Health and Safety Information: EPA and OSHA Could Improve Their Processes for Preparing Communication Products
Published: 2008-03-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Agencies address their missions not only through regulations but also by issuing communication products--such as guidance, fact sheets, and brochures--that can provide crucial information to regulated parties and the public. Since 2000, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) developed new versions of such products to address the potential hazards of exposure to asbestos in automotive brakes. GAO was asked to describe (1) how OSHA and OPPTS prepared their products on asbestos in automotive brakes, (2) the general processes that OSHA and OPPTS use to prepare their communication products, and (3) how these processes compare to those for rulemaking and how recent administration initiatives might affect them. GAO reviewed and analyzed available documents and interviewed officials at OSHA, OPPTS, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: OSHA and OPPTS followed different paths from 2000 through 2007 to update communication products on asbestos in automotive brakes and clutches. OSHA took longer than OPPTS to produce a final product, and OPPTS' process incorporated more steps to obtain input from external parties. Twice before final posting, OSHA officials had decided to not release drafts that had been prepared, because they needed more data to understand how pervasive asbestos in brake products were and wanted to avoid raising unnecessary alarm. For a time, staff from OSHA and OPPTS considered releasing a joint product. Overall, OSHA and OPPTS took years to complete all the process steps to produce their products on asbestos in automotive brakes and clutches--approximately 5-? years for OSHA and approximately 3-? years for OPPTS. In preparing their respective communication products, both OSHA and OPPTS generally followed applicable agency policies and procedures. Both OSHA and OPPTS have standard processes that guide the initiation, development, review, and dissemination of their communication products. OSHA publicly posts all of its applicable instructions, while OPPTS publicly posts only some. Under both agencies' processes, communication products may be initiated by various sources, developed only after getting management approval, and undergo intraagency coordination and management-level clearance. But interagency (including OMB) or other external reviews are not always required. OSHA's policies for disseminating products focus on responsibilities for posting and maintaining final products on the agency's Web site. Beginning at the development phase, OPPTS policies call for the formulation of a communication plan intended to ensure that the dissemination of a particular product is tailored to reach the intended audience. The agencies' processes establish no specific time frames or benchmarks for how long the preparation of a product should take. GAO identified at least five areas where the agencies' processes for preparing communication products and those for rules have significant differences. In contrast to the agencies' processes for communication products, rulemaking imposes requirements on agencies regarding (1) justification of the rule, (2) interagency reviews of drafts, (3) transparency of the processes used, (4) opportunities for public comment, and (5) the public's ability to monitor development and review. These differences are to be expected, given the binding effect of rules, and are each rooted in legal requirements that apply to rulemaking, but not to the preparation of communication products. In January 2007, the administration imposed new requirements for agencies' significant guidance documents, for example requiring agencies to provide OMB advance notice and an opportunity to consult on significant guidance before issuance. These changes move the treatment of significant guidance closer to the requirements for rules but do not cover any other types of communication products.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Federal regulatory agencies address their missions not only by  Federal regulatory agencies address their missions not only by  promulgating and enforcing regulations, but also by issuing a wide variety  promulgating and enforcing regulations, but also by issuing a wide variety  of related communication products, such as guidance documents, fact  of related communication products, such as guidance documents, fact  sheets, and brochures. Although not legally binding, as are regulations,  sheets, and brochures. Although not legally binding, as are regulations,  these products can play an important role in providing information to  these products can play an important role in providing information to  regulated parties and the general public. For example, communication  regulated parties and the general public. For example, communication  products may be used to alert target audiences about potential hazards,  products may be used to alert target audiences about potential hazards,  advise them on ways to prevent or mitigate exposure to the hazards, and  advise them on ways to prevent or mitigate exposure to the hazards, and  provide guidance on complying with applicable federal regulations. The  provide guidance on complying with applicable federal regulations. The  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has noted that as the scope and  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has noted that as the scope and  complexity of regulatory programs have grown, agencies increasingly have  complexity of regulatory programs have grown, agencies increasingly have  relied on products such as guidance documents to inform the public and  relied on products such as guidance documents to inform the public and  to provide direction to their staffs. As a result, both Congress and OMB  to provide direction to their staffs. As a result, both Congress and OMB  have taken an increased interest in the issuance of these products.  have taken an increased interest in the issuance of these products.
You were interested in actions taken since 2000 by the Department of  You were interested in actions taken since 2000 by the Department of  Labor’s (DOL) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and  Labor’s (DOL) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and  the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding potential health  the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding potential health  hazards posed by exposure to asbestos during automotive brake and  hazards posed by exposure to asbestos during automotive brake and  clutch repairs to help illustrate the uses of communication products and  clutch repairs to help illustrate the uses of communication products and  the processes by which such products are prepared. Both agencies had  the processes by which such products are prepared. Both agencies had  published materials about asbestos in brakes and clutches prior to 2000. In  published materials about asbestos in brakes and clutches prior to 2000. In  1986, OSHA published asbestos standards and EPA issued a safety  1986, OSHA published asbestos standards and EPA issued a safety  brochure (known as the Gold Book) that provided information to  brochure (known as the Gold Book) that provided information to  automobile professional and home mechanics on preventing exposure to  brake and clutch dust that may contain asbestos fibers. In 1994, OSHA  updated and made mandatory work practice standards (regulations)  regarding occupational exposure to asbestos, including automotive brake  repair in commercial shops. For example, the standards require that  employers prohibit certain practices, such as the use of compressed air, to  remove asbestos. Beginning in 2000, a series of events, news articles, and  research studies refocused attention on the issue and prompted OSHA and  EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) to  announce plans to disseminate updated information to the public. As the  asbestos-in-brakes issue reemerged, it also generated controversy. Some  parties raised concerns that workers and the general public were not  aware that asbestos was still present in both old and replacement brakes  and clutches and continued to pose a health risk to persons performing  repairs. Other parties cited data published since 1986 that they believed  showed no increased risk of asbestos-related illnesses associated with  brake work. Media reports also raised concerns about the length of time  taken by both OSHA and OPPTS to release new communication products.
In response to this controversy, and to obtain insights about the intra- and  interagency processes used for developing and reviewing the asbestos  information and similar products, you asked us to address the following  questions:  1.  How did OSHA and OPPTS initiate, develop, review, and disseminate  updated communication products on exposure to asbestos in  automotive brakes, how long did the processes take, and did the  agencies follow applicable policies and procedures?  2.  What general policies and procedures do OSHA and OPPTS have for  the initiation, development, review, and dissemination of  communication products?  3.  How do the agencies’ policies and procedures for communication  products compare to those applicable to the initiation, development,  review, and dissemination of rules, and what might be the effects of  2007 administration initiatives on guidance documents?
To address the first objective, we obtained and analyzed information on  the preparation of the OSHA and OPPTS communication products on  asbestos in automotive brakes. We asked agency officials to provide a  chronology and description of events that led to the initiation,  development, review, and eventual dissemination of the products. We also  asked the officials to provide any available documentation that would  corroborate the events and processes described in their respective  chronologies. To address the second objective, we reviewed available  documents on the agencies’ applicable internal policies, procedures, and  practices (collectively referred to as processes throughout this report) that  govern the preparation of communication products. We interviewed  agency officials at DOL/OSHA and EPA/OPPTS about their respective  agencies’ processes for preparing communication products, as well as  officials at OMB about interagency reviews of such products. We assessed  the processes to determine how they addressed the generic phases of  product preparation. To address the third objective, we again reviewed  applicable documents and interviewed officials at the three agencies to  obtain information about the differences between rulemaking and the  processes used to prepare communication products. We also solicited the  views of agency officials regarding effects they anticipated from  implementation of amendments to the executive order on regulatory  review and planning and an OMB bulletin on good guidance practices.
Our scope and methodology were limited to focusing on only the broad  category of communication products—not all nonrule regulatory  products—and on the applicable processes of OSHA and OPPTS, the two  agencies responsible for preparing the communication products on  asbestos in automotive brakes. To illustrate the application of the  agencies’ processes for preparing such products, we relied on detailed  examinations of the asbestos communication products because we  concluded that it would not be possible to identify a representative sample  of issued products in order to do a comparative analysis that would be  meaningful and generalizable to a larger population of products. Because  the agencies keep only limited documentation on the preparation of  communication products, we also relied heavily on testimonial evidence.  We conducted our review in Washington, D.C., from September 2006  through October 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Detailed information on our scope and methodology  appears in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Asbestos is the name given to a number of naturally occurring fibrous  silicate minerals mined for their useful properties, such as thermal  insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength.  Asbestos has been used intentionally in the manufacture of products  ranging from insulation and roofing materials to floor tiles and automotive  brakes, and it may occur as a contaminant in a variety of mineral products,  including vermiculite, talc, and gravel. However, asbestos fibers embedded  in lung tissue over time may cause serious lung diseases, including pleural  abnormalities, reduced lung function, asbestosis, lung cancer, and  mesothelioma. Diseases caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers may not  appear until years after exposure has occurred.
Multiple federal agencies, including OSHA and EPA, have roles and  responsibilities for regulating or otherwise addressing hazards associated  with exposure to asbestos. In July 1989, EPA issued a final rule banning  most asbestos-containing products. In October 1991, the United States  Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded EPA’s rule as  it applied to existing asbestos-containing products, but left intact that  portion banning products that were not being manufactured, produced, or  imported when the rule was published on July 12, 1989, which includes all  new uses of asbestos as defined in the ban. Specifically with regard to  asbestos in automotive brakes and clutches, OSHA’s asbestos standard  requires the use of controls and safe work practices to protect employees  of automotive repair facilities. State and local governments with  employees who perform brake and clutch work in states without OSHA- approved state plans must follow the identical regulations found under the  EPA Asbestos Worker Protection Rule. EPA also provides information for  home mechanics outside the automotive repair industry.
Asbestos is a hazard for which agencies use both rules and informational  communication products to protect the health of workers and the general  public. Rules and nonrule communication products affect the public  differently and serve different purposes. The Administrative Procedure Act  (APA) defines a rule, in part, as “the whole or a part of an agency  statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed  to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the  organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency.” The  APA established the most long-standing and broadly applicable federal  requirements for informal rulemaking, also known as notice and comment  rulemaking. Among other things, the APA generally requires that agencies  publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register. After  giving interested persons an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule  by providing “written data, views, or arguments,” and after considering the  public comments, the agency may then publish the final rule. OSHA  rulemaking is conducted pursuant to separate—although analogous— provisions found in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as  amended. Rules affect regulated entities by creating binding legal  obligations and are subject to judicial review by the courts if, for example,  a party believes that an agency did not follow required rulemaking  procedures.
In contrast, communication products, such as guidance documents and  other informational products for the public, are generally advisory in  nature and informational in content. In fact, under the APA, there is a  statutory exception for having to go through notice and comment  rulemaking for general statements of policy and interpretive rules.  Agencies sometimes include disclaimers in guidance and other  communication products to specifically note that the documents have no  binding effect on regulated parties or the agencies themselves. OSHA and  EPA officials noted that their offices produce large numbers of a variety of  different communication products that may include, but are not limited to,  brochures and pamphlets, compliance guides, educational and training  materials, guidance, and regulatory fact sheets. These products have  different characteristics and purposes. For example, in most cases OSHA  develops SHIBs to address a new hazard or refocus the public’s attention  on a recurring hazard in light of a recent incident, while informational fact  sheets are limited to discussing OSHA standards and technical  information, and “quick cards” are a simplified form of fact sheets that are  targeted to a specific worker audience. Figure 1 illustrates some of the  different types of products disseminated by OSHA and EPA.
Despite the general distinctions between rules and communication  products, determining whether an agency action is a rule is sometimes  difficult and has been the subject of much litigation. Legal scholars and  federal courts have at times struggled to determine whether an agency  action is a rule that should be subject to the APA’s notice and comment  requirements or is simply guidance or a policy statement, and therefore  exempt from these requirements. Even though not legally binding,  communication materials and guidance documents can have a significant  impact, both because of agencies’ reliance on large volumes of such  products and the fact that the products can prompt changes in the  behavior of regulated parties and the general public. Concerns about the  effects of agency guidance documents and how to ensure that agencies do  not cross the line into rulemaking when drafting guidance are part of what  prompted OMB to issue a bulletin on good guidance practices in January  2007.
We have published prior work on both agencies’ actions to address  hazards associated with asbestos and the rulemaking process in general.  Several reports and testimonies that we released in 2007 contained  findings and recommendations about opportunities to improve federal  agencies’ communication of information about potential asbestos  hazards. These products showed the need to be timely in getting out  information to the public. For example, had additional or more complete  information been provided, people might have made different decisions or  taken different actions to protect themselves. In addition, Congress has  often asked us to review aspects of federal rulemaking procedures and  practices. However, with rare exceptions, such as a report on agencies’  small entity compliance guides, we have not previously been asked to  review agencies’ general processes regarding communication products.  Our prior reports and testimonies contained a variety of recommendations  to improve various aspects of rulemaking procedures and practices.
section_title: OSHA and OPPTS Used Different Processes during Multiyear Efforts to Complete Communication Products on Asbestos
paragraphs: OSHA and OPPTS followed different paths from 2000 through 2007 to  prepare their SHIB and brochure, respectively, on asbestos in automobile  brakes and clutches. Among the primary differences, the two agencies  initiated work on their asbestos products in response to different triggers,  OSHA took longer than OPPTS to produce a final product, and OPPTS’  process incorporated more steps to obtain input from external parties.  Each agency initiated the development of their product in response to  external events that agency officials decided needed to be addressed  through the publication of communication products. In total, OSHA and  OPPTS took years to complete all the steps of their processes from  initiation through dissemination of their products on asbestos in  automotive brakes—approximately 5-½ years for OSHA and  approximately 3-½ years for OPPTS. In doing so, both OSHA and OPPTS  generally followed applicable agency policies and procedures for  preparing communication products, as described below. The following is a  description of the steps that OSHA and OPPTS took to initiate, develop,  review, and disseminate the communication products on asbestos in  automobile brake and clutch repairs.
subsections: section_title: OSHA and OPPTS Initiated Development of Products on Asbestos in Response to Different Triggers
paragraphs: From 2000 through 2007, OSHA and OPPTS responded to the potential  hazards associated with exposure to asbestos in brake and clutch repairs  by developing and publishing their own communication products. (Fig. 2  illustrates one of the potential hazards.)
However, each agency initiated its product in response to different  triggering events. In December 2000, an OSHA regional office became  aware of a media report that discussed the potential exposure to asbestos  during brake and clutch repairs and its effect on automobile mechanics.  According to the article, there were indications that mechanics were being  exposed to asbestos levels potentially much higher than the level  recommended in the standards. The article also raised concerns that many  people were unaware that the EPA ban on asbestos products had been  partially overturned and that asbestos-related products—including  automobile brakes—were still being sold and used. Therefore, mechanics  and automobile shop owners might not have been taking preventive  measures to avoid exposure to asbestos fibers. OSHA regional officials  suggested that the agency could either issue a hazard alert to automotive  associations via the internet as a means of disseminating information to  the public, or implement a local emphasis program (LEP) to address this  issue. After being notified by its regional office, the OSHA National Office  decided that the agency’s response would be to develop a hazard  information bulletin. According to agency officials, LEPs are developed by  the regional or area office and reviewed by the Directorate of Enforcement  Programs, however, the regional office did not develop an LEP to address  the issues of exposure to asbestos in automotive brakes. Officials decided  that among the OSHA communication products available, the health  information bulletin would alert the public in the most efficient manner.  However, according to OSHA officials, the asbestos SHIB was unique  because, in most cases, a SHIB is developed to address a new hazard or  refocus the public’s attention on a recurring hazard in light of a recent  incident. This was not the case for the asbestos bulletin because there had  not been any recent incidents associated with asbestos in automobile  brakes.
OPPTS began to develop its communication product in 2003 in response to  two events. The first was an EPA-initiated asbestos strategy project that  recommended in its 2003 report that the agency revise its materials on  asbestos. This project focused on how oversight, outreach, and education  could help identify priorities and promote innovative approaches and best  practices to address and manage costs and risks associated with asbestos.  The other triggering event was a request for correction under the IQA that  asked EPA to withdraw its 1986 Gold Book. Among other things, the IQA  allows “affected persons” to seek and obtain correction of information  maintained and disseminated by agencies. In essence, the requester  asserted that the Gold Book contained statements that were based on  inadequate and inappropriate scientific information, and that the book  itself was badly outdated given the scientific studies published since 1986.  Once the agency received the request for correction, updating the Gold  Book became a higher priority. OPPTS officials acknowledged that,  although the information provided by the Gold Book was still accurate, the  format and presentation of the information could be perceived as very  technical and not “user-friendly.” Therefore, officials decided to develop a  product that would provide the necessary information and meet the needs  of professional automobile mechanics and home mechanics, in a simple  and user-friendly format. They agreed that the best approach would be a  brochure. However, according to OPPTS officials the brochure was also a  unique communication product. In most cases, OPPTS develops a  communication product in response to a need that is identified by the  agency itself or is brought to the attention of agency officials. According to  agency officials, the brochure for the existing Gold Book was under  revision to provide more relevant context and illustrations and to conform  with communications practices developed in the years since its last  publication in 1986 (including practices of plain English language and Web  site addresses for additional information). Revision of the asbestos  brochure did not address a new need and did not provide new information  that was not available elsewhere on EPA’s Web site.
section_title: OSHA and OPPTS Took Years to Develop and Release Updated Communication Products on Asbestos in Brakes
paragraphs: As illustrated in figure 3, the preparation of the OSHA and OPPTS  communication products on asbestos in automobile brakes occurred over  several years, but OSHA’s SHIB was in development longer than OPPTS’  brochure. From initiation to public dissemination of a final SHIB, OSHA’s  process took approximately 5-½ years. OPPTS’ process took  approximately 3-½ years. OSHA and OPPTS officials stated that one  reason for the delay in developing and disseminating the asbestos  communication products was that other priorities, such as responding to  Hurricane Katrina in the fall of 2005, overtook the development of these  communication products. However, officials from both agencies pointed  out that previously released information about the dangers of exposure to  asbestos, applicable protective standards, and protective measures  remained available during the products’ development.
OSHA began developing its SHIB in 2001, and posted the final version of  the SHIB to the agency’s Web site in the summer of 2006. During these 5-½  years, OSHA officials drafted the SHIB and reviewed it, but did not clear it  on two separate occasions (see fig 5). In 2003, agency officials decided not  to publish the SHIB because they were unsure of the extent to which  asbestos in brake products was a problem. They were concerned about  raising an unnecessary alarm about the possible exposure to asbestos in  automobile brakes because they found information about the problem was  limited and inconclusive. In 2004, OSHA received a draft of OPPTS’  brochure addressing the same issue. At that time, OSHA was still  conducting research to determine the extent to which asbestos-containing  products were still available in the market. For example, OSHA staff  reviewed data from the U.S. Geological Survey that indicated that there  were still friction products with asbestos available in the market but it was  difficult to determine the exact amount of automobile brake and clutch  products that contained asbestos. However, officials determined that none  of the sources were able to provide information on the extent to which  asbestos-containing brakes and clutches were still available in the market.  In 2005, OSHA again decided against issuing a revised SHIB because it  repeated existing standards, and agency officials were still uncertain as to  the extent to which automobile brakes and clutches containing asbestos  were still available in the market. OSHA officials said that the  development of the SHIB was given lower priority when the agency staff  became involved with the response to Hurricane Katrina, including the  production of compliance assistance materials related to this event. In  2006, OSHA officials received the OPPTS’ draft brochure prior to its  publication in the Federal Register and also became aware of another  media report that raised concerns about the delays and the lack of activity  at OSHA on the SHIB. OSHA officials consulted with an automobile  manufacturer to determine if asbestos-containing brakes and clutches  were still being used in the manufacture of new automobiles and the  extent to which these parts were still available in the market. While the  information was still inconclusive, at the end of July 2006, OSHA officials  decided to issue the SHIB—that included a cross-reference to the EPA  asbestos Web site—and posted it to the agency’s Web site. (See app. III for  a copy of the final asbestos SHIB.)
In 2003, OPPTS officials began to develop their brochure in response to  the request for correction and its internal review of asbestos information  products. OPPTS officials reviewed existing data to determine the  prevalence of asbestos-containing automobile brakes and clutches in the  market. OPPTS staff also consulted officials at the U.S. Geological Survey  as well as with industry officials to determine if asbestos-containing  products were still available in the market. According to their contacts,  there were still products with asbestos available in the market but it was  difficult to determine the amount of products. OPPTS officials decided  that given the uncertainty about the prevalence, there was a need to  inform the public about the potential hazard. By April 2004, after  developing a draft of the brochure, OPPTS was ready to submit its draft  for comments from other federal agencies. In July, OPPTS staff learned  about the SHIB that OSHA had begun to draft in 2001 that addressed the  same hazard. At various points during the rest of the development of the  brochure, staff at OSHA and OPPTS worked together to ensure that the  OPPTS brochure incorporated language from the OSHA SHIB and cross- referenced the OSHA SHIB and Web site. By the fall of 2004, OPPTS  officials decided to defer to OSHA. They halted further development of the  brochure. According to OSHA officials, in early 2005, EPA officials  indicated to OSHA that they were no longer interested in pursuing a joint  communications product on exposure to asbestos in automotive brakes. In  2006, OSHA officials confirmed their decision not to publish the  information bulletin, and OPPTS officials moved forward with the  development of their brochure, because they were responding to a request  for correction, and finalized the draft by the summer. In August 2006,  OPPTS published its draft brochure, and in March 2007 OPPTS published  the final brochure. (See app. IV for a copy of the final brochure.)
OPPTS also consulted and coordinated with officials at OMB. Because  OPPTS was responding to a request for correction, OMB, in its oversight  role under IQA, monitored the agency’s response to the request. However,  there was no formal requirement for interagency coordination between  OMB and OPPTS in developing communication products. According to  OSHA officials, OMB’s inquiries into the SHIB development were due to  EPA reporting to OMB that it was not developing its own response to the  request for correction because OSHA was developing a SHIB that  addressed the same hazard. However, there was no requirement for OMB  to monitor or review the development of the SHIB.
While OSHA and OPPTS developed new products that addressed the same  health hazard and varied in the amount of time needed for development  and review, agency officials stated that neither product contained any  information that was not already available to the public. OSHA’s  information bulletin was based on the existing workplace asbestos  standards, and EPA’s brochure was an update to the Gold Book (a 16-page  booklet). According to agency officials, these were products that were  intended not only to inform the public about the potential health hazard,  but also to provide other sources of information within each agency in a  more user-friendly format. However, the EPA brochure differs from the  previous Gold Book in several ways. The Gold Book not only drew  attention to what it considered to be very serious health consequences  that resulted from exposure to asbestos during brake and clutch repair,  but also stated that it was very difficult to make the repair of asbestos- containing parts safe. The new brochure lists the health consequences of  exposure to asbestos, but also outlines best practices that when followed,  can reduce the potential for exposure to asbestos so that repair work on  asbestos brakes can be conducted in a safe manner. While the brochure  does not elaborate on the reasons for the discussion on best practices,  OPPTS officials stated that the shorter brochure (a trifold pamphlet) was  intended to be more user-friendly and not a compilation of all of the  available information on the potential health consequences associated  with asbestos exposure in a single publication. (Within the brochure,  officials provided the link to the agency’s Web page that has more  information on the health consequences associated with asbestos  exposure.) Some of the respondents to OPPTS’ request for public  comments questioned these differences in content. For example, one  organization said that the draft failed to provide sufficient information  concerning the risks of asbestos and appropriate risk practices and  recommended that the final brochure address in more detail the issue of  latency in the effects of asbestos disease, and that language of the EPA  document should mirror the language of the OSHA SHIB, for example by  stating that “Mechanics should assume that all brakes have asbestos-type  shoes.” Another respondent, while generally supportive of the changes  made in the new brochure, stated that warnings of health effects  associated with exposure to asbestos listed in the new document should  be expanded and should include information about the danger of exposing  family members by wearing work clothes home. OPPTS officials stated  that the intent of the brochure was to update the Gold Book and convey  the work practice information in a more user-friendly format, and that  other information related to asbestos could be found on the agency’s Web  site.
section_title: OSHA and OPPTS Included External Parties to Different Degrees in the Review of the Asbestos Products
paragraphs: Under both OSHA and OPPTS processes, reviewing a communication  product always includes internal review but also may include external  review. This external review may come from other federal agencies,  industry groups, or the general public. In developing its brochure, OPPTS  sought comments from external parties and the general public. In  comparison, OSHA’s process had more limited participation from external  parties. As part if its process, OPPTS consulted with other federal agencies  in the development of the brochure. In addition, in order to determine the  extent to which asbestos was still present in automobile brakes and  clutches, OSHA and OPPTS staff consulted officials at the U.S. Geological  Survey. OSHA also consulted with an automobile manufacturer and  OPPTS consulted with some automobile parts manufacturers and retailers  to determine if asbestos-containing products were still prevalent.  According to their contacts, there were still products with asbestos  available in the market but it was difficult to determine their prevalence.  Once OPPTS officials decided to develop their own brochure, they  submitted the draft to OMB for review and coordination of the interagency  review. Once the interagency review was completed, OPPTS published a  notice of availability in the Federal Register and asked for public  comments to the brochure. After agency officials revised the draft  brochure in response to comments, they resubmitted the brochure to OMB  for final review.
OSHA officials did not generally include external parties in the  development of OSHA’s information bulletin, and its collaboration with  OPPTS staff was a result of outreach by OPPTS officials. For example,  when officials were trying to determine the extent to which asbestos-laden  brakes and clutches were still available, OSHA officials consulted the U.S.  Geological Survey as well as an automobile manufacturer to determine if  asbestos-containing brakes and clutches were still being used in the  manufacture of new automobiles and the extent to which these parts were  still available in the market. However, there was no evidence of attempts  to obtain data from other parties, such as automobile parts distributors or  retailers. OSHA also did not seek public comments on its draft bulletin.
section_title: OSHA and OPPTS Posted Asbestos Communication Products on Their Web Sites
paragraphs: When OPPTS officials develop a communication product, they also  develop a communication plan to ensure that the agency’s announcement  and publication of the product reaches the intended audience. In  developing the brochure, OPPTS also developed a communication plan  that included a projected issuance date, identified the audiences and other  stakeholders, and the method(s) for dissemination. According to the  communication plan for the asbestos brochure, OPPTS officials notified  OSHA officials about the dissemination of the brochure prior to its  publication in the Federal Register and posting onto the EPA Web site.  OPPTS officials also notified the media by announcing the brochure in its  weekly media advisory that also provided the Web link to the agency’s  asbestos information page (www.epa.gov/asbestos). After submitting the  brochure for final review by OMB, OPPTS officials published the brochure  in the Federal Register and on the agency’s Web site. After posting the  brochure, EPA removed the Gold Book from its Web site.
OSHA guidance, unlike that for OPPTS, does not require the agency to  develop in advance a communications strategy to ensure that  communication products reach their intended audience. Once OSHA  officials developed and reviewed their information bulletin, they posted it  to their Web site (www.osha.gov/dts/shib/shib072606.html) and  announced its issuance in their biweekly e-news memo, Quick Takes, an  OSHA publication that is available to interested parties. This publication  has a circulation of more than 50,000 subscribers. In addition, the release  of the SHIB was listed on the opening page of the agency’s public Web site  under the feature, What’s New. However, according to OPPTS officials,  OSHA officials did not notify them of OSHA’s decision to release the SHIB  prior to its posting on the OSHA Web site.
section_title: Multiple Policies, Procedures, and Practices May Apply to the Preparation of Communication Products
paragraphs: Both OSHA and OPPTS have standard policies, procedures, and practices  that guide the initiation, development, review, and dissemination of their  communication products, but agency officials noted that not all of the  processes are documented. OSHA and OPPTS officials identified for us the  main processes that their agencies use. In particular, the officials provided  detailed descriptions of the processes applicable to preparing OSHA  SHIBs and OPPTS communication materials—those that applied to the  preparation of the agencies’ products on asbestos in automotive brakes  and clutches. Because of the great variety of products that the agencies  produce, there may be other processes applicable to a given  communication product, but the processes identified are those that should  most often apply to communication products. We reviewed these  processes to determine how they addressed four generic phases:   (1) initiation, (2) development, (3) review, and (4) dissemination of  communication products. In the following sections, we identify the key  OSHA and EPA/OPPTS processes and summarize the process steps the  agencies said they typically follow to prepare OSHA SHIBs and OPPTS  communication materials, such as brochures.
subsections: section_title: OSHA-Specific Instructions Guide the Agency’s Preparation of Compliance Assistance Products
paragraphs: OSHA primarily follows agency-specific instructions, rather than any DOL- wide procedures, when preparing compliance assistance products,  although DOL’s Office of the Solicitor is included in the review and  clearance process. Agency officials identified several specific OSHA  instructions as most helpful in understanding their review and clearance  process and aspects of OSHA’s compliance assistance material  production. These include the OSHA directives on clearance of policy  issuances, nonpolicy issuances, and SHIBs. In September 2007, OSHA  issued an instruction on preparing Safety and Health Compliance  Assistance Products that may now provide the most relevant process  guidance for preparing such products. Compliance assistance products or  materials covered by this instruction include, but are not limited to, SHIBs,  quick cards, fact sheets, posters, and pamphlets. OSHA has made all of its  directives publicly available on the agency’s Web site. However, agency  officials said that not all details about their processes and standard  practices appear in the written directives. Figure 4 illustrates the process  that OSHA officials said they follow to prepare SHIBs.  (This page left blank intentionally.)
OSHA officials noted that the flowchart, although based on the SHIB  directive, shows additional intricacies and review loops that can occur in  the actual development and review of a SHIB (unwritten elements of the  process). In general, the officials noted that everything goes through the  clearance process, and there is little room for discretion, although they  could deviate in an emergency situation if the Assistant Secretary of OSHA  approves it.
Although the flowchart and the following narrative summary focus on the  process for SHIBs, we also include in the discussion below information to  illustrate how other key OSHA directives are similar or different from the  SHIB process, with a particular emphasis on OSHA’s new directive for  preparing compliance assistance products.
subsections: section_title: Initiation
paragraphs: OSHA officials noted that a variety of triggers can initiate a decision to  update or create a product, including, for example, evidence of  inadequacies of controls in the workplace or lessons learned from  catastrophic or major incidents. OSHA’s directive on SHIBs specifically  identifies seven circumstances when it might be appropriate to use a SHIB  and eight types of safety and health issues that might be covered by a SHIB  (although OSHA does not limit SHIBs to only these issues). For example,  the SHIB directive states that it might be appropriate to disseminate  information to or through OSHA field offices as a SHIB when OSHA  becomes aware of new, unusual, noteworthy, previously unrecognized, or  little known but significant occupational safety and health hazards.  Officials said that most ideas for SHIBs come from the field, and most  come out of OSHA’s inspections. Among the types of safety and health  issues that a SHIB might address are common misunderstandings or  misnomers involving worker safety and health issues (such as the  misunderstanding that asbestos was banned).
section_title: Development
paragraphs: The development phase includes two main steps, management approval to  proceed with the development of a product and the actual drafting of the  product. Selecting the appropriate type of product is an important element  in the initial approvals, because this helps to determine which agency  policies and procedures should apply. OSHA officials said that, in general,  the specific procedures and clearances that would be required are driven  mostly by whether a product is a policy or nonpolicy issuance. The OSHA  instruction on nonpolicy issuances includes a process flow checklist to  determine whether a proposed issuance is appropriate for release as a  nonpolicy issuance.
One distinguishing feature of OSHA’s instructions is that for SHIBs in  particular and compliance assistance products in general, the Assistant  Secretary of OSHA must approve the proposed product before  development of a draft can proceed. There are also earlier steps during  which field, regional, and national office officials determine whether an  issue merits national attention. These approvals serve as an important  internal control. For example, according to agency officials, OSHA  developed its instruction on compliance assistance products to   (1) implement a process that ensures that the development of guidance is  appropriately coordinated between the national office and field operations  before resources are spent to develop the products and (2) establish a  process by which guidance projects are approved by OSHA management  before the expenditure of resources.
Centralized top-management approval is a prominent feature of OSHA’s  new instruction on compliance assistance products. Under that  instruction, the initiating OSHA region, directorate, or office must obtain  approval from the Assistant Secretary of OSHA before development of any  such products. To do so, OSHA will filter the proposals through OSHA’s  Compliance Assistance Coordinating Group (CACG). Proposals are to be  entered into a database and, unless expedited review has been requested,  CACG will coordinate requests for presentation to the Assistant Secretary  on a quarterly basis. (OSHA’s directive indicates that the agency will use  the “Compliance Assistance Products under Development” database to  track not only the initiation and approval of proposed products, but also  their development and clearance.) CACG will submit all requests to the  Assistant Secretary and note the ones that the group recommends for  development. OSHA’s instructions also prompt the initiator of the request  to indicate the potential economic significance of the compliance  assistance product.
If an approved idea merits a national product, OSHA will begin  development of a SHIB by going through the appropriate subject matter  office to prepare a draft. OSHA’s Directorate of Science, Technology, and  Medicine (DSTM) is responsible for developing and issuing most SHIBs,  but other directorates may forward ideas for, or contribute to, a SHIB.  During the development phase, national and field office staff may consult  with each other. However, according to agency officials, OSHA typically  does not survey or consult with outside parties for additional information  when developing a SHIB. OSHA’s instructions require that draft SHIBs and  other compliance assistance products include a disclaimer, noting, for  example, that the product is not a standard or regulation and creates no  new legal obligations.
section_title: Review
paragraphs: The review phase requires internal agency reviews and approvals and  might also include interagency reviews, external reviews, or both. During  the formal internal review process, a draft SHIB will go through the  Directors of OSHA’s offices. Agency officials told us that, ultimately,  Directors are responsible for approving the product and are instructed to  “look at the totality of the document when signing it.” For draft SHIBs,  internal reviews are to include coordination with the Office of  Communications, the Office of the Solicitor, and other OSHA Directorates  (such as the Directorate of Enforcement Programs and the Directorate of  Standards and Guidance). Other internal stakeholders who may review a  draft SHIB include officials in OSHA regional offices.
In some cases, the SHIB process may include seeking a review of the draft  SHIB by entities or individuals outside of OSHA, such as recognized  experts, state or federal agencies, and professional organizations. The  SHIB directive suggests that the Director of DSTM refer to current OSHA  Alliances to ensure inclusion of appropriate stakeholders (for example,  trade associations connected with a topic). However, OSHA officials  pointed out that their process for SHIBs and other guidance documents is  largely internal, unless there is some reason to go outside OSHA. Officials  told us that some products, such as guidance on pandemic flu, go through  interagency and OMB review. If OSHA consults external stakeholders,  agency officials said that these stakeholders are usually involved after a  draft has been prepared. However, in some circumstances, such as if a  fatality helped to trigger development of a SHIB, OSHA could involve  external stakeholders up front.
Since issuing the SHIB on asbestos in brakes, OSHA revised its review  process that draft SHIBs be referred to the DOL Executive Secretariat, on  a case-by-case basis, for concurrence before the Assistant Secretary of  OSHA signs and disseminates the completed product. For SHIBs prepared  by DSTM, part of the review package includes a table that contains all  comments made during the review process and their disposition. The  officials noted that there can be an iterative “loop” to this process, not  reflected in the written SHIB directive. Specifically, if major issues surface  during reviews, but the agency still wishes to proceed with a SHIB,  officials would revise the document to address the concerns, and the draft  would have to go through appropriate review steps again.
Under the September 2007 OSHA instructions on compliance assistance  products, the review and clearance processes are very similar to those  outlined in the SHIB directive. However, unlike the SHIB directive, the  instructions on compliance assistance products include some specific time  frames for reviews. For example, offices generally are required to allow at  least 20 working days for review of compliance assistance products. After  incorporating appropriate changes, OSHA management determines  whether a second review is needed. The instructions also note, however,  that when a product is submitted for approval by the Assistant Secretary,  clearances or concurrences from reviewers may not be more than 120  days old; otherwise, another review is needed.
section_title: Dissemination
paragraphs: The directives on SHIBs and compliance assistance products encourage  staff to coordinate with the Office of Communications regarding design  and issuance of the product, including appropriate public notification. The  directives identified by OSHA officials include provisions specifying  responsibilities for posting, distributing, and maintaining the final  products. The final products are posted on OSHA’s Web site, by product  type.
OSHA officials told us that OSHA does have processes to allow public  comments on SHIBs or to provide public notification before the SHIBs are  posted in final form, however, there is no requirement for either of these  actions except in the case of significant guidance as defined by OMB.  OSHA officials said that when approval is received per the review process,  they simply post the signed SHIB. Sometimes there is a press release, but  not always. The officials said there have been a few exceptions—not  involving SHIBs—where the agency asked for comments on the Web  before drafting guidance documents.
OSHA’s directives establish no specific time frames or benchmarks for  how long the entire process for producing a final product should take from  initiation through development, review and dissemination, although the  compliance assistance directive identifies time frames for a few review  steps. There is not likely to be one single standard that would be  appropriate for all products and in all circumstances, but the absence of  time frames or benchmarks leaves OSHA’s processes with no mechanisms  to prompt the timely release of communication products. In fact, some  aspects of OSHA’s processes, such as the possibility of repeating  development and review steps (as shown in the asbestos SHIB example)  may contribute to delays. Timeliness is only one of a range of performance  indicators that agencies should use to measure whether they are achieving  their goals—others include the quantity, quality, cost, and outcome of  agencies’ program activities—and this range is important because  managers must balance competing goals. Nevertheless, it is an indicator  that merits attention, especially once an agency has determined that there  is a need to communicate information about how people can protect  themselves from health and safety hazards. The very nature of such  communication products indicates that timeliness is a necessary element  for their effectiveness.
section_title: OPPTS Uses a Mix of EPA- Wide and Its Own Processes to Prepare Communication Products
paragraphs: OPPTS officials identified both OPPTS-specific and a number of EPA-wide  internal processes that they use to prepare communication products. In  general, agency officials told us that they do not follow the same  procedures or conduct the same level of review for all products, although  there may be a standard procedure and level of review for some categories  of products. The detailed steps of the internal procedures may vary  according to multiple factors, such as the specific type of product; the  offices involved in the process; the significance of the document and the  type of information it contains—for example, whether the information to  be provided is new or an update; and the complexity and sensitivity of the  subject. Agency officials noted that not all of their processes are  documented in written guidance.
