Guidance on Considering 

Environmental Justice During the 

Development of Regulatory Actions

May 2015
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’s 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 EPA’s 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 EPA’s policies and programs. Through increased analysis, informed decision making 

and expanded community engagement, we can secure the EPA’s 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 communication, 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.

Gina McCarthy, Administrator
i

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 regulations that put our nation’s environmental laws into effect. Exercising this authority is one of the EPA’s 

most important and powerful tools for protecting our environment and the health of our people. The 

EPA’s 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 Populations 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 regulations, 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;

• Highlighting 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 populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples at key stages in the rule development 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 
ii

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 practicable 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. How did the public participation process provide transparency and meaningful participation for 

minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples?2

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 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. However, 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 EPA’s ADP.

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.

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 regulation 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.
iii

Table of Contents

Overview and Background.....................................................................................................................................................................1

A. What Is the Purpose of This Guide?......................................................................................................................................................1

B. Who Is the Audience for This Guide?...................................................................................................................................................2

C. How Is This Guide Organized?.................................................................................................................................................................3

Part 1: 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 1 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-1

Appendix E: Examples of Regulatory Responses That Directly or Indirectly Address Potential EJ Concerns......................E-1
iv

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 
1

Overview and Background

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.3 The EPA is committed to using existing environmental 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 populations, 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),4 consistent with existing environmental and civil rights laws and their implementing 

regulations, as well as Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994), the EPA’s EJ policies, 

Plan EJ 2014, and EJ strategies in the EPA’s 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.html) and EPA’s Themes – Meeting the Challenge Ahead (http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/

plan-ej/index.html).

4 EPA’s Action Development Process: Guidance for EPA Staff on Developing Quality Actions Process (http://yosemite.epa.gov/

sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/5088B3878A90053E8525788E005EC8D8/$File/adp03-00-11.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. EPA’s historical EJ policies include: EPA’s Environmental 

Justice Strategy (1995), Environmental Justice Implementation Plan (1996), Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (1997), Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s 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).
2Overview and Background

in this Guide. As a supplement to this 

Guide, Agency staff may find it useful 

to refer to other EPA guidance documents 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 considerations 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).6 These issues are addressed in 

other Agency guides, which are available online at http://intranet.epa.gov/

adplibrary. 

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 managers 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. However, each regulatory 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/National 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 1: 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.
3

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 determining 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 EPA’s 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/adplibrary. It is important to note that the preamble 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. 
4

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Regulatory Actions Involve an 

Environmental Justice Concern

Part 1: Key Concepts for 

Understanding Whether Regulatory 

Actions Involve an Environmental 

Justice Concern

A. What Is Environmental Justice?

Environmental justice is central to the Agency’s mission and is the responsibility of everyone at the 

EPA. In particular, those who are involved in the development of regulatory actions need to understand the principles of EJ and how they relate to the development of an Agency regulatory action. 

The EPA defines “environmental justice” 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.7

• Fair Treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental and commercial operations or programs and policies. 

• Meaningful Involvement means that: (1) potentially affected populations have an appropriate 

opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed activity that will affect their environment and/or health; (2) the public’s contribution can influence the regulatory Agency’s decision; 

(3) the concerns of all participants involved will be considered in the decision-making process; 

and (4) the rule-writers and decision-makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those 

potentially affected. 

Throughout this Guide, as noted in the Foreword, 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. However, 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. 

7 EPA’s definition of EJ can be found at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/basics/index.html. EPA’s definition of EJ was 

informed by Executive Order 12898, which is discussed in full detail in Part 1, Section D of this Guide. Background information on EPA’s EJ 

program can also be found on this website.
5Whether Regulatory Actions Involve an 

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Environmental Justice Concern

In implementing its EJ 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 environmental 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.8,9 To 

help achieve the EPA’s 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 populations and indigenous peoples, who may be disproportionately impacted by environmental pollution. 

8 Executive Order 12898 also mentions “populations with differential patterns of subsistence consumption of fish 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://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/indigenous/ej-indigenous-policy.pdf.

Text Box 3: I-710 Freeway Los Angeles

The densely populated communities closest to the I-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 

I-710 freeway passes through 15 cities and unincorporated areas with a population of over 1 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.epa.gov/region9/tri/report/09/TRI-2009-I710Corridor.pdf
6

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Regulatory Actions Involve an 

Environmental Justice Concern

These population groups are briefly described below. See the Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses (U.S. EPA 2010) and Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013) for detailed discussions of how these populations may be defined for 

analytic purposes.

