Environmental Justice: Measurable Benchmarks Needed to Gauge EPA Progress in Correcting Past Problems
Published: 2007-07-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: A 1994 Executive Order sought to ensure that minority and low-income populations are not subjected to disproportionately high levels of environmental risk. Studies have shown that these groups are indeed disproportionately exposed to air pollution and other environmental and health problems. The Order sought to address the problem by requiring EPA and other federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their missions. In July 2005, GAO issued a report entitled, Environmental Justice: EPA Should Devote More Attention to Environmental Justice When Developing Clean Air Rules (GAO-05-289). Focusing on three specific rules for detailed study, the report identified a number of weaknesses in EPA's approach to ensuring that environmental justice is considered from the early stages of rule development through their issuance. The report made several recommendations, to which EPA replied in an August 24, 2006 letter. GAO also met recently with cognizant EPA staff to obtain updated information on the agency's responses to these recommendations. In this testimony, GAO (1) summarizes the key findings of its 2005 report, (2) outlines its recommendations to EPA and EPA's August 2006 responses, and (3) provides updated information on subsequent EPA actions.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: EPA generally devoted little attention to environmental justice when drafting three significant clean air rules between fiscal years 2000 and 2004. GAO's 2005 report concluded, for example, that while EPA guidance on rulemaking states that workgroups should consider environmental justice early in the process, a lack of guidance and training for workgroup members on how to identify potential environmental justice impacts limited their ability to analyze such issues. Similarly, while EPA considered environmental justice to varying degrees in the final stages of the rulemaking process, in general the agency rarely provided a clear rationale for its decisions on environmental justice-related matters. For example, in responding to comments during the final phase of one of the rules, EPA asserted that the rule would not have any disproportionate impacts on low-income or minority communities, but did not publish any data or the agency's assumptions in support of that conclusion. Among its recommendations, GAO called on EPA to ensure that its rulemaking workgroups devote attention to environmental justice while drafting and finalizing clean air rules. EPA's August 2006 letter responded that it had made its Office of Environmental Justice an ex officio member of the Regulatory Steering Committee so that it would be aware of important regulations under development and participate in workgroups as necessary. GAO also recommended that EPA improve the way environmental justice impacts are addressed in its economic reviews by identifying the data and developing the modeling techniques needed to assess such impacts. EPA responded that its Office of Air and Radiation was examining ways to improve its air models so it could better account for the socioeconomic variables identified in the Executive Order. GAO also recommended that cognizant EPA officials respond more fully to public comments on environmental justice by better explaining their rationale and by providing the supporting data for the agency's decisions. EPA responded that it would re-emphasize the need to respond fully to public comments, include the rationale for its regulatory approach, and describe its supporting data. Recent discussions between GAO and EPA officials suggest that some progress has been made to incorporate environmental justice concerns in the agency's air rulemaking, but that significant challenges remain. For example, while the Office of Environmental Justice may be an ex officio member of the Regulatory Steering Committee, it has not participated directly in any air rules that have been proposed or finalized since EPA's August 2006 letter to GAO. Also, according to EPA staff, some of the training courses that were planned have not yet been developed due to staff turnover among other reasons. When asked about GAO's recommendation that cognizant officials respond more fully to public comments on environmental justice, the EPA officials cited a recent rulemaking in which this was done. But the officials said they were unaware of any memoranda or revised guidance that would encourage more global progress on this key issue.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Environmental Protection  Agency’s (EPA) consideration of environmental justice, particularly as it  has been used to develop clean air rules. According to EPA studies, low- income and minority populations are disproportionately exposed to air  pollution and other environmental risks. In 1994 President Clinton issued  Executive Order 12898, which stated that EPA and other federal agencies,  to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, shall make  achieving environmental justice part of their missions by identifying and  addressing as appropriate, the disproportionately high and adverse human  health of environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities  on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
To implement the order, EPA developed guidance for incorporating  environmental justice into its programs, such as the enforcement of the  Clean Air Act, which is intended in part, to control emissions that harm  human health. A key to ensuring that environmental justice is sufficiently  accounted for in agency decisions and operations is that it be considered  at each point in the rulemaking process—including the point when agency  workgroups typically consider regulatory options; perform economic  analyses of proposed rules’ costs; make proposed rules available for public  comment; and finalize them in advance of their implementation.
