Guidance on Considering
Environmental Justice During the
Development of Regulatory Actions
-------
Message from
the Administrator
Guidance on Considering Environmental
Justice During the Development of
Regulatory Actions
Making a visible difference in communities across America means that we should consider the impacts
of our decisions on all populations. In particular, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a
responsibility under Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations to consider the impacts of our regulatory actions on populations
documented as frequently bearing the greatest burdens imposed by environmental pollution. Recently,
the EPA celebrated the 20th anniversary of the groundbreaking executive order, and we are privileged
to continue working to advance environmental justice in every corner of our great nation.
The EPA Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of Regulatory Actions
is the Agency's guide for determining when environmental justice should be considered during the
Action Development Process when developing regulations. This guide outlines critical steps that
rule-writers can take to consider the needs of minority populations, low-income populations and
indigenous peoples—those most impacted by environmental and public-health concerns—and provide
specific strategies for giving those populations a voice in shaping the: EPAs rules and regulations. The
companion Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA
2013) provides information on how to analytically consider environmental justice in rules. Together,
these documents provide consistency and rigor in how the Agency considers environmental justice in
regulatory actions,
Our work under Plan EJ 2014 has paved the way to understanding and integrating environmental
justice into the EPAs policies and programs. Through increased analysis, informed decision making
and expanded community engagement, we can secure the EPAs place at the forefront in addressing the
environmental justice issues that challenge the health and vitality of our most vulnerable citizens and
their communities.
The EPA strives to set the standard for addressing the environmental challenges that burden so many
of our communities. In doing so , we realize that the future of our efforts will be built on our federal
and state agencies working together with academia and our community partners to foster communica-
tion, support innovation and promote tremendous growth and understanding of environmental justice
issues. I Call upon you, the EPA family, to reaffirm the spirit of Executive Order 12898 and to commit
to strengthening our mission to protect our environment and every American's fundamental right to
breathe clean air, drink clean water and live on clean land.
f
6
Gina McCarthy, Administrator
-------
EPA's Action Development Process:
Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice
During the Development of Regulatory Actions
Foreword
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized by Congress to create and enforce regula-
tions that put our nation's environmental laws into effect. Exercising this authority is one of the EPAs
most important and powerful tools for protecting our environment and the health of our people. The
EPAs regulations cover a range of environmental and public health issues, from setting standards for
clean water to controlling air pollution from industry and other sources. When the EPA identifies
the need to develop or revise a regulation, it forms a workgroup that is led by the EPA office that will
be writing the regulation. The workgroup may work for months, even years, employing EPA expert
scientists, economists, and other analysts, before an appropriate course of action is decided upon and
a regulation is promulgated and implemented.
A number of laws, executive orders and policies direct the EPA to consider issues of concern to the
President, Congress and the American public when developing regulations. To achieve the goals of
Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Popula-
tions and Low-Income Populations, it is critical that EPA rule-writers consider environmental justice
(EJ) when developing a regulation. EO 12898 and EPA policy identify population groups of concern,
specifically minority populations, low-income populations and indigenous peoples. This Guide is
designed to help EPA staff incorporate EJ into the process followed at the EPA for developing regula-
tions, also known as the Action Development Process (ADP), by:
• Describing the legal and policy frameworks at the EPA for rule-writers to consider EJ;
• Identifying the information rule-writers should consider to determine whether there are EJ
concerns involved in the regulation being developed;
• liighlighting the kinds of questions about EJ that rule-writers should ask and address in each
step of developing a regulation; and
• Providing strategies and techniques for achieving meaningful involvement of minority popula-
tions, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples at key stages in the rule develop-
ment process.
This Guide explicitly integrates EJ considerations into the fabric of the ADP—from the point when
the Agency first starts considering a rule, then through its promulgation and implementation. The
analyses needed to implement this Guide may include quantitative and/or qualitative elements. See
a companion document, Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory
-------
Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013),1 for recommendations on how to evaluate potential EJ concerns using
quantitative and qualitative methods for regulatory actions.
This Guide empowers decision-makers responsible for developing rules to determine early in the
process the level of focus and effort that is necessary and appropriate to achieve the EO 12898 goals.
This approach can and should balance the need to make sure that strong, environmentally-protective
rules are promulgated in a timely way while ensuring EJ is considered to the maximum extent practi-
cable where it has potential to impact regulatory decisions. To achieve these goals, the Guide directs
rule-writers and decision-makers to respond to three core EJ questions throughout the ADP:
1. Elow did the public participation process provide transparency and meaningful participation for
minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples?2
2. Elow did the rule-writers identify and address existing and/or new disproportionate environmen-
tal and public health impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indig-
enous peoples?
3. Elow did actions taken under #1 and #2 impact the outcome or final decision?
Questions 1 and 2 use slightly different wording in referencing the subject entities (populations,
peoples, tribes). Throughout this Guide, statements associated with engagement activities use the
wording "minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples," whereas
statements associated with analysis, assessment and/or consideration of environmental and human
health impacts use the wording "minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous
peoples." When discussing public participation and meaningful involvement, Agency protocols
specify inclusion of tribal organizations as well as indigenous peoples, and specifically define those
terms. Elowever, when discussing analysis, assessment and/or consideration of impacts, attention
in the Guide is focused on impacts on populations rather than on governmental or other types of
organizations.
This Guide helps rule-writers and decision-makers understand and identify potential EJ concerns,
and advises on how to integrate the consideration of EJ into the rule development process and to
meaningfully engage minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples
during the rule development process. Further assistance is provided in references throughout the
Guide linking rule-writers and decision-makers to the wealth of other information resources that they
can turn to in seeking to consider EJ throughout all stages of the EPAs ADP.
Disclaimer: This document identifies internal Agency policies and recommended procedures for EPA employees
or decision-makers developing or reviewing regulatory actions in the ADP. This document is not a rule or regula-
tion and it may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. This Guide does not change
or substitute for any law, regulation, or any other legally binding requirement and is not legally enforceable. As
indicated by the use of non-mandatory language such as "guidance," "recommend," "may," "should," and "can," it
identifies policies and provides recommendations and does not impose any legally-binding requirements.
1 http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/ejtg.html
2 It is important to solicit input from indigenous people and tribal governments that may be impacted by an action. Consultation with tribal
governments should be offered as appropriate and in accordance with the Agency's Tribal Consultation Policy
-------
Table of Contents
Overview and Background I
A. What Is the Purpose of This Guide? I
B. Who Is the Audience for This Guide? 2
C. How Is This Guide Organized? 3
Part I: Key Concepts for Understanding Whether Regulatory Actions Involve an Environmental
Justice Concern 4
A. What Is Environmental Justice? 4
B. Which Populations Groups Are the Focus of EO 12898 and the Agency's EJ Policies? 5
C. What Are Disproportionate Impacts? 6
D. What Is the Agency's Statutory and Policy Framework for Considering Environmental Justice? 7
E. What Is an "Environmental Justice Concern"? 9
F. What Are the Factors That Contribute to Potential Environmental Justice Concerns? 13
G. How Do the Decision-Makers Determine What Degree of Assessment of Potential EJ Concerns
Is Feasible and Appropriate? 15
H. Exploring Regulatory Responses to Potential EJ Concerns 17
Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of Regulatory Actions Under the
Action Development Process 19
A. Who Is Responsible for Considering EJ During the Development of Regulatory Actions
Under the ADP? 19
B. When Should Potential EJ Concerns Be Considered During the Development of Regulatory
Actions Under the ADP? 21
Part 3: Achieving Meaningful Involvement 32
A. What Is Meaningful Involvement? 32
B. Existing Guidance on Meaningful Public Involvement 33
C. Assessment of Best Practices and Recommendations 35
Appendices
Appendix A: Incorporating Environmental Justice into Tier I and 2 Actions Under the ADP A-1
Appendix B: A Quick Reference Guide for EPA Decision-Makers: Integrating EJ into the Development
of Regulatory Actions Under the ADP B-1
Appendix C: A Checklist for EPA Rule-Writers: Integrating EJ into the Development of Regulations
Under the ADP C-1
Appendix D: References/Resources D-l
Appendix E: Examples of Regulatory Responses That Directly or Indirectly Address Potential EJ Concerns E-l
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ABP Analytic Blueprint
ADP
Action Development Process
CEQ
Council on Environmental Quality
DABP
Detailed Analytic Blueprint
EA
Economic Analysis
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
EJ
Environmental Justice
EO
Executive Order
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FAR
Final Agency Review
FR
Federal Register
IT
Information Technology
MATS
Mercury Air Toxics Standards
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEJAC
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
OAR
Office of Air and Radiation
OECA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance
OEJ
Office of Environmental Justice
OGC
Office of General Counsel
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
OP
Office of Policy
PABP
Preliminary Analytic Blueprint
PM
Particulate Matter
RegDaRRT
Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker
RRP
Renovation, Repair and Painting
RTR
Risk and Technology Review
UMCR
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
WPS Worker Protection Standards
-------
Overview and Background
A. What Is the Purpose of This Guide?
Achieving environmental justice is an EPA priority and should be factored into Agency regulatory
decisions to ensure that all Americans, regardless of race, economic status or ethnicity, have access
to clean water, clean air, and healthy communities.- The EPA is committed to using existing environ-
mental statutes and regulations to consider and address potential environmental justice (EJ) concerns
when possible. To aid in achieving this goal, it is vital that Agency rule-writers identify and address
potentially disproportionate environmental and public health impacts experienced by minority popu-
<
lations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. This Guide will help Agency rule-writers |
consider EJ during the development of regulatory actions under the Agency's Action Development |
Process (ADP),+ consistent with existing environmental and civil rights laws and their implementing s
cfo~
regulations, as well as Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice §
CL
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994), the EPAs EJ policies,
Plan EJ 2014, and EJ strategies in the EPAs strategic plans.5
In addition to providing guidance on the importance of identifying potential EJ concerns during
the development of regulatory actions (Part 1), this Guide identifies key steps throughout the ADP
where EJ should be considered (Part 2). While this Guide applies specifically to the rule-making
stages in the development of regulatory actions, rule-writers consider EJ in the development of risk
assessments, analytical tools, guidance documents and other actions that support development of
regulatory actions. Rule-making efforts are likely to be more effective and timely if EJ is considered in
such "up-front" activities. For example, the development of some EPA regulations is prompted by the
findings of risk assessments. If EJ was not considered in the development of those assessments, the
rule-writers will not have the benefit of the information that might have been provided and may need
to examine options for developing such information during specific stages of the ADP, as specified
3 See EPA Strategic Plan Cross Cutting Strategies (http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/fy-2014-2018-strategic-plan'). Plan EJ 2014 (http://www.
epa.gov/environmentaljustice/plan-ej/index.htmP and EPAs Themes - Meeting the Challenge Ahead (http://www.epa.gov/environmental]ustice/
plan- ej/index. html).
4 EPAs Action Development Process: Guidance for EPA Staff on Developing Quality Actions Process (http://vosemite.epa.gov/
sab%5CSABPRODUCTNSF/5088B3878A90053E8525788E005EC8D8/$File/adp03-00-l l.pdf).
5 Under Plan EJ 2014, EPA developed a set of basic guidances, policies and tools for integrating environmental justice into EPA programs and
policies, available at http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/plan-ej/index.html. EPAs historical EJ policies include: EPAs Environmental
Justice Strategy (1995), Environmental Justice Implementation Plan (1996), Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmen-
tal Policy Act (1997), Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPAs NEPA Compliance Analyses (1998), Toolkit for
Assessing Potential Allegations of Environmental Justice (2004), and Memo from Lisa P Jackson: Next Steps: Environmental Justice and Civil
Rights (2009).
-------
in this Guide. As a supplement to this
Guide, Agency staff may find it useful
to refer to other EPA guidance docu-
ments related to risk assessment, public
involvement and economic analysis, as
referenced throughout this Guide and in
Appendix E.
This Guide complements existing EPA
requirements or recommendations for
integrating children's health consider-
ations into the ADP (see Text Box 1) and
for consulting with federally-recognized
tribes when Agency actions may impact
their citizens or resources (see Text
Box 2)fi These issues are addressed in
other Agency guides, which are avail-
able online at http://intranet.epa.gov/
adplibrarv.
B. Who Is the Audience for This Guide?
This Guide is for EPA rule-writers and decision-makers:
• Rule-writers include: lead-program staff and managers charged with leading development of
regulatory actions (who often also serve as leaders [chairs] of regulatory action development
workgroups); members of regulatory action development workgroups; Agency staff and manag-
ers that perform the analyses that may be used to support Agency decision-making; and any
other Agency staff and managers who assist in developing regulatory actions. Workgroup chairs
have particular responsibilities under the ADP, including the responsibilities outlined in this
Guide with respect to identifying and addressing potential EJ concerns. Etowever, each regula-
tory action development workgroup member has the responsibility for being familiar with, and
understanding, the various statutes and executive orders that impact the regulatory action they
are developing. Other staff responsible for the development of regulatory actions, who may not
be workgroup members, are also responsible for being familiar with these requirements.
• Decision-makers include: program managers, Office Directors, Assistant Administrators/Nation-
al Program Managers, the Administrator, and other members of the Agency's decision-making
team with respect to Agency regulatory actions. Decision-makers are responsible for helping to
ensure that potential EJ concerns are appropriately identified and addressed in the development
of regulatory actions under the ADP.