EPA and OPPTS have different processes that apply to different types of  nonrule products. At EPA, nonrule products include, among others,  communication materials, scientific documents, analyses, reports,  guidance, and compliance assistance materials. Among the main EPA-wide  procedures or guidelines that may affect the procedural steps followed to  prepare communication products are (1) EPA’s Action Development  Process: Guidance for EPA Staff on Developing Quality Actions,   (2) Policy and Implementation Guide for Communications Product  Development and Approval (guidelines from EPA’s Office of Public  Affairs, also referred to as the agency’s Product Review Process), (3) the  agency’s procedures for notices to be published in the Federal Register,  and (4) EPA’s information quality guidelines. The Product Review Process  and the information quality guidelines are publicly available on EPA’s Web  site, but the other guidelines are not. Other policies, procedures, and  guidelines also might apply depending on the type of document that is  being created. In addition, each EPA office and region, including OPPTS,  has its own internal procedures and guidelines for the development and  dissemination of the various products.
OPPTS therefore follows applicable EPA-wide processes, as well as its  own processes, when preparing its products. In particular, OPPTS officials  identified a general five-phase process for preparing communication  products based on the EPA Product Review Process: (1) initiation,   (2) development, (3) review within EPA, (4) interagency/external review,  and (5) dissemination. According to the officials, regardless of whether  written procedures are developed for a particular category of products,  the process that OPPTS follows is built around these core phases. Figure 5  illustrates the OPPTS process for preparing communication products.  OPPTS officials characterized this process as one that they typically follow  to prepare products, such as the brochure on preventing asbestos  exposure among brake and clutch repair workers. However, it is not  necessary for each communication product to follow each of these steps.
During the initiation phase, OPPTS officials generally will identify the need  for the product, identify the type of product to consider developing (for  example, Web page, fact sheet, brochure, or Q&A document), consult with  stakeholders (if officials determine there is a need for consultation), and  obtain approval for the concept from the appropriate officials. Agency  officials told us that the need to develop a new communication product, or  to revise or update an existing product, might arise from several sources,  including a legal mandate, identification by their staff responding to  inquiries or implementing a program, or OPPTS management. In some  cases, OPPTS may consult with another agency or affected stakeholders to  identify the need for creating or revising a communication product. In the  case of a product developed as a result of a regulatory program, the  stakeholders may be representatives of the regulated community or other  interested members of the public. Pursuant to EPA’s Product Review  Process for Communications Materials, an important step in initiation is  that OPPTS management agrees that the product needs to be developed or  revised, and EPA’s Office of Public Affairs also reviews and approves the  concept.
subsections: section_title: Development
paragraphs: Once a concept for a product is approved, the program officials consult  with stakeholders (as appropriate), develop a time frame for product  completion and a plan for disseminating the product (a communications  plan), and determine whether a specific process applies to the  development of a particular product. Once a development process is either  identified or developed, the process must be approved by OPPTS  management prior to developing the product. OPPTS officials told us that  development time frames may vary for different product types depending  on the specific needs identified and circumstances related to that product,  and also depending on whether a process has been developed or needs to  be developed. Unless specifically mandated by statute, or driven by other  legal deadlines or an identified critical need, the time frame for developing  the product is flexible and subject to change based on competing demands  for the staff’s attention and other resources. The agency’s processes set no  specific time frames for how long development of a product should take.  In addition, OPPTS may decide to engage partner agencies, stakeholders,  or both at different points during the development of the product, based  primarily on the circumstances specific to the particular product.  According to OPPTS officials, because the nature of communication  products and the circumstances surrounding their development vary  significantly, the process provides sufficient flexibility to ensure the  development of a quality product. (EPA’s Action Development Process, the  detailed guidance that the agency as a whole follows when developing its  most significant actions—such as regulations, policy statements, risk  assessments, and guidance documents—is similarly flexible. The required  process steps for development vary according to the agency’s  determinations about the priority of the action, from those that require the  attention of the EPA Administrator to those that are delegated to one of  EPA’s offices.)
section_title: Review
paragraphs: All OPPTS communication products must undergo internal review  pursuant to the agency’s Product Review Process. Specifically, agency  processes require that a communication product be approved by OPPTS  management both at initiation and again at the final draft stage. Any issues  or comments that might arise during the OPPTS management review must  be addressed before the product undergoes broader EPA review. OPPTS  also circulates draft communication products to those EPA offices that  work on similar issues (including regional offices, depending on the issue)  and central offices, such as EPA’s Office of General Counsel and Office of  Public Affairs.
Although not required, depending on the nature of the particular  communication product, OPPTS may seek reviews by other agencies (such  as those interested in programs or topics related to the product) and OMB  before finalizing the product. In some cases, this may involve more than  one agency. OPPTS has on occasion provided advance copies of certain  high-profile products to OMB for an informal review. This usually has been  in response to a request from OMB but also on occasion when OPPTS  wanted OMB’s input.
OPPTS might also seek comments from nonfederal parties. In general,  communication products developed by OPPTS do not all undergo a formal  notice and comment stage. OPPTS considers whether such a step is  necessary as part of the planning process based on the nature and  circumstances surrounding the particular product. Even when not  required to do so, OPPTS may still seek public comments on the product  in circumstances involving new types of communication products,  stakeholder interest, external commitments for comment opportunities,  potentially controversial issues, or for other reasons. OPPTS officials told  us that when the agency uses notice and comment for a particular product,  it opens a public docket. Public comments are submitted to that docket,  and the public can access the product, other relevant information (if any),  and any comments received.
section_title: Dissemination
paragraphs: Once the product has undergone internal review, interagency/external  review (if necessary), and final OPPTS management approval and  signature, OPPTS disseminates the product to the general public. To  obtain management approval for public release, OPPTS staff will prepare a  final version of the product, along with any related materials, using EPA’s  Product Review Process for all communications products. OPPTS  typically develops a Communication Plan to ensure that its announcement  and release of a particular product is tailored to reach the intended  audience. EPA’s written guide on communication products includes  guidance to agency staff about communications planning. In cases where  the product is related to a well-established program area, OPPTS might  maintain a list of interested parties who wish to be notified whenever  OPPTS releases anything related to that established program area. EPA’s  Product Review Process includes a mechanism for OPPTS to coordinate  the development and review of the Communication Plan for the particular  product with communication specialists across the agency. OPPTS also  consults with EPA’s Office of Public Affairs on all releases.
EPA officials told us that it would be difficult to compile a list of all  disseminated communication products because of the great variety and  number of products they produce. However, the agency maintains several  lists of some of the available products for the public; for example, officials  noted that the National Service Center for Environmental Publications is a  central repository for EPA documents available for distribution, but this is  not all-inclusive. An EPA official also pointed out that almost all  communication products—whether from OPPTS or other EPA program  offices—ultimately are reviewed by EPA’s Office of Public Affairs, which  maintains an inventory of all public communication products that it has  reviewed. As OPPTS officials said, it may also be less meaningful to  attempt to catalog communication materials as the agency increasingly  posts information to its Web site for quicker dissemination and wider  accessibility and uses a variety of simpler, more focused formats to convey  that information. They said that the differences between EPA’s 1986 Gold  Book and the agency’s 2007 asbestos brochure illustrate this change. While  the agency’s goal for the Gold Book was to compile all of the available  information into a single publication, OPPTS now provides links to source  documents, rather than repeating all the details. OPPTS officials noted that  using a link or reference ensures that the public has up-to-date information  and minimizes the need to correct or revise the brochure when the source  information changes. Nevertheless, the ability to track and monitor the  communication products that the agency is disseminating is important for  internal control purposes—specifically to ensure that relevant, reliable,  and timely information is available for management decision making and  for external reporting purposes.
As was the case with OSHA’s procedures, the EPA/OPPTS procedures  establish no specific time frames or benchmarks for how long the entire  process of producing communication products should take. Although  OPPTS prepares schedules for individual products during the development  phase, agency officials indicated that the time frames for the agency’s  products are flexible and subject to change based upon competing  demands for the staff’s attention and other resources, unless specifically  mandated by statute, or driven by other legal deadlines or an identified  critical need. While we recognize, as previously stated, that there is not  likely to be a single standard appropriate for all products and in all  circumstances, without some suggested time frames or benchmarks—such  as limits on the length of intra- or interagency reviews—the EPA/OPPTS  processes may not prompt the timely release of communication products.
section_title: More Transparency and Documentation Requirements Apply to Rulemaking Than to the Preparation of Communication Products
paragraphs: There are significant differences in the requirements that apply to  rulemaking compared to the preparation of communication products,  because rulemaking must comply with legal requirements that are not  applicable to the preparation of communication products. Overall, there is  less need for transparency and documentation regarding the preparation  of communication products, which are not legally binding, compared to  rules, which are. This is reflected in the requirements that apply to each. In  January 2007, the administration amended the executive order on OMB’s  oversight of draft rules and issued an OMB bulletin on good guidance  practices. Among other provisions, these initiatives expanded coverage of  some requirements for OMB review of significant draft rules to also  include significant guidance documents and also required agencies to  disclose more information about significant guidance. These changes bring  the treatment of significant guidance closer to that for rules. However, the  initiatives do not cover any other types of communication products, nor  will they extend the transparency and documentation requirements  applicable to OMB’s reviews of draft rules to its reviews of significant  guidance.
subsections: section_title: Processes for Preparing Rules and Communication Products Have Significant Differences
paragraphs: Although OSHA and OPPTS follow the same basic procedural steps— initiation, development, review, and dissemination—for producing  communication products and rules, we identified at least five general  areas in which the procedures governing rules and communication  products can differ significantly. These differences are to be expected,  given the legal effect and consequences of rules. The differences in each of  these areas are rooted in legal requirements that apply to rulemaking. For  communication products in general, there are no statutory requirements,  and the specific processes used by the two agencies we reviewed also do  not impose requirements in the five areas outlined below.