My testimony today is based largely on our 2005 report, which  recommended that EPA devote more attention to environmental justice  when developing clean air rules. In addition, we met with cognizant EPA  staff to understand what actions the agency has taken since the report’s  issuance to improve its treatment of environmental justice issues during  its air rulemaking process.
Our report examined how EPA considered environmental justice during  the drafting of these air rules (including activities of the workgroups that  typically consider regulatory options, the economic review of the rules’  costs, and the manner in which proposed rules are made available for  public comment) and their finalization (including how public comments  are addressed and how the economic review is revised). The three rules  we examined included a 2000 gasoline rule to reduce sulfur in gasoline and  to reduce emissions from new vehicles; a 2001 diesel rule to reduce sulfur  in diesel fuel and to reduce emissions from new heavy-duty engines; and a  2004 ozone implementation rule to implement a new ozone standard. My  testimony today (1) summarizes the key findings of our 2005 report, (2)  provides both the recommendations we made to EPA to address the  problems identified and EPA’s written response to these recommendations  in August 2006, and (3) provides updated information on pertinent EPA  actions.
When drafting the three clean air rules, EPA generally devoted little  attention to environmental justice. Our 2005 report concluded, for  example, that while EPA guidance on rulemaking states that workgroups  should consider environmental justice in the rule-making process, a lack  of guidance and training for workgroup members on identifying  environmental justice issues limited their ability to identify such issues. In  addition, while EPA officials stated that economic reviews of proposed  rules considered potential environmental justice impacts, the gasoline and  diesel rules did not provide decision makers with environmental justice  analyses, and EPA did not identify all the types of data necessary to  analyze such impacts. In finalizing the three rules, EPA considered  environmental justice to varying degrees although, in general, the agency  rarely provided a clear rationale for its decisions on environmental justice- related matters. In responding to comments during the final phase of the  gasoline rule, for example, EPA asserted that the rule would not raise  environmental justice concerns, but did not publish data and assumptions  to support that conclusion.
Our report made four recommendations to help EPA ensure that  environmental justice issues are adequately identified and considered  when clean air rules are being drafted and finalized. The following  includes each recommendation and summarizes the response provided in  EPA’s August 24, 2006, letter to the Comptroller General and cognizant  committees of the Congress:    Ensure that the agency’s rulemaking workgroups devote attention to  environmental justice while drafting and finalizing clean air rules.  Among the actions highlighted by EPA were that the Office of  Environmental Justice was made an ex officio member of the Regulatory  Steering Committee so that it would be aware of important regulations  under development and participate in workgroups.
Enhance the workgroups’ ability to identify potential environmental  justice issues through such steps as (a) providing workgroup members  with guidance and training to help them identify potential  environmental justice problems and (b) involving environmental justice  coordinators in the workgroups when appropriate. EPA responded that it  would supplement its existing environmental justice training with  additional courses to create a comprehensive curriculum to assist agency  rule writers. In response to our call for greater involvement of  Environmental Justice coordinators in workgroup activities, EPA said that  as an ex officio member of the Regulatory Steering Committee, the Office  of Environmental Justice would be able to keep the program offices’  environmental justice coordinators informed about new and ongoing  rulemakings with potential environmental justice implications. It said that  the mechanism for this communication would be monthly conference calls  between the Office of Environmental Justice and the environmental justice  coordinators.
Improve assessments of potential environmental justice impacts in  economic reviews by identifying the data and developing the modeling  techniques that are needed to assess such impacts. EPA responded that  the Office of Air and Radiation was examining ways to improve its air  models so they could better account for the socioeconomic variables  identified in Executive Order 12898.
Direct cognizant officials to respond fully, when feasible, to public  comments on environmental justice by, for example, better explaining  the rationale for EPA’s beliefs and by providing its supporting data. EPA  responded that it would re-emphasize the need to respond fully to public  comments and to include in those responses the rationale for its  regulatory approach and a description of its supporting data.
