EPA's Execution of Its Fiscal year 2007 New Budget Authority for the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program in the Regional Offices
Gao ID: GAO-08-1109R September 26, 2008This letter responds to a mandate in House Report No. 110-187 that directed GAO to review the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) budget execution, specifically to identify the factors that influence EPA's operating plan allocations to the regional offices for a selected national program and to compare and contrast these operating plan allocations with EPA's reported obligations in the regional offices. After discussing this mandate with your offices, we focused our review on EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance program in the regional offices. EPA, in partnership with state agencies, oversees compliance with 44 separate environmental programs. These programs regulate facilities--such as sewage treatment plants, petroleum refineries, and power plants--whose operations could pollute the air, water, and land, and thereby endanger public health and the environment. EPA and its regulatory partners are responsible for ensuring that these regulated facilities comply with program requirements and taking enforcement action in instances of noncompliance. EPA administers its environmental enforcement and compliance assurance responsibilities through its headquarters Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). While OECA provides overall direction on enforcement policies, and sometimes takes direct enforcement action, EPA's 10 regional offices are responsible for carrying out much of EPA's enforcement activities. The regional offices are responsible for monitoring regulated facilities' compliance, taking direct enforcement action, and providing compliance assistance and incentives to regulated facilities. Many federal environmental statutes, such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, direct EPA to approve or authorize qualified states to implement and enforce environmental programs consistent with federal requirements. Over the years, states have increased their inspection and enforcement activities. Today most states have responsibility for multiple EPA programs. As a result, EPA regional offices are now more actively involved in coordinating with and conducting oversight of states that have been granted enforcement authority and providing guidance, training, and technical assistance. The regions are also responsible for implementing programs in Indian country and in states that do not have enforcement authority for particular programs.
We found that EPA's fiscal year 2007 operating plan allocated to the regional offices approximately 72 percent ($184 million) of its fiscal year 2007 new budget authority associated with the four enforcement and compliance assurance program/projects that we reviewed. We found only small differences between these amounts and the amounts reported as obligated in the regional offices. Specifically, EPA reported as obligated in its regional offices about $179 million, or 2.6 percent less than the amounts allocated in the operating plan. EPA's fiscal year 2007 operating plan allocated to the regional offices about $184 million of the EPM appropriation account for the four enforcement and compliance assurance program/projects--civil enforcement, compliance assistance and centers, compliance incentives, and compliance monitoring. This represented about 72 percent of the total fiscal year 2007 new budget authority provided by the EPM appropriation account for these program/projects (see enc. I for details on the 10 regional offices). Only Small Differences Existed between the Amounts EPA Allocated to the Regional Offices in Its Fiscal Year 2007 Operating Plan and the Amounts Reported as Obligated in the Regional Offices EPA reported as obligated in its regional offices about $179 million of fiscal year 2007 new budget authority provided by its EPM appropriation for the four enforcement and compliance assurance program/projects. This was about $4.8 million, or 2.6 percent less than the amounts allocated to the regional offices in the agency's operating plan.
GAO-08-1109R, EPA's Execution of Its Fiscal year 2007 New Budget Authority for the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program in the Regional Offices
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-1109R
entitled 'EPA's Execution of Its Fiscal Year 2007 New Budget Authority
for the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program in the Regional
Offices' which was released on September 29, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-08-1109R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 26, 2008:
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein:
Chairman:
The Honorable Wayne Allard:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks:
Chairman:
The Honorable Todd Tiahrt:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Subject: EPA's Execution of Its Fiscal Year 2007 New Budget Authority
for the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program in the Regional
Offices:
This letter responds to a mandate in House Report No. 110-187 that
directed GAO to review the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
budget execution, specifically to identify the factors that influence
EPA's operating plan allocations to the regional offices for a selected
national program and to compare and contrast these operating plan
allocations with EPA's reported obligations in the regional offices.
After discussing this mandate with your offices, we focused our review
on EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance program in the regional
offices.
EPA, in partnership with state agencies, oversees compliance with 44
separate environmental programs. These programs regulate facilities--
such as sewage treatment plants, petroleum refineries, and power
plants--whose operations could pollute the air, water, and land, and
thereby endanger public health and the environment. EPA and its
regulatory partners are responsible for ensuring that these regulated
facilities comply with program requirements and taking enforcement
action in instances of noncompliance.
EPA administers its environmental enforcement and compliance assurance
responsibilities through its headquarters Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA). While OECA provides overall direction on
enforcement policies, and sometimes takes direct enforcement action,
EPA's 10 regional offices are responsible for carrying out much of
EPA's enforcement activities. The regional offices are responsible for
monitoring regulated facilities' compliance, taking direct enforcement
action, and providing compliance assistance and incentives to regulated
facilities. Many federal environmental statutes, such as the Clean Air
Act and the Clean Water Act, direct EPA to approve or authorize
qualified states to implement and enforce environmental programs
consistent with federal requirements. Over the years, states have
increased their inspection and enforcement activities. Today most
states have responsibility for multiple EPA programs. As a result, EPA
regional offices are now more actively involved in coordinating with
and conducting oversight of states that have been granted enforcement
authority and providing guidance, training, and technical assistance.
The regions are also responsible for implementing programs in Indian
country and in states that do not have enforcement authority for
particular programs.[Footnote 1]
On March 15, 2007, in accordance with the Revised Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2007,[Footnote 2] EPA finalized and
submitted its fiscal year 2007 operating plan to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.[Footnote 3] This operating plan only took
into account EPA's newly enacted budget authority for fiscal year
2007.[Footnote 4] The operating plan organized this budget authority by
the agency's major program areas of responsibility called program/
projects.[Footnote 5] EPA program/projects describe what the agency
does based on specific statutory authority (program) or what
significant tasks or problems the agency is addressing (projects).
After discussing this mandate with your offices, we focused our review
on EPA's fiscal year 2007 operating plan described above for the
enforcement and compliance assurance program and the reported
obligations of the budget authority allocated in that plan in EPA's
Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS). The operating plan
described the amounts EPA allocated to 14 program/projects to meet its
enforcement and compliance assurance responsibilities.[Footnote 6] We
also included a focus on whether EPA has implemented management systems
to assess how regional offices meet the requirements of EPA's
enforcement and compliance assurance program, and whether EPA has
systems in place to effectively respond to changes in its enforcement
responsibilities and recent fiscal constraints. We reported on some of
these issues in 2001 and 2005, particularly the challenges that OECA
and other EPA offices have faced in developing an effective data-driven
resource allocation system.[Footnote 7] In this context, we reviewed
(1) EPA's fiscal year 2007 operating plan allocations of new budget
authority to the regional offices for enforcement and compliance
assurance program/projects and (2) differences, if any, between those
amounts and the amounts reported as obligated in the regional offices
for these program/projects. In responding to these objectives, we also
reviewed OECA's workforce planning system to determine whether EPA has
reliable enforcement workload information that can support accurate,
data-driven resource allocations.
On May 2, 2008, we briefed professional staff from the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies on the results of our review (see enc. I). This letter
summarizes the main points from our briefing. At the request of the
subcommittee, we are also providing summary information on our past
reports that reviewed whether OECA's workforce planning system provided
reliable information on EPA's enforcement workload that could support a
systematic, data-driven process for allocating resources (see enc. II)
and managerial cost accounting (MCA) in the federal government and our
prior reviews of MCA practices in executive branch agencies (see enc.
III).
In consultation with your offices, we selected for our review four
program/projects that encompass EPA's core enforcement and compliance
assurance program and that are critical to ensuring compliance with
federal environmental laws: (1) civil enforcement, (2) compliance
assistance and centers, (3) compliance incentives, and (4) compliance
monitoring.[Footnote 8] These program/projects composed about 50
percent of the total $524 million of fiscal year 2007 new budget
authority allocated in EPA's fiscal year 2007 operating plan for the
agency's enforcement and compliance assurance program.[Footnote 9] We
focused only on EPA's fiscal year 2007 Environmental Program and
Management (EPM) appropriation account because it provided about 98
percent of the fiscal year 2007 new budget authority for the four
program/projects selected for our review.[Footnote 10] To review fiscal
year 2007 new budget authority and reported obligations of that budget
authority for the four program/projects in EPA's 10 regional offices,
we obtained detailed budget and financial data from EPA's Integrated
Financial Management System. To complete our review, we met with
officials from EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) and
OECA in EPA headquarters. We conducted this performance audit from
September 2007 through July 2008, in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
In summary, we found that EPA's fiscal year 2007 operating plan
allocated to the regional offices approximately 72 percent ($184
million) of its fiscal year 2007 new budget authority associated with
the four enforcement and compliance assurance program/projects that we
reviewed. We found only small differences between these amounts and the
amounts reported as obligated in the regional offices. Specifically,
EPA reported as obligated in its regional offices about $179 million,
or 2.6 percent less than the amounts allocated in the operating plan.
EPA's Fiscal Year 2007 Operating Plan Allocated to the Regional Offices
about 72 Percent of the Resources under Review for the Four Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance Program/Projects:
EPA's fiscal year 2007 operating plan allocated to the regional offices
about $184 million of the EPM appropriation account for the four
enforcement and compliance assurance program/projects--civil
enforcement, compliance assistance and centers, compliance incentives,
and compliance monitoring. This represented about 72 percent of the
total fiscal year 2007 new budget authority provided by the EPM
appropriation account for these program/projects (see enc. I for
details on the 10 regional offices).
Only Small Differences Existed between the Amounts EPA Allocated to the
Regional Offices in Its Fiscal Year 2007 Operating Plan and the Amounts
Reported as Obligated in the Regional Offices:
EPA reported as obligated in its regional offices about $179 million of
fiscal year 2007 new budget authority provided by its EPM appropriation
for the four enforcement and compliance assurance program/projects.
