EPA's Science Advisory Board: Improved Procedures Needed to Process Congressional Requests for Scientific Advice
Published: 2015-06-04T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: EPA formulates rules to protect the environment and public health. To enhance the quality and credibility of such rules, EPA obtains advice and recommendations from the SAB and CASAC—two federal advisory committees that review the scientific and technical basis for EPA decision-making. ERDDAA requires the SAB to provide both the EPA Administrator and designated congressional committees with scientific advice as requested. Amendments to the Clean Air Act established CASAC to, among other things, provide advice to the Administrator on NAAQS.
GAO was asked to look into how the SAB and CASAC are fulfilling their statutory obligations in providing such advice. This report examines (1) the extent to which EPA procedures for processing congressional requests to the SAB ensure compliance with ERDDAA; (2) the extent to which CASAC has provided advice related to NAAQS; and (3) policies EPA has to ensure that the SAB and CASAC maintain their independence when performing their work. GAO reviewed relevant federal regulations and agency documents, and interviewed EPA, SAB, and other relevant officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) procedures for processing congressional requests for scientific advice from the Science Advisory Board (SAB) do not ensure compliance with the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (ERDDAA) because these procedures are incomplete. For example, they do not clearly outline how the EPA Administrator, the SAB staff office, and others are to handle a congressional committee's request. While the procedures reflect EPA's responsibility to exercise general management controls over the SAB and all its federal advisory committees under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), including keeping such committees free from outside influence, they do not fully account for the specific access that designated congressional committees have to the SAB under ERDDAA. For example, EPA's policy documents do not establish how EPA will determine which questions would be taken up by the SAB. EPA officials told GAO that in responding to congressional requests, EPA follows the same process that it would apply to internal requests for questions to the SAB, including considering whether the questions are science or policy driven or are important to science and the agency. However, under ERDDAA, the SAB is required to provide requested scientific advice to select committees, regardless of EPA's judgment. By clearly documenting how to handle congressional requests received under ERDDAA consistent with federal standards of internal control, EPA can provide reasonable assurance that its staff process responses consistently and in accordance with the law.
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) has provided certain types of advice related to the review of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), but has not provided others. Under the Clean Air Act, CASAC is to review air quality criteria and existing NAAQS every 5 years and advise EPA of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects that may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of NAAQS. An EPA official stated that CASAC has carried out its role in reviewing the air quality criteria and the NAAQS, but CASAC has never provided advice on adverse social, economic, or energy effects related to NAAQS because EPA has never asked CASAC to do so. In a June 2014 letter to the EPA Administrator, CASAC indicated it would review such effects at the agency's request.
EPA has policies and guidance to help ensure that its federal advisory committees—including the SAB and CASAC—maintain their independence from the agency when the advisory committees perform their work. Under General Services Administration regulations for implementing FACA, an agency must develop procedures to ensure that its federal advisory committees are independent from the agency when rendering judgments. EPA policies and guidance to help ensure the independence of its federal advisory committees include guidance specifically for the SAB and general requirements that apply to all of EPA's federal advisory committees, including the SAB and CASAC. For example, EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy states that EPA prohibits managers and other agency leadership from intimidating or coercing scientists to alter scientific data, findings or professional opinions, or inappropriately influencing scientific advisory boards.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that to better ensure compliance with ERDDAA, EPA take steps to improve its procedures for processing congressional committee requests to the SAB for advice. EPA agreed with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses scientific studies and  methodologies when formulating rules to protect the environment and  public health. EPA seeks to enhance the quality and credibility of such  rules by obtaining reviews from experts of the underlying studies and  methodologies. For example, EPA requests and obtains advice and  recommendations from the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and the Clean  Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). The Environmental  Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978  (ERDDAA) mandated that EPA establish the SAB and required the SAB  to provide the EPA Administrator with scientific advice as requested. In  1980, Congress amended ERDDAA by adding a provision requiring the  SAB to also provide scientific advice to designated congressional  committees when requested. CASAC was established pursuant to  amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1977 to, among other things, provide  advice to the Administrator with regard to EPA’s National Ambient Air  Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set and  periodically review and revise NAAQS for certain air pollutants, the  emission of which cause or contribute to air pollution that may endanger  public health or welfare.
The SAB and CASAC are both federal advisory committees and therefore  must comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and its  implementing regulations. For example, the SAB and CASAC are  required to operate in accordance with charters. In addition, EPA must  have procedures to ensure that the advice or recommendations of its  federal advisory committees, including the SAB and CASAC, are products  of their independent judgment and not “inappropriately” influenced by  EPA. The SAB consists of the Board, standing and ad hoc committees,  panels, and workgroups. CASAC also has subcommittees and panels.  The EPA Administrator appoints members to the SAB (and its standing  committees) and CASAC, and the SAB staff director appoints consultants  to the SAB ad hoc committees, panels, and workgroups and CASAC  subcommittees and panels. The SAB staff office, among other things,  oversees the selection and formation of SAB and CASAC panels and  work groups and processes EPA requests for scientific and technical  advice.Administrator.
The SAB, its staff office, and CASAC report directly to the EPA  Recent interactions between the House Committee on Science, Space,  and Technology and the SAB related to specific SAB reviews on hydraulic  fracturing and water body connectivity have raised questions with the  Committee regarding whether the SAB is fulfilling its statutory obligations  to provide scientific advice to the designated congressional committees.In addition, recent testimony received by the Committee has raised  questions regarding whether CASAC is carrying out its statutory  obligations to advise EPA of any adverse public health, welfare, social,  economic, or energy effects that may result from various strategies for  attainment and maintenance of NAAQS.
You asked us to review how the SAB and CASAC are fulfilling their  statutory obligations in providing scientific advice. This report examines  (1) the extent to which EPA procedures for processing congressional  committees’ requests for scientific advice from the SAB ensure  compliance with ERDDAA; (2) the extent to which CASAC has provided  advice related to NAAQS; and (3) policies, if any, EPA has to ensure the  SAB and CASAC maintain their independence from the agency when  performing their work.
To examine the extent to which EPA procedures for processing  congressional committees’ requests for scientific advice from the SAB  ensure compliance with ERDDAA, we reviewed ERDDAA and its  legislative history, the SAB’s charters, legal cases involving the SAB, and  EPA documents to determine how requests to the SAB from  congressional committees were addressed. We also interviewed officials  from the SAB staff office, EPA’s Office of General Counsel, and EPA’s  Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR). To  examine the extent to which CASAC has provided advice related to  NAAQS, we reviewed the Clean Air Act, its legislative history, and legal  cases involving the act. We also interviewed SAB staff office and EPA  Office of General Counsel officials. To examine what policies, if any, EPA  has to ensure the SAB and CASAC maintain their independence from the  agency when performing their work, we reviewed and analyzed FACA,  the General Services Administration’s (GSA) regulations for implementing  FACA, and EPA documents. We interviewed officials from the SAB staff  office about written policies concerning FACA’s requirements about  independence. We also interviewed officials from GSA to discuss the  agency’s regulations requiring federal agencies to develop procedures to  ensure the independence of their federal advisory committees.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2014 to June 2015, in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The SAB provides a mechanism for EPA to receive peer review and other  advice in the use of science at EPA. The SAB is authorized to, among  other things, review the adequacy of the scientific and technical basis of  EPA’s proposed regulations. The SAB and its subcommittees or panels  focus on a formal set of charge questions on environmental science  received from the agency. Depending on the nature of the agency’s  request, the entire advisory process generally takes 4 to 12 months from  the initial discussion on charge questions with EPA offices and regions to  the delivery of the final SAB report. Figure 1 depicts the stages of the  SAB advisory process.
CASAC provides independent advice to EPA on “air quality criteria.”Under the Clean Air Act as amended, CASAC is to review the criteria and  the existing NAAQS every 5 years and make recommendations to EPA  for new standards and revisions of existing standards, as appropriate. In  addition, CASAC is directed to advise EPA of the areas in which  additional knowledge is required to appraise the adequacy and basis of  the NAAQS and describe the research efforts necessary to provide the  required information. CASAC also is directed to advise EPA of the relative  contribution to air pollution of concentrations of natural as well as human  activity, and any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or  energy effects that may result from various strategies for attainment and  maintenance of the NAAQS. CASAC’s advisory process is similar to the  SAB’s process, including the option of establishing subcommittees and  panels that send their reports and recommendations to CASAC.