Upon meeting with cognizant EPA officials on July 18, 2007, we learned  that in the two years since our July 2005 report was issued, some progress  has been made to incorporate environmental justice concerns into EPA’s  air rulemaking process but that considerably more remains to be done.  For example, while the Office of Environmental Justice may be an ex  officio member of the Regulatory Steering Committee, it has not  participated directly in any air rules that have been proposed or finalized  since EPA’s August 2006 letter to us. In addition, according to EPA staff,  some of the training courses that were planned have not yet been  developed due to staff turnover, among other reasons. Regarding EPA’s  efforts to improve assessments of potential environmental justice impacts  in economic reviews, agency officials said that their data and models have  improved since our 2005 report, but that their level of sophistication has  not reached their goal for purposes of environmental justice  considerations. They said that economists within the Office of Air and  Radiation are, among other things, continuing to evaluate and enhance  their models in a way that will further improve consideration of  environmental justice during rulemaking. When asked about GAO’s  recommendation that cognizant officials respond more fully to public  comments on environmental justice, the EPA officials cited a recent  rulemaking in which this was done; but added that they were unaware of  any memoranda or revised guidance that would encourage more global,  EPA-wide progress on this important issue.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Executive Order 12898 stated that to the extent practicable and permitted  by law, each federal agency, including the EPA, “…shall make achieving  environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as  appropriate, the 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…” In  response to the 1994 order, among other things, the EPA Administrator  issued guidance the same year providing that environmental justice should  be considered early in the rule-making process. EPA continued to provide  guidance regarding environmental justice in the following years. For  example, in 1995, EPA issued an Environmental Justice Strategy that  included, among other provisions, (1) ensuring that environmental justice  is incorporated into the agency’s regulatory process, (2) continuing to  develop human exposure data through model development, and (3)  enhancing public participation in agency decision making.
The Office of Environmental Justice, located within EPA’s Office of  Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, provides a central point for the  agency to address environmental and human health concerns in minority  communities and/or low-income communities. However, the agency’s  program offices also play essential roles. As such, the key program office  dealing with air quality issues is the agency’s Office of Air and Radiation.  In fulfilling its Clean Air Act responsibilities, the Office works with state  and local governments and other entities to regulate air emissions of  various substances that harm human health. It also sets primary national  ambient air quality standards for six principal pollutants (carbon  monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, ground level  ozone, and lead) that harm human health and the environment. These  standards are to be set at a level that protects human health with an  adequate margin of safety which, according to EPA, includes protecting  sensitive populations, such as the elderly and people with respiratory or  circulatory problems.
The Office of Air and Radiation has a multistage process for developing  clean air and other rules that it considers a high priority. Initially, a  workgroup chair is chosen from the lead program office—normally the  Office of Air and Radiation in the case of clean air rulemakings. The  workgroup chair assigns the rule one of the three priority levels, and  EPA’s top management makes a final determination of the rule’s priority.  The priority level assigned depends on such factors as the level of the  Administrator’s involvement and whether more than one office in the  agency is involved. The gasoline, diesel, and ozone implementation rules  were classified as high-priority rules on the basis of these factors. They  were also deemed high priority because they were estimated to have an  effect on the economy of at least $100 million per year or were viewed as  raising novel legal and/or policy issues.
For high-priority rules, the workgroup chair is primarily responsible for  ensuring that the necessary work gets done and the process is  documented. Other workgroup members are assigned from the lead  program office and, in the case of the two highest priority rules, from  other offices. Among its key functions, the workgroup (1) prepares a plan  for developing the rule, (2) seeks early input from senior management, (3)  consults with stakeholders, (4) collects data and analyze issues, (5)  analyzes alternative options, and (6) recommends one or more options to  agency management. In addition, a workgroup economist typically  prepares an economic review of the proposed rule’s costs to society.  According to EPA, the “ultimate purpose” of an economic review is to  inform decision makers of the social welfare consequences of the rule.
After approval by relevant offices within EPA, the proposed rule is  published in the Federal Register, the public is invited to comment on it,  and EPA considers the comments. Comments may address any aspect of  the proposed rule, including whether environmental justice concerns are  raised and appropriately addressed in the proposed rule. Sometimes, prior  to the publication of the proposed rule, EPA publishes an Advanced  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register. The notice  provides an opportunity for interested stakeholders to provide input to  EPA early in the process, and the agency takes such comments into  account to the extent it believes is appropriate.
As required by the Clean Air Act, when finalizing a rule, EPA must respond  to each significant comment raised during the comment period. In  addition, EPA’s public involvement policy states that agency officials  should explain how they considered the comments, including any change  in the rule or the reason the agency did not make any changes. After these  tasks are completed, the rule, if it is significant, is sent to OMB for  approval. Once OMB approves the final rule and the Administrator signs it,  it is published in the Federal Register. After a specified time period, the  rule takes effect.
section_title: EPA Generally Devoted Little Attention To Environmental Justice in Drafting Three Rules and Considered it to Varying Degrees in Finalizing Them
paragraphs: When drafting the three clean air rules, EPA generally devoted little  attention to environmental justice. We found, for example, that while EPA  guidance states that workgroups should consider environmental justice  early in the rulemaking process, this was accomplished only to a limited  extent. Key contributing factors included a lack of guidance and training  for workgroup members on identifying environmental justice issues. In  addition, while EPA officials stated that economic reviews of proposed  rules considered potential environmental justice impacts, the gasoline and  diesel rules did not provide analyses of such impacts, nor did EPA identify  all the types of data that would have been needed to perform such  analyses. In finalizing the three rules, EPA considered environmental  justice to varying degrees although, in general, the agency rarely provided  a clear rationale for its decisions on environmental justice-related matters.
For the three rules we examined, concerns about whether environmental  justice was being considered sufficiently early in the rulemaking process  first became evident by its omission on the agency’s “Tiering Form.” Once  a workgroup chair is designated to lead a rulemaking effort, the chair  completes this key form to alert senior managers to potential issues  related to compliance with statutes, executive orders and other matters. In  each case, however, the form did not include a question regarding the  rule’s potential to raise environmental justice concerns, nor did we find  any mention of environmental justice on the completed form.
Beyond this omission, EPA officials had differing recollections about the  extent to which the three workgroups considered environmental justice at  this early stage of the rulemaking process. The chairs of the workgroups  for the two mobile source rules told us that they did not recall any specific  time when they considered environmental justice while drafting the rules.  Other EPA officials associated with these rules said environmental justice  was considered, but provided no documentation to this effect. Similarly,  the chair of the ozone workgroup told us that his group considered  environmental justice, but could not provide any specific information. He  did, however, provide a document stating that compliance with executive  orders, including one related to low-income and minority populations,  would be a part of the economic review that would take place later in the  process.
Overall, we identified three factors that may have limited the ability of  workgroups to identify potential environmental justice concerns early in  the rulemaking process. First, each of the three workgroup chairs told us  that they received no guidance in how to analyze environmental justice  concerns in rulemaking. Second, as a related matter, each said they  received little, if any, environmental justice training. Two chairs did not  know whether other members of the workgroups had received any  training, and a third chair said at least one member did receive some  training. Some EPA officials involved in developing these three rules told  us that it would have been useful to have a better understanding of the  definition of environmental justice and how to consider environmental  justice issues in rulemaking. Finally, the Office of Air and Radiation’s  environmental justice coordinators—whose full-time responsibility is to  promote environmental justice—were not involved in drafting any of the  three rules.
As required, an economic review of the costs, and certain other features,  was prepared for all three rules. According to EPA officials, however, the  economic review of the two mobile source rules did not include an  analysis of environmental justice for various reasons, including the fact  that EPA did not have a model with the ability to distinguish localized  adverse impacts on a specific community or population. EPA’s economic  review of the 2004 ozone rule did discuss environmental justice, claiming  that the rule would not raise environmental justice concerns. However, it  based this claim on an earlier analysis of a 1997 rule that established the 8- hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. Yet rather than  indicating that the 1997 ozone rule did not raise environmental justice  concerns, this earlier economic review said it was not possible to  rigorously consider the potential environmental justice effects because the  states were responsible for its implementation. Hence, the inability of EPA  to rigorously consider environmental justice in the economic review of the  1997 rule appears to contradict EPA’s subsequent statement that there  were no environmental justice concerns raised by the 2004 ozone  implementation rule.