This was about $4.8 million, or 2.6 percent less than the amounts
allocated to the regional offices in the agency's operating plan as
shown in table 1 (see enc. I for details on the 10 regional offices).
[Footnote 11]
Table 1: EPA's Fiscal Year 2007 Operating Plan Allocations to the
Regional Offices of New Budget Authority Provided by the EPM
Appropriation and Obligations of That Budget Authority for Four
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program/Projects (Dollars in
thousands):
Program/project: Regional total;
New budget authority: $183,979;
Obligations: $179,213.7;
Difference between new budget authority and obligations in dollars:
$4,765.3;
Difference between new budget authority and obligations in percent:
2.59%.
Program/project: Civil enforcement;
New budget authority: $100,132;
Obligations: $98,349.9;
Difference between new budget authority and obligations in dollars:
$1,782.1;
Difference between new budget authority and obligations in percent:
1.78.
Program/project: Compliance assistance and centers;
New budget authority: $20,837;
Obligations: $19,965.2;
Difference between new budget authority and obligations in dollars:
$871.8;
Difference between new budget authority and obligations in percent:
4.18.
Program/project: Compliance incentives;
New budget authority: $5,105;
Obligations: $4,413.3;
Difference between new budget authority and obligations in dollars:
$691.7;
Difference between new budget authority and obligations in percent:
13.55.
Program/project: Compliance monitoring;
New budget authority: $57,905;
Obligations: $56,485.3;
Difference between new budget authority and obligations in dollars:
$1,419.7;
Difference between new budget authority and obligations in percent:
2.45%.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[End of table]
EPA Lacks Current Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Information to
Guide a Systematic Approach to Resource Allocations in the Regional
Offices:
In the course of our work, we noticed EPA's approach to allocating
resources in its operating plan to its regional offices has not
substantially changed since we reported on it in 2001 and 2005.
[Footnote 12] We reported in 2001 that OECA deployed its enforcement
and compliance assurance workforce largely on the basis of workload
models that were developed and last updated in the 1980s and did not
consider current workload information such as the increased role states
assumed over the years in environmental enforcement. We reported in
2005 that EPA's process for allocating resources involved making annual
incremental adjustments and relied primarily on historical precedent.
EPA did not have a system in place to conduct a bottom-up review of the
nature or distribution of its current workload, which has changed over
time as EPA has taken on new responsibilities under the Clean Water Act
and other laws and the states gradually assumed a greater role in the
day-to-day implementation of key aspects of this workload.[Footnote 13]
We specifically recommended in 2005 that EPA focus its efforts on a
ground level assessment and (1) identify key workload indicators that
drive resource needs, (2) ensure that relevant data are complete and
reliable, and (3) use the results to inform the agency's resource
allocations. In both reports, we noted that one obstacle to developing
a more systematic, data-driven approach to resource allocations was
that EPA lacks complete and reliable workforce planning information,
such as how much time staff work on various types of enforcement
activities. In responding to our 2005 report, EPA voiced concerns that
a bottom-up workload assessment contrasts with its approach, which
links budgeting and resource allocation to performance goals and
results. However, we maintain that periodically assessing workload and
how it drives resource needs is fully compatible with and would enhance
EPA's approach.
Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
In written comments on the draft report, EPA generally agreed with the
information presented. EPA also provided some technical comments on the
report, which we have incorporated as appropriate in the report. EPA's
written comments are reprinted in Enclosure IV.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional
committees, the Administrator of EPA, and other interested parties. We
will also make copies available to others on request. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at 202-512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report were
Ed Kratzer, Assistant Director; Mark Braza; Carlos Diz; Brian M.
Friedman; Donald Neff; Jacqueline Nowicki; Alison O'Neill; Sheila
Rajabiun; Michael Sagalow; John C. Smith; Jeanette Soares; and Jack
Warner.
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Enclosures:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Briefing to the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of
Representatives:
Background:
House Report No. 110-187 directed GAO to review the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) budget execution to address questions raised
by the House Appropriations Subcommittee about how EPA allocates funds
to its regional offices and how the regional offices obligate these
funds for individual programs and projects. Subcommittee professional
staff directed GAO to focus the review on EPA's enforcement and
compliance assurance program in the regional offices, which is an area
of primary concern to the subcommittee. Specifically, the subcommittee
professional staff said their concerns could be satisfied by a
descriptive review of (1) EPA's allocations of budget authority to the
regional offices for enforcement and compliance assurance program/
projects in the agency's operating plan and (2) changes, if any, EPA
made in the fiscal year 2007 operating plan to the budget authority
allocated for enforcement and compliance assurance in the regional
offices and the fiscal year 2007 obligations. In addition, subcommittee
staff said they need to understand whether budget authority allocated
in the operating plan for civil enforcement is being reprogrammed and
obligated for nonenforcement activities.
Table 2: Fiscal Year 2007 New Budget Authority Allocated to Selected
Program/Projects in EPA's Beginning of Year Operating Plan, End of Year
Operating Plan, Total Net Change in Budget Authority during the Year,
and Fiscal Year 2007 Obligations of New Budget Authority:
Dollars in thousands;
Fiscal year 2007;
New budget authority;
Appropriation and program/project:
Beginning of year[A]:
End of year[B]:
Net change during year:
Obligations[C]:
Appropriation and program/project: Environmental program and
management: Total for four program/projects;
Beginning of year[A]: $257,447;
End of year[B]: $256,830.2;
Net change during year: -$616.8; -0.24%;
Obligations[C]: $246,657.0.
Appropriation and program/project: Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement;
Beginning of year[A]: $125,578;
End of year[B]: $125,078.5;
Net change during year: -$499.5; -0.40%;
Obligations[C]: $121,905.4.
Appropriation and program/project: Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers;
Beginning of year[A]: $29,170;
End of year[B]: $29,253;
Net change during year: $83; 0.28%;
Obligations[C]: $27,238.7.
Appropriation and program/project: Environmental program and
management: Compliance incentives;
Beginning of year[A]: $9,755;
End of year[B]: $9,284.6;
Net change during year: -$470.4; -4.82%;
Obligations[C]: $8,477.1.
Appropriation and program/project: Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring;
Beginning of year[A]: $92,944;
End of year[B]: $93,214.1;
Net change during year: $270.1; 0.29%;
Obligations[C]: $89,035.8.
Appropriation and program/project: Hazardous substance superfund; Total
for four program/projects:
Beginning of year[A]: $2,225;
End of year[B]: $2,343;
Net change during year: $118; 5.30%;
Obligations[C]: $2,128.1.
Appropriation and program/project: Hazardous substance superfund; Civil
enforcement;
Beginning of year[A]: $880;
End of year[B]: $880;
Net change during year: 0; 0%;
Obligations[C]: $726.3.
Appropriation and program/project: Hazardous substance superfund;
Compliance assistance and centers;
Beginning of year[A]: $22;
End of year[B]: $22;
Net change during year: 0; 0%;
Obligations[C]: $11.1.
Appropriation and program/project: Hazardous substance superfund;
Compliance incentives;
Beginning of year[A]: $141;
End of year[B]: $141;
Net change during year: 0; 0%;
Obligations[C]: $120.5.
Appropriation and program/project: Hazardous substance superfund;
Compliance monitoring;
Beginning of year[A]: $1,182;
End of year[B]: $1,300;
Net change during year: $118; 9.98%;
Obligations[C]: $1,270.2.
Appropriation and program/project: Leaking underground storage tanks;
Compliance assistance and centers;
Beginning of year[A]: $724;
End of year[B]: $671.6;
Net change during year: -$52.4; -7.24%;
Obligations[C]: $522.5.
Appropriation and program/project: Oil spill response; Total for two
program/projects;
Beginning of year[A]: $2,007;
End of year[B]: $2,006.9;
Net change during year: -$0.1; -0.005%;
Obligations[C]: $1,788.9.
Appropriation and program/project: Oil spill response; Civil
enforcement;
Beginning of year[A]: $1,730;
End of year[B]: $1,729.9;
Net change during year: -0.1; -0.01%;
Obligations[C]: $1,530.0.
Appropriation and program/project: Oil spill response; Compliance
assistance and centers;
Beginning of year[A]: $277;
End of year[B]: $277;
Net change during year: 0; 0%;
Obligations[C]: $258.9.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[A] Beginning of year fiscal year 2007 new budget authority are
allocations that EPA reported in the fiscal year 2007 operating plan
that it submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
on March 15, 2007. These allocations reflect budget authority enacted
for the entire fiscal year 2007, October 1, 2006, through September 30,
2007. EPA referred to these amounts as Total 2007 Enacted in its fiscal
year 2007 operating plan.
[B] End of year fiscal year 2007 new budget authority represents
amounts allocated in EPA's fiscal year 2007 operating plan as of
September 30, 2007. EPA reported this plan in the agency's Integrated
Financial Management System.
[C] Fiscal year 2007 obligations are reported obligations of fiscal
year 2007 new budget authority from EPA's Integrated Financial
Management System. These obligations are not EPA's total fiscal year
2007 obligations for the four selected program/projects because the
above amounts do not include unexpired prior year budget authority that
was available for obligation in fiscal year 2007.
[End of table]
Summary Highlights:
This analysis focused on EPA's Environmental Program and Management
(EPM) Appropriation:
Allocations to the regional offices:
* EPA allocated over half the fiscal year 2007 new budget authority for
the four program/projects to the regions:
- Civil enforcement--$100.1 million, or 79.7 percent;
- Compliance assistance and centers--$20.8 million, or 71.4 percent;
- Compliance incentives--$5.1 million, or 52.3 percent; and:
- Compliance monitoring--$57.9 million, or 62.3 percent.