As federal advisory committees, the SAB and CASAC are subject to  FACA, which broadly requires balance, independence, and transparency.  FACA was enacted, in part, out of concern that certain special interests  had too much influence over federal agency decision makers. The head  of each agency that uses federal advisory committees is responsible for  exercising certain controls over those advisory committees. For example,  the agency head is responsible for establishing administrative guidelines  and management controls that apply to all of the agency’s advisory  committees, and for appointing a Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for  each advisory committee. Advisory committee meetings may not occur in  the absence of the DFO, who is also responsible for calling meetings,  approving meeting agendas, and adjourning meetings. As required by  FACA, the SAB and CASAC operate under charters that include  information on their objectives, scope of activities, and the officials to  whom they report. Federal advisory committee charters must be renewed  every 2 years, but they can be revised before they are due for renewal in  consultation with GSA.
An analysis of changes in the SAB’s charter regarding to whom the SAB is to provide  advice is included in appendix I. requested advice from the SAB regarding two reviews the SAB was  conducting. According to EPA officials, this was the first time  representatives of a congressional committee formally requested advice  from the SAB. Both requests were addressed and submitted directly to  the SAB Chair and the Chair of the relevant SAB panel and sent  concurrently to the SAB staff office and EPA Administrator. While  ERDDAA does not outline a role for EPA in mediating responses from the  SAB to the designated congressional committees, EPA identifies such a  role for itself under FACA. Specifically, EPA points to the DFO’s  responsibility to manage the agenda of an advisory committee. Also  under FACA, EPA is responsible for issuing and implementing controls  applicable to its advisory committees. Responses to the committee’s  requests for scientific advice were handled by the SAB staff office and  EPA’s Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR).  The SAB staff office and, later, OCIR responded to the committee’s first  request for advice, and OCIR responded to the committee’s second  request for advice. See table 1 for more information on these requests.
section_title: EPA’s Procedures for Processing Congressional Requests to the SAB Do Not Ensure Compliance with ERDDAA
paragraphs: EPA’s procedures for processing congressional requests for scientific  advice from the SAB do not ensure compliance with ERDDAA because  the procedures are incomplete and do not fully account for the statutory  access designated congressional committees have to the SAB.  Specifically, EPA policy documents do not clearly outline how the EPA  Administrator, the SAB staff office, and members of the SAB panel are to  handle a congressional committee’s request for advice from the SAB. In  addition, EPA policy documents do not acknowledge that the SAB must  provide scientific advice when requested by select congressional  committees.
EPA’s written procedures for processing congressional committee  requests to the SAB are found in the SAB charter and in the following two  documents that establish general policies for how EPA’s federal advisory  committees are to interact with outside parties:
EPA Policy Regarding Communication Between Members of  Federal Advisory Committee Act Committees and Parties Outside  of the EPA (the April 2014 policy), and
Clarifying EPA Policy Regarding Communications Between  Members of Scientific and Technical Federal Advisory  Committees and Outside Parties (the November 2014 policy  clarification).
Collectively, the SAB’s charter, EPA’s April 2014 policy, and EPA’s  November 2014 policy clarification provide direction for how EPA and the  SAB are to process requests from congressional committees. However,  these documents do not clearly outline procedures for the EPA  Administrator, the SAB staff office, and members of the SAB panel to use  in processing such requests.
At the time of the House committee’s two requests to the SAB in 2013,  the SAB charter was the only EPA document that contained written policy  relating to congressional committee requests under ERDDAA. The SAB  charter briefly noted how congressional committees may access SAB  advice, stating; “While the SAB reports to the EPA Administrator,  congressional committees specified in ERDDAA may ask the EPA  Administrator to have SAB provide advice on a particular issue.” (GAO  italics) Beyond what the charter states, however, no EPA policy specified  a process the Administrator should use to have the SAB provide advice  and review a congressional request.
In response to a request from the SAB staff office that EPA clarify the  procedures for handling congressional committee requests, EPA, through  an April 4, 2014, memorandum informed the SAB that committee  members themselves and the federal advisory committees as a whole  should refrain from directly responding to these external requests.  Attached to the memorandum was the April 2014 policy that stated: “if a  FACA committee member receives a request relating to the committee’s  work from members of Congress or their staff, or congressional  committees, the member should notify the DFO, who will refer the request  to the EPA OCIR. OCIR will determine the agency’s response to the  inquiry, after consulting with the relevant program office and the DFO.”  This policy, however, did not provide more specific details on processing  requests from congressional committees under ERDDAA.