Minority and Indigenous Peoples

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defines six distinct race and ethnic 

categories:

• American Indian or Alaska Native; 

• Asian; 

• Black or African American;

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; 

• White; and

• Hispanic or Latino.

Statistical data collected by the federal government, such as the U.S. Census, use this classification 

system.10

Low-Income Populations

OMB has designated the Census Bureau’s annual poverty measure as the official metric for program 

planning and analysis by all Executive branch federal agencies, though it does not preclude the use of 

other measures (OMB 1978).

However, unlike its treatment of poverty, the Census Bureau does not have an official or standard 

definition of what constitutes “low income.” It is therefore appropriate to characterize low-income in 

a variety of ways. Rule-writers may examine several different low-income categories, such as families 

whose income falls above the poverty threshold but below the average household income for the 

United States, or below two times the poverty threshold. Additional socioeconomic characteristics 

such as educational attainment, baseline health status and health insurance coverage may also be 

useful for identifying, characterizing and developing strategies for assessing and engaging low-income 

populations in the context of specific regulatory actions. 

C. What Are Disproportionate Impacts? 

In accordance with EO 12898, each covered federal agency “shall make achieving environmental 

justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects...” of its policies. See the Draft Technical Guidance for 

Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013) under development for a detailed 

discussion of the concept of disproportionate impacts. 

It is important to note that the role of the analyst is to assess and present differences in anticipated 

impacts across population groups of concern to the decision-maker and the public. The determination of whether there is a potential disproportionate impact that may merit Agency action is ultimately 

a policy judgment informed by analysis, and is the responsibility of the decision-maker. These analyses will depend on the availability of the scientific and technical data. As noted in the Draft Technical 

Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013), examples of the 

10 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_1997standards/ for the specific OMB definitions.
7Whether Regulatory Actions Involve an 

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Environmental Justice Concern

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 disproportionate 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 decisionmakers, 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 framework 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 underrepresented 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 EPA’s EJ program and EJ policies. 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 

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 Populations 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.
8

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Regulatory Actions Involve an 

Environmental Justice Concern

involving the action be informed by a consideration of EJ issues. Where feasible, regulatory actions 

should prevent or address and mitigate potential EJ concerns.

Consistent with the emphasis in the Presidential Memorandum accompanying EO 12898 on using 

existing environmental laws to help achieve the goal of EJ, the EPA uses existing environmental 

statutes and regulations to consider and address potential EJ concerns.12 See Text Box 4 for some 

examples of statutory authorities used to help achieve EJ goals. These authorities encompass the 

breadth of the Agency’s activities, including setting standards. Early in the rule writing process, rulewriters should become familiar with the specific authorities governing their rule’s development and 

the opportunities they provide to address EJ concerns. Some of the EPA’s legal authorities direct the 

Agency to consider specific populations when setting standards, whereas other authorities provide 

discretionary opportunities. Where discretionary authority exists, the decision to take a particular 

regulatory action to address potential EJ concerns is a policy call that may involve consideration of questions beyond the action’s legal 

basis, such as data availability, time and resource 

constraints or the associated human health or 

environmental benefits. 

As a starting point, rule-writers should consult 

the Agency’s EJ Legal Tools document, which 

identifies discretionary legal authorities that are 

or may be available to the EPA to incorporate 

EJ into rules.13 EJ Legal Tools notes that some 

authorities to promote EJ are clear, where others 

may involve interpretive issues that call for further analysis. Rule-writers may need to work closely 

with OGC and/or the appropriate regional or program office staff to understand how to use a specific 

authority to address potential EJ concerns in a particular set of circumstances. These conversations 

may influence the types of data collected and methods used to evaluate potential EJ concerns in a 

rule.

Existing statutory and regulatory authorities can be applied to prevent and mitigate adverse or 

disproportionate health and environmental impacts on all populations, including minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. In applying these authorities to address 

potential EJ concerns, it is important to understand the appropriate role of demographic information 

when evaluating EJ. Demographic information can be used to identify existing or potential impacts 

on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples and may be a factor in 

the design and implementation of regulatory actions. However, a decision to act (such as developing 

a more protective rule or standard) would be based on a human health or environmental factor, and 

not the racial composition or economic status of the impacted populations. Following this approach, 

demographic data will be used in conjunction with health or environmental information to identify 

12 The Presidential Memorandum also states that existing civil rights statutes provide opportunities to address environmental hazards in minority and low-income communities. It directs agencies as follows: “In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, each Federal agency 

shall ensure that all programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance that affect human health or the environment do not directly, or 

through contractual or other arrangements, use criteria, methods, or practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin.”

