EPA Formalizes “Compliance First” Enforcement Framework
On December 5, 2025, the acting assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) issued a “compliance first” directive to the agency’s enforcement staff. A memo detailing this directive was issued to personnel both at headquarters and in regional EPA offices. The memo, obtained by POLITICO’s E&E News, signals a paradigm shift in the agency’s enforcement philosophy.
“The primary focus for the Agency in all inspection, investigation, EPA enforcement, state/tribal enforcement coordination, and compliance assistance activities must be on achieving and ensuring timely compliance,” the memo reads. OECA adds that compliance should be attained in “the most efficient, most economical, and swiftest means possible, while ensuring that our actions align with the clearest, most defensible interpretations of our statutory and regulatory mandates.”
OECA outlines six factors that will underpin the agency’s enforcement philosophy:
- Deployment of compliance assistance tools,
- State partner coordination,
- Open communication,
- Clear and well-tailored findings of violation,
- Restrained use of injunctive relief, and
- Reasoned decision-making.
Key Changes to Enforcement Practice
Several provisions in the memo mark notable departures from previous practice.
First, EPA inspectors and enforcement staff must now immediately elevate concerns raised by regulated entities about how the agency has applied a statute or regulation in enforcement actions at their facilities. Decisions on how to proceed will be made at the national level, with regional counsel required to consult with the relevant Office of General Counsel (OGC) and OECA offices.
With respect to injunctive relief—court orders to compel or cease specific actions—the directive substantially narrows EPA’s authority. Approval from the OECA assistant administrator will now be required for injunctive relief that falls outside “clear regulatory or statutory requirements,” which will only “be appropriate in limited, case-specific circumstances.” The memo rescinds the agency’s earlier policy—issued in 2021—that allowed for more expansive injunctive relief. Under the 2021 policy, EPA could use tools such as advanced monitoring, third-party auditing and monitoring, electronic reporting, and enhanced public reporting. These tools are now generally discouraged.
In addition, the directive tightens settlement procedures. The memo explains that agency personnel must now obtain approval from the OECA assistant administrator prior to initiating negotiation on any proposed settlement that could include mitigation or a stipulated remedy until additional guidance is issued. Similarly, the memo prohibits the use of supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) in settlements until further guidance is developed.
Finally, in the memo EPA states that it plans to develop consolidated criteria across all media to categorize violations and assign appropriate enforcement responses to improve consistency across programs and regions. OECA says that existing enforcement response policies, “together with the best reading of each requirement,” will inform the basis of the consolidated criteria. The memo also notes that EPA “must act swiftly to limit actions from third parties who, through citizen suit litigation, unfairly impact policy through abusive litigation tactics.”
Implications for Industry
OECA’s compliance first framework—particularly its emphasis on achieving timely compliance through efficient and economical means—signals renewed support for industry self-policing.
The memo expressly directs enforcement staff to “promote voluntary compliance through self-reporting and voluntary audits.” That instruction, coupled with the memo’s focus on open communication, early issue elevation, and restrained use of injunctive relief, suggests an enforcement environment more receptive to self-identified violations that are promptly disclosed and corrected.
For companies that manufacture chemicals or use chemicals to produce consumer, commercial, or industrial products, self-auditing offers an opportunity to establish a clear compliance baseline and move potential violations off of balance sheets. EPA’s Audit Policy, discussed below, provides substantial protection to entities that systematically discover, disclose, and correct violations.
Given OECA’s new approach, companies facing compliance questions should strongly consider whether self-auditing and voluntary disclosure can help manage enforcement risk while demonstrating good-faith compliance efforts.
* * *
EPA’s long-standing Audit Policy, last revised in 2000, remains the primary mechanism for obtaining credit for self-auditing. Under the policy, regulated entities that systematically discover, disclose, and correct violations may be eligible for significant enforcement incentives, including:
- Up to 100% mitigation of gravity-based penalties.
- No recommendation for criminal prosecution.
- No routine requests from EPA for the audit report.
More information on EPA’s Audit Policy can be found on EPA’s website.
