r% ,
I 3ZZ
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. [1 C 214110
OCT 0 * 2015
OFFICE OF
t" Nf OHC6MEN T A,ID
COMPLIANCE ASSURAVC6
11~.1 ^ M \ A \ |) I ¦.%!
SUBJECT: Issuance t>i*the Clean Air Act Stationar) Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Attached is a copy of the revised (lean Air Ac! Stationary Source C ompliance Monitoring
Stratcy> i("AA CMS). In replacing the 2014 ( MS. this strategy has been revised to take into
account a recently released I I'A Office of Inspector General (Olfjj report concerning the CAA
compliance mouitoriru> program, The CMS also has been rev ised to expand the strategy to appiy
to the f*TA Regions thai have direct implementation authority in Indian country and territories of
the I rnitcd States.
1 he Ollj icport ("Ivan Air Act Facility Evaluations are ("omiucleti, hut Inaccurate Data Hinder
EPA (iwrsight ami Pubhc Awuri'wss (No.l6-lM)](>4; May 3. 20Its; hups:.' v\ w wx'pa tyn 'ofljee-
ttiSjvcH'T ^ym-r.sl icpott »"*-5*' I * Tuc ij It :c\ uluat ion vat catmtfucied- tnuivut ale-data)
documented that CAA evaluations arc generally being conducted and completed m accordance
with the CMS. However, in its report, the OJti also noted that the CMS did not provide specific
instruction on ho\s long compliance monitoring reports (CMRs) should be retained. To address
this concern, the DIG provided the following recommendation: 1 ( f olate the EPA '> ('MS to
.ypccifi the length of lime that states ami local air districts should retain evaluation records, " In
response to this recommendation, we agreed as a Corrective Action to revise the CMS
according!) by October I, 2016 I'he attached ("MS which includes recommended retention time
I rami's for CMRs satisfies this Corrective Action. See Page 16 of the strategy . 1 he revised
CMS recommends that delegated agencies retain CMRs in accordance with their respective
policies, processes, and requirements or, in the absence id'such directives, consistent with HPA
records policy
1'RO.M: David A. Hindin^*
Director
{Mike of Compliance
TO:
Regional Compliance/Enforcement Division Directors
tniomof Address (UHL) • hiip ttmm eps tpv
HocycJod/noeyetoble • Pwhm VegctaWe Oil Based Into on »Q0»» Pmwmrnm, Procoii Ch'onne F;i« Hccyctecl P»pw

-------
In revising the CMS to address the above concern identified by the 0!G, we also have taken the
opportunity to extend the CMS to include the 1: PA Regions that have direct implementation in
Indian country and territories of the United States. This extension establishes for the applicable
Regions the same recommended evaluation frequencies for the CMS universe of sources located
in Indian country and territories for which they have direct implementation responsibilities.
The revisions to this strategy re 11 eel feedback from the Regions, the national and regional CAA
organizations, as well as individual stale and local agencies, Consistent with the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, we provided T ribal governments with
delegated authority the opportunity to comment on die revisions. 1 appreciate your Region's
continued efforts in working with your delegated agencies to ensure the CMS is being
implemented, and your efforts to now follow the minimum evaluation frequencies for CMS
sources in Indian country for which the Region has CAA direct implementation.
Please share this revised strategy (hupv uww.epa gox compliance elean-air-act- stationary •
source ¦compliancc-inonitorinu-^iatcu\ I with your counterpart at all state, local, tribal, and
territorial agencies in your Region, If vou or your staff has any questions concerning the CAA
CMS, please contact Robert fisehinsky at 202-564-3628 or at lisehtnsky.robert'tt-cpa.yov.
Attachment
ce; Cynthia Giles. Assistant Administrator, OHCA
Susan Shinkman. Director, OCT.
Betsy Smidinger, Deputy Director, DC
Mamie R. Miller, Associate Director, OC
Hdward J, Messina, Director, MAMPD, OC
Jonathan Binder, OHCA Indian Program Manager
Phillip Brooks, Director, Alii). OCK
Peter Tsirigotis, Director. SPPD. OAQPS
Richard Way land. Director, AQAD, OAQPS
Pat Childers. Oil), OAQPS
Regional Knforeement Coordinators (1-X)
Regional Air Hnforcement Managers (l-X)
(iwendolyn Spriggs, OHCA Audit follow Up Coordinator
Mary Sullivan Douglass. NACAA
Clint Woods. AAPCA

-------
CLEAN AIR ACT
STATIONARY SOURCE COMPLIANCE MONITORING STRATEGY
October 2016

-------
DISCLAIMER
The discussion in this document is intended solely as guidance. This document is not a
regulation. It does not impose legally binding requirements on the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), States, federally-recognized Indian tribes, or the regulated
community. This policy does not confer legal rights or impose legal obligations upon any
member of the public. The general description provided here may not apply to a particular
situation based on the circumstances. Interested parties are free to raise questions and objections
about the substance of this policy and the appropriateness of the application of this policy to a
particular situation. EPA retains the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that
differ from those described in this policy where appropriate. This document may be revised
periodically without public notice. EPA welcomes public input on this document at any time.
Please direct questions concerning this policy to Robert Lischinsky of the Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division in the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-2628 or at
Lischinsky. robert@epa. gov.

