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: