Health and Safety Information: EPA and OSHA Could Improve Their  
Processes for Preparing Communication Products (31-MAR-08,	 
GAO-08-265).							 
                                                                 
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).					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-265 					        
    ACCNO:   A81482						        
  TITLE:     Health and Safety Information: EPA and OSHA Could Improve
Their Processes for Preparing Communication Products		 
     DATE:   03/31/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Agency missions					 
	     Asbestos						 
	     Consumer protection				 
	     Federal regulations				 
	     Government information				 
	     Government information dissemination		 
	     Health hazards					 
	     Information access 				 
	     Information disclosure				 
	     Information management				 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Occupational health and safety programs		 
	     Occupational safety				 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Product evaluation 				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Public health					 
	     Regulatory agencies				 
	     Standards						 
	     Standards evaluation				 
	     Policies and procedures				 
	     Program coordination				 
	     Program goals or objectives			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-265

   

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

March 2008: 

Health And Safety Information: 

EPA and OSHA Could Improve Their Processes for Preparing Communication 
Products: 

GAO-08-265: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-265, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Agencies address their missions not only through regulations but also 
by issuing communication productsï¿½such as guidance, fact sheets, and 
brochuresï¿½that can provide crucial information to regulated parties and 
the public. Since 2000, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agencyï¿½s (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). 

What GAO Found: 

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 
OPPTSï¿½ 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 clutchesï¿½approximately 5-ï¿½ years for 
OSHA and approximately 3-ï¿½ 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 agenciesï¿½ 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. OSHAï¿½s policies for 
disseminating products focus on responsibilities for posting and 
maintaining final products on the agencyï¿½s 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 
agenciesï¿½ 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 agenciesï¿½ processes for 
preparing communication products and those for rules have significant 
differences. In contrast to the agenciesï¿½ 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 publicï¿½s 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 agenciesï¿½ 
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. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that OSHA and OPPTS ensure that their key general 
processes for preparing communication products are documented, made 
publicly available, and include time frames or benchmarks, where 
appropriate. OSHA and EPA provided technical comments on a draft of 
this report. EPA also generally agreed with the recommendations. OMB 
did not comment. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-265]. For more 
information, contact Mathew J. Scire at (202) 512-6806 or 
[email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

OSHA and OPPTS Used Different Processes during Multiyear Efforts to 
Complete Communication Products on Asbestos: 

Multiple Policies, Procedures, and Practices May Apply to the 
Preparation of Communication Products: 

More Transparency and Documentation Requirements Apply to Rulemaking 
Than to the Preparation of Communication Products: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Preparation of OSHA and OPPTS Communication Products on 
Asbestos in Automotive Brakes: 

Appendix III: Asbestos-Automotive Brake and Clutch Repair Work: 

Appendix IV: Current Best Practices for Preventing Asbestos Exposure 
Among Brake and Clutch Repair Workers: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Examples of OSHA and EPA Communication Products: 

Figure 2: Example of Potential Exposure to Asbestos in Automotive 
Brakes: 

Figure 3: Timeline on Preparation of OSHA and EPA/OPPTS Products on 
Asbestos in Brakes: 

Figure 4: OSHA Process for Preparing Safety and Health Information 
Bulletins: 

Figure 5: EPA/OPPTS Process for Preparing Communication Products: 

Abbreviations: 

APA: Administrative Procedure Act: 

CACG: Compliance Assistance Coordinating Group: 

DOL: Department of Labor: 

DSTM: Directorate of Science, Technology and Medicine: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act: 

IQA: Information Quality Act: 

LEP: local emphasis program: 

OAS: Office of the Assistant Secretary: 

OIRA: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OPPTS: Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances: 

OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration: 

PRP: Product Review Process: 

SHIB: Safety and Health Information Bulletin: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

March 31, 2008: 

The Honorable Lynn Woolsey: 
Chairwoman: 
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections: 
Committee on Education and Labor: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Nick Lampson: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment: 
Committee on Science and Technology: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable David Wu: 
House of Representatives: 

Federal regulatory agencies address their missions not only by 
promulgating and enforcing regulations, but also by issuing a wide 
variety of related communication products, such as guidance documents, 
fact sheets, and brochures. Although not legally binding, as are 
regulations, these products can play an important role in providing 
information to regulated parties and the general public. For example, 
communication products may be used to alert target audiences about 
potential hazards, advise them on ways to prevent or mitigate exposure 
to the hazards, and provide guidance on complying with applicable 
federal regulations. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
noted that as the scope and complexity of regulatory programs have 
grown, agencies increasingly have 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 have taken an increased 
interest in the issuance of these products. 

You were interested in actions taken since 2000 by the Department of 
Labor's (DOL) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding potential health 
hazards posed by exposure to asbestos during automotive brake and 
clutch repairs to help illustrate the uses of communication products 
and the processes by which such products are prepared. Both agencies 
had published materials about asbestos in brakes and clutches prior to 
2000. In 1986, OSHA published asbestos standards and EPA issued a 
safety 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?[Footnote 1] 

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.[Footnote 2] 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.[Footnote 3] 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. 

Results in Brief: 

From 2000 through 2007, OSHA and OPPTS followed different paths to 
prepare their respective communication products on preventing exposure 
to asbestos in automotive brakes and clutches. Among the primary 
differences, the 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. The primary trigger for OSHA's development 
of a Safety and Health Information Bulletin (SHIB) on asbestos in 
brakes was a media report about the potential hazard of asbestos 
exposure during brake and clutch repair work and lack of awareness on 
the part of workers and the general public. OPPTS initiated work on an 
asbestos brochure in response to both a request for correction of the 
1986 Gold Book under the Information Quality Act (IQA)[Footnote 4] and 
the results of an EPA asbestos strategy project. OSHA began work on its 
product in December 2000 and released a final product in July 2006. 
Twice before final posting, OSHA officials had decided to not issue the 
SHIBs that had been prepared, largely due to OSHA management concerns 
about the extent to which asbestos in brake products was a problem and 
to avoid unnecessary alarm. OPPTS initiated work on its asbestos 
brochure in 2003, solicited public comments on a draft in August 2006, 
and published a final brochure in March 2007. For a time, staff from 
OSHA and OPPTS considered releasing a joint product. OSHA's review 
process for the information bulletin was primarily internal; after OSHA 
completed its internal reviews and clearance of the information 
bulletin, it posted the SHIB to its Web site. According to OPPTS 
officials, OSHA officials did not notify them of OSHA's decision to 
release the SHIB prior to its posting. By contrast, before OPPTS 
disseminated its brochure, it provided drafts of its brochure to OSHA, 
OMB, and other agencies for interagency coordination and review and 
sought comments from the general public through the Federal Register. 
OPPTS also developed a communication plan to facilitate notifying 
appropriate parties about the brochure and ensure that dissemination 
would reach the intended audience. Overall, OSHA and OPPTS took years 
to complete all of the steps of their processes from initiation through 
dissemination of products on asbestos in automotive brakes-- 
approximately 5-ï¿½ years for OSHA and approximately 3-ï¿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. 

Both OSHA and OPPTS have standard processes that guide the preparation 
of their communication products. The agencies have documented many, but 
not all, of these processes. OSHA-specific directives govern 
preparation of that agency's products, but a mix of EPA-wide and OPPTS- 
specific processes apply to OPPTS products. OSHA publicly posts all of 
its directives, while EPA and OPPTS make publicly available only some 
applicable internal procedural guidance documents. Per the general OSHA 
and OPPTS processes, several sources might initiate the need to develop 
a new product or to revise an existing one. During the development 
phase, both agencies require management approval to proceed with 
proposed products, make determinations about the appropriate product 
type and applicable processes, and draft the product. The review phase 
at both agencies requires coordination within the agency and management-
level review and approval. Current OSHA processes call for review and 
clearance of all products by upper management, including the Assistant 
Secretary of OSHA. OSHA is implementing a centralized database to track 
the development and review of all proposed compliance assistance 
materials. The required levels of review under OPPTS processes vary 
according to factors such as the complexity and sensitivity of the 
product's subject. In both agencies' processes, interagency (including 
OMB) or other external reviews are not always required. OSHA officials 
pointed out that their process is largely internal, but if OSHA 
consults external stakeholders, the agency usually involves such 
stakeholders after a draft has been prepared. OPPTS' processes prompt 
outreach to external parties throughout the process. OSHA's 
dissemination instructions focus on responsibilities for posting and 
maintaining the final products, which are available, by product type, 
on the agency's Web site. Per agency guidance, OPPTS typically develops 
a communication plan intended to ensure that its announcement and 
release of a particular product is tailored to reach the intended 
audience. However, EPA officials noted that it would be difficult to 
compile a listing of all their disseminated communication products 
because of the great variety and number of products they produce and 
because they increasingly post information to their Web site using a 
variety of formats and links to convey the information. The agencies' 
processes set no specific timeframes or benchmarks for how long the 
preparation of a product, from initiation through dissemination, should 
take. 

We identified at least five areas where the agencies' processes for 
preparing communication products and those for rules have significant 
differences: (1) justification for the action, (2) interagency reviews 
of drafts, (3) transparency of the processes, (4) opportunities for 
public comment, and (5) the public's ability to monitor development and 
review. These differences are to be expected, given the legal effect 
and consequences of rules, and are each rooted in legal requirements 
under statutes and executive orders 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 require that agency staff provide justification, submit draft 
products for OMB review, document and publicly disclose the process, 
solicit public comments, or disseminate information that would allow 
the public to track the status of communication products before 
issuance. However, Bush Administration initiatives from January 2007 
imposed requirements on significant guidance documents that are similar 
to those for rules--such as OMB review of draft significant guidance 
and providing mechanisms for public comment--but the changes do not 
cover any other types of communication products, nor do they extend the 
transparency requirements applicable to OMB's reviews of draft rules to 
its reviews of guidance.[Footnote 5] 

Because agencies' communication products can convey critical 
information to the public, the transparency, accountability, and 
timeliness of the processes by which agencies prepare these products 
are important. Therefore, we are recommending that the Assistant 
Secretary of OSHA and the Administrator of EPA ensure that their key 
general policies and procedures for preparing communication products 
are documented and publicized and that, where appropriate, they 
incorporate time frames or benchmarks in their processes to prompt the 
timely dissemination of information that the agencies have determined 
is needed by regulated parties or the public in general. In addition, 
our review indicated that OSHA could benefit from employing some of the 
practices used by EPA/OPPTS, and EPA/OPPTS could benefit from some of 
OSHA's practices, to enhance their processes. While we recognize that 
both agencies have taken some steps in each of the following areas, we 
are nevertheless recommending that the Administrator of EPA consider 
adopting certain practices for OPPTS (and other EPA offices as 
appropriate), such as making key general policies and procedures 
publicly available and augmenting mechanisms for maintaining an 
inventory of the products that the agency disseminates. We are 
recommending that the Assistant Secretary of OSHA augment specific 
procedures in OSHA's directives, when appropriate, to prompt greater 
outreach to external parties and to develop communications strategies 
for dissemination of final products. In comments on a draft of this 
report, EPA generally agreed with the recommendations, concurring that 
a formal, well-understood process for coordination and review of 
communication materials is important to ensure quality information 
products. EPA also commented that a fair amount of flexibility and 
discretion is necessary for the development of communication materials 
and identified steps that the agency has taken that address elements of 
our recommendations. EPA and OSHA also provided technical comments and 
suggestions that we incorporated as appropriate. OMB did not provide 
comments. 

Background: 

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.[Footnote 6] 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.[Footnote 7] 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.[Footnote 8] 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.[Footnote 9] 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)[Footnote 10] 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."[Footnote 11] The APA established the most 
long-standing and broadly applicable federal requirements for informal 
rulemaking, also known as notice and comment rulemaking.[Footnote 12] 
Among other things, the APA generally requires that agencies publish a 
notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register.[Footnote 13] 
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.[Footnote 14] OSHA rulemaking is conducted pursuant to 
separate--although analogous--provisions found in the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended.[Footnote 15] 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.[Footnote 16] 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. 

Figure 1: Examples of OSHA and EPA Communication Products: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of some of the OSHA and EPA 
Communication Products. Some of the items depicted are: 

"What You Need to Know About Lead Poisoning;" 
OSHA Fact Sheet; 
PCBs Interpretive Guide (web page); 
FAQs: Information on Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (from 
energystar.gov); 
OSHA Quick Card. 

Source: GAO presentation of EPA and OSGA products. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 17] 
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.[Footnote 18] 
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.[Footnote 19] 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.[Footnote 20] 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.[Footnote 21] 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.[Footnote 22] Our prior 
reports and testimonies contained a variety of recommendations to 
improve various aspects of rulemaking procedures and practices. 

OSHA and OPPTS Used Different Processes during Multiyear Efforts to 
Complete Communication Products on Asbestos: 

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-ï¿½ years for 
OSHA and approximately 3-ï¿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. 

OSHA and OPPTS Initiated Development of Products on Asbestos in 
Response to Different Triggers: 

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.) 

Figure 2: Example of Potential Exposure to Asbestos in Automotive 
Brakes: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a photograph of potential exposure to asbestos in 
automotive brakes, and contains the following information: 

Using compressed air in brake and clutch repair has the potential to 
cause exposure to asbestos fibers because compressed air blows brake 
and clutch dust into the air. 

Source: EPA. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 23] 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. 

OSHA and OPPTS Took Years to Develop and Release Updated Communication 
Products on Asbestos in Brakes: 

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-ï¿½ years. OPPTS' process took 
approximately 3-ï¿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. 

Figure 3: Timeline on Preparation of OSHA and EPA/OPPTS Products on 
Asbestos in Brakes: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of the timeline on preparation of OSHA 
and EPA/OPPTS products on asbestos in brakes. The following information 
is depicted: 

Date: December 2000; 
Event: Media reports on the continued presence of asbestos in 
automobile brakes;
OSHA: Initiation of informational product. 

Date: January 2001; 
OSHA: Development of product begins. 

Date: June 2003; 
OSHA: Internal review of product begins. 

Date: August 2003; 
Event: EPA/OPPTS receives a request for correction regarding existing 
guidance on asbestos in automobile brakes; 
EPA: Initiation of informational product. 

Date: September 2003; 
EPA: Development of product begins. 

Date: April 2004; 
OSHA: Initiation of informational product; Development of product 
begins. 

Date: September 2004; 
Event: EPA/OPPTS officials decide not to proceed with the brochure and 
defer to OSHA and its SHIB; 
EPA: Internal review of product begins. 

Date: October 2005; 
OSHA: Internal review of product begins. 

Date: February 2006; 
EPA: Initiation of informational product; Development of product 
begins. 

Date: May 2006; 
Event: Newspaper article on the delays at OSHA and EPA in releasing 
products on asbestos in automobile brakes. 

Date: June 2006; 
EPA: Internal review of product begins. 
OSHA: Initiation of informational product; Development of product 
begins; Internal review of product begins. 

Date: July 2006; 
EPA: External review and public comment of product begins; 
OSHA: Product issued. 

Date: March 2007; 
EPA: Product issued. 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA and OSHA information. 

[End of figure] 

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-
ï¿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.[Footnote 24] 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. 

OSHA and OPPTS Included External Parties to Different Degrees in the 
Review of the Asbestos Products: 

Under both OSHA and OPPTS processes, reviewing a communication product 
always includes internal review but also may include external review. 
[Footnote 25] 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.[Footnote 26] 
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. 