13 The EJ Legal Tools document was developed under EPA’s Plan EJ 2014 and can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/planej/law.html.

Text Box 4: Examples of Statutory Authority

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

sections 3002 through 3004, EPA is directed to establish 

requirements applicable to generation, transport, 

treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste 

“as may be necessary to protect human health and the 

environment.” This provides EPA with broad discretion 

to consider impacts on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous populations when 

developing RCRA regulations.
9Whether Regulatory Actions Involve an 

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Environmental Justice Concern

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 environmental 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, lowincome populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples in the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. This section will provide general guidelines 

on how to identify regulatory actions that may involve potential EJ concerns. See the Draft Technical 

Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013) how to evaluate 

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 availability of relevant data and analytical methodologies, stakeholder interest, and the impacts that potential 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.
10

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Regulatory Actions Involve an 

Environmental Justice Concern

1. 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 populations, 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.

For some Agency regulatory actions, it may also be useful and appropriate to assess the distribution 

of the benefits of the rulemaking action under consideration. Data limitations may, however, constrain 

rule-writers’ ability to gauge how the distribution of existing pollution control program benefits may 

be changed by the new regulatory action. Rule-writers are encouraged to consult the Draft Technical 

Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013) for information on 

potential considerations and methodologies and conduct timely assessment and planning for data 

needs during the rule-making process.

The assessment of whether the regulatory action involves potential disproportionate impacts may 

include qualitative and/or quantitative elements. To begin this assessment, rule-writers should first 

understand what an action is accomplishing and why it is necessary. As rule-writers gather this 

preliminary information and set the context for the action, they can begin to articulate the framework 

for analyzing whether there are potentially disproportionate impacts on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous peoples. The level of analysis appropriate for the regulatory 

action will depend on a variety of factors, including preliminary evidence of public health or environmental impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, the 

legal framework governing the action, the availability of relevant data and analytical methodologies, a 

history of EJ issues in communities likely to be affected by the rule (e.g., history of significant noncompliance or recognized health effects due to polluting sources) or stakeholder interest, and the 

impacts that potential EJ concerns are likely to have on the actual decisions involving the action.

2. A potential EJ concern refers to lack of opportunities for minority populations, 

low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples to meaningfully participate in 

the development of the regulatory action. 

Regulatory actions may create a potential EJ concern if the Agency does not provide meaningful 

involvement opportunities to minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous 

peoples during the development of the action. To provide meaningful involvement opportunities that 

are consistent with the Agency’s definition of EJ, the rule-writers will likely need to go beyond the 

minimum requirements of standard notice and comment procedures and engage minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples early in the process. It is often unrealistic to expect meaningful involvement if the rule-writers have not targeted outreach efforts to these 

populations or tribes prior to proposing the action. Part 3 of this Guide describes the Agency’s policies and resources related to meaningful involvement, and notes the difference between meaningful 
11Whether Regulatory Actions Involve an 

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Environmental Justice Concern

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 regulatory 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, lowincome populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples. 

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 

implemented, will itself promote compliance, to ensure that regulated facilities are complying. Rulewriters should try to make the rule self-implementing to drive compliance, using approaches such 

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 compliance 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 presents 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 Rulemaking, 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/.
12

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Regulatory Actions Involve an 

Environmental Justice Concern

considerations built in will improve the Agency’s ability to detect and respond to non-compliance and 

will help improve the action’s effectiveness and efficiency in achieving its intended results. Ensuring 

that the action is written to be enforceable is critically important to address EJ concerns that may arise 

as a result of program implementation issues and non-compliance. For example, regulatory actions 

should define what constitutes a violation, clearly outline what industry should do to comply with 

the action and identify how compliance will be measured and by whom. The rule-writers should also 

consider available information regarding industry-specific non-compliance histories (and underlying 

causal factors) to determine whether the rule could be designed—or coordinated with other efforts—

in ways that improve compliance rates and overall rule effectiveness. See Text Box 5.

