To provide a potential compliance profile of facilities in Region III, the following EPA program databases were used and the information selected as described below. AIR (CDS) - EPA ID, facility name, city, state and source compliance status for the most recent four quarters. Specifically selected were those facilities which showed noncompliance during any of the four quarters or showed unknown compliance status during the most recent quarter (thought to be the period January 1, 1986 to March 31, 1986). WATER (PCS) - EPA ID, facility name, city, state, violation date (between April 1, 1985 and March 31, 1986) and QNCR measurement violation detection code to indicate reportable noncompliance for a particular measurement. RCRA (HWDMS) - EPA ID, facility name, city, state and Class I violations detected between April 1, 1985 and March 31, 1986 in groundwater monitoring, closure/post-closure or financial responsibility. Based on these criteria, searches were conducted separately in CDS, PC and HWDMS. These retrievals identified 661 significant violators in air only [Table 1], 159 significant noncompliers in water only [Table 2], and 85 Class I violators in RCRA [Table 3]. All the facilities found within each database were also combined and computer-matched on EPA ID, if listed, to produce Table 4 - Facilities Common to Two Program Databases. This process identified 15 facilities. In addition, the combined database of all facilities was sorted alphabetically and a manual search was performed to locate additional facilities common to two or more program databases [Table 5]. This was necessary because CDS, as an example, contains few EPA IDs on which to match and it was believed that additional facilities would be located by this method. Using this manual approach, six additional faciliites were identified. In order to identify a corporation's noncompliance and/or violation status across regions, an additional report was produced by combining Tables 1, 2, 3 and those facilities common to two or more program databases generated by computer matching for all 10 regions and sorting alphabetically by facility name. Facilities which appeared to be the same according to their names were manually selected and grouped region by region from this national listing. A report was then produced for each region which for Region III identifies the names and locations of 129 such groups of facilities [Table 6]. It should be noted that the EPA ID numbers assigned to facilities on this table are unpredictable due to the sorting of the database by facility since the database was set up to be sorted by EPA ID.