Providing a justification – Under the APA, agencies are required to  reference the legal authority under which a rule is proposed in a Federal  Register notice and either the terms and substance of the proposed rule or  a description of the subjects and issues involved. Under other statutes  and executive orders—such as the Paperwork Reduction Act, Regulatory  Flexibility Act, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Congressional Review  Act, and Executive Order 12866 on regulatory planning and review— agencies may also be required to complete and publish analyses  supporting the rule and the options selected by the agency. In some cases,  statutes impose additional requirements on specific kinds of rules, such as  requirements for public hearings. There are no such general statutory  requirements for agencies to provide justification for their communication  products, although, as discussed above, OSHA and OPPTS procedures  typically involve a step where agency officials determine that there is a  need for a proposed communication product.
Interagency reviews – Under Executive Order 12866, OMB’s Office of  Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) reviews significant draft rules  (for example, rules expected to have an annual effect of $100 million or  more on the economy or that raise other coordination, budgetary, or  policy issues) before they are published as proposed or final rules. The  executive order generally requires OIRA to complete its reviews of  significant rules within 90 days after an agency formally submits a draft  regulation. In contrast, officials from OMB, OSHA, and EPA all noted that  there generally are no formal procedures and requirements governing  interagency and OMB reviews of communication products—with the  exception of a recently implemented requirement for OMB reviews of  significant guidance documents (discussed below). Agency officials  confirmed that such reviews do take place informally for some  communication products (although they are not necessarily required).
Transparency of the process – In prior work, we identified transparency  as a regulatory best practice, noted that transparency requirements help to  make agencies’ processes more open (and promote participation), and  quoted an Administrator of OIRA who pointed out that openness can help  transform the public debate about regulation to one of substance rather  than process. However, the transparency of the processes used to  prepare communication products is much more limited than for  rulemaking. During rulemaking, agencies typically maintain a rulemaking  record, in the form of a public docket. Moreover, Executive Order 12866  requires OIRA and the agencies to document and disclose certain  information about OIRA’s reviews of draft rules, including the substantive  changes made to rules during OIRA’s review and at OIRA’s suggestion or  recommendation, as well as any documents exchanged between the  agencies and OIRA. OIRA is also required to disclosure its substantive  communications (including telephone calls, meetings, and incoming  correspondence) with outside parties (persons not employed by the  executive branch) regarding rules under review. However, as discussed in  our 2003 report on this process, such requirements do not necessarily  ensure transparency. OMB and agencies may engage in informal reviews  that are not subject to any of the documentation and disclosure  requirements that apply when a draft rule is undergoing formal review.  Agencies’ preparation of communication products is not subject to the  same requirements as rulemaking for documentation and disclosure of the  processes and steps taken. Further, information related solely to the  internal practices of an agency is exempt from public disclosure under the  Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, while OSHA and OPPTS officials  confirmed that they document the internal review processes followed to  prepare communication products, such documentation is not subject to  public disclosure. Also, as we noted earlier, the basic processes that the  agencies use are not always documented in writing or made publicly  available.
Public comment – In rulemaking, agencies are required to give interested  persons an opportunity to comment on proposed rules by providing  “written data, views, or arguments,” and also to consider the public  comments before issuing a final rule. There generally are no such  requirements for the agencies to provide the public an opportunity to  comment on draft communication products. However, OSHA and OPPTS  officials noted that they still may choose to seek public comments on  certain products. For example, OPPTS officials said that they may provide  external stakeholders an opportunity to comment on a communication  product in circumstances involving new products, stakeholder interest,  external commitments for comment opportunities, potentially  controversial issues, or for other reasons. OSHA officials told us that they  sometimes provide opportunities for public comment on communication  products, although they have not done so for SHIBs.
Monitoring development and review – The public is better able to track  the status of the development and review of significant rulemaking. In  response to provisions of Executive Order 12866, as amended, agencies  make general information on rulemaking in process publicly available  through mechanisms such as the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory  and Deregulatory Actions, the Regulatory Plan, and OMB’s database on  the status of draft rules submitted for review under the executive order.  No similar mechanisms are available for publicly tracking communication  products. OSHA and OPPTS have, or are creating, databases on the status  of their communication products, but these are for internal management  purposes, and are not available to the public. Per OSHA’s September 2007  directive on compliance assistance products, the agency will compile  information on all proposed concepts in a centralized database, including  information tracking the initiation, development, and reviews of those  products. An OPPTS official told us that her agency uses several different  databases to track the development and review of various products. She  also noted that EPA has a publications catalog that is a master inventory  of all numbered publications, but this is not all-inclusive.
section_title: Administration Initiatives Imposed New Requirements for Significant Guidance Documents
paragraphs: In January 2007, the President issued Executive Order 13422 to amend  Executive Order 12866, and OMB released a related Final Bulletin for  Agency Good Guidance Practices. The principal change made by the  executive order amendments was to establish a process regarding  interagency coordination and review of significant guidance documents  prior to their issuance. The OMB bulletin established policies and  procedures for the development, issuance, and use of significant guidance  documents by agencies. In April 2007, the Administrator of OIRA issued a  memorandum providing more specific instructions on the implementation  of the OMB bulletin and Executive Order 13422.
According to the OMB Director, the primary focus of Executive Order  13422 and the OMB bulletin is on improving the way the federal  government does business with respect to guidance documents by  increasing their quality, transparency, accountability, and coordination.  OMB noted that well-designed guidance documents can serve many  important or even critical functions in regulatory programs and, among  other things, can channel the discretion of agency employees, increase  efficiency, and enhance fairness. OMB cited various reasons for issuing the  bulletin, noting, for example, that as the impact of guidance documents on  the public has grown, so too has the need for good guidance practices.  OMB also stated that guidance documents may not receive the benefit of  careful consideration accorded under the procedures for development and  review of rules, and OMB raised the concern that because it is  procedurally easier to issue guidance documents, there may be an  incentive for regulators to issue guidance documents in lieu of rules. OMB  also cited potential benefits from enhancing the quality and transparency  of agency guidance practices—including, when practical, using  opportunities for public input to increase the quality of products and  provide for greater public confidence in and acceptance of agency  judgments.
Among other things, the executive order, bulletin, and implementation  memorandum require agencies to (1) develop clearance procedures for  significant guidance documents; (2) provide OMB advance notice and an  opportunity for consultation on significant guidance; (3) create and  maintain a current list of all significant guidance on their Web sites and  establish a means for the public to submit comments electronically on  significant guidance, as well as requests for issuance, reconsideration,  modification, or rescission of significant guidance documents; and   (4) provide public notice and seek public comments on any economically  significant guidance. These changes move the treatment of significant  guidance closer to the requirements for rules. However, the changes only  apply to significant guidance documents, not to any other types of  communication products.
The OMB bulletin outlines basic standards expected for significant  guidance, including both approval procedures and standard elements of  each significant guidance document. OSHA officials said that although  their directive on compliance assistance products was not developed  specifically to implement OMB’s bulletin and the revised executive order,  its procedures appropriately reflect those requirements. EPA also revised  its processes to reflect the new requirements for guidance documents. As  required by the bulletin, both OSHA and EPA have listed the significant  guidance documents subject to Executive Order 12866, as amended, and  OMB’s bulletin on their Web sites.
Under Executive Order 12866, as amended, and OIRA’s implementation  memorandum, the requirements regarding notification to OIRA of a  significant guidance document are similar, but not identical, to those  applicable to OIRA’s reviews of significant rules. Agencies are required to  provide advance notification to OIRA of a significant guidance  document—as a general rule, no less than 10 days prior to intended  dissemination. If the Administrator of OIRA determines that additional  consultation is warranted, OIRA will review the guidance and coordinate  review among appropriate executive branch departments and agencies.  The Executive Order does not specify a time period for review of  significant guidance documents, but according to the implementing  memorandum, OIRA will complete its consultation on the guidance  document within 30 days or, at that time, will advise the agency when  consultation will be complete. However, the executive order amendments,  OMB bulletin, and OIRA memorandum did not extend the transparency  and documentation requirements applicable to OIRA’s review of draft  rules (such as disclosing changes made at OIRA’s suggestion or  documenting contacts with external parties) to its reviews of draft  guidance.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: OSHA and OPPTS initiated work on their asbestos communication  products for different reasons, but in both cases the agencies’ processes  took years to complete. OSHA initiated work in 2000 in response to news  reports that workers were not aware that asbestos had not been banned  from automotive products and might still pose a potential hazard. OPPTS  initiated work in 2003 in response to a request that the agency correct  information in its Gold Book. From initiation to dissemination of final  products, OSHA took approximately 5-½ years to publish its asbestos  SHIB, while OPPTS took approximately 3-½ years to publish its final  asbestos brochure. OSHA’s iterative review process contributed to delays  in producing its SHIB, as OSHA officials cited the need to address  uncertainties regarding the prevalence of asbestos in brake products.  OPPTS officials also cited a number of explanations for the time required  to produce their final brochure, including their external coordination and  review activities and competing demands on resources. Officials from both  agencies pointed out that, during the time that they worked on their  asbestos products, information about the potential hazard and protective  measures that could be taken remained available on the agencies’ Web  sites. Ultimately, both OSHA and OPPTS determined that new asbestos  communication products were needed, and the products were publicly  released.
Communication products are an important tool that OSHA and OPPTS (as  well as other agencies) use to support and augment their regulatory  activities. Communication products provide crucial information to  regulated parties and the general public. Therefore, it is important that  communication products be issued in a timely manner. Timeliness is but  one of a range of performance indicators that agencies may use to  measure whether they are achieving their goals, as managers balance  competing priorities. But timeliness seems especially relevant once an  agency has determined that there is a need to communicate information  about how people can protect themselves from health and safety hazards  to which they might be exposed. Having such information might lead  people to make different decisions or take different actions to protect  themselves than they would in the absence of such information. As the  various OSHA and OPPTS processes for preparing communication  products are currently designed, they contain few, if any, performance  time frames or benchmarks to help ensure that the processes can produce  final products in a timely fashion. Although there can be no single  standard for how long the entire process should take, OSHA’s and OPPTS’  processes could benefit from general time frames or benchmarks to  provide some impetus for moving products the agencies identified as  needed through to dissemination. It should also be remembered that one  of the reasons why agencies use alternatives to rulemaking—such as  guidance or general communication products—is because these  alternatives have the advantage of being less time consuming than  rulemaking.