OSHA and OPPTS Posted Asbestos Communication Products on Their Web 
Sites: 

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 [hyperlink, 
http://www.epa.gov/asbestos].[Footnote 27] 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 [hyperlink, 
http://www.osha.gov/dts/shib/shib072606.html][Footnote 28] 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. 

Multiple Policies, Procedures, and Practices May Apply to the 
Preparation of Communication Products: 

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. 

OSHA-Specific Instructions Guide the Agency's Preparation of Compliance 
Assistance Products: 

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.[Footnote 29] 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.[Footnote 30] 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. 

Figure 4: OSHA Process for Preparing Safety and Health Information 
Bulletins: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a wireframe flowchart of the OSHA Process for Preparing 
Safety and Health Information Bulletins. The following process is 
depicted: 

Triggers: 

* New, unusual, noteworthy, significant health and safety hazards; 

* Inadequacies of controls in workplace; 

* Industrial systemsï¿½ vunerability; 

* Accident, injury, or illness preventative measure; 

* Personal protective equipment or early warning systems; 

* Lessons learned from catastrophic or major incidents; 

* Credible scientific/technical finding substantiating occupational 
safety or health hazards; 

* External stakeholders (e.g., Chemical Safety Board). 

Triggers initiate the Site Development Process, as follows: 

1) Does field management determine issue merits national attention? 
If no, end process. If yes, proceed. 

2) Does Regional/National Office Directorate determine issue merits 
national attention? If no, end process. If yes, proceed. 

3) Does Office of the Assistant Secretary (OAS) approve SHIB 
development? If no, end process. If yes, proceed. 

4) Information is forwarded to appropriate subject matter experts 
(Field, stakeholders and/or National Office). 

5) National Office Directorates develop SHIB based on information and 
recommendations. 

6) Directorate of Science, Technology and Medicine(DSTM) formats SHIB 
final draft to ensure uniformity of information and prepares required 
correspondences. 

7) Draft SHIB is circulated to OSHA, DOL Solicitors (SOL), and external 
stakeholders (if appropriate). 

8) Do all offices concur? If no, proceed to step 9. If yes, proceed to 
step 11. 

9) SHIB is returned to appropriate office for revision. 

10) Office researches and addresses issues. Return to step 6. 

11) SHIB is sent to OAS for approval. 

12) Does OAS approve? If no, proceed to step 13. If yes, proceed to 
step 17. 

13) Staff addresses concerns. 

14) Is staff able to resolve minor issues? If yes, return to step 11. 
If no proceed to step 15. 

15) Major issues are identified. 

16) Is development continued? If no, end process. If yes, return to 
step 9. 

17) Does DOL Executive Secretary approve and sign off? If no, return to 
step 13. If yes, proceed to step 18. 

18) OAS signature. 

Posting and dissemination: 

19) DSTM distributes SHIB to regional offices and coordinates with the 
Office of Communications regarding press release. 

20) SHIB is posted on OSHA Web page. 

21) SHIB is announced in QuickTakes. 

Source: GAO presentation of OHSA information. 

[End of figure] 

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. 

Initiation: 

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). 

Development: 

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.[Footnote 31] 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.[Footnote 32] 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. 

Review: 

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.[Footnote 33] 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. 

Dissemination: 

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.[Footnote 34] 
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. 

OPPTS Uses a Mix of EPA-Wide and Its Own Processes to Prepare 
Communication Products: 

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.[Footnote 35] 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.[Footnote 36] However, it is not necessary for each 
communication product to follow each of these steps. 

Figure 5: EPA/OPPTS Process for Preparing Communication Products: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a wireframe flowchart of the EPA/OPPTS Process for 
Preparing Communication Products. The following process is depicted: 

Initiation: 

1) The need for the Information Document is Identified (OPPTS 
Activity). 

2) OPPTS may consult with partner Agencies and/or stakeholders on the 
need for the Information Document, as appropriate (Partner Agencies; 
Shareholder/public). 

3) OPPTS management reviews and approves the need for the Information 
Document pursuant to EPAï¿½s Product Review Process (PRP) (OPPTS 
Activity). 

Development: 

4) Is there a process specific to the document type? If no, go to step 
5. If yes, go to step 6. 

5) OPPTS prepares a workplan & schedule, then develops the document, 
working with other EPA offices/regions, partner Agencies and 
stakeholders, as appropriate. Go to step 7. 

6) Implement process to develop document, see examples. 

7) OPPTS Management Sign-off? If no, go to step 8. If yes, go to step 
9. 

8) Address issues as appropriate. Return to step 7. 

Review within EPA: 

9) Circulate within EPA for broader review, including PRP review, if 
applicable. Go to step 10 or 11 as appropriate. 

10) Circulate a draft to partner agencies for review, if appropriate. 
Go to step 12 or 13 as appropriate. 

Interagency review: 

11) Revise document as needed to address comments. 

12) Submit a draft to OMB for interagency review, if appropriate. Go to 
step 13. 

12) Publish a draft for public review and comment, if appropriate. Go 
to step 11. 

Dissemination: 

14) Final OPPTS Management sign-off and EPA issuance. 

15) OPPTS disseminates the final document. Based on Communications 
Plan, OPPTS contacts interested parties through listserv notifications 
and other announcements. 

Source: GAO presentation of OPPTS information. 

[End of figure] 

Initiation: 

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. 

Development: 

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.) 

Review: 

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.[Footnote 37] 

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. 

Dissemination: 

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.[Footnote 38] 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. 

More Transparency and Documentation Requirements Apply to Rulemaking 
Than to the Preparation of Communication Products: 

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. 

Processes for Preparing Rules and Communication Products Have 
Significant Differences: 

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.[Footnote 39] 

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.[Footnote 40] Under other statutes and executive orders--such 
as the Paperwork Reduction Act,[Footnote 41] Regulatory Flexibility 
Act,[Footnote 42] Unfunded Mandates Reform Act,[Footnote 43] 
Congressional Review Act,[Footnote 44] and Executive Order 12866 on 
regulatory planning and review[Footnote 45]--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.[Footnote 46] 

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.[Footnote 47] 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.[Footnote 48] 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.[Footnote 49] 
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.[Footnote 50] 
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.[Footnote 51] 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.[Footnote 52] 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.[Footnote 53] 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.[Footnote 54] 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.[Footnote 55] She also noted 
that EPA has a publications catalog that is a master inventory of all 
numbered publications, but this is not all-inclusive. 

Administration Initiatives Imposed New Requirements for Significant 
Guidance Documents: 

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.[Footnote 56] 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.[Footnote 57] 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. 

Conclusions: 

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-ï¿½ years to publish its asbestos 
SHIB, while OPPTS took approximately 3-ï¿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. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

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). 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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 [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, 
please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or [email protected]. 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. 

Signed by: 

Mathew J. Scire: 
Director: 
Strategic Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

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.[Footnote 58] 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.[Footnote 59] 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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Preparation of OSHA and OPPTS Communication Products on 
Asbestos in Automotive Brakes: 

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. 

Table: 

Year: 2000; 
Month: December; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2001; 
Month: 
January; Event: OSHA's national office decided to develop the bulletin. 

Year: 2003; 
Month: May; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2003; Month: June; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2003; Month: August; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2003; Month: October; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2004; 
Month: April; 
Event: OPPTS officials developed initial drafts of a brochure and 
shared this information at the staff level with other agencies, 
including OSHA. 

Year: 2004; Month: May; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2004; 
Month: June; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2004; 
Month: July; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2004; 
Month: September; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2005; 
Month: February; 
Event: OPPTS informed OSHA that they no longer wanted to be part of a 
joint OSHA/OPPTS information bulletin. 

