National Advisory Council for 

Environmental Policy and Technology

Charles Lee

Director

Office of Environmental Justice

September 27, 2010

Washington, DC
Presentation

• Plan EJ 2014

• Incorporating EJ in Rulemaking

Deliberative Pre-decisional Communication –

Not Administration Policy- Do not release

2
3

Administrator’s Statement on 

Issuance of EJ-Rulemaking Guidance

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 is an 

important tool for answering that call.
4

Plan EJ 2014 Overview

• EPA’s overarching strategy to 

advance Administrator Jackson’s 

environmental justice priority

• Named in recognition of 20th 

anniversary of E.O. 12898 

• Roadmap to help EPA integrate 

environmental justice into all of our 

programs. 
Plan EJ 2014 Goals

• Protect health in communities 

over-burdened by pollution

• Empower communities to take 

action to improve their health and 

environment

• Establish partnerships with local, 

state, tribal and federal 

organizations to achieve healthy 

and sustainable communities. 

5
Plan EJ 2014 Structure

• Cross-Agency Focus Areas

• Tools Development

• Program Initiatives

6
Plan EJ 2014 Cross Agency 

Focus Areas

• Rulemaking

• Permitting

• Enforcement and Compliance

• Community-Based Action

• Administration-Wide Action

7
Plan EJ 2014

Tools Development

• Science

• Law

• Information

• Resources

8
Plan EJ 2104

Program Initiatives

• OW: Urban Waters, MTM

• OSWER: Community 

Engagement Imitative, 

Brownfields Area-Wide Planning

• OECA: National Enforcement 

Initiatives, EPA-DOJ Pilot

• OCSPP: Pesticide Drift Rules

• OAR: Air Toxics Rules

• OTIA: US-Mexico Border Initiative

9
Next Steps

• Comment period open until 

October 1, 2010

• Finalize Plan EJ 2014 in early 

2011

• Implementation will be an 

iterative process

• www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice

10

C1
Slide 10

C1 Charles, 9/26/2010
11

EJ Rulemaking Guidance

Overview

• Goal: Integrate Consideration of EJ into 

Fabric of EPA’s Action Development Process 

(ADP)

• Two Components

– Process Guidance (Who, What, When)

– Technical Guidance (How)

• Process Guidance Developed First

– Seized Opportunity to build on past efforts

– Issued as Interim Final

– Finalize after assessing initial implementation and 

when Technical Guidance is available

• Technical Guidance in 2011
12

Guidance Overview

• Introduction, Overview, Background

– Administrator Message; Purpose of Guide

– Intended Audience; Organization of Guide

• Part 1: Key Concepts About EJ Concerns

– What is EJ? EJ Statutory/Policy Framework

– Overview of EJ Concerns/Factors

– Integrating EJ into Analysis

– Achieving Meaningful Engagement

• Part 2: Guidance for Each ADP Stage

– Determining Need to Evaluate EJ Concerns

– What to Do from beginning to end of the ADP
13

Guidance Overview

• EJ Concerns May Be Involved If 

Disproportionate Impacts on Minority, LowIncome or Indigenous Populations Are:

– Created by Actions

– Exacerbated by Actions

– Not Addressed by Actions Where they Could Be 

• Fair treatment includes not just 

consideration of how burdens are 

distributed, but also the distribution of 

benefits
14

Guidance Overview

• Disproportionate Impact Factors To Be 

Assessed for Minority, Low-Income and 

Indigenous Populations Include:

– Proximity and Exposure to Environmental Hazards

– Susceptible Populations

– Unique Exposure Pathways

– Multiple and Cumulative Effects

– Ability to Participate in Decision Making Process

– Physical Infrastructure

• Some Factors Easier to Assess than Others
15

Guidance Overview

Approaches to Answering Questions Will Vary:

– Quantitative and/or Qualitative Analyses

• Increasing expectations for quantitative as capabilities grow 

through experience, development of Technical guidance

– Decision-Makers Determine Level of Analysis and 

Engagement Considering:

• Stakeholder interest

• Legal framework governing actions

• Availability of data

• Availability of resources and the timeline for developing 

actions, and 

• Impacts that EJ concerns are likely to have on actual 

decisions involving actions

– Level of Analysis and Engagement Decided early in 

the process

• Key is balance: fulfill desire to consider EJ without slowing 

environmental progress
16

Guidance Overview

Guide Directs Rule Writers to Consider How to 

Promote EJ Not Only in Developing Actions, But 

Also in Implementing Actions

– Does action support or enhance compliance 

assurance?

