Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During 

the Development of an Action

OPEI Regulatory Development Series

July 2010

EPA’s Action

Development Process
Interim Guidance on Considering 

Environmental Justice During the 

Development of an Action

Far too often and for far too long, environmentalism has been viewed as a distant issue for 

low-income and minority communities. That view has persisted despite the fact that these 

same communities often carry the greatest environmental burdens. Dirty air, polluted water, 

and contaminated lands have significant impacts on the health and economic possibilities of 

the people who live in overburdened communities. 

I have called on this U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to change both the 

perception and the situation on the ground, by broadly expanding our conversation on 

environmentalism and developing policies that have a measurable effect on environmental 

justice challenges. This document, the Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental 

Justice During the Development of an Action, also known as the EJ in Rulemaking 

Guidance, is an important tool for answering that call. 

The EJ in Rulemaking Guidance provides specific strategies for giving environmental justice 

communities a voice in shaping EPA’s rules and regulations. It outlines multiple steps that 

every program office can take to incorporate the needs of overburdened neighborhoods into 

our decision-making, scientific analysis, and rule development. I encourage all EPA staff 

to become familiar with environmental justice concepts and the many ways they should 

inform our decision-making. 

As we begin implementing the EJ in Rulemaking Guidance, we will look to federal and 

state agencies, academia, community members, and other partners for ideas, innovations, 

and best practices. Contributions from all stakeholders will help us improve our regulation 

development process year after year and enhance EPA’s work in communities where 

environmental improvements are needed the most. We are also counting on the input of 

EPA staff. As the individuals who will translate this guidance into action, I ask that you 

frequently share your perspectives on where we can strengthen this guidance.

EPA should set the standard for expanding the conversation on environmentalism and 

working for environmental justice. I’m proud to join you as we strengthen our mission to 

protect the health and the environment of every American community. 

Lisa P. Jackson

Administrator

Message from

the Administrator
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 EPA’s most important and powerful tools for protecting our environment and the health 

of our people. 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 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, employing EPA expert scientists, economists, and other analysts, before an 

appropriate course of action is decided on and a regulation is promulgated and implemented. 

A number of laws, Executive Orders, and policies direct EPA to consider issues of concern to 

the President, Congress, and the American public when developing regulations. To achieve 

the goals of Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, it is critical that EPA rulemaking workgroups 

consider environmental justice (EJ) when developing a regulation. This Guide is designed 

to help EPA staff incorporate EJ into the process followed at EPA for developing regulations 

[also known as the Action Development Process (ADP)] by: 1) describing the legal and policy 

framework at EPA that requires workgroups to consider EJ; 2) identifying the information 

that workgroups should consider when determining if there are EJ concerns involved in their 

proposed regulations; and 3) highlighting the kinds of questions about EJ that workgroups 

should ask and address in each step of developing a regulation. 

The purpose of this Guide is to explicitly integrate EJ considerations into the fabric of 

EPA’s ADP—from rule inception through all the stages leading to promulgation and 

implementation—requiring that workgroups meaningfully engage with and consider the 

impacts on minority, low-income, and indigenous populations, and tribes. The analyses 

required to implement this Guide may include quantitative and/or qualitative elements. Our 

ability to quantitatively assess EJ issues is evolving; over time we expect it to become more 

robust, sophisticated, and capable of ensuring that we are meeting our mission as an agency. 

Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental 

Justice During the Development of an Action

i

EPA’s Action

Development Process
Our experience in implementing this Guide will contribute significantly to that evolution, 

and as our analytical capabilities expand, so will Agency and public expectations for us 

to exercise them in the development of our rules. The Guide empowers decision-makers 

responsible for developing rules and regulations to determine early in the process the level 

of focus and effort necessary and appropriate to achieve the Guide’s goals. This decision 

can and should balance the need to make sure that strong, environmentally protective rules 

are developed and executed in a timely way, while ensuring that EJ is considered to the 

maximum extent practicable where it has the potential to impact our regulatory decisions. 

To achieve these goals, the Guide directs rule writers and decisions-makers to respond to 

three basic questions throughout the ADP: 

1. How did your public participation process provide transparency and meaningful 

participation for minority, low-income, and indigenous populations, and tribes?

2. How did you identify and address existing and new disproportionate environmental 

and public health impacts on minority, low-income, and indigenous populations?

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

This Guide helps rulewriters understand and identify potential EJ concerns and asks them 

to analyze the impacts of their rules on these populations. A critical additional step is the 

development of additional guidance that will help workgroups conduct technical and 

scientific analyses of EJ issues. As workgroups use this Interim Guide, their experiences and 

lessons learned will be considered in both the development of the new “technical” guidance 

and in revising this Interim Guide later this year.

ii

Disclaimer: This document identifies internal Agency policies and recommended procedures 

for EPA employees who are participants or managers developing or reviewing an action in the 

Action Development Process. 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.
Overview and Background................................................................................................................................1

PART 1: Key Concepts for Understanding Whether Your Action Involves An

Environmental Justice Concern......................................................................................................3

A. What is Environmental Justice? ......................................................................... 3

B. What is the Agency’s Statutory and Policy Framework for Considering 

Environmental Justice? ....................................................................................... 4

C. What is an “Environmental Justice Concern?” .................................................. 6

D. How Can You Integrate EJ Concerns into Your Analyses?............................... 12

E. How Can You Achieve Meaningful Involvement? ............................................ 13

PART 2: Considering Environmental Justice During the

Action Development Process.......................................................................................................15

A. Who is Responsible for Considering EJ During the Development of 

an Action Under the ADP? ...............................................................................15

B. How Do You Consider Whether You Need to Evaluate EJ Concerns 

During the Development of Your Action Under the ADP?...............................19

C. When Should You Consider EJ Concerns During the Development of Your

Action Under the ADP? ....................................................................................20

Appendix A: Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations....................A-1

Appendix B.......................................................................................................................................................B-1

Incorporating Environmental Justice into Tier 1 and 2 Actions under the ADP....B-1

Incorporating Environmental Justice into Tier 3 Actions under the ADP..............B-2

Appendix C: A Quick Reference Guide for EPA Managers: Integrating EJ

into the ADP.........................................................................................................................C-1

Appendix D: A Checklist for EPA Workgroup Chairs: Integrating EJ

into the ADP.........................................................................................................................D-1

Appendix E: Resources................................................................................................................................E-1

iii

Table of Contents
iv

AA/RA: Assistant Administrator/Regional Administrator

ADP: Action Development Process

DABP: Detailed Analytic Blueprint

EA: Economic Analysis

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

EJ: Environmental Justice

E.O.: Executive Order

FAR: Final Agency Review

FR: Federal Register

GIS: Geographic Information Systems

IT: Information Technology

NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NO2: Nitrogen Dioxide

OEJ: Office of Environmental Justice

OGC: Office of General Counsel

OMB: Office of Management and Budget

OPEI: Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation

PABP: Preliminary Analytic Blueprint

RAPIDS: Rule and Policy Information and Development System

RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RIA: Regulatory Impact Analysis

RMD: Regulatory Management Division

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
What is the Purpose of this Guide?

Achieving environmental justice (EJ) is an Agency priority and should be factored into every 

decision. Incorporating EJ considerations into the Action Development Process (ADP) represents a 

commitment to ensuring that all Americans, regardless of age, race, economic status, or ethnicity, 

have access to clean water, clean air, and healthy communities. It is vital that all Agency staff 

identify and address disproportionate environmental and public health impacts experienced by 

minority, low-income, and indigenous populations. 

This Guide will help Agency staff consider EJ concerns during the development of actions 

under the Agency’s ADP, consistent with existing environmental and civil rights laws and 

their implementing regulations, as well as Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) and EPA’s EJ policies.1

This Guide uses the definition of “Agency action” provided in EPA’s ADP, which is available 

online at http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary. Agency actions include rules, policy statements, 

risk assessments, guidance documents, models that may be used in future rulemakings, 

and strategies that are related to regulations. In addition to providing guidance on the 

importance of identifying EJ concerns during the development of an action, this Guide 

identifies key steps throughout the ADP where EJ should be considered. 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. 

This Guide is an important step toward ensuring that our actions appropriately address 

EJ issues. A critical next step is the development of technical guidance that will provide 

analytical tools and methodologies for evaluating the impacts of our actions on minority, 

low-income, and indigenous populations. As workgroups use this Interim Guide, their 

experiences and lessons learned will be considered in both the development of the new 

technical guidance and in revising this Interim Guide later this year. 

1 EPA’s historical EJ policies include: The 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), Memo from Stephen L. Johnson: Reaffirming the U.S. EPA’s Commitment to 

Environmental Justice (2005). 1Overview and Background

Overview and Background
2

The requirements or recommendations for integrating children’s health considerations into 

the ADP, or for consulting with federally recognized tribes when Agency actions may impact 

their citizens or resources, are addressed in other Agency guides, available online at http://

intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary. 

Who is the Audience for this Guide?

This Guide is for participants on action development workgroups and any other Agency staff 

involved in developing actions, including those that perform the analyses that may be used to 

support Agency decision-making and those that manage the process. Workgroup leads have 

particular responsibilities under the ADP, including identifying and addressing EJ concerns. 

However, each action development workgroup member has the responsibility for being familiar 

with, and understanding, the various statutes and Executive Orders that impact EPA’s actions. 

Other Agency staff involved in the development of an action, but who may not be workgroup 

members, are also responsible for being familiar with these requirements. Therefore, this Guide 

uses the word “you” to refer to all workgroup members and other Agency staff. In addition, senior 

EPA managers may find this Guide useful in helping to ensure that EJ concerns are appropriately 

addressed in the development of their actions under the ADP. 

How is this Guide Organized?

This Guide is organized into two parts: 

Part 1:

• Describes the statutory and policy framework for considering EJ.

• Identifies concepts central to determining whether your action involves an EJ concern. 

Part 2:

• Discusses the concepts and how they fit into each step of the ADP. 

In addition, a separate document, “Templates for Regulatory Preambles to Address E.O. 

12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations,” explains how to address E.O. 12898 in rule preambles, covering 

various situations. It is available in the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation’s (OPEI’s) 

ADP library at http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary. It is important to note that your preamble 

discussion should also discuss how you identified and addressed EJ concerns.

Overview and Background

Children’s Health

You should be familiar with E.O. 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks, and with EPA’s Guide to Considering Children’s 

Health When Developing EPA Actions. You should note 

the important intersection between EJ concerns 

and children’s health issues, as children in minority, 

low-income, and indigenous populations are more 

likely to be exposed to, and have increased health 

risks from, environmental pollution than the general 

population.

Indigenous Populations and Tribes 

You should be familiar with E.O. 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The Agency’s 

responsibilities under E.O. 13175 are separate from the 

responsibilities under E.O. 12898 and stem from federally 

recognized tribes’ status as sovereign governments. You 

should note that this Guide is intended to apply to EJ 

concerns affecting federally recognized, state recognized, 

and non-recognized tribes; individual tribal members, 

including those living off-reservation and Alaska Natives; 

and Native Hawaiians.
3

A. What is Environmental Justice?

Environmental justice (EJ) is central to the Agency’s mission and is the responsibility of 

everyone at EPA. In particular, those who are involved in the development of an action need to 

understand the principles of EJ and how they relate to the development of an Agency action. 

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.2

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 community members 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 decision-makers seek out and 

facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected. 

In EPA’s implementation of its EJ program, the Agency has expanded the concept of fair 

treatment to include not only the consideration of how burdens are distributed across all 

populations, but also how benefits are distributed. Thus, in the ADP, you 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 risk, but you 

are also encouraged to look at the distribution of the positive environmental and health 

consequences from our activities. 

2 EPA’s definition of EJ can be found at http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/basics/index.html. EPA’s definition of EJ was informed by E.O. 12898, which is 

discussed in full detail in Part 1, Section B of this Guide. Background information on EPA’s EJ program can also be found on this website.

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Your Action Involves An 

Environmental Justice Concern

Part 1:

Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Your Action Involves An 

Environmental Justice Concern
4

To help achieve EPA’s goal for EJ (i.e., the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all

people), EPA places particular emphasis on the public health of and environmental conditions 

affecting minority, low-income, and indigenous populations. In recognizing that these 

populations frequently bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks (see 

Figure 1), EPA works to protect them from adverse public health and environmental effects of 

its programs. EPA should pay particular attention to the vulnerabilities of these populations 

because they have historically been exposed to a combination of physical, chemical, biological, 

social, and cultural factors that have imposed greater environmental burdens on them than 

those imposed on the general population. Thus, our focus in this Guide is on minority, lowincome, and indigenous populations who are or may be disproportionately impacted by 

environmental pollution.

B. What is the Agency’s Statutory and Policy Framework 

for Considering Environmental Justice?

For more than a decade, EPA has developed strategies, guidance documents, and implementation plans to move the Agency closer to its goal of achieving environmental justice.3 These 

documents, along with E.O. 12898 and existing environmental statutes and regulations, 

provide the framework for you to consider EJ during the development of your action. 