Year: 2005; 
Month: April; 
Event: 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.[A] 

Year: 2005; 
Month: May/June; 
Event: OSHA obtained a study that supported the dissemination of the 
information bulletin on asbestos exposure in brake and clutch 
repairs.[B] OSHA also obtained a study that cast doubt on the ability 
of asbestos brake dust to cause cancer.[C] This study was referred to 
OSHA's Salt Lake City Technical Center for its assessment on whether 
the bulletin should be published. 

Year: 2005; 
Month: July; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2005; 
Month: July; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2005; 
Month: October; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2006; 
Month: February; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2006; 
Month: May; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2006; 
Month: June; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2006; 
Month: June; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2006; 
Month: July; 
Event: OSHA's Assistant Secretary approved the dissemination of the 
asbestos SHIB on the agency's Web site. 

Year: 2006; 
Month: August; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2006; 
Month: August through September; 
Event: 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. 

Year: 2007; 
Month: February; 
Event: OPPTS submitted its final draft of the brochure to OMB (because 
the brochure was a response to a 2003 request for correction). 

Year: 2007; 
Month: March; 
Event: Year: OPPTS published the final brochure. 

Year: 2007; 
Month: April; 
Event: OPPTS released the final brochure in the Federal Register, and 
posted the document on the agency's Web site. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The U.S. Geological Survey responded that of the 7,000 metric tons 
of asbestos imported into the United States in 2002, 18 percent was 
used for the manufacture of friction products that include automobile 
brakes and clutches. 

[B] Kelly J. Butnor, Thomas A. Sport, and Victor Roggli, "Exposure to 
Brake Dust and Malignant Mesothelioma: A Study of 10 Cases with Mineral 
Fiber Analyses," Annals of Occupational Hygiene, vol. 47, no. 4, 
(2003). 

[C] Dennis J. Pasternach et al., "Environmental and Occupational Health 
Hazards Associated With the Presence of Asbestos in Brake Linings and 
Pads (1900 to Present): A State-of-the-Art Review," Journal of 
Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews, vol. 7, 
no. 1 (2004). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Asbestos-Automotive Brake and Clutch Repair Work: 

U.S. Department of Labor: 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration: 
Directorate of Science, TEchnology & Medicine: 
Office of Science Technology Assessment: 

Asbestos-Automotive Brake and Clutch Repair Work: 

Safety and Health Information Bulletin: 

SHIB 07-26-06: 

Purpose: 

This Safety and Health Information Bulletin is not a standard or 
regulation, and it creates no new legal obligations. The Bulletin is 
advisory in nature, informational in content, and is intended to assist 
employers in providing a safe and healthful workplace. Pursuant to the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers must comply with hazard-
specific safety and health standards promulgated by OSHA or by a state 
with an OSHA-approved state plan. In addition, pursuant to Section 
5(a)(1), the General Duty Clause of the Act, employers must provide 
their employees with a workplace free from recognized hazards likely to 
cause death or serious physical harm. Employers can be cited for 
violating the General Duty Clause if there is a recognized hazard and 
they do not take reasonable steps to prevent or abate the hazard. 
However, failure to implement any recommendations in this Safety and 
Health Information Bulletin is not, in itself, a violation of the 
General Duty Clause. Citations can only be based on standards, 
regulations, and the General Duty Clause. 

Purpose: 

OSHA is issuing this Safety and Health Information Bulletin to inform 
employees and employers in the automotive brake repair industry of the 
precautions that must be taken when working with automotive brakes and 
clutches containing asbestos. In the case of do-it-yourselfers, 
[Footnote 60] OSHA does not have jurisdiction, and OSHA does not 
require theses practices to be followed. To reduce the potential 
exposure to asbestos, EPA strongly recommends that all automotive brake 
and clutch repair work be done by professional auto mechanics. Although 
the use of asbestos in friction products is declining annually, it 
remains a substantial source of potential exposure. In addition, there 
is still potential exposure to asbestos contained in automotive brakes 
and clutches on older vehicles in need of service. Exposure to 
asbestos, if not properly controlled can cause mesothelioma, lung 
cancer, and asbestosis. Symptoms may not appear for years, even 
decades, after contact with asbestos fibers. [Footnote 61] 

Background: 

Many brakes and clutches used in new and recent model automobiles do 
not contain asbestos. However, it has not been totally eliminated. Some 
reports have indicated that many mechanics and employees in the 
automotive repair shops as well as do-it-yourselfers are unaware that 
asbestos may be present in both old and replacement brakes and 
clutches. 

OSHA's asbestos standard requires the use of controls and safe work 
practices when employees work with brake shoes and clutches that 
contain asbestos. These requirements are detailed in 29 CFR 1910.1001 
and specifically 1910.1001(f)(3) and Appendix F of the standard - Work 
Practices and Engineering Controls. for Automotive Brake and Clutch 
Inspection. Disassembly, Repair and Assembly [hyperlink, 
http://www.osha.gov/slte/asbestos/index.html]. The requirements also 
are discussed in the Federal Register at 59 FR 40964, 40985-87 (August 
10, 1994) and 60 FR 33983 (June 29, 1995), as well as in OSHA Directive 
CPL 2-2.63 (revised). 

OSHA Work Practices and Engineering Controls/OSHA Methods: 

All automotive brake and clutch repair facilities in the United States 
must comply with the OSHA asbestos standard. The proper use of 
engineering controls and work practices by properly trained employees
working on automotive brakes and clutches will reduce their asbestos 
exposure below the permissible exposure level of 0.1 fiber per cubic 
centimeter of air, expressed as an 8-hour time-weighted average. 
Respiratory protection is not required during brake and clutch jobs 
where the control methods described below are used. 

The two preferred OSHA methods to control asbestos dust during brake 
and clutch repair and service are: (1) a negative pressure enclosure/ 
HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) vacuum system, and (2) the low 
pressure/wet cleaning method. The employer may use other methods (in 
conjunction with written procedures), to reduce exposure to levels 
equivalent to the negative pressure enclosure/HEPA vacuum system. For 
facilities that inspect, disassemble, reassemble and/or repair five or 
fewer brake or clutch jobs per week, the wet method (described in 
paragraph D of Appendix F) can be used. The spray can/solvent system 
method can be used as an alternative preferred method since it meets 
the equivalency criterion of the negative pressure enclosure/HEPA 
vacuum system method. Proper training is essential to ensure that 
employees use the methods in an effective manner. 

Negative pressure enclosure/HEPA vacuum system method: 

The negative pressure enclosure/HEPA vacuum system method includes the 
following steps: 

1. Enclose the brake or clutch assembly to prevent release of asbestos 
fibers into the employee's breathing zone during brake or clutch 
inspection, disassembly, repair, and reassembly operations. Use a 
transparent enclosure with impermeable sleeves. 

2. Seal the enclosure tightly and thoroughly, inspect for leaks before 
beginning work. 

3. The enclosure must be transparent so that the employee can clearly 
see the operation during brake or clutch inspection, disassembly, 
repair, and reassembly. The enclosure must also have impermeable 
sleeves to allow the employee to handle the brake and clutch assembly 
without penetrating the enclosure. The integrity of the sleeves and 
ports must be inspected before work begins. 

4. Use a HEPA-filtered vacuum to keep the enclosure under negative 
pressure throughout the operation. Compressed air may be used to remove 
asbestos fibers or particles from the enclosure. 

5. Use the HEPA-filtered vacuum first to loosen asbestos residue from 
the brake and clutch parts, then evacuate the loosened material from 
the enclosure into a vacuum filter. 

6. When the vacuum filter is full, spray it with a fine mist of water 
before removing it. Immediately place it in a labeled, impermeable 
container and dispose of it as asbestos waste in accordance with 
federal, state, and local regulations and in compliance with 
1910.1001(k)(6). The label must include the following information: 
"Danger, Contains Asbestos Fibers, Avoid Creating Dust, Cancer And Lung 
Disease Hazard." 

