internal controls, establishing goals, communicating
progress of regional accomplishments). Status: Delayed

18-P00059-180
Recommendation 1: Once the study in Recommendation 1 is complete, implement the selected measure (la
or lb).
2017-12-22
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
2) Once recommendation 1 is complete, OLEM with support from OECA, will use the information to
develop appropriate risk management actions to mitigate any identified problems in line with Agency
practices for enterprise risk management under OMB Circular A-123, and determine whether additional
controls, such as a requirement for full disclosure of all self-insured environmental liabilities in corporate
self-insurance demonstrations and/or disallowance of corporate self-insurance, should be pursued at that
time. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 2: Update standard operating procedures and data systems to accommodate the changes
implemented for Recommendation 2
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2021-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
3) OLEM, w/support from OECA, will update SOPs and data systems to accommodate the implemented
risk management actions. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 3: Train staff on the changes implemented for Recommendation 2.
Corrective Action 3-1: Planned: 2021-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
4) OLEM, w/support from OECA will train staff on the implemented risk management actions Status:
Adhering
18-P00079-180
Recommendation 1:1. Develop and implement additional Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act guidance to assist Project Officers in evaluating whether funding is reasonable given projected work
plan tasks.
2018-02-13
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2019-11-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
November 2019 - OECA/OC requires additional time to complete the PO guidance. To date, interviews
have been conducted w/PO and the draft guidance has been prepared. However, the draft requires review by
OECA mgmt and the regional personnel, prior to implementation. Additional time is needed to complete
880
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

these tasks. Develop additional FIFRA guidance to assist POs in evaluating whether funding is reasonable
given projected work plan tasks. Status: Delayed

18-P00221-180
Recommendation 1:1. Establish controls to annually verify that states are monitoring compliance with all
Lead and Copper Rule requirements, including accurately identifying tier 1 sampling sites and maintaining
continuous corrosion control.
2018-07-19

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2019-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
October 2019: OECA notified OW and OCFO this corrective action is led by OW and OECA will not
update the activity for this action. Note supported by OW email 2/11/19)


February 2019 - OW confirmed OW meet with regional branch chiefs. Corrective action expected to be
completed by 9/30/19, as provided by OW email (S. Moore on 2/11/19).


In December 2018, EPA will hold a meeting with the regional branch chiefs to review and update the
protocol used for the FY 2018 annual Public Water System Supervision program reviews. As part of this
review, EPA will amend the Public Water System program review protocol as needed to verify that states
are implementing Lead and Copper Rule requirements. The changes will be implemented in FY 2019 and
the future annual program reviews. Status: Delayed

19-P00001-180
Recommendation 1: Enforce compliance by the investigators to submit, and the supervisors to approve, the
monthly activity reports supporting Law Enforcement Availability Pay within the required timeframes in
the Monthly Activity Reporting System Purpose, Requirements and Procedures Manual.
2018-11-06

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2019-10-01 Completed: 0000-00-00
October 2019: OECA/OCEFT continues to complete the new Case Reporting System, which includes a
revised MARS, this system will be called OCEAN. OECA continues to work on some remaining issues
before OCEAN goes live. At that time, MARS will be completed in OCEAN and will contain a new
automated approval and routing process. Supervisors will also be trained on the new process. Train
supervisors on updated process. Status: Delayed


Recommendation 2: Implement controls to improve timeliness of the annual certification process for Law
Enforcement Availability Pay.


Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2019-10-01 Completed: 0000-00-00
October 2019: OECA/OCEFT continues to complete the new Case Reporting System, which includes a
revised MARS, this system will be called OCEAN. OECA continues to work on some remaining issues
before OCEAN goes live. At that time, MARS will be completed in OCEAN and will contain a new
automated approval and routing process. Supervisors will also be trained on the new process. Revise MARS
reporting to automate approval and routing of electronic certification. Status: Delayed

881
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile
19-P00251-180
Recommendation 1: Develop and implement a plan for improving the consistency of stack test reviews
across EPA regions and delegated agencies.
2019-07-3O

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2019-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
la -OECA will develop a plan for improving the consistency of stack test reviews across EPA regions and
delegated agencies. Such enhanced compliance monitoring will help ensure the tool of stack testing is being
sufficiently and properly utilized. Status: Delayed


Recommendation 2: Develop and implement a plan for improving the consistency of stack test reviews
across EPA regions and delegated agencies.


Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2022-03-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
lb. OECA will implement a plan, in coordination with OAR and consistent with the activities undertaken
by OAR in addressing recommendations 2-3, for improving the consistency of stack test reviews across
EPA regions and delegated agencies. Such enhanced compliance monitoring will help ensure the tool of
stack testing is being sufficiently and properly utilized. Status: Adhering

19-P00318-180
Recommendation 1: Conduct a national review of the adequacy of primacy agency implementation,
compliance monitoring, reporting and
enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act's public notice requirements.
2019-09-25
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
7.1 The EPA"s OECA and OW will conduct a national review of the adequacy of primacy agency
implementation, compliance monitoring, reporting and enforcement of the SDWA PN requirements. Status:
Adhering
Recommendation 2: Conduct a national review of the adequacy of primacy agency implementation,
compliance monitoring, reporting and
enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act's public notice requirements.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
7.2 OECA will pilot test a new framework for regional review of primacy agency response to violations,
including whether public notice requirements are met. Upon completion of the pilot, OECA will review the
results and, if the approach is effective, will finalize the framework and implement a national program for
periodic regional reviews for primacy agencies. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 3: Implement a strategy and internal controls to improve the consistency of public notice
violation data available in the EPA's new national drinking water database, including the review and update
of open public notice violations prior to migrating
the data to the new database.
Corrective Action 3-1: Planned: 2020-06-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
9.1 The EPA will identify appropriate methods for primacy agencies to resolve outstanding PN violations.
882
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

OECA and OW will jointly issue a new memo similar to the 2011 memo, "Guidance for SDWA Primacy
Agencies on How to Enter Resolving Action Codes into SDWIS for Past Public Notice Violations and
Clarification on How to Address Public Notification Violations in Certain Circumstances." Status: Adhering

Recommendation 4: Implement a strategy and internal controls to improve the consistency of public notice
violation data available in the EPA's new national drinking water database, including the review and update
of open public notice violations prior to migrating
the data to the new database.
Corrective Action 4-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
9.2 Following the issuance of the memo, the OECA and OW will provide training for regional and primacy
agency staff. Status: Adhering
20-P00012-180
Recommendation 1: Require circuit riders to include the pesticide needs and risks of each tribe on their
circuit in the development of their
priority-setting plans, which are a required component of tribal pesticide enforcement cooperative
agreements.
2019-10-29
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
OECA agrees to develop INTERIM guidance which will require circuit riders to include the needs and risks
of each tribe on their circuit in the development of priority-setting plans, which are required component of
tribal pesticide enforcement cooperative agreements. Status: Adhering
Corrective Action 1-2: Planned: 2022-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
OECA agrees to develop FINAL guidance which will require circuit riders to include the needs and risks of
each tribe on their circuit in the development of priority-setting plans, which are required component of
tribal pesticide enforcement cooperative agreements. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 2: Develop and implement tribal circuit rider guidance for pesticide inspectors that
includes expectation-setting and
communication with tribes that are being served under a tribal pesticide enforcement cooperative
agreement.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
OECA agrees to develop INTERIM guidance for pesticide inspectors that includes expectation-setting and
communication with circuit tribes that are being served under a tribal pesticide enforcement cooperative
agreement. Status: Adhering
Corrective Action 2-2: Planned: 2022-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
883
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

OECA agrees to develop FINAL guidance for pesticide inspectors that includes expectation-setting and
communication with circuit tribes that are being served under a tribal pesticide enforcement cooperative
agreement. Status: Adhering


Recommendation 3: Develop and implement regional processes to receive feedback directly from tribes
using pesticide circuit riders.


Corrective Action 3-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
OECA agrees to develop Interim regional processes to receive feedback directly from tribes using pesticide
circuit riders. Status: Adhering


Corrective Action 3-2: Planned: 2022-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
OECA agrees to develop FINAL regional processes to receive feedback directly from tribes using pesticide
circuit riders. Status: Adhering

15-P00137-320
Recommendation 1: Develop a plan to address currently uncompleted tasks and activities, and develop a
schedule for reprogramming grant funds to accomplish these tasks if USVI does not or cannot complete
them. Upon completion of the financial management corrective actions, follow the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer's Resource Management Directive System 2520-03 to determine whether any of the
current unspent funds of approximately $37 million under the USVI assistance agreements could be put to
better use.
2015-04-17

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2018-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
The financial issues raised above have created severe restrictions on cash flow within VIDPNR, which has
curtailed hiring and procurement and, therefore, impacted its ability to implement delegated environmental
programs. Understaffing has led to delays in VIDPNR fulfilling outstanding work plan commitments. While
Region 2 has historically monitored DPNR's completion of these commitments, and continues to do so, we
recognize that the cash flow shortage has had a negative effect on the number of commitments completed.
The corrective actions we have outlined will produce increased cash flow to VIDPNR particularly after we
issue a "Declaration of Significant Progress." As the schedule indicates, full unrestricted advance access to
EPA funds is estimated for the end of FY 2018.