Fiscal Year 2007 Obligations of Fiscal Year 2007 New Budget Authority:
* Payroll made up the bulk of EPA's fiscal year 2007 obligations for
the selected program/projects in the regions.
Operating Plan Changes in New Budget Authority between the Beginning
and End of Fiscal Year 2007[Footnote 14]:
* Overall, there was a $616,800 (0.24 percent) net decrease in the
total allocation to the four selected program/projects. The total
allocation to the four program/projects in the regions decreased
$241,100, or 0.13 percent.
* Changes in individual regional offices to selected program/projects
were small and varied:
- The largest dollar change was in Region 10 (Seattle)--a net increase
of $410,600, or 10.88 percent, in the allocations for compliance
monitoring.
* For the four program/projects agencywide, the largest change was a
net decrease in civil enforcement ($499,500, or 0.4 percent). The bulk
of this was due to net change of $448,110 in four OECA headquarters
units:
- Office of Assistant Administrator--a decrease of $202,200, or 5.3
percent;
- Office of Compliance--a decrease of $150,000, or 56.4 percent;
- Office of Civil Enforcement--a decrease of $114,400, or 0.6 percent;
- Office of Site Remediation Enforcement--a decrease of $43,000, or 6.9
percent.
* The total regional allocation for civil enforcement decreased
$51,400.
- The largest changes were in Region 5 (Chicago)--a decrease of
$302,500, or 1.73 percent; and Region 6 (Dallas)--an increase of
$300,000, or 2.20 percent.
- Region 4 (Atlanta) had no change.
GAO Reported in 2001 and 2005 that EPA Lacked Current Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance Information to Guide a Systematic Approach to
Resource Allocations in the Regional Offices:
* We reported in 2001 that OECA deployed its enforcement and compliance
assurance workforce largely on the basis of workload models that were
last updated in the 1980s and did not consider current workload
information.[Footnote 15] We reported in 2005 that EPA's process for
allocating resources involved making annual incremental adjustments and
relied primarily on historical precedent.[Footnote 16] EPA did not have
a system in place to conduct a bottom-up review of the nature or
distribution of its current workload, which has changed over time as
EPA has taken on new responsibilities under the Clean Water Act and
other laws. We specifically recommended in 2005 that EPA focus its
efforts on a ground level assessment and (1) identify key workload
indicators that drive resource needs, (2) ensure that relevant data are
complete and reliable, and (3) use the results to inform the agency's
resource allocations. In 2001 and 2005, we noted that one obstacle to
developing a more systematic, data-driven approach to resource
allocations was that EPA lacks complete and reliable workforce planning
information, such as how much time staff work on various types of
enforcement activities.
Scope and Methodology:
To complete this briefing we met with officials from the EPA Office of
the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) and the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance in EPA headquarters between October 2007 and May
2008. We also reviewed reported budget and obligations data for EPA's
headquarters and regional offices from the agency's Integrated
Financial Management Information System.
This review focused on:
* EPA's fiscal year 2007 operating plan submitted to EPA's House and
Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on March 15, 2007, and the fiscal
year 2007 obligations of the budget authority in this plan.
* Fiscal year 2007 new budget authority and fiscal year 2007
obligations of this budget authority.[Footnote 17]
* The enforcement and compliance assurance program in the regional
offices.[Footnote 18]
* Four selected program activities, called "program/projects."[Footnote
19]
* New budget authority allocated to the regional offices for the
selected program/projects came from three of EPA's fiscal year 2007
appropriations: 1. Environmental Program and Management (2-year budget
authority); 2. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (no-year budget
authority), 3. Oil Spill Response (no-year budget authority). We
focused only on EPA's fiscal year 2007 Environmental Program and
Management appropriation account because it provided about 98 percent
of the fiscal year 2007 new budget authority for the four program/
projects selected for our review.
Enclosure I: Fiscal Year 2007 New Budget Authority Allocated to the
Selected Program/Projects in the Beginning of the Year in EPA's Fiscal
Year 2007 Operating Plan Submitted to EPA's House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations and Fiscal Year 2007 Obligations of This New Budget
Authority (Dollars in thousands); Fiscal year 2007;
Appropriation and program/project: Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement;
New budget authority[A](1): $125,578;
Obligations[B](2): $121,905.4;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$3,672.6; -2.92%.
Appropriation and program/project: Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers;
New budget authority[A](1): $29,170;
Obligations[B](2): $27,238.7;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$1,931.3; -6.62%.
Appropriation and program/project: Environmental program and
management: Compliance incentives;
New budget authority[A](1): $9,755;
Obligations[B](2): $8,477.1;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$1,277.9; -13.10%.
Appropriation and program/project: Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring;
New budget authority[A](1): $92,944;
Obligations[B](2): $89,035.8;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$3,908.2; -4.20%.
Appropriation and program/project: Hazardous substance superfund; Civil
enforcement;
New budget authority[A](1): $880;
Obligations[B](2): $726.3;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$153.7; -17.47%.
Appropriation and program/project: Hazardous substance superfund;
Compliance assistance and centers;
New budget authority[A](1): $22;
Obligations[B](2): $11.1;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$10.9; -49.55%.
Appropriation and program/project: Hazardous substance superfund;
Compliance incentives;
New budget authority[A](1): $141;
Obligations[B](2): $120.5;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$20.5; -14.54%.
Appropriation and program/project: Hazardous substance superfund;
Compliance monitoring;
New budget authority[A](1): $1,182;
Obligations[B](2): $1,270.2;
Difference (2 minus 1): $88.2; 7.46%.
Appropriation and program/project: Leaking underground storage tanks;
Compliance assistance and centers;
New budget authority[A](1): $724;
Obligations[B](2): $522.5;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$201.5; -27.83%.
Appropriation and program/project: Oil spill response; Civil
enforcement;
New budget authority[A](1): $1,730;
Obligations[B](2): $1,530;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$200; -11.56%.
Appropriation and program/project: Oil spill response; Compliance
assistance and centers;
New budget authority[A](1): $277;
Obligations[B](2): $258.9;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$18.1; -6.53%.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[A] New budget authority are allocations that EPA reported in the
fiscal year 2007 operating plan that it submitted to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations on March 15, 2007. These
allocations reflect budget authority enacted for the entire fiscal year
2007: October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007. EPA refers to these
amounts as Total 2007 Enacted in its fiscal year 2007 operating plan.
[B] Fiscal year 2007 obligations are reported obligations of fiscal
year 2007 new budget authority in EPA's Integrated Financial Management
System. These obligations are not EPA's total fiscal year 2007
obligations for the four selected program/projects because the above
amounts do not include unexpired prior year budget authority that was
available for obligation in fiscal year 2007.
[End of table]
Enclosure II: EPA's Total Fiscal Year 2007 Obligations, Obligations of
Fiscal Year 2007 New Budget Authority, and Fiscal Year 2007 Carryover
for the Selected EPA Program/Projects (Dollars in thousands); Fiscal
year 2007:
Environmental program and management; Total for four program/projects;
Total obligations: $251,404;
Obligations of new budget authority: $246,657;
Carryover: $4,747;
Carryover as a share of total obligations: 1.89%.
Appropriation and program/project: Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement;
Total obligations: $123,003.7;
Obligations of new budget authority: $121,905.4;
Carryover: $1,098.3;
Carryover as a share of total obligations: 0.89%.
Appropriation and program/project: Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers;
Total obligations: $28,226.9;
Obligations of new budget authority: $27,238.7;
Carryover: $988.2;
Carryover as a share of total obligations: 3.50%.
Appropriation and program/project: Environmental program and
management: Compliance incentives;
Total obligations: $9,448.8;
Obligations of new budget authority: $8,477.1;
Carryover: $971.7;
Carryover as a share of total obligations: 10.28%.
Appropriation and program/project: Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring;
Total obligations: $90,724.6;
Obligations of new budget authority: $89,035.8;
Carryover: $1,688.8;
Carryover as a share of total obligations: 1.86%.
Appropriation and program/project: Hazardous substance superfund; Total
for four program/projects;
Total obligations: $2,376.7;
Obligations of new budget authority: $2,128.1;
Carryover: $248.6;
Carryover as a share of total obligations: 10.46%.
Appropriation and program/project: Hazardous substance superfund; Civil
enforcement;
Total obligations: $739.2;
Obligations of new budget authority: $726.3;
Carryover: $12.9;
Carryover as a share of total obligations: 1.75%.
Appropriation and program/project: Hazardous substance superfund;
Compliance assistance and centers;
Total obligations: $11.1;
Obligations of new budget authority: $11.1;
Carryover: 0;
Carryover as a share of total obligations: 0.
Appropriation and program/project: Hazardous substance superfund;
Compliance incentives;
Total obligations: $139.4;
Obligations of new budget authority: $120.5;
Carryover: $18.9;
Carryover as a share of total obligations: 13.56%.
Appropriation and program/project: Hazardous substance superfund;
Compliance monitoring;
Total obligations: $1,487;
Obligations of new budget authority: $1,270.2;
Carryover: $216.8;
Carryover as a share of total obligations: 14.58%.
Appropriation and program/project: Leaking underground storage tanks;
Compliance assistance and centers;
Total obligations: $644.1;
Obligations of new budget authority: $522.5;
Carryover: $121.6;
Carryover as a share of total obligations: 18.88%.
Appropriation and program/project: Oil spill response; Total for two
program/projects;
Total obligations: $1,929.4;
Obligations of new budget authority: $1,788.9;
Carryover: $140.5;
Carryover as a share of total obligations: 7.28%.
Appropriation and program/project: Oil spill response; Civil
enforcement;
Total obligations: $1,661.5;
Obligations of new budget authority: $1,530;
Carryover: $131.5;
Carryover as a share of total obligations: 7.91%.