7. Immediately clean spills or releases of asbestos containing waste 
material from inside the enclosure or vacuum hose or filter. Properly 
dispose of waste as asbestos waste. 

Vacuum enclosure units should be large enough to fully enclose and 
remove the brake drum with enough room for hammering if the drums are 
difficult to remove because of wear, rust, or other reasons. Enclosure 
systems should have good interior lighting to illuminate the work area. 
The enclosure should completely enclose the brake drum, and form a 
tight seal behind the backing plate. Air guns should never be aimed 
towards the seal as this may reduce or eliminate its protective 
ability. 

After cleaning with compressed air, the inside surfaces of the 
enclosure should be HEPA vacuumed to keep the inside clean and maintain 
visibility. Each brake component should be vacuumed as it is removed 
and the backing plate should be vacuumed after all the components have 
been removed. Rags used to wipe or clean used brake parts, should not 
be used to wipe hands. Mechanics should wear an appropriate NIOSH-
approved respirator for asbestos when changing vacuum unit filters. 

Low pressure/wet cleaning method: 

The low pressure/wet cleaning method involves the following steps: 

1. Position a catch basin under the brake assembly to avoid splashes 
and spills. 

2. Gently flood the brake assembly with water containing an organic 
solvent or wetting agent to prevent asbestos-containing brake dust from 
becoming airborne. 

3. For drum brakes, ensure that the water solution flows between the 
brake drum and the brake support before removing the brake drum. 

4. After removing the brake drum, thoroughly wet the wheel hub and back 
of the brake assembly with the water solution to suppress dust. 

5. Thoroughly wash the brake support plate, brake shoes, and other 
parts before removing the old brake shoes. 

6. If your system uses a filter, wet the filter when it becomes full 
and before removal, with a fine mist of water, and place immediately in 
an impermeable container. Label the container and dispose of it as 
asbestos waste. 

7. Immediately clean spills of asbestos-containing liquid or asbestos-
containing waste material using a HEPA-filtered vacuum and/or wet 
methods. Properly dispose of waste as asbestos waste. 

8. Dry brushing is prohibited. 

9. The brake washer solution should be changed regularly for maximum 
efficiency of the unit. 

Wet method: 

For shops that perform infrequent brake work and clutch repair work, 
OSHA allows the use of a wet method as a "preferred" method. Therefore, 
in facilities in which five (5) or fewer brake jobs" (five brake jobs" 
are equivalent to five vehicles) or 5 clutches, or some combination 
totaling 5, are inspected, disassembled, reassembled and/or repaired 
per week, the mechanic/technician may control potential asbestos 
exposure through the use of a spray bottle, hose nozzle, or any 
implement capable of delivering a fine mist of water or amended water 
at low pressure to wet down the drum or clutch housing before removing 
it and to control asbestos fiber release during subsequent activities. 
However, any wastewater generated must be captured and properly 
disposed of without allowing it to dry on any surfaces. OSHA 
anticipates that using a spray bottle will adequately control dust 
without generating a large volume of wastewater. 

The wet method requires the following steps: 

1. Brake and clutch parts must be wetted with water or amended water 
before taking any other action. 

2. Wipe the brake and clutch parts clean with a cloth. 

3. Place contaminated cloth into an impermeable, properly labeled 
container, and then dispose of it as asbestos waste. Alternatively, the 
cloth can be laundered to prevent the release of asbestos fibers in 
excess of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air, expressed as an 8-hour 
time-weighted average. 

4. Any spilled water or amended water or asbestos-containing waste 
material must be cleaned immediately with a cloth or HEPA-filtered 
vacuum and not allowed to dry. 

5. Do not dry brush. 

The simplicity of the wet control does not eliminate the need for 
correct work practices. For example, holding the spray nozzle too close 
to the brake surface may cause asbestos fibers to become airborne. 
Brake components should be sprayed to saturate the parts as they are 
removed from the assembly. 

Equivalent methods: 

Like the preferred methods, an equivalent method must include a 
detailed description of the practices that must be followed when the 
method is used. An employer who uses such a method must have a written 
description of the method that contains sufficient detail that the 
method can be reproduced. The employer must provide information 
demonstrating that the exposures resulting from an equivalent method 
are equal to or less than exposures from the negative pressure 
enclosure/HEPA vacuum system method. For purposes of equivalency, 
employee exposures must not exceed 0.016 f/cc, as measured by the OSHA 
reference method and averaged over at least 18 personal samples. 

The following method, spray can/solvent system, maybe used as an 
"equivalent" method. The spray can/solvent system may be used when 
proper work practices are followed. At a minimum, the spray can/ 
solvent system method must follow detailed written procedures including 
the following: 

l. Wet the brake and clutch parts with the spray can/solvent before 
taking any other action. 

2. Wipe the brake and clutch parts clean with a cloth. 

3. Place contaminated cloth into an impermeable, properly labeled 
container, and then dispose of it as asbestos waste. Alternatively, the 
cloth can be laundered to prevent the release of asbestos fibers in 
excess of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter of air, expressed as an 8-hour 
time-weighted average. 

4. Immediately clean any spilled solvent or dispersed asbestos with a 
cloth or HEPA vacuum. 

5. Dry brushing during spray can/solvent system operations is 
prohibited. 

The solvents typically used in brake and clutch work are hazardous 
chemicals, which requires the employer to comply with the Hazard 
Communication standard. If the solvents are flammable, appropriate 
precautions against fire and explosion must be taken. 

Best Practices: 

Mechanics should assume that all brakes have asbestos-type shoes. Worn 
nonasbestos-type brake shoes cannot be readily distinguished from 
asbestos-type shoes. If a mechanic assumes incorrectly that a shoe is a 
nonasbestos-type and fails to utilize brake dust control procedures, 
increased asbestos exposure may result. 

Mechanics must be trained in the correct and most effective way to use 
the control system selected by the facility manager or owner. The 
danger of increased exposure to asbestos as the result of improper work 
practices should be explained. Examples of improper work practice 
include: directing an air nozzle at an enclosure seal, placing the 
nozzle of a spray mist too close to the work surface, not placing the 
vacuum nozzle close enough to the contaminated surface, turning on the 
vacuum pumps before positioning the vacuum enclosure over the wheel and 
leaving them on when removing the enclosure, and splashing or spilling 
contaminated solutions on the floor. A control system must always be 
used and consistent work procedures are essential. 

Use pre-ground, ready-to-install parts when possible. If asbestos-
containing friction materials must be drilled, grooved, cut, beveled, 
or lathe-turned, low speeds should always be used to keep down the 
amount of dust created. All machinery should have an adequate, HEPA 
equipped local exhaust dust collection system to prevent asbestos 
exposures and shop contamination. Immediately clean spills of brake 
dust or contaminated solutions by H EPA vacuuming or wet mopping. 

A regular maintenance program for the system used to control brake dust 
is essential. Maintenance should include checking and replacing seals, 
nozzles, other hardware, contaminated filters and solutions. Any 
deficiencies such as ineffective seals, or air nozzles should be 
repaired. Disposal of asbestos contaminated material, whether it is 
filters or solutions, must be in accordance with federal and state 
regulations and in compliance with 1910.1001(k)(6). Periodic cleaning 
will help reduce the possibility of asbestos contamination of 
workbenches, floors, etc. Mechanics should perform brake and clutch 
work in an area isolated from other work areas. Signs should be posted 
informing employees not to eat, drink, or smoke in the brake and clutch 
work area. Asbestos and other potentially toxic materials can be 
ingested or inhaled during these activities. 