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.	Introduction	1
II.	Goals of the Compliance Monitoring Strategy	3
HI.	Overall Process	4
IV.	Scope of Policy	4
V.	Compliance Monitoring Types	5
VI.	Clean Air Act Compliance and Enforcement Program	11
VII.	Alternatives to the Recommended Evaluation Frequencies	14
Vni.	Elements of the CMS Plan	14
IX.	Compliance Monitoring Reports	16
X.	Reporting	17
XI.	Evaluation/Oversight	19

-------
ACRONYMS
ACS
Annual Commitment System
CAA
Clean Air Act
CMS
Compliance Monitoring Strategy
CEM
Continuous Emissions Monitoring
CMR
Compliance Monitoring Report
ECHO
Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FCE
Full Compliance Evaluation
HON
Hazardous Organic NESHAP
HPV
High Priority Violator
ICIS
Integrated Compliance Information System
ICR
Information Collection Request
MACT
Maximum Available Control Technology
MDR
Minimum Data Requirement
NACAA
National Association of Clean Air Agencies
NESHAP
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NPMG
National Program Managers Guidance
NPMS
National Performance Measures Strategy
NSPS
New Source Performance Standards
NSR
New Source Review
OC
Office of Compliance
OECA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
PCE
Partial Compliance Evaluation
PSD
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PTE
Potential to Emit
QA
Quality Assurance
SM
Synthetic Minor
SIP
State Implementation Plan
SRF
State Review Framework

-------
CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE COMPLIANCE MONITORING STRATEGY
October 2016
I. INTRODUCTION
•	The Clean Air Act (CAA) Stationary Source Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS)
was last revised in July 2014. The EPA revised the CMS to provide increased flexibility
to states, local government agencies, federally-recognized Indian tribes (tribes) and
territories of the United States to maximize resources and expand coverage of regulated
facilities with the most potential for significant impact on human health and the
environment. Such flexibility included an expanded set of tools for determining
compliance and took into account opportunities created by advanced monitoring
technologies such as geospatial measurement of air pollution, fence-line monitoring,
infrared cameras, and photoionization detectors.
•	The CMS is a dynamic, evolving document as the Agency obtains additional input
from the delegated agencies and assesses their experiences in implementing compliance
monitoring programs. The CMS also reflects continued feedback from regional
state/local air organizations as well as other oversight mechanisms such as the EPA State
Review Framework (SRF), the Office of Inspector General (OIG) evaluations as well as
the Government Accountability Office evaluations.
•	Since the 2014 CMS revision, the OIG released a report documenting that CAA
evaluations were found to generally be conducted and completed in accordance with the
CMS. See Clean Air Act Facility Evaluations are Conducted, but Inaccurate Data
Hinder EPA Oversight and Public Awareness (No. 16-P-0164; May 3, 2016;
https://www.epa.gov/office-inspector-general/report-clean-air-act-facilitv-evaluations-
are-conducted-inaccurate-data).
•	As part of the overall OIG review of CAA evaluations, the OIG noted that the 2014
CMS provided guidance that compliance monitoring reports (CMRs) should be
maintained as a record of compliance monitoring activities. However, the OIG also
noted the CMS did not provide specific instruction on how long to retain the CMRs and
recommended the CMS be updated to specify a retention period.
•	As a result of the OIG recommendation, the CMS includes a specified time frame for
retaining CMRs. In revising the CMS to account for the OIG review, the EPA is taking
this opportunity to update the document to reflect current policies and practices, as well
as to recognize the increased emphasis to integrate Next Generation Compliance into
compliance monitoring activities. Through this revised CMS, EPA continues to
encourage utilization of next generation approaches and innovative compliance
monitoring activities to promote and enhance compliance within the regulated
community. Such approaches include advanced monitoring, electronic reporting, and
expanded transparency to more effectively and efficiently identify and address potential
noncompliance.
•	In addition, the CMS has been extended to include the EPA Regions that have direct
implementation authority in Indian country and territories of the United States.
1

-------
•	With this revision, the CMS continues to have a focus on the primary goals of
compliance monitoring which include:
-	assessing and documenting compliance with permits and regulations,
-	supporting the enforcement process through evidence collection and case
development,
-	monitoring compliance with enforcement orders and decrees,
-	deterring noncompliance, and
-	providing feedback to permit and rule writers to develop permits and regulations
that can be more effectively and efficiently implemented.
•	The major elements of the CMS are as follows:
(1)	Emphasis is placed on Title V major sources and a limited subset of synthetic
minor sources.
(2)	Minimum frequencies for compliance evaluations to be conducted by
states/locals/tribes/territories are recommended for making compliance
determinations at facilities covered by the policy. However, alternative evaluation
frequencies may be negotiated with the Regions to enable
states/locals/tribes/territories to address important local compliance issues.
Regarding the minimum frequencies, the time frames are based on Federal fiscal
year, not state fiscal year or calendar year. While CMS plans and commitments of
states/locals/tribes/territories are developed consistent with the EPA planning
process, the policy still allows flexibility in planning compliance evaluations.
(3)	The policy explicitly recognizes that a variety of tools ranging from self-
certifications to traditional stack tests are available and should be used to evaluate
compliance. The use of all such tools can help achieve efficiencies and reduce
expenses. It further recognizes that, in limited circumstances, on-site visits may not
be necessary to evaluate the compliance status of a facility given the wide range of
self-reported information such as Title V annual compliance certifications, deviation
reports, and semi-annual monitoring reports. However, to ensure a compliance
presence in the field, a minimum frequency for on-site visits is recommended.
(4)	Three types of compliance monitoring are provided to encompass all of the
means used to make a compliance determination. The compliance monitoring types
are Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs); Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs);
and Investigations.
(5)	We recognize that there are advantages to the Regions and
states/locals/tribes/territories in developing CMS plans annually and encourage the
Regions and states/locals/tribes/territories to continue with that frequency, as
appropriate. The minimum frequency is once every two years unless otherwise
negotiated with the Region and approved by the Office of Enforcement and
2

-------
Compliance Assurance/Office of Compliance (OECA/OC).
(6) Evaluation and oversight is through the establishment and use of the SRF as the
tool for the Regions to conduct oversight of compliance and enforcement programs
of the states/locals/tribes/territories that would include in-depth evaluations of CMS
implementation.
•	Through the establishment of the three compliance monitoring types and the
recognition of the variety of compliance monitoring tools available to evaluate
compliance beyond the traditional on-site evaluations, the CAA CMS promotes the use of
flexibility in developing alternative CMS plans. However, electronic reporting and the
use of new technologies and advanced emissions monitoring create additional compliance
monitoring opportunities and provide the potential to collect a wider array of compliance
information. It is important that states/locals/tribes/territories be able to utilize these new
technologies and information to target and assess compliance. EPA encourages
states/locals/tribes/territories to make compliance monitoring and enforcement
information available to the public where feasible and appropriate.
•	The CMS provides for a broader range of compliance monitoring activities and
encourages the use of next generation approaches and tools, as appropriate, to allow
agencies to further focus on their most significant environmental concerns and pollution
problems in the most efficient manner.
II. GOALS OF THE COMPLIANCE MONITORING STRATEGY
•	The five major goals are as follows:
(1)	Provide national consistency in developing stationary source air compliance
monitoring programs, while at the same time provide states/locals/tribes/territories
with flexibility to address local air pollution and compliance concerns.
(2)	Improve communication between states/locals/tribes/territories and Regions on
stationary source air compliance monitoring programs, and enhance EPA oversight
of these programs.
(3)	Provide a framework for developing stationary source air compliance monitoring
programs that focuses on achieving measurable environmental results.
(4)	Provide a mechanism for recognizing and utilizing the wide range of tools
available for evaluating and determining compliance.
(5) Establish a consistent level of evaluation coverage and environmental and public
health protection by all delegated agencies, including EPA where EPA has direct
implementation authority.
3

-------
III. OVER AT J, PROCESS
•	The overall process is described below:
(1)	CMS plans are submitted based upon the Federal fiscal year for discussion with
and approval by the Regions. Alternative CMS plans (as discussed in Section VII)
are to be forwarded by the Regions to OC for review prior to regional approval.
During the discussion of the CMS plans, Regions should share their priorities and
focus areas with their states/locals/tribes/territories to optimize resources, avoid
duplication of effort, and provide opportunities for collaboration. CMS plans for the
EPA Regions with direct implementation authority in Indian country and territories
will be satisfied via the EPA Annual Commitment System (ACS) process.
Alternative regional CMS plans are to also be forwarded to OC for approval.
(2)	Each year, the Regions incorporate the CMS plans into the ACS. Separate
commitments should be made for states/locals/tribes/territories and the Regions that
are consistent with the OEC A National Program Managers (NPM) Guidance and any
identified OEC A CAA National Initiatives.
(3)	States/locals/tribes/territories and Regions maintain records of their compliance
monitoring activities, and enter facility-specific compliance and enforcement data in
the national air compliance and enforcement data system, ICIS-Air.
(4)	Each year, states/locals/tribes/territories and Regions review the results of the
compliance monitoring activities and prepare an annual update to the plan as
necessary. Major redirections should be discussed as they arise.
(5)	Regions conduct in-depth evaluations of the overall compliance monitoring
program of the state/local/tribe/territory utilizing SRF. Headquarters conducts
evaluations of the Regional programs as part of routine oversight activities. Regions
may also conduct oversight or joint evaluations to obtain insight into the quality of
state/local/trib e/territo ry- led evaluatio ns.
IV. SCOPE OF POLICY
•	EPA recognizes that states/locals/tribes/territories perform additional compliance
monitoring activities beyond those addressed by this policy. This policy is not designed
to preclude those activities, which may be statutorily driven by individual
states/locals/tribes/territories, but focuses on federally enforceable requirements for the
following source categories: (1) Title V major sources (as defined in CAA §501(2)); and
(2) synthetic minor sources that emit or have the potential to emit (PTE) at or above 80
percent of the Title V major source threshold (SM-80s).
For purposes of this policy, PTE means the maximum capacity of a stationary source
to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any physical or
4

-------
operational limitation on the capacity of the source to emit a pollutant, including air
pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation, shall be treated as
part of its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions is federally
enforceable or legally and practicably enforceable by an air pollution control agency
of a state/local/tribe/territory.
The 80 percent threshold was selected to ensure that those facilities that either have
the potential to emit or actually emit pollutants close to the major source threshold
are evaluated periodically. This enables states/locals/tribes/territories to focus
resources on those facilities that are most environmentally significant. In
determining whether a synthetic minor source falls within the scope of this policy, all
facilities with the potential to emit at or above the 80 percent threshold are included
regardless of whether their actual emissions are lower. If a state/local/tribe/territory
does not differentiate facilities based on potential to emit, all synthetic minors should
be designated as SM-80s.
•	This policy also recognizes that some Regions have direct implementation of the CAA
in Indian country and territories. The CMS recommended minimum evaluation
frequencies for Title V major and SM-80 sources are applicable to such Regions to
establish a consistent level of evaluation coverage and environmental and public health
protection by all delegated agencies, including the EPA where EPA has direct
implementation authority.
•	Please note that this policy does not include the following specific CAA programs:
-	40 CFR Part 60 Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters
(Wood Heater NSPS)
-	40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standard for Asbestos (Asbestos NESHAP)
-	40 CFR Part 63 Area Sources
-	42 USC A Section 7412(r) Prevention of Accidental Releases
-	40 CFR Part 98 Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
-	42 USCA Section 7651 Acid Deposition Control
V. COMPLIANCE MONITORING TYPES
•	States/locals/tribes/territories and Regions are encouraged to use a variety of
techniques to determine compliance, and utilize the lull range of self-monitoring
information stemming from the 1990 CAA Amendments. They also are encouraged,
when feasible, to use advanced emissions/pollutant detection technology and electronic
reporting.
-	In support of the EPA strategy of Next Generation Compliance
(https://www.epa.gov/compliance/next-generation-compliance), the CMS
recognizes today's challenges require a modern approach to compliance
monitoring and promotes to, the fullest extent possible, the use of new and
emerging monitoring and information technologies as well as increased
transparency. Through modern and innovative approaches, EPA and the
5