Does the regulatory action promote transparency and meaningful involvement? Regulatory actions that promote transparency and 

meaningful involvement during implementation can make it easier to engage and inform 

minority populations, low-income populations, 

tribes, and indigenous peoples throughout the 

action lifecycle, including after regulations are 

promulgated and being implemented. These 

actions may in turn improve their ability to spot 

non-compliance issues or identify ways in which 

implementation may be improved. For example, 

rule-writers should seek to design actions to 

maximize appropriate public availability of 

post-promulgation compliance information 

readily available and accessible to the affected 

public. The rule-writers should also assess 

how the action impacts the ability of minority 

populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples to meaningfully participate in 

subsequent environmental decision-making processes, e.g., permits, NEPA assessments, State Implementation Plans and reassessments of Agency regulatory actions. 

Does the regulatory action encourage or require state, local and tribal governments to consider 

EJ as they implement federal programs? State, local and tribal governments are the primary implementers of many programs that the Agency administers.16 If rule-writers have identified potential EJ 

concerns that may arise during state, local or tribal implementation, they should then consider how 

the action should address those issues. See Text Box 5 for an example of how this has been done successfully in a prior EPA rulemaking. 

Does the regulatory action provide sufficient background information for drafting subsequent 

individual permits? Permits are an important vehicle through which Agency regulatory actions are 

implemented within a specific location.17 Permits implement generally applicable regulatory standards 

16 EPA reviews state, local, and tribal programs to determine if they meet applicable requirements for federal approval. If EPA finds that the program meets those requirements, it approves the state, local, or tribal government to implement the federal program. State and local governments 

which receive grants to implement federal programs are also subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Title VI prohibits 

recipients from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. A recipient’s obligation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, is layered upon separate, but related, obligations under the federal or state environmental laws.

17 For more information on considering EJ in permitting, see http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/plan-ej/permitting.html.

Text Box 5: Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring

In 2010, EPA strengthened the health-based NAAQS 

established new ambient air monitoring and reporting 

requirements for NO2. To determine attainment of 

the new standard, EPA established new ambient air 

monitoring and reporting requirements for NO2. 

Ambient NO2 monitoring data are collected by state, 

local and tribal monitoring agencies in accordance with 

monitoring requirements contained in 40 CFR parts 50, 

53 and 58. Under these monitoring requirements, EPA 

required Regional Administrators to work with states 

to site a minimum of 40 NO2 monitors, above the 

minimum number required in the area-wide and nearroad network design, focused primarily on collecting 

NO2 air quality data in areas where susceptible or 

vulnerable populations may be exposed to ambient NO2

concentrations that have the potential to approach or 

exceed the NAAQS. Additional information is available 

at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/svpop.html.
13Whether Regulatory Actions Involve an 

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Environmental Justice Concern

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 populations, 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. However, in some circumstances, 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, 

and/or indigenous peoples). The rule-writers should note that disproportionate impacts may also arise 

from factors not included here. See the Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in 

Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013) for a more detailed discussion. 

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, subsistence 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 

18 This Guide uses the term “environmental stressor” or “stressor” to encompass the range of chemical, physical or biological agents, contaminants, 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 EPA’s 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.
14

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Regulatory Actions Involve an 

Environmental Justice Concern

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, estimated 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 minority 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 pollutants 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 EPA’s Framework 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 environmental decision-making process may contribute to disproportionate impacts. Factors which contribute 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.
15Whether Regulatory Actions Involve an 

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Environmental Justice Concern

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 experiencing effects related to environmental exposures.24 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 smoking 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 minority 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 engagement, 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 

may also want to draw on the expertise of representatives in their workgroup from the Office of 

Research and Development.27

G. How Do the Decision-Makers Determine What Degree of 

Assessment of Potential EJ Concerns Is Feasible and Appropriate?

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, contaminants, 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 gaining a more complete understanding of how these factors influence health outcomes. See http://ajph.aphapublications.org/toc/ajph/101/S1.
16

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Regulatory Actions Involve an 

Environmental Justice Concern

to be evaluated further as rule-writers advance through the ADP.28 Rule-writers are encouraged to 

check with the lead office’s EJ Coordinator, Agency memoranda relating to prioritization of rules 

for EJ consideration/analysis and updates to the Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental 

Justice in Regulatory Analysis (U.S. EPA 2013) to assess whether specific guidance or screening tools are 

available to support decision-makers as they determine the appropriate methods and approaches for 

assessing potential EJ concerns in the context of the rule-making action. 