In November 2014, EPA issued a clarification to the April 2014 policy,  specifying that SAB members who receive congressional requests  pursuant to ERDDAA should acknowledge receipt of the request and  indicate that EPA will provide a response. The November 2014 policy  clarification does not identify the SAB as having to provide the response.  The November 2014 policy clarification also stated that the request  should be forwarded to the appropriate DFO and that decisions on who  and how best to respond to the requests would be made by EPA on a  case-by-case basis. While the November 2014 policy clarification  provides greater specificity about processing requests, it is not consistent  with the SAB charter because the policy indicates that congressional  committee requests should be handled through the DFO, whereas the  charter indicates that they should be handled through the EPA  Administrator and provides no further information. A senior-level EPA  official stated that the agency considered that the charter and the  November 2014 policy clarification differed in the level of detail, but not in  the broad principle that the agency is the point of contact for  congressional requests to the SAB (and SAB responses to those  requests). However, under the federal standards of internal control,  agencies are to clearly document internal controls, and the  documentation is to appear in management directives, administrative  policies, or operating manuals. While EPA has documented its policies,  they are not clear, because the charter and the November 2014 policy  clarification are not consistent about which office should process  congressional requests. Agency officials said that the SAB charter is up  for renewal in 2015. By modifying the charter when it is renewed to reflect  the language in the November 2014 policy clarification—that  congressional requests should be forwarded to the appropriate DFO— EPA can better ensure that its staff process congressional committee  requests consistently when the agency receives such a request.
Moreover, neither the April 2014 policy nor the November 2014 policy  clarification clearly documents EPA’s procedures for reviewing  congressional committee requests to determine which questions would be  taken up by the SAB consistent with the federal standards of internal  control. Because EPA’s procedures for reviewing congressional  committee requests are not documented, it will be difficult for EPA to  provide reasonable assurance that its staff are appropriately applying  criteria when determining which questions the SAB will address. EPA  officials told us that internal deliberations in response to a congressional  request follow those that the agency would apply to internal requests for  charges to the SAB. Specifically, officials told us that EPA considers  whether the questions are science or policy driven, whether they are  important to science and the agency, and whether the SAB has already  undertaken a similar review. In addition, under ERDDAA, the SAB is  required to provide requested scientific advice to select committees,  regardless of EPA’s judgment. As EPA has not fully responded to the  committee’s two 2013 requests to the SAB, by clearly documenting its  procedures for reviewing congressional requests to determine which  questions should be taken up by the SAB and criteria for evaluating  requests, the agency can provide reasonable assurance that its staff  process these and other congressional committee requests consistently  and in accordance with both FACA and ERDDAA.
Furthermore, the charter states that when scientific advice is requested  by one of the committees specified in ERDDAA, the Administrator will,  when appropriate, forward the SAB’s advice to the requesting  congressional committee. Neither the charter nor the April 2014 policy  and November 2014 policy clarification specify when it would be  “appropriate” for the EPA Administrator to forward the SAB’s advice to the  requesting committee. Such specificity would be consistent with federal  standards of internal control that call for clearly documenting internal  controls. Without such specification, the perception could be created that  EPA is withholding information from Congress that the SAB is required to  provide under ERDDAA. EPA officials stated that the EPA Administrator  does not attempt to determine whether advice of the SAB contained in  written reports should be forwarded to the requesting committee and that  all written reports are publically available on the SAB website at the same  time the report is sent to the EPA Administrator. By modifying the charter  or other policy documents to reflect when it is and when it is not  appropriate for the EPA Administrator to forward the advice to the  requesting committee, EPA can better ensure transparency in its process.
In general, under FACA, as a federal advisory committee, the SAB’s  agenda is controlled by its host agency, EPA. As such, the SAB  generally responds only to charge questions put to it by EPA although,  under ERDDAA, the SAB is specifically charged with providing advice to  its host agency as well as to designated congressional committees. In  addition, it is EPA’s responsibility under GSA regulations for implementing  FACA to ensure that advisory committee members and staff understand  agency-specific statutes and regulations that may affect them, but  nothing in the SAB charter, the April 2014 policy, or the November 2014  policy clarification communicates that, ultimately, SAB must provide  scientific advice when requested by congressional committees. For  example, we found no mechanism in EPA policy for the SAB to respond  on its own initiative to a congressional committee request for scientific  advice unrelated to an existing EPA charge question. A written policy for  how the SAB should respond to a congressional committee request that  does not overlap with charge questions from EPA would be consistent  with federal internal control standards. Moreover, such a policy would  better position the SAB to provide the advice it is obligated to provide  under ERDDAA and for EPA to provide direction consistent with GSA  regulations for implementing FACA.