-------
delegated agencies are better able to protect public health and the environment.
•	Compliance monitoring activities, as discussed below, encompass all of the means used
to make a facility specific compliance determination. These activities can include both
on-site compliance evaluations and off-site record reviews. The activities can be initiated
based on a variety of factors such as the CMS plan of a state/local/tribe/territory,
priorities of the state/local/tribe/territory, citizen tips and complaints, or for cause.
•	Consistent with this approach, there are three types of compliance monitoring: Full
Compliance Evaluations (FCEs), Partial Compliance Evaluations (PCEs), and
Investigations. Each of these types of compliance monitoring is defined below:
(1) Full Compliance Evaluations
A Full Compliance Evaluation (FCE) is a comprehensive evaluation to assess
compliance of the facility as a whole and resulting in a compliance determination.
For the purposes of this policy, "facility" is used in the broadest sense of the term
incorporating all regulated emission units within the facility. An FCE addresses
all regulated pollutants at all regulated emission units. Furthermore, an FCE
addresses the current compliance of each emission unit, as well as the continuing
ability of the facility to maintain compliance at each emission unit.
An FCE includes the following:
-	A review of all required reports or other documents, and to the extent
necessary, the underlying records. This includes all monitored data reported to
the regulatory agency (e.g., continuous emissions monitoring system (CEM)
and continuous parameter monitoring reports, malfunction reports, excess
emission reports). It also includes a review of Title V self-certifications, semi-
annual monitoring and periodic monitoring reports, and any other reports
required by permit.
-	An assessment of control device and process operating conditions as
appropriate. An on-site visit to make this assessment may not be necessary
based upon factors such as the availability of continuous emission and periodic
monitoring data, compliance certifications, and deviation reports. The
implementation of Next Generation Compliance will assist in compliance
monitoring by allowing, whenever suitable, innovative and modern approaches
that go beyond single facility on-site evaluations. Examples of regulated
facilities that may not require an on-site visit to assess compliance include, but
are not limited to, a gas-fired compressor station, a boiler in a large office or
apartment building, a peaking station, and a gas turbine. However, decisions
on whether an on-site evaluation is not necessary should be made on a facility-
specific basis.
-	A visible emission observation as needed.
6

-------
-	A review of facility records and operating logs.
-	An assessment of process parameters such as feed rates, raw material
compositions, and process rates.
-	An assessment of control equipment performance parameters (e.g., water
flow rates, pressure drop, temperature, and electrostatic precipitator
power levels).
-	A stack test where there is no other means for determining compliance with
the emission limits. In determining whether a stack test is necessary,
states/locals/tribes/territories should consider factors such as: size of emission
unit; time elapsed since last stack test; results of that test and margin of
compliance; condition of control equipment; and availability and results of
associated monitoring data.
-	A stack test whenever a state/local/tribe/territory deems it appropriate.
For additional guidance on conducting stack tests, please seethe
April 27, 2009 Clean Air Act National Stack Testing Guidance at:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/caa/stacktesting.pdf
-	Where appropriate and feasible, the utilization of advanced monitoring
technologies to detect and document emissions and record ambient conditions.
The use of advanced emissions/pollutant detection technology is valuable as a
screening tool to identify pollution problems and better focus field activities on
the pollutant, process, and equipment of concern. It also may be useful to
identify and measure noncompliance. Examples of such technologies include
infrared cameras, fenceline monitors, sensor network-based leak detection
systems, mobile methane monitors, and photoionization detectors. The use of
advanced emissions and pollutant detection technology that, for example, find
pollution that was previously "invisible" can assist
states/locals/tribes/territories and Regions to more effectively target and
monitor compliance and protect communities.
An FCE should be completed within the Federal fiscal year in which the
commitment is made. However, flexibility is provided in the case of extremely
large, complex facilities (hereafter referred to as mega-sites). Regulatory
agencies may take up to three Federal fiscal years to complete an FCE at a mega-
site, provided the agency is conducting frequent on-site visits or PCEs throughout
the entire evaluation period.
In reviewing the required records and reports necessary to complete an FCE,
regulatory agencies may use discretion in determining whether to review the
documentation on hand, or wait until the most recent records/reports become
available. For example, an agency may complete an FCE on October 15 by
7

-------
reviewing a facility's annual compliance certification that was submitted on
September 1 of the prior fiscal year. The agency need not delay completion of the
FCEby waiting until the annual certification for the present fiscal year is
submitted the following September 1. In another example, a facility's annual
certification is submitted on April 1 of each year. On March 1, an agency would
be able to complete an FCE at the facility by reviewing the annual certification
submitted the previous April 1. However, in this situation, the agency may prefer
to wait one month to complete the FCE in order to review the most current
certification rather than review a certification that is eleven months old.
An FCE may be done piecemeal through a series ofPCEs.
States/locals/tribes/territories and Regions may wish to institute internal processes
to review compliance monitoring files to ensure that FCEs have been completed
at a given facility. If instituted, such processes should be designed in such a way
that reviews are conducted throughout the year, rather than at the end of the year.
This ensures that FCEs are reported in a timely manner to the national database,
and the public has access to the most current information on compliance status.
An on-site FCE should be conducted by an authorized inspector. EPA employees
and individuals of states/locals/tribes/territories authorized to conduct evaluations
on behalf of EPA using EPA Federal inspector credentials should be conducting
evaluations consistent with appropriate federal requirements. See EPA Order
3500.1 (Training Requirements for EPA Personnel Who Are Authorized to
Conduct Civil Compliance Inspections/Field Investigations and EPA Inspector
Supervisors); EPA Order 3510 {EPA Federal Credentials for Inspections and
Enforcement of Federal Environmental Statutes and Other Compliance
Responsibilities)., and the CAA stationary source training requirements. An
authorized inspector may include an approved third party.1 Inspectors conducting
evaluations for states/locals/tribes/territories should be compliant with their
respective agency policies and processes. An off-site FCE should be conducted
by an authorized inspector or other credible regulator (e.g., an individual
designated by the EPA or state/local/tribe/territory with sufficient knowledge,
training, and experience to assess compliance).
(2) Partial Compliance Evaluations
A Partial Compliance Evaluation (PCE) is a documented compliance evaluation
conducted for the purpose of making a compliance determination and focusing on
1 For issues concerning the use of authorized representatives for compliance monitoring activities under the Clean
Air Act see UnitedStatesv. Stauffer Chem. Co., 464 U.S. 165 (January 10, 1984); M. Alushin andE. Reich
Memorandum to Regional Counsels, et al, Use of Contractors to Conduct Clean Air Act Inspections after the
Supreme Court's Decision in United Statesv. Stauffer Chemical (February 22, 1984); and D. Kling Memorandum to
Regional Federal Facilities Senior and Program Managers, Clarification on the Use of Contract Inspectors for
EPA's Federal Facility Compliance Inspections/Evaluations (September 19, 2006). See also, Guidance for Issuing
Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Employees of Contractors to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA, (May 31,
2013); Guidance for Issuing Federal EPA Inspector Credentials to Senior Environmental Employment Program
Ehrollees to Conduct Inspections on Behalf of EPA, (September 30, 2013).
8