Personal hygiene, such as frequent hand washing with soap or detergent, 
should be stressed. Changing from soiled work clothes into clean 
clothes before leaving work provides additional protection against 
bringing asbestos into the home environment. A laundry service with 
facilities for cleaning asbestos contaminated clothing must be provided 
for any asbestos-contaminated work clothes. 

Conclusion: 

Engineering controls and good work practices must be implemented 
throughout the process of performing brake and clutch inspection, 
disassembly, repair, and assembly. The four types of control systems or 
methods described here can effectively reduce employees' asbestos 
exposure below the OSHA permissible exposure level. 

Information about job hazards must be disseminated through a training 
program that describes how to do properly perform a task, how each work 
practice reduces potential exposure, and how employees can benefit from 
these practices. No matter, which control system, is used, employees 
must be trained in how to properly use it. Employees (and do-it-
yourselfers who choose not to have brake and clutch work conducted by 
professional mechanics) who can recognize and control hazards are 
better equipped to protect themselves from asbestos exposure. Training 
and work practices should be frequently reinforced. 

Business owners who are concerned about the cost of professional help 
can contact the OSHA Consultation Project Office in their state for 
free consultation service. Priority is given to businesses with fewer 
than 250 employees at a worksite, with further consideration given to 
the severity of the worksite problem. The Consultation Program can help 
the employer evaluate and prevent hazardous conditions in the workplace 
that can cause injuries and illness. 

Source: OSHA. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Current Best Practices for Preventing Asbestos Exposure 
Among Brake and Clutch Repair Workers: 

United States Environmental Protection Agency: 

Current Best Practices for Preventing Asbestos Exposure Among Brake and 
Clutch Repair Workers: 

Figure: 

[See PDF for image] 

Photograph of brake assembly. 

[End of figure] 

This information can help professional automotive technicians and home 
mechanics who repair and replace brakes and clutches. By law, most
professional automotive shops must follow the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration's (OSHA) regulations at 29 CFR 1910.1001, 
specifically paragraph (f)(3) and Appendix F. These are mandatory 
measures that employers must implement for automotive brake and clutch 
inspection, disassembly, repair, and assembly operations. 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 
(Subpart G of 40 CFR 763). 

While home mechanics are not required to follow the OSHA work practices 
(or the identical requirements under the EPA Asbestos Worker Protection 
Rule), by using these practices home mechanics can minimize potential 
exposure to asbestos if it is present and thereby reduce their 
potential risk of developing any asbestos-related diseases. 

What is asbestos and how can it cause health problems? 

Asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral fiber that is highly heat 
resistant, can cause serious health problems when inhaled into the 
lungs. If products containing asbestos are disturbed, thin, lightweight 
asbestos fibers can be released into the air. Persons breathing the air 
may then inhale asbestos fibers. Continued exposure can increase the 
amount of fibers deposited in the lung. Fibers embedded in the lung 
tissue over time may result in lung diseases such as asbestosis, lung 
cancer, or mesothelioma. It can take from 10 to 40 years or more for 
symptoms of an asbestos-related condition to appear. Smoking increases 
the risk of developing illness from asbestos exposure. 

For more information on the health effects of asbestos exposure, visit 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) at 
[hyperlink, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/asbestos/index.html]. 

Why should mechanics be concerned about asbestos exposure? 

Because some, but not all, automotive brakes and clutches available or 
in use today may contain asbestos, professional automotive technicians 
and home mechanics who repair and replace brakes and clutches may be 
exposed to asbestos dust. Brake and clutch dust can be seen when a 
brake disk, drum, clutch cover, or the wheel is removed from a car, 
truck, or other equipment. There are also many small dust particles 
that cannot be seen with the eye. If the brakes contain asbestos, the 
dust may contain asbestos fibers, which could be inhaled. 

Do not blow dust from brakes and clutches! 

Figure: 

[See PDF for image] 

Photograph of brake assembly, with the following description: 

Using compressed air, a brush (wet or dry), or a dry rag to clean brake 
assemblages has the potential to expose you to asbestos fibers. 

[End of figure] 

How do I know if I have asbestos brake or clutch components? 

You cannot tell whether brake or clutch components contain asbestos 
simply by looking at them. For newer vehicles and parts, auto 
manufacturers, auto parts retailers and packaging information, such as 
labels or Material Safety Data Sheets, may be able to tell you whether 
or not your brake or clutch components contain asbestos. For older 
vehicles, or vehicles that have had brakes replaced, you may not be 
able to easily find out if the brake or clutch components contain 
asbestos. 

As a best practice, OSHA states that mechanics should assume that all 
brakes have asbestos-type shoes. Worn non-asbestos-type brake shoes 
cannot be readily distinguished from asbestos-type shoes. If a mechanic 
assumes incorrectly that a shoe is a non-asbestos type and fails to 
utilize brake dust control procedures, increased asbestos exposure may 
result. 

As a professional automotive technician, what work practices must I 
follow to reduce potential exposures to asbestos? 

If you work in a commercial automotive shop that performs work on more 
than five brake or clutch jobs per week, OSHA regulations require the 
use of one of the following work practices or an equivalent method such 
as the spray can/solvent system. 

Negative-Pressure Enclosure/HEPA Vacuum System Method: This type of 
enclosure and vacuum system has a special box with clear plastic walls 
or windows, which fits tightly around a brake or clutch assembly to 
prevent asbestos exposure. 

Low Pressure/Wet Cleaning Method: This specially designed low-pressure 
spray equipment wets down the brake assembly and catches the runoff in 
a special basin to prevent airborne brake dust from spreading in the 
work area. 

If you work in a commercial automotive shop that performs work on no 
more than five brake or clutch jobs per week, OSHA regulations allow 
the following method instead: 

Wet Wipe Method: This method involves using a spray bottle or other 
device capable of delivering a fine mist of water, or amended water 
(water with a detergent), at low pressure to wet all brake and clutch 
parts. The brakes can then be wiped clean with a cloth. 

As a home mechanic, what can I do to protect myself from asbestos 
exposure? 

If you are not able to determine whether your brakes or clutch contain 
asbestos, you may want to consider having your brakes or clutch 
serviced at a commercial automotive shop. OSHA requires special work 
practices for professional automotive technicians. If, however, this is 
not possible and you do not have access to the equipment professional 
automotive shops use to comply with the OSHA work practices, you may 
want to consider using the wet wipe method described in this brochure 
[hyperlink, http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/asbestos/standards.html]. This 
method has been deemed acceptable by OSHA for shops that service no 
more than five brake or clutch jobs per week. 

Work Practice Don'ts for Home Mechanics: 

It is recommended that you: 

* Do not use compressed air for cleaning. Compressed air blows dust 
into the air. 

* Do not clean brakes or clutches with a dry rag, brush (wet or dry), 
or garden hose. 

* Do not use an ordinary wet/dry vac without a high-efficiency 
particulate air (HEPA) filter to vacuum dust. Invisible particles of 
brake or clutch dust can stay in the air and on your clothes long after 
a job is complete. 

* Avoid taking work clothing inside the home or tracking dust through 
the house after performing brake and clutch work to prevent exposing 
your family to dust particles that may contain asbestos. 

Work Practice Do's for Home Mechanics: 

It is recommended that you: 

* Use pre-ground, ready-to-install parts. 

* If a brake or clutch lining must be drilled, grooved, cut, bevelled, 
or lathe-turned, use low speeds to keep down the amount of dust 
created. 

* Use machinery with a local exhaust dust collection system equipped 
with HEPA filtration to prevent dust exposures and work area 
contamination. 

* Change into clean clothes before going inside the home and wash 
soiled clothes separately. 

* Minimize exposure to others by keeping bystanders, as well as food 
and drinks, away from the work area. 

How do I dispose of waste that contains asbestos? 

