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. 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. 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.