-------
a subset of processes, regulated pollutants, regulatory requirements, or emission
units at a given facility. Examples of specific activities include, but are not
limited to, the following:
-	conduct source performance tests, sampling, and monitoring;
-visible emission observations;
-	case development evaluation, including evaluation of responses to formal
information requests (e.g., CAA § 114);
-	consent decree follow-up;
-	Continuous Monitoring System Quality Assurance (QA) Audit;
-	review of facility reports or documents such as Quarterly Excess Emission
Reports and semi-annual deviation reports;
-	review of facility records and operating logs, testing/sampling plans, and
monitoring data;
-	review of relevant process, emissions, and inventory information;
-review of facility-specific fenceline and ambient monitoring;
-	ambient environmental screening using advanced monitoring technologies
for a group of facilities or geographic area of interest for use in subsequent
compliance evaluations.
Depending on the nature and scope of the PCE, the actions taken and observations
should be included in a compliance monitoring report (CMR), or as a notation in
the facility file.
A PCE may be conducted solely for the purpose of evaluating a specific aspect of
a facility, or combined over the course of a Federal fiscal year (or up to three
Federal fiscal years at mega-sites) to satisfy the requirements of an FCE. For
example, a PCE could be used effectively to assess compliance with the
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) Maximum Available Control Technology
(MACT) requirements if that is the primary area of concern at a chemical
manufacturing facility. If at some point later in the year, the regulatory agency
decided an FCE was necessary, the agency could combine the results of the
MACT evaluation with subsequent evaluations focusing on the balance of
CAA requirements.
PCEs are generally less time-consuming and resource-intensive than FCEs in that
they are targeted evaluations used to assess compliance with targeted programs,
standards, and/or processes. As a result, PCEs can be a useful tool in screening
for and identifying non-compliance in a cost-effective manner.
An on-site PCE should be conducted by an authorized inspector. EPA employees
and individuals of states/locals/tribes/territories authorized to conduct evaluations
on behalf of EPA using EPA Federal inspector credentials should be conducting
evaluations consistent with appropriate federal requirements. See EPA Order
3500.1 (Training Requirements for EPA Personnel Who Are Authorized to
Conduct Civil Compliance Inspections/Field Investigations and EPA Inspector
9

-------
Supervisors); EPA Order 3510 (EPA Federal Credentials for Inspections and
Enforcement of Federal Environmental Statutes and Other Compliance
Responsibilities)., and the CAA stationary source training requirements. An
authorized inspector may include an approved third party. Inspectors conducting
evaluations for states/locals/tribes/territories should be compliant with their
respective agency policies and processes. An off1 site PCE should be conducted
by an authorized inspector or other credible regulator (e.g., an individual
designated by the EPA or state/local/tribe/territory with sufficient knowledge,
training, and experience to assess compliance).
(3) Investigations
An Investigation can be distinguished from the other two compliance monitoring
types in that, generally, it is limited to a portion of a facility, is more resource
intensive, and involves a more in-depth assessment of a particular issue. It
usually is based on information discovered during anFCE, or as the result of a
targeted industry, regulatory, or statutory initiative. Also, an Investigation often
requires the use and analysis of information not available in EPA data systems. It
is best used when addressing issues that are difficult to evaluate during a routine
FCE because of time constraints, the type of preliminary field work required,
and/or the level of technical expertise needed to determine compliance.
Examples of this type of compliance monitoring are the in-depth New Source
Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (NSR/PSD) and New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) reviews conducted by EPA of the pulp, utility,
and petroleum refining industries. These investigations were initiated following
analyses of publicly available information on growth within the industries, and a
comparison of this information to data maintained by the regulatory agencies on
the number of NSR/PSD permits issued during the same time frame. The
analyses indicated that many facilities failed to obtain the necessary permits. As a
result, the facilities had not controlled pollutant emissions as required, and thus
realized significant economic benefits. These efforts resulted in significant
enforcement actions protecting human health and the environment.
For a more complete definition of an Investigation, see "MO A Guidance (Air
Program) Clarification and National Performance Measures Strategy (NPMS)
Pilot" from Eric Schaefler and Elaine Stanley to MO A Coordinators,
Enforcement Coordinators, and RS&T Coordinators (October 26, 1998). See
also, "Implementing the National Performance Measures Strategy - Second Phase
(Attachment J)" from Steven A. Herman to Regional Administrators, Deputy
Regional Administrators, and Regional Enforcement Division Directors and
Coordinators (December 23, 1999).
VL CLEAN AIR ACT COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
CAA BASE PROGRAM COVERAGE
10