Region 2's strategy is to develop a programmatic corrective action plan after the financial situation
improves in DPNR and it has sufficient funds available to fully implement its environmental programs. In
the interim, we will continue to monitor its performance with respect to major commitments and address
significant issues. Once DPNR has sufficient funds, we will assess its program performance, identify
deficiencies and develop appropriate corrective actions.

884
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

Update 9/30/2015: During September 2015 Region 2 disbursed approximately $5 million of grant funds to
DPNR based on proper reporting of accounting adjustments. VI has successfully obtained EPA approval of
its methodology for properly distributing/allocating non-working hour costs and shared services costs
among federal grants, has implemented enhancements to the government-wide accounting system, has
submitted reimbursement request packages in anticipation of requesting EPA relaxation of payment
limitations under its grants in light of the recent significant progress it has achieved, and is working on
finalizing updates to its SOP manual for submittal to EPA as part of its request. We anticipate performing
an onsite review sometime in the Fall of FY 2019 to verify and confirm that VIDPNR has fully
implemented the required corrective actions, with issuance of a report sometime in the Winter of FY 2019.
Update 9/27/2018: VI has successfully obtained EPA approval of its methodology for properly
distributing/allocating non-working hour costs and shared services costs among federal grants, has
implemented enhancements to the government-wide accounting system, has submitted reimbursement
request packages in anticipation of requesting EPA relaxation of payment limitations under its grants in
light of the recent significant progress it has achieved, and is working on finalizing updates to its SOP
manual for submittal to EPA as part of its request. Region 2 anticipates performing an onsite review
sometime in the Fall of FY 2019 to verify and confirm that VIDPNR has fully implemented the required
corrective actions, with issuance of a report sometime in the Winter of FY 2019.
Update 3/27/2019: In December 2018 Region 2 issued notice to VI Dept. of Planning and Natural
Resources (VIDPNR) that it had achieved "substantial progress" on corrective actions for improvement of
management of EPA assistance agreements. This has allowed DPNR to catch up with assistance agreement
drawdowns, eliminating substantial unliquidated obligations. Region 2 plans a final step in consideration of
lifting VIDPNR's "High-Risk" designation status, that being an on-site visit in late 3rd/early 4th quarter FY
2019. Upon successful completion of the on-site review to confirm that remaining corrective actions have
been implemented, Region 2 will initiate formal removal of VIDPNR from "High-Risk" status. The new
estimated completion date is September 30, 2019.
Update 9/30/2019: In December 2018, Region 2 issued notice to VI Department of Planning and Natural
Resources (VIDPNR) that it had achieved "substantial progress" on corrective actions for improving the
management of EPA assistance agreements. This has allowed VIDPNR to catch up with assistance
agreement drawdowns, eliminating a substantial amount of unliquidated obligations. Region 2 plans a final
step in consideration of lifting VIDPNR's "High-Risk" designation status, that being an on-site visit in 1st
Quarter FY 2020 and a contingency date in early 2nd Quarter FY 2020. Upon successful completion of the

885
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile
on-site visit to confirm that remaining corrective actions have been implemented, Region 2 will initiate
formal removal of VIDPNR from "High-Risk" status. The new estimated completion date is March 31,
2020. Status: Delayed	
20-P00001-340
Recommendation 1:1. Direct the Water Division to finalize its standard operating procedure for disaster
response.	
2019-10-07
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-03-20 Completed: 0000-00-00
Corrective action for Recommendation 1—finalizing a standard operating procedure for disaster response—
is pending. Status: Adhering	
13-R00297-360
Recommendation 1: Recover federal funds of $2,904,578 unless the foundation provides a verifiable and
enforceable remedy to reduce diesel emissions in the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area, as required by
the cooperative agreement.	
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
Two of the five rebuilt locomotives will continue to operate in the Baton Rouge nonattainment area.
2014
Status of RRF 1st and 2nd Quarterly Reports per Gloria Vaughn on September 22, 2014: Table and pie
charts in 1st and 2nd qtr. 2014 reports show two locomotives continuing to operate in the Baton Rouge non-
attainment area.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting for the Period July 1 through September 30, and October 1 through
December 31, 2014 as of 1/15/2015: Table and pie charts in 3rd and 4th qtr. 2014 reports show two
locomotives continuing to operate in the Baton Rouge non-attainment area.
2015
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting for the Period January 1 through March 31, 2015 as of 4/15/15: Table
and pie charts in 1st Qtr 2015 report show two locomotives continuing to operate in the Baton Rouge non-
attainment area.
Status of RRF 2nd Quarterly Reporting for the Period April 1 through June 30, 2015 as of 7/20/15: Table
and pie charts in 2nd qtr. 2015 report show location of all of the locomotives.
Status of RRF 3rd Quarterly Reports for July 1 - September 30, 20915 per Gloria Vaughn on November 17,
2015: Table and pie charts in 3rd qtr. 2015 reports show two locomotives continuing to operate in the Baton
Rouge non-attainment area.	
2013-06-20
886
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