Employers of professional automotive technicians must ensure that they 
or their waste haulers dispose of waste that contains brake or clutch 
dust, including wet rags used to wipe this dust, in accordance with 
Federal and local regulations, including the OSHA asbestos waste 
disposal regulations. OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1910.1001(k)(6) and 29 
CFR 1910.10010)(4)) require that, before waste containers with brake 
and clutch dust and other asbestos waste in them are collected, they 
must be sealed. The containers also must be impermeable and must be 
appropriately labeled. These regulations do not apply to home 
mechanics. For home mechanics, EPA recommends that asbestos waste be 
double-bagged and disposed of following appropriate local
regulations to minimize exposure. You may contact your state asbestos 
representative for more disposal and other information. [hyperlink, 
http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/statecontact.pdf]. 

Where can I get additional information? 

OSHA has issued a Safety and Health Information Bulletin on brake and 
clutch repair that is available at [hyperlink, 
http://www.osha.gov/dts/shib/shib072606.html]. 

EPA's Asbestos Worker Protection Rule regulations apply to certain 
state and local government employees (40 CFR Part 763, Subpart G). For 
more information on EPA 's Asbestos Program visit: [hyperlink, 
http://www.epa.gov/asbestos] or call 202-554-1404. 

Source: EPA. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

United States Environmental Protection Agency: 
Office Of Prevention, Pesticides And Toxic Substances: 
[hyperlink, http://ww.epa.gov]: 
Washington, D.C. 20460 

March 19, 2008: 

Mathew Scire, Director: 
Strategic Issues: 
Government Accountability Office (GAO): 

Dear Mr. Scire: 

Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the final 
draft report entitled: "Health and Safety Information; EPA and OSHA 
Could Improve Their Processes for Preparing Communication Products." 
The report emphasizes that public communication is a valuable tool to 
use in fulfilling the mission of EPA and other agencies, such as the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). EPA agrees with 
and endorses that view. Equally important and valid is the point by GAO 
that a formal, well-understood process for coordination and review of 
communication materials is important to ensure quality information 
products. We appreciate the opportunity to work with your staff in 
recent months to explain EPA's product development and review process, 
and we acknowledge the recommendations you have made to EPA. We 
sincerely appreciate the opportunity to allow our suggestions of 
technical clarity to inform your final report. 

Generally speaking, communications products represent a broad category 
of materials and a fair amount of flexibility and discretion is 
necessary for their development to ensure the product meets the 
program's needs. There is no one template that can be used for every 
product, particularly during development at the programmatic level. In 
addition, the Agency has a longstanding process to ensure that products 
that go out to the public are clear and consistent. This process is 
managed by EPA's Office of Public Affairs (OPA). OPPTS diligently 
adheres to the OPA process. The brochure, "Current Best Practices for 
Preventing Asbestos Exposure Among Brake and Clutch Repair Workers," 
which is the focus of your report, followed the longstanding OPA 
process. 

GAO's first recommendation suggests that "...the Administrator of EPA 
should ensure that their key general process guidance for preparing 
communication products include, as appropriate, timeframes or 
benchmarks to help ensure that products that the agencies have 
determined are needed are developed, reviewed, and disseminated in a 
timely manner." 

The Agency agrees that developing timely communication materials is 
important. However, there are times when the Agency should be allowed 
the flexibility to divert resources and adjust schedules, when 
necessary, from lower-priority projects to higher-priority projects 
while we also endeavor to meet internally established timeframes. We 
both note that the process for development and publication of the 
brakes brochure was lengthy. But equally important is that the 
necessary health and safety information relating to potential asbestos 
hazards associated with brake and clutch repair was at all times 
publicly available. The timeframe associated with developing the brakes 
brochure was an anomaly, and may not be a useful standard to compare in 
other cases. In addition, we urge caution in comparing the processes 
and products of a single program office within EPA to the processes and 
products of an entire Agency such as OSHA. 

GAO's second recommendation suggests that "...the Administrator of EPA 
should take steps to ensure that their 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. 

We agree with this recommendation and, in fact, have been taking steps 
to document more fully Agency actions as a result of the Office of 
Management and Budget "Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance 
Practices." As the Agency has been implementing "Good Guidance," we 
discover that increased clarity of procedures and standardization of 
product development can increase efficiencies and accountability within 
EPA programs and in OPPTS in particular. OPPTS has initiated 
development of guidance on products developed within our office to help 
foster "Good Guidance" compliance and increased standardization and 
accountability for products even if they are non regulatory or do not 
need to comply with the Bulletin. Importantly, the overall Agency 
product review process managed by OPA is the Agency's principal means 
to ensure that all aspects of materials produced for the public are 
reviewed for communications value and effectiveness, policy 
coordination and conformity with various EPA requirements. 
Additionally, OPA maintains an inventory of public communication 
products that are under development or has reviewed. Information on 
this process is published on the EPA Website and is publicly available 
at: [hyperlink, http://www.epa.gov/productreview/faqs.html]. 

GAO's third recommendation suggests that "the Administrator of EPA 
should ensure that their agencies make public the key general process 
guidance for preparing communication products, including any updated in 
response to the previous objective." 

As stated above, OPA's process for preparation and clearance of 
communication products is published on the EPA Web-site both on its 
intranet and Internet pages. It is rather detailed and well-known to 
the communications staffs in Program and Regional Offices, and is 
available to the general public via the aforementioned web-site. 

GAO's fourth recommendation suggests that "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." 

We agree with your fourth suggestion and in fact, in OPPTS we have 
existing management strategies to ensure communication materials have a 
documented process to ensure timeliness, appropriate management 
oversight, effectiveness and adherence to Executive Orders and other 
Agency requirements. Also, the Agency does have a centralized approach 
to developing communication materials, as well as a database of 
communication materials planned for dissemination by the Agency. This 
system is called the Product Review Tracking System (PROTRAC). 
Individual Program Offices enter planned communications projects into 
the database and manage them through the clearance process, which 
overseen by OPA. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review the final draft of this 
report. Should you have any further questions, please contact Beverly 
Fletcher, our GAO Liaison for this report, at 202-564-5717. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim Jones: 
Deputy Assistant Administrator: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Mathew J. Scire, (202) 512-6806 or [email protected]: 

Acknowledgments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] There is no single term or definition used by the agencies to refer 
to these general informational products. EPA tends to use the term 
communication products, and OSHA tends to refer to them as compliance 
assistance products or compliance assistance materials. For consistency 
in this report, we generally use the term communication products, 
unless specifically referring to a particular agency, category of 
products, or both. We also use the term preparation when referring 
collectively to the phases of initiation, development, review, and 
dissemination of communication products. 

[2] More technical and analytical products--such as risk assessments, 
scientific models and research, and economic benefit-cost analyses-- 
were not within the scope of this review, but prior GAO reports have 
discussed some of the policies and procedures applicable to such 
products. See, for example, GAO, Federal Research: Policies Guiding the 
Dissemination of Scientific Research from Selected Agencies Should Be 
Clarified and Better Communicated, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-07-653] (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2007), and Chemical 
Risk Assessment: Selected Federal Agencies' Procedures, Assumptions, 
and Policies, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-810] 
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 6, 2001). 

[3] Although OSHA and OPPTS officials said that their asbestos products 
were not typical examples of communication products, the agencies 
nonetheless used applicable agency procedures to prepare those 
products. 

[4] IQA (also referred to as the Data Quality Act) required OMB to 
issue guidelines to federal agencies to ensure the "quality, 
objectivity, utility, and integrity" of information disseminated to the 
public. IQA also directed OMB to include in its guidelines a 
requirement that federal agencies (1) develop their own quality 
guidelines and (2) establish an administrative mechanism for affected 
persons to seek correction of information that does not comply with OMB 
guidelines (referred to as requests for correction). 44 U.S.C. ï¿½ 3516 
note. 