section_title: CASAC Has Provided Certain Types of Advice Related to Air Quality Standards
paragraphs: CASAC has provided certain types of advice related to the review of  NAAQS. The Clean Air Act requires CASAC to review air quality criteria  and existing NAAQS every 5 years and advise EPA of any adverse public  health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects that may result from  various strategies for attainment and maintenance of NAAQS.  According to a senior-level EPA official, CASAC has carried out its role in  reviewing the air quality criteria and the NAAQS, but has never provided  advice on adverse social, economic, or energy effects related to NAAQS  because to date EPA has not asked CASAC to do so. This is in part  because NAAQS are to be based on public health and welfare criteria, so  information on the social, economic, or energy effects of NAAQS are not  specifically relevant to setting NAAQS.
In a June 2014 letter to the EPA Administrator, CASAC indicated that, at  the agency’s request, it would review the impacts (e.g., the economic or  energy impacts) of strategies for attaining or maintaining the NAAQS but  stressed that such a review would be separate from reviews of the  scientific bases of NAAQS.  In response to such a request, the letter  stated that an ad hoc CASAC panel would be formed to obtain the full  expertise necessary to conduct such a review.
A senior-level EPA official stated that EPA continues to examine this issue and is  considering how to proceed. Information from EPA-requested reviews could be useful for  the states, which implement the strategies necessary to achieve the NAAQS. EPA is  required to provide states, after consultation with appropriate advisory committees, with  information on air pollution control techniques, including the cost to implement such  techniques. 42 U.S.C. § 7408(b)(1) (2015). According to a senior-level EPA official, EPA  collects this information from other federal advisory committees, the National Academy of  Sciences, and state air agencies, among others, and EPA fulfills its statutory obligation by  issuing Control Techniques Guidelines and other implementation guidance.
section_title: EPA Has Policies and Guidance to Ensure That the SAB and CASAC Maintain Their Independence from the Agency
paragraphs: EPA has policies and guidance to help ensure that its federal advisory  committees maintain their independence from the agency when  performing their work. Under GSA regulations for implementing FACA,  agencies must develop procedures to ensure that the federal advisory  committees are independent from the agency when rendering  judgments. EPA policies and guidance to help ensure the independence  of its federal advisory committees include general discussions of FACA  requirements that apply to all of EPA’s federal advisory committees as  well as those specifically for the SAB. For example, the April 2014  Policy refers to the agency’s responsibilities under FACA to maintain its  separation from its federal advisory committees. In addition, EPA’s  Scientific Integrity Policy sets out the expectation that all agency  employees, including scientists, managers and political appointees, will  ensure, among other things, that the agency’s scientific work is of the  highest quality and free from political interference or personal  motivations. This policy states that EPA prohibits managers and other  agency leadership from intimidating or coercing scientists to alter  scientific data, findings, or professional opinions or to inappropriately  influence scientific advisory boards. The agency has also developed the  EPA Peer Review Handbook to provide guidance to EPA staff and  managers who are planning to conduct peer reviews. The handbook  includes information on planning and conducting a peer review as well as  the types of peer reviews performed by external peer reviewers, such as  federal advisory committees. Specifically, the handbook provides  information on the independence aspects of a peer review, such as how  closely EPA officials should interact with peer reviewers when a review is  being conducted to maintain independence.
The SAB staff office has also developed documents that contain some  references to how the SAB and CASAC can maintain their independence  from EPA. Specifically, the SAB Office developed a handbook for SAB  members that includes a section on how SAB members should expect to   For example, the handbook states that  maintain their independence.SAB committee and panel members are expected to avoid interaction  with anyone—including agency representatives or members of the  interested public—who might create a perception of conflict of interest.  The SAB handbook also has a section on the role of the agency during  the SAB’s report preparation phase. This section states that the agency  should not in any way approve or attempt to influence the content of draft  panel or committee reports. In addition, EPA officials explained that the  agency does not review or comment on drafts of SAB or CASAC  products, so that it cannot influence them in their final form. Finally, the  SAB office, as part of a fiscal year 2012 list of initiatives to enhance public  involvement in SAB and CASAC activities included a statement that the  SAB office and federal advisory committees would not accept a charge  from EPA that unduly narrows the scope of an advisory activity.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: EPA’s SAB plays an important role assisting the agency in using high- quality science by providing EPA with scientific advice on a wide range of  matters and reviewing scientific research the agency uses when  developing environmental regulations. Under ERDDAA, the SAB is also  required to provide scientific advice to designated congressional  committees when requested. In November 2014, EPA issued a  clarification revising its policy for how it processes congressional  committees’ requests for scientific advice from the SAB. However,  shortcomings exist with EPA’s policy documents.