Status of RRF 4th Quarterly Reports (October 1 - December 31,2015) per Gloria Vaughn on January 29,
2016: Table and pie charts in 4th qtr. 2015 reports show two locomotives continuing to operate in the Baton
Rouge non-attainment area.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reports per Gloria Vaughn on June 14, 2016: Table and pie charts in 1st qtr. 2016
report show two locomotives continuing to operate in the Baton Rouge non-attainment area.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reports per Gloria Vaughn on August 2, 2016: Table and pie charts in 2nd qtr.
2016 report show two locomotives continuing to operate in the Baton Rouge non-attainment area.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reports per Gloria Vaughn on November 15, 2016: Table and pie charts in 3rd
quarter 2016 report show two locomotives continuing to operate in the Baton Rouge non-attainment area.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reports per William Rhea on March 2, 2017: Table and pie charts in 4th quarter
2016	report show two locomotives continuing to operate in the Baton Rouge non-attainment area.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reports per William Rhea on April 20, 2017: Table and pie charts in 1st quarter
2017	report show two locomotives continuing to operate in the Baton Rouge non-attainment area.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reports per William Rhea on July 18, 2017: Table and pie charts in 2nd quarter
2017 report show two locomotives continuing to operate in the Baton Rouge non-attainment area.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reports per William Rhea on October 18, 2017: Table and pie charts in 3rd quarter
2017 report show two locomotives continuing to operate in the Baton Rouge non-attainment area.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reports for October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 dated January 15, 2018
per William Rhea on February 5, 2018: Table and pie charts in 4th qtr. 2017 reports show two locomotives
continuing to operate in the Baton Rouge non-attainment area Status: Adhering

Corrective Action 1-2: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
The remaining three rebuilt locomotives will continue to operate between Baton Rouge and New Orleans
until economic conditions in Baton Rouge necessitate moving as many locomotives as possible back to the
Baton Rouge non-attainment area.
887
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

2014
Status of RRF 1st and 2nd Quarterly Reports, per Gloria Vaughn on September 22, 2014: Table and pie
charts in 1st and 2nd qtr. 2014 reports show three locomotives operating in the exception area.
Status of 3rd and 4th Quarters for the Period July 1 through September 30, and October 1 through
December 31, 2014 as of 1/15/2015: Table and pie charts in 3rd and 4th qtr. 2014 reports show three
locomotives operating in the exception area.
2015
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting forthe Period January 1 through March 31, 2015 (as of 4/15/15: Table
and pie charts 1st qtr. 2015 report show three locomotives operating in the exception area.
Status of RRF 2nd Quarterly Reporting forthe Period April 1 through June 30, 2015 as of 7/20/15: Table
and pie charts in 2nd qtr. 2015 report show three locomotives operating in the exception area.
Status of RRF 3rd Quarterly Report (July 1 through September 30, 2015) as ofNovember 17, 2015: Table
and pie charts in 3rd qtr. 2015 report show three locomotives operating in the exception area.
Status of RRF 4th Quarterly Report (October 1 through December 31, 2015) as of January 29, 2016: Table
and pie charts in 4th qtr. 2015 reports show three locomotives operating in the exception area.
Status of RRF January 1 through March 31, 2016 report. Table and pie charts in 1st qtr. 2016 reports show
three locomotives operating in the exception area.
Status of RRF April 1 through June 30, 2016 report. Table and pie charts in 2nd qtr. 2016 reports show
three locomotives operating in the exception area.
Status of RRF July 1 through September 30, 2016 report. Table and pie charts in 3rd quarter 2016 reports
show three locomotives operating in the exception area.
Status of RRF October 1 through December 31, 2016 report. Table and pie charts in 4th quarter 2016
reports show three locomotives operating in the exception area.
Status of RRF January 1 through March 31, 2017 report. Table and pie charts in 1st quarter 2017 reports

888
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

show three locomotives operating in the exception area.
Status of RRF April 1 through June 30, 2017 report. Table and pie charts in 2nd quarter 2017 reports show
three locomotives operating in the exception area.
Status of RRF July 1 through September 30, 2017 report. Table and pie charts in 3rd quarter 2017 reports
show three locomotives operating in the exception area.
Status of RRF October 1 through December 31, 2017 report. Table and pie charts in 4th qtr. 2017 reports
show three locomotives operating in the exception area Status: Adhering