6 See EPA Policy on Environmental Justice for Working with Federally Recognized Tribes and Indigenous Peoples. (2014), http://www.epa.gov/
environmentaljustice/resources/policy/indigenous/ej-indigenous-policy.pdf. For purposes of this cited policy, EPA defines the terms "federally
recognized tribes" and "indigenous peoples." A "federally recognized tribe" is defined as an "Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo,
village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian
Tribe List Act of 1944, 25 U.S. C.479a. The elected officials for the federally recognized tribe and the government structure they administer are
referred to as the federally recognized tribal government." The term "indigenous peoples" includes "state-recognized tribes; indigenous and
tribal community-based organizations; individual members of federally recognized tribes, including those living on a different reservation or
living outside Indian country; individual members of state-recognized tribes; Native Hawaiians; Native Pacific Islanders; and individual Native
Americans." When used in this document, the term "tribes" refers to federally recognized tribes unless otherwise specified.
Text Box I: Children's Health
Refer to Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks and EPA's Guide to
Considering Children's Health When Developing EPA Actions. Note
the important intersection between EJ concerns and children's
health issues, since children in minority, low-income and indigenous
population groups are more likely to be exposed to, and have
increased health risks from, environmental pollution than the
general population.
Text Box 2: Indigenous Peoples and Tribes
Refer to Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments and the Agency's Policy on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribes. The Agency's responsibilities under
EO 13175 and its own Consultation Policy are separate from the
responsibilities under EO 12898 and stem from federally-recognized
tribes' unique status as sovereign governments. To better
understand how to integrate EJ principles in a consistent manner in
the Agency's work with federally recognized tribes and indigenous
peoples, refer to EPA's Policy on Environmental Justice for Working
with Federally Recognized Tribes and Indigenous Peoples.
-------
C. How Is This Guide Organized?
This guidance document is organized into four parts:
• Part 1 presents the key concepts and policies that are critical for understanding EJ and deter-
mining whether regulatory actions involve potential EJ concerns.
• Part 2 provides a step-by-step walk-through of what rule-writers and decision-makers should
do to consider EJ in each stage of the EPAs ADP
• Part 3 provides strategies and techniques for achieving meaningful involvement of minority
populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples at key stages in the rule
development process.
• Appendices A through E provide more detailed information and guidance elaborating on
information presented in the main body of this Guide.
In addition, a separate document, Templates for Regulatory Preambles to Address EO 12898: Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, explains
how to address EO 12898 in rule preambles covering various situations. It is available in the Office of
Policy's (OP's) ADP library at http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrarv. It is important to note that the pre-
amble discussion should also focus on how the EPA identified and addressed potential EJ concerns as
well as how the regulatory action complies with EO 12898 and the Agency's EJ policies.
-------
?
-------
In implementing its I ) program, the EPA has expanded the concept of fair treatment to include not
only consideration of how burdens are distributed across all populations, but the distribution of
benefits as well. Thus, to the extent data are initially available or can be developed through timely
data needs assessment and planning, rule-writers should not only evaluate the distribution of burdens
by paying special attention to populations that have historically borne a disproportionate share of
environmental harms and risks, but should also evaluate the distribution of the positive environmen-
tal and health consequences resulting from their regulatory actions.
B. Which Populations Groups Are the Focus of EO 12898 and
the Agency's EJ Policies?
Executive Order 12898 and EPA policy identify the populations of concern for the EO and for the
Agency; specifically: minority populations, low-income populations and indigenous peoples.* To
help achieve the EPAs goals for EJ (i.e., the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people),
the EPA places particular emphasis on the public health and environmental conditions affecting
minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. In recognizing that these
populations frequently bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks (see Text
Box 3 for an example), the EPA works to protect them from adverse public health and environmental
effects of its programs. Thus, the focus in this Guide is on minority populations, low-income popula-
tions and indigenous peoples, who may be disproportionately impacted by environmental pollution.
Text Box 3:1-710 Freeway Los Angeles
The densely populated communities closest to the 1-710 freeway in Los Angeles County are severely impacted by pollution
from goods movement and industrial activity. The Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are the entry point of 40% of
all imports to the U.S. and account for 20% of diesel particulate emissions in Southern California. Approximately 2,000
premature deaths annually are associated with diesel emissions from goods movement in the South Coast Air Basin. The
1-710 freeway passes through 15 cities and unincorporated areas with a population of over I million residents—about 70% of
which are minority and disproportionately low-income populations. The area is dense with truck traffic, industrial facilities,
residences, schools, daycares and senior centers. The region exceeds national ambient air quality standards for particulate
matter and has some of the worst ozone air pollution in the country The South Coast Air Quality Management District,
California Air Resources Board, and EPA are working vigorously to address the air quality issues in the region.
Source: http://www.&po.0cw/rp.pion9/tri/mpart/O9/rRI-2OO947lO(iarridor.pdf
s P-Xrcutivr Order 12898 also mentions "populations with differential patterns of subsistence consumption offish and wildlife!" as populations
of concern. This population category largely overlaps:with those defined on the basis of income and race/ethnicity, as it identifies particular
pathways of exposure. Accordingly it is not separately identified as a population of concern in this Guide.
9 See EPA Policy on Environmental Justice for Working with Federally Recognized Tribes and Indigenous Peoples. (2014), http://wwwepa.pov/envi-
ronmentaljustice/resources/policy/indigenous/ej-indipenous-policypdf. 5
-------
?
-------
type of information that may be useful to provide to decision-makers for considering whether or not
effects are disproportionate include: the severity and nature of health consequences; the magnitude
of the estimated differences in impacts between population groups; mean or median exposures or
risks to relevant population groups; distributions of exposures or risk to relevant population groups;
characterization of the uncertainty; and a discussion of factors that may make population groups
more vulnerable.
Also note that the Agency's statutory and regulatory authorities provide a broader basis for protecting
human health and the environment than EO 12898 and do not require a demonstration of dispropor-
tionate impacts in order to protect the health or environment of any population, including minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. Consistent with its mission, the
Agency may address adverse impacts in the context of developing an action without the need for
showing that the impacts are disproportionate. Evidence of potential adverse impacts on populations
of concern may be more likely to be addressed, however, if there is also evidence that the adverse
impacts may fall disproportionately on populations of concern. Thus, this Guide recommends that
analysts evaluate the potential for disproportionate impacts and present the relevant data to decision-
makers, who will determine what actions to take.
D. What Is the Agency's Statutory and Policy Framework for
Considering Environmental Justice?
For over a decade, the EPA has developed strategies, guidance documents and implementation plans
to move the Agency closer to its goal of achieving environmental justice. These documents, along
with Executive Order 12898 and existing environmental statutes and regulations, provide the frame-
work for the rule-writers to consider EJ during the development of the regulatory action.
EO 12898 applies to agency "programs, policies and activities" and in general calls on each covered
federal agency to make achieving EJ part of its mission. It directs agencies such as the EPA, "[t]o the
greatest extent practicable and permitted by law" to "identify [...] and address [...], as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects" of agency programs,
policies and actions on minority populations and low-income populations.11 Because minority
populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples have historically been under-
represented in federal agency decision making, EO 12898 also aims to improve public participation
of these populations in the decision-making process.
EO 12898 has informed the development and implementation of the EPAs EJ program and EJ poli-
cies. Consistent with the EO and the Presidential Memorandum accompanying it, the Agency's EJ
policies promote human health and environmental protection by focusing attention and Agency
efforts on addressing the types of environmental harms and risks that are prevalent among minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. EO 12898 and the Agency's EJ
policies do not mandate particular outcomes for regulatory actions, but they demand that decisions
id n "
nU
o a.
n 5" ^
3 O £
11 In addition, the Presidential Memorandum accompanying EO 12898 directs federal agencies to analyze environmental effects, including
human health, economic and social effects, of federal actions when such analysis is required under the National Environmental Policy Act. See
Memorandum for the Heads of All Departments and Agencies: Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Popula-
tions and Low-Income Populations (1994). Similarly, the EPA promotes the consideration of economic or social effects in developing its actions to
better inform and manage the process of implementing Agency actions and policies, where allowed by underlying statutory authority.
-------
involving the action be informed by a consideration of EJ issues. Where feasible, regulatory actions
should prevent or address and mitigate potential EJ concerns.
?
-------
differences, and those health or environmental impacts (not demographics) are the rationale for the
Agency's decision.
It is important, however, to recognize that the Agency's statutory and regulatory authorities provide a
broad basis for protecting human health and the environment and do not require a demonstration of
disproportionate impacts in order to protect the health or environment of any population, including
minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. Thus, consistent with
its mission, the Agency may address adverse impacts in the context of developing regulatory actions
without the need to show that the impacts are disproportionate. Unless prohibited by statutory or
regulatory authority, the EPA can and should consider action to address adverse health and environ-
mental impacts on populations of concern, consistent with this guidance. Rule-writers should focus
attention on the health of and environmental conditions affecting minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or indigenous peoples, both before and after implementation of a rule and/or for
the regulatory options under consideration. This will allow decision-makers to make more informed
choices between different regulatory options. An important consideration for regulatory options is the
extent to which they improve the adverse health and environmental impacts in minority populations,
low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples.
E. What Is an "Environmental Justice Concern"?
Throughout this Guide, the phrase "potential environmental justice (EJ) concern" is used to indicate
the actual or potential lack of fair treatment or meaningful involvement of minority populations, low-
income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples in the development, implementation and enforce-
ment of environmental laws, regulations and policies. This section will provide general guidelines ^ > s,
on how to identify regulatory actions that may involve potential EJ concerns. See the Draft Technical r. g |
=5 5" CD
Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013) how to evaluate 11 £
ni a.
potential EJ concerns. "
Decision-makers determine early in the rule-making process the appropriate level of analysis and
engagement with stakeholders, including minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and
indigenous peoples, considering factors such as the legal framework governing the action, the avail-
ability of relevant data and analytical methodologies, stakeholder interest, and the impacts that poten-
tial EJ concerns are likely to have on the actual decisions involving the action (see Section G below).
Based on the application of these criteria, some regulatory actions will be identified for enhanced
efforts that may require the development of new data, application of more advanced analytical
methodologies and more extensive and targeted engagement of stakeholders, including minority
populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples. As detailed more thoroughly
in Part 2, decision-makers should convey their determinations on the appropriate level of analysis
and stakeholder engagement to the rule-writers. It is important to document decisions regarding the
screening-level analysis described in Section G and any further analyses, including the information
upon which these decisions are based.
)L O -
9
-------
I. A potential EJ concern refers to disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples that may exist prior
to or that may be created by the proposed regulatory action.
The regulatory action may involve a potential EJ concern if it could:
• Create new disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or
indigenous peoples;
• Exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-income popula-
tions, and/or indigenous peoples; or
• Present opportunities to address existing disproportionate impacts on minority populations,
low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples through the action under development.
?
-------
involvement of tribes and indigenous peoples as it is used in the EJ context versus formal consultation
with tribes.
Rule-writers should think broadly about how regulatory actions may impact minority populations,
low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. For regulatory actions that may impact these
populations, the rule-writers should assess what steps will be taken to ensure there are sufficient
opportunities for meaningful involvement during the development of the action. This includes regula-
tory actions that directly impact the health or environmental conditions of these populations as well
as regulatory actions that involve the collection of information or data (information or data collection
actions may impact these populations or tribes if the information or data are later used for inspection
and enforcement or to assess potential health or environmental impacts).14 Meaningful involvement is
discussed in more detail in Part 3 of this document.
3. A potential EJ concern may arise when there is an actual or potential lack of
fair treatment or meaningful involvement of minority populations, low-income
populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples when implementing an agency regulatory
action.
Rule-writers should assess how to consider EJ not only in the development of the action, but in the
implementation of the action as well. The rule-writers should consider whether and how they can craft
the action to influence its implementation in a manner that considers EJ. For example, listed below ^
are common implementation issues that may be of particular concern to minority populations, low- m 11
<. CD a
income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples. g i"
3 oo P
CD g_ y
3 cu n
What approaches should be included in the regulatory action to make sure it is effective with
high compliance by the regulated community? Consider whether the regulatory action, when ^ f c
O Q_
implemented, will itself promote compliance, to ensure that regulated facilities are complying. Rule- s < I
3 < D
writers should try to make the rule self-implementing to drive compliance, using approaches such 2 f
as enhanced monitoring, reporting and record-keeping requirements. These tools can help ensure
compliance where needed to protect adversely affected populations, including minority populations,
low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. Rule-writers should also draw on the expertise
of the workgroup members, including representatives from OECA, in considering ways of ensuring
effective program implementation and pursuing innovative ideas on how to achieve greater compli-
ance and effectiveness of the action in reducing pollution and human and environmental risks.
Information technologies in conjunction with public disclosure and accountability and other Next
Generation Compliance concepts can be used to make rules more effective and enforceable.15
Does the regulatory action support compliance and enforcement? Non-compliance issues may
impact the public health and environmental conditions affecting minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or indigenous peoples, particularly when violations are occurring in areas already
disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards. Structuring the action with compliance
14 Agency actions involving monitoring requirements are often viewed as important data gathering opportunities that inform the development
of future actions. Also, a test rule that requires the submission of certain data that may subsequently be used in an analysis about impacts pres-
ents an important opportunity Rule-writers should offer affected minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples
meaningful opportunities to influence the type of data and information collected through such actions, how the data or information may be
made available to the public, and how the Agency plans to use that data or information in future actions. For example, while the Agency often
makes data available for the public to consider by issuing a Notice of Data Availability or as part of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemak-
ing, Rule-writers may consider and solicit feedback on other mechanisms for making the data or information available to these populations.