E.O. 12898 applies to agency “programs, policies, and activities” and in general calls on each 

federal agency to make achieving EJ part of its mission (see Appendix A for full text of E.O. 

12898). It directs agencies such as 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.4 Because minority, low-income, and indigenous 

3

 Please see footnote 1 for a listing of EPA’s historical EJ policies.

4 In addition, the Presidential Memorandum accompanying E.O. 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, EPA promotes the 

consideration of economic or social effects in the ADP to better inform and manage the process of implementing Agency actions and policies.

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 percent of all imports to the United States and 20 percent 

of diesel particulate emissions in Southern California. Approximately 1,200 

premature deaths 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 more than 1 million residents—

about 70 percent of which are minority and disproportionately low-income. 

The area is dense with truck traffic, industrial facilities, residences, schools, 

daycares, and senior centers. The region exceeds national air quality standards 

for 1-hour and 8-hour ozone and particulate matter 2.5 and 10. 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.

Figure 1—I-710 Freeway Los Angeles

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Your Action Involves An 

Environmental Justice Concern

Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health 

Perspectives, Global Trade Comes Home: Community 

Impacts of Goods Movement, February 2008.
5

populations have historically been underrepresented in federal agency decision-making, E.O. 

12898 also aims to improve public participation of these populations in the decision-making 

process. E.O. 12898 applies to all Agency actions, unlike other Executive Orders that may 

contain categorical exclusions. 

Consistent with the emphasis in the 

Presidential Memorandum accompanying 

E.O. 12898, regarding the use of existing 

environmental laws to help achieve the 

goal of EJ, EPA uses existing environmental 

statutes and regulations to consider and 

address EJ concerns.5 These authorities 

encompass the breadth of the Agency’s 

activities, including setting standards. 

Some authorities direct the Agency to 

consider specific affected populations when 

setting standards, whereas others provide 

discretionary opportunities to incorporate EJ 

concerns into the action.6

The application of existing statutory and 

regulatory authorities is a critical part of EPA’s 

efforts to prevent and address the disproportionately high and adverse effects that are the focus 

of E.O. 12898. This Guide uses the term “EJ concern” (defined in Part 1, Section C), which aligns 

with the E.O.’s focus on disproportionate impacts. It is important, however, to recognize that 

the Agency’s statutory and regulatory authorities provide a broader 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, low-income, 

and indigenous populations. Thus, 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.

The E.O. has informed the development and implementation of EPA’s EJ program and EJ policies. 

Consistent with the E.O. and the Presidential Memorandum, the Agency’s EJ policies promote 

environmental protection by focusing attention and Agency efforts on addressing the types of 

environmental harms and risks that are prevalent among minority, low-income, and indigenous 

populations.7 E.O. 12898 and the Agency’s EJ policies do not mandate particular outcomes for an 

action, but they demand that decisions involving the action be informed by a consideration of EJ 

issues. Where feasible, actions should prevent or address and mitigate EJ concerns.

5 The Presidential Memorandum also states that existing civil rights statutes provide opportunities to address environmental hazards in minority and lowincome communities: “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.”

6 You should consult with the Office of General Counsel (OGC) and/or the appropriate Program Office staff if you have questions about the opportunities for 

addressing EJ concerns provided by the statutes that govern your action. 

7

 Please see footnote 1 for a listing of EPA’s historical EJ policies.

Examples of Statutory Authority

• Clean Air Act section 109 requires EPA to set National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for certain air 

pollutants. The primary NAAQS are designed to protect 

public health. EPA sets primary standards that are judged 

to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. 

EPA considers the health risks for sensitive populations, 

which often provides an important opportunity to 

consider the health impacts on minority, low-income, and 

indigenous populations without an additional requirement 

that those impacts are disproportionate.

• Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) 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, low-income, and indigenous 

populations when developing RCRA regulations.

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Your Action Involves An 

Environmental Justice Concern
6

C. What is an “Environmental Justice Concern?”

Throughout this Guide, the term “environmental justice 

concern” (EJ concern) is used to indicate the actual or 

potential lack of fair treatment or meaningful involvement

of minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, or 

tribes in the development, implementation, and enforcement 

of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. While 

this Guide does not provide you with guidance on how to 

evaluate potential EJ concerns, the following section will 

provide you with general guidelines on how to identify an 

action that might involve potential EJ concerns. (See Table 1 

for a summary of actions that might involve EJ concerns).

Managers decide early in the process the appropriate level 

of analysis and engagement of stakeholders, considering 

factors such as the legal framework governing the action, the 

availability of relevant data and analytical methodologies, 

stakeholder interest, and the impacts that EJ concerns are 

likely to have on the actual decisions involving your action. 

Based on the application of these criteria, some actions 

will be identified for enhanced efforts that may require 

developing new data, applying more advanced analytical methodologies, and conducting 

more extensive and targeted engagement of stakeholders. As detailed more thoroughly in 

Part 2, managers will convey to the workgroup their determinations on the appropriate level 

of analysis and stakeholder engagement. 

1. An EJ concern refers to disproportionate impacts on minority, lowincome, or indigenous populations that exist prior to or that may be 

created by your proposed action. 

Your action may involve an EJ concern if it could:

• Create new disproportionate impacts on minority, low-income, or indigenous 

populations.

• Exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on minority, low-income, or indigenous 

populations.

• Present opportunities to address existing disproportionate impacts on minority, lowincome, or indigenous populations that are addressable through the action under 

development.

Most Agency actions will benefit public health and the environment through pollution 

reductions and enhanced safety measures. Nonetheless, it is important to assess whether 

minority, low-income, or indigenous populations are experiencing existing disproportionate 

impacts that you can address through your action.

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Your Action Involves An 

Environmental Justice Concern

What is an EJ Concern?

• An EJ concern refers to 

disproportionate impacts 

on minority, low-income, or 

indigenous populations that 

exist prior to or that may be 

created by your proposed 

action.

• An EJ concern refers to lack 

of opportunities for minority, 

low-income, or indigenous 

populations, or tribes to 

meaningfully participate in the 

development of your action.

• An EJ concern may arise 

when there is an actual or 

potential lack of fair treatment 

or meaningful involvement 

of minority, low-income, or 

indigenous populations, or 

tribes when implementing or 

enforcing an Agency action.
7

Your assessment of whether the action involves disproportionate impacts may include 

qualitative and/or quantitative elements. As you gather preliminary information and set the 

context for your action, you can begin to articulate your framework for analyzing whether 

there are disproportionate impacts on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. 

The level of analysis that is appropriate for your action will depend on a variety of factors, 

including the legal framework governing the action, the availability of relevant data and 

analytical methodologies, stakeholder interest, and the impacts that EJ concerns are likely to 

have on the actual decisions involving your action. 

The Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) has identified several factors, summarized below, 

that will help you assess whether disproportionate impacts on minority, low-income, 

or indigenous populations exist prior to or are created by your proposed action.8 These 

factors will help you identify conditions in which these populations may be experiencing 

disproportionate impacts associated with your action. Disproportionate impacts may result 

from a combination of several, if not all, of the factors below. In some circumstances, 

however, the presence of one or two of these factors alone could be sufficient to impose a 

disproportionate environmental hazard on a population. You should note that disproportionate 

impacts may also arise from factors not included here. While this list is intended to help you 

think about how EJ concerns may arise in your action, you are not required to analyze the 

existence or impact of these factors. You are encouraged to consider how your action may 

impact these populations, and this list is intended to aid in those considerations.

Proximity and Exposure to Environmental Hazards.

Disproportionate public health and environmental effects can be 

related to a community’s or population’s differential proximity 

and exposure to environmental hazards. There are many 

prominent examples, empirical and anecdotal, of communities 

affected by their proximity to environmental hazards. 

Susceptible Populations. Susceptible populations are groups 

that are at a high risk of suffering the adverse effects of 

environmental hazards. Certain factors may render different 

groups less able to resist or tolerate an environmental stressor. 

These susceptibility factors may be intrinsic in nature, based 

on age, sex, genetics, race, or ethnicity. In addition, some 

susceptibility factors may be acquired (such as chronic medical 

conditions, lack of health care access, poor nutrition, or fitness) 

or be related to other pollutant exposures. Minority, low-income, and indigenous 

children are at greater risk because factors such as poverty, poor nutrition, pre-existing 

health conditions, lack of access to health care, lack of information, lack of exercise, 

psychosocial stress, and lack of social capital contribute to greater susceptibility to 

environmental hazards.

8 For a more detailed discussion of these factors, see Environmental Justice Factors to Consider in EPA’s Regulatory Activities in the ADP library at

http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary/. More information on how each of these factors can inform environmental decision-making will be available at www.epa.

gov/environmentaljustice.

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Your Action Involves An 

Environmental Justice Concern

Proximity 

to industrial 

sources can cause 

respiratory illnesses.
8

Unique Exposure Pathways. An exposure pathway 

is the route a substance takes from its source to 

its endpoint. Some populations sustain unique 

environmental exposures because of practices linked 

to their cultural background or socioeconomic status. 

For example, as a cultural practice, some indigenous 

populations rely on a diet that may include subsistence 

fishing and/or farming.9 Subsistence diets may expose 

these populations to toxic chemicals, such as mercury 

from a fish diet or other chemicals from a diet high 

in contaminated vegetation. There are also nondietary 

exposure pathways that may be unique to some 

indigenous populations. For example, in populations that practice basket weaving, 

exposure to toxic chemicals may occur when contaminated materials are placed in 

the mouth during the weaving process. 

Multiple and Cumulative Effects. Minority, low-income, and indigenous populations 

are likely to suffer a wide range of environmental hazards, ranging from poor air quality 

to poor housing. Numerous empirical studies and anecdotal accounts describe minority, 

low-income, and indigenous communities 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 effects from multiple stressors allows a more realistic evaluation of a 

population’s risk to pollutants. The chemical-specific focus to assessing environmental 

risk fails to account for the fact that these populations may be exposed to several 

different pollutants. EPA’s Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment10 can enhance an 

evaluation of the various aspects of cumulative risk experienced by these populations.

Ability to Participate in the Decision-Making Process. The ability, or inability, 

to participate in the environmental decision-making process may contribute to 

disproportionate impacts. Factors that contribute to the inability of a community 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

• Limited capacity to access technical and legal resources

Physical Infrastructure. Physical infrastructure, such as poor housing, poorly 

maintained public buildings (e.g., schools), or proximity to transportation hubs, 

contributes to making certain populations more vulnerable to environmental hazards. 

 9 In the case of subsistence fishing, these populations may be exercising legal rights, based on treaties, to do so.

10 EPA’s Cumulative Risk Framework indicates that vulnerability of a population can be thought of as having four components: susceptibility of individuals, 

differential exposures, differential preparedness to withstand the insult, and differential ability to recover from effects. See Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment (2003).

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Your Action Involves An 

Environmental Justice Concern

Cultural practices, like 

basket weaving, may lead 

to a unique exposure 

pathway.
9

These factors are prevalent among minority, low-income, and indigenous populations. If 

you think that one or more of these factors is relevant to your action, you should consider 

whether your action involves disproportionate impacts on minority, low-income, or 

indigenous populations and thus, raises an EJ concern. To understand the populations 

affected by your proposed action, you may want to look at demographic data and consult 

with Program and/or Regional EJ Coordinators.11 You should also consider reaching out to 

these populations to assess potential concerns and issues associated with your proposed 

action. You may also want to perform a review of relevant literature or consult with the 

Office of Research and Development.

2. An EJ concern refers to lack of opportunities for minority, low-income, 

or indigenous populations, or tribes to meaningfully participate in the 

development of your action. 

Your action may involve an EJ concern if you do not provide meaningful involvement 

opportunities to minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, or tribes during the 

development of your action. To provide meaningful involvement opportunities that 

are consistent with the Agency’s definition of EJ, you will likely have to go beyond the 

minimum requirements of standard notice and comment procedures and engage these 

populations or tribes early. It is often not realistic to expect meaningful involvement if you 

have not targeted outreach efforts to these populations or tribes prior to proposing your 

action. Part 1, Section E, describes the Agency’s policies and resources related to meaningful 

involvement and notes the difference between the meaningful involvement of indigenous 

populations as it is used in the EJ context and consultation with tribes.

You should think broadly about how actions may impact minority, low-income, and 

indigenous populations, and tribes. For actions that may impact these populations, you 

should assess what steps you will take to ensure there are sufficient opportunities for 

meaningful involvement during the development of your action. This includes actions that 

directly impact the health or environmental conditions of these populations as well as 

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 is later used for 

inspection and enforcement or to assess potential health or environmental impacts.12

11 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.

12 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 submitting particular data that may subsequently be used in an analysis about impacts presents an important 

opportunity. You should offer affected minority, low-income, and indigenous populations, and tribes 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, 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, you may consider soliciting feedback on other mechanisms for making the data or information 

available to these populations.

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Your Action Involves An 

Environmental Justice Concern
10

3. An EJ concern may arise when there is an actual or potential lack of 

fair treatment or meaningful involvement of minority, low-income, or 

indigenous populations, or tribes when implementing or enforcing an 

Agency action.