Corrective Action 1-3: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
RRF will provide locomotive location data to EPA on a quarterly basis showing where the five locomotives
were operated.
2014
Status of RRF 1st and 2nd Quarterly Reports per Gloria Vaughn on September 22, 2014: Table and pie
charts in 1st and 2nd qtr. 2014 reports show location of all of the locomotives. Item 6 of the Amendment
requires that the supporting source documentation for the regular reports be maintained and available until
the final audit resolution in 2020. We did not receive the usage logs but they should be available to us if
requested.
Status of 3rd and 4th 2014 Quarterly Reporting for the Period July 1 through September 30, and October 1
through December 31, 2014 as of 1/15/2015: Table and pie charts in 3rd and 4th qtr. 2014 reports show
location of all of the locomotives.
2015
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting forthe Period January 1 through March 31, 2015 as of 4/15/15: Table
and pie charts in 1st qtr. 2015 report shows location of all of the locomotives.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting forthe Period April 1 through June 30, 2015 as of 7/20/15: Table and
pie charts in 2nd qtr. 2015 report shows location of all of the locomotives.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting forthe Period July 1 through September 30, 2015 as of 11/17/15: Table
and pie charts in 3rd qtr. 2015 report shows location of all of the locomotives.
889
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

Status of RRF 4th Quarterly Reporting for the Period October 1 through December 31, 2015 as of 1/29/16:
Table and pie charts in 4th qtr. 2015 reports shows location of all of the locomotives.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting forthe Period January 1 through March 31, 2016 as of 6/14/16: Table
and pie charts in 1st qtr. 2016 reports shows location of all of the locomotives.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting forthe Period April 1 through June 30, 2016 as of 8/2/16: Table and pie
charts in 2nd quarter 2016 reports shows location of all of the locomotives.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting forthe Period July 1 through September 30, 2016 as of 11/15/16: Table
and pie charts in 3rd quarter 2016 reports shows location of all of the locomotives.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting forthe Period October 1 through December 31, 2016 as of 01/19/17:
Table and pie charts in 4th quarter 2016 reports shows location of the 5 locomotives, 2 in Baton Rouge and
3 in excepted area.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting forthe Period January 1 through March 31, 2017 as of 04/20/17: Table
and pie chart in 1st quarter 2017 reports show location of the 5 locomotives, 2 in Baton Rouge and 3 in
excepted area.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting forthe Period April 1 through June 30, 2017 as of 07/18/17: Table and
pie chart in 2nd quarter 2017 reports show location of the 5 locomotives, 2 in Baton Rouge and 3 in
excepted area.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting forthe Period July 1 through September 30, 2017 as of 10/18/17: Table
and pie chart in 3rd quarter 2017 reports show location of the 5 locomotives, 2 in Baton Rouge and 3 in
excepted area.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting forthe Period October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 as of
1/15/18: Table and pie charts in 4th qtr. 2017 reports show location of the 5 locomotives, 2 in Baton Rouge
and 3 in excepted area. Status: Adhering

Corrective Action 1-4: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
As a penalty for noncompliance, RRF will remit to the U.S. EPA $4,841 for each locomotives for each
890
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

month any of the five locomotives are operated outside of the restricted area for more than 10 plus
consecutive days, outside the Baton Rouge non-attainment area and the Exception area (for other than
maintenance).
2014
Status of RRF 1st and 2nd Quarterly Reports per Gloria Vaughn on September 22, 2014: Table and pie
charts in 1st and 2nd qtr. 2014 reports show location of all of the locomotives. None have been stationed
more than 10 plus days outside of the Exception area.
Status of RRF 3rd and 4th Quarterly Reporting for the Period July 1, 2014 through September 30, 2014 and
October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 as of 1/15/2015: Table and pie charts in 3rd and 4th qtr. 2014
reports show location of all of the locomotives. None have been stationed more than 10 plus days outside of
the Exception area.
2015
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting for the Period January 1, 2015 through March 31, 2015 as of 4/15/15:
Table and pie charts 1st qtr. 2015 report show location of all of the locomotives. None have been stationed
more than 10 plus days outside of the Exception area.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting for the Period April 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015 as of 7/20/15: Table
and pie charts in 2nd qtr. 2015 report show location of all of the locomotives. None have been stationed
more than 10 plus days outside of the Exception area.
Status of RRF 3rd Quarterly Reporting for the Period July 1 through September 30, 2015 as of 11/17/16:
Table and pie charts 3rd qtr. 2015 report shows location of all of the locomotives. None have been stationed
more than 10 plus days outside of the Exception area.
Status of RRF 4th Quarterly Reporting for the Period October 1 through December 31, 2015 as of 1/29/16:
Table and pie charts in 4th qtr. 2015 report show location of all of the locomotives. None have been
stationed more than 10 plus days outside of the Exception area.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting for the Period January 1 through March 31, 2016 as of 6/14/16: Table
and pie charts in 1st qtr. 2016 report show location of all of the locomotives. None have been stationed
more than 10 plus days outside of the Exception area.