Appropriation and program/project: Oil spill response; Compliance
assistance and centers;
Total obligations: $267.9;
Obligations of new budget authority: $258.9;
Carryover: $9;
Carryover as a share of total obligations: 3.36%.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Notes: Carryover refers to balances of unexpired prior year budget
authority that were available for obligation in fiscal year 2007.
All reported obligations shown in this table are from EPA's Integrated
Financial Management System.
[End of table]
Enclosure III: Fiscal Year 2007 New Budget Authority Allocated to the
Selected Program/Projects in EPA's Beginning of Year Operating Plan,
End of Year Operating Plan, and Total Net Change in Budget Authority
during the Year; Fiscal year 2007 new budget authority; (Dollars in
thousands):
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement; Headquarters total;
Beginning of year[A](1): $25,446;
End of year[B](2): $24,997.9;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$448.1;
Net change during year; (in percent): -1.76%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement; Region total;
Beginning of year[A](1): $100,132;
End of year[B](2): $100,080.6;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$51.4;
Net change during year; (in percent): -0.05%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement; Region 1, Boston;
Beginning of year[A](1): $5,902;
End of year[B](2): $5,861.9;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$40.1;
Net change during year; (in percent): -0.68%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement; Region 2, New York;
Beginning of year[A](1): $11,599;
End of year[B](2): $11,530;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$69;
Net change during year; (in percent): -0.59%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement; Region 3, Philadelphia;
Beginning of year[A](1): $9,884;
End of year[B](2): $9,875;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$9;
Net change during year; (in percent): -0.09%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement; Region 4, Atlanta;
Beginning of year[A](1): $13,098;
End of year[B](2): $13,098;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement; Region 5, Chicago;
Beginning of year[A](1): $17,484;
End of year[B](2): $17,181.5;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$302.5;
Net change during year; (in percent): -1.73%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement; Region 6, Dallas;
Beginning of year[A](1): $13,606;
End of year[B](2): $13,906;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $300;
Net change during year; (in percent): 2.20%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement; Region 7, Kansas City;
Beginning of year[A](1): $4,804;
End of year[B](2): $5,048.2;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $244.2;
Net change during year; (in percent): 5.08%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement; Region 8, Denver;
Beginning of year[A](1): $7,252;
End of year[B](2): $7,076.2;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$175.8;
Net change during year; (in percent): -2.42%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement; Region 9, San Francisco;
Beginning of year[A](1): $10,420;
End of year[B](2): $10,480;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $60;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.58%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement; Region 10, Seattle;
Beginning of year[A](1): $6,083;
End of year[B](2): $6,023.8;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$59.2;
Net change during year; (in percent): -0.97%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers; Headquarters total;
Beginning of year[A](1): $8,333;
End of year[B](2): $8,440.9;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $107.9;
Net change during year; (in percent): 1.29%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers; Region total;
Beginning of year[A](1): $20,837;
End of year[B](2): $20,812.1;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$24.9;
Net change during year; (in percent): -0.12%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers; Region 1, Boston;
Beginning of year[A](1): $1,801;
End of year[B](2): $1,705.9;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$95.1;
Net change during year; (in percent): -5.28%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers; Region 2, New York;
Beginning of year[A](1): $2,512;
End of year[B](2): $2,762;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $250;
Net change during year; (in percent): 9.95%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers; Region 3, Philadelphia;
Beginning of year[A](1): $1,737;
End of year[B](2): $1,737;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers; Region 4, Atlanta;
Beginning of year[A](1): $2,761;
End of year[B](2): $2,760.1;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$0.9;
Net change during year; (in percent): -0.03%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers; Region 5, Chicago;
Beginning of year[A](1): $3,038;
End of year[B](2): $3,133;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $95;
Net change during year; (in percent): 3.13%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers; Region 6, Dallas;
Beginning of year[A](1): $2,503;
End of year[B](2): $2,303;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$200;
Net change during year; (in percent): -7.99.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers; Region 7, Kansas City;
Beginning of year[A](1): $1,077;
End of year[B](2): $1,147.7;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $70.7;
Net change during year; (in percent): 6.56%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers; Region 8, Denver;
Beginning of year[A](1): $1,266;
End of year[B](2): $1,244.4;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$21.6;
Net change during year; (in percent): -1.71%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers; Region 9, San Francisco;
Beginning of year[A](1): $2,166;
End of year[B](2): $2,064;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$102;
Net change during year; (in percent): -4.71%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers; Region 10, Seattle;
Beginning of year[A](1): $1,976;
End of year[B](2): $1,955;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$21;
Net change during year; (in percent): -1.06%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance incentives; Headquarters total;
Beginning of year[A](1): $4,650;
End of year[B](2): $4,650;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance incentives; Region total;
Beginning of year[A](1): $5,105;
End of year[B](2): $4,634.6;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$470.4;
Net change during year; (in percent): -9.21%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance incentives; Region 1, Boston;
Beginning of year[A](1): $1,054;
End of year[B](2): $711;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$343;
Net change during year; (in percent): -32.54%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance incentives; Region 2, New York;
Beginning of year[A](1): $626;
End of year[B](2): $676;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $50;
Net change during year; (in percent): 7.99%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance incentives; Region 3, Philadelphia;
Beginning of year[A](1): $510;
End of year[B](2): $530;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $20;
Net change during year; (in percent): 3.92%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance incentives; Region 4, Atlanta;
Beginning of year[A](1): $608;
End of year[B](2): $608;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance incentives; Region 5, Chicago;
Beginning of year[A](1): $680;
End of year[B](2): $585;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$95;
Net change during year; (in percent): -13.97%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance incentives; Region 6, Dallas;
Beginning of year[A](1): $540;
End of year[B](2): $430;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$110;
Net change during year; (in percent): -20.37%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance incentives; Region 7, Kansas City;
Beginning of year[A](1): $371;
End of year[B](2): $371;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance incentives; Region 8, Denver;
Beginning of year[A](1): $120;
End of year[B](2): $121.2;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $1.2;
Net change during year; (in percent): 1.00%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance incentives; Region 9, San Francisco;
Beginning of year[A](1): $457;
End of year[B](2): $515.4;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $58.4;
Net change during year; (in percent): 12.78.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance incentives; Region 10, Seattle;
Beginning of year[A](1): $139;
End of year[B](2): $87;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$52;
Net change during year; (in percent): -37.41%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring; Headquarters total;
Beginning of year[A](1): $35,039;
End of year[B](2): $35,003.5;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$35.5;
Net change during year; (in percent): -0.10%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring; Region total;
Beginning of year[A](1): $57,905;
End of year[B](2): $58,210.6;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $305.6;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.53%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring; Region 1, Boston;
Beginning of year[A](1): $4,316;
End of year[B](2): $4,568.5;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $252.5;
Net change during year; (in percent): 5.85%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring; Region 2, New York;
Beginning of year[A](1): $6,606;
End of year[B](2): $6,503.8;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$102.2;
Net change during year; (in percent): -1.55%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring; Region 3, Philadelphia;
Beginning of year[A](1): $5,430;
End of year[B](2): $5,388.9;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$41.1;
Net change during year; (in percent): -0.76%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring; Region 4, Atlanta;
Beginning of year[A](1): $7,853;
End of year[B](2): $7,869.6;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $16.6;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.21%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring; Region 5, Chicago;
Beginning of year[A](1): $8,792;
End of year[B](2): $8,730.3;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$61.7;
Net change during year; (in percent): -0.70%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring; Region 6, Dallas;
Beginning of year[A](1): $7,744;
End of year[B](2): $7,746.5;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $2.5;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.03%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring; Region 7, Kansas City;
Beginning of year[A](1): $4,613;
End of year[B](2): $4,623;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $10;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.22%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring; Region 8, Denver;
Beginning of year[A](1): $3,125;
End of year[B](2): $2,951.8;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$173.2;
Net change during year; (in percent): -5.54%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring; Region 9, San Francisco;
Beginning of year[A](1): $5,653;
End of year[B](2): $5,644.6;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$8.4;
Net change during year; (in percent): -0.15%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring; Region 10, Seattle;
Beginning of year[A](1): $3,773;
End of year[B](2): $4,183.6;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $410.6;
Net change during year; (in percent): 10.88%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Hazardous substance superfund;
Civil enforcement; Headquarters total;
Beginning of year[A](1): $880;
End of year[B](2): $880;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Hazardous substance superfund;
Compliance assistance and centers; Headquarters total;
Beginning of year[A](1): $22;
End of year[B](2): $22;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Hazardous substance superfund;
Compliance incentives; Headquarters total;
Beginning of year[A](1): $141;
End of year[B](2): $141;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Hazardous substance superfund;
Compliance monitoring; Headquarters total;
Beginning of year[A](1): $1,182;
End of year[B](2): $1,300;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $118;
Net change during year; (in percent): 9.98%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Compliance assistance and
centers; Region total;
Beginning of year[A](1): $724;
End of year[B](2): $671.6;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$52.4;
Net change during year; (in percent): -7.24%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Compliance assistance and
centers; Region 1, Boston;
Beginning of year[A](1): $89;
End of year[B](2): $89;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Compliance assistance and
centers; Region 3, Philadelphia;
Beginning of year[A](1): $113;
End of year[B](2): $64;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$49;
Net change during year; (in percent): -43.36%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Compliance assistance and
centers; Region 4, Atlanta;
Beginning of year[A](1): $110;
End of year[B](2): $110;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Compliance assistance and
centers; Region 5, Chicago;
Beginning of year[A](1): $126;
End of year[B](2): $126;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Compliance assistance and
centers; Region 6, Dallas;
Beginning of year[A](1): $110;
End of year[B](2): $110;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Compliance assistance and
centers; Region 7, Kansas City;
Beginning of year[A](1): $20;
End of year[B](2): $20;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Compliance assistance and
centers; Region 8, Denver;
Beginning of year[A](1): $77;
End of year[B](2): $82.5;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $5.5;
Net change during year; (in percent): 7.14%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Compliance assistance and
centers; Region 9, San Francisco;
Beginning of year[A](1): $30;
End of year[B](2): $31;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $1;
Net change during year; (in percent): 3.33%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Compliance assistance and
centers; Region 10, Seattle;
Beginning of year[A](1): $49;
End of year[B](2): $39.1;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$9.9;
Net change during year; (in percent): -20.20%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Oil spill response; Civil
enforcement; Headquarters total;
Beginning of year[A](1): $168;
End of year[B](2): $170.1;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $2.1;
Net change during year; (in percent): 1.25%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Oil spill response; Civil
enforcement; Region total;
Beginning of year[A](1): $1,562;
End of year[B](2): $1,559.8;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$2.2;
Net change during year; (in percent): -0.14%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Oil spill response; Civil
enforcement; Region 1, Boston;
Beginning of year[A](1): $152;
End of year[B](2): $152;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Oil spill response; Civil
enforcement; Region 2, New York;
Beginning of year[A](1): $155;
End of year[B](2): $155;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Oil spill response; Civil
enforcement; Region 3, Philadelphia;
Beginning of year[A](1): $162;
End of year[B](2): $163;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $1;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.62%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Oil spill response; Civil
enforcement; Region 4, Atlanta;
Beginning of year[A](1): $177;
End of year[B](2): $177;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Oil spill response; Civil
enforcement; Region 5, Chicago;
Beginning of year[A](1): $202;
End of year[B](2): $203;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $1;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.50%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Oil spill response; Civil