15 For further information on such concepts, rule-writers are encouraged to consult the Rule Implementation, Compliance and Effectiveness
Screening Tool, available at http://intranet.epa.gov/gis/ejscreen/.
-------
?
-------
by applying those standards to specific discharges and emissions of pollutants, which in some cases
may take into account estimates of exposure experienced by minority populations, low-income popu-
lations, and/or indigenous peoples in that location. To facilitate the drafting of subsequent permits, it
is important to consider, where feasible and appropriate, whether the data and assumptions that form
the basis of the regulatory standard being developed account for exposure to multiple stressors,18
impacts on vulnerable or susceptible populations, or other issues related to potential EJ concerns (see
next section for discussion of factors that contribute to potential EJ concerns).19 20
F. What Are the Factors That Contribute to Potential
Environmental Justice Concerns?
Identifying the presence of potential EJ concerns goes beyond simply characterizing potentially
impacted populations. Several factors, summarized below, will help in assessing whether potential
EJ concerns may be associated with regulatory actions (i.e., whether disproportionate impacts on, or
distribution of benefits to, minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples
exist prior to or are created by the proposed action). These factors may contribute to the higher health
and environmental risks or lower environmental benefits in these populations. EJ concerns may result
from a combination of several, if not all, of the subsequently listed factors. Elowever, in some circum-
stances, the presence of one or two of these factors alone could be sufficient to result in a potential EJ
concern (i.e., potentially disproportionate impact on minority populations, low-income populations, f %
m _
and/or indigenous peoples). The rule-writers should note that disproportionate impacts may also arise I i ^
a -ft"-
from factors not included here. See the Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in g §
Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013) for a more detailed discussion. #-|f
Proximity and Exposure to Emission Sources. Proximity to emission sources is the most studied
indicator of high exposure in environmental justice literature. Disproportionate public health and
environmental effects may be related to a population's differential proximity and associated exposure
to environmental stressors, often stemming from evolving mixed land use patterns (i.e., encroachment
of industrial/commercial facilities/infrastructure on residential communities or recreation areas, or
expansion of residential areas into current or former industrial/commercial sites).
Unique Exposure Pathways. Unique exposure pathways are non-traditional pathways through
which exposure to a given stressor occurs. Some populations sustain unique environmental exposures
because of practices linked to their cultural background or socioeconomic status. For example, sub-
sistence diets may expose these populations to toxic chemicals, such as exposures to mercury from a
fish diet or exposures to other chemicals from a diet high in contaminated vegetation.21 There are also
non-dietary exposure pathways that may be unique to some indigenous peoples, such as the practice
of basket weaving, where exposures to toxic chemicals may occur when contaminated materials are
nU
o a.
n 5" ^
3 O £
18 This Guide uses the term "environmental stressor" or "stressor" to encompass the range of chemical, physical or biological agents, contami-
nants, or pollutants that may be subject to a rulemaking.
19 In some situations, it may be appropriate for EPA to seek information about specific exposure pathways associated with cultural or traditional
practices before formulating assumptions or making a determination of whether the assumptions account for a population's vulnerability See
the Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis.
20 For a more detailed discussion of EJ and permitting, see EPAs Plan EJ 2014 webpage at http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/plan-ej/
permitting.html. The resources developed under the EJ in Permitting Initiative are housed on this website. The purpose of the EJ in Permitting
Initiative is to enable overburdened communities to have full and meaningful access to the permitting process and to develop permits that
address environmental justice issues to the greatest extent practicable under existing environmental laws.
21 In the case of subsistence fishing, these populations may be exercising legal rights, based on treaties, to do so. | 3
-------
placed in the mouth during the weaving process. Unique exposure pathways can also be identified
based on other factors, such as behavioral and physiological stages of growth and development which
may occur during a particular life stage.22
Physical Infrastructure. Physical infrastructure is a very important source of environmental stressors.
The physical infrastructure, such as poor housing, poorly maintained public buildings (e.g., schools)
or presence of legacy pollutants such as lead in paint and PCBs in building materials, may contribute
to making certain populations more vulnerable to environmental hazards.
Multiple Stressors and Cumulative Impacts. Exposures to, and risks from, multiple stressors from
one or more sources or pathways can be accumulated over time and result in one or multiple effects.
In addition, such risks may be modified by other stressors affecting the exposed population, such as
nutritional or health status, smoking, or other factors. However, the science supporting assessments of
such cumulative impacts is evolving and the data and analytical tools needed to develop informative,
scientifically sound analyses of these effects may not be available. Under these circumstances, estimat-
ed exposures or risks associated with environmental pollutants from a given source may not reflect
the potential health risks to populations exposed to multiple environmental stressors, particularly if
the emissions, exposures or risks being targeted by the action under consideration have significant
interaction effects with these other stressors. Minority populations, low-income populations, and/
or indigenous peoples are likely to suffer a wide range of environmental stressors, ranging from poor
air quality to poor housing. Numerous empirical studies and anecdotal accounts describe minor-
ity populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples that are impacted by multiple
environmental hazards, such as industrial facilities, landfills, transportation-related air pollution, poor
housing, leaking underground tanks, pesticides and incompatible land uses. Analyzing cumulative
impacts from multiple stressors allows a more complete evaluation of a population's risk from pollut-
ants targeted by the action under consideration, particularly when there may be important interaction
effects among these multiple stressors and adequate data and methods are available. The EPAs Frame-
work for Cumulative Risk Assessment23 can enhance an evaluation of the various aspects of cumulative
risk experienced by these populations. See also the Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental
Justice in Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013) for a more detailed discussion.
Capacity to Participate in Decision Making. The ability, or inability, to participate in the environ-
mental decision-making process may contribute to disproportionate impacts. Factors which contrib-
ute to the inability of minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples
in particular to participate fully in the decision-making process include:
Lack of trust;
Availability or lack of information;
Language barriers;
Socio-cultural issues;
Inability to access traditional communication channels; and
Limited capacity to access technical and legal resources.
22 EPA defines lifestages as the "time frame in an individual's life characterized by unique and relatively stable behavioral and/or physiological
characteristics that are associated with development and growth." For more information on lifestages, please visit http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/
ochpweb.nsf/content/lifestage.htm.
23 See http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/framework-cra.htm.
-------
Higher Risk in Response to Exposure Among Minority Populations, Low-Income Populations,
and/or Indigenous Peoples. At-risk populations are groups who have a greater likelihood of experi-
encing effects related to environmental exposures.2+ Certain factors may render different groups less
able to resist or tolerate an environmental stressor. These risk factors may be intrinsic in nature, based
on age, sex, genetics, race or ethnicity, or acquired (such as chronic medical conditions, or smok-
ing status); as well as extrinsic, non-biological factors such as those related to socioeconomic status,
reduced access to health-care, health-care, nutrition, fitness and/or exposures related factors.25
If the rule-writers conclude that one or more of the previously listed factors is relevant to the action,
they should then consider whether the action involves potentially disproportionate impacts on minor-
ity populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples and thus raises a potential EJ
concern. To characterize and better understand the populations affected by the proposed action, the
rule-writers may want to look at demographic data and consult with program and/or regional office
EJ coordinators.26 The rule-writers should also consider reaching out to these populations and tribes
directly to assess potential concerns and issues associated with the proposed action (see Part 3 below
for guidance on meaningfully engaging minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and
indigenous peoples). Where a screening analysis indicates the need for further analysis and engage-
ment, the previously listed factors can be considered to determine the extent to which adverse health
or environmental risks may be higher or concentrated within minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or indigenous peoples. See the Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental
Justice in Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013) for how to evaluate potential EJ concerns. Rule-writers g ?
may also want to draw on the expertise of representatives in their workgroup from the Office of 1 I ^
Research and Development.27 I f y
D p n
pj" n" CD
a g; o ¦
G. How Do the Decision-Makers Determine What Degree of °
^ q. !§¦
Assessment of Potential EJ Concerns Is Feasible and Appropriate? D
In determining whether potential EJ concerns may be at issue in regulatory actions, some level of
analysis is needed, be it qualitative, quantitative, or some combination of both. For many regulatory
actions, including actions that strengthen environmental protection, it is not possible to rule out
potential EJ concerns without some level of assessment. The extent to which an analysis of potential
EJ concerns is feasible and appropriate also will be affected by data, budget and analytical constraints
specific to the action and circumstance. See the Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental
Justice in Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013) for more information.
This Guide encourages offices to utilize a "screening-level" analysis when feasible and appropriate
to help determine the extent to which regulatory actions may raise potential EJ concerns that need
24 This Guide uses the term "environmental stressor" or "stressor" to encompass the range of chemical, physical or biological agents, contami-
nants, or pollutants that may be subject to a rulemaking.
25 For example, in the final PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards rule, based on information presented in the Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (U.S. EPA, 2009, sections 2.2.1 and 8.1.7), the EPA made a finding that persons with lower socioeconomic
status are at increased risk for experiencing adverse health effects related to PM exposures (78 FR 3104). Persons with lower socioeconomic
status (SES) have been generally found to have a higher prevalence of pre-existing diseases, limited access to medical treatment, and increased
nutritional deficiencies, which can increase this population's risk of PM-related effects (77 FR 38911, June 29, 2012).
26 For a listing of media EJ Coordinators, please visit http://epa.gov/environmentaljustice/contact/ej-contacts-media.html. For a listing of
Regional EJ Coordinators, please visit http://epa.gov/environmentaljustice/contact/ej-contacts-regional.html.
27 The recently-released American Journal of Public Health Supplement "Environmental Justice and Disparities in Health" may be useful in gain-
ing a more complete understanding of how these factors influence health outcomes. See http://ajph.aphapublications.org/toc/ajph/101/Sl. | 5
-------
?
-------
Text Box 6: DSW Analysis
Although EPA's Analysis for the Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) relies on both quantitative and qualitative analyses, it
demonstrates how a qualitative approach can be used. The DSW analysis showcases how EPA used data on vulnerabilities
and impacts to support a proposed rule revision that would prevent and mitigate adverse impacts that disproportionately
affect minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous populations. This analysis made qualitative
connections between the increased incidence of vulnerability factors (relating to increased proximity and increased
susceptibility) and the likelihood that populations impacted by the rule, which included minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or indigenous populations, would potentially face increased risk of negative health and environmental
outcomes. The vulnerability factors considered in the DSW analysis are multiple and cumulative impacts; ability to
participate in the decision-making process; physical infrastructure; susceptible populations; and unique exposure pathways.
The analysis concluded that the underlying vulnerabilities traditionally associated with minority and low-income communities
may exacerbate potential adverse impacts of the DSW rule (see http://www.regulations.gOv/#ldocumentDetail: D=FPA-HC>-
RCRA-7010-0747-0004).
It is important to document the decision-makers' determinations regarding the screening-level
analysis and any further analyses, including the information upon which these decisions are based.
This documentation should become part of the record for the action and will help the rule-writers
and associated programs establish compliance with the directives of EO 12898 and EJ policies.
Decision-makers may want to review this documentation and discuss whether further consideration
of potential EJ concerns is appropriate.
H. Exploring Regulatory Responses to Potential EJ Concerns
A regulatory response to an identified potential EJ concern may require rule-writers to consider
whether the regulatory action can and should set a stricter standard or go beyond the basic and ordi-
narily protective norms to require additional measures in a rule. The Agency's ability to do this, and
the appropriateness of doing so, will depend on the Agency's legal authority and whether sufficient
evidence of a potential EJ concern has been established, and whether circumstances or factors exist
with respect to the particular emissions, exposures or risks addressed by the action that justify setting
a stricter standard. An example of the latter might be the need to set a lower threshold of concern for
exposure to a pollutant because the exposure-response for that pollutant is altered by disproportion-
ately high exposure to other environmental stressors. These opportunities will become clearer as the
Agency gains more experience in this area and as the data, tools and methods to evaluate potential EJ
concerns evolve.
Examples of regulatory responses that could serve as starting points for rule-writer's consideration
are discussed in Appendix E. The appendix includes examples in which responses to potential EJ
concerns strengthened the defensibility of the rule, generated better data on differential exposure
levels, increased benefits for all population groups, reduced disparities in risk, improved oversight of
facilities, and improved compliance.
In some cases, rule-writers may identify a potential EJ concern for which the Agency's ability to
explore a regulatory response is limited. It is important for rule-writers to alert their decision-makers
to potential EJ concerns that cannot be addressed through the rule under development. This informa-
tion allows decision-makers to look for other resources and tools to address potential EJ concerns
as appropriate and as time, resources and data allow. In addition, rule-writers should pass along the
information they have gathered about potential EJ concerns to other EPA offices as they consider EJ as
they implement their own programs. See example in Text Box 7.
id n "
nU
o a.
n 5" ^
3 O £
17
-------
Text Box 7: National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Mineral Wool Production and Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing
Proposed Rule Development Example
As part of OAR's development of the Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing rulemaking proposal, EPA sent requests to 29 fiberglass
manufacturing plants across the nation, asking them to provide emissions data. From this information, EPA learned that the
CertainTeed plant in the Fairfax Industrial District of Kansas City, Kansas, was emitting chromium VI emissions that were
higher than any other facility in the industry.
