	Background

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 Generally Devoted Little Attention To Environmental Justice in Drafting Three Rules and Considered it to Varying Degrees in Finalizing Them

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 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. Furthermore,  EPA did not publish the data and assumptions supporting its position. GAO’s Recommendations and EPA’s Response

We made four recommendations to help EPA resolve the problems  identified by our study. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. On the other  hand, some training courses that were planned have not yet been  developed. 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. 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. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.