enforcement; Region 6, Dallas;
Beginning of year[A](1): $182;
End of year[B](2): $182;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Oil spill response; Civil
enforcement; Region 7, Kansas City;
Beginning of year[A](1): $115;
End of year[B](2): $115.1;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $0.1;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.09%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Oil spill response; Civil
enforcement; Region 8, Denver;
Beginning of year[A](1): $149;
End of year[B](2): $144.3;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$4.7;
Net change during year; (in percent): -3.15%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Oil spill response; Civil
enforcement; Region 9, San Francisco;
Beginning of year[A](1): $112;
End of year[B](2): $112;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): 0;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Oil spill response; Civil
enforcement; Region 10, Seattle;
Beginning of year[A](1): $156;
End of year[B](2): $156.4;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $0.4;
Net change during year; (in percent): 0.26%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Oil spill response; Compliance
assistance and centers; Headquarters total;
Beginning of year[A](1): $277;
End of year[B](2): $258.4;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): -$18.6;
Net change during year; (in percent): -6.71%.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Oil spill response; Compliance
assistance and centers; Region total;
Beginning of year[A](1): 0;
End of year[B](2): $18.6;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $18.6;
Net change during year; (in percent): Not applicable.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Oil spill response; Compliance
assistance and centers; Region 5, Chicago;
Beginning of year[A](1): 0;
End of year[B](2): $7.0;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $7.0;
Net change during year; (in percent): Not applicable.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Oil spill response; Compliance
assistance and centers; Region 6, Dallas;
Beginning of year[A](1): 0;
End of year[B](2): $7.0;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $7.0;
Net change during year; (in percent): Not applicable.
Appropriation, program/project, region: Oil spill response; Compliance
assistance and centers; Region 8, Denver;
Beginning of year[A](1): 0;
End of year[B](2): $4.6;
Net change during year; (2 minus 1): $4.6;
Net change during year; (in percent): Not applicable.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data:
[A] Beginning of year new budget authority are amounts reported in the
EPA fiscal year 2007 operating plan from EPA's Integrated Financial
Management System. EPA referred to these amounts as 2007 Enacted in its
fiscal year 2007 operating plan.
[B] End of year new budget authority represents amounts allocated in
EPA's fiscal year 2007 operating plan as of September 30, 2007. EPA
reported this plan in the agency's Integrated Financial Management
System.
[End of table]
Enclosure IV: The Difference between the End of Year Fiscal Year 2007
New Budget Authority Allocated to the Selected Program/Projects in the
Regional Offices 1-10 and the Fiscal Year 2007 Obligations of This
Budget Authority (Dollars in thousands) Fiscal year 2007:
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement: Headquarters total;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $24,997.9;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $23,555.5;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$1,442.4; -5.77%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement: Region total;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $100,080.6;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $98,349.9;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$1,730.7; -1.73%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement: Region 1, Boston;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $5,861.9;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $5,646.9;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$215; -3.67%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement: Region 2, New York;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $11,530;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $11,375.7;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$154.3; -1.34%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement: Region 3, Philadelphia;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $9,875;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $9,558.8;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$316.2; -3.20%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement: Region 4, Atlanta;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $13,098;
$12,981.2;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$116.8; -0.89%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement: Region 5, Chicago;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $17,181.5;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $16,775.8;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$405.7; -2.36%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement: Region 6, Dallas;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $13,906;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $13,666.6;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$239.4; -1.72%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement: Region 7, Kansas City;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $5,048.2;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $4,987.4;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$60.8; -1.20%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement: Region 8, Denver;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $7,076.2;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $7,072.8;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$3.4; -0.05%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement: Region 9, San Francisco;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $10,480;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $10,405.8;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$74.2; -0.71%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Civil enforcement: Region 10, Seattle;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $6,023.8;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $5,878.9;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$144.9; -2.41%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers: Headquarters total;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $8,440.9;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $7,273.5;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$1,167.4; -13.83%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers: Region total;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $20,812.1;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $19,965.2;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$846.9; -4.07%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 1, Boston;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $1,705.9;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $1,612.2;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$93.7; -5.49%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 2, New York;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $2,762;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $2,660.6;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$101.4; -3.67%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 3, Philadelphia;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $1,737;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $1,703.1;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$33.9; -1.95%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 4, Atlanta;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $2,760.1;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $2,733.8;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$26.3; -0.95%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 5, Chicago;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $3,133;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $3,060.6;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$72.4; -2.31%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 6, Dallas;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $2,303;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $2,284.9;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$18.1; -0.79%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 7, Kansas City;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $1,147.7;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $1,043.6;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$104.1; -9.07%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 8, Denver;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $1,244.4;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $999.7;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$244.7; -19.66%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 9, San Francisco;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $2,064;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $1,967.9;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$96.1; -4.66%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 10, Seattle;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $1,955;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $1,898.8;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$56.2; -2.87%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance Incentives: Headquarters total;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $4,650;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $4,063.8;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$586.2; -12.61%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance Incentives: Region total;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $4,634.6;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $4,413.3;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$221.3; -4.77%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance Incentives: Region 1, Boston;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $711;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $625.3;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$85.7; -12.05%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance Incentives: Region 2, New York;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $676;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $641.8;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$34.2; -5.06%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance Incentives: Region 3, Philadelphia;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $530;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $480.9;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$49.1; -9.26%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance Incentives: Region 4, Atlanta;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $608;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $602.5;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$5.5; -0.90%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance Incentives: Region 5, Chicago;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $585;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $558.1;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$26.9; -4.60%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance Incentives: Region 6, Dallas;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $430;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $413.1;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$16.9; -3.93%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance Incentives: Region 7, Kansas City;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $371;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $362.5;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$8.5; -2.29%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance Incentives: Region 8, Denver;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $121.2;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $123.3;
Difference (2 minus 1): $2.1; 1.73%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance Incentives: Region 9, San Francisco;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $515.4;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $539.2;
Difference (2 minus 1): $23.8; 4.62%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance Incentives: Region 10, Seattle;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $87;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $66.6;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$20.4; -23.45%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring: Headquarters total;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $35,003.5;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $32,550.5;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$2,453; -7.01%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring: Region total;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $58,210.6;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $56,485.3;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$1,725.3; -2.96%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring: Region 1, Boston;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $4,568.5;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $4,414.6;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$153.9; -3.37%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring: Region 2, New York;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $6,503.8;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $6,216.4;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$287.4; -4.42%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring: Region 3, Philadelphia;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $5,388.9;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $5,301.3;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$87.6; -1.63%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring: Region 4, Atlanta;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $7,869.6;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $7,583.1;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$286.5; -3.64%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring: Region 5, Chicago;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $8,730.3;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $8,679.4;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$50.9; -0.58%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring: Region 6, Dallas;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $7,746.5;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $7,361;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$385.5; -4.98%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring: Region 7, Kansas City;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $4,623;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $4,549.5;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$73.5; -1.59%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring: Region 8, Denver;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $2,951.8;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $2,782.3;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$169.5; -5.74%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring: Region 9, San Francisco;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $5,644.6;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $5,634;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$10.6; -0.19%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Environmental program and
management: Compliance monitoring: Region 10, Seattle;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $4,183.6;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $3,963.7;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$219.9; -5.26%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Hazardous substance
superfund: Civil enforcement: Headquarters total;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $880;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $726.3;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$153.7; -17.47%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Hazardous substance
superfund: Compliance assistance and centers: Headquarters total;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $22;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $11.1;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$10.9; -49.55%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Hazardous substance