As you develop your action, you should consider how you can promote EJ not only in the 

development of the action, but also in the implementation of the action. You should consider 

whether and how you can craft your action to influence its implementation in a manner 

that promotes EJ. For example, listed below are common implementation issues you 

should consider that may be of particular concern to minority, low-income, and indigenous 

populations, and tribes. 

Does your action support or enhance compliance assurance? Consider whether 

your action, when implemented, requires oversight opportunities to assess compliance 

with the requirements of your action. You should evaluate whether enhanced 

monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements can help you maximize the 

use of statutory and regulatory authority to assess and ensure compliance where 

needed, to protect adversely affected populations, including minority, low-income, 

and indigenous populations. 

Does your action support enforcement against violators? Non-compliance issues may 

impact the public health and environmental conditions affecting minority, low-income, 

and indigenous populations, particularly when violations are occurring in areas already 

disproportionately impacted by environmental hazards. Ensuring that your action is 

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

as a result of non-compliance. You should also consider the record of industry-specific 

non-compliance and evaluate whether the rule should include additional requirements. 

The decision-maker should evaluate the root cause for the non-compliance record 

when considering whether additional requirements are necessary. For example, if the 

non-compliance record is the result of inadequate capacity of any tribal or rural entity, 

additional requirements in the rule may not be warranted.

Does your action promote transparency and meaningful involvement? Actions 

that promote transparency and meaningful involvement during implementation can 

make it easier to engage minority, low-income, and indigenous populations, and 

tribes, which may improve their ability to spot non-compliance issues or identify 

ways in which implementation can be improved. For example, you should ensure 

that compliance information is readily available and accessible to the affected public. 

You should also assess how your action impacts the ability of minority, low-income, 

and indigenous populations, and tribes to meaningfully participate in subsequent 

environmental decision-making processes (e.g., permits, National Environmental 

Policy Act assessments, State Implementation Plans, other reassessments of Agency 

actions).

Does your 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 

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Your Action Involves An 

Environmental Justice Concern
11

administers.13 If you have identified possible EJ concerns that might arise during 

state, local, or tribal implementation, you should consider how your action should 

address those issues (see example below). 

Does your action provide good background information for those who will be 

involved in drafting the individual permits later? Permits are an important vehicle 

through which Agency actions are implemented within a specific location. Permits 

implement generally applicable regulatory standards by applying those standards 

to specific discharges and emissions of pollutants, which in some cases may take 

into account actual exposure experienced by minority, low-income, and indigenous 

populations in that location. To facilitate the drafting of subsequent permits, it 

is important to document whether the assumptions that form the basis of your 

generally applicable regulatory standard account for cumulative impacts, vulnerable 

or susceptible populations, or other issues related to EJ concerns.14 This will provide 

background information for whether it may be necessary to explore additional 

opportunities, within existing statutory authorities, to consider the impacts on these 

populations in a proposed permitting action.

13 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 that 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 is layered on separate but related obligations under the federal or state environmental laws.

14 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.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2 ) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

On January 22, 2010, EPA strengthened the health-based NAAQS for NO2. To determine compliance with 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 the new standard, EPA is requiring Regional 

Administrators to work with states to site 40 NO2 monitors, above the minimum number required in the two-tier 

network design, focused primarily in susceptible and vulnerable communities exposed to NO2 concentrations that 

have the potential to approach or exceed NAAQS.

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Your Action Involves An 

Environmental Justice Concern
12

D. How Can You Integrate EJ Concerns Into Your Analyses?

Workgroups should use existing guidance and resources, as well as experiences and lessons 

learned from individual rulemakings, to conduct analyses that incorporate EJ considerations. 

An Agency workgroup is assessing and developing analytical tools and methodologies for 

evaluating impacts on minority, low-income, and indigenous populations. Table 1 provides a 

list of available guidance and resources. See also Appendix E.

Table 1 – Guidance and Resources on Analysis

Environmental Justice Assessment Tools

http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/policies/ej/#tools Identifies areas with potential EJ concerns.

Compliance Resources

http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/policies/ej/#tools

Provides tools and guidance for assessing potential EJ 

concerns and implementing EJ into EPA Programs.

Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/

Guidelines.html

Provides guidance on analyzing the economic impacts of 

regulations and policies and assessing the distribution of costs 

and benefits among various segments of the population, with a 

particular focus on disadvantaged and vulnerable groups.

Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment (2003)

http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/

eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=36941

Represents the first step in a long-term effort to develop 

cumulative risk assessment guidelines; offers a simple, 

flexible structure for conducting and evaluating cumulative 

risk assessment within the EPA.

Templates for Regulatory Preambles to Address E.O. 

12898

http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary/adp-templates/

index.htm#12898

Provides information to guide the workgroup chair in 

determining the appropriate template to use with the action 

under development; text of templates included.

Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/risk/

Provides basic information for the public about 

environmental risk assessments, as well as a comprehensive 

set of links to key EPA tools, guidance and guidelines, models, 

handbooks, databases, and assessments.

Risk Characterization Handbook

http://www.epa.gov/osa/spc/pdfs/rchandbk.pdf

Serves as a single, centralized body of risk characterization 

implementation guidance to help make the risk 

characterization process transparent and the related 

products clear, consistent, and reasonable.

Distributional Analyses: Economic Impact Analyses and 

Equity Assessments

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/

Guidelines.html 

Provides information about equity assessments and how 

policies/actions affect specific populations (See Chapter 9).

Fact Sheet: Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/pages/

Guidelines.html 

Two-page fact sheet on the available guidelines.

Risk Tools – Human Health

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/nceatools_human.cfm Resource for models, databases, and other tools.

Scientific Analyses

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/index.cfm

Presents critical analyses and summaries of scientific consensus, 

vetted through a rigorous peer review process, on the risks of 

pollutants to human health and the natural environment.

Hazard Identification

http://www.epa.gov/risk_assessment/

hazardous-identification.htm and

www.epa.gov/risk

Explains hazard identification, the first of four steps in the risk 

assessment process.

Sociodemographic Data Used for Identifying Potentially 

Highly Exposed Populations 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=22562

Presents data related to factors that potentially impact 

an individual’s or group’s exposure to environmental 

contaminants based on activity patterns (how time is 

spent), microenvironments (locations where time is spent), 

and other sociodemographic data (e.g., age, gender, race, 

economic status). Discusses populations potentially more 

exposed to various chemicals of concern.

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Your Action Involves An 

Environmental Justice Concern
13

E. How Can You Achieve Meaningful Involvement?

Public involvement works best when you consult with communities early and often 

and when your efforts follow a decision-making process that the potentially impacted 

community understands and, to the extent feasible, has had a role in designing. 

Communities have unique knowledge of their goals, needs, and vulnerabilities. Through 

early public involvement, you can obtain information on issues affecting the community 

that the Agency may not be aware of and increase the understanding of such issues in the 

context of developing your action. 

There are numerous resources you 

can use to help determine what 

type and level of involvement is 

appropriate for your action.15 For 

some actions, it may be appropriate 

to engage affected communities, 

while for others it may be 

appropriate to go even further and 

invite them to the table to develop 

alternatives for consideration. The 

Agency’s public involvement policy 

and Web pages are designed to help 

users understand how:

• Different types of public involvement relate to EPA programs. 

• Public input can be used in EPA decision-making. 

• Tools can be used to support effective public involvement. 

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 your action.16 However, relying on 

the minimum notice and comment requirements is often not enough to achieve meaningful 

involvement for minority, low-income, and indigenous populations. 

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 communities you are trying 

to reach.17

15 For example, the International Association for Public Participation has developed materials that discuss the spectrum of public involvement, ranging from 

informing to empowering the public. Its publications and public involvement training opportunities can be found at www.IAP2.org. See also EPA’s extensive 

public involvement resources at http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement.

16 For a listing of key EPA program’s public participation requirements, see Engaging the American People: A Review of EPA’s Public Participation Policy and Regulations with Recommendations for Action, Appendix A (2000), available at http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/pdf/eap_appendices.pdf.

17 For more information, see EPA’s public involvement brochure, titled “How to Involve Environmental Justice Communities” (http://www.epa.gov/stakeholders/

brochures/justice.pdf) and the “Model Plan for Public Participation,” (http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/publications/nejac/model-publicpart-plan.pdf) developed by the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council.

EPA’s Public Involvement Policy: 

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.

7. Evaluate public involvement activities.

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Your Action Involves An 

Environmental Justice Concern
14

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:

• Conveying issues in ways that are tailored (e.g., translation, timing, location) to each 

community. 

• 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.

• Developing community capacity to effectively participate in future decision-making 

processes.

In planning your public 

involvement, you should identify 

different ways you might be able 

to best engage your audience. For 

some, you should consider using 

Web-based information technology 

(IT) tools, particularly those that are 

more user-centered, collaborative, or 

interactive. On the other hand, some 

communities and populations do 

not have access to the most modern 

communications tools. Remote towns and villages disseminate information using local radio 

stations, CB radio, local newspapers, posters at grocery stores or trading posts, or village/

community center/chapter meetings. Many times, reaching parents of school-age children 

may be facilitated through schools. 

It is important to note the difference 

between the meaningful involvement 

of indigenous populations as it is used 

in the EJ context and consultation 

with tribes.18 The federal government 

has a unique government-togovernment relationship with 

federally recognized tribes, which 

arises from Indian treaties, statutes, 

Executive Orders, and the historical relations between the United States and Indian Nations. 

The federal government has a trust responsibility to federally recognized tribes, and 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 actions that may affect them or their resources. 

Tribal consultation is the subject of E.O. 13175. 

18 For information on the development of EPA’s Tribal Consultation Policy, please contact your office’s tribal coordinator or the American Indian Environmental Office.

Web-Based IT Tools

Referred to as “Web 2.0 tools,” these tools generally:

 • 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 than

 just a computer (e.g., mobile phone, MP3 player).

 • Develop and deploy applications that can scale quickly to meet

 the size of the task.

Indigenous Populations and Tribes 

You should be familiar with E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Government. The Agency’s responsibilities under 

E.O. 13175 are separate from the responsibilities under E.O. 12898 

and stem from federally recognized tribes’ status as sovereign 

governments. You should note that this Guide is intended to apply to 

EJ concerns affecting federally recognized, state recognized, and nonrecognized tribes; individual tribal members, including those living 

off-reservation and Alaska Natives; and Native Hawaiians.

Part 1: Key Concepts for Understanding 

Whether Your Action Involves An 

Environmental Justice Concern
15

Part 2:

Considering Environmental Justice

During the Action Development Process

This section of the Guide describes the 

key issues related to considering EJ 

during the development of an action 

under the ADP. It is designed to help you 

identify opportunities in the ADP where 

you can: 

• Identify possible EJ concerns. 

• Plan to achieve meaningful 

involvement. 

• Plan to evaluate and address those EJ concerns. 

• Discuss potential or identified EJ concerns with management. 

• Compare how options under consideration would change the environmental and 

public health impacts on minority, low-income, and indigenous populations. 

• Document your efforts to achieve meaningful involvement and address potential EJ 

concerns. 

An Agency workgroup is assessing and developing analytical tools and methodologies 

for evaluating impacts on minority, low-income, and indigenous populations. For more 

information, see Part 1, Section D, and Appendix E. 

A. Who is Responsible for Considering EJ During the 

Development of an Action Under the ADP? 

All workgroup members are responsible for working to protect minority, low-income, and 

indigenous populations from adverse public health and environmental impacts of our 

programs, policies, and activities to the extent permitted by applicable laws, including 

environmental and civil rights statutes and their implementing regulations, consistent with 

E.O. 12898. Based on your participation in the development of an action, you may have 

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 E.O. 

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 OPEI’s intranet site http://intranet.epa.gov/

adplibrary.

During the Action Development Process

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice 
16Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During the Action Development Process

additional specific responsibilities, as outlined below. Your program office may, however, 

assign responsibilities differently than as described below, so it is important to be familiar 

with your office’s unique allocation of responsibilities for considering EJ in the ADP. See the 

ADP Guidance for general information about the roles and responsibilities of the different 

participants in the development of an action.

1. Managers. In general, as the 

ultimate decision-makers for the 

action, EPA managers establish policy 

priorities, communicate expectations 

for the workgroup, identify issues of 

significant concern, and guide the process of developing the action. As a result, managers 

play a key role in ensuring that the potential EJ implications of an action are considered 

during the ADP. Managers decide early in the process the appropriate level of analysis and 

engagement of stakeholders, considering factors such as the legal framework governing the 

action, the availability of relevant data and analytical methodologies, stakeholder interest, 

and the impacts that EJ concerns are likely to have on the actual decisions involving 

your action. Based on the application of these criteria, some actions will be identified 

for enhanced efforts, which may require developing new data, applying more advanced 

analytical methodologies, and conducting more extensive and targeted engagement of 

stakeholders. Managers will convey their determinations on the appropriate level of 

analysis and stakeholder engagement to the workgroup and to OPEI. 

In particular, managers are likely to ask workgroups about their efforts to address the 

following questions at key points during the development of the action under the ADP (such 

as at Early Guidance, Options Selection, or Final Agency Review):

1. How will your (or how did your) public participation process provide transparency 

and meaningful participation for minority, low-income, and indigenous populations, 

and tribes?

2. How do you plan to (or how did you) identify and address existing and new 

disproportionate environmental and public health impacts on minority, low-income, 

and indigenous populations during the rulemaking process? 

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

Appendix C provides a quick reference for EPA managers on when and how they can 

participate in the action’s development to ensure that the workgroup identifies and evaluates 

potential EJ concerns.

2. The Chair or Action Lead. As the leader of the effort, your role is to facilitate and 

oversee the effort to achieve meaningful involvement and to consider EJ concerns during the 

development of the action. Appendix D provides a checklist to identify what the chair may 

need to know and/or do to integrate EJ into the development of the action. 

Managers establish policy priorities, communicate expectations 

to the workgroup, decide whether or not an identified EJ concern 

warrants further evaluation, and determine the level of analysis and 

public involvement and the resources available for those activities.
17 During the Action Development Process Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice 

3. The Workgroup. The workgroup is 

responsible for ensuring meaningful involvement 

and consideration of EJ concerns during the 

development of the action under the ADP. 

Workgroup members influence the scope and 

content of analyses of EJ concerns that support an 

action. Workgroup members, as representatives of 

their program offices or regions, should keep their 

senior management informed of EJ concerns and 

decisions in a timely manner so that the program 

offices or Regions can formulate appropriate 

responses.

In general, the workgroup will identify EJ concerns that may arise during action development 

and opportunities available to enhance the effectiveness of an action by addressing EJ concerns. 

By identifying and addressing EJ concerns, the workgroup ensures that its actions comply with 

applicable requirements and that it will be prepared to describe its efforts to achieve meaningful 

involvement and address EJ concerns during the development of the action. 

4. The Analysts. For the most part, the analysts—those performing the economic or 

scientific 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 

an action. In either case, the analyst plays a key role in identifying the analytical topics that 

will need to be addressed during the development of an action, as well as leading or actively 

participating in the analytical efforts.

In general, and depending on the action under development, the workgroup and/or analyst may 

need to consider whether one or more scientific or economic analyses are needed to support the 

action.19 It is also important to note that these analyses may be quantitative, qualitative, or both. 

Economic Analysis:

EPA’s peer-reviewed Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses establish a sound scientific 

framework for performing economic analyses of environmental regulations and policies. 

They provide guidance on analyzing the distribution of costs and benefits among various 

segments of the population, with a particular focus on disadvantaged or vulnerable groups.20

In many EPA actions, the following areas of analysis could be informed by economics: 

• Characterization of the industry and the environmental/health problem. 

• Costs of options (e.g., social costs, discounting, no-action scenarios). 

• Benefits of options (e.g., monetization, distributional effects, sensitive populations, 

valuation of health/mortality impacts on children, latency, ecological benefits). 

19 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.

20 See Chapter 9: Distributional Analyses: Economic Impact Analyses and Equity Assessments. Economic information is important to the evaluation of at least two 

consequences—a regulation’s efficiency and its distributional consequences. In addition, an equity assessment can provide information to decision-makers on 

how policies affect specific populations. For example, disadvantaged or vulnerable populations (e.g., low-income households) may be of particular concern.

What is the Workgroup?

The workgroup consists of representatives from 

interested program offices and Regions. The 

workgroup develops the draft regulation or other 

action, 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.
18

• Cross-media impacts. 

• Results and option selection (e.g., presentation of policy alternatives, incremental effects). 

• Other analyses involving economics.

Scientific Analysis:

The quality of scientific analysis that informs EPA decisions is vital to the credibility of 

those decisions and ultimately EPA’s effectiveness in protecting public health and the 

environment. Scientific analyses and reviews encompass topics beyond just biology and 

chemistry. For example, scientific research is crucial to informing risk assessments, 

hazard assessments, exposure assessments, or other studies, as well as shedding 

light on what technologies might be feasible. EPA’s peer-reviewed Risk Assessment 

Guidelines (http://www.epa.gov/risk) establish sound scientific procedures and 

methods to help guide EPA scientists in conducting risk assessments, and also serve 

to inform EPA decision-makers and the public about these procedures. The guidelines 

include procedures and methods for assessing susceptibility from early life exposures 

to carcinogens and a framework for assessing cumulative risks, both of which are 

important considerations when assessing whether your action involves disproportionate 

impacts, and thus, a potential EJ concern.

Other EPA peer-reviewed guidelines are also available that provide procedures and 

methods for assessing the potential exposures to and hazards of chemicals and other 

agents. The following examples of scientific analyses are used to support many Agency 

actions:21

• Risk Assessment 

o Hazard Identification22

o Exposure Assessment 

o Risk Characterization

• Cumulative Risk Assessment

• Technology Feasibility Analysis

As discussed in more detail later in this Guide, the plan for addressing the scientific and/

or economic analyses needed to support the action should be specifically addressed in the 

Analytic Blueprint. As part of the planning effort, the analyst can help identify available 

data and/or information that may need to be collected to inform the planning process and 

be used in the analyses. As a result, the analysts can play a key role in identifying and 

evaluating the potential EJ concerns related to the options under consideration during the 

development of an action. 

21 For more information on EPA’s scientific analyses, please visit the National Center for Environmental Assessment at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/index.cfm. You 

can also find valuable information at www.epa.gov/risk.

22 For more information, please visit http://www.epa.gov/ncea/risk/hazardous-identification.htm.

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice 

During the Action Development Process
19

B. How Do You Consider Whether You Need to Evaluate 

EJ Concerns During the Development of Your Action 

Under the ADP?

As stated throughout this Guide, E.O. 12898 and EPA’s EJ policies apply to all Agency 

actions, so you will need to consider whether EJ concerns may be an issue with regard 

to your action. Your program office may have additional guidance applicable to the ADP 

or requirements for program-specific actions that involve similar or identical issues. Your 

program office may also have a screening process to help identify whether an action or 

category of actions might have the potential to impact minority, low-income, or indigenous 

populations. Before you begin, check with your EJ Coordinator to find out if your program 

office has developed any specific guidance or screening process applicable to your action. 

This Guide encourages program offices to utilize a screening process to help you determine 

whether your action may raise potential EJ concerns requiring further evaluation as you 

go through the ADP, or whether EJ concerns are not expected to be a factor at all in your 

action. This screening can help your office focus its resources and efforts on actions where 

there are opportunities to identify and address EJ concerns. The screening decision may 

need to be revisited multiple times in the beginning stages of the ADP as more information 

becomes available. As part of this process, you should also consult with OGC and/or the 

appropriate program office staff if you have questions about the opportunities for addressing 

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

There is no prescribed formula for how a program office should conduct a screening 

process. A screening process may have several important elements, including: 

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

and indigenous populations. This may include:

• The proximity of what you are regulating 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.

• Expressed community concerns about your action, if any.

2. A description of potential impacts on meaningful involvement. This may entail 

understanding whether your action presents opportunities to improve public 

involvement requirements or limits opportunities in some way.

Depending on your program office needs, a screening process may include additional 

considerations for circumstances where it may be impracticable to do an evaluation of EJ 

concerns, or where an evaluation of EJ concerns may not have the potential to influence the 

outcome of the action and options under consideration.

EPA managers will make a decision after considering your determination of whether or not 

EJ concerns will need further evaluation as you develop your action under the ADP. It is 

important to document your manager’s decision, including the information on which this 

During the Action Development Process

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice 
20Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During the Action Development Process

decision is based. This documentation should become part of the record for your action 

and will help establish that you are complying with the directives of E.O. 12898 and EJ 

policies. Managers may want to review this documentation and discuss whether further 

consideration of EJ concerns is appropriate.

C. When Should You Consider EJ Concerns During the 

Development of Your Action Under the ADP?

The following is a description of the potential opportunities for considering EJ concerns 

at the specific steps in developing an action under the ADP. If you are unable to follow 

the activities for a particular step of the ADP, they 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 actions 

developed under Tier 1 and 2 of the ADP, because actions developed under Tier 3 may not 

follow all the same procedural steps. For example, a formal Analytic Blueprint (preliminary 

or detailed) is optional for actions developed under Tier 3. Even though a particular ADP 

step may not apply to your Tier 3 action, you should consider EJ concerns regardless of the 

tiering level assigned to your action. E.O. 12898 and the Agency’s EJ policies apply to all 

Agency actions.

Appendix B includes a flowchart titled Incorporating Environmental Justice into Tier 1 and 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. 

Appendix B also includes a flowchart that shows when EJ-related questions could be asked 

and answered during the development of a Tier 3 action. The discussion that follows in this 

Guide is linked to the numbered steps used in these process flowcharts. 

ADP Steps 1 and 2 – Action Initiation and Tiering

Once the Agency decides to initiate an action (Steps 1 and 2), the next step of the ADP is 

tiering. At this point, the lead must fill out a tiering form in the Rule and Policy Information 

and Development System (RAPIDS) that provides basic information about the action 

being initiated. RAPIDS is a tracking system for Tier 1 and 2 rules. Table 2 displays the 

EJ question you will currently find in RAPIDS.23 For some offices, the EJ question asked at 

tiering may also serve the function of the initial screening process discussed in the previous 

section. For other offices, you might have a screening process in place that can inform how 

you answer this question at tiering.

23 This question is subject to change as we gain more experience integrating EJ concerns into the ADP.
21 During the Action Development Process Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice 

Table 2 – EJ Question in RAPIDS

As you prepare to answer the EJ question displayed in Table 2, there are some important 

things you should keep in mind.

• You are expected to make an informed decision based on readily accessible 

information and what you already know about the action and its potential EJ 

implications. 

• Note that the question asks about actions that may be of particular interest to or have 

particular impacts on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, or tribes. This 

is meant to inform the determination of whether your action may involve a potential 

EJ concern as defined in Part 1 of this Guide. The question recognizes that at this 

early step in the ADP, you might not have sufficient information to determine whether 

an EJ concern is associated with your action. You can use the checklist provided 

in Table 2 to help determine whether your action may involve a subject that is of 

particular interest to or may have particular impacts on these populations. Keep in 

mind that the list is illustrative.

Environmental Justice

Does this action involve a topic that is likely to be of particular interest to or have particular impact upon minority, lowincome, or indigenous populations, or tribes?

m Yes – If you answer Yes, please check a minimum of one of the following 

options:

p The action is likely to impact the health of these populations.

p The action is likely to impact the environmental conditions of 

these populations.

p The action is likely to present an opportunity to address an 

existing disproportionate impact on these populations.

p 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.

p The action is likely to affect the availability of information to 

these populations or tribes.

p Other reasons - Explain: _________________________________

______________________________________

Comments:

m No – Selecting No means that this action is not likely to be of any particular 

interest to these populations or tribes. Explain: 

__________________________________________________

Comments:

m 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:
22Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During the Action Development Process

• The question encourages you to think broadly about whether your action may be of 

particular interest to minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, or tribes. An 

action may be of particular interest if it concerns a topic that these populations or 

tribes have identified as important. For example, the development of national ambient 

air quality standards or permitting rules may be of interest, even though they may not 

have particular impacts on these populations or tribes. If an action may be of particular 

interest to, but may not have particular impacts on these populations or tribes, you 

may not need to evaluate your action for EJ concerns, but you may need to provide 

opportunities for meaningful involvement in the development of your action.

• Answering “yes” to this question signals that EJ concerns are likely to be involved 

in your action. While this does not mean that you are required to do an in-depth 

analysis for EJ, you are expected to evaluate EJ concerns as you develop your 

action and consider how your action may address those concerns based on readily 

available data. If you believe your action might involve a potential EJ concern, 

you may request that an EJ Coordinator be assigned to join the workgroup or 

otherwise support the action. Do this by requesting OPEI or 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 Be Determined) to this question signals that you should 

consider whether there are potential EJ concerns associated with your action as you 

go through the ADP. You are expected to build in the proper outreach and evaluation 

activities to determine whether EJ concerns are involved and how those concerns can 

be addressed before you develop the final action. 

• Your answer to this question (along 

with other information on the tiering 

form) will be part of the Agency’s 

Rulemaking Gateway, the Internet 

portal for Tier 1 and Tier 2 rules. The 

Gateway offers the public a means of 

learning about and tracking actions. 

One of the Gateway features allows you 

to sort actions based on the responses 

to the EJ question displayed in Table 2. 

The Gateway is updated on a monthly 

basis, so any updates you make to your 

action’s Maintenance Form in RAPIDS is reflected on the Gateway throughout the life 

of the action. You can access the Rulemaking Gateway Website at http://www.epa.gov/

rulemaking/. 

• You will be asked to reconsider your answer to this question during the semiannual update of the Agency’s Regulatory Agenda. This will provide you with an 

opportunity to update your answer based on new information or the results of your 

evaluation.

What is the Rulemaking Gateway?