Screening-level analyses can help offices focus their resources and efforts on regulatory actions 

where there are opportunities to identify and address potential EJ concerns. As is often the case in 

the development of many of EPA’s regulations, screening-level analyses may need to be updated or 

reconsidered in the beginning stages of the ADP as more information becomes available. Rule-writers 

should also consult with OGC if there are questions about the opportunities for addressing potential 

EJ concerns that are provided by the statutes that govern the action.

Current EPA guidance does not prescribe or recommend a specific approach or methodology for 

conducting screening-level analysis. A screening-level analysis should provide information related 

to whether there may be potential EJ concerns associated with regulatory actions, and may include 

elements such as the following: 

1. A description of the potential impacts on, and existing risks to, minority populations, low-income 

populations, and/or indigenous peoples. This may involve a description of:

• The proximity of sources being regulated to these populations

• The number of sources that may be impacting these populations

• The nature and amount of pollutants that may be impacting these populations

• Whether there are any unique exposure pathways involved 

• Combinations of the various EJ factors occurring in conjunction with one another

• Expressed stakeholder concerns about the action, if any.

2. A description of potential impediments to meaningful involvement. This may involve understanding whether the action presents opportunities to improve public involvement requirements or 

limits opportunities in some way.

To assist decision-makers in their efforts to determine what degree of assessment of potential EJ 

concerns is feasible and appropriate, rule-writers should consider the data that would be needed to 

support a quantitative analysis and estimate the resources that would be needed to develop the data 

and carry out a quantitative analysis. Rule-writers should then provide this information to decisionmakers to support their determinations regarding the analysis of EJ issues in the rulemaking effort. In 

some circumstances, decision-makers might determine that there are insufficient data available to do 

a quantitative evaluation or such analysis is otherwise infeasible or unnecessary. In such cases, it may 

nonetheless be possible to develop a meaningful qualitative analysis (see example in Text Box 6).

There may also be circumstances where decision-makers elect not to go beyond a screening level 

analysis to evaluate potential EJ concerns because it is impracticable to do so or initial screening or 

other information indicates that EJ concerns are unlikely to be manifest. 

28 In October 2012, the Deputy Administrator announced that EJSCREEN is EPA’s official environmental justice screening tool for Agency 

work. EJSCREEN is available within EPA at http://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/.
17Whether Regulatory Actions Involve an 

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Environmental Justice Concern

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/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQRCRA-2010-0742-0004).

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 ordinarily 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 disproportionately 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 information 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.
18

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Regulatory Actions Involve an 

Environmental Justice Concern

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 transparency (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 involvement in rule implementation.
19

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During 

the Development of Regulatory Actions Under 

the Action Development Process

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. Compare how options under consideration would change the environmental and public health 

impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples; and 

6. 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 Background section) should use this Guide in the development of regulatory actions. In addition, rulewriters 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 EPA’s 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:

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/

adplibrary.
20

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During 

the Development of Regulatory Actions Under 

the Action Development Process

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 development (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 questions at the appropriate points during the development of the regulatory action under the ADP (as 

described below in this section):

1. How will (or did) the public participation process provide transparency and meaningful participation for minority populations, low-income population, tribes, and indigenous peoples?

2. How 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, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous peoples during the rulemaking process? 

3. How did the actions taken under #1 and #2 impact the outcome or final decision?

Appendix B provides a quick reference for EPA decision-makers on when and how they can participate 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 development 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 

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.
21

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During 

the Development of Regulatory Actions Under 

the Action Development Process

and workgroup actions in a timely manner so 

that they can formulate appropriate responses.

4. The Analysts. For the most part, the analysts—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. 

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 activities 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, rulewriters 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 EPA’s Action Development Process Guidelines for Preparing Analytic Blueprints, p. 14, available electronically at http://intranet.epa.gov/

adplibrary/documents/abp09-30-04.pdf.

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 

1 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.
22

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During 

the Development of Regulatory Actions Under 

the Action Development Process

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 1 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 1: EJ Question in ADP TRACKER

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 populations 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 indigenous 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 particular 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 
23

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During 

the Development of Regulatory Actions Under 

the Action Development Process

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. Rulewriters are expected to conduct proper outreach and evaluation activities to make a determination 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 displayed 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://yosemite.

epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/. 

• Program Offices will be asked to reconsider 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.

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 rulewriters’ 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 regarding 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. 

Text Box 11: 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. 
24

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During 

the Development of Regulatory Actions Under 

the Action Development Process

Careful consideration of EJ concerns in the PABP can improve regulatory actions by ensuring appropriate 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 coordinate data collection and analytical efforts with children’s and other health impacts analyses conducted 

in developing the rule.30

To determine whether the regulatory action may have potential EJ concerns, and to ensure appropriate 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 populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples;

• Describe the plans and resource needs for evaluating impacts on of minority populations, lowincome populations and indigenous peoples;

30 See EO 13045 Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. Rule-makers should also be aware of the requirements in EPA’s Guide to Considering Children’s Health When Developing EPA Actions: Implementing Executive Order 13045 and EPA’s Policy 

on Evaluating Health Risks to Children.

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

When developing actions:

• Reach out to 

potentially affected 

populations and tribes 

early;

• Include them in data 

gathering;

• Engage them in 

developing options to 

address the issue(s); 

and 

• Consider their role in 

future activities.

If the action establishes a 

framework or regulatory 

standards for subsequent 

actions, make sure to: 

• Provide opportunities 

for public involvement 

in the subsequent 

actions; and

• Engage potentially 

affected populations 

and tribes in the 

subsequent actions.

When implementing the 

action:

• Continue to manage 

the ongoing program 

• Build awareness;

• Provide information;

• Involve potentially 

affected populations 

and tribes in program 

activities;

• Seek feedback; and

• Be transparent.
25

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During 

the Development of Regulatory Actions Under 

the Action Development Process

• 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 development. 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 EPA’s 

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.

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.

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. 
26

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During 

the Development of Regulatory Actions Under 

the Action Development Process

ADP Step 5 – Detailed Analytic Blueprint (DABP)

The DABP should incorporate the directions received through Early Guidance from senior management 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 analysis, 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;

• Outputs of the EJ assessment; and

• Schedule and resources required to prepare the EJ assessment.

In addition, the DABP should describe the rule-writers’ planned activities to ensure that they can 

answer the first two of the three core EJ questions at key stages in the ADP:

1. How did/will the public participation process provide transparency and meaningful participation for minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples?

This question asks rule-writers to document the proactive steps taken, beyond minimum notice 

and comment opportunities, to meaningfully engage these populations, tribes and peoples in the 

development of the regulatory action. This would include any outreach to state, tribal, and local 

governments and to national- and community-level non-governmental organizations, among 

others. Rule-writers should document planned public meetings, information sessions, workshops 

or other activities designed to identify and encourage the participation of these populations, tribes 

and 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?

This question asks rule-writers to document the proactive steps taken to identify and address 

potentially disproportionate impacts on the public health and environment of these populations. This could include any investigation and characterization the rule-writers performed of 
27

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During 

the Development of Regulatory Actions Under 

the Action Development Process

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 EPA’s activities. Rule-writers should ensure that they have 

identified and addressed issues that are of concern to minority populations, low-income populations, 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 

• Has 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 identified and considered during the development of the regulatory action. For example, during the formal 

cross-agency review of the draft DABP, the rulewriters and other reviewers of the draft DABP 

(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).

Once the DABP is approved, decision-makers 

have determined the appropriate level of analysis 

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 

Text Box 14: Management Approval of DABP

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 

1 and 2”). The EJ Question in the TRACKER can be 

altered at any time. Changes to Tier 1 and Tier 2 actions 

are updated regularly so the public can access EPA’s 

latest thinking about an action.
28

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During 

the Development of Regulatory Actions Under 

the Action Development Process

for resolving the problem.31 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. Rulewriters 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 appropriate, 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, exposures 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 support 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

Options selection is the last step in the ADP before rule-writers finish drafting the regulatory action. 

In this step, the rule-writers can identify the significant issues and several options to resolve each 

issue. Senior management decision-makers then selects those options that would best achieve the 

goals of the action. Selecting a regulatory action from among many options is a complex process. The 

extent to which potential EJ concerns factor into the process will vary considerably across regulatory 

actions, and will depend in large part on the operative requirements of the statute under which the 

action is being taken. 

In presenting the options to senior management decision-makers for final decision-making, rulewriters 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 

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.

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.
29

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During 

the Development of Regulatory Actions Under 

the Action Development Process

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, rulewriters 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 outlined 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 concerns, 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 inclusion of appropriate language in the preamble to address compliance with EO 12898. 
30

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During 

the Development of Regulatory Actions Under 

the Action Development Process

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, Communications 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. 

ADP Steps 11 & 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 submission to OMB. For more details, see the EPA’s Action Development Process: Guidance for EPA Staff on 

Developing Quality Actions (http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary).