superfund: Compliance incentives: Headquarters total;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $141;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $120.5;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$20.5; -14.54%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Hazardous substance
superfund: Compliance monitoring: Headquarters total;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $1,300;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $1,270.2;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$29.8; -2.29%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Leaking underground
storage tanks: Compliance assistance and centers: Region total;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $671.6;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $522.5;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$149.1; -22.20%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Leaking underground
storage tanks: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 1, Boston;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $89;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $0.4;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$88.6; -99.55%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Leaking underground
storage tanks: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 3,
Philadelphia;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $64;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $51.8;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$12.2; -19.06%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Leaking underground
storage tanks: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 4, Atlanta;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $110;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $95.9;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$14.1; -12.82%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Leaking underground
storage tanks: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 5, Chicago;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $126;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $117.4;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$8.6; -6.83%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Leaking underground
storage tanks: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 6, Dallas;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $110;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $111.6;
Difference (2 minus 1): $1.6; 1.45%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Leaking underground
storage tanks: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 7, Kansas
City;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $20;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $27.9;
Difference (2 minus 1): $7.9; 39.50%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Leaking underground
storage tanks: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 8, Denver;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $82.5;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $79.6;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$2.9; -3.52%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Leaking underground
storage tanks: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 9, San
Francisco;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $31;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $31;
Difference (2 minus 1): 0; 0.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Leaking underground
storage tanks: Compliance assistance and centers: Region 10, Seattle;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $39.1;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $6.9;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$32.2; -82.35%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Oil spill response: Civil
enforcement: Headquarters total;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $170.1;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $163.9;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$6.2; -3.64%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Oil spill response: Civil
enforcement: Region total;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $1,559.8;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $1,366.1;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$193.7; -12.42%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Oil spill response: Civil
enforcement: Region 1, Boston;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $152;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $141.9;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$10.1; -6.64%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Oil spill response: Civil
enforcement: Region 2, New York;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $155;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $156.1;
Difference (2 minus 1): $1.1; 0.71%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Oil spill response: Civil
enforcement: Region 3, Philadelphia;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $163;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $156.2;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$6.8; -4.17%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Oil spill response: Civil
enforcement: Region 4, Atlanta;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $177;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $140.5;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$36.5; -20.62%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Oil spill response: Civil
enforcement: Region 5, Chicago;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $203;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $200.6;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$2.4; -1.18%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Oil spill response: Civil
enforcement: Region 6, Dallas;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $182;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $145.9;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$36.1; -19.84%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Oil spill response: Civil
enforcement: Region 7, Kansas City;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $115.1;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $109.9;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$5.2; -4.52%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Oil spill response: Civil
enforcement: Region 8, Denver;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $144.3;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $128.5;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$15.8; -10.95%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Oil spill response: Civil
enforcement: Region 9, San Francisco;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $112;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $65.5;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$46.5; -41.52%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Oil spill response: Civil
enforcement: Region 10, Seattle;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $156.4;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $121;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$35.4; -22.63%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Oil spill response:
Compliance assistance and centers: Headquarters total;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $258.4;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $247.3;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$11.1; -4.30%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Oil spill response:
Compliance assistance and centers: Region total;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $18.6;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $11.6;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$7; -37.63%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Oil spill response:
Compliance assistance and centers: Region 5, Chicago;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $7;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $7;
Difference (2 minus 1): 0; 0.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Oil spill response:
Compliance assistance and centers: Region 6, Dallas;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $7;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); 0;
Difference (2 minus 1): -$7; -100.00%.
Appropriations, program/project, and region; Oil spill response:
Compliance assistance and centers: Region 8, Denver;
End of year new budget authority[A] (1); $4.6;
Obligations of new budget authority[B] (2); $4.6;
Difference (2 minus 1): $0; 0%.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
[A] End of year new budget authority represents amounts allocated in
EPA's fiscal year 2007 operating plan as of September 30, 2007. EPA
reported this plan in the agency's Integrated Financial Management
System.
[B] The fiscal year 2007 obligations are reported obligations based on
fiscal year 2007 new budget authority. These obligations are not EPA's
total obligations for those categories because the above amounts do not
include obligations of unexpired prior year budget authority that was
available for obligation in fiscal year 2007.
[End of table]
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure II: Summary of Past GAO Reports on OECA's Workforce Planning
System:
The information below summarizes key findings and recommendations from
our prior reports on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) workforce planning
system. The full versions of these reports are available in electronic
format on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
GAO, Human Capital: Implementing an Effective Workforce Strategy Would
Help EPA to Achieve Its Strategic Goals, GAO-01-812 (Washington, D.C.:
July 31, 2001).
The purpose of this study. During the 1990s, as most federal agencies
were reducing staff, EPA's workforce grew by about 18 percent, with
much of this growth occurring in its 10 regional offices. Some Members
of Congress had questioned whether EPA was effectively managing its
large, diverse workforce. Particular concern was focused on OECA. As
part of a broader report on EPA human capital management challenges, we
examined specific human capital management challenges within OECA,
specifically, how it deploys its enforcement workforce among EPA's 10
regions to ensure that federal environmental requirements are
consistently enforced across regions.
What we found. We found that OECA's workforce deployment did not ensure
the consistent enforcement of environmental laws across regions. In
particular, we found that OECA's deployment decisions were hampered by
two interrelated problems: OECA's enforcement workforce deployment was
not based on current workload information and OECA lacked sufficient
enforcement information on key regional workload indictors.
* OECA's enforcement workforce deployment was not based on current
workload information. Specifically, we found that OECA deployed its
enforcement workforce largely on the basis of workload models that were
developed in the 1980s and had not been updated since 1989. In general,
the workload models were based on the number of regulated facilities in
each region and the type and amount of enforcement activities required
for a particular program. While the workload models may have been an
appropriate tool for allocating enforcement personnel during the 1980s,
we reported that many critical changes affecting the enforcement
workload have occurred during the 1990s. Since the workload models were
developed, the number of environmental laws, regulations, and programs
had increased; the focus and requirements of several environmental
programs had shifted; states had assumed a greater role in
environmental enforcement; and technological advances had affected the
skills and expertise needed to conduct enforcement actions.
* OECA lacked sufficient enforcement information on key regional
workload indictors. In addition, we found that OECA could not fully
determine the causes and appropriateness of the variations in regional
enforcement activities because it does not have complete and reliable
workforce planning information on the universe of entities subject to
regulation under federal environmental laws and the time required to
perform enforcement-related activities, such as assisting facilities to
comply with environmental regulations. OECA headquarters and regional
managers agreed that to develop an accurate workforce planning system,
key fact-based information is essential to enable managers to account
for the time of their enforcement staff. The data most needed include
the amount of time spent in (1) performing inspections, (2) providing
oversight of state inspections, (3) assisting states and industrial
facilities to comply with environmental requirements, (4) and taking
various legal actions when necessary to require compliance. However, we
found that such managerial accounting information was generally not
available to OECA's managers.
Our conclusions and recommendations. We cautioned that the lack of
workforce planning information limited OECA's ability to determine
whether regions and states are consistently meeting the requirements of
EPA's enforcement program and whether significant variations from these
requirements exist and should be corrected. Without current and
complete information on the enforcement workload, OECA cannot determine
the proper size of its enforcement staff relative to the regions'
enforcement workload. As a result, we said workload imbalances may
exist and contribute to inconsistencies in EPA's enforcement efforts.
Furthermore, at the time we conducted this work, EPA was considering an
8 percent reduction proposed for fiscal year 2002 in its enforcement
staff, and we were concerned that the lack of information on the
enforcement workload and the current utilization of staff limit EPA's
ability to systematically determine where staffing increases or
reductions should be made. To ensure that OECA deployed its resources
most effectively and efficiently to achieve the agency's strategic
goals for enforcement, we recommended that the EPA administrator
establish a systematic method for deploying resources to address the
agency's enforcement workload in the regions. Specifically, this would
include information on, among other things, the level of resources
(full-time equivalents) that are currently being allocated to specific
enforcement activities. To develop such a methodology, we said that
OECA needs to establish mechanisms for obtaining more complete and
reliable data on these factors.
GAO, Clean Water Act: Improved Resource Planning Would Help EPA Better
Respond to Changing Needs and Fiscal Constraints, GAO-05-721
(Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2005):
The purpose of this study. Federal and state fiscal constraints may
jeopardize past and future accomplishments resulting from the Clean
Water Act (the act) and make it increasingly difficult to achieve
further progress in addressing new and existing sources of pollution.
In this environment, it is important to manage available resources as
efficiently as possible and to identify future human capital needs,
including the size of the workforce and its deployment across the
organization. To carry out its responsibilities under the Clean Water
Act, EPA relies on its Office of Water, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, and 10 regional offices, as well as states' water
pollution control agencies. Beginning in 1972, the scope of the act has
increased significantly, along with the workload associated with
implementing and enforcing its requirements. At the same time, EPA has
authorized states to take on more responsibilities, shifting the
agency's workload from direct implementation to oversight. Changes in
the nature, extent, and distribution of the Clean Water Act workload
can affect the resources needed to carry out the act. GAO was asked to
determine the (1) extent to which EPA's process for budgeting and
allocating resources considers the nature and distribution of its Clean
Water Act workload and (2) actions EPA is taking to improve resource
planning and the challenges it faces in doing so.[Footnote 20] EPA
relies on its Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to carry
out the agency's responsibilities for enforcing the requirements of the
Clean Water Act that we reviewed.