The Rulemaking Gateway, a new feature of EPA’s Laws 

& Regulations Website, presents general information 

about EPA’s rulemakings to the public in a user friendly 

format. In addition to providing basic information 

such as the title, an abstract, the docket number, and 

major milestones, the Gateway provides available 

information on potential effects on a variety of 

institutions, communities, and specific populations 

(e.g., children’s health, environmental justice, tribal 

governments) associated with your action.
23 During the Action Development Process Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice 

ADP Step 3 – Preliminary Analytic 

Blueprint (PABP)

The PABP, which is required for all Tier 1 and 

2 actions, provides an opportunity to revisit 

your screening decision and identify what steps 

you will take to ensure that EJ concerns are 

considered in the development of the action. 

It is important to take the time to scope out 

explicitly the parameters of inquiry relating 

to EJ, or put another way, to articulate the 

potential EJ concerns and how you will explore 

and approach them in developing the action. 

Careful consideration of EJ concerns in the PABP can improve your action by ensuring 

appropriate consideration in planning the activities of your workgroup; facilitating 

cross-Agency sharing of valuable information, expertise, and perspectives; and fostering 

early agreement on key questions through a structured workgroup process and written 

documents. This early planning will help you foster collaborative efforts to develop a wellsupported and documented action and avoid last minute workgroup debates over the type of 

information or analyses that should be available. For actions where EJ concerns may be an 

important consideration, you should consider consulting with individuals with EJ expertise. 

You should also be aware of opportunities to coordinate data collection and analytical efforts 

with children’s health impact analyses.24

24 See E.O. 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,” and 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.

What is the PABP?

The PABP is an early planning document that 

describes the major issues that need to be addressed 

in rule development to meet statutory, regulatory, 

and Agency requirements. The purposes of the PABP 

are to:

 • Promote management involvement by supporting 

early management guidance on basic issues.

 • Alert workgroup members and their offices to areas 

where work should begin.

 • Identify data needs and plan collection efforts.

 • Outline the Detailed Blueprint.

Consider a broad array of opportunities to integrate the meaningful involvement 

of minority, low-income, and indigenous populations, and tribes in the 

development and implementation of your action. 

As you develop your action:

 - Reach out to potentially 

affected populations and 

tribes early.

 - Include them in data 

gathering.

 - Engage them in developing 

options to address the 

issue(s).

 - Consider their role for future 

activities.

If your action establishes 

a framework or regulatory 

standards for subsequent 

actions, make sure to:

 - Provide opportunities for 

public involvement in the 

subsequent actions.

 - Engage potentially affected 

population and tribes in the 

subsequent actions.

As you implement the action 

and continue to manage the 

ongoing program:

 - Build awareness. 

 - Provide information.

 - Involve potentially affected 

populations and tribes in 

program activities.

 - Seek feedback.

 - Be transparent.
24Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice During the Action Development Process

If you believe the action may have EJ concerns, then your PABP should (to the extent 

possible):

• 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 (e.g., 

consultation with tribes, engagement of potentially interested stakeholders).

• Describe the plans and resource needs for evaluating impacts, including potential 

disproportionate impacts.

• Identify available EJ assessment tools, as well as related needs for data collection, 

expertise, and resources.

• Identify potential analytical issues that will need to be raised to management or 

otherwise 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 the 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 action’s development. 

Given that the framework for identifying and addressing EJ concerns is part of an iterative 

process, it is important to revisit, as appropriate, the scope of inquiry relating to your evaluation 

of EJ concerns in later stages of the ADP as information and ideas continue to develop.

The PABP is an important vehicle for raising EJ concerns to management. Once developed, 

you should submit the PABP to senior management as part of your request for Early Guidance, 

typically within 60 days of the date the tiering designation was approved by OPEI. This allows 

workgroup members to consult with their management on the general direction for the action. 

All members of the workgroup should agree beforehand that the PABP is ready to be provided 

to senior management. If workgroup members cannot agree, the issues of disagreement should 

be presented to management for resolution. The expectation is that management will give 

early guidance within 30 days of receiving the PABP.

ADP Step 4 – Early Guidance

In this step, managers discuss their expectation 

that you consider potential EJ concerns during 

action development. Early Guidance always 

comes from senior management, although the 

level of management giving guidance differs for 

Tier 1 and Tier 2 actions: 

• Tier 1: The Administrator or Deputy 

Administrator provides Early Guidance, 

Early Guidance from Managers

Determines the appropriate level of analysis and 

engagement of stakeholders, based on: 

 • Stakeholder interest.

 • Legal framework governing the action. 

 • Availability of data. 

 • Availability of resources and timeline for 

developing the action. 

 • Impacts that EJ concerns are likely to have on the 

actual decisions involving your action. 
25 During the Action Development Process Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice 

with input from participating Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators 

(AAs/RAs) from across the Agency. If the guidance is not given directly to the workgroup, 

the lead AA/RA is responsible for assuring that it is communicated to them.

• Tier 2: The lead AA/RA, in consultation with other participating AAs/RAs, gives 

Early Guidance to the workgroup. The lead AA/RA should consider policy issues and 

priorities of other AAs/RAs when giving Early Guidance. In some cases, the AAs/RAs 

may delegate this authority explicitly to an Office Director. 

In addition, at Early Guidance, discuss with your manager your proposed approaches for 

considering potential EJ concerns and any potential complications or issues in doing so. Be 

prepared to respond to management questions about whether your action may involve an 

EJ concern, and how this was ascertained. For actions that may involve an EJ concern, you 

should also be prepared to respond to the management questions outlined in Section A above. 

You should be prepared to explain resources required to identify and evaluate EJ concerns, 

including data needs. 

ADP Step 5 — Detailed Analytic Blueprint (DABP)

The DABP should incorporate the directions 

received through Early Guidance from senior 

management. As such, the preparation of the 

DABP provides you 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 

action. This includes the activities for analysis 

and outreach, including scientific and economic 

analysis, consultation with tribes, stakeholder 

involvement (including meaningful involvement of 

minority, low-income, and indigenous populations), 

information gathering, alternative approaches 

considered, the timeline, and opportunities to 

coordinate data collection and analytical efforts with children’s health impacts analyses. If there are 

identified EJ concerns, you can also develop a detailed public involvement plan that considers the 

needs, capacities, cultural practices, and languages of the affected communities. 

The DABP may 1) identify a preliminary plan to confirm that your action does involve EJ 

concerns, 2) estimate the magnitude of such concerns, and 3) guide the initial development 

of any options regarding those concerns. If the workgroup decides to prepare a quantitative or 

qualitative evaluation of EJ concerns, the DABP should describe:

• The office and workgroup members with lead responsibility for the preliminary and 

detailed assessments of EJ concerns.

• The data needs and data sources for the EJ assessment.

• The scope and basic methodology of the EJ assessment. 

• The outputs of the EJ assessment.

• The schedule and resources required to prepare the EJ assessment.

What is the DABP?

The DABP builds on the PABP to provide decision-makers 

with a detailed description of both the information that 

will be available to help them select options and the 

analyses and other activities that will be conducted to 

prepare this information. A DABP serves four purposes:

 • Incorporates senior management guidance received 

on the PABP.

 • Alerts management and various offices to any 

important issues that have arisen since the PABP.

 • Helps the workgroup plan and schedule the analysis.

 • Documents the agreement among the workgroup 

participants and management on the scope and 

framework of the analyses.
26

In addition, the DABP should describe your planned activities to ensure that you can answer 

the following questions at Options Selection:

1. How did your public participation process provide transparency and meaningful 

participation for minority, low-income, and indigenous populations, and tribes?

This question asks you to document the proactive steps taken, beyond minimum notice 

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

development of your action. This would include any outreach (including any outreach to EPA 

Regional Offices; state, tribal, and local governments; outreach specialists; and community 

organizations), public meetings, information sessions, workshops, or other activities designed 

to identify and encourage the participation of these populations and tribes.

2. How did you identify and address existing and new disproportionate environmental 

and public health impacts on minority, low-income, and indigenous populations?

This question asks you to document the proactive steps taken to identify and address 

disproportionate impacts on the public health and environment of these populations. 

This could include any investigation and characterization you performed of geographic 

areas or populations that are likely to be most affected by your action. As part of this 

evaluation, you are encouraged to look at the distribution of the positive environmental 

and health consequences from our activities. You should ensure that you have identified 

and addressed issues that are of concern to populations with the greatest need for 

environmental and public health protection through your activities. 

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

This question asks you to describe how the analysis of impacts and the public 

involvement opportunities made a difference in the outcome of the action or why 

they made no difference. This would include a brief discussion of how decisionmakers considered the information on impacts and the concerns articulated by these 

populations, what actions were taken as a result, and the rationale for the decisions. 

You should note that not all actions will raise EJ concerns. For actions that do not raise 

EJ concerns, you can answer these questions by showing that the action either: 

• Underwent a screening process designed to identify those actions that may raise 

potential EJ concerns and those that do not, or

• After thorough research and analysis, you have made a determination that your action 

does not involve any EJ concerns.

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice 

During the Action Development Process

Rulemaking Gateway

During the course of developing the PABP and DABP, your office may alter its belief that an action might be of particular 

interest to or have particular impacts upon minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, or tribes. Should such a change 

occur, you should alter the answer you provide to the EJ Question in RAPIDS (illustrated in the section titled “ADP Steps 1 and 

2”). The EJ Question is on the Maintenance Form for every action in RAPIDS and can be altered at any time. Changes to Tier 1 

and Tier 2 actions are updated once a month on the Rulemaking Gateway so the public can access EPA’s latest thinking about 

an action.
27

ADP Step 6 – Management Approval 

of the DABP

The review and approval of the DABP provides 

another important opportunity for you to check 

in with your management to determine whether 

and how potential EJ concerns will be identified and considered during the development of the 

action. For example, during the formal cross-Agency review of the draft DABP, the workgroup 

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 EJ concerns. The approving 

official can also use this as an opportunity to consider how well the DABP addresses EJ concerns 

before approving the DABP.

Once the DABP is approved, management has determined the appropriate level of analysis 

and engagement for your action. In the absence of any compelling circumstances that would 

cause management to revisit this determination, you should follow the direction provided by 

management 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, you should implement the DABP and investigate the problem, gather relevant 

information, consult with stakeholders and affected communities, and develop options for 

resolving the problem.25 Integrated into all of these activities should be the consideration 

of whether there are EJ concerns, and if so, how these concerns might be addressed. You 

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 EJ concerns. 

Although analyses to evaluate EJ concerns will vary from action to action, they typically 

have the same starting point. Generally, you should describe the estimated or current 

baseline impacts of the pollutant, process, or activity that the action is concerned with. It is 

particularly important to characterize the potential impacts on minority, low-income, and 

indigenous populations. The analysis should cover the full 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. 

The process of getting to the “final” options is usually an iterative process. As analyses 

become more detailed, you should fine-tune the options to maximize benefits, reduce costs, 

and increase feasibility. At the end of the process, the detailed final options are supported 

by detailed analyses sufficient to provide support for option selection. The detailed analysis 

should 1) provide information that will allow decision-makers to select the final action and 

2) fulfill executive and statutory requirements for regulatory analysis. 

25 See previous discussion about preparing the DABP. The DABP 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, at http://www.epa.gov/osa/spc/pdfs/rchandbk.pdf 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.

During the Action Development Process

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice 

Does the DABP Address EJ?

The DABP presents the plan that implements 

the management decision regarding the level of 

analysis and engagement of stakeholders.
28

The detailed analysis also should produce documents that describe the basis for the 

regulatory decision to stakeholders and the public. You can include the detailed analysis 

evaluating EJ concerns in the Economic Analysis (EA) or the Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA), or as an attachment. Alternatively, you can reference the analysis with only a 

summary in the actual text of the EA or RIA. Either of these approaches will allow for 

easy review of the technical aspects of the assessment by experts in the field or interested 

stakeholders, and allow for easy revision to the EA or RIA if aspects of the assessment 

change in response to new data or public comments. 

ADP Step 8 – Options Selection

Options selection is the last step in the ADP 

before you complete drafting the action. 

In this step, you identify the significant 

issues and several options to resolve each 

issue. Senior management then selects those 

options that would best achieve the goals of 

the action. Selecting an action from among 

many options is a complex process. The extent to which EJ concerns factor into the process 

will vary considerably across 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 for final decision-making, you have another 

opportunity to consider whether identified EJ concerns have been addressed. Management 

will also have an opportunity to confirm that you have considered and addressed EJ 

concerns, including any necessary consultations to achieve meaningful involvement. Your 

options selection presentation should describe your activities and efforts to assess identified 

EJ concerns and to involve affected communities and stakeholders. The presentation should 

also describe what actions are recommended to ensure that EJ concerns are addressed by 

each of the options being presented. You should be prepared to discuss the options under 

consideration in the action (e.g., pollution control options) in light of their impacts on 

minority, low-income, and indigenous populations, including reductions in exposure or risk. 

In presenting the results of the analysis evaluating EJ concerns to management, you should 

be aware of the specific statutory and other important criteria management 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, you should be prepared to discuss the management questions outlined above 

in Section A. You should also note that actions that impact the availability of information or 

the ability to participate meaningfully in the implementation of a program may have indirect 

impacts on these populations and tribes that should be considered. For example, a rule that 

What Happens at Options Selection?

