On December 5, 2025, Craig J. Pritzlaff, Acting Assistant Administrator of the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), issued an internal memorandum instituting a “Compliance First” approach, immediately effective for all civil enforcement and compliance activities. This memo claims to introduce a policy shift: prioritizing timely and effective compliance over punitive enforcement and expansive regulatory interpretations. EPA’s goal is clear, swift, and efficient compliance, achieved by the “clearest, most defensible interpretations of our statutory and regulatory mandates.”
Key Elements of the “Compliance First” Policy
- Compliance Assistance Toolkit
Enforcement is not the only tool. Proactive outreach, technical assistance, voluntary audits, and self-reporting are highlighted as means to encourage regulated entities to “find and fix” issues before enforcement becomes necessary. - State and Tribal Coordination
The EPA is committed to deferential, collaborative engagement with authorized states and tribes. Civil enforcement activities will avoid duplication and promote consistency by coordinating closely with local agencies, providing them with technical support, and ensuring states lead where they have primary jurisdiction. - Transparent Communication and “No Surprises”
Open, transparent dialogue is mandated throughout inspections and enforcement. The EPA pledges a “no surprises” approach and wants regulated entities to proactively identify and address potential compliance issues, building trust, and avoiding unexpected enforcement escalation. - Clarity and Legal Precision in Findings
Findings of violation must be “clear and unambiguous” and based on the “best reading” of statutes and regulations. Expansive or creative interpretations that create uncertainty or deviate from precedent are expressly rejected, especially in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. Material legal ambiguities must be elevated to national EPA leadership for resolution, ensuring consistent application across regions. - Timely and Efficient Compliance
EPA staff are directed to focus on rapid resolution of violations, with compliance – not punishment – as the North Star. Prolonged or punitive strategies are deemphasized to avoid delaying environmental protection and economic operations. Formal enforcement and injunctive relief (such as administrative or judicial action) will be used only when informal or compliance assistance measures are insufficient or in emergencies. Remedies must be narrowly tailored, directly tied to specific violations, and based on clear legal requirements. EPA’s April 26, 2021 memorandum (Using All Appropriate Injunctive Relief Tools in Civil Enforcement Settlements), which focused on expansive injunctive measures and supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), is also rescinded, pending new guidance. OECA Assistant Administrator approval is required for non-standard remedies like third-party audits. - Reasoned, Transparent Decisions Using LEAPS
The memo introduces the LEAPS framework for enforcement decisions:- Law: Use the clearest statutory/regulatory interpretation;
- Evidence: Rely on solid, unequivocal facts;
- Analysis: Apply logic and connect facts with law;
- Programmatic Impact: Consider effects on EPA programs; and
- Stakeholder Impact: Assess how actions affect states, tribes, and regulated entities
The memo states that EPA is aiming for transparent, reasoned decisions anchored in LEAPS to make enforcement predictable and defensible.
Practical Implications for the Regulated Community
- Potential for more opportunities for rapid, voluntary compliance and proactive technical assistance.
- Legal disputes over novel or ambiguous regulatory interpretations should be elevated to national leadership, potentially providing regulated entities with a new escalation pathway.
- Formal remedies such as SEPs and wide-ranging monitoring should be restricted, and enforcement actions should now be both more predictable and tied tightly to statutory requirements.
- EPA will soon issue a single guidance document to harmonize enforcement practices agency-wide, offering more clarity and consistency for regulated parties.
Final Thoughts
While this “new” policy shares similarities with prior EPA enforcement guidance and does not create legally binding rights, the intent appears to portray a shift in EPA enforcement philosophy to prioritizing clarity, efficiency, and cooperation over adversarial posturing or creative statutory interpretations. While it is too early to know what practical implications this will have for enforcement actions, EPA’s memo is a helpful reminder for regulated entities to review their compliance programs, prepare for inspections, and document legal positions carefully to align with the “best reading” standard now embedded in EPA practice.