What We Found. We found that EPA's process for budgeting and allocating
resources did not fully consider the agency's current workload. While
EPA had made progress in improving resource planning, challenges
hindered comprehensive reform. Specifically, we found that:
EPA's process for budgeting and allocating resources did not fully
consider the agency's current workload, either for specific statutory
requirements, such as those included in the Clean Water Act, or for the
broader goals and objectives in the agency's strategic plan. Instead,
EPA makes incremental adjustments and relies primarily on historical
precedent. With prior years' allocations as the baseline, year-to-year
changes are marginal and occur in response to (1) direction from the
Office of Management and Budget and Congress, (2) spending caps imposed
by EPA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and (3) priorities
negotiated by senior agency managers. In addition, we found that EPA's
program offices and regions also have some flexibility to realign
resources based on actual workload. Overall, the impact of these
changes is minor, according to EPA. Because the nature and distribution
of the act's workload has changed as the scope of regulated activities
has grown, with EPA gaining new responsibilities and shifting others to
the states, more than marginal changes may be appropriate. EPA does not
conduct the periodic bottom-up assessments of the work that needs to be
done, the distribution of the workload, or the resources needed to
respond more effectively to changing needs and constrained resources.
EPA had made progress in improving resource planning, including some
efforts that focused on workforce planning, but challenges hindered
comprehensive reform. For example, we found that OECA and the Office of
Human Resources surveyed current employees to determine the types of
skills they possessed without first identifying the specific skills
most needed to accomplish the agency's mission. As a result, these
surveys may not have necessarily captured the information EPA needs to
comprehensively determine the skills gap. EPA officials acknowledged
that the effort was not linked to a detailed analysis of workload and
did not provide specific information on the type and deployment of
workforce needs. Other efforts by EPA showed promise in providing
useful information, but were still in their early stages. Beyond these
initiatives, we found that EPA faced challenges in adopting a more
systematic process for budgeting and resource allocation: obtaining
reliable data on key workload indicators, such as the quantity and
quality of water in particular areas, and overcoming internal
resistance. Specifically, data on many of the factors that affect
workload--and thus drive resource needs--were not comprehensive or
reliable. In addition, we reported that EPA staff may have been
reluctant to adopt a more systematic, data-driven approach to resource
allocation, because of unsatisfactory experiences with using workload
models in the 1980s.
Our conclusions and recommendations. Because EPA did not have a system
in place to conduct periodic bottom-up assessments of the work that
needs to be done, the distribution of the workload, or staff and other
resource needs, the agency may have been unable to respond effectively
to changing needs and constrained resources. Despite some flexibility
in budgeting and allocating resources, EPA could not determine whether
the amount and distribution of its resources are appropriate to
effectively carry out its strategic goals and objectives or meet its
responsibilities under the Clean Water Act and other environmental
laws. Moreover, EPA did not have the information it needs to tailor
reductions in staff or other resources in a manner that minimizes
potential adverse impacts on its environmental programs. Having
complete and reliable data on the activities and tasks that must be
accomplished--and how that work is distributed organizationally and
geographically--will help EPA budget and allocate resources more
effectively. In addition, such data will inform the agency's workforce
planning efforts and help ensure that the right people with the right
skills are where they need to be to get the work done.
Among other things, we recommended that EPA focus its efforts on a
ground level assessment and identify the key workload indicators that
drive resource needs, ensure that relevant data are complete and
reliable, and use the results to inform its budgeting and resource
allocation. EPA expressed general agreement with much of the report and
two of the recommendations, but voiced concern that a bottom-up
workload assessment contrasts with its approach, which links budgeting
and resource allocation to performance goals and results. We did not
take issue with the use of performance and results in developing
budgets and allocating resources, although, according to our review,
EPA's budget and resource allocations were based primarily on
historical precedent, and hence year-to-year changes were marginal.
Moreover, we believed our recommendation was fully compatible with an
approach that links budgeting and resource allocation to performance
goals and results. In our view, the agency's performance goals should
be informed by an assessment of the underlying workload--and how the
tasks that must be accomplished drive resource needs organizationally
and geographically.
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure III: Description of Managerial Cost Accounting in the Federal
Government and a Summary of Prior GAO Reviews of Managerial Cost
Accounting Practices in Executive Branch Agencies:
The information below provides a description of managerial cost
accounting (MCA) in the federal government, its potential applications
in the federal government, and the fundamental elements for MCA in
government agencies. It also provides a description of a report that
summarizes the key findings of five earlier GAO reviews of managerial
cost accounting practices in executive branch agencies.[Footnote 21]
The full version of this report is available in electronic format on
GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Description of Managerial Cost Accounting in the Federal Government:
A number of laws, accounting standards, system requirements, and
related guidance have emphasized the need for cost information in the
federal government, establishing requirements and accounting standards
for managerial cost accounting information.[Footnote 22] At the
forefront, the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990 contains
several provisions related to managerial cost accounting, one of which
states that an agency's CFO should develop and maintain an integrated
accounting and financial management system that provides for the
systematic measurement of performance and the development and reporting
of cost information.
Managerial cost accounting entails answering a very simple question.
How much does it cost to do something, be it an extensive overall
program effort or the incremental and iterative efforts associated with
a project activity? MCA involves accumulating and analyzing both
financial and nonfinancial data to determine the costs of achieving
performance goals, delivering programs, and pursuing other activities.
Nonfinancial data measure the occurrences of activities and can include
such things as hours worked, units produced, grants managed,
inspections conducted, or people trained. The principal purpose is to
assess how much it costs to do whatever is being measured, thus
allowing management to analyze whether that cost seems reasonable or to
establish a baseline for comparison with others who do similar work.
The factors analyzed and the level of detail depends on the operations
and needs of the organization.Reliable financial and nonfinancial data
are cornerstones of this assessment because if the data are wrong, the
resulting analysis can give a distorted view of how well the
organization is doing, thereby affecting decision making. MCA differs
from financial accounting in that it is primarily intended to provide
information for internal decision making rather than external
reporting.
There are many potential applications for cost information in the
federal government. This information can be used by federal executives
for budgeting and cost control, performance measurement, determining
reimbursements and setting fees and prices, program evaluations, and
decisions that involve economic choices, such as whether to do a
project in-house or contract it out.[Footnote 23] Congress can also use
MCA information to determine how to fund programs and monitor agency
performance, as well as to analyze the merits of proposals advocated by
different parties. The public, in turn, can benefit from greater
transparency about program performance and ready access to information
on how its tax dollars are spent.
The fundamental elements for MCA in government agencies are set forth
in the Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 4 (SFFAS
4), Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal
Government, which became effective in fiscal year 1998.[Footnote 24]
The five standards in SFFAS 4 require government agencies to (1)
accumulate and report the costs of activities on a regular basis for
management information purposes; (2) establish responsibility segments,
and measure and report the costs of each segment's outputs and
calculate the unit cost of each output; (3) determine and report the
full costs of government goods and services, including direct[Footnote
25] and indirect[Footnote 26] costs; (4) recognize the costs of goods
and services provided by other federal entities; and (5) use and
consistently follow costing methodologies or cost-finding techniques
most appropriate to the segment's operating environment to accumulate
and assign costs to outputs. SFFAS 4 states that MCA should be a
fundamental part of the financial management system and, to the extent
practical, should be integrated with other parts of the system.
A Summary of Prior GAO Reviews of Managerial Cost Accounting Practices
in Executive Branch Agencies:
In light of the requirements for CFO Act agencies to prepare managerial
cost accounting information, we were asked to determine the extent to
which those federal agencies develop cost information and use it for
managerial decision making. Accordingly, from 2005 through 2007, we
completed and reported on reviews of MCA practices in 10 large CFO Act
agencies, resulting in five reports.[Footnote 27] In July 2007, we
issued Managerial Cost Accounting Practices: Implementation and Use
Vary Widely across 10 Federal Agencies (GAO-07-679). This report
brought the overall observations of our five separate studies together
in one report. Specifically, this report summarized our findings from
those reports on (1) the ways federal agencies generate managerial cost
accounting information, (2) how government managers use cost
information to support managerial decision making and provide
accountability, and (3) the need for stronger leadership for
implementing MCA in many of the agencies we reviewed. The five reports
that this capping report summarized included detailed recommendations
to the agencies we reviewed, but this capping report contained no new
recommendations.
Our reviews of MCA practices at 10 large civilian agencies identified
large disparities in the level of MCA implementation among federal
agencies as well as the ways in which they use cost information. Few of
the federal agencies we reviewed were using MCA to make day-to-day
decisions. While strong leadership for MCA was in place at the
Department of the Interior (DOI), the Department of Labor (DOL), the
Social Security Administration (SSA), and the Department of
Transportation (DOT), other agencies have not yet made concerted
efforts to promote the benefits of MCA and oversee its implementation
and use throughout their respective agencies. Specifically:
* Our reviews of MCA practices at 10 large civilian agencies identified
large disparities in the level of MCA implementation among federal
agencies as well as the ways in which they use cost information. Of the
10 agencies we reviewed, only 3 had implemented MCA systems agencywide:
DOI, SSA, and DOL. In addition, DOT had made significant progress in
implementing MCA departmentwide. Three agencies--the Departments of
Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban
Development--planned to implement MCA systems when upgrading their
overall financial management systems, but they had not yet adequately
considered their MCA needs. The 3 remaining agencies--the Departments
of Education, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs--had no plans to
implement MCA departmentwide, but some of their component agencies had
implemented their own MCA systems. In addition, many agencies do not
yet have the accurate, reliable, and timely data needed for MCA systems
to ensure the outputs are useful and reliable.
* Few of the federal agencies we reviewed were using MCA to make day-
to-day decisions. Only DOI and SSA were using cost information
routinely to manage operations entitywide. In addition, some component
agencies of departments that did not have overall MCA systems were
using cost information more routinely to evaluate programs, formulate
budgets, and set fees and prices. DOL was developing plans for using
its MCA system. Other agencies used cost information primarily for
external financial reporting, and were only able to cite a limited
number of examples showing how cost information was currently used to
help make management decisions.
* Strong leadership for MCA was in place at DOI, DOL, SSA, and DOT.