– Does action support enforcement against violators? 

– Does action promote transparency and meaningful 

involvement during implementation?

– Does action encourage or require State, Local and 

Tribal governments to consider EJ as they implement 

EPA Actions?

– Does action provide good background information for 

permits writers? 
17

Guidance Overview

• Achieving Meaningful Engagement

– Relying on minimum notice and comment is not 

enough

• EJ populations are historically under-represented in EPA 

decision-making 

• Wide range of educational levels, literacy, or proficiency in 

English

– Links provided to EPA Public Participation guidance, 

advising:

• Conveying issues in ways that are tailored 

• Bridging cultural and economic differences 

• Using techniques that enable more effective interaction

• Developing partnerships on a one-to-one or small group basis 

• Developing trust between government and potentially affected 

populations

• Developing community capacity
18

ADP Overview

General Stages of EPA Action Development 

Process:

– Commence Activity

– Develop Analytic Blueprint

– Conduct Analyses, Engage EJ Populations, Identify 

Options

– Options Selection, Prepare Action

– Final Agency Review

– Publish Proposal, Request Public Comment

– Review Public Comment, Finalize Rule
19

ADP: Develop Analytic Blueprint

• Develop Preliminary Blueprint

– Identify potentially affected populations or tribes

– Outline plans, resource needs for meaningful 

involvement

– Describe plans, resource needs for evaluating impacts

– Identify available EJ assessment tools, need for data 

collection, expertise, and resources

– Identify issues to be raised to management

• Obtain Early Guidance from Decision-Makers

– Develop Detailed Blueprint

– Obtain Decision-Maker Approval

• Appropriate level of analysis and engagement determined

• Compelling circumstances may cause revisiting determination
20

ADP: Final Agency Review

Address EJ Questions in Action Memo: 

• How did your public participation process provide 

transparency and meaningful participation for minority, 

low-income, indigenous populations, or tribes?

• How did you identify and address existing and new 

disproportionate environmental and public health 

impacts on minority, low-income, or indigenous 

populations?

• How did actions taken under #1 and #2 impact the 

outcome or final decision?
21

ADP: Review/Address Public 

Comments, Finalize Rule

• Do EJ assessments need to be refined or 

revisited?

• Do comments raise new issues that warrant 

consideration?

• Follow Proposal process steps to finalize 

rule

– Provides additional opportunities for the workgroup to 

identify and address EJ concerns
22

Implementation

• Applies in Full to new rules

– Rules under way apply to extent practicable

• Senior Staff, Rule Writers, Other Agency

Staff being made aware of Guide, trained

– Administrator issued All Hands Memo announcing 

release, asking for best efforts in implementing new 

process

– Assistant Administrators will be assuring 

implementation

– Training will be conducted for rule writers and 

managers

• Agency website established for discussion, 

comment, information sharing
23

Implementation

• Office of Policy and OEJ to Oversee 

Implementation 

– Use Regulatory Gateway to flag rules with EJ issues

– Monitor EJ analyses in conjunction with other analytical 

oversight

– Assess answers to key questions at FAR

• Guidance Development Workgroup will: 

– Monitor/Assess implementation issues

– Provide assistance to rule writing teams

– Identify Best Practices to inform technical guidance

• Agency-wide Collaboration on Rules

– Push envelope on Disproportionate Impact science and 

data (e.g., cumulative effects)
24

Technical Guidance

• Interim Guide provides links to existing 

technical support

– Annotated list of 14 available guidance documents, 

tools, other resources for conducting analyses that 

incorporate EJ considerations

• Significant progress being made on 

advancing the science of EJ and 

disproportionate impacts 

– Strengthening Environmental Justice and Decision 

Making: A Symposium on the Science of 

Disproportionate Environmental Health Impacts

conducted at DC Convention Center in March

• Strengthening ability to quantify, characterize disproportionate 

environmental health impacts on minority and low income 

populations

• Follow-up products will help rule-writers fulfill Guidance 

recommendations
25

Outreach During Interim Final

• Administrator issued press release to 

announce EJ in Rules Guidance to public

• External website established for public 

comment:

– http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/resources/pol

icy/ej-rulemaking.html

• Other External Engagement

– Present at State and Tribal forums

– Discuss through NPM Stakeholder networks, 

conferences
26

EPA’s Interim Guidance on Considering 

Environmental Justice during the Development 

of an Action

• Step-by-step guide 

• Will help EPA staff determine whether 

regulatory actions raise possible 

environmental justice concerns 

• Encourages public participation in the 

rulemaking process.