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 EPA’s 

Action Development Process: Guidance for EPA Staff 

on Developing Quality Actions (http://intranet.epa.

gov/adplibrary).

Once signed by the appropriate official, the FR 

document is transmitted to the Office of the 

Federal Register for final publication. Rulewriters should ensure that all relevant documentation 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, 

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, lowincome 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 1 and 2”). The EJ 

Question in the TRACKER can be altered at any time. 

Changes to Tier 1 and Tier 2 actions are regularly 

updated so the public can access EPA’s latest thinking 

about an action.
31

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During 

the Development of Regulatory Actions Under 

the Action Development Process

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 

EPA’s Action Development Process: Guidance for EPA Staff on Developing Quality Actions (http://intranet.

epa.gov/adplibrary). 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.
32Part 3: Achieving Meaningful Involvement

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’ contributions can influence the EPA’s 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 involvement of populations potentially affected by the EPA’s rulemaking process. 

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations and other policies32 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 populations and other entities and increase the understanding of such issues in the context of developing 

the action. 

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.
33Part 3: Achieving Meaningful Involvement

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 appropriate for their regulatory actions.33 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 alternatives 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 populations that have been historically underrepresented 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 rulewriters are trying to reach.34

Involving these populations in a meaningful way presents challenges and opportunities that are different 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://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/publications/nejac/model-public-part-plan.pdf).

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.
34Part 3: Achieving Meaningful Involvement

• 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 populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples meaningfully and effectively. Rulewriters 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 stations, CB radio, local newspapers, placing posters 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 indigenous peoples as it is used in the EJ context 

versus formal consultation with tribes.35 The 

federal government has a unique governmentto-government relationship with federallyrecognized 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-policy.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 EPA’s 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 EPA’s 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.
35Part 3: Achieving Meaningful Involvement

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 involvement and improving communication and understanding between facility operators and potentiallyaffected populations.

C. Assessment of Best Practices and Recommendations

The EPA identified examples of best practices on how to promote meaningful involvement in a September 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.37 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 participation 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 stakeholder 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 indigenous 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-permitapplication-process.

37 This report was produced by the Public Involvement (PI) Sub-Team of EPA’s Cross Agency Environmental Justice in Rulemaking (EJR) Team. 

This team was made up of rulemaking experts from each NPM.
A-1Appendix A

Appendix A: Incorporating 

Environmental Justice into Tier 1 and 

2 Actions Under the ADP38

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).

38 See http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary.

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 consultation 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 

(DABP)

• 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

1. 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.

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 consultation/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

11. If the rule is 

“significant under EO 

12866,” OP reviews 

and submits to OMB

12. OMB Review 13. Administrator or 

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
B-1Appendix B

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 information 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-2Appendix B

• 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 potential 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 concerns. 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. How will (or did) the public participation process provide transparency and meaningful participation for minority populations, low-income populations, tribes, and indigenous peoples?

2. How 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, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous peoples during the rulemaking process?

3. How did the actions taken under #1 and #2 impact the outcome or final decision?
C-1Appendix C

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.41

Activity

1. 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/adplibrary/.
C-2Appendix C

42

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 potential 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?

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 EPA’s 

Tribal Consultation Policy.
D-1Appendix D

Appendix D: References/

Resources

Please note that this document is written for EPA employees and contains links to resources on the 

EPA’s 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.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/exec_order_12898.pdf

Text of EO directing agencies to address Environmental 

Justice in minority populations and low-income populations.

EPA’s Definition of Environmental Justice 

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/basics/index.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.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/clinton_memo_12898.

pdf

President’s cover memorandum for Executive Order 

12898.

EPA’s Environmental Justice Strategy (1995)

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/ej_strategy_1995.pdf

Strategy developed in response to EO 12898.

Environmental Justice Implementation Plan

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/implementation_plan_

ej_1996.pdf 

Plan to integrate environmental justice into the Agency’s 

work under Carol Browner (1996).

Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s 

NEPA Compliance Analysis (1998)

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_

epa0498.pdf 

Guidance for incorporating environmental justice goals 

into the EPA’s preparation of environmental impact 

statements (EISs) and environmental assessments (EAs) 

under NEPA. 

Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy 

Act (1997) 

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_

ceq1297.pdf

Original guidance provided by CEQ.