In finalizing each of the three rules, EPA considered environmental justice  to varying degrees, but the gasoline rule in particular provided a  questionable example of how comments and information related to  environmental justice were received and handled. As noted earlier in this  testimony, the Clean Air Act requires that a final rule must be  accompanied by a response to each significant comment raised during the  comment period. In addition, according to EPA’s public involvement  policy, agency officials should explain how they considered the comments,  including any change in the rule or the reason the agency did not make any  changes. In the case of the gasoline rule, representatives of the petroleum  industry, environmental groups, and others had asserted during the  comment period that the proposed rule did in fact raise significant  environmental justice concerns. One commenter claimed that inequities  arose from the fact that while the national air quality benefits were broadly  distributed across the country, higher per capita air quality costs were  disproportionately confined to areas around refineries.
Despite comments such as these, EPA’s final rule did not state explicitly  whether it would ultimately raise an environmental justice concern,  although EPA officials told us in late 2004 that it would not. Furthermore,  EPA did not publish the data and assumptions supporting its position. In  fact, an unpublished analysis EPA developed before finalizing the rule  appeared to suggest that environmental justice may indeed have been an  issue. Specifically, EPA’s analysis showed that harmful air emissions  would increase in 26 of the 86 counties with refineries affected by the rule.  According to EPA’s analysis, one or both types of emissions—nitrogen  oxides and volatile organic compounds—could be greater in the 26  counties than the rule’s benefit of decreased vehicle emissions. In one case  involving a Louisiana parish, EPA estimated that net emissions of nitrogen  oxides could increase 298 tons in 1 year as a result of the rule to refine  cleaner gasoline.
Under EPA’s rulemaking process, the agency prepares a final economic  review after considering public comments. EPA guidance indicates that  this final economic review, like the economic review during the proposal  stage, should identify the distribution of the rule’s social costs across  society. In the case of the three air rules, however, EPA completed a final  economic review after receiving public comments but performed no  environmental justice analyses. The publication of the final rules gave EPA  another opportunity to explain how it considered environmental justice in  the rule’s development. When EPA published the final rules, however, two  of the three rules did not explicitly state whether they would raise an  environmental justice concern. Only the ozone rule stated explicitly that it  would not raise an environmental justice concern.
section_title: GAO’s Recommendations and EPA’s Response
paragraphs: We made four recommendations to help EPA resolve the problems  identified by our study. In its June 10, 2005 letter on a draft of our report,  EPA initially said it disagreed with the recommendations, saying it was  already paying appropriate attention to environmental justice. However,  EPA responded more positively to each of these recommendations in an  August 24, 2006 letter. The first recommendation called upon EPA  rulemaking workgroups to devote attention to environmental justice while  drafting and finalizing clean air rules. EPA responded that to ensure  consideration of environmental justice in the development of regulations,  the Office of Environmental Justice was made an ex officio member of the  agency’s Regulatory Steering Committee, the body that oversees  regulatory policy for EPA and the development of its rules. The letter also  said that (1) the agency’s Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation  (responsible in part for providing support and guidance to EPA’s program  offices and regions as they develop their regulations) convened an agency- wide workgroup to consider where environmental justice might be  considered in rulemakings and (2) it was developing “template language”  to help rule writers communicate findings regarding environmental justice  in the preamble of rules.