-------
•	Generally, the EPA base stationary source compliance and enforcement program
encompasses air pollution problems for the following CAA programs:
-NSPS
-NESHAP
-MACT
-	40 CFR Part 63 Area Sources
-	NSR/PSD
-	State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and CAA §111(d) approved plans
-	Title V Operating Permit
-	Stratospheric Ozone Protection
-	42 USC A §7412(r) Prevention of Accidental Releases
-	40 CFR Part 98 Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
-	42 USCA Section 7651 Acid Deposition Control
However, this policy does not include the specific CAA programs listed in Section IV.
EVALUATION FREQUENCIES:
•	As stated above (Section IV), states/locals/tribes/territories may perform additional
compliance monitoring activities beyond those addressed by this policy. However, this
policy focuses on federally enforceable requirements for Title V major sources and
SM-80s. These sources may be subject to many, if not all, of the individual CAA
programs.
•	Minimum frequencies are recommended as guidance for states/locals/tribes/territories
when developing stationary source air compliance monitoring programs:
(1)	An FCE should be conducted, at a minimum, once every two Federal fiscal
years at all Title V major sources except those classified as mega-sites. For
mega-sites, an FCE should be conducted, at a minimum, once every three Federal
fiscal years.
Each Region, in consultation with affected states/locals/tribes/territories, has the
flexibility to define and identify mega-sites as it deems appropriate within the
Region. However, this universe of facilities is expected to be small. When
identifying mega-sites, the Regions should consider the following factors: the
number and types of emission units; the volume and character of pollutants
emitted; the number and types of control and monitoring systems; the number of
applicable regulatory requirements; the availability of monitoring data; the degree
of difficulty in determining compliance at individual units and at the entire
facility; and the footprint of the facility. Examples of industries that may have
qualifying facilities are petroleum refining, integrated steel manufacturing,
chemical manufacturing, and pharmaceutical production.
(2)	An FCE should be conducted, at a minimum, once every five Federal fiscal
11

-------
years at SM-80s.
(3) In those limited circumstances where it has been determined on a case-by-
case basis that an on-site visit is not necessary to complete an FCE (see Section
V), an on-site visit should still be conducted, at a minimum, once every five
Federal fiscal years at all Title V major sources to ensure a compliance presence
in the field, verify record reviews, observe modifications or new construction, and
identify any major permit deviations.
•	In those years when an FCE is not conducted, states/locals/tribes/territories should
continue to review annual compliance certifications, and the underlying reports
supporting those certifications (e.g., semi-annual and periodic monitoring reports,
continuous emission and continuous parametric monitoring reports, and malfunction and
excess emission reports).
•	The above minimum evaluation frequencies are applicable to those Regions which
have direct implementation of the CAA in Indian country and territories.
•	When implementing the CAA base program and Agency policies outside of Indian
country and territories, the Regions will continue to maintain expertise and a minimum
level of activity consistent with the resources available; monitor the level and quality of
effort by the states/locals/tribes/territories; and participate in national and region-specific
initiatives that may require greater EPA involvement. The Regions will continue to focus
on those activities that are directed to widespread noncompliance, will yield the greatest
environmental benefit due to the potential for significant emission reductions, and are not
duplicative of efforts by states/locals/tribes/territories. They also will monitor
implementation of enforcement orders and consent decrees.
OECA NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES
Background on Priority-Setting Process
•	In collaboration with the states/locals/tribes/territories, EPA defines and selects
national enforcement initiatives (NEIs) through the use of several screening factors and
criteria. Using such information, EPA determines if significant environmental benefits
can be gained, or if risks to human health or the environment can be reduced through
focused EPA action. EPA also looks to uncover identifiable and important patterns of
noncompliance. Furthermore, the Agency analyzes whether the environmental and
human health risks or the patterns of noncompliance are sufficient in scope and scale
such that EPA is best suited to take action, and whether it is appropriate for EPA to take
lead responsibility.
•	Using the above information to define the scope and nature of environmental problems
that warrant heightened resource and commitment levels on a Federal level for a
designated period of time, there are currently several NEIs with an air program
component. For additional information, please visit the EPA NEI website at
12

-------
httpsy/www.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-initiatives. The Agency has
determined that Federal attention focused on these programs results in greater deterrence
and a higher level of compliance by the regulated community.
Evaluation Frequencies
•	In implementing the NEIs, EPA provides an enhanced Federal presence to address the
widespread non-compliance in the identified problem areas.
•	Pursuant to the CMS, no minimum evaluation frequencies have been established for
states/locals/tribes/territories with respect to compliance evaluations associated with the
NEIs. However, the Agency does encourage participation by the
states/locals/tribes/territories in EPA compliance and enforcement activities within the
NEIs. Participation in such activities may be considered as a factor when evaluating a
proposed alternative CMS Plan submitted by an agency. (See Section VII.)
•	In carrying out the NEIs, EPA will continue to share with the
states/locals/tribes/territories the compliance monitoring and enforcement experience
gained, the results achieved, and the lessons learned. While engaging with the
states/locals/tribes/territories in capacity building efforts, the Agency also will share all
major next generation advances. It is the EPA goal that modern, advanced approaches
employed to change industry behavior and improve compliance will assist in transferring
the work covered by the NEIs back to the CAA base program.
VII. ALTERNATIVES TO THE RECOMMENDED EVALUATION FREQUENCIES
• States/locals/tribes/territories may develop with Regional approval alternatives to the
recommended evaluation frequencies. Alternatives may be developed on a facility-by-
facility basis or for an entire source category. However, in determining whether an
alternative frequency is appropriate, the following factors should be considered:
Sources
-	Compliance history;
-	Location of facility;
-	Potential environmental impact;
-	Operational practices (e.g., whether operation is steady state or seasonal); and
-	Use of control equipment.
Programs of States/Locals/Tribes/Territories
-	Identified deficiencies in the overall compliance monitoring program of a
state/local/tribe/territory (e.g., temporary resource constraints such as budget
shortfall or position vacancy). The agency should be able to discuss what steps
are being taken to address and resolve such deficiencies.
-	Identified local air pollution and compliance concerns/priorities for which
13

-------
resources are needed to be directed (e.g., air toxics PCEs at secondary aluminum
facilities). The agency should be able to provide a timeframe for when such
concerns/priorities will be addressed.
-	Assistance provided to other states/locals/tribes/territories (e.g., leading
multistate/local initiatives; lending expertise; training new inspectors).
EPA National Enforcement Initiatives
-	Participation by a state/local/tribe/territory in such activities.
•	Prior to granting regional approval to alternatives, the Regions should submit
alternative CMS plans to Headquarters (Office of Compliance) for review. This enables
Headquarters to track alternatives and maintain national consistency as appropriate.
•	For those Regions with direct implementation of the CAA in Indian country and
territories, Headquarter approved alternative plans may be implemented and will be
assessed using the same factors listed above.
VIII. ELEMENTS OF THE CMS PLAN
•	CMS plans of the state/local/tribe/territory are a building block in the OECA NPM
Guidance process, and should be finalized so they can be summarized and incorporated
into the Regional ACS commitments. Therefore, they should be completed prior to the
beginning of the Federal fiscal year.
•	A separate CMS plan is not necessary if Regions and states/locals/tribes/territories
wish to continue using other formally negotiated documents (e.g., Enforcement
Agreements, Performance Partnership Agreements, and Categorical Grant Agreements),
provided these documents contain the same level of detail discussed below. If this
approach is selected, the negotiated document should provide confirmation of adherence
with the CMS policy, serve as a suitable substitute for a separate CMS plan, and be
reflected in ICIS-Air. If the negotiated document is serving as an alternative CMS plan,
it is to be shared with Headquarters (Office of Compliance). (See Section VII.)
•	The content of CMS plans will vary depending upon whether
states/locals/tribes/territories develop and negotiate alternatives to the recommended
evaluation frequencies.
•	In those instances where states/locals/tribes/territories meet the recommended
evaluation frequencies and do not develop and negotiate alternative approaches, the plan
should include the following elements:
(1) A facility-specific list (including the ICIS-Air Programmatic ID) of all Title
V major sources. The list should identify by Federal fiscal year those facilities for
which anFCE will be conducted. It should also identify those for which an on-
site visit will be conducted.
14

-------
(2)	A facility-specific list (including the ICIS-Air Programmatic ID) of all
synthetic minor sources and a list of those facilities covered by the policy (SM-
80s). It also should identify by Federal fiscal year those facilities for which an
FCEwill be conducted.
(3)	A description of how a state/local/tribe/territory will address any identified
program deficiencies in its compliance monitoring program. These deficiencies
can stem from evaluations conducted internally, or by outside organizations such
as EPA pursuant to the SRF process.
•	In those instances where the states/locals/tribes/territories propose alternatives to the
recommended evaluation frequencies, states/locals/tribes/territories should provide a
more detailed plan. In addition to the above elements, states/locals/tribes/territories
should include a rationale describing: (1) why it is not necessary to evaluate specific
facilities or source categories subject to the recommended evaluation frequencies; and (2)
why it is appropriate to substitute other facilities.
•	If at the end of the first year, states/locals/tribes/territories anticipate or know that they
will be unable to meet their two year commitments by the end of the second year, they
should notify the Region and revise their CMS plan accordingly.
•	As noted earlier, CMS plans for the Regions with direct implementation in Indian
country and territories will be satisfied via the ACS process. If implementing an
alternative plan, the Regions should provide similar information as listed above.
IX. COMPLIANCE MONITORING REPORTS
•	CMRs may continue to be formatted as deemed appropriate. However, the following
basic elements should be addressed in the reports:
(1)	General information: date, compliance monitoring type (i.e., FCE, PCE, or
Investigation), and official submitting the report.
(2)	Facility information: facility name, location, mailing address, facility contact
and phone number, Title V designation and mega-site designation.
(3)	Applicable requirements: all applicable requirements including regulatory
requirements and permit conditions.
(4)	Inventory and description of regulated emission units and processes.
(5)	Information on previous enforcement actions.
(6)	Compliance monitoring activities: processes and emission units evaluated;
on-site observations, including documentation of observed deficiencies; whether
compliance assistance was provided and if so, nature of assistance; any action
taken by facility to come back into compliance during on-site visit.
(7)	Observations and recommendations relayed to the facility during the
compliance evaluation. Please note, this does not apply to information
traditionally reserved for enforcement case files.
In providing the above information, states/locals/tribes/territories should reference or
15

-------
attach other relevant documents as appropriate to avoid duplication. For example, the
relevant section of a Title V permit could be attached to the compliance monitoring report
rather than rewriting all of the applicable requirements.
•	CMRs should be maintained and made available to the Regions upon request. Regions
shall maintain similar files of regional activities and provide Headquarters with access
upon request.
•	State/locals/tribes/territories should retain their CMRs in accordance with their
respective agency policies, processes, and requirements. In the absence of any such
directives, the following retention timeframes are recommended consistent with EPA
records policy:
-	CMRs documenting evaluations that do not lead to enforcement: 5 years.
-	CMRs documenting evaluations that lead to a civil administrative enforcement
action: 10 years after closure of the enforcement file.
-	CMRs documenting evaluations that lead to a civil judicial or criminal
enforcement action: 20 years after closure of the enforcement file.
•	Example CMRs documenting FCEs are posted for review by
states/locals/tribes/territories on the EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online
(ECHO) website at: https://echo.epa.gov/srf comp mon reports
These example reports are provided to: (1) assist inspectors in efficiently writing
complete CMRs; thereby, reducing time spent writing reports and maximizing time
available for field presence; and (2) improve the quality and completeness of CMRs so
they can serve as valuable tools for documenting non-compliance, as well as foundations
upon which to proceed with successful enforcement actions.
X. REPORTING
•	To collect compliance information in a consistent format that allows EPA to evaluate
and compare compliance monitoring programs, Regions and states/locals/tribes/territories
will need to:
- Continue to maintain records of compliance monitoring activities, and enter
facility-specific compliance and enforcement data in ICIS-Air on a routine basis.
In accordance with the Source Compliance and State Action Reporting
Information Collection Request (ICR), all data (except for stack test date and
results, as noted below) is to be reported within 60 days.
- Any applicable source that begins operations is to be reported into ICIS-
Air and given a CMS indicator and appropriate frequency flag. Those
CMS facilities that have been permanently shut down are to have their
CMS flags removed so they will not show as "active on CMS plan" in
ICIS-Air.
16