891
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting for the Period April 1 through June 30, 2016 as of 8/2/16: Table and pie
charts in 2nd qtr. 2016 report shows location of all of the locomotives. None have been stationed more than
10 plus days outside of the Exception area.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting for the Period July 1 through September 30, 2016 as of 11/15/16: Table
and pie charts in 3rd quarter 2016 report shows location of all of the locomotives. None have been stationed
more than 10 plus days outside of the Exception area.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting for the Period October 1 through December 31, 2016 as of 01/19/17:
Table and pie charts 4th quarter 2016 report show location of all of the locomotives. None have been
stationed more than 10 plus days outside of the Exception area unless they were in maintenance.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting for the Period January 1 through March 31, 2017 as of 04/20/17: Table
and pie charts 1st quarter 2017 report show location of all of the locomotives. None have been stationed
more than 10 plus days outside of the Exception area unless they were in maintenance.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting for the Period April 1 through June 30, 2017 as of 07/18/17: Table and
pie charts 2nd quarter 2017 report show location of all of the locomotives. None have been stationed more
than 10 plus days outside of the Exception area unless they were in maintenance.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting for the Period July 1 through September 30, 2017 as of 10/18/17: Table
and pie charts 3rd quarter 2017 report show location of all of the locomotives. None have been stationed
more than 10 plus days outside of the Exception area unless they were in maintenance.
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting for the Period October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 as of
1/15/18: Table and pie charts 4th quarter 2017 report show location of all of the locomotives. None have
been stationed more than 10 plus days outside of the Exception area unless they were in maintenance.
Status: Adhering

Corrective Action 1-5: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
Each of the five locomotives will operate in Baton Rouge area or the Exception area for 10 years after the
date each engine was placed back into service.
2014
892
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

Status of RRF 1st and 2nd Quarterly Reports per Gloria Vaugh on September 22, 2014: Table and pie charts
in 1st and 2nd qtr. 2014 reports show that all five of the locomotives are operating in the Baton Rouge area
or the exception area.
Status of RRF 3rd and 4th Quarterly Reporting for the Period July 1 through September 30, 2014 and
October 1 through December 31, 2014 as of 1/15/2015: Table and pie charts in 3rd and 4th qtr. 2014 reports
show that all five of the locomotives are operating in the Baton Rouge area or the exception area.
2015
Status of RRF Quarterly Reporting forthe Period January 1 through March 31, 2015 as of 4/15/15: Table
and pie charts in 1st qtr. 2015 report shows that all five of the locomotives are operating in the Baton Rouge
area or the exception area.
Status of RRF 2nd Quarterly Reporting forthe Period April 1 through June 30, 2015 as of 7/20/15: Table
and pie charts in 2nd qtr. 2015 report shows that all five of the locomotives are operating in the Baton
Rouge area or the exception area.
Table and pie charts in 3rd qtr. 2015 (July 1 - September 30) as of November 17, 2015 reports show that all
five of the locomotives are operating in the Baton Rouge area or the exception area.
Table and pie charts in 4th qtr. 2015 report as of January 29, 2016 shows that all five of the locomotives are
operating in the Baton Rouge area or the exception area.
Table and pie charts in 1st qtr. 2016 report shows that all five of the locomotives are operating in the Baton
Rouge area or the exception area.
Table and pie charts in 2nd quarter 2016 report shows that all five of the locomotives are operating in the
Baton Rouge area or the exception area.
Table and pie charts in 3rd quarter 2016 report shows that all five of the locomotives are operating in the
Baton Rouge area or the exception area.
Table and pie charts in 4th quarter 2016 reports show that all five of the locomotives are operating in the
Baton Rouge area or the exception area.

893
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

Table and pie charts in 1st quarter 2017 reports show that all five of the locomotives are operating in the
Baton Rouge area or the exception area.
Table and pie charts in 2nd quarter 2017 reports show that all five of the locomotives are operating in the
Baton Rouge area or the exception area.
Table and pie charts in 3rd quarter 2017 reports show that all five of the locomotives are operating in the
Baton Rouge area or the exception area.
Table and pie charts in 4th quarter 2017 reports show that all five of the locomotives are operating in the
Baton Rouge area or the exception area. Status: Adhering