It is also important that the processes the agencies use to prepare  communication products be documented, transparent, and understood.  Differences between the processes for preparing communication products  and rules are to be expected, given the legal effect and consequences of  rules. Preparation of communication products should not require the same  level of justification, documentation, disclosure, and public comment as  rulemaking. However, communication products are also important and  can affect the actions of regulated parties and the public, so enhancing the  general transparency and accountability of agencies’ processes could be  beneficial. Knowing the many steps that agencies take when preparing  communication products could not only help external parties contribute,  when appropriate, to the preparation of the agencies’ products, but could  also help those parties to understand why the process is sometimes  lengthy.
There are opportunities for both OSHA and OPPTS to enhance the  transparency and accountability of the processes they use to prepare  communication products. Those processes are not always easy to identify  and understand, in part because of the great variety of the agencies’  products and processes, but also because not all key elements of the  processes the agencies may follow are documented. For example, with the  exception of required OMB reviews of significant guidance documents,  OMB, OSHA, and OPPTS officials noted that they have no formal written  procedures governing interagency and/or OMB reviews of communication  products. Nevertheless, agency officials confirmed that such reviews do  occur (although they are not necessarily required). As another example,  OSHA’s process includes a potential review “loop” that OSHA officials said  would not be apparent from reading their directive on SHIBs but can  result in staff having to revise the product and repeat the review process.
The transparency and accountability of the agencies’ processes can also be  limited if they are not publicly disclosed. For both OSHA and OPPTS, this  would include disclosing the unwritten elements of their key processes  mentioned above, once documented. In addition, EPA/OPPTS could do  more to publicize existing written guidelines about key processes for  preparing communication products. In contrast to OSHA, which has  posted its key written process instructions, this is not always the case for  EPA/OPPTS. In particular, EPA’s Action Development Process is not  publicly available but applies to the agency’s most significant actions,  including rules. Although the agency’s process guidelines focus primarily  on internal policies and procedures, the final products generated by the  agency may be of interest to and affect a variety of external parties, from  Congress and other federal agencies to regulated parties and the general  public. Greater disclosure about OSHA’s and OPPTS’ processes could be  limited to providing more information about their general processes and  would not require the agencies to reveal the actual details of internal  policy deliberations for individual communication products.
We also observed that EPA/OPPTS identified difficulties in identifying  communication products that have been disseminated, even when we  limited our request to a subset of product types. OPPTS officials told us  that their agency increasingly relies on disseminating information through  a variety of formats and links on its Web site. They believe this is a more  effective approach to disseminating information to the public, but it may  also make it more difficult for the agency to catalog what has been  disseminated. We think that it is important, as a matter of basic internal  controls, for an agency to maintain an inventory of the products it  produces. We recognize that EPA and OPPTS already have a number of  separate databases to track various types of communication products, but  we remain concerned that some of the products and information  disseminated might not be captured by existing databases. Adopting a  mechanism such as the centralized database that OSHA is implementing  might enhance OPPTS’ ability to track, identify, and manage the inventory  of its disseminated products.
OSHA also could enhance its existing processes for preparing  communication products. For example, the OPPTS processes, both in  general and as illustrated during preparation of the asbestos brochure,  prompt more and earlier consultation with external parties than seems to  be the case with OSHA’s SHIB process. Although OSHA may seek external  reviews in some cases, agency officials said that their processes for  preparing SHIBs and other guidance documents are largely internal. We  recognize that this, in part, reflects the different purposes and context for  OSHA communication products, and that outreach to external parties  comes at a cost to the agency in terms of both time and resources.  However, consultation, outreach, and coordination also can provide  important benefits, as OMB cited when explaining the need for agency  good guidance practices. Just as the OMB guidance was intended to  increase the quality and transparency of agency guidance practices— including, when practical, using opportunities for public input to increase  the quality of products and provide for greater public confidence in and  acceptance of agency judgments—so too may the preparation of other  communication products benefit from appropriate outreach efforts.
Similarly, OSHA might wish to enhance its existing process instructions  regarding dissemination of communication products by considering  elements of the EPA/OPPTS process. While OSHA’s directives prompt  agency officials to post final products to the agency’s Web site and  encourage OSHA staff to consult with the agency’s Office of  Communications about whether an announcement should be made, the  directives provide more guidance on distribution of the final products  within OSHA than on distribution to regulated workplaces and the public.  The EPA/OPPTS processes prompt early and ongoing attention to effective  notification about and dissemination of communication products, through  tools such as a communications plan, and also provide more guidance to  agency staff about communications planning.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: While we recognize that OSHA and EPA/OPPTS have taken some steps in  each of the following areas, more could be done to improve the  transparency, accountability, and timeliness of their processes for the  initiation, development, review, and dissemination of communication  products. Therefore, we are making the following six recommendations:  1.  The Assistant Secretary for OSHA and the Administrator of EPA  should ensure that their key general policies and procedures for  preparing communication products include, as appropriate, time  frames or benchmarks to help ensure that products that the agencies  have determined are needed are developed, reviewed, and  disseminated in a timely manner.  2.  The Assistant Secretary for OSHA and the Administrator of EPA  should take steps to ensure that their key general policies and  procedures for preparing communication products are fully  documented. To the extent feasible, this should include identifying the  applicable policies and procedures governing OMB/interagency  coordination and reviews of such products, as well as any other key  processes that the agencies believe are important to understanding  how they prepare their products.  3.  The Assistant Secretary for OSHA and the Administrator of EPA  should ensure that their agencies make public the key general policies  and procedures for preparing communication products, including any  updated in response to the previous objective.  4.  The Administrator of EPA should consider adopting for OPPTS—and  other EPA offices, as appropriate—a centralized database or databases  to more completely account for the inventory of communication  materials disseminated by the agency.  5.  The Assistant Secretary for OSHA should augment existing OSHA  directives on the preparation of SHIBs and other communication  products to prompt OSHA staff to identify opportunities to solicit input  from external parties, as practical, during the preparation of  communication products.  6.  The Assistant Secretary for OSHA should augment existing OSHA  directives on the preparation of SHIBs and other communication  products to provide more guidance to OSHA staff on developing a  communications strategy during the product development process (for  example, to identify who the agency needs to inform of the product,  how notification and dissemination will be done, and who will be  responsible for specific notification and dissemination tasks).
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Labor, the  Administrator of EPA, and the Director of OMB for their review and  comment. In comments on the report, EPA generally agreed with the  recommendations and concurred that a formal, well-understood process  for coordination and review of communication materials is important to  ensure quality information products (see app. V). With regard to the first  recommendation, EPA also commented that a fair amount of flexibility  and discretion is necessary for the development of communication  materials. We agree and had already stated in our conclusions that there  can be no single standard for how long the process should take and in our  recommendation that agencies should incorporate time frames and  benchmarks “as appropriate.” EPA also noted that the time frame  associated with its development of the brakes brochure was an anomaly  and may not be a useful standard to compare to other cases. However, we  based our recommendations on our review of EPA’s (and OSHA’s) general  policies and procedures, not on our review of the specific products on  asbestos in brakes. With regard to the second, third, and fourth  recommendations, EPA identified steps that it already has taken, such as  more fully documenting the agency’s process guidance, making guidance  available to the public on the agency’s Web site, and having a centralized  approach and database on the development of communication materials.  We recognized in our conclusions and recommendations that EPA (and  OSHA) were already taking steps that addressed some elements of our  recommendations. However, as discussed in our conclusions, we believe  that more could be done to enhance the transparency and accountability  of the agencies’ processes. EPA and OSHA also provided technical  comments and suggestions that we incorporated as appropriate. OMB did  not provide comments.
As we agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents  of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days  from the date of this letter. We will then send copies of this report to the  Secretary of Labor, the Administrator of EPA, the Director of OMB, and  appropriate congressional committees. We will also provide copies to  others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge  on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-6806 or sciremj@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this  report are listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives for this report were to    describe the processes that the Department of Labor’s (DOL)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the  Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Prevention,  Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) used to initiate, develop,  review, and disseminate updated communication products on exposure to  asbestos in automotive brakes and clutches, identify how long the  processes took, and assess the extent to which the agencies followed  applicable policies and procedures;    describe the general policies and procedures that OSHA and OPPTS have  for the initiation, development, review, and dissemination of  communication products; and    compare the agencies’ policies and procedures for communication  products with those applicable to the initiation, development, review, and  dissemination of rules, and describe what might be the effects of 2007  administration initiatives regarding guidance documents.
To address the first objective, we obtained and analyzed information on  the preparation of the OSHA and OPPTS products on asbestos in  automotive brakes and clutches. We asked agency officials to provide a  chronology and description of events that led to the initiation,  development, review/clearance, and eventual dissemination of the  products. We also asked the officials to provide any documentation, to the  extent available, that would corroborate the events and processes as  described in their respective chronologies. We compared the policies and  procedures to identify the steps for (1) initiating the development of the  asbestos communication products, (2) developing, or drafting, the  asbestos communication products, (3) reviewing—internally, externally,  or both—the asbestos communication products, and (4) disseminating the  asbestos communication products. For some of the steps, the processes  are informal, and therefore, difficult to document. Therefore, because the  information was based, in large part, on testimonial evidence, we prepared  statements of facts on our review at each agency and provided these  statements to the agencies for vetting and confirmation of the information.  The agency officials verified the information, and provided comments and  technical corrections that we incorporated, as appropriate.