-------
-	If a state/local/tribe/territory negotiates an alternative plan, which allows the
agency to shift resources from Title V majors and/or SM-80s to other sources not
addressed by the policy (e.g., minors), all relevant Minimum Data Requirements
(MDRs) are to be reported to ICIS-Air for all sources in the alternative plan.
-	Report "Federally Reportable Violations" (FRVs) and "High Priority
Violations" (HPVs) in accordance with current EPA policies.
-	Utilize the following compliance monitoring types to report activities at the
facility level in ICIS-Air:
-	Full Compliance Evaluations
-	Partial Compliance Evaluations
-	Investigations
-	FCEs are to be reported into ICIS-Air as either on-site or off-site. Off-site
FCEs are to be reported only when states/locals/tribes/territories are able to
complete an FCE without having to conduct an on-site visit to assess control
devices and process operating conditions. Completion of an FCE without
conducting an on-site visit is limited to a small universe of facilities and source
categories. (See Section V.)
-	Although PCEs are to be reported by the Regions, they generally are not an
MDR for states/locals/tribes/territories and reporting of these actions is voluntary.
A PCE becomes an MDR for states/locals/tribes/territories when the PCE is part
of an alternative plan and/or when the PCE leads to discovery of an HPV.
States/locals/tribes/territories may wish to report PCEs to capture the lull range of
their compliance monitoring activities.
-	To assist in PCE reporting, the following specific PCE activities may be
reported into ICIS-Air:
-	Off-site PCE
-	On-site PCE
-	On-site Record/Report Review
-	On-site Monitoring/Sampling
-	On-site Interview
-	On-site Fenceline/Ambient Monitoring
-	On-site Visible Emission Observation
-	On-site CEMS/CMS Audit
-	On-site Stack Test
-	Title V Annual Compliance Certification Review
-	Report the following information for all Title V annual compliance certification
reviews in ICIS-Air:
-	date due;
-	date received:
17

-------
-	whether deviations were reported by the facility;
-	date reviewed; and
-	results (i.e., violations)
-	Please note: Regions shall enter the first three data elements for each Title V
compliance certification unless otherwise negotiated with
states/locals/tribes/territories.
-	Enter the date and results of all stack tests in ICIS-Air within 120 days of
completion of the test.
•	The CMS status in ICIS-Air will automatically change to "overdue" if anFCEis not
completed:
(1)	within the recommended evaluation frequencies, or
(2)	in accordance with negotiated alternatives that extend the recommended
evaluation frequencies.
•	Standard CMS reports are available in ICIS-Air for retrieving, reviewing, and
analyzing the quality of the CMS reported data (e.g., CMS Report, FCE Coverage at
Majors Report, FCE Coverage at 80% SMs Report, and Total Number of State-Local
CAA FCEs by CMS Source Category). These reports provide access to detailed facility-
specific information such as source classification, operating status, the last Full
Compliance Evaluation (FCE) reported, and the CMS status (which indicates whether a
facility included in a CMS plan is overdue for an FCE). The Regions and delegated
agencies should review the data provided in these reports as part of the regular
communications to discuss data quality issues.
•	The Regions are to use the ACS system for the tracking of performance data against
agreed-upon regional performance commitments. In addition to Region-specific
performance information, the ACS is also used to provide information on
state/local/tribal-specific contributions to commitments.
•	Only the Regions are required to establish ACS commitments for the OECACAA
national enforcement initiatives. These ACS commitments do not apply to the
state/local/tribal agencies.
•	EPA developed ICIS-Air to accommodate the above reporting for program
management and oversight. The Agency also designed ICIS-Air with the capabilities to
improve data analysis and information in the future. Efforts are continuing to advance
Next Generation Compliance and modernize our approach to environmental protection to
make reporting easier. For example, EPA is engaged in ongoing efforts with the
states/locals/tribes through the E-Enterprise initiative to facilitate increased electronic
reporting in order to have more accurate, complete and timely information while
minimizing reporting burden.
18

-------
XL EVALUATION/OVERSIGHT
•	The primary reason for revising CMS in 2001 was to address deficiencies identified by
the EPA Inspector General with respect to lack of oversight and inconsistent
implementation of the policy by the Agency. Hence, it is essential that EPA provide
adequate oversight of the policy.
•	At the end of each Federal fiscal year, the Regions shall evaluate whether the
states/locals/tribes/territories met their commitments, and in those cases where they did
not, determine why and what adjustments need to be made for the following year. EPA
Headquarters shall in turn conduct a similar analysis nationally assisted by data reported
to ICIS-Air. This information should be transmitted back to the appropriate officials in a
timely manner so that they can make mid-course corrections in their program if
necessary.
•	In FY 2004, OECA implemented the SRF. The SRF is a multi-program effort
developed in collaboration with the Environmental Council of the States and NACAA (as
well as other state media associations) to evaluate performance in the air, water, and
hazardous waste compliance and enforcement programs. It is built upon a common set of
data metrics, which are verified and reviewed annually and provide a summary of trends
and past year performance of state activities in comparison to overall program goals,
national averages, and data entry requirements. There are five nationally consistent
review elements: Data, Inspections/Evaluations, Violations, Enforcement, and Penalties.
The SRF provides a useful building block upon which to analyze the effectiveness of
compliance and enforcement programs. This baseline analysis is based on media-specific
guidance such as the CMS for the air program. While CMS provides the national
performance expectations for the delegated agencies, the SRF is the instrument used to
consistently assess their performance.
The CAA SRF reviews will enable Regions to evaluate whether:
-	States/locals/tribes/territories conduct and accurately report FCEs, and that such
reported evaluations meet the definition of an FCE as provided in Section V
above.
-	States/locals/tribes/territories identify and document violations and provide
sufficient documentation to determine whether violations meet the definition of an
FRV and/or HPV.
-	State/locals/tribes/territories fully report compliance monitoring/enforcement
activities and outcomes in ICIS-Air consistent with Section X above.
-	Compliance monitoring commitments have been successfully completed and
whether such commitments are in the CMS Plan or other formally negotiated
document as discussed in Section VIII above.
19

-------
•	To assist Regions in conducting an SRF review, guidance and documentation is
available at: https://echo.epa.gov/srf help
•	Headquarters shall conduct evaluations of each Region, and use the information to:
monitor implementation of the policy; identify program deficiencies and successes;
establish national trends; compare programs; and develop new national initiatives. To the
extent possible, Headquarters will inform Regions in advance of the criteria that will be
used in evaluating Regional programs.
20

-------