Second, to enhance workgroups’ ability to identify potential environmental  justice issues, we called on EPA to (a) provide workgroup members with  guidance and training to help them identify potential environmental justice  problems and (b) involve environmental justice coordinators in the  workgroups when appropriate. In response to the call for better training  and guidance, EPA said it was supplementing existing training with  additional courses to create a comprehensive curriculum that will meet  the needs of agency rule writers. Specifically, it explained that its Office of  Policy, Economics, and Innovation was focusing on how agency staff can  best be trained to consider environmental justice during the regulation  development process; while the Office of Air and Radiation had already  developed environmental justice training tailored to the specific needs of  that office. Among other training opportunities highlighted in the letter  was a new on-line course offered by the Office of Environmental Justice  that addresses a broad range of environmental justice issues. EPA also  cited an initiative by the Office of Air and Radiation’s Office of Air Quality  Planning and Standards to use a regulatory development checklist to  ensure that potential environmental justice issues and concerns are  considered and addressed at each stage of the rulemaking process. In  response to our call for greater involvement of Environmental Justice  coordinators in workgroup activities, EPA said that as an ex officio  member of the Regulatory Steering Committee, the Office of  Environmental Justice will be able to keep the program office  environmental justice coordinators informed about new and ongoing  rulemakings with potential environmental justice implications. It said that  the mechanism for this communication would be monthly conference calls  between the Office of Environmental Justice and the environmental justice  coordinators.
Third, we recommended that the Administrator improve assessments of  potential environmental justice impacts in economic reviews by  identifying the data and developing the modeling techniques needed to  assess such impacts. EPA responded that its Office of Air and Radiation  was reviewing information in its air models to assess which demographic  data could be introduced and analyzed to predict possible environmental  justice effects. It also said it was considering additional economic  guidance on methodological issues typically encountered when examining  a proposed rule’s impacts on subpopulations highlighted in the executive  order. Finally, it noted that the Office of Air and Radiation was assessing  models and tools to (1) determine the data required to identify  communities of concern, (2) quantify environmental health, social and  economic impacts on these communities, and (3) determine whether these  impacts are disproportionately high and adverse.
Fourth, we recommended that the EPA Administrator direct cognizant  officials to respond more fully to public comments on environmental  justice by, for example, better explaining the rationale for EPA’s beliefs  and by providing supporting data. EPA said that as a matter of policy, the  agency includes a response to comments in the preamble of a final rule or  in a separate “Response to Comments” document in the public docket. The  agency noted, however, that it will re-emphasize the need to respond to  comments fully, to include the rationale for its regulatory approach, and to  better describe its supporting data.
section_title: EPA’s Progress in Responding to Our Recommendations
paragraphs: On July 18, 2007, we met with EPA officials to obtain more up-to-date  information on EPA’s environmental justice activities, focusing in  particular on those most relevant to our report’s recommendations. While  we have not had the opportunity to independently verify the information  provided in the few days since that meeting, our discussions did provide  insights into EPA’s progress in improving its environmental justice process  in the two years since our report was issued. The following discusses EPA  activities as they relate to each of our four recommendations.
First, regarding our recommendation that workgroups consider  environmental justice while drafting and finalizing regulations, EPA had  emphasized in its August 2006 letter that making the Office of  Environmental Justice an ex officio member of the Agency’s Regulatory  Steering Committee would not only allow it to be aware of all important  EPA regulatory actions from their inception through rule development and  final agency review, but more importantly, would allow it to participate on  workgroups that are developing actions with potential environmental  justice implications and/or recommend that workgroups consider  environmental justice issues. To date, however, the Office of  Environmental Justice has not participated directly in any of the 103 air  rules that have been proposed or finalized since EPA’s August 2006 letter.  According to EPA officials, the Office of Environmental Justice did  participate in one workgroup of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency  Response, and provided comments on the final agency review for the  Toxic Release Inventory Reporting Burden Reduction Rule. EPA officials  also emphasized that its Tiering Form would be revised to include a  question on environmental justice. As noted earlier, this key form is  completed by workgroup chairs to alert senior managers to the potential  issues related to compliance with statutes, executive orders, and other  matters. However, two years after we cited the omission of environmental  justice from the Tiering Form, EPA explained that its inclusion has been  delayed because it is only one of several issues being considered for  inclusion in the Tiering process.
