1

**Draft Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis Public Webinar: Questions and Answers**  **May 29, 2013** Question: Does this guidance require the rule decision maker to t ake an y action or

just consider the anal ys is done? Kelly Maguire, EPA: The gu idance itself is just that

– it i s guidance and recommendations. It

doesn’t outline an y requirements, both for the analyst or the decision maker. An y action that might be taken on the part of the decision maker is up to their d iscretion. There i s nothing in this guidance itself that indicates the decision maker must take action or a particular ty pe of action based on the results of the analy sis. We see the anal ys t as providing the information to the decision maker in a consist ent, transparent manner. And then how they use that information is up to their discretion. Al McGartland , EPA : To add on to what Kell y said, often times it depends on what particular

authorities we (

EPA ) are using to regulate pollution. So, whether it’s the Clean Air Act, or various titles within the Clean Air Act, or the Safe Drinking Water Act, or T SCA ( Toxic Substances Control Act) or other things, it reall y does depend on the context of our authorities, and what flexibilities the decision maker may o r may not have to deal with environmental justice issues, as well. So it’s very much context

- driven. It would be impossible to codify the guidance and what action would b e appropriate under various f indings of environmental justice differences. Question : Have you identified the participants in the Science Advisory B oard review? Kelly Maguire, EPA: Yes. The participants have been identified. We actually don’t have that list . T hat’s something that our Science Advisory Board has, and it will be made pub licly

available. Ibelieve the federal register notice is going out shortly

– as in next week

– and at that point they should be posting the panelists. So that is public information. It’s just not something we have ye t. Question: Can you give a scenari o where this guidance would change current agency

practice, or does this guidance document current agency practice? Kelly Maguire , EPA : This guidance doesn’t necessaril y document current agency practice, though to a large extent many

– if not all

– of the major program offices are considering environmental justice in their rule

- making activities and are learning various ways that they can collect and use data to inform environmental justice questions. What this guidance does is o utlines a set of questions , best practices and options for considering environmental justice in our regulatory activities2 in a way that will bring greater consistency , rigor and transparency across the program offices. So right now each program is operating as almost an independent body

to figure out way s to consider environmental justice. This guidance is an attempt to draw together all the learning that is happening across the agency , as well as to provide some information across the program offices to bring greater consistency

. In terms of a scenario where this guidance would change current agency practice

– I don’t have an exact scenario. B ut the idea behind the guidance is that all program offices in all rules will consider environmental justice in way s that perhaps haven’t been done before. The agency to date has alway s relied on standard language to indicate that environmental justice concerns are not found because our rules are usually strengthening various environmental standards. Those decisions are rarel y based on an y ty

pe of in

- depth anal ys is. So what will change in finalizing this particular guidance is that we will be more informative with regard to potential outcome in environmental justice in each of our offices in terms of our regulatory

actions. Question: Can the anal ys t waive the demographics anal ys is as unnecessary if the impact anal ys is finds that there is no adverse impact based on the appropriate health protective benchmark? Al McGartland , EPA : I f we were looking at a chemical and we found that exposures across the

board were well below our reference conc entration or our reference dose, and if we aren’t going to regulate , then we could waive the demographics anal ys is because there would be no regulation necessary . But I think the crux behind env ironmental justice is that there might be either sensitive populations based on sensitivities, or based on exposure patterns, or lifestyles, that we all have to worry ab out. Until you do the demographic anal ys is you can’t have a high degree of confidence that you would be below the appropriate health benchmarks if they exist for a chemical. For carcinogens we don’t ty

pically have benchmarks, but we do for some non

carcinogens. Again, it’s case

- specific issue, but one of the processes is that y ou really h ave to look hard at small populations of exposure instead of looking at national averages of certain kinds of exposures to be certain that there are no differences in risk that are meaningful. Question: Regarding the last question on waiving the anal ys is, what about existing

