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 take any action or just consider the analysis done?

Kelly Maguire, EPA:	The guidance itself is just that  -  it is guidance and recommendations.  It doesn't outline any requirements, both for the analyst or the decision maker.  Any action that might be taken on the part of the decision maker is up to their discretion.  There is nothing in this guidance itself that indicates the decision maker must take action or a particular type of action based on the results of the analysis.  We see the analyst as providing the information to the decision maker in a consistent, transparent manner.  And then how they use that information is up to their discretion.

Al McGartland, EPA:	To add on to what Kelly 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 TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) or other things, it really does depend on the context of our authorities, and what flexibilities the decision maker may or 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 be appropriate under various findings of environmental justice differences.

Question:	Have you identified the participants in the Science Advisory Board review?

Kelly Maguire, EPA:	Yes.  The participants have been identified.  We actually don't have that list.  That's something that our Science Advisory Board has, and it will be made publicly available.  I believe 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 yet.

Question:	Can you give a scenario where this guidance would change current agency practice, or does this guidance document current agency practice?

Kelly Maguire, EPA:	This guidance doesn't necessarily 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 outlines a set of questions, best practices and options for considering environmental justice in our regulatory activities 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 ways 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.  But the idea behind the guidance is that all program offices in all rules will consider environmental justice in ways that perhaps haven't been done before.

                  The agency to date has always 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 rarely based on any type of in-depth analysis.  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 analyst waive the demographics analysis as unnecessary if the impact analysis finds that there is no adverse impact based on the appropriate health protective benchmark?

Al McGartland, EPA:	If we were looking at a chemical and we found that exposures across the board were well below our reference concentration or our reference dose, and if we aren't going to regulate, then we could waive the demographics analysis because there would be no regulation necessary.  But I think the crux behind environmental 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 about.  Until you do the demographic analysis 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 typically have benchmarks, but we do for some non-carcinogens.

                  Again, it's case-specific issue, but one of the processes is that you really have 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 analysis, what about existing disproportionate impacts even though future regulation is applied uniformly?

Kelly Maguire, EPA:	What we have tried to do with this guidance is to get analysts to think about looking at the baseline  -  that is any existing differences  -  as well as across options.  So it could be the case that there's a pretty uneven distribution in the baseline, and even though a standard is being put in place uniformly.

                  We are asking analysts to specifically highlight for the decision maker, who may not be aware of that particular outcome without having looked at the baseline as distinct from the option under consideration.  We are asking analysts to consider whether or not, in doing the analysis, the options under consideration either exacerbate or ameliorate any preexisting differences and to highlight that information for the decision maker.

Al McGartland, EPA:	Sometimes it may not be the actual standard that has an uneven distribution. For example, focusing on monitoring placement of certain ambient air quality standards it's really 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 for state and local government when rules are specific to particular regions?

Kelly Maguire, EPA:	The guidance is currently written, it applies across rule-making activity.  This question has been raised within the agency itself  -  as to how this guidance applies to regional or state or other actions, and that's something that is currently 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.  It'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 analyst consider? 

Kelly Maguire, EPA:	I believe what you're asking here is about multiple and cumulative exposures.  The 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.

                  We will update the guidance as that information becomes available.  But at this point, since the agency does not have uniform ways of considering cumulative effects, we direct analysts to be aware of and consider as these effects as they can.  But we don't have any definitive guidance.

Question:	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 Deputy Associate Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice. 

Al McGartland, EPA:	I'm the Director of the National Center for Environmental Economics in the Office of Policy.

Kelly Maguire, EPA:	We have two more people on our core writing team, Carlton Eley, who is an analyst 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:	The 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 analyses in general.  We do not want to delay that process, and sometimes we can't because of deadlines or court orders that exist.

                  We've introduced enough flexibility within the guidance itself so that the incorporation of EJ effects can be assessed using existing data and regulatory analyses, and 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 loaded 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 happy to send the presentation to you. 

Question:		Are we able to contact you through e-mail if we have future questions?

Kelly Maguire, EPA:	Yes.  Or by phone (202-566-2273).  


                                      END
