On December 5, 2025, Craig Pritzlaff, Acting Assistant Administrator of the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (“OECA”), issued an internal Memorandum titled “Reinforcing a ‘Compliance First’ Orientation for Compliance Assurance and Civil Enforcement Activities” (the “Memo”). This guidance emphasizes a prioritization in EPA’s enforcement policy that focuses on compliance—not prolonged negotiation or aggressive enforcement—as the primary goal in all civil, judicial, and administrative enforcement actions.
Immediate Applicability and Purpose
The Memo is effective immediately and applies to both current and future enforcement matters. The “new” policy described in the Memo shares similarities with prior EPA enforcement guidance in that it directs EPA staff to resolve compliance issues swiftly and efficiently, using the clearest and most defensible interpretations of environmental statutes and regulations. As articulated in the Memo, while the OECA has always emphasized compliance, the Memo places further emphasis on the need for swift resolution in order to achieve compliance using more efficient means. The intent is to avoid unnecessary delays and costs associated with litigating ambiguous or novel legal theories, and instead, to foster a culture, both within EPA and regulated entities, where compliance is achieved quickly and consistently.
The Memo includes six guiding factors:
- Compliance Assistance Toolkit – Enforcement should not be the only means for achieving compliance. Expect more outreach, training, and self-audit opportunities – encouraging a “find and fix” approach.
- State Coordination – States will be more involved in enforcement actions.
- Open Communication – More transparency and fewer surprises to help build trust between the regulated community and regulators – this includes collaboration between the agency, states, Tribes, and regulated entities.
- Clear Findings – Findings of violations must be clearly explained and justified (the “best reading” of the relevant statute) – anything less reduces transparency, undermines program integrity, and erodes public confidence.
- Efficient Remedies – Remedies must be practical and directly tied to the law – injunctive relief should be used only in very limited circumstances.
- Reasoned Decisions – Enforcement will follow a structured, logical process – the regulated entity and others should be able to easily understand and follow how the agency made its enforcement decision based on open communication and reasoned processes. Decision making will follow the “LEAPS” model – using law, evidence, analysis, programmatic impact, and stakeholder impact to reach a logical conclusion.
Further Discussion of Six Guiding Factors
A central theme of the Memo is the prioritization of compliance assistance over enforcement. EPA personnel are encouraged to use proactive outreach, technical support, and training to help regulated entities understand and meet their obligations. Voluntary compliance initiatives, such as self-reporting and confidential audits, are promoted as preferred pathways to resolution. Enforcement actions should be tailored to achieve compliance as quickly as possible, and the agency is cautioned against taking overly aggressive positions that could stall progress.
The Memo also reaffirms the importance of deference to states that are authorized to administer federal environmental laws. OECA’s role is described as supporting state co-regulators and ensuring consistency, with direct federal enforcement reserved for cases where there is a clear federal interest. However, the Memo does not define what constitutes such an interest, leaving some uncertainty for regulated entities. This shift of responsibilities to states also comes at an interesting time when EPA has reduced its workforce and is likely to face significant budget cuts, resulting in less funds available to provide for state programming.
Open communication is another cornerstone of the new policy. The Memo stresses the need for transparency and a “no surprises” approach, aligning enforcement activities with broader Administration priorities and executive orders, specifically the “five foundational pillars” of the “Powering the Great American Comeback” initiative. This focus on communication includes both communication between regulators and the regulated community as well as enhanced “cross-agency partnerships.”
Another shift outlined in the Memo is the elevation of legal questions. When a regulated entity raises concerns about how EPA has interpreted a statute or regulation in their case, those questions must be immediately elevated for further analysis—potentially all the way to EPA headquarters. Inspectors and enforcement staff will no longer be responsible for resolving ambiguity in federal environmental laws. While this is intended to ensure national consistency and clarity, it may also introduce delays as complex issues are reviewed at higher levels.
Changes to Injunctive Relief and SEPs
A notable change included in the Memo is the limitation on broad injunctive relief and the prohibition—until further guidance is issued—on including Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in settlements. SEPs, which often provide community or environmental benefits beyond what the law requires, have been a common feature in environmental settlements, though their use has been controversial in the past. Their removal, along with stricter controls on injunctive relief and the need for high-level approval for certain settlement terms, may impact ongoing and future negotiations. While this could result in higher penalties in some cases, the Memo suggests a shift toward informal enforcement and compliance assistance tools, such as administrative resolutions and no-penalty orders, rather than formal judicial actions.
What Does this Mean for Regulated Entities?
For regulated entities, these changes mean that settlements will no longer include SEPs and are less likely to include expansive injunctive relief. As a result, enforcement may increasingly rely on administrative and informal tools to achieve compliance. However, the requirement to elevate legal questions could slow some enforcement actions, and the shift of responsibility to states comes at a time when both EPA and state agencies face resource constraints. Whether the Memo really results in a shift in policy or simply a re-formalizing what EPA was already doing remains an open question.
Practical Guidance for Regulated Entities
In practice, companies should not expect the Memo to create new rights or guarantees, as it remains internal agency guidance only and is not a regulation and does not create or impose any legally binding obligations or rights on EPA or regulated entities.
Nevertheless, the Memo signals a clear expectation: companies must be proactive in maintaining robust, well-resourced compliance programs, conducting privileged risk assessments and voluntary self-audits, and communicating openly with regulators. When faced with ambiguous or novel findings of violation, companies should work with environmental counsel to consider elevating legal questions. For settlements involving audits, monitoring, or mitigation, it is important to confirm that EPA personnel have obtained the necessary approvals under the new framework.
Ultimately, while the Memo’s long-term impact remains to be seen, it underscores the importance of a “compliance first” culture—one that values early resolution, clarity, and partnership between regulators and the regulated community.