Region 7 proactively engaged the local community and identified the potential environmental concerns, opening lines
of communication and launching several opportunities for the community to voice concerns, ask questions and receive
additional information. At least ten face-to-face sessions were held, including stakeholders meetings, technical discussions, as
well as a round table discussion with the Region 7 Regional Administrator
Concurrently, Region 7 conducted air monitoring at John Garland Park, located between the facilities and nearby residential
areas. The results of the air monitoring did not indicate that the plant emissions were a health concern for the community.
The monitoring was conducted for approximately five months, however the furnace associated with the high chromium VI
emissions was idled shortly after the monitoring began, and remains idled to this day.
Due to the high level of local interest regarding this rulemaking, a public hearing was also held in the Kansas City area
giving the community an opportunity to submit verbal and written comments on the pending rulemaking. Much like the
air monitoring events, holding a public hearing in the vicinity of an active community is not typically a direct result of the
rulemaking process.
Rule-writers should also assess whether additional compliance drivers and tools for ensuring trans-
parency (such as those discussed in section E.3) should be included in the regulations they are
developing to ensure that the rules are as effective as possible in addressing the EJ Factors identified
in Section F above. These tools can complement enforcement programs and enhance public involve-
ment in rule implementation.
18
-------
Part 2: Considering Environmental
Justice During the Development of
Regulatory Actions Under the Action
Development Process
This section of the Guide describes the key
issues related to considering EJ during the
development of regulatory actions under the
ADP (see Text Box 8). It is designed to help the
rule-writers identify opportunities in the ADP
where they can:
1. Identify potential EJ concerns;
2. Plan to achieve meaningful involvement;
3. Plan to evaluate and address potential EJ
concerns;
4. Discuss potential EJ concerns with
decision-makers;
5.
6.
Text Box 8: What Is the Action
Development Process?
The ADP is a method for producing quality actions,
such as regulations, policies, guidance, strategies and
reports. It ensures that EPA uses the best available
information to support its actions and that scientific,
economic and policy issues are adequately coordinated
across the Agency during the various stages of action
development. Activities that implement EO 12898 should
be undertaken within the framework of this process. For
more information, see EPA's Action Development Process:
Guidance for EPA Staff on Developing Quality Actions
available on OP's intranet site at http://intranet.epa.gov/
adplibrarv.
Compare how options under consideration would change the environmental and public health
impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples; and
Document the rule-writers' efforts to achieve meaningful involvement and address potential EJ
concerns.
A. Who Is Responsible for Considering EJ During the
Development of Regulatory Actions Under the ADP?
Rule-writers and decision-makers (see definitions provided in subsection B of the Overview and Back-
ground section) should use this Guide in the development of regulatory actions. In addition, rule-
writers and decision-makers may seek assistance from other EPA resources, such as EJ Coordinators.
Based on the level of participation in the development of regulatory actions, they may have additional
specific responsibilities. See EPAs Action Development Process: Guidance for EPA Staff on Developing
Quality Actions for general information about the roles and responsibilities of the different participants
in the development of regulatory actions. Following is guidance for key actors in the ADP:
-------
3 n $
5 <
: be
¦J o u
E rt £
c 3 Q-
P 00 O
•^0)
Text Box 9: Decision-Makers
Decision-makers establish policy priorities,
communicate expectations to the workgroup
and decide whether or not a potential EJ
concern warrants further evaluation, the level
of analysis and public involvement, and the
resources available for those activities.
1. Decision-Makers. Relying on information provided
by the rule-writers, EPA decision-makers determine what
needs to be done to identify and address potential EJ
concerns for Agency regulatory actions under develop-
ment (see Text Box 9). They communicate expectations
to the rule-writers, establish policy priorities, identify
issues of significant concern and guide the process of
developing the action. As a result, decision-makers play
a key role in ensuring that the potential EJ implications
of regulatory actions are considered during the development of those actions, and that populations
affected by those actions have an opportunity to participate.
In particular, decision-makers determine early in the process the appropriate level of analysis and
engagement of stakeholders, including minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and
indigenous peoples, considering factors such as the legal framework governing the regulatory action,
the availability of relevant data and feasibility of analytical methodologies, stakeholder interest and the
impacts that EJ concerns are likely to have on the actual decisions involving the action. Based on the
application of these criteria, some regulatory actions will be identified for enhanced efforts that may
require the development of new data, application of more advanced analytical methodologies and
more extensive and targeted engagement of minority populations, low-income populations, tribes,
and indigenous peoples. Decision-makers convey determinations on the appropriate level of analysis
and stakeholder engagement to the workgroup.
Decision-makers are responsible for ensuring rule-writers address the following three core EJ ques-
tions at the appropriate points during the development of the regulatory action under the ADP (as
described below in this section):
1.
2.
3.
Eiow will (or did) the public participation process provide transparency and meaningful partici-
pation for minority populations, low-income population, tribes, and indigenous peoples?
Eiow do the rule-writers plan to (or how did the rule-writers) identify and address existing and
new disproportionate environmental and public health impacts on minority populations, low-
income populations, and/or indigenous peoples during the rulemaking process?
Eiow did the actions taken under #1 and #2 impact the outcome or final decision?
20
Appendix B provides a quick reference for EPA decision-makers on when and how they can par-
ticipate in the action's development to ensure that the rule-writers identify and evaluate potential EJ
concerns.
2. The Workgroup Chair. The role of the workgroup chair is to facilitate and oversee the efforts of
the rule-writers to achieve meaningful involvement and to consider EJ concerns during the develop-
ment of the action. Appendix C provides a checklist to identify what the chair may need to know and/
or do in order to integrate EJ into the development of the action.
3. The Rule-Writing Workgroup. The rule-writing workgroup is responsible for assuring meaningful
involvement and consideration of EJ concerns during the development of the regulatory action under
the ADP (see Text Box 10). Workgroup members influence the scope and content of analyses of EJ
concerns that support regulatory actions. Workgroup members, as representatives of their program
offices or regional offices, should keep decision-makers in their organizations informed of EJ concerns
-------
and workgroup actions in a timely manner so
that they can formulate appropriate responses.
4. The Analysts. For the most part, the ana-
lysts—those doing the economic or scientific
supporting analyses—are likely to be members
of the workgroup. In some cases, however, the
analysts may only be involved in the analytic
work performed as part of the development of
regulatory actions. In either case, the analyst
plays a key role in identifying the analytical
topics that will need to be addressed during the
development of regulatory actions, as well as
leading or actively participating in the analytical efforts, including considering whether one or more
scientific or economic analyses are needed to support those actions.29 It is also important to note
that these analyses may be quantitative, qualitative, or both. See the Guidelines for Preparing Economic
Analyses and the Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis
(U.S. EPA 2013) under development for more information on conducting an analysis of potential EJ
concerns for regulatory actions.
Text Box 10: What Is the Workgroup?
The workgroup consists of representatives from
interested program offices and Regions. The workgroup
develops the draft regulation, involving its members
throughout the ADP. Workgroup members represent
the position of their program office or Region. Tier
I and Tier 2 actions call for formation of action
development workgroups. Even though Tier 3 actions
do not normally call for teams/workgroups, the lead
program should consider the level of assistance needed
from Regions and other offices to produce a quality
regulatory action.
B. When Should Potential EJ Concerns Be Considered During the
Development of Regulatory Actions Under the ADP?
The following is a description of the opportunities for considering potential EJ concerns at the specific
steps in developing regulatory actions under the ADP. If the workgroup is unable to follow the activi-
ties described below for a particular step of the ADP, those activities may be performed at later steps,
as appropriate.
The procedural steps under the Agency's ADP may vary based on the specific tier designation. The
procedural steps described in this Guide primarily apply to regulatory actions developed under Tier
1 and 2 of the ADP because Tier 3 regulatory actions, such as regional office regulatory actions, may
not follow all the same procedural steps. For example, an Analytic Blueprint (preliminary or detailed)
is optional for Tier 3 actions. Even though a particular ADP step may not apply to the action, rule-
writers should consider potential EJ concerns regardless of the tier level assigned to the regulatory
action. Note that some regional offices regulatory actions are developed under the ADP as Tier 3
actions while some are developed under a separate process from the ADP. This Guide can also help
workgroups consider EJ concerns for those regional offices regulatory actions that are developed
under a separate process from the ADP.
Appendix A includes a flowchart, entitled "Incorporating Environmental Justice into Tier 1 and Tier 2
Actions Under the ADP," which outlines the ADP procedural steps for Tier 1 and 2 actions to illustrate
when EJ concerns might be integrated at various steps throughout the ADP (see blue text boxes). The
discussion that follows in this Guide is linked to the numbered steps used in the Tier 1 and 2 process
29 See EPAs Action Development Process Guidelines for Preparing Analytic Blueprints, p. 14, available electronically at http://intranet.epa. gov/
adplibrary/documents/abp09-30-04.pdf.
21
-------
flowchart. This information is also provided on the EPA intranet in the form of tool at http://intranet
epa.gov/oswer/policy/ejr/index.html.
ADP Steps I and 2 - Action Initiation and Tiering
Once the Agency decides to initiate a regulatory action (Step 1), the next step of the ADP is tiering
(Step 2). At this point, the lead EPA Program Office must fill out a tiering form in the ADP TRACKER
that provides basic information about the action being initiated. Table 1 displays the EJ question
currently in the ADP TRACKER. These questions can be used to help determine whether regulatory
actions may involve a subject that is of particular interest to or may have particular impacts on these
populations.
Table I: EJ Question in ADP TRACKER
00
c
'C
ZJ
O
(D
XI
c
Z)
(D
!/)
¦_p
C
0
Z3
0
"ti
< CL
c
c
(D
q
(D
f
£
CN O
Environmental Justice
Does this action involve a topic that is likely to be of particular interest to or have particular impact upon minority
populations, low-income populations, or indigenous populations, or tribes?
~ Yes If the answer is Yes, please check a minimum of one of the following options:
~ The action is likely to impact the health of these populations.
~ The action is likely to impact the environmental conditions of these populations.
~ The action is likely to present an opportunity to address an existing disproportionate
impact on these populations.
~ The action is likely to result in the collection of information or data that could be used
to assess potential impacts on the health or environmental conditions of these popula-
tions or tribes.
~ The action is likely to affect the availability of information to these populations or tribes.
~ Other reasons. Explain:
Comments:
~ No Selecting No means that this action is not likely to be of any particular interest to these
populations or tribes. Explain:
Comments:
~ TBD Selecting TBD means that, given the information available at this time, the Agency does not
know if these populations or tribes will be particularly interested in this action.
Comments:
For some offices, the EJ question asked at tiering might also be the impetus for an initial screening
analysis, as discussed in Part 1 of this document. For other offices, there may already be a screening
process in place that can inform how rule-writers answer this question at tiering.
As the lead program office prepares to answer the EJ question displayed in Table 1, there are some
important points to keep in mind.
• Rule-writers are expected to make an informed assessment about whether regulatory actions
will have potential impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indig-
enous peoples based on readily accessible information and what the rule-writers already know
about a regulatory action and its potential EJ implications, recognizing that at this early step in
the ADP they may not have sufficient information to determine whether a potential EJ concern
is associated with the action.
• The question also asks about actions that may be of particular interest to minority populations,
low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples. A regulatory action may be of particu-
lar interest if it concerns a topic that these populations or tribes have identified as important.
For example, a rule that affects the availability of information may be of interest even though it
22
-------
may not have particular impacts on these populations or tribes. If a regulatory action may be of
particular interest to these populations or tribes, rule-writers may need to provide opportunities
for meaningful involvement in the development of those actions.
Answering yes to this question signals that potential EJ concerns are likely to be involved in
the regulatory action. See the Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in
Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013) for guidance on analytic expectations. If rule-writers believe
that the action may involve a potential EJ concern, they may request that an EJ coordinator be
assigned to join the workgroup or otherwise support the action. This can be done by requesting
OEJ assistance in assigning an EJ coordinator in the "Workgroup" section of the tiering form or
by describing the potential concerns in the section labeled "Additional information or assistance
needed."
Answering TBD to this question signals that the rule-writers should consider whether there are
potential EJ concerns associated with the regulatory action as they go through the ADP. Rule-
writers are expected to conduct proper outreach and evaluation activities to make a determina-
tion of whether potential EJ concerns are involved and how those concerns can be addressed
before they develop the final action. See the Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental
Justice in Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013) for guidance on analytic expectations.
The lead program office's answer to this question (along with other information on the tiering
form) will be part of the Agency's Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker
(Reg DaRRT) Reg DaRRT offers the public a means of learning about and tracking rulemakings
(see Text Box 11). One of the features allows rule-writers and the public to sort actions based
on the responses to the EJ question dis-
played in Table 1. Reg DaRRT is updated
regularly, so any updates rule-writers
make to the action in the ADP TRACKER
is reflected on Reg DaRRT throughout the
life of the action. Rule-writers can access
the Reg DaRRT website at http://vosemite.
epa. gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/.
Program Offices will be asked to recon-
sider their answer for this question during
the semi-annual update of the Agency's
Regulatory Agenda. This provides rule-writers with an opportunity discuss whether the answer
should be changed based on new information or the results of the evaluation.
Text Box II: What Is Reg DaRRT?
The Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review
Tracker (Reg DaRRT) provides information to the
public on the status of EPA's priority rulemakings and
retrospective reviews of existing regulations. Reg DaRRT
includes rulemakings that have not yet been proposed,
those that are open for public comment, those for which
EPA is working on a final rule, and those that have been
recently finalized.
ADP Step 3 - Preliminary Analytic Blueprint (PABP)
The PABP, which is required for all Tier 1 and 2 actions, provides an opportunity to review the rule-
writers' screening decision and to identify what steps they will take to ensure that EJ concerns are
considered in the development of regulatory actions. This opportunity to revisit EJ considerations is
similar to the opportunity the PABP provides to revisit other assumptions or decisions made regard-
ing other aspects of the regulation development effort. It is important to document the potential EJ
concerns and how rule-writers will develop needed information and how they will use that existing
and new information to explore and address them in the action.
-------
Careful consideration of EJ concerns in the PABP can improve regulatory actions by ensuring appro-
priate consideration in planning rule-writers' activities, including early attention to data gathering,
facilitating cross-agency sharing of valuable information, expertise and perspectives and by fostering
early agreement on the three core EJ questions through a structured, documented process. It is likely
that information to describe baseline conditions for minority populations, low-income populations
and indigenous peoples may be lacking, potentially limiting the ability to assess the impacts of the
regulation on those populations. However, timely assessment and planning for these information
needs will help rule-writers develop a well-supported and documented regulatory action and avoid
last minute concerns over the type of information or analyses that should be available or might need
to be developed (see Text Box 12). The rule-writers should also be aware of opportunities to coordi-
nate data collection and analytical efforts with children's and other health impacts analyses conducted
in developing the rule.30
00
c
'C
ZJ
O
QJ
XI
c
D
QJ
!/)
¦_p
C
0
Z3
ti
0
"ti
< CL
c
c
QJ
q
QJ
f
£
cN O
Text Box 12: Consider a broad array of opportunities to integrate the meaningful involvement of
minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples in the development and
implementation of a regulatory action
To determine whether the regulatory action may have potential EJ concerns, and to ensure appropri-
ate and timely information is provided to decision-makers, the PABP should (to the extent relevant
and appropriate):
• Identify potentially affected populations and tribes, as well as others who might be interested in
the action;
• Outline plans and resource needs for achieving meaningful involvement of minority popula-
tions, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples;
• Describe the plans and resource needs for evaluating impacts on of minority populations, low-
income populations and indigenous peoples;
24
30 See EO 13045 Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. Rule-makers should also be aware of the require-
ments in EPAs Guide to Considering Children's Health When Developing EPA Actions: Implementing Executive Order 13045 and EPAs Policy
on Evaluating Health Risks to Children.
-------
• Identify available EJ assessment tools, as well as related needs for data collection, expertise and
resources; and
• Identify potential analytical issues that will need to be raised to decision-makers or addressed.
Please note that the PABP does not have to describe the details of the analyses that might be needed to
evaluate EJ concerns.
It may be beneficial to develop a separate scoping document that becomes part of the PABP for
purposes of increasing accountability and visibility of evaluating EJ concerns. For example, a scoping
document may be a useful vehicle to provide an opportunity for meaningful involvement early in the
regulatory action's development.
The framework for identifying and addressing EJ concerns is part of an iterative process. It is therefore
important to revisit in later stages of the ADP as information and ideas continue to develop, similarly
to revisiting assumptions or decisions made regarding other aspects of the regulation development
effort, the scope of inquiry relating to evaluation of EJ concerns.
The PABP is an important vehicle for raising EJ concerns to decision-makers. Once developed,
rule-writers should submit the PABP to senior management decision-makers as part of the request for
Early Guidance.
ADP Step 4 - Early Guidance
At this step, decision-makers convey their
expectation that rule-writers consider potential
EJ concerns during regulatory action develop-
ment. Early Guidance always comes from senior
management decision-makers, although the level
of management giving guidance differs for Tier
1 and Tier 2 actions. See Text Box 13 and EPAs
Action Development Process: Guidance for EPA Staff
on Developing Quality Actions, available on OP's
intranet site http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary.
for more information on Early Guidance.
Text Box 13: Early Guidance from
Decision-Makers
Early guidance from decision-makers determines
the appropriate level of analysis and engagement of
stakeholders, based on:
• Stakeholder interest;
• The legal framework governing the action;
• The availability of data;
• The availability of resources and the timeline for
developing the action; and
• The impacts that EJ concerns are likely to have on the
actual decisions involving the action.
In addition, at Early Guidance rule-writers
should obtain input from decision-makers
on the proposed approaches for considering
potential EJ concerns and any potential complications or issues in doing so. Rule-writers should be
prepared to respond to decision-makers' questions about whether the regulatory action may involve
a potential EJ concern, and how this was or will be ascertained. This will ensure that decision-makers
provide the direction that rule-writers need to respond to the three core EJ questions outlined in
Part 2, Section A (and repeated in the guidance for Step 5). Rule-writers also should be prepared to
explain what resources are required to identify and evaluate potential EJ concerns, including data
needs.
25
-------
ADP Step 5 - Detailed Analytic Blueprint (DABP)
The DABP should incorporate the directions received through Early Guidance from senior manage-
ment decision-makers. The preparation of the DABP provides rule-writers with another opportunity
to plan key activities for determining whether and how potential EJ concerns will be identified and
considered during the development of the regulatory action, including scientific and economic analy-
sis, information gathering and defining alternative approaches to be considered. If there are potential
EJ concerns, the rule-writers should also develop a detailed public involvement plan that provides
transparency and meaningful participation for minority populations, low-income populations, tribes,
and indigenous peoples (e.g., by considering their needs, capacities, cultural practices and languages).
The DABP may identify a preliminary plan to determine to what extent the regulatory action involves
EJ concerns, estimate the magnitude of such concerns and guide the initial development of any
options regarding those concerns. When preparing a quantitative or qualitative evaluation of potential
EJ concerns, the DABP should describe the:
• Rule-writers with lead responsibility for the preliminary and detailed assessments of EJ
concerns;
• Data needs and data sources for the EJ assessment;
• Scope and basic methodology of the EJ assessment;
=
-------
geographic areas or populations that are likely to be most affected by the action. As part of this
evaluation, rule-writers are encouraged to look at the distribution of the positive environmental
and health consequences from the EPAs activities. Rule-writers should ensure that they have
identified and addressed issues that are of concern to minority populations, low-income popula-
tions, tribes and indigenous peoples.
Rule-writers should note that not all regulatory actions will raise potential EJ concerns. For regulatory
actions that do not raise EJ concerns, rule-writers can answer the three core EJ questions by showing
that the action either:
• Underwent a screening-level analysis designed to identify those regulatory actions that may
raise potential EJ concerns and those that do not; or
• E[as been shown—through thorough research and analysis—to support a determination that
the action does not involve any potential EJ concerns.
ADP Step 6 - Management Approval of the DABP
The review and approval of the DABP provides another important opportunity for the rule-writers to
check in with decision-makers to determine whether and how potential EJ concerns will be identi-
fied and considered during the development of the regulatory action. For example, during the formal
r+ ~o
cross-agency review of the draft DABP, the rule- ^ »
writers and other reviewers of the draft DABP s s "
and engagement for the regulatory action. In
the absence of any compelling circumstances
that would cause decision-makers to revisit this or other non-EJ determinations, rule-writers should
follow the direction provided by decision-makers in the DABP for the remaining steps of the ADP.
ADP Step 7 - Data Collection, Analysis and Consultation, and Development of
Regulatory Options
In this step, rule-writers should implement the DABP and investigate the regulatory problem that
the action is intended to address, gather relevant information, consult with stakeholders, including
minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples, and develop options
(e.g., OEJ or the lead office's EJ Coordinator) can
assess whether the DABP outlines activities for
identifying or considering potential EJ concerns.
The decision-makers can also use this as an
opportunity to consider how well the DABP
addresses potential EJ concerns before approving
the DABP (see Text Box 14).
During the course of developing the PABP and DABP, an
office may alter its determination that an action might be
of particular interest to or have particular impacts upon
minority populations, low-income populations, and/ or
indigenous peoples. Should such a change occur, alter
the answer provided to the EJ Question in the ADP
TRACKER (illustrated in the section titled "ADP Steps
I and 2"). The EJ Question in the TRACKER can be
altered at any time. Changes to Tier I and Tier 2 actions
are updated regularly so the public can access EPA's
latest thinking about an action.
Text Box 14: Management Approval of DABP
-------
for resolving the problem.-1 Integrated into all of these activities should be the consideration of the
extent to which there are potential EJ concerns, and how those concerns may be addressed. Rule-
writers should use the Agency's available EJ assessment tools to determine the extent to which the
action has potential EJ concerns, complete EJ-related consultation or public participation, as appro-
priate, and analyze any potential EJ concerns.
Although analyses to evaluate potential EJ concerns will vary across regulatory actions, they typically
have the same starting point. Rule-writers should attempt to describe the regulatory baseline and the
anticipated changes in emissions, exposures, and/or risks to be achieved by an action. It is important,
where appropriate and when data permit, to characterize the potential changes in emissions, expo-
sures and/or risks on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples.
The analysis should cover the appropriate range of options considered to address those impacts and
should provide a sufficient level of detail to distinguish major environmental or public health impacts
across the options for these population groups. Rule-writers should consider the data needed to sup-
port such analyses when developing their Preliminary and Detailed Analytical Blue Prints in order to
maximize their opportunities to describe these baselines and the projected impacts of their regulatory
actions. See the Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (U.S.
EPA 2013) for guidance on analytic expectations.
ADP Step 8 - Options Selection
(D
s | * Options selection is the last step in the ADP before rule-writers finish drafting the regulatory action.
t< £ In this step, the rule-writers can identify the significant issues and several options to resolve each
c be
111 issue. Senior management decision-makers then selects those options that would best achieve the
2 5o_Q
'1 & > goals of the action. Selecting a regulatory action from among many options is a complex process. The
m oQ
|'| | extent to which potential EJ concerns factor into the process will vary considerably across regulatory
§ -a « actions, and will depend in large part on the operative requirements of the statute under which the
Q action is being taken.
In presenting the options to senior management decision-makers for final decision-making, rule-
writers have another opportunity to consider whether potential EJ concerns have been addressed.
Decision-makers will also have an opportunity to confirm that the rule-writers have considered
and addressed potential EJ concerns, including any necessary consultations to achieve meaningful
involvement. The options selection presentation should describe the rule-writers' activities and efforts
to assess potential EJ concerns and to involve affected populations, including minority populations,
low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples. The presentation should also describe
what actions are recommended to ensure that
potential EJ concerns are addressed by each of
the options being presented (see Text Box 15).
Rule-writers should be prepared to discuss the
options under consideration in the regulatory
action (such as pollution control options) in
Text Box 15: Does the DABP Address EJ?
The DABP presents the plan that implements the
management decision regarding the level of analysis and
engagement of stakeholders.
31 See previous discussion about preparing the DABP, which should include a consultation plan that describes how the workgroup will achieve
meaningful involvement, particularly for those stakeholders that may have historically not been able to participate. In addition, the workgroup
should consult the Agency's Risk Characterization Handbook, which provides a single, centralized body of risk characterization implementation
guidance for Agency risk assessors and risk managers to help make the risk characterization process transparent and the risk characterization
products clear, consistent and reasonable, at http://www.epa.gov/osa/spc/pdfs/rchandbk.pdf.
-------
light of their impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples,
including reductions in exposure or risk.
In presenting the results of the analysis evaluating potential EJ concerns to decision-makers, rule-
writers should be aware of the specific statutory and other important criteria they will use to select an
option. Where EJ concerns represent the major consideration for selecting an option, it is vital that
the nature and magnitude of impacts be clearly presented in some detail. For example, the following
questions might be answered:
• Are there studies documenting impacts? How complete are the studies?
• Is there indication that certain populations are particularly sensitive?
• What are the qualitative and quantitative differences?
In addition, rule-writers should be prepared to discuss the first two of the three core EJ questions out-
lined above in Part 2, Section A. The rule-writers should also note that regulatory actions that impact
the availability of information or the ability to participate meaningfully in the implementation of a
program might have indirect impacts on these populations that should be considered. For example,
a rule that modifies reporting requirements for regulated industries may make it easier or harder to
effectively monitor facilities that are of concern to these populations and understand whether the rule
is achieving the intended results. This type of impact should be considered.
ADP Step 9 - Preparation of the Action and Supporting Documents
In this step, rule-writers prepare the regulatory action, consistent with decision-maker direction.
This step includes preparing the rule and preamble and the supporting documents. The evaluation of
potential EJ concerns is part of this step.
At this stage, the rule-writers may document how they identified, assessed and addressed potential EJ
concerns and how they achieved the meaningful involvement of minority populations, low-income
populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples. Even if the rule-writers concluded there were no EJ con-
cerns, the activities that led to that conclusion should be documented. It is important that pertinent
documents relating to potential EJ concerns are understandable and readily accessible to the public in
the docket for the regulatory action.
In general, the preamble for the regulatory action should clearly state how the action is supported by
the results of the analyses to evaluate potential EJ concerns. If the data to characterize potential EJ
concerns was insufficient or inadequate, the preamble should describe clearly the Agency's efforts to
search for data to characterize risks and how the regulatory decision addressed the data gaps and any
qualitative information available on potential EJ concerns. Suggested template language for addressing
EO 12898 in preambles is available in the ADP library ("http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary') and covers
both proposed and final rules. However, the rule-writers' documentation is not limited to the inclu-
sion of appropriate language in the preamble to address compliance with EO 12898.