 • In presenting the options, address the EJ concerns 

identified, using the core management questions as 

your guide. 

 • Managers consider EJ concerns in selecting options.

 • You document what was done.

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice 

During the Action Development Process
29

loosens or tightens reporting requirements for regulated industries may make it easier or 

harder for communities to be effective watchdogs for facilities that are of concern to them. 

This kind of impact should be considered.

ADP Step 9 – Preparation of the Action and Supporting Documents

In this step, you prepare the action under the leadership of the workgroup chair. In the 

case of a regulatory action, this step includes preparing the rule and preamble and the 

supporting documents. The evaluation of EJ concerns is part of this step. 

At this stage, you may document how you identified, assessed, and addressed EJ concerns 

and how you achieved the meaningful involvement of minority, low-income, and indigenous 

populations, and tribes. Even if you concluded there were no EJ concerns, your activities 

that led to that conclusion should be documented. It is important that pertinent documents 

relating to EJ concerns are understandable and readily accessible to the public in the docket 

for the action.

In general, the preamble for the action should clearly state how the action is supported by 

the results of the analyses to evaluate EJ concerns. If the data to characterize 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. Suggested template language for addressing E.O. 12898 in preambles is available in 

the ADP library (http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary) and covers both proposed and final 

rules. However, your documentation is not limited to the inclusion of appropriate language 

in the preamble to address compliance with E.O. 12898. 

ADP Step 10 – Final Agency Review 

(FAR)

Once the action has been developed, a package 

is presented to the workgroup for FAR. The 

FAR package consists of the final drafts of the 

action itself [e.g., the Federal Register (FR) 

document representing the proposed rule], 

the supporting documents (e.g., the economic 

impact analysis and, if prepared separately, 

any scientific analysis), the Action Memorandum, and any other relevant documents [e.g., the 

Information Collection Request (ICR), Communications Plan].

During the Action Development Process

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice 

Rulemaking Gateway

During the course of your analyses (Step 7) and Options Selection (Step 8), your office may alter its belief that an action might 

be of particular interest to or have particular impacts upon minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, or tribes. Should 

such a change occur, you should alter the answer you provide to the EJ Question in RAPIDS (illustrated in the section titled 

“ADP Steps 1 and 2”). The EJ Question is on the Maintenance Form for every action in RAPIDS and can be altered at any time. 

Changes to Tier 1 and Tier 2 actions are updated once a month on the Rulemaking Gateway so the public can access EPA’s 

latest thinking about an action

What is FAR?

FAR is the last point for internal EPA review of an 

action, and all FAR comments reflect the views of 

each participating AA/RA. For Tier 1 and 2 actions, 

a FAR meeting is chaired by OPEI’s Regulatory 

Management Division and serves to confirm that: 

all issues have been resolved or elevated; the action 

package is ready for OMB submission (if required) or 

signature; and all EPA and external requirements have 

been met.
30

As part of the draft Action Memorandum, you should specifically address the management 

questions identified in Section A above. These answers will accompany the action when it goes to 

the Administrator or other Agency official for signature. 

This is the final opportunity for you, management, and, if appropriate, the EJ Coordinator 

for the lead office, to consider whether identified EJ concerns have been considered and 

addressed, and to ensure that you have properly documented those efforts. 

ADP Steps 11 & 12 – Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review (if 

“significant” under E.O. 12866)

If the regulatory action requires OMB review, you will have to prepare a package for 

submission to OMB. Although the package will generally include the same documents 

identified above, only the FR document and supporting documents go to OMB. The package 

is submitted through your AA/RA’s representative to OPEI’s Regulatory Management Division 

(RMD), for transmittal to OMB. Once AA/OPEI approves the transmittal of the package to 

OMB, RMD submits the action 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).

As the lead office revises the action based on discussions with OMB, it should be aware 

of the measures taken to address the identified EJ concerns so that those efforts are not 

inadvertently undone or adversely affected by changes made to the action during OMB 

review. Changes made by OMB should be documented and included in the docket.

ADP Step 13 – Signature and Publication

As part of this step in the process, the lead program prepares the action for signature 

by the designated Agency official and subsequent publication in the FR. Most tiered 

actions are signed by the Administrator. The lead AA/RA is responsible for requesting the 

Administrator’s signature via an Action Memorandum. The lead AA/RA then submits the 

signature package to OPEI’s RMD. Once the AA/OPEI verifies that the action is ready for 

signature, RMD transmits the package to the Office of the Executive Secretariat for the 

Administrator’s signature. For actions not signed by the Administrator, final verification that 

the action is ready for signature is the responsibility of the lead program.

Once signed by the appropriate official, the FR document is processed for submission to 

OPEI26, which is responsible for transmitting the document to the Office of the Federal 

Register for final publication. In addition, you should ensure that all relevant documentation 

26 The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention has a separate FR submission process.

Rulemaking Gateway

During OMB review, your office may alter its belief that an action might be of particular interest to or have particular impacts 

upon minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, or tribes. Should such a change occur, you should alter the answer 

you provide to the EJ Question in RAPIDS (illustrated in the section titled “ADP Steps 1 and 2”). The EJ Question is on the 

Maintenance Form for every action in RAPIDS and can be altered at any time. Changes to Tier 1 and Tier 2 actions are updated 

once a month on the Rulemaking Gateway so the public can access EPA’s latest thinking about an action.

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice 

During the Action Development Process
31

regarding your consideration of 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 provides another opportunity for you to consider ways to ensure that the public 

comment process allows for meaningful involvement of affected communities and tribes, 

both in terms of providing a sufficient comment period and in terms of notification, 

communication, or outreach to actively engage affected communities and tribes. This may 

include holding one or more public meetings or hearings in or near affected communities and 

tribes. If a public meeting and/or hearing is held, you should ensure there is sufficient notice 

about it and that it is scheduled at a time and place convenient to the affected communities 

and tribes, with appropriate translation services. These activities may also be scheduled prior 

to the issuance of the proposal and related public comment period.

Successful solicitation of public comments from affected communities and tribes may 

incorporate tailored outreach materials that are concise, understandable, and readily 

accessible to the communities you are trying to reach. It may be necessary to identify 

different ways to best engage your target community. For example, you may want to 

consider whether to enhance outreach to potentially affected communities, including the 

use of Web 2.0 tools for online dialogues, blogs, tweets, etc., or other available state-of-theart technologies. For remote towns and villages, local radio stations, local newspapers, and 

posters at village or community centers may represent the most effective approach.

ADP Step 16 – Developing the Final Action 

Even before the comment period ends, you can begin reviewing public comments. When 

preparing for the final stage of the action, your first step is to evaluate the public comments, 

which provides another opportunity for you 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, you should evaluate whether the consideration of EJ concerns 

in the analyses performed for the proposed action needs to be refined or revised, and if so, 

how. If EPA did not consider EJ concerns in their analyses, you should consider whether the 

public comments raise issues that may warrant reconsideration. 

You should then brief management on the scope of the comments received and recommend 

how to respond to comments. Management 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). Management guidance will also 

identify which process steps you should follow in preparing the final action. These steps 

may vary based on the nature and extent of comments, or other factors. 

You are expected to consider and respond to all significant public comments that are relevant 

to the proposal and submitted during the applicable comment period. The consideration of 

significant comments, including how they are being addressed in the final action, should be 

During the Action Development Process

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice 
32

documented consistent with legal requirements and applicable docket policies. Generally, 

all significant public comments received by the Agency should be responded to either in the 

preamble of the action itself or in an accompanying Response to Comments document. 

In general, you will be expected to follow the same basic process steps to finalize the action, 

thereby having additional opportunities to ensure that you satisfy the Agency’s commitments 

to both identify and address EJ concerns, and to provide meaningful involvement in the 

ADP.

The Action Memorandum for the final action should address the management questions 

identified previously, as well as related public comments, and how the action changed as 

a result of those comments. These answers will accompany the action when it goes to the 

Administrator or other Agency official for signature.

Rulemaking Gateway

When considering public comments and consulting with management, your office may alter its belief that an action might 

be of particular interest to or have particular impacts upon minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, or tribes. Should 

such a change occur, you should alter the answer you provide to the EJ Question in RAPIDS (illustrated in the section titled 

“ADP Steps 1 and 2”). The EJ Question is on the Maintenance Form for every action in RAPIDS and can be altered at any time. 

Changes to Tier 1 and Tier 2 actions are updated once a month on the Rulemaking Gateway so the public can access EPA’s 

latest thinking about an action.

Part 2: Considering Environmental Justice 

During the Action Development Process
Appendix A

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations1

Title 3—The President

“By the authority invested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United 

States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:”

Section 1-1. Implementation.

1-101. Agency Responsibilities. To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, 

and consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National Performance 

Review, each 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 programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories 

and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the 

Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands. 

1-102. Creation of an Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice. (a) Within 3 months 

of the date of this order, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 

(“Administrator”) or the Administrator’s designee shall convene an interagency Federal 

Working Group on Environmental Justice (“Working Group”). The Working Group shall 

comprise the heads of the following executive agencies and offices, or their designees: (a)

Department of Defense; (b) Department of Health and Human Services; (c) Department of 

Housing and Urban Development; (d) Department of Labor; (e) Department of Agriculture; (f) 

Department of Transportation; (g) Department of Justice; (h) Department of the Interior; (i) 

Department of Commerce; (j) Department of Energy; (k) Environmental Protection Agency; 

(1) Office of Management and Budget; (m) Office of Science and Technology Policy; (n) Office 

of the Deputy Assistant to the President for Environmental Policy; (o) Office of the Assistant 

to the President for Domestic Policy; (p) National Economic Council; (q) Council of Economic 

Advisers; and (r) such other Government officials as the President may designate. The 

Working Group shall report to the President through the Deputy Assistant to the President for 

Environmental Policy and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy. 

(b) The Working Group shall: (1) provide guidance to Federal agencies on criteria for 

identifying disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on 

minority populations and low-income populations; 

1 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994.

Appendix A: Executive Order 12898: 

Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

A-1
(2) coordinate with, provide guidance to, and serve as a clearinghouse for, each Federal 

agency as it develops an environmental justice strategy as required by section 1-103 of 

this order, in order to ensure that the administration, interpretation and enforcement of 

programs, activities and policies are undertaken in a consistent manner; 

(3) assist in coordinating research by, and stimulating cooperation among, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other agencies conducting 

research or other activities in accordance with section 3-3 of this order; 

(4) assist in coordinating data collection, required by this order; 

(5) examine existing data and studies on environmental justice; 

(6) hold public meetings as required in section 5-502(d) of this order; and 

(7) develop interagency model projects on environmental justice that evidence 

cooperation among Federal agencies. 

1-103. Development of Agency Strategies. (a) Except as provided in section 6-605 of this order, 

each Federal agency shall develop an agency-wide environmental justice strategy, as set forth 

in subsections (b)-(e) of this section that identifies and addresses disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities 

on minority populations and low-income populations. The environmental justice strategy 

shall list programs, policies, planning and public participation processes, enforcement, and/

or rulemakings related to human health or the environment that should be revised to, at a 

minimum: (1) promote enforcement of all health and environmental statutes in areas with 

minority populations and low-income populations: (2) ensure greater public participation; 

(3) improve research and data collection relating to the health of and environment of 

minority populations and low-income populations; and (4) identify differential patterns of 

consumption of natural resources among minority populations and low-income populations. 

In addition, the environmental justice strategy shall include, where appropriate, a timetable 

for undertaking identified revisions and consideration of economic and social implications 

of the revisions. 

(b) Within 4 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall identify an 

internal administrative process for developing its environmental justice strategy, and 

shall inform the Working Group of the process. 

(c) Within 6 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall provide the 

Working Group with an outline of its proposed environmental justice strategy. 

(d) Within 10 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall provide the 

Working Group with its proposed environmental justice strategy. 

(e) Within 12 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall finalize its 

environmental justice strategy and provide a copy and written description of its 

strategy to the Working Group. During the 12 month period from the date of this 

order, each Federal agency, as part of its environmental justice strategy, shall identify 

several specific projects that can be promptly undertaken to address particular 

concerns identified during the development of the proposed environmental justice 

strategy, and a schedule for implementing those projects. 

Appendix A: Executive Order 12898: 

Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

A-2
(f) Within 24 months of the date of this order, each Federal agency shall report to the 

Working Group on its progress in implementing its agency-wide environmental 

justice strategy. 

(g) Federal agencies shall provide additional periodic reports to the Working Group as 

requested by the Working Group. 

1-104. Reports to the President. Within 14 months of the date of this order, the Working 

Group shall submit to the President, through the Office of the Deputy Assistant to the 

President for Environmental Policy and the Office of the Assistant to the President for 

Domestic Policy, a report that describes the implementation of this order, and includes the 

final environmental justice strategies described in section 1-103(e) of this order. 

Sec. 2-2. Federal Agency Responsibilities for Federal Programs.