To address the second objective, we reviewed the agencies’ applicable  internal policies, procedures, and guidance documents governing the  preparation of communication products. We reviewed relevant and  available primary documents, such as the agencies’ Information Quality  guidelines, EPA-specific guidance on the development and review of  communication products, and OSHA directives governing the development  and review of guidance documents, in particular, Safety and Health  Information Bulletins (SHIB). Further, we interviewed agency officials at  DOL/OSHA and EPA/OPPTS who are involved in the development and  review of their respective agencies’ communication products, as well as  officials at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to obtain  information on interagency reviews of communication products. We  compared the policies and procedures to identify the steps for   (1) initiating, (2) developing or drafting, (3) reviewing (internally and  externally), and (4) disseminating a communication product. For some of  the steps, the processes are informal and not documented. Therefore,  because some of the key information to address our findings was based on  testimonial evidence, we prepared statements of facts on our review at  each agency and provided these statements to the agencies for vetting and  confirmation of the information. The agency officials verified the  information, and provided comments and technical corrections that we  incorporated, as appropriate.
To address the third objective, we again reviewed applicable documents  and interviewed officials at the three agencies to identify information on  the similarities and differences between rulemaking and the processes  used to develop and review communication products. We also solicited the  views of agency officials regarding effects they anticipated from  implementation of the amended executive order on regulatory review and  planning and the OMB good guidance bulletin—both of which were  promulgated in final form during the course of our review.
Our review was limited to applicable processes of OSHA and OPPTS, the  two agencies responsible for preparing communication products on  asbestos in automotive brakes, although some of the applicable processes  were DOL- or EPA-wide. Our scope and methodology for the first two  objectives focused on the broad category of communication products at  these two agencies, but did not encompass all nonrule regulatory or  technical products that they produced. To illustrate the application of the  agencies’ processes for preparing such products, we performed a detailed  examination of their asbestos communication products. While we initially  had expected to compare the processes used in developing the two  asbestos products with the processes used to prepare a sample of like  products, we concluded that it would not be possible to identify a  representative sample of issued products in order to do a comparative  analysis that would be meaningful and generalizable to a larger population  of products. Agency officials told us the timeline and process undertaken  for one product could be quite different from the timelines for other  products of that type. Although our observations on the implementation  of these processes are limited to OSHA and OPPTS and not generalizable  to other parts of DOL and EPA, our review did encompass examination of  DOL- and EPA-wide policies and procedures for communication products.
We conducted our review in Washington, D.C., from September 2006  through October 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Preparation of OSHA and OPPTS Communication Products on Asbestos in Automotive Brakes
paragraphs: The descriptions of the events in this appendix on the preparation of the  OSHA and OPPTS communication products on asbestos in automotive  brakes were provided by officials at OSHA and OPPTS. For some of these  events, the agency officials were able to provide documentary evidence for  corroboration. However, because agencies are not required to document  their processes, much of this chronology is based on testimonial evidence  obtained from agency officials during the course of our review.
The OSHA Seattle Regional Office reported on a media report revealing that a large number of employees  and employers in the automotive industry mistakenly believed that the 1989 ban on asbestos in automotive  products was still in effect. While the regional office suggested two options for informing the public—a local  emphasis program (LEP) or an e-mail alert to industry groups—the OSHA national office decide to develop a  Hazard Information Bulletin on asbestos in automotive products. National office decided that the LEP, e-mail  alert, or both would inform only a select segment of the populations, and they wanted to inform the general  public about this hazard.
OSHA’s national office decided to develop the bulletin.
The Global Environment and Technology Foundation issued its Asbestos Strategy Report commissioned by  EPA to develop approaches for asbestos oversight, outreach, and education approaches. Among the  foundation’s recommendations was the update of certain existing asbestos guidance—specifically on  asbestos in buildings.
Internal discussion took place within OSHA on the advisability of publishing the bulletin. OSHA officials  decided that there were still unanswered questions about the prevalence of asbestos-containing automotive  brakes and clutches that needed to be addressed before disseminating the bulletin.
EPA received a challenge under the Information Quality Act to its Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease  Among Auto Mechanics, commonly referred to as the Gold Book.
As a result of the recommendations from the Global Environmental and Technology Foundation and the  request for correction, EPA officials developed a “top 6 high priority” list of documents to update. The first  document listed was the EPA Gold Book.
OPPTS officials developed initial drafts of a brochure and shared this information at the staff level with other  agencies, including OSHA.
OSHA’s Salt Lake City Technical Center received OPPTS’ draft brochure for review. On a parallel track,  OSHA officials recirculated the draft SHIB for further agency review.
Review of OPPTS’ document alerted OSHA officials to the lack of information/evidence concerning the extent  of use of asbestos in brakes in the United States. OSHA and OPPTS officials agreed that this needed to be  addressed and supported the issuance of a joint product.
OPPTS and OSHA staff began collaboration to develop a joint product after OPPTS officials became aware  that OSHA was also considering development of new materials regarding asbestos in brakes. OSHA  suggested a number of technical corrections to OPPTS’ version of the brochure with the understanding that  those corrections needed to be made before OSHA could cosponsor the brochure.
OPPTS placed a hold on the development of the asbestos brochure when the agency learned that OSHA  was developing a bulletin that would address the same concerns.
OPPTS informed OSHA that they no longer wanted to be part of a joint OSHA/OPPTS information bulletin.
Based on concerns about the use and prevalence of asbestos in brake friction products, OSHA contacted the  U.S. Geological Survey to determine the exact amount of asbestos imported for use in the United States.
OSHA obtained a study that supported the dissemination of the information bulletin on asbestos exposure in  brake and clutch repairs. OSHA also obtained a study that cast doubt on the ability of asbestos brake dust to  cause cancer. This study was referred to OSHA’s Salt Lake City Technical Center for its assessment on  whether the bulletin should be published.
OMB contacted OSHA inquiring about the status of the information bulletin on asbestos exposure in  automotive brake and clutch repairs. OSHA’s understanding was that OMB was following up on discussions  with OPPTS on the need to revise the Gold Book on asbestos exposure in brake and clutch repair, since  OPPTS was responding to a request for correction and OMB monitors agencies’ responses to these  requests. OMB officials were concerned since OPPTS officials had indicated that they would not be revising  the Gold Book because OSHA was publishing an information bulletin.
OSHA staff participated in a conference call with OMB staff. OMB was interested in the status of the  information bulletin and its relationship to OPPTS’ Gold Book revision. OSHA staff explained to OMB the  background on the original OPPTS/OSHA informal agreement to issue a joint document and OPPTS’  subsequent decision not to proceed. OPPTS officials had indicated that although their Gold Book was the  subject of a request for correction, they would rather wait for OSHA to issue its bulletin that would include a  statement about potential exposure to home mechanics. OSHA officials explained that the bulletin was  primarily a reiteration of the OSHA asbestos standards and that there were still issues under review. The  agency had not yet decided whether to issue the bulletin.
OSHA officials decided there was no need to issue the bulletin since the document, in essence, reiterated the  mandatory requirements found in Appendix F of the asbestos standards. Subsequent to this decision,  OSHA’s Salt Lake City Technical Center recommended to the agency that the bulletin should be issued.  According to agency officials, the decision not to issue the SHIB was not reexamined in response to this  recommendation because of the higher-priority demands related to the agency’s response to Hurricane  Katrina.
OPPTS officials learned that OSHA officials decided not to proceed with the dissemination of the information  bulletin. However, because OPPTS was committed to issuing an update of the Gold Book in response to the  request for correction, it proceeded with the development and review of its brochure.
A newspaper article raised concerns about the length of time and the lack of activity by OSHA and EPA in  disseminating their communication products on asbestos exposure in automotive brake and clutch repairs.
Once reviewed and approved within OPPTS, the draft brochure was also reviewed by management in other  EPA offices and by other agencies with primary roles in the area of asbestos—OSHA, the National Institute  for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Additionally,  although not formally required, OMB participated in a review of the draft brochure. OMB coordinated the  interagency review and provided OPPTS officials with comments on their draft brochure from other federal  agencies.
OSHA officials reconsidered their prior decision not to publish the SHIB and began to recirculate their draft  bulletin for review and final preparations for dissemination.
OSHA’s Assistant Secretary approved the dissemination of the asbestos SHIB on the agency’s Web site.
OMB officials informed OPPTS that it had completed its review of the revised draft brochure and that all the  agencies were satisfied with the revisions. OPPTS proceeded to publish the draft brochure in the Federal  Register for public comment.
After posting the bulletin on its Web site, a former OSHA Assistant Secretary contacted the agency and  suggested that the agency might want to reconsider publication of the SHIB based on whether brake dust is a  “substantial source for exposure” to asbestos. The agency reviewed the existing data and found that there  was a need to warn workers in the brake and clutch repair industry about the potential risk to exposure, albeit  at much lower levels. Agency staff drafted a revision to the SHIB to reflect this finding and to acknowledge the  fact that there is a scientific debate on the relationship between brake dust and mesothelioma. However,  OSHA officials decided against revision of the SHIB.
OPPTS submitted its final draft of the brochure to OMB (because the brochure was a response to a 2003  request for correction).
OPPTS published the final brochure.
OPPTS released the final brochure in the Federal Register, and posted the document on the agency’s Web  site.   percent was used for the manufacture of friction products that include  automobile brakes and clutches.  ).
section_title: Appendix III: Asbestos-Automotive Brake and Clutch Repair Work
section_title: Appendix IV: Current Best Practices for Preventing Asbestos Exposure Among Brake and Clutch Repair Workers
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report  were Tim Bober, Assistant Director; Andrea Levine; Shawn Mongin;  Joseph Santiago; John Sauter; and Crystal Williams. In addition, Tom  Beall, Robert Cramer, Donna Miller, Michael Volpe, and Greg Wilmoth  provided key assistance.