During the first year of the advocacy review panel requirements’ implementation, OSHA convened a panel for one draft rule and published two other proposed rules for which panels were not held. SBA’s Chief Counsel for Advocacy agreed with OSHA’s certification that neither of these two proposed rules required an advocacy review panel. As of November 1, 1997, EPA had convened advocacy review panels for four draft rules. EPA also published 17 other proposed rules that were reviewed by OIRA for which panels were not held because EPA certified that the proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBA’s Chief Counsel said that EPA should have convened panels for 2 of these 17 proposed rules—the rules setting national ambient air quality standards for ozone and for particulate matter. Some of the small entity representatives that we interviewed also said that EPA should have convened advocacy review panels for these two proposed rules. EPA officials said that review panels were not required for the ozone and particulate matter rules because they would not, by themselves, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The officials said that any effects that the rules would have on small entities would only occur when the states determine how the standards will be specifically implemented. However, SBA’s Chief Counsel for Advocacy disagreed with EPA’s assessment. He said that the promulgation of these two rules cannot be separated from their implementation, and that effects on small entities will flow “inexorably” from the standards EPA established. We could not determine whether EPA should have convened advocacy review panels for the ozone and particulate matter rules because there are no clear governmentwide criteria for determining whether a rule has a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Specifically, it is unclear whether health standards that an agency establishes by regulation should be considered separable from implementation requirements established by state governments or other entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which SBREFA amended, does not define the term “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Although the RFA requires the SBA Chief Counsel for Advocacy to monitor agencies’ compliance with the act, it does not expressly authorize SBA or any other entity to interpret key provisions. In a previous report we noted that agencies had different interpretations regarding how the RFA’s provisions should be interpreted. In another report, we said that if Congress wishes to strengthen the implementation of the RFA it should consider amending the act to provide clear authority and responsibility to interpret key provisions and issue guidance. In our report that is being issued today, we again conclude that governmentwide criteria are needed regarding what constitutes a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Therefore, we said that if Congress wishes to clarify and strengthen the implementation of the RFA and SBREFA, it should consider providing SBA or another entity with clear authority to interpret the RFA’s key provisions. We also said that Congress could consider establishing, or requiring SBA or some other entity to develop, governmentwide criteria defining the phrase “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Specifically, those criteria should state whether the establishment of regulatory standards by a federal agency should be separated from implementation requirements imposed by other entities. Governmentwide criteria can help ensure consistency in how the RFA and SBREFA are implemented across federal agencies. However, those criteria must be flexible enough to allow for some agency-by-agency variations in the kinds of impacts that should be considered “significant” and what constitutes a “substantial” number of small entities. As of November 1, 1997, EPA and OSHA had convened five advocacy review panels. OSHA convened the first panel on September 10, 1996, to review its draft standard for occupational exposure to tuberculosis (TB). EPA convened panels to review the following four draft rules: (1) control of emissions of air pollution from nonroad diesel engines (Mar. 25, 1997); (2) effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for the industrial laundries point source category (June 6, 1997); (3) stormwater phase II—national pollutant discharge elimination system (June 19, 1997); and (4) effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the transportation equipment-cleaning industry (July 16, 1997). The panels, EPA and OSHA, and SBA’s Chief Counsel for Advocacy generally followed SBREFA’s procedural requirements on how those panels should be convened and conducted. For example, as required by the statute: EPA and OSHA notified the SBA Chief Counsel before each of the panels and provided him with information on the potential impacts of the draft rules and the types of small entities that might be affected. The Chief Counsel responded to EPA and OSHA no later than 15 days after receipt of these materials and helped identify individuals representative of the affected small entities. Each of the five panels reviewed materials that the regulatory agencies had prepared and collected advice and recommendations from the small entity representatives. However, there were a few minor inconsistencies with SBREFA’s specific statutory requirements in the five panels we reviewed. For example, three of the panels took a few days longer than the 60 days allowed by the statute to conclude their deliberations and issue a report. Also, EPA did not formally designate a chair for its panels until June 11, 1996—about 6 weeks later than the statute required. Members of Congress and congressional staff viewed this as an attempt to prejudice the panel members’ consideration, and the practice was changed. For subsequent panels, EPA developed a summary of the comments it had received from small entities before the panels were convened, which it provided to the panel members. The panel members themselves then gathered advice and recommendations from the small entity representatives and drafted the final reports. As of November 1, 1997, two of the draft rules for which EPA and OSHA held advocacy review panels had been published as notices of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register—OSHA’s proposed rule on the occupational exposure to TB and EPA’s proposed rule to control nonroad diesel engine emissions. The panels’ recommendations for these draft rules focused on providing small entities with flexibility in how to comply with the rules and on the need to consider potentially overlapping local, state, and federal regulations and enforcement. OSHA and EPA primarily responded to the panels’ recommendations in the supplementary information sections of the proposed rules, although OSHA also made some changes to the text of its rule. For example, one of the TB panel’s major recommendations was that OSHA reexamine the application of the draft rule to homeless shelters. In the supplementary information section of the proposed rule, OSHA said that it was conducting a special study of this issue and would hold hearings on issue\ related to TB exposure in homeless shelters. The TB panel also recommended that OSHA examine the potential cost savings associated with allowing TB training that a worker received in one place of employment to be used to satisfy training requirements in another place of employment. In response, OSHA changed the text of the draft rule to allow the portability of nonsite specific training. officials had already decided how the rules would be written before convening the panels, and that the officials were not interested in making any significant changes to the rules. Although most of the 32 small entity representatives with whom we spoke said that they thought the review panel process was worthwhile, about three-fourths of them suggested changes to improve that process. Their comments primarily focused on the following four issues: (1) the time frames in which the panels were conducted, (2) the composition of the groups of small entity representatives commenting to the panels, (3) the methods the panels used to gather comments, and (4) the materials about the draft rules that the regulatory agencies provided. Seven of the small entity representatives said they would have liked more advance notice of panel meetings and telephone conference calls with the panels. Some of these representatives said that short notices had prevented them from participating in certain panel efforts. Fourteen representatives said they were not given enough time to study the materials provided before being asked to comment on the draft rules. Five representatives suggested holding the panels earlier in the rulemaking process to increase the likelihood that the panels could affect the draft rules. Fourteen small entity representatives thought that the composition of those providing input to the panels could be improved. Specifically, they said that the panels should have obtained input from more representatives of (1) individual small entities, not just representatives from associations; (2) certain types of affected small entities that were not included (e.g., from certain geographic areas); (3) small entities that would bear the burden of implementing the draft rules (e.g., small municipalities); and (4) small entities that were reviewing the draft rule for the first time, and that had not been previously involved in developing the draft rules. Nine of the small entity representatives said that the conference calls that OSHA and EPA typically used to obtain their views limited the amount of discussion that could take place. Most of these representatives expressed a preference for face-to-face meetings because they believed the discussions would be fuller and provide greater value to the panels. informed discussion of the rules’ potential impacts on small entities, eight representatives said they believed the materials could have been improved. Six thought the materials were too vague or did not provide enough information. However, two representatives said that the materials were too voluminous and complex to expeditiously review. The agency officials we interviewed also offered suggestions for improving the panels. Because you will be hearing from those same officials later in this hearing, I will not go into detail about those suggestions. However, their comments centered on some of the same issues raised by the small entity representatives, including the timing of the panels, the materials provided to the representatives, and the manner by which comments are obtained.