29
-------
ADP Step 10 - Final Agency Review (FAR)
Once the regulatory action has been developed, a package is presented to the decision-makers for
Final Agency Review (FAR). The FAR package consists of the final drafts of the action itself (e.g., the
Federal Register [FR] document that represents the proposed rule), the supporting documents (e.g.,
the economic analysis and, if prepared separately, any assessment of potential EJ concerns), the Action
Memorandum and any other relevant documents (e.g., the Information Collection Request, Commu-
nications Plan, etc.).
As part of the draft Action Memorandum, rule-writers should specifically address the three core EJ
questions identified in Part 2, Section A (and repeated in ADP Step 5 above). These answers will
accompany the action when it is presented to the Administrator or other Agency decision-maker for
signature.
This is the final opportunity for rule-writers and decision-makers to consider whether potential EJ
concerns have been considered and addressed, and to ensure that the rule-writers have properly
documented those efforts.
5 <
2
CL
: be
¦J o
E rt £
C 3 Q_
P 00 O
~ Cfl >
c (U
m o Q
ADP Steps II & 12 - Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review (if "significant"
under EO 12866)
If the regulatory action requires OMB review, rule-writers will have to prepare a package for submis-
sion to OMB. For more details, see the EPAs Action Development Process: Guidance for EPA Staff on
Developing Quality Actions (http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrarv).
ADP Steps 13 & 14 - Signature and Publication
The lead program prepares the action for
signature by the designated Agency official and
subsequent publication in the Federal Register.
For more details, see Text Box 16 and the EPAs
Action Development Process: Guidance for EPA Staff
on Developing Quality Actions (http://intranet.epa.
gov/adplibrarv).
Text Box 16: OMB Review
During OMB review, an office may alter its conclusion
that an action might be of particular interest to or have
particular impacts upon minority populations, low-
income populations, and/or indigenous populations.
Should such a change occur, alter the answer provided
to the EJ Question in the ADP TRACKER (illustrated
in the section titled "ADP Steps I and 2"). The EJ
Question in the TRACKER can be altered at any time.
Changes to Tier I and Tier 2 actions are regularly
updated so the public can access EPA's latest thinking
about an action.
Once signed by the appropriate official, the FR
document is transmitted to the Office of the
Federal Register for final publication. Rule-
writers should ensure that all relevant documen-
tation regarding the consideration of potential EJ
concerns during the development of the action is included in the docket for the action.
ADP Step 15 - Soliciting and Accepting Public Comment
This step in the process provides another opportunity for the rule-writers to consider ways to
ensure that the public comment process allows for meaningful involvement of minority populations,
30
-------
low-income population, tribes, and indigenous peoples, both in terms of providing a sufficient
comment period and in terms of notification, communication or outreach to actively engage affected
populations or tribes. This may include holding one or more public meetings or hearings in or near
affected populations and tribes. If a public meeting and/or hearing is held, the rule-writers and lead
program office should ensure there is sufficient notice about the meeting and/or hearing, and the
meeting and/or hearing is scheduled at a time and place convenient to affected populations and tribes,
with appropriate translation services, as appropriate. These activities may also be scheduled prior
to the public comment period. See Part 3 of this Guide for ideas on how rule-writers can achieve
meaningful involvement.
ADP Step 16 - Developing the Final Regulatory action
When preparing for the final stage of the regulatory action, the first step is to evaluate the public
comments, which provides another opportunity for rule-writers to consider potential EJ concerns
that were identified and discussed in the preamble, as well as an opportunity to consider potential EJ
concerns raised in public comments.
In considering comments, rule-writers should evaluate whether the consideration of potential EJ
concerns in the analyses performed for the proposed action needs to be refined or revised, and if so,
how. If the EPA did not consider potential EJ concerns in their analyses, rule-writers should consider
whether the public comments raise issues that may warrant reconsideration.
Rule-writers should then brief decision-makers on the scope of the EJ-related comments received and
recommend how to respond to them. Decision-makers will consider the recommendations and will
then provide guidance on how to proceed in developing the final action (e.g., this is equivalent to
Early Guidance as discussed previously). Decision-maker guidance will also identify which process
steps the rule-writers should follow in preparing the final action, which may vary based on the nature
and extent of comments or other factors.
As with all significant public comments, rule-writers are expected to consider and respond to all
significant public comments on EJ-related topics that are relevant to the proposal and submitted
during the applicable comment period. For more details on responding to public comments, see the
EPAs Action Development Process: Guidance for EPA Staff on Developing Quality Actions (httpy/intranet.
epa.gov/adplibrarv). It is also important to update responses to the EJ Question in the ADP TRACKER
as needed and appropriate.
In general, rule-writers will be expected to follow the same basic process steps to finalize the action,
thereby having additional opportunities to ensure that they satisfy the Agency's commitments to both
identify and address potential EJ concerns, and to provide meaningful involvement in the ADP.
31
-------
Part 3: Achieving Meaningful
Involvement
A. What Is Meaningful Involvement?
The EPA defines EJ as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race,
color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement
of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Meaningful involvement means that: (1) potentially
affected populations have an appropriate opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed
| activity (i.e., rulemaking) that may affect their environment and/or health; (2) the populations' contri-
butions can influence the EPAs rulemaking decisions; (3) the concerns of all participants involved will
>
= be considered in the decision-making process; and (4) the EPA will seek out and facilitate the involve-
00
1 ment of populations potentially affected by the EPAs rulemaking process.
Z
00
1 Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
< Income Populations and other policies-2 direct federal agencies to improve public participation among
£ minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples. Consistent with the
Agency's definition of EJ and EO 12898, Agency policy directs staff to take proactive steps to provide
opportunities for potentially affected populations to participate in decisions that may affect their
environment or health.
As EPA rule-writers identify opportunities for public involvement, they should also consider EO
13166 Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, which addresses the need
to give voice to populations who historically may have been excluded from consideration during the
decision-making process.
Public involvement works best when rule-writers consult with stakeholders, including minority
populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples early and often and when their
efforts follow a decision-making process that the potentially impacted populations understand and,
to the extent feasible, have had a role in designing. Minority populations, low-income populations,
tribes, and indigenous peoples have unique knowledge of their goals, needs and vulnerabilities.
Through early public involvement, rule-writers can obtain information on issues affecting these popu-
lations and other entities and increase the understanding of such issues in the context of developing
the action.
32
32 For example, see EPA Policy on Environmental Justice for Working with Federally Recognized Tribes and Indigenous Peoples. (2014), http://www.
epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/indigenous/ej-indigenous-policy.pdf.
-------
Rule-writers should develop a public involvement plan early in the rulemaking process, optimally as
a part of the analytic blueprint stage so that the plan ensures that (1) opportunities for meaningful
involvement have been appropriately addressed without delaying the rulemaking process, (2) input is
considered early in the process so impacted populations may influence the Agency's decision-making
process, where appropriate, and (3) the rule-writers get direction on the appropriate level of outreach
and other activities given the nature of the rule, its potential impacts, and available resources.
B. Existing Guidance on Meaningful Public Involvement
The EPA is committed to engaging all stakeholders as it develops and implements Agency actions, but
recognizes that special attention is often required in ensuring meaningful involvement of minority
populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples. There are numerous resources
that rule-writers can use to help determine what type and level of public involvement is appropri-
ate for their regulatory actions.- - See Text Box 17 for an overview of basic steps for effective public
involvement. For some regulatory actions, it may be appropriate to reach out to affected populations,
while for others it may be appropriate to go further and invite them to the table to develop alterna-
tives for consideration.
Also, statutory and regulatory authorities set
minimum standards for public involvement, so
it is important to be familiar with the specific
requirements for public notice and involvement
that are associated with the development of the
action. However, relying on the minimum notice
and comment requirements is often not enough
to achieve meaningful involvement for minority
populations, low-income populations, tribes,
and indigenous peoples.
Promoting meaningful involvement often
requires special efforts to connect with popula-
tions that have been historically underrepre-
sented in decision-making and that have a wide
range of educational levels, literacy, or proficiency in English. It will likely be necessary to tailor
outreach materials to be concise, understandable and readily accessible to the populations that rule-
writers are trying to reach.-4
Involving these populations in a meaningful way presents challenges and opportunities that are differ-
ent than those presented by a general public involvement effort, such as:
33 For example, the International Association for Public Participation has developed materials that discuss the spectrum of public involvement
ranging from informing the public to empowering the public. Their publications and public involvement training opportunities can be found at
www.IAP2.org.
34 For more information, see the "Model Plan for Public Participation" developed by the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(http://wwwepa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/publications/nejac/model-public-part-plan.pdD.
Text Box 17: 7 Basic Steps for Effective
Public Involvement
1. Plan and budget for public involvement activities;
2. Identify the interested and affected public;
3. Consider providing technical or financial assistance to
the public to facilitate involvement;
4. Provide information and outreach to the public;
5. Conduct public consultation and involvement
activities;
6. Review and use input and provide feedback to the
public; and
7 Evaluate public involvement activities.
-------
• Conveying issues in ways that are tailored (for example, translation, timing, location) to each
population;
• Bridging cultural and economic differences that affect participation;
• Using communication techniques that enable more effective interaction with other participants;
• Developing partnerships on a one-to-one or small group basis to ensure representation;
• Developing trust between government and potentially affected populations; and
• Developing stakeholder capacity to effectively participate in future decision-making processes.
In planning public involvement, rule-writers should identify different ways to engage minority popu-
lations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples meaningfully and effectively. Rule-
writers should consider using Web-based information technology (IT) tools, particularly those that
are more user-centered, collaborative or interactive (see Text Box 18). However, some populations
have only rudimentary access to the most modern communications tools. Remote towns and villages
disseminate information using local radio sta-
tions, CB radio, local newspapers, placing post-
ers at grocery stores, trading posts, or at village/
community center/chapter meetings (see Text
Box 2). In many instances, reaching parents of
school-age children may be facilitated through
schools.
It is important to note the difference between
the meaningful involvement of tribes and indig-
enous peoples as it is used in the EJ context
versus formal consultation with tribes.-5 The
federal government has a unique government-
to-government relationship with federally-
recognized tribes, which arises from Indian
treaties, statutes, executive orders and the
historical relations between the United States
and Indian Nations. The federal government
has a trust responsibility to federally-recognized tribes, and the EPA, like other federal agencies, must
act consistently with the federal trust responsibility when taking actions that affect tribes. Part of this
responsibility includes consulting with tribes and considering their interests when taking regulatory
actions that may affect tribes or their resources. Tribal consultation is the subject of EO 13175 and the
Agency's Tribal Consultation Policy (http://www.epa.gov/tribal/consultation/consult-policv.htm).
Two additional documents finalized in 2013 may be useful resources for rule-writers considering
appropriate outreach techniques and approaches: the "Notice of Availability of Regional Actions
to Promote Public Participation in the Permitting Process" and "Promising Practices for Permit
35 For information on the development of EPAs Tribal Consultation Policy, please contact the office's tribal coordinator or the American Indian
Environmental Office. Also see EPA Policy on Environmental Justice for Working with Federally Recognized Tribes and Indigenous Peoples (2014).
This policy establishes principles and affirms EPAs commitment to provide to federally recognized tribes and indigenous peoples in all areas
of the United States and its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth
of the Mariana Islands, and others living in Indian country, fair treatment and meaningful involvement in EPA decisions that may affect their
health or environment.
Text Box 18: Web-based IT Tools
Referred to as "web 2.0 tools," these tools generally
include tools that:
• Emphasize participation;
• Harness collective intelligence;
• Reach a variety of audiences by facilitating customer
self-service;
• Redesign information and services based on the
features that customers are using most;
• Provide information that can be accessed by more
devices that just a computer (e.g., mobile phone, MP3
player); and
• Develop and deploy applications that can scale
quickly to meet the size of the task.
-------
Applicants Seeking EPA-Issued Permits," 78 FR 27,220 (May 9, 2013).36 While intended for use in
permitting actions, these documents identify useful strategies for promoting greater public involve-
ment and improving communication and understanding between facility operators and potentially-
affected populations.
C. Assessment of Best Practices and Recommendations
The EPA identified examples of best practices on how to promote meaningful involvement in a Sep-
tember 2012 report entitled Recommendations for Opportunities for Including Meaningful Environmental
Justice Public Involvement in Agency Rulemaking Activities: Achieving Environmental Justice Results in Rules
and Rule Implementation,-7 The document provides recommendations regarding several important
factors that rule-writers should consider when developing opportunities for meaningful involvement
in the rulemaking process. For example, some of the factors include: careful consideration of cultural
implications, linguistics, effective stakeholder outreach techniques, pre-meeting stakeholder capacity
building efforts and carefully planned logistical strategies which promote successful meeting partici-
pation by minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples with the
EPA.
Recommendations for rule-writers include:
• Identify and utilize Agency EJ staff and others who are trained in cultural, linguistic and stake-
holder outreach techniques.
• Draw on available tools, expertise and resources. For example, investigate whether other EPA
offices have developed training modules rule-writers may need or whether they have experts
who can provide some of the increased support needed through interoffice technology transfer.