Each Federal agency shall conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially 

affect human health or the environment, in a manner that ensures that such programs, 

policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons (including populations) 

from participation in, denying persons (including populations) the benefits of, or subjecting 

persons (including populations) to discrimination under, such programs, policies, and 

activities, because of their race, color, or national origin. 

Sec. 3-3. Research, Data Collection, and Analysis.

3-301. Human Health and Environmental Research and Analysis. (a) Environmental human 

health research, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall include diverse segments of 

the population in epidemiological and clinical studies, including segments at high risk from 

environmental hazards, such as minority populations, low-income populations and workers 

who may be exposed to substantial environmental hazards. 

(b) Environmental human health analyses, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall 

identify multiple and cumulative exposures. 

(c) Federal agencies shall provide minority populations and low-income populations 

the opportunity to comment on the development and design of research strategies 

undertaken pursuant to this order. 

3-302. Human Health and Environmental Data Collection and Analysis. To the extent permitted 

by existing law, including the Privacy Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. section 552a): (a) each 

Federal agency, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, and analyze 

information assessing and comparing environmental and human health risks borne 

by populations identified by race, national origin, or income. To the extent practical 

and appropriate, Federal agencies shall use this information to determine whether their 

programs, policies, and activities have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations; 

(b) In connection with the development and implementation of agency strategies 

in section 1-103 of this order, each Federal agency, whenever practicable and 

appropriate, shall collect, maintain and analyze information on the race, national 

Appendix A: Executive Order 12898: 

Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

A-3
origin, income level, and other readily accessible and appropriate information for 

areas surrounding facilities or sites expected to have a substantial environmental, 

human health, or economic effect on the surrounding populations, when such 

facilities or sites become the subject of a substantial Federal environmental 

administrative or judicial action. Such information shall be made available to the 

public, unless prohibited by law; and 

(c) Each Federal agency, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, 

and analyze information on the race, national origin, income level, and other readily 

accessible and appropriate information for areas surrounding Federal facilities that 

are: (1) subject to the reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act, 42 U.S.C. section 11001-11050 as mandated in 

Executive Order No. 12856; and (2) expected to have a substantial environmental, 

human health, or economic effect on surrounding populations. Such information 

shall be made available to the public unless prohibited by law. 

(d) In carrying out the responsibilities in this section, each Federal agency, whenever 

practicable and appropriate, shall share information and eliminate unnecessary 

duplication of efforts through the use of existing data systems and cooperative 

agreements among Federal agencies and with State, local, and tribal governments. 

Sec. 4-4. Subsistence Consumption Of Fish And Wildlife.

4-401. Consumption Patterns. In order to assist in identifying the need for ensuring 

protection of populations with differential patterns of subsistence consumption of fish and 

wildlife, Federal agencies, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, and 

analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations who principally rely on 

fish and/or wildlife for subsistence. Federal agencies shall communicate to the public the 

risks of those consumption patterns. 

4-402. Guidance. Federal agencies, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall work in a 

coordinated manner to publish guidance reflecting the latest scientific information available 

concerning methods for evaluating the human health risks associated with the consumption 

of pollutant-bearing fish or wildlife. Agencies shall consider such guidance in developing 

their policies and rules. 

Sec. 5-5. Public Participation and Access to Information.

(a) The public may submit recommendations to Federal agencies relating to the incorporation 

of environmental justice principles into Federal agency programs or policies. Each Federal 

agency shall convey such recommendations to the Working Group. 

(b) Each Federal agency may, whenever practicable and appropriate, translate crucial 

public documents, notices, and hearings relating to human health or the environment 

for limited English speaking populations. 

(c) Each Federal agency shall work to ensure that public documents, notices, and 

hearings relating to human health or the environment are concise, understandable, 

and readily accessible to the public. 

Appendix A: Executive Order 12898: 

Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

A-4
(d) The Working Group shall hold public meetings, as appropriate, for the purpose 

of fact-finding, receiving public comments, and conducting inquiries concerning 

environmental justice. The Working Group shall prepare for public review a 

summary of the comments and recommendations discussed at the public meetings. 

Sec. 6-6. General Provisions.

6-601. Responsibility for Agency Implementation. The head of each Federal agency shall be 

responsible for ensuring compliance with this order. Each Federal agency shall conduct internal 

reviews and take such other steps as may be necessary to monitor compliance with this order. 

6-602. Executive Order No. 12250. This Executive order is intended to supplement but not 

supersede Executive Order No. 12250, which requires consistent and effective implementation 

of various laws prohibiting discriminatory practices in programs receiving Federal financial 

assistance. Nothing herein shall limit the effect or mandate of Executive Order No. 12250. 

6-603. Executive Order No. 12875. This Executive order is not intended to limit the effect or 

mandate of Executive Order No. 12875. 

6-604. Scope. For purposes of this order, Federal agency means any agency on the Working 

Group, and such other agencies as may be designated by the President, that conducts any 

Federal program or activity that substantially affects human health or the environment. 

Independent agencies are requested to comply with the provisions of this order. 

6-605. Petitions for Exemptions. The head of a Federal agency may petition the President for an 

exemption from the requirements of this order on the grounds that all or some of the petitioning 

agency’s programs or activities should not be subject to the requirements of this order. 

6-606. Native American Programs. Each Federal agency responsibility set forth under this 

order shall apply equally to Native American programs. In addition, the Department of 

the Interior, in coordination with the Working Group, and, after consultation with tribal 

leaders, shall coordinate steps to be taken pursuant to this order that address Federallyrecognized Indian Tribes. 

6-607. Costs. Unless otherwise provided by law, Federal agencies shall assume the financial 

costs of complying with this order. 

6-608. General. Federal agencies shall implement this order consistent with, and to the 

extent permitted by, existing law. 

6-609. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of 

the executive branch and is not intended to, nor does it create any right, benefit, or trust 

responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against 

the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person. This order shall not be construed 

to create any right to judicial review involving the compliance or non-compliance of the 

United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person with this order.

William J. Clinton

THE WHITE HOUSE

February 11, 1994

Appendix A: Executive Order 12898: 

Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations

A-5
Incorporating Environmental Justice into Tier 1 and Tier 2 Actions under the ADP

1. Statute, court order, 

Presidential Initiative, or 

Administrator’s priority 

as cause for taking a 

regulatory-related action. 

2. Tiering: Lead program gives tiering 

form with recommended tier level to Regulatory Management Division for 

distribution to the Regulatory Steering 

Committee.

3. 

Workgroup 

prepares 

Preliminary 

Analytic Blueprint.

5. Workgroup prepares Detailed 

Analytic Blueprint (DABP)—a 

workgroup’s plan for developing 

analysis and outreach on 

scientic, economic, and legal 

issues; stakeholder involvement; 

and implementation, enforcement, and compliance assurance. 

4. Early Guidance:

T1: A/DA & AAs;

T2: Lead AA & 

participating AAs.

6. Management 

approves DAPB

1. Addressing an identied EJ 

concern could also serve as a 

reason to take an action. 

2. Answer EJ question in 

RAPIDS, answer gets posted 

on Rulemaking Gateway.

7. 

Workgroup undertakes outreach, 

required consultation, & conducts 

analyses (e.g., impacts on state, local, 

and tribal gov’ts; small businesses, 

children’s health issues; etc.); and 

develops options.

7. Prepare data on results of 

consultations/public involvement and 

data on EJ impacts and options, 

including options to mitigate adverse 

effects, as appropriate.

8. Options selection:

T1: A/DA & AAs;

T2: Lead AA & 

Workgroup.

8. Identify whether EJ

concerns have been 

addressed. Be 

prepared to answer 3 

core questions.

10. Final Agency Review 

(FAR) meeting: AA/RA 

position of participating 

Ofces/Regions.

10. As part of Action 

Memo, address 3 

core questions. 

3. Complete an initial EJ screen. If there are

potential EJ concerns, conduct initial 

outreach; notify/consult EJ Coordinator; 

identify issues; and determine any data 

gathering, consultation, and analyses that

should be undertaken. If no potential EJ 

concerns, rule writer does not address EJ 

until Step 9 (preamble development), unless

unexpected EJ concerns arise.

 9. 

Workgroup 

prepares preamble, 

rule/action, and 

supporting 

documents.

11. If rule is 

“signicant” under 

E.O. 12866, OPEI 

reviews and 

submits to OMB.

9. Discuss and document EJ in impact 

analyses; address E.O. 12898 and EJ

policies in preamble. If applicable, 

address outreach, consider highlighting 

EJ options for comment, and address 

signicant EJ issues in Action Memo. 

12. OMB Review: 

OMB has 90 days to

review “signicant” 

rules.

13. Administrator or 

AA/RA signs.

13. All Action Memos 

describe what was 

done to identify and 

address EJ concerns. 

14. EPA submits rule to

the Ofce of Federal 

Register for 

publication. Docket 

opened to the public. 

 14. Document what

was done to identify 

and address EJ

concerns. 

16. Develop the nal 

action. (Process Steps

4-14 are repeated.)

4. Managers ask if there are 

EJ concerns. If yes, 

managers may ask 3 core 

questions. Review 

information to be gathered 

for the analysis. 

5. Ensure DABP addresses 

EJ, i.e., in public involvement 

plan, key analyses, 

information gathered, 

options to be considered, & 

in the timeline. 

6. Managers assess how EJ

concerns are addressed in 

DABP before approving it. 

15. Public comment period (typically 

60-90 days); public hearing as 

applicable.

 15A. If EJ concerns

were identied, 

conduct appropriate 

outreach.

 15B. Address EJ

comments and

consider new options 

as appropriate.

Appendix B

B-1
Incorporating Environmental Justice into Tier 3 Actions under the ADP

1. Statute, court order, 

Presidential Initiative, or 

Administrator’s priority 

as cause for taking a 

regulatory-related action.

2. Tiering: Lead program gives tiering 

form with recommended tier level to Regulatory Management Division for 

distribution to the Regulatory Steering 

Committee.

3. Lead Ofce prepares its plan for 

identifying & developing any necessary 

analysis and outreach on scientic, 

economic, and legal issues; stakeholder 

involvement; and implementation, 

enforcement, and compliance assurance, 

as appropriate for the action. 

4. Management 

provides guidance or 

direction, as 

appropriate.

1A. Addressing an identied 

EJ concern could also serve 

as a reason to take an action. 

2A. Answer EJ question in 

RAPIDS. 

5. Lead Ofce undertakes outreach, 

required consultation, & conducts 

analyses (e.g., impacts on state, local, 

and tribal gov’ts; small businesses, 

children’s health issues; etc.); and 

develops options, as appropriate.

5. Prepare data on results of 

consultations/public involvement and data on 

EJ impacts and options, including options to 

mitigate adverse effects, as appropriate. 

6. Lead Ofce prepares 

preamble, rule/action, 

and supporting 

documents.

6. Discuss and document EJ in impact 

analyses; address E.O. 12898 and EJ 

policies in preamble. If applicable, 

address outreach, consider highlighting 

EJ options for comment, and address 

signicant EJ issues in Action Memo. 

7. As part of Action 

Memo, address 3 core 

questions. 

7. Final Agency Review 

(FAR), as applicable.

3A. Complete an initial EJ screen. If there are 

potential EJ concerns, conduct initial outreach; 

notify/consult EJ coordinator; identify issues; 

and determine any data gathering, consultation, 

and analyses that should be undertaken. If no 

potential EJ concerns, rule writer does not 

address EJ until Step 6 (preamble development), 

unless unexpected EJ concerns arise.

8. If rule is 

“signicant” under 

E.O. 12866, OPEI 

reviews and 

submits to OMB.

9. OMB Review: 

OMB has 90 days to 

review 

“signicant” rules.

10. Signature by 

appropriate Agency 

ofcial.

11. EPA submits rule 

to the Ofce of 

Federal Register for 

publication. Docket is 

opened to the public. 

10A. All Action Memos 

describe what was 

done to identify and 

address EJ concerns. 

12. Public comment 

period (typically 60-90 

days); public hearing as 

applicable.

 12A. If EJ concerns were identied, 

conduct appropriate outreach.

 12B. Address EJ comments & 

consider new options as appropriate.

11A. Document what 

was done to identify 

and address EJ 

concerns. 

4. Managers ask if there are 

EJ concerns. If yes, 

managers may ask 3 core 

questions. Review 

information to be gathered 

for the analyses. 

13. Develop the nal action.

(Process Steps 4-11 are repeated.)

B-2
C-1Section Title

Appendix C

A Quick Reference Guide for EPA 

Managers: Integrating EJ Into the ADP

Appendix C: A Quick Reference Guide 

for EPA Managers: Integrating EJ into 

the ADP

This Quick Reference Guide is intended to serve as a reference tool for EPA Managers by 

providing a brief overview of the guidance provided in this new Interim Guide. It is not 

intended to replace the Guide and does not, therefore, repeat the details provided in it or 

elsewhere. Instead, this quick reference hits the highlights to point you to the Guide and/or 

other sources.

What is Meant by “Environmental Justice?”

EPA defines “environmental justice” as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of 

all people, particularly minority, low-income, and indigenous populations, and tribes, in the 

development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

What is the Manager’s Overall Role?