disproportionate impacts even though future re gulation is applied uniformly ? Kelly Maguire, EPA: What we have tried to do with this guidance is to get anal ys ts to think

abo ut looking at the baseline

– that i s any existing differences

– as well as3 across options. So it could be the case that there’s a prett y uneven distribution in the baseline, and even though a standard is being put in place uniforml y . W e are asking anal ys ts to specificall y highlight for the decision maker, who may n ot be aware of that particular outcome without having looked at the baseline as distinct from the option under consideration. W e are asking anal ys ts to consider whether or not, in doing the anal ys is, the options under consideration either exacerbate or am eliorate an y preexisting differences and to highlight that information for the decision maker. Al McGartland , EPA : S ometimes it may not be the actual standard that has an uneven distribution. For example, focusing on monitoring placement of certain ambient air quality

standards i t’s reall y a question of where would we monitor to make sure that the standards are being maintained. Question: Will states be bound to this guidance when rule making is delegated?

What obligations will this guidance create f or state and local government when rules are specific to particular regions? Kelly Maguire, EPA: T he guidance is currently written, it applies across rule

- making activity

.

This question has been raised within the agency itself

– as to how this guidance a

pplies to regional or state or other actions, and that’s something that is currentl y under discussion right now

– as to what kind of definitive statement it should or should not be making in regard to application to state actions. I t’s not something that is addressed at all in the guidance, but it’s something we are aware of. It’s a question that’s come from our regional partners in developing of this guidance. Addendum : The guidance applies to EPA regulatory actions. It does not apply to state or local actions. Question: Regarding the existing disproportionate impact, how close does the rule

have to be to those impacts? For example, if the community is highly exposed to toxics but the rule is a NAAQS what does the anal ys t consider? Kelly Maguire, EPA: I believe what you’re asking here is about multiple and cumulative

expo sures. T he agency

does not have definitive guidance on how to consider cumulative effects within a particular rule making, but it’s something we’re engaged in.
W e will update the guidance as that information becomes available. But at this point, since the agency does not have uniform way s of considering cumulative effects, we direct analy sts to be aware of and consider as the se effects as they can. But we don’t have an y de finitive guidance

.4

Qu estion : Could you have the team of speakers introduce themselves and their roles

at EPA? Kelly Maguire, EPA: I’m an economist in the Office of Policy

. Anne Wolverton , EPA: I’m also an economist in the Office of Policy

. Gelena Constantine , EPA: I’m the Office of Research and Development, Environmental Justice Coordinator. Charles Lee , EPA : I’m the Deput y Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice. Al McGartland , EPA : I’m the Director of the National Center for Environmental Economics in the Office of P olicy

. Kelly Maguire , EPA : W e have two more pe ople on our core writing team, Carlton Eley , who is an anal ys t in the Office of Environmental Justice. And Jennifer Bowen is a Division Director in the National Center for Environmental Economics. Question : Will the assessment of environmental justice and regulatory action require additional time for the EPA to develop and propose regulatory action? If so, how much more time is estimated? Kelly Maguire, EPA: T he time component is not something we specifically address. What we have tried to do with this guidance is be very cognizant of the many constraints that face our program offices when developing their regulatory anal ys es in general. W e do not want to del ay that process, and sometimes we can’t because of deadlines or c ourt orders that exist.
W e’ve introduced enough flexibility within the guidance itself so that the incorporation of EJ effects can be assessed using existing data and regulatory

anal ys es, an d not, in fact delay the issuance of any

proposed or final rule. Question: Will the powerpoint be available after this call? Kelly Maguire, EPA: Yes, it will be load ed to the docket

. My contact information is also the final slide here. So, if for some reason you have trouble accessing that docket, you can e - mail me at maguire.kelly @epa.gov , and I’ll be happ y to send the presentation to you. Question: Are we able to contact you through e

- mai l if we have future questions? Kelly Maguire, EPA: Yes . Or b y phone (202

- 566

- 2273).5 END