• Provide capacity building for minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indig-
enous peoples to help them participate more effectively in the rulemaking process.
• Work closely with EPA headquarters program and regional office EJ Coordinators and consider
contacting the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) and/or other federal/
state agencies that may have relevant and useful lessons learned, best practices or approaches to
providing opportunities for meaningful involvement for overburdened populations.
More information is available in the report, which can be accessed at http ://intranet.epa. gov/oeca/
oej/rulemaking.html#involvement. In addition, the Agency developed 11 case studies of EPA rules
that appropriately reflect a range of meaningful involvement opportunities provided to minority
populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples and may be instructional for
rule-writers that are looking for assistance or ideas on how to meaningfully engage these and other
stakeholders in the development of their rule.
36 Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/05/09/2013-10945/epa-activities-to-promote-environmental-justice-in-the-permit-
application-process.
37 This report was produced by the Public Involvement (PI) Sub-Team of EPAs Cross Agency Environmental Justice in Rulemaking (EJR) Team.
This team was made up of rulemaking experts from each NPM.
-------
Appendix A: Incorporating
Environmental Justice into Tier I and
2 Actions Under the ADP38
I. Statute, court order;
Presidential Initiative, or
Administrator's priority
as cause for rulemaking
¦ EJ, as an agency
priority, may be
cause for initiation
of a rulemaking, but
more often will be
a factor to consider
in the development
of rulemakings
initiated in
response to
statutes, court
orders, etc.
2. Tiering and
Commencement
¦ Respond to EJ
questions in ADP
Tracker
¦ If potential EJ
concerns are
evident, request
involvement of staff
with EJ expertise
¦ Initial EJ screening
process typically
begins in this step;
document the
process
3. Preliminary
Analytic Blueprint
• Flag potential EJ
concerns and
associated data
and analytical
needs
• Identify issues and
staff with needed
expertise
• Plan for consulta-
tion and outreach
4. Early Guidance
¦ Managers ask and
materials describe
whether the action
raises and addresses
potential EJ concerns
¦ Materials summarize
information to be
gathered for analysis
of potential EJ
concerns
5. Detailed
Analytic Blueprint
(DA BP)
• Describe planned
analyses and
outreach activities
related to
potential EJ
concerns,
including a public
involvement plan,
key analyses,
options to be
considered
6. Management
Approval of the
DABP
•Managers ask
how potential EJ
concerns are
addressed in
DBP before
approving it
7. Data Collection, Analysis
and Consultation, and
Development of Regulatory
Options
¦ Prepare data on results of
consultations/public
involvement and data on
impacts on minority,
low-income and indigenous
populations
¦ Incorporate EJ impacts into
options, including options to
mitigate adverse effects, as
appropriate
8. Options
Selection
¦ Managers ask and
materials describe
how options will
address potential
EJ concerns
¦ Be prepared to
answer the 3 core
EJ questions
9. Preparation of the
Action and Supporting
Documents
• Discuss and
document EJ concerns
in impact analyses
Address EO 12898 in
preamble; use
appropriate ADP
Library Template
Address consulta-
tion/outreach and
how action supports
EJ policies in
preamble or
supporting
documents
10. Final Agency
Review (FAR)
• Review ensures EJ
issues are
summarized in the
draft action and
the action memo,
which should
address the 3 core
EJ questions
II. If the rule is
"significant under EO
12866," OP reviews
and submits to OMB
13. Ad mi nistrato r o r
AA/RA signs rule
• Ensure all action
memos, action
documents and
briefings describe
what was done to
identify and
address potential EJ
concerns
14. Submit rule to the
Office of Federal Register
for publication. Docket is
opened to the public
15. Soliciting and
Accepting Public
Comment
¦ Conduct
appropriate
outreach, particularly
to overburdened
communities
16. Develop the final
action by repeating
process steps 4-14
• Address EJ related
comments
• Gather additional data
and consider different
options as appropriate
Note: While some of the ADP steps described above may be relevant only to Tier 1 and 2 actions, tiering level does not preclude the
applicability of either EO 13045 or the Children's Health Policy See Guide to Considering Children's Health When Developing EPA Actions
(http ://www2 .epa. gov/children/guide-considering-childrens-health-when-developing-epa-actions-implementing-executive-order) for more
information. Additional information may also be obtained from consultation with the Office of Children's Health and Protection (OCHP).
-------
Appendix B: A Quick Reference Guide
for EPA Decision-Makers: Integrating
EJ into the Development of Regulatory
Actions Under the ADP
This document is intended to serve as a quick reference for EPA
decision-makers by providing a brief overview of the guidance
provided in this Guide. It is not intended to replace the informa-
tion provided in main body of the Guide and does not, therefore,
repeat the details provided there or elsewhere.39
What is meant by "environmental justice"?
The EPA defines "environmental justice" as the fair treatment
and meaningful involvement of all people, particularly minority
populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous
peoples in the development, implementation and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations and policies.40
What is the decision-maker's overall role?
The EPA decision-makers direct workgroup activities related to identifying potential EJ concerns
for Agency regulatory actions under development. This direction may be made in the context of a
particular action, or can also be made for a category of actions that are similar and have the same
general impacts. Decisions-makers communicate expectations to the rule-writers, establish policy
priorities, identify issues of significant concern and guide the process of developing the action. As a
result, decision-makers play a key role in ensuring that the potential EJ implications of a regulatory
action are considered during the development of that action, and that populations affected by the
action have an opportunity to participate.
When and how can decision-makers participate?
• Consider EJ when decisions are made regarding which regulatory actions to pursue. The
decision to initiate regulatory actions is an opportunity to consider whether the actions under
consideration involve—or have the potential to involve—potential EJ concerns.
39 A refresher on the process steps involved in the ADP is provided in the chart in Appendix A of the Guide.
40 See Part 1, Section A.
B-l
-------
• Identify the potential for EJ concerns at the beginning. Potential EJ concerns may arise
when a proposed regulatory action would: a) create new, exacerbate existing, or present an
opportunity to address existing disproportionate impacts; b) not create sufficient opportunities
for meaningful participation in the development of the action; or c) involve an actual or poten-
tial lack of fair treatment or meaningful involvement in the implementation or enforcement of
the action.
• Set clear expectations about potential EJ concerns in the Early Guidance provided to the
rule-writers. To start, provide the "three core EJ questions," which the rule-writers will be
expected to answer at the end of their effort. Consider also providing guidance on the level of
analysis needed to make decisions later, as well as the level of outreach to and involvement of
populations affected by the regulatory action. Consider asking for an assessment of resource
needs to perform different levels of analyses and/or outreach.
• Review the analytic blueprint (ABP) to ensure the rule-writers address potential EJ con-
cerns. The review and approval of the ABP may be the final opportunity to provide direction
before resources are committed. In this review, consider whether the ABP includes the following
information:
• The identification of potentially affected populations and related stakeholders, along
with a plan for how the rule-writers will ensure outreach and meaningful involvement of
these populations, including minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and
indigenous peoples.
• The identification of analytical needs (scientific and economic), and a plan for ensuring
the consideration of EJ in those analyses.
• An identification of related resources needed to address both the outreach activities
and analytical needs, along with whether additional resources are needed to meet
expectations.
• Consider potential EJ concerns related to the options presented. Different options may
involve different potential EJ concerns, or provide different opportunities to address existing
disproportionate impacts. The rule-writers should highlight this information for consideration
in decisions-making about the options.
What are the "three core EJ questions"?
The Guide suggests that decision-makers ask rule-writers about their efforts to address the following
three core EJ questions at key points during the development of regulatory actions under the ADP
(such as at Early Guidance, options selection or Final Agency Review):
1. Efow will (or did) the public participation process provide transparency and meaningful partici-
pation for minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples?
2. Efow do the rule-writers plan to (or how did the rule-writers) identify and address existing and
new disproportionate environmental and public health impacts on minority populations, low-
income populations, and/or indigenous peoples during the rulemaking process?
3. Efow did the actions taken under #1 and #2 impact the outcome or final decision?
-------
Appendix C: A Checklist for EPA
Rule-Writers: Integrating EJ into the
Development of Regulations Under
the ADP
EPA rule-writers can use this checklist to identify what they may need
to know and/or do in order to integrate EJ into the development of their
regulatory action. The checklist is based on available guidance, including
that provided in this Guide. This checklist is not intended to replace the
information provided in main body of the Guide and does not, therefore,
repeat the details provided there or elsewhere.
>
~o
CD
D
Q.
n
J
Activity
I. BEFORE THE ADP PROCESS STARTS - Learn the basics about the ADP and Ej.
~ Are rule-writers familiar with the process steps under the ADP?41
If a refresher on the process steps involved In the ADP is needed, please see the charts provided in Appendix A of the Guide.
~ Have the rule-writers read the Guide?
~ Do the rule-writers know what the Executive Order on EJ requires?
~ What is meant by "environmental justice"?
~ What is meant by an "EJ concern"?
~ Do the rule-writers know how it can identify assess and address potential EJ concerns during the development of the action?
~ Do the rule-writers know their different roles?
~ Do the rule-writers know the "three core EJ questions"? (See item #5 on this checklist)
~ Does the office have any applicable program specific requirements or guidance on EJ?
~ Are the rule-writers familiar with the Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013)?
2. GETTING STARTED - Screen the action.
~ Have the rule-writers responded to the EJ question in ADP TRACKER?
~ Have the rule-writers completed an initial screening process to evaluate whether the action has the potential to raise or address
potential EJ concerns and documented the analytic basis for the conclusions?
41 Agency Guidance on the ADP is available at http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrarv/.
C-i
-------
u
t5
c
(U
Q.
Q.
<
Activity
3. PLANNING - Complete an Analytic Blueprint (ABP) for the action.
~ Have the rule-writers identified the potentially impacted minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and/or indigenous peoples
and their concerns?42
~ Does the ABP address its plans for achieving meaningful involvement and contain plans for effectively engaging the minority populations,
low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples affected by the action?
~ Have the rule-writers identified the factors that contribute to potential EJ concerns?
~ Have the rule-writers identified the data needs and data sources for an appropriate EJ assessment, the scope and basic methodology of
the EJ assessment and the outputs of the EJ assessment?
~ Have the rule-writers explored alternative approaches for addressing potential EJ concerns (regulatory, voluntary and/or innovative
approaches)?
~ Have the rule-writers identified the resources needed to achieve meaningful involvement, gather needed data and conduct identified
analyses?
~ Have the rule-writers identified the key activities, analyses, consultation activities (including those called for by relevant statutes and EOs),
contributors and timeline?
4. OPTIONS SELECTION - Identify and prepare options for decision-makers.
~ Is input from affected minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples reflected in the analysis of options, both
in terms of potential impacts and options to consider?
~ Have the rule-writers incorporated potential impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples into
the analysis of options?
~ Have the rule-writers described the ways in which the action can address any existing potentially disproportionate impacts?
~ If the action has the potential to create new disproportionate impacts, has the rule-writers identified options that will avoid or
mitigate those impacts?
~ Are the rule-writers prepared to address how to answer the three core EJ questions?
5. DOCUMENTATION - Prepare the action and final documents.
~ Have the rule-writers documented their outreach and consultation efforts, as well as the results of those efforts?
~ Have the rule-writers used the appropriate ADP Library Template for the preamble discussion of EO 12898?
~ Do the final economic and scientific analyses clearly present the potential EJ concerns?
~ Have the rule-writers described in the preamble or supporting documents any identified potential disproportionate impacts and poten-
tial EJ concerns and how they are addressed by the action?
~ Have the rule-writers addressed the "Three Core EJ Questions" in the Action Memo:
1. How did the public participation process provide transparency and meaningful participation for minority populations, low-income
populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples?
2. How did the rule-writers identify and address existing and/or new disproportionate environmental and public health impacts on
minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples?
3. How did the actions taken under #1 and #2 impact the outcome or final decision?
C-2
42 In addition to providing meaningful involvement opportunities for indigenous communities and tribes, rule-writers should consider whether
it is appropriate to offer tribes the opportunity for government-to-government consultation on the action. For additional information, see EPAs
Tribal Consultation Policy.
-------
Appendix D: References/
Resources
Please note that this document is written for EPA employees and contains links to resources on the
EPAs intranet website. Those resources are inaccessible from non-EPA computers.
Policy and Guidance Documents
Title and URL
Description
Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice
http://www.ppapov/pnvimnmpntaJjiistirp/rpsoiirrps/polirv/pxpr order I7898.pdf
Text of EO directing agencies to address Environmental
Justice in minority populations and low-income popula-
tions.
EPA's Definition of Environmental Justice
http://www.ppapov/pnvi ron mpntaJjustirp/basirs/i ndpx.html
Environmental Justice and related terms defined for use
at EPA.
Memorandum for the Heads of All Departments and Agencies: Executive
Order on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (1994)
http://www.ppapov/pnvironmpntaJjiistirp/rpsourrps/polirv/rlinton memo 17898.
President's cover memorandum for Executive Order
12898.
pdf
EPA's Environmental Justice Strategy (1995)
http://www.ppapov/pnvimnmpntaJjiistirp/rpsoiirrps/polirv/pj stratppv I995.pdf
Strategy developed in response to EO 12898.