[5] OMB Bulletin on "Agency Good Guidance Practices," 72 Fed. Reg. 3432 
(Jan. 25, 2007). A significant guidance document is defined in this 
bulletin, in part, as a guidance document disseminated to regulated 
entities or the general public that may reasonably be anticipated to 
lead to an annual effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect in 
a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, 
local, or tribal governments or communities. 

[6] 54 Fed. Reg. 29,460 (July 12, 1989). 

[7] Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F. 2d 1201, 1229 (5th Cir. 
1991). 

[8] See 29 C.F.R. ï¿½ 1910.1001, specifically paragraph (f)(3) and 
Appendix F. 

[9] 40 C.F.R. ï¿½ 763, Subpart G. 

[10] Pub. L. No. 404, 60 Stat. 237 (1946), codified in 1966 in 
scattered sections of title 5, United States Code. 

[11] 5 U.S.C. ï¿½ 551(4). 

[12] 5 U.S.C. ï¿½ 553. 

[13] The APA includes exceptions to notice and comment procedures for 
categories of rules such as those dealing with military or foreign 
affairs and also agency management and personnel. 5 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 553(a) 
and (b). 

[14] 5 U.S.C. ï¿½ 553(c). 

[15] 29 U.S.C. ï¿½ 655. 

[16] 5 U.S.C. ï¿½ 553(b)(A). 

[17] See Jeffrey S. Lubbers, A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking, 
Fourth Edition (Chicago, American Bar Association: 2006), 51-58. 

[18] See General Elec. Co. v. EPA, 290 F.3d 377, 385 (D.C. Cir. 2002) 
(striking down polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) risk assessment guidance 
as a legislative rule requiring notice and comment); Appalachian Power 
Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015, 1023-24 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (overturning 
emissions monitoring guidance as a legislative rule requiring notice 
and comment); and Chamber of Commerce v. United States Dep't of Labor, 
174 F.3d 206, 212-213 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (declaring an OSHA directive a 
legislative rule requiring notice and comment). 

[19] See Nina A. Mendelson, "Regulatory Beneficiaries and Informal 
Agency Policymaking," 92 Cornell L. Rev. 397 (March 2007). 

[20] See, for example, GAO, Hazardous Materials: EPA May Need to 
Reassess Sites Receiving Asbestos-Contaminated Ore from Libby, Montana, 
and Should Improve Its Public Notification Process, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-71] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 
12, 2007); World Trade Center: EPA's Most Recent Test and Clean Program 
Raises Concerns That Need to Be Addressed to Better Prepare for Indoor 
Contamination Following Disasters, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1091] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 5, 2007); and 
Hurricane Katrina: EPA's Current and Future Environmental Protection 
Efforts Could Be Enhanced by Addressing Issues and Challenges Faced on 
the Gulf Coast, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-
651] (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2007). 

[21] See GAO, Federal Rulemaking: Past Reviews and Emerging Trends 
Suggest Issues That Merit Congressional Attention, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-228T] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 
1, 2005); Rulemaking: OMB's Role in Reviews of Agencies' Draft Rules 
and the Transparency of Those Reviews, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-929] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 
22, 2003); and Federal Rulemaking: Procedural and Analytical 
Requirements at OSHA and Other Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-852T] (Washington, D.C.: June 
14, 2001). 

[22] GAO, Regulatory Reform: Compliance Guide Requirement Has Had 
Little Effect on Agency Practices, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-02-172] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 28, 2001). 

[23] An LEP is intended to address hazards or industries that pose a 
particular risk to workers in an office's jurisdiction. The LEP may 
include outreach intended to make employers in the area aware of the 
program as well as the hazard(s) the program is designed to reduce or 
eliminate. 

[24] 29 C.F.R. ï¿½ 1910.1001, Appendix F. 

[25] The general OSHA and OPPTS processes are described in more detail 
later in this report. 

[26] OPPTS officials shared the draft of the brochure with staff within 
OSHA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the 
Mining Safety and Health Administration, the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

[27] Last accessed by GAO on March 25, 2008. 

[28] Last accessed by GAO on March 25, 2008. 

[29] The OSHA instructions on policy issuances are found in Directive 
Number ADM 03-00-002 [ADM 8-0.2] (Dec. 11, 2000), for nonpolicy 
issuances in Directive Number ADM-03-00-004 [ADM 8-0.4] (Dec. 11, 
2000), and for SHIBs in Directive Number CPL 02-00-065 [CPL 2.65A] 
(Aug. 27, 2003). 

[30] Directive Number IPC 01-00-006 (Sept. 25, 2007). 

[31] Policy issuances are official statements of OSHA published in the 
Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Register, the OSHA Directives 
System, or a combination of these. Such statements include OSHA rules, 
regulations, and compliance assistance policies and procedures, and 
also statements of policy and procedure relating to areas such as 
partnerships, outreach, and educational programs. Nonpolicy issuances 
include such supplementary guidance materials as OSHA's Letters of 
Interpretation, agency announcements, or informational releases, such 
as publications intended for the general public, news releases, routine 
correspondence, or other nonpolicy statements. 

[32] OSHA officials pointed out that this step, and a similar step 
added under the review process to refer the SHIB to the DOL Executive 
Secretariat before final signature, were not part of the SHIB 
procedures at the time that OSHA updated the SHIB on asbestos in 
automobile brake and clutch repair work. 

[33] If the compliance assistance product contains influential 
information under the agency's IQA guidelines or is a significant 
guidance document under the good guidance practices memorandum 
(discussed in more detail in following sections), the final product 
also must be forwarded to OSHA's Directorate of Standards and Guidance 
after all reviews are complete. 

[34] See the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, 
Pub. L. No. 103-62 (Aug. 3, 1993) and the accompanying report of the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate. GPRA was 
enacted to help resolve long-standing management problems that 
undermined the federal government's efficiency and effectiveness and 
provide greater accountability for results. 

[35] An OPPTS official said that the agency publicly posts its policies 
and procedures that are pertinent to public participation, but, in 
circumstances where the policies and procedures are internal and do not 
include public participation, the agency opts not to make them 
available on its Web site. 

[36] OPPTS officials noted, however, that, unlike the OSHA process for 
compliance assistance products described above, OPPTS' process for 
communication products is not used for the preparation of guidance 
documents. Different processes, such as the Action Development Process, 
apply to EPA guidance. 

[37] OPPTS officials noted that OMB and OPPTS also have an informal 
agreement whereby OPPTS will offer OMB an opportunity to review its 
Pesticide Registration Notices. 

[38] For example, when we asked the agency to compile a list of a 
subset of communication products issued since October 2002, EPA program 
offices estimated that this could take from 3 to 6 months. We limited 
our request to 4 of 20 product categories previously identified by EPA-
-general guidance, guidance on how to comply with a regulation, 
educational and training materials, and brochures and pamphlets. 

[39] In the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, Congress clarified that 
FDA's guidance documents were advisory rather than legally binding, but 
required public participation in some instances. 21 U.S.C. ï¿½ 371(h)(1). 

[40] 5 U.S.C. ï¿½ 553(b). 

[41] 44 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 3501-3520. 

[42] 5 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 601-612. 

[43] Pub. L. No. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48 (1995), codified as amended in 
scattered sections of title 2, United States Code. 

[44] 5 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 801-808. 

[45] Exec. Order No. 12866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51,735 (Sept. 30, 1993), as 
amended by Exec. Order No. 13422, 72 Fed. Reg. 2763 (Jan. 23, 2007). 

[46] Per OMB's January 2007 bulletin on good guidance practices, there 
is now a specific requirement that significant guidance documents 
include the citation to the statutory provision or regulation that the 
guidance applies to or interprets. 

[47] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-929] for 
a detailed description of this process. 

[48] See, for example, GAO, Regulatory Reform: Prior Reviews of Federal 