Second, regarding our recommendation to (1) improve training and (2)  include Environmental Justice coordinators from EPA’s program offices in  workgroups when appropriate, our latest information on EPA’s progress  shows mixed results. On the one hand, EPA continues to provide an  environmental justice training course that began in 2002, and has included  environmental justice in recent courses to help rule writers understand  how environmental justice ties into the rulemaking process. On the other  hand, some training courses that were planned have not yet been  developed. Specifically, the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation  has not completed the planned development of training on ways to  consider environmental justice during the regulation development  process. In addition, while the EPA said in its August 2006 letter that  Office of Air and Radiation had developed environmental justice training  tailored to that office, air officials told us last week that in fact they were  unable to develop the training due to staff turnover and other reasons.  Regarding our recommendation to involve the Program Offices’  Environmental Justice coordinators in rulemaking workgroups when  appropriate, EPA’s August 2006 letter had said that the Coordinators’  involvement would be facilitated through the Office of Environmental  Justice’s participation on the Regulatory Steering Committee. Specifically,  it said that the Office of Environmental Justice would be “able to keep the  agency’s  Coordinators fully informed about new  and ongoing rulemakings with potential Environmental Justice  implications about which the coordinators may want to participate.”  According to EPA officials, however, this active, hands-on participation by  Environmental Justice coordinators in rulemakings has yet to occur.
Third, regarding our recommendation that EPA improve assessments of  potential environmental justice impacts in economic reviews by  identifying the data and developing the modeling techniques that are  needed to assess such impacts, EPA officials said that their data and  models have improved since our 2005 report, but that their level of  sophistication has not reached their goal for purposes of environmental  justice considerations. EPA officials said that to understand how  development of a rule might affect environmental justice for specific  communities, further improvements are needed in modeling, and more  specific data are needed about the socio-economic, health, and  environmental composition of communities. Only when they have  achieved such modeling and data improvements can they develop  guidance on conducting an economic analysis of environmental justice  issues. According to EPA, among other things, economists within the  Office of Air and Radiation are continuing to evaluate and enhance their  models in a way that will further improve consideration of environmental  justice during rulemaking. For example, EPA officials told us that at the  end of July, a contractor will begin to analyze the environmental justice  implications of a yet-to-be-determined regulation to control a specific air  pollutant. EPA expects that the study, due in June 2008, will give the  agency information about what socio-economic groups experience the  benefits of a particular air regulation, and which ones bear the costs. EPA  expects that the analysis will serve as a prototype for analyses of other  pollutants.
Fourth, regarding our recommendation that the Administrator direct  cognizant officials to respond more fully to public comments on  environmental justice, EPA officials cited one example of an air rule in  which the Office of Air and Radiation received comments from tribes and  other commenters who believed that the proposed National Ambient Air  Quality Standard for PM 10-2.5 raised environmental justice concerns.  According to the officials, the agency discussed the comments in the  preamble to the final rule and in the associated response-to-comments  document. Nonetheless, the officials with whom we met said they were  unaware of any memoranda or revised guidance that would encourage  more global, EPA-wide progress on this important issue.
section_title: Concluding Observation
paragraphs: Our 2005 report concluded that the manner in which EPA has  incorporated environmental justice concerns into its air rulemaking  process fell short of the goals set forth in Executive Order 12898. One year  after that report, EPA committed to a number of actions to be taken to  address these issues. Yet an additional year later, most of these  commitments remain largely unfulfilled. While we acknowledge the  technical and financial challenges involved in moving forward on many of  these issues, EPA’s experience to date suggests the need for measurable  benchmarks—both to serve as goals to strive for in achieving  environmental justice in its rulemaking process, and to hold cognizant  officials accountable for making meaningful progress.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be  happy to respond to any questions that you or Members of the  Subcommittee may have.
section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgements
paragraphs: Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this testimony. For further  information about this testimony, please contact John B. Stephenson,  Director, Natural Resources and Environment (202) 512-3841, or  stephensonj@gao.gov. Key contributors to this testimony included Steven  Elstein, Karen Keegan, and Daniel Semick. Other contributors included  Marc Castellano, John Delicath, Brenna Guarneros, Terry Horner, Richard  Johnson, Carol Kolarik, Alison O’Neil, and Cynthia Taylor.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.