EPA Managers decide what needs to be done related to EJ concerns for Agency actions under 

development. This decision 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.1 Managers 

communicate expectations to the Workgroup, establish policy priorities, identify issues of 

significant concern, and guide the process of developing the action. As a result, Managers 

play a key role in ensuring that the potential EJ implications of an action are considered 

during the development of that action, and that populations affected by the action have an 

opportunity to participate.

What Are the Management Questions for the Workgroup?

The Guide suggests that Managers ask Workgroups about their efforts to address the following 

questions at key points during the development of the action under the ADP (such as at Early 

Guidance, Options Selection, or Final Agency Review):

1. How will your (or how did your) public participation process provide transparency and 

meaningful participation for minority, low-income, and indigenous populations, and tribes?

___________

1 In the Guide, this is referred to as “screening.” See page 19 of Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action.
C-2Section Title Justice During the Action Development Appendix C: Considering Environmental 

Process

2. How do you plan to (or how did you) identify and address existing and new 

disproportionate environmental and public health impacts on minority, low-income, 

and indigenous populations during the rulemaking process? 

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

When and How Can Managers Participate?

Activities for Managers See page:

Consider EJ when you decide which actions to pursue. The decision to initiate an action is an opportunity for you 

to consider whether the actions under consideration involve—or have the potential to involve—EJ concerns. 19

Identify the potential for EJ concerns at the beginning. EJ concerns may arise when a proposed action would: 

a) create disproportionate impacts, b) exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts, or c) not address existing 

disproportionate impacts.

6, 19

Set clear expectations about EJ concerns in the Early Guidance you provide to the Workgroup. This is likely to be 

the first opportunity for you to meet with the Workgroup to discuss the action and provide your expectations 

on that effort—including those associated with identifying and addressing EJ concerns. To start, you can 

provide the management questions that the Workgroup will be expected to answer at the end of their effort. 

Consider also providing your guidance on the level of analysis you might like to see when making decisions 

later, as well as the level of outreach to and involvement of populations affected by the action. Consider asking 

for an assessment of resource needs to perform different levels of analyses and/or outreach.

24

Review the Analytic Blueprint to ensure the Workgroup addresses EJ concerns. Your review and approval of the 

Analytic Blueprint may be the final opportunity for you to provide direction before resources are committed. In this 

review, you may want to consider whether the Analytic Blueprint includes the following information:

 • The identification of potentially affected populations and related stakeholders, along with a plan for how the 

Workgroup will ensure outreach and meaningful involvement of these populations.

 • 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.

27

Consider EJ concerns related to the options presented to you. Different options may involve different EJ 

concerns or provide different opportunities to address existing disproportionate impacts. The Workgroup 

should highlight this information for your consideration in making decisions about the options.

28

Document the Workgroup’s efforts and activities to identify and address EJ concerns. The Action Memorandum on 

which you concur or sign should describe the efforts undertaken by providing answers to the management questions. 29

Where Can I Get More Information About EJ Considerations or the ADP?

Internal EPA guidance and information about the ADP can be found at http://intranet.

epa.gov/adplibrary/. Tools and guidance for assessing potential EJ concerns are available at 

http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/policies/ej/#tools.
D-1Section Title

EPA Workgroup Chairs can use this checklist to identify what they may need to know and/

or do to integrate EJ into the development of their action. The checklist is based on available 

guidance, including that provided in the Agency’s new Interim Guidance on Considering 

Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action (Interim Guide). It is not intended to 

replace the Guide and does not, therefore, repeat the details provided there or elsewhere. 

Instead, the checklist identifies ADP-related activities and provides relevant highlights and 

references to the Guide and/or other resources. 

3 Activity

1. BEFORE you start – LEARN the basics about the ADP and EJ | Pages 1-32, B1-B2

p Are you familiar with the process steps under the ADP?1

p Have you read the new Agency Interim Guide?2

p Do you know what the Executive Order on EJ requires?

p What is meant by “environmental justice?”

p What is meant by an “EJ concern?”

p

How can a workgroup identify, assess, and address potential EJ concerns during the development of the action?

-If you need a refresher on the process steps involved in the ADP, please see the flowcharts provided in Appendix 

B of the Interim Guide.

p Do you know the roles of different workgroup members?

p Do you know the core management questions? (See item #6 on this Checklist).

2. Getting Started – SCREEN your action | Pages 19-25

p

Does your Program Office have guidance specifically applicable to your action?

- Such guidance might include specific instructions about the consideration of EJ in the context of a category of 

similar actions, or otherwise facilitate the identification of actions for which further evaluation of EJ concerns is 

warranted.

p

What do you know about the issue you’ve been asked to address?

- Understand what you are doing in this action and why it is necessary. This will help you gather preliminary 

information to set the context for your action. 

- This will facilitate the workgroup’s initial assessment (necessary for planning the development of the action) along 

with the identification of initial issues to raise to management for guidance or direction.

Appendix D: A Checklist for EPA 

Workgroup Chairs: Integrating EJ Into 

the ADP

Appendix D

A Checklist for EPA Workgroup Chairs: 

Integrating EJ Into the ADP

___________

1

 Agency Guidance on the ADP is available at http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary.

2

 The new Agency Interim Guide is available at http://intranet.epa.gov/adplibrary.
D-2Appendix D: A Checklist for EPA Workgroup Chairs: Integrating EJ Into 

the ADP

3 Activity

p

Does your action have the potential to raise or address EJ concerns?

- If not, you should document your determination and rationale, and then proceed with the development of 

your action under the ADP. Remember to revisit your determination if new information becomes available.

p

Did you receive guidance or direction from management as part of the Early Guidance step of the ADP?

- Under the ADP, Early Guidance provides an opportunity for senior management to communicate expectations, 

identify policy and procedural issues worthy of examination, and highlight policy issues of significant concern 

for the workgroup to consider in developing the action.

p Are there any limitations in terms of time or resources that need to be considered in your planning efforts?

3. PLANNING – Complete an Analytic Blueprint (ABP) for your action. | Pages 25-26

- Your ABP should identify the key activities, analyses, consultation activities (including those called for by relevant 

statutes and Executive Orders), contributors, and timeline.

p

Who are the potential stakeholders and what are their interests?

- This will help you choose appropriate consultation methods and schedules.

- Specifically address the identity and size of potentially affected communities, including minority, low-income, 

and indigenous populations, and tribes.

- Involving affected communities or areas can help you obtain information or data that could inform decisions 

on the scope of EJ concerns and their impacts, and even help identify appropriate preliminary options to 

consider.

p

Does your ABP address your plans for achieving meaningful involvement?

- Meaningful involvement is more than simply providing the minimum notice and comment opportunity.

- Identify the most effective ways to engage the minority, low-income, and indigenous populations, and 

tribes who will be affected by your action. Have any potentially affected groups historically been unable to 

participate in Agency processes due to circumstances unique to them (e.g., low-income community may not 

have been able to participate in previous public meetings because of the location of those meetings)?

p

What do you know about potentially impacted communities (i.e., what is likely to cause impacts, what is the nature of 

those impacts, what are the sources of exposure)?

- Identify the minority, low-income, and indigenous populations.

p

Do you need to collect data or other information about the impacted communities or the nature of the impacts?

- You may need a statistician or someone with Geographical Information System (GIS) expertise (e.g., to apply a 

GIS platform to demographic data and geographic data).

- Consider potential cumulative impacts and, where appropriate, factors that may enhance the susceptibility of 

communities to environmental stressors (e.g., linguistically isolated, low socioeconomic status, reduced access to 

health care). Use reference communities to compare impacts. 

p Do you plan to identify alternative approaches for addressing EJ concerns (regulatory, voluntary, and/or innovative 

approaches)?

p What resources will you need to achieve meaningful involvement, gather needed data, and conduct identified 

analyses?

4. Identify and Analyze OPTIONS | Pages 27-28

p Consider what you learned from affected communities, in terms of both potential impacts and options to consider.

p Integrate the consideration of EJ concerns into the analyses you perform, including economic and scientific.

p Did you identify an existing disproportionate impact?

p Can you describe that existing condition in a quantifiable way?

p In what ways can your action address the existing disproportionate impact?

p Does your action have the potential to create a new disproportionate impact?
D-3Appendix D: A Checklist for EPA Workgroup Chairs: Integrating EJ Into 

the ADP

3 Activity

p Did you identify options that will avoid or mitigate that creation?

p For all options identified, did you assess the potential for EJ concerns and related impacts?

p

Is the workgroup ready to present options to management for decisions?

- At this point, the workgroup has completed its research; provided opportunities for meaningful involvement; 

completed requirements for consultation; conducted analyses and completed peer review; and identified 

issues and scoped out the costs and benefits, pros and cons, and feasibility of the options available.

5. Select Options – Presentation to Management | Pages 28-29

p Has the workgroup identified several possible options for each issue and recommended the one(s) that would 

achieve a quality action?

p Are you presenting the identified options to management along with the pros and cons, feasibility of the options, 

estimated costs and benefits, etc.?

p Are you prepared to present to your management EJ concerns, impacts, and considerations related to your action and 

each option?

6. Documentation – Prepare your action and final documents | Pages 29-32

p Document your outreach and consultation efforts, as well as the results of those efforts.

p Ensure that your final economic and scientific analyses clearly present the EJ considerations.

p Describe in your preamble any identified potential disproportionate EJ impacts and explain how they are addressed 

by your action.

p

Answer these core management questions in your Action Memo:

1. How did your public participation process provide transparency and meaningful participation for minority, 

low-income, and indigenous populations, and tribes?

2. How did you identify and address existing and/or new disproportionate environmental and public health 

impacts on minority, low-income, and indigenous populations during the action development process? 

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

Where Can I Get More Information About EJ Considerations or the ADP?

Internal EPA guidance and information about the ADP can be found at http://intranet.epa.gov/

adplibrary/. 

Tools and guidance for assessing potential EJ concerns are available at http://www.epa.gov/

Compliance/resources/policies/ej/#tools.
E-1

Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/policies/ej/#tools

Text of E.O. directing agencies to 

address EJ in minority and lowincome populations.

EPA’s Definition of Environmental Justice

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/basics/index.html

EJ 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/Compliance/resources/policies/ej/clinton_memo_12898.pdf

President Clinton’s cover 

memorandum for E.O. 12898.

EPA’s Environmental Justice Program: Background

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/index.html 

Background information, 

definitions, and resources related 

to EJ.

EPA’s Environmental Justice Strategy (1995)

http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/policies/ej/ej_strategy_1995.pdf

Strategy developed in response 

to E.O. 12898.

Environmental Justice Implementation Plan

http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/policies/ej/implementation_plan_ej_1996.pdf

Plan to integrate EJ into 

the Agency’s work under 

Administrator Carol Browner 

(1996).

Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s NEPA 

Compliance Analysis (1998)

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/ej/ej_guidance_nepa_epa0498.pdf

Guidance for incorporating EJ 

goals into EPA’s preparation of 

environmental impact statements 

and environmental assessments 

under NEPA.

Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(1997)

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/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/compliance/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 EJ.

Appendix E: Resources

Appendix E

Resources
E-2

Strengthening EPA’s Environmental Justice Program (June 9, 2008)

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/admin-ejstrength-memo-060908.pdf

Administrator Stephen Johnson 

directs EPA to conduct EJ reviews 

of its program, policies, and 

activities.

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

Stephen L. Johnson (November 4, 2005)

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/resources/policy/admin-ejcommit-letter-110305.pdf

Administrator Stephen 

Johnson outlines the Agency’s 

commitment to EJ and its 

integration into all EPA programs, 

policies, and activities.

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/fedreg/eo/eo13175.htm

E.O. 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.

Engaging the American People: A Review of EPA’s Public Participation Policy and 

Regulations with Recommendations for Action, Appendix A (2000)

http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/pdf/eap_appendices.pdf

Listing of key EPA programs’ 

public participation 

requirements.

International Association for Public Participation 

www.IAP2.org

Provides discussion on the 

spectrum of public involvement; 

identifies useful publications and 

training opportunities.

EPA’s Web 2.0

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oei/webguide.nsf/socialmedia

Provides information about EPA 

social media use and necessary 

steps for setting up Web 2.0 

applications such as wikis and 

blogs.

Environmental Justice Coordinators – Media Offices

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

List of contacts with name, 

phone, location, and area of 

expertise.

Environmental Justice Coordinators – Regional Offices

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

List of contacts with name, 

phone, and address.

Action Development Process

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

Information about the roles and 

responsibilities of the different 

participants in the development 

of an action.

Action Development Checklist

See Appendix D of this Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the 

Development of an Action

Illustrative list to help workgroup 

determine whether the action 

being developed may involve a 

subject of particular interest to—

or may have particular impacts 

on—vulnerable populations.

Appendix E: Resources

E-2
E-3 Appendix E: Resources

Environmental Justice Preamble Templates 

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

Suggested language for 

addressing E.O. 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 Tier 1 and 2 actions); directs 

reader to resources for more 

information and guidance.

Regulatory Gateway

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

Offers the public a means of 

learning about and tracking EPA 

actions.

E-3