14-P00109-360
Recommendation 1: Direct COs to require that the contractor adjust all its billings to reflect the application
of the correct rate to team subcontract ODCs.
2014-02-04
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2024-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
Region 6 concurs with Recommendation No. 3 and agrees to require the contractor to adjust all of its past
billings to reflect the application of the composite rate to team-subcontractor ODCs that were arranged for
and paid for by the team-subcontractor. We intend to implement the corrective action when final indirect
cost rates (OCR) are established. Therefore, the CO will be directed to defer past billing adjustments until
the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audits the indirect cost rates and the EPA Financial
Administrative Contracting Officer (FACO) negotiates, approves and issues a Final Indirect Cost (ICR)
Agreement for the past billing periods (i.e. Years 2007 to 2013). Status: Adhering
18-P00233-360
Recommendation 1: We recommend that the EPA Regional Administrators, Regions 6 and 9: 1. Complete
the necessary removal site evaluations and engineering evaluations/cost analyses.
2018-08-22
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
1.2 Complete engineering
evaluations/cost analyses. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 2: We recommend that the EPA Regional Administrators, Regions 6 and 9:
2. Fully develop and implement prioritization and resource allocation methodologies for the Tronox
abandoned uranium mine sites on or near Navajo Nation lands.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
1.2 Refine prioritization methodology Status: Adhering
Corrective Action 2-2: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
894
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

1.3 Conduct mine cleanup prioritization. Status: Adhering


Corrective Action 2-3: Planned: 2021-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
1.4 Complete development and implementation of resource
allocation methodology following the cost analysis of the preferred remedies. Status: Adhering

19-P00236-360
Recommendation 1: Include environmental justice outreach in planning and pre-landfall preparation
exercises by gathering data to determine the population, unique needs and challenges of vulnerable
communities.
2019-07-16

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-09-30 Completed: 0000-00-00
1.2 The Region 6 Emergency Management Branch will use the list of vulnerable communities to identify
ones which are within jurisdictions where it will conduct planning and pre-landfall preparation exercises
and ensure these communities are considered during these events. Status: Adhering


Recommendation 2: Revise the Region 6 pre-landfall hurricane plan to incorporate steps based on the
results of outreach conducted during the planning and pre-landfall preparation exercises.


Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2021-03-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
The Emergency Management Branch will revise pre-landfall hurricane plans based on the results of the
planning and pre-landfall activities conducted as part of Recommendation 1. Status: Adhering


Recommendation 3: Implement the recommendations to improve environmental justice outreach identified
at the June 2018 environmental justice forum.


Corrective Action 3-1: Planned: 0000-00-00 Completed: 0000-00-00
3.1 During an event, (OCTEA) will hold regular calls with affected vulnerable communities to identify
concerns and issues. These concerns and issues will be provided to Incident Command for evaluation and
action as needed.


Corrective Action 3-2: Planned: 2020-03-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
3.2 The Emergency Management Branch will add the topic of environmental justice to training for Incident
Management Teams and Response Support Corps personnel. Status: Adhering


Corrective Action 3-3: Planned: 0000-00-00 Completed: 0000-00-00
3.4 This is covered in the response to Recommendation 4. Status: Adhering


Recommendation 4: Prepare and produce all outreach materials—including the cleanup literature identified
in the June 2018 environmental justice forum—in advance, in sufficient quantities and in the region's
prevalent languages, and post all translated materials online.


Corrective Action 4-1: Planned: 2020-03-31 Completed: 0000-00-00

895
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcli\c Aclions
Report
l):ile

4.2 The Region 6 Office of External Affairs will have documents translated, ensure there is a link to each
document on the EPA webpage, and establish a process to make printed copies available when needed.
Status: Adhering

12-100560-380
Recommendation 1: Ensure the grantee addresses the recommendations and recover questioned and
unsupported costs
2007-09-24

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 0000-00-00 Completed: 0000-00-00
3/20/15: OGD and the Region are discussing contents of proposed Final Determination Letter and need for a
waiver request. Projected completion date is June 30, 2015.


12/30/13: The Region is continuing to work with HQ and regional counsel on options for this recipient with
a revised expected completion date of June 30,2014. The Region will also be looking to the new OMB
Circular on cooperative audit resolution for some guidance.


10/21/13: OGD and the Region are discussing contents of proposed Final Determination Letter. Projected
completion date is December 30, 2013. Status: Delayed

18-P00233-390
Recommendation 1: We recommend that the EPA Regional Administrators, Regions 6 and 9: 1. Complete
the necessary removal site evaluations and engineering evaluations/cost analyses.
2018-08-22

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
1.1.2 Complete engineering evaluations/cost analyses-12/31/2020 Status: Adhering


Recommendation 2: We recommend that the EPA Regional Administrators, Regions 6 and 9:2. Fully
develop and implement prioritization and resource allocation methodologies for the Tronox abandoned
uranium mine sites on or near Navajo Nation lands.


Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2021-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
2.1.4 Complete development and implementation of resource allocation methodology following the cost
analysis of the preferred remedies-12/31/2021 Status: Adhering
Corrective Action 2-2: Planned: 2020-12-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
2.1.2 Refine prioritization methodology-12/31/2020 Status: Adhering
Corrective Action 2-3: Planned: 2020-12-20 Completed: 0000-00-00
1.3 Conduct mine cleanup prioritization-12/31/2020 Status: Adhering

19-S00182-390
Recommendation 1: We recommend that the Action Official confirm the corrective action the recipient
identified in the single audit report was implemented. If the corrective action has not been implemented,
EPA needs to obtain a corrective action plan, with milestone dates, for addressing the findings in the report.
2019-06-13

Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-01-31 Completed: 0000-00-00

896
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

During the fiscal year 2017 audit, it was determined that several of the grant program funds had old
receivable amounts due from federal and state governments that were overstated and uncollectable.
Therefore, adjustments were made during the audit to reclassify grant receivables from the federal grants to
the general fund totaling $142,753 and write these balances down to $0 (see Finding 2017-003 on page 37
of the audit report). Recipient Response: Some of the beginning accrued or deferred revenue amounts
needed to be adjusted for the 2018 Single Audit, which we made adjustments to reconcile. This will be a
repeat finding for FY 2018 but we are actively reviewing our beginning grants receivable balances for
collectability and ensuring our deferred revenue balances are still outstanding. We anticipate these balances
to be fully reconciled by the end of 2019.
10/9/19: Based on the Tribe's response, EPA will continue to work with the Tribe and track this corrective
action. Status: Adhering

19-P00251-410
Recommendation 1: Develop and implement a plan for improving the consistency of stack test reviews
across EPA regions and delegated agencies.
2019-07-30
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2022-05-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
09/27/19: R10 will communicate information from OECA and OAR as it become available. Status:
Adhering
Recommendation 2: Develop and implement a plan for improving the consistency of stack test reviews
across EPA regions and delegated agencies.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2022-03-31 Completed: 0000-00-00
09/27/19: Per OIG, as an alternative to implementing R10 oversight controls that could be inconsistent with
future guidance from EPA HQ, R10 agreed to conduct annual meetings w/state and local agencies to discuss
their stack testing oversight activities. The first round of meetings by 3/31/2020 and continuing meetings
through 3/31/2022. After OECA & OAR complete their Recommendations 1 & 3, R10 will meet w/its state
and local agencies to discuss & implement any new stack test oversight policies & guidance. Status:
Adhering
19-S00301-410
Recommendation 1: We recommend that the Action Official confirm the corrective action the recipient
identified in the single audit report was implemented on Findings 2017-003 and 2017-004. If the corrective
action has not been implemented, EPA needs to obtain a corrective action plan, with milestone dates, for
addressing the findings in the report.
2019-09-03
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-03-03 Completed: 0000-00-00
09/27/19: R10 sent an initial letter to the grantee for corrective actions for findings #3 (suspension and
debarment compliance-related) and #4, ensure effective internal controls over payroll. Status: Adhering
897
-------
I V Audit
Nil m her
Rccomnvndalions and ( onvcliw Aclions
Report
l):ile

Recommendation 2: We recommend that the Action Official recover the $3,767 in questioned ineligible
costs.

Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2020-03-03 Completed: 0000-00-00
09/27/2019: R10 sent an initial letter to the grantee for corrective action regarding unsupported costs in the
amount of $3,767. Status: Adhering
19-S00306-410
Recommendation 1: We recommend that the Action Official confirm the corrective action the recipient
identified in the single audit report was implemented on Findings 2018-030 and 2018-031. If the corrective
action has not been implemented, EPA needs to obtain a corrective action plan, with milestone dates, for
addressing the finding in the report.
2019-09-16
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-03-16 Completed: 0000-00-00
09/30/2019: AFC met with and informed the Project Officer and Grant Specialist about the grantee
corrective actions required. AFC will send grantee an initial follow-up letter to the grantee. Status: Adhering
Recommendation 2: We recommend that the Action Official recover the $116,027 in questioned ineligible
costs.
Corrective Action 2-1: Planned: 2020-03-16 Completed: 0000-00-00
09/30/2019: AFC met with and informed the Project Officer and Grant Specialist about the grantee
corrective actions required. AFC will send grantee an initial follow-up letter to the grantee. Status: Adhering
19-S00324-410
Recommendation 1: We recommend that the Action Official confirm the corrective action the recipient
identified in the single audit report was implemented on Findings 2018-016 and 2018-017. If the corrective
action has not been implemented, EPA needs to obtain a corrective action plan, with milestone dates, for
addressing the findings in the report.
2019-09-26
Corrective Action 1-1: Planned: 2020-03-26 Completed: 0000-00-00
10/11/2019: R10 AFC initial letter to grantee for corrective action is being reviewed by management. AFC
also contacted Project Officer and Grants Specialist about audit findings/correction actions. Status: Delayed
898
-------