First, the November 2014 policy clarification differs from the SAB’s  charter regarding which offices should receive and process congressional  requests. As a result, EPA staff may not process congressional  committee requests consistently, since the treatment will vary depending  on whether staff follow the policy clarification or the charter. Agency  officials said that the SAB charter is up for renewal in 2015. By modifying  the charter when it is renewed to reflect the language in the November  2014 policy clarification, that congressional requests should be forwarded  to the appropriate DFO, EPA can better ensure that its staff process  congressional committee requests consistently when the agency receives  them.
Additionally, EPA has not documented its procedures for reviewing  congressional committee requests to determine which questions should  be taken up by the SAB or criteria for evaluating those requests. By  documenting the agency’s procedures and criteria, EPA can provide  reasonable assurance that its staff handle congressional requests  consistently and in accordance with both FACA and ERDDAA.
Furthermore, the SAB’s charter states that the Administrator will forward  the SAB’s response to a committee’s request when appropriate, but EPA  has not specified in policy documents when it would be appropriate for  the Administrator to forward the SAB’s advice to the requesting  committee. Without such specification, the perception could be created  that EPA is withholding information from Congress that the SAB is  required to provide under ERDDAA. By clarifying procedures to reflect  when it is and when it may not be appropriate for the Administrator to  forward the advice to the requesting committee, EPA can better ensure  transparency in its process and consistency with ERDDAA.
Finally, it is EPA’s responsibility to ensure that advisory committee  members and staff understand agency-specific statutes and regulations  that may affect them under regulations for implementing FACA. However,  EPA policy documents do not specify how the SAB would respond on its  own initiative to a congressional committee’s request for scientific advice  unrelated to an existing EPA charge question, as it must do under  ERDDAA. By documenting procedures on how the SAB should respond  to a congressional committee request that does not overlap with charge  questions from EPA, the agency would better position the SAB to provide  the advice it is obligated to provide under ERDDAA and EPA itself to  provide direction consistent with regulations for implementing FACA.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To better ensure compliance with ERDDAA when handling congressional  requests for scientific advice from EPA’s SAB, we recommend that the  EPA Administrator take the following four actions:
Clarify in the charter when it is renewed which offices should receive  and process congressional requests.
Document procedures for reviewing congressional committee  requests to determine which questions should be taken up by the SAB  and criteria for evaluating such requests.
Clarify in policy documents when it is and when it is not appropriate  for the EPA Administrator to forward advice to the requesting  committee.
Specify in policy documents how the SAB should respond to a  congressional committee’s request for scientific advice unrelated to an  existing EPA charge question.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided EPA with a draft of this report for review and comment. In  written comments, reproduced in appendix II, EPA stated that it concurred  with the recommendations in the report and provided information on  planned actions to address each recommendation. EPA also provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the EPA Administrator, and other interested parties. In  addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@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 contributions to this  report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Changes to the Science Advisory Board Charter
paragraphs: The Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration  Authorization Act of 1978 (ERDDAA) mandated that EPA establish the  SAB and required the SAB to provide the EPA Administrator with  scientific advice as requested. Congress amended ERDDAA in 1980 to  require EPA’s SAB to provide scientific advice to designated  congressional committees when requested. Below is our analysis of the  changes to the charter regarding to whom the SAB is to provide advice.
In 1978, the Charter Objectives and Responsibilities stated that: “The  objective of the Board is to provide advice to EPA’s Administrator on the  scientific and technical aspects of environmental problems and issues.  The Board reports to the Administrator. It will review issues, provide  independent advice on EPA’s major programs, and will perform special  assignments as requested by the Agency and as required by the  ERDDAA of 1978 and the CAA Amendments of 1977.” In response to the  ERDDAA amendments, EPA changed the charter in 1981 to reflect that  certain congressional committees could also request advice. Additional  changes to the charter over the years regarding to whom the SAB is to  provide advice are reflected in the table below.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Vincent Price and Janet Frisch,  Assistant Directors; Ulana Bihun; Antoinette Capaccio; Greg Carroll; and  John Delicath made key contributions to this report.