Toolkit for Assessing Potential Allegations of Environmental Justice (2004)

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/ej-toolkit.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/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/admin-ej-strengthmemo-060908.pdf

Administrator Johnson directs the EPA to conduct EJ 

reviews of its program, policies and activities.
D-2Appendix D

Title and URL Description

Reaffirming the U.S. EPA’s Commitment to Environmental Justice – 

Memo from Stephen L. Johnson (November 4, 2005)

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/admin-ej-commitletter-110305.pdf

Administrator Johnson outlines the Agency’s commitment to Environmental Justice and its integration into all 

programs, policies, and activities.

Plan EJ 2014

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/plan-ej/index.html

Roadmap for how EPA will integrate EJ into the Agency’s 

programs, policies, and activities.

EJ Legal Tools

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/plan-ej/law.html

Identifies existing legal tools to help EPA advance the 

goal of EJ and provides an overview of a number of discretionary 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.gov/environmentaljustice/plan-ej/rulemaking.html

Helps analysts assess potential EJ concerns associated 

with EPA rules.

Plan EJ 2014: EJ in Permitting 

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/plan-ej/permitting.html

The EJ in Permitting Initiative seeks 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.

EPA Policy on Environmental Justice for Tribes and Indigenous Peoples

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/indigenous/ej-indigenous-policy.pdf

Clarifies and integrates environmental justice principles 

in a consistent manner in the Agency’s work with federally recognized tribes and indigenous peoples throughout the United States, and with others living in Indian 

country to protect their environment and public health.

American Journal of Public Health Supplement “Environmental Justice and 

Disparities in Health”

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/toc/ajph/101/S1

Useful resource for gaining a more complete understanding of how disproportionate impact factors can 

influence health outcomes.

EPA’s Policy of Evaluating Health Risks to Children

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/riskpolicy.htm/$File/riskpolicy.

pdf

Policy applied to assessments started or revised on or 

after November 1, 1995.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

http://www.epa.gov/tp/pdf/eo-13175.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.gov/publicinvolvement/pdf/policy2003.pdf

Complete Agency policy with four appendices and two 

addenda.

Public Involvement

http://www.epa.gov/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.IAP2.org

Provides discussion on the spectrum of public involvement; identifies useful publications and training opportunities.

Web 2.0

http://www2.epa.gov/webguide/epa-and-web-20-technologies-2007-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.
D-3Appendix D

Other Useful Resources

Title and URL Description

Environmental Justice Coordinators – Media Offices

http://epa.gov/environmentaljustice/contact/ej-contacts-media.html

List of contacts with name, phone, location, and areas of 

expertise identified.

Environmental Justice Coordinators – Regional Offices

http://epa.gov/environmentaljustice/contact/ej-contacts-regional.html

List of contacts with name, phone, and address identified.

Action Development Process

http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary/adp/index.htm

Information about each particular aspect of EPA's ADP.

Action Development Process: Guidance for EPA Staff on Developing 

Quality Actions

http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary/documents/adp03-00-11.pdf 

Lays out the ADP and where to get additional information and guidance as Agency actions are developed.

Action Development Checklist

See Appendix C of this Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During 

the Development of an Action

Illustrative list to help rule-writers determine whether 

the action being developed may involve a subject of 

particular interest to—or may have particular impacts 

on—vulnerable populations.

Environmental Justice Regulatory Preamble Templates 

http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary/adp-templates/index.htm#stat

Suggested language for addressing EO 12898 in preambles for proposed and final rules.

Action Development Guidelines for Preparing Analytic Blueprints

http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary/documents/abp09-30-04.pdf

Discusses the timing and steps for the drafting and 

approval of Analytic Blueprints (applicable to all Tiers 

1 and 2 actions); directs reader to resources for more 

information and guidance. 

RegDaRRT

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opei/RuleGate.nsf/

Offers the public a means of learning about and tracking 

EPA actions.

Cross-Agency EJ in Rulemaking Team’s Resources for Incorporating EJ in 

Agency Rules

http://intranet.epa.gov/oeca/oej/rulemaking.html

Resources identify opportunities for the Agency to 

advance the integration of EJ in rules. 
E-1Appendix E

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 rulemaking process has already been made, as 

evidenced by the following examples:

• 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 environmental 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 methodology 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 lowincome 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 EPA’s 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 “appropriate 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 
E-2Appendix E

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 particulate 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 communities. 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 EPA’s 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 trainings 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 environmental 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 comments 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 
E-3Appendix E

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 childoccupied 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. EPA’s 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 Final 

Rule: EPA uses the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring program to collect data for contaminants 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