Other agencies have not yet made concerted efforts to promote the
benefits of MCA and oversee its implementation and use throughout their
respective agencies. Although MCA can be implemented without an
integrated financial management system, in those cases it tends to be
used for single programs or projects rather than providing day-to-day
information for managerial decision making agencywide. For MCA
implementation to be successful, it must be tailored to the needs of
the organization, be a tool managers can use to make everyday
decisions, and be based on sound financial and nonfinancial data. Full
MCA implementation across the federal government will require strong
executive leadership, improved financial management systems, and a
continuing transition in government culture to one of managing costs,
in addition to managing the budget.
[End of enclosure]
Enclosure IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Assistant Administrator For Enforcement And Compliance Assurance:
Washington, D.C. 20460:
[hyperlink: http://www.epa.gov]
September 19, 2008:
Mr. John Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Re: EPA's Execution of Its Fiscal Year 2007 New Budget Authority for
the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program in the Regional
Offices (Project Number GAO-08-1109R):
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled, "EPA's Execution
of Its Fiscal Year 2007 New Budget Authority for the Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance Program in the Regional Offices" (Project Number
GAO-08-1109R). The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) appreciates the work of the GAO in preparing this report.
The GAO's draft report shows that we carefully monitor our budget
execution process to ensure that our funds are obligated in accordance
with how they are appropriated. Nevertheless, GAO's draft report also
reiterates findings from reports issued in 2001 and 2005 that
criticized OECA for using outdated workload models to allocate its
workforce and for not identifying and using key indicators to evaluate
workload needs and inform resource allocation decisions. EPA recognizes
the need to improve its ability to understand and quantify the relative
workload of its component organizations and to make allocation
decisions based on those assessments. Toward that end, the Agency is
committed to improving its analytical capabilities and examining
appropriate measures of workload to support the resource allocation
process.
In addition to these comments, we have identified several "technical
corrections" to the GAO draft report listed below:
1. Elevate the information from footnotes 11 and 12 [now footnotes 10
and 11] into the body of the report since they add to the understanding
of GAO's analysis and answer some implicit questions from the analysis.
2. On page 5,[now on page 4] (2nd paragraph), delete the phrase
"...EPA's fiscal year 2007 operating plan allocated about 72 percent
($184 million) of its fiscal year 2007 new budget authority for the
four enforcement and compliance assurance program projects that were
reviewed to its regional offices..," and replace it with "OECA's FY
2007 operating plan allocated to the regions approximately 72% of the
resources associated with the four program/projects we reviewed."
3. Change the term "program project" through out the draft to
"program/project."
If you have any questions concerning our response please contact me at
(202) 564-2440, or Margaret Schneider, Director, OECA Office of
Administration and Policy, at (202) 564-2530.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Granta Y. Nakayama:
[End of enclosure]
Footnotes:
[1] "Indian country" includes all land within the limits of an Indian
reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States government, all
dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States,
and all Indian allotments.
[2] Pub. L. No. 110-5, § 113 (2007).
[3] EPA submitted its fiscal year 2007 operating plan to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations, Subcommittees on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies. This operating plan covered the full
fiscal year 2007, October 1, 2006, to September 30, 2007. This
operating plan described the fiscal year 2007 new budget authority from
EPA's various appropriations. This included 2-year budget authority and
no-year budget authority. Two-year budget authority enacted in fiscal
year 2007 remained available for obligation until September 30, 2008,
and no-year budget authority enacted in fiscal year 2007 remains
available until expended.
[4] Budget authority refers to authority provided by federal law to a
federal agency to enter into financial obligations that will result in
immediate or future outlays involving federal government funds. This
operating plan did not report unexpired balances of budget authority
from prior year appropriations that were available for obligation in
fiscal year 2007 (i.e. "carryover"). While we did not focus our review
on these carryover amounts, Enclosure I provides a table that shows,
for these four program/projects, reported fiscal year 2007 carryover
from the Environmental Program and Management appropriation account was
2 percent ($4.8 million) of the $251.4 million in reported total fiscal
year 2007 obligations from that appropriation account.
[5] In the plan, EPA allocated budget authority to each program/project
from one or more of EPA's appropriation accounts.
[6] The number 14 does not include 3 program/projects that are
categorical grants funded through EPA's State and Tribal Assistance
appropriation account and administered by OECA.
[7] GAO, Human Capital: Implementing an Effective Workforce Strategy
Would Help EPA to Achieve Its Strategic Goals, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-812] (Washington, D.C.: July
31, 2001); Clean Water Act: Improved Resource Planning Would Help EPA
Better Respond to Changing Needs and Fiscal Constraints, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-721] (Washington, D.C.: July
22, 2005).
[8] (1) the civil enforcement program addresses violations of federal
statutes by taking legal actions to correct violations and prevent
their recurrence; (2) the compliance assistance and centers program
provides information to assist the regulated community understand and
comply with statutory and regulatory requirements; (3) the compliance
incentives program promotes compliance through the use of incentive
policies that reduce or waive penalties under certain conditions for
facilities that voluntarily discover, promptly disclose, and correct
environmental problems; (4) the compliance monitoring program includes
activities such as site investigations and gathering data to determine
whether an individual facility or a group of facilities are in
compliance with environmental laws and requirements.
[9] This total does not include fiscal year 2007 new budget authority
provided by EPA's State and Tribal Assistance Grant appropriation
account.
[10] The EPM appropriation account is available for 2 years, which
means this budget authority remained available for obligation until
September 30, 2008.
[11] Generally agencies may shift, or reprogram, funds within an
appropriation or fund account as part of their duty to manage their
funds. Unlike transfers, agencies may reprogram without additional
statutory authority.
[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-812] and
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-721].
[13] While our 2005 report focused on changes in EPA's responsibilities
under the Clean Water Act, we reported in July 2007 on specific changes
in EPA's and the states' environmental enforcement responsibilities
that resulted from changes in regulated pollutants and sources under
the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and other laws. See, GAO, EPA-State
Enforcement Partnership Has Improved, But EPA's Oversight Needs Further
Enhancement, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-883]
(Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2007).
[14] Generally agencies may shift, or reprogram, funds within an
appropriation or fund account as part of their duty to manage their
funds. Unlike transfers, agencies may reprogram without additional
statutory authority.
[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-812].
[16] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-721].
[17] EPA's fiscal year 2007 operating plan only took into account EPA's
newly enacted budget authority for fiscal year 2007. Information about
balances of unexpired prior year budget authority that was available
for obligation in fiscal year 2007 is provided in Enclosure II.
[18] EPA administers its environmental enforcement and compliance
assurance responsibilities through its headquarters Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). While OECA provides
overall direction on enforcement policies, and sometimes takes direct
enforcement action, EPA's 10 regional offices are responsible for
carrying out much of EPA's enforcement activities.
[19] Civil enforcement, Compliance assistance and centers, Compliance
incentives, Compliance monitoring.
[20] This report focused on EPA and state resources associated with
implementing and enforcing the major programs under the Clean Water
Act. For the purposes of this review, we defined EPA's Clean Water Act
workload to include activities associated with controls over pollution
from specific facilities (called the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System program) and diffuse sources, such as agricultural
runoff. We also included related activities, such as setting water
quality criteria and standards, for both specific pollutants and
individual water bodies; monitoring water quality; and establishing
requirements for the disposal of sewage sludge. We excluded (1)
financial assistance for local infrastructure under the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund; (2) activities for which the primary federal
responsibility lay outside EPA, such as issuing permits for dredged and
fill material, managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and (3)
location-specific programs, such as those focused on the Great Lakes,
Chesapeake Bay, and designated sites under the National Estuary
Program.
[21] GAO, Managerial Cost Accounting Practices: Implementation and Use
Vary Widely across 10 Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-679] (Washington, D.C.: July
20, 2007). This report summarized findings from five reports:
Managerial Cost Accounting Practices: Leadership and Internal Controls
Are Key to Successful Implementation, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-1013R] (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 2, 2005); Managerial Cost Accounting Practices: Departments of
Education, Transportation, and the Treasury, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-301R] (Washington, D.C.: Dec.
19, 2005); Managerial Cost Accounting Practices: Department of Health
and Human Services and Social Security Administration, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-599R] (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
18, 2006); Managerial Cost Accounting Practices: Department of
Agriculture and Department of Housing and Urban Development,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1002R]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2006); and Managerial Cost Accounting
Practices at the Department of the Interior, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-298R] (Washington, D.C.: May
24, 2007).
[22] The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-576, 104
Stat. 2838 (codified in scattered sections); the Statement of Federal
Financial Accounting Standards No. 4, Managerial Cost Accounting
Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government; the Joint Financial
Management Improvement Program's (JFMIP) Framework for Federal
Financial Management Systems. In December 2004, the JFMIP principals
voted to modify the roles and responsibilities of the JFMIP Program
Office, which is now known as the Financial Systems Integration Office
(FSIO); The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996
(FFMIA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, tit. VIII, codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3512
Note.
[23] See Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 4,
Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal
Government, issued July 31, 1995.
[24] Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Standards are
promulgated by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB).
FASAB is a federal advisory committee sponsored under an agreement
among the Treasury, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and GAO
to promulgate generally accepted accounting principles for federal
reporting entities, such as executive branch agencies.
[25] Direct costs are costs that can be specifically identified with an
output, including salaries and benefits for employees working directly
on the output, materials, supplies, and costs with facilities and
equipment used exclusively to produce the output.
[26] Indirect costs are costs that are not specifically identifiable
with any output and may include costs for general administration,
research and technical support, and operations and maintenance for
building and equipment.
[27] The 10 agencies are the Department of Agriculture, Department of
Education, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Department of the Interior, Department
of Labor, Department of Transportation, Department of the Treasury,
Department of Veterans Affairs, and Social Security Administration.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