Environmental Justice Implementation Plan
http://www.ppapov/pnvimnmpntaJjiistirp/rpsoiirrps/polirv/implpmpntai"ion plan
Plan to integrate environmental justice into the Agency's
work under Carol Browner (1996).
pj I996.pdf
Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's
NEPA Compliance Analysis (1998)
http://www.ppapov/pnvironmpntaJjiistirp/rpsoiirrps/polirv/pj puidanrp nppa
Guidance for incorporating environmental justice goals
into the EPA's preparation of environmental impact
statements (EISs) and environmental assessments (EAs)
under NEPA.
ppa.0498.pdf
Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy
Act (1997)
http://wwwppapov/pnvironmpntaJjustirp/rpsourrps/polirv/pj puidanrp nppa.
Original guidance provided by CEQ.
ceq 1997 pdf
Toolkit for Assessing Potential Allegations of Environmental Justice (2004)
http://www.epa.pov/envi ron mentalj 11 stice/resoi i rces/pol icv/ej -tool kit pdf
Reference guide to assist Agency personnel in assessing
potential allegations of environmental injustice and to
provide a framework for understanding national policy
on environmental justice.
Strengthening EPA's Environmental Justice Program (June 9, 2008)
http://www.epa.gov/envi ron mentalj 11 stice/resou rces/pol icv/ad mi n-ej -strengt h -
Administrator Johnson directs the EPA to conduct EJ
reviews of its program, policies and activities.
memo-060908.pdf
D-l
-------
Title and URL
Description
Reaffirming the U.S. EPA's Commitment to Environmental Justice -
Memo from Stephen L.Johnson (November 4, 2005)
http://www.epapov/environmentaJjiistire/resourres/polirv/arlmin-ej-rommit-
Administrator Johnson outlines the Agency's commit-
ment to Environmental Justice and its integration into all
programs, policies, and activities.
letter- IICRO.S.prlf
Plan EJ 2014
http://www.epa.pov/envi mnmentaJjustire/plari-ej/inrlex.html
Road map for how EPA will integrate EJ into the Agency's
programs, policies, and activities.
EJ Legal Tools
http://www.epa.pov/envi mnmentaJjiistire/plan-ej/law.html
Identifies existing legal tools to help EPA advance the
goal of EJ and provides an overview of a number of dis-
cretionary legal authorities that are or may be available
to EPA under federal statutes and programs.
Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in
Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013)
http://www.epa.pov/envi mnmentaJjustire/plan-ej/nilemakinp. html
Helps analysts assess potential EJ concerns associated
with EPA rules.
Plan EJ 2014: EJ in Permitting
http://www.epa.pov/envi ronmenta.liustire/pla.n-ei/permittinp. html
The EJ in Permitting Initiative seeks to enable overbur-
dened communities to have full and meaningful access
to the permitting process and to develop permits that
address environmental justice issues to the greatest
extent practicable under existing environmental laws.
EPA Policy on Environmental Justice for Tribes and Indigenous Peoples
http://wwwepa.pov/environmentaljustice/resources/policv/indipenous/ej-indipe-
Clarifies and integrates environmental justice principles
in a consistent manner in the Agency's work with feder-
ally recognized tribes and indigenous peoples through-
out the United States, and with others living in Indian
country to protect their environment and public health.
nous-policy.pdf
American Journal of Public Health Supplement "Environmental Justice and
Disparities in Health"
http://ajph.aphapublicat.ions.org/toc/ajph/101 /S1
Useful resource for gaining a more complete under-
standing of how disproportionate impact factors can
influence health outcomes.
EPA's Policy of Evaluating Health Risks to Children
http://vosemite.epa.pov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/riskpolicv.htm/$File/riskpolicv.
Policy applied to assessments started or revised on or
after November 1, 1995.
pdf
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
http://wwwepa.gov/tp/ pdf/eo- I3I7.S. pdf
EO directing Federal agencies to establish regular and
meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal
officials in the development of Federal policies that have
tribal implications.
EPA's Public Involvement Policy
http://www.epa.pov/publicinvolvement/pdf/policv90CR.pdf
Complete Agency policy with four appendices and two
addenda.
Public Involvement
http://www.epa.pov/publicinvolvement
Information on the full range of activities that EPA
uses to engage the American people in the Agency's
decision-making.
International Association for Public Participation
www.IAP9.orp
Provides discussion on the spectrum of public involve-
ment; identifies useful publications and training oppor-
tunities.
Web 2.0
http://www9.epa.gov/webguide/epa-and-web-90-technolopies-9007-memo
Provides information about the EPA's social media use
and necessary steps for setting up Web 2.0 applications
such as wikis and blogs.
-------
Other Useful Resources
Title and URL
Description
Environmental Justice Coordinators - Media Offices
http://epa.gov/envi ron mentalj usti re/ rontart/ej -contacts-media. html
List of rontarts with name, phone, loration, and areas of
expertise identified.
Environmental Justice Coordinators - Regional Offices
http://epa .pov/envi ron menta lj i is+i re/contact/ej -contacts-repion al. htm 1
List of rontarts with name, phone, and address identi-
fied.
Action Development Process
h+.+.p://i ntranet.epa.pov/a.d pi i bra.rv/ a.d p/i ndex. htm
Information about earh partirular as pert of EPA's AD P.
Action Development Process: Guidance for EPA Staff on Developing
Quality Actions
http://intra.net.epa.pov/adplibra.rv/doci iments/adpO^-00-11 .pdf
Lays out the ADP and where to get additional informa-
tion and guidanre as Agenry artions are developed.
Action Development Checklist
See Appendix C of this Guidance on Considering Environmental Justire During
the Development of an Artion
Illustrative list to help rule-writers determine whether
the artion being developed may involve a subjert of
partirular interest to—or may have partirular imparts
on—vulnerable populations.
Environmental Justice Regulatory Preamble Templates
h+.+.p://i ntranet.epa.pov/ad pi i brarv/ad p-templ ates/i ndex. htm #stat
Suggested language for addressing EO 12898 in pre-
ambles for proposed and final rules.
Action Development Guidelines for Preparing Analytic Blueprints
http://i ntranetepa.gov/adpli brarv/doruments/ abp09-30-04.pdf
Disrusses the timing and steps for the drafting and
approval of Analytir Blueprints (applirable to all Tiers
1 and 2 artions); direrts reader to resources for more
information and guidanre.
RegDaRRT
http://vosemite.epa.pov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/
Offers the publir a means of learning about and trarking
EPA artions.
Cross-Agency EJ in Rulemaking Team's Resources for Incorporating EJ in
Agency Rules
ht.t.p://i ntranet.epa.pov/oera/oej/rulemaki np.html
Resources identify opportunities for the Agenry to
advanrethe integration of EJ in rules.
-------
Appendix E: Examples of Regulatory
Responses That Directly or Indirectly
Address Potential EJ Concerns
Significant progress in making EJ a part of the Agency's ruiemaking process has aiready been made, as
evidenced by the foiiowing exampies:
• Definition of Solid Waste 2015 (DSW): On January 13, 2015, EPA published the final revisions
to the Definition of Solid Waste Rule, also known as the DSW rule. It represents a major environ-
mental justice milestone by directly addressing impacts to communities, disproportionately borne
by minority and low-income populations from the mismanagement of hazardous materials sent
to recycling. EPA conducted a rigorous environmental justice analysis that examined the location
of recycling facilities and their proximity and potential impact to adjacent residents. The meth-
odology and scope was developed through a broad public engagement and expert peer review
process. The analysis identified significant regulatory gaps in the previous DSW rule which could
negatively impact communities adjacent to third party recyclers, including minority and low-
income populations.
EPA identified mismanagement that could pose a risk of fires, explosions, accidents and releases
of hazardous constituents to the environment. The economics of commercial recycling contain
market disincentives that encourage over-accumulation and mismanagement of hazardous
secondary material. The 2008 DSW rule lacked the tools needed for proper oversight of these
facilities by EPA, states and the communities affected by them. The final rule addresses the market
disincentives in a way that helps encourage safe and legitimate recycling while addressing the
need to protect communities. The final rule also includes a public participation component so
that communities are notified prior to recycling operations beginning and have a chance to weigh
in on the environmental decisions that affect them, which was a major issue identified in the
environmental justice analysis.
• Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS): In December 2011, EPA finalized the first federal
standards that require power plants to limit their emissions of toxic air pollutants like mercury,
arsenic and metals. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) was supported by EPAs study of
the public health hazards from power plant emissions as required by the Clean Air Act. EPA used
data on subsistence fishing and potential health impacts of mercury deposition on the minority,
low-income and indigenous populations engaged in subsistence fishing to arrive at an "appropri-
ate and necessary" finding that moved the rulemaking forward. In addition, EPA held a series
of webinars, community calls, and consultations with tribal leadership on this rule. Most plants
-------
will come into compliance in April 2015, with full implementation by April 2016. EPA projects
that mercury emissions from sources covered by MATS are expected to be reduced from 27 tons
without MATS in 2016 to 7 tons in 2016 with MATS, approximately a 74 percent reduction.
Overall, the MATS rule will improve public health by lowering mercury exposure, especially for
children and the elderly and for low-income, minority and indigenous populations that rely on
subsistence fishing.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: In December 2012, EPA
strengthened the annual health National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for fine particu-
late matter (PM). Under Section 109 of the Clean Air Act, EPA set the primary standard to protect
public health with an adequate margin of safety, considering "sensitive or susceptible individuals
or groups." People most at risk from PM exposure include people with heart or lung disease
(including asthma), older adults, children and people of lower socioeconomic status. In writing
the PM NAAQS Implementation Rule, EPA engaged with communities to help identify areas to
provide guidance to states on targeting activities that address the impact on low-income commu-
nities. EPA met with the National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (NEJAC) and had a
training in North Carolina on this issue. The proposal for the Implementation Rule was put forth
in March 2015 and will provide suggestions to the states on targeting emissions reductions in
environmental justice communities as well as suggestions on how to engage communities in the
development of the PM State Implementation Plans.
Petroleum Refinery Residual Risk and Technology Review: In June 2014, EPA proposed the
Petroleum Refinery Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) rule to achieve further controls
on toxic air emissions from petroleum refineries. Early engagement with communities indicated
a particular interest in fence-line monitoring, which was supported by EPAs emissions inventory
data indicating a significant portion of emissions from refineries come from fugitive sources.
Based on this community input and the risk and technology review analyses, EPA proposed
requirements for:
o Additional emission control requirements for storage tanks, flares and coking units;
o Higher combustion efficiency for flaring operations; and
o Monitoring of air concentrations at the fence-line of refinery facilities.
After the proposal was released, EPA held community calls and webinars and conducted train-
ings in New Orleans, Louisiana, and in Oakland, California. As a result, a significant number of
communities provided more substantive comments for consideration during the development of
the final rule. Additionally, in the summer of 2014 the Agency held two public hearings on this
rulemaking (one in Wilmington, California and one in Houston, Texas). The comment period for
this rulemaking closed on October 28, 2014 and EPA is under a consent decree with environ-
mental litigants to finalize this rule by June 16, 2015. EPA received 100,000 comments on this
rulemaking. EPA is currently reviewing the comments received and will be considering all com-
ments as we move forward with the final rulemaking.
Revisions to Agricultural Worker Protection Standards: On March 19, 2014, EPA published
a proposed rule to revise the current Worker Protection Standard (WPS), designed to protect
workers on agricultural establishments from occupational exposure to pesticides. EPA recognizes
-------
that individuals working with pesticides, or contacting crop products on which pesticides have
been used, are at greater risk of exposure. The estimated two million farmworkers are potentially
exposed to pesticide residues, both during applications as well as when they re-enter treated
areas for hand labor activities. The core concepts of EJ have been part the fundamental basis
of the rule since its inception. EPA sought and received extensive input from the farmworker
community over many years to help the Agency formulate the best set of improved protections in
the proposed rule. Improvements where EJ consideration made a difference include training and
notifications to workers, requirements to support the enforcement of required protections, and
enhancements to decontamination supplies and emergency assistance requirements.
Implementation of Lead Renovation Repair and Painting Program: In April 2008, EPA issued
its final Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule that addressed lead-based
paint hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting activities in target housing and child-
occupied facilities. Recognizing that children in minority populations and children whose families
are poor have an increased risk of exposure to harmful lead levels, EPA determined that effective
implementation was one of the best ways to ensure that these populations are not exposed to
additional leaded dust resulting from common, but improperly-performed, home renovation,
repair, and painting work. EPAs Dust Study supported this approach because it demonstrated
that renovation activities result in dust lead levels that can be orders of magnitude above the
hazard standard and higher than the levels achievable if the RRP requirements were followed. EPA
concluded that fully implementing the regulations can be a successful tool in addressing elevated
blood lead levels in children. Implementation of the RRP rule is expected to minimize exposure
to lead-based paint hazards and protect children and others. Because minority and low-income
children are already at higher risk of lead poisoning, we expect that this activity will have specific
benefits to populations with EJ concerns.
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems Pinal
Rule: EPA uses the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring program to collect data for contami-
nants suspected to be present in drinking water, but that do not have health-based standards or
treatment technique regulations established under the Safe Drinking Water Act. After conducting
an EJ analysis of the rule, EPA updated it to require that all public water systems report U.S.
Postal Service zip codes in their service area. This additional data will enable EPA to identify areas
that may have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts on
minority or low-income population water supplies.
-------
Notes
-------
Notes
-------
Notes
-------
Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the
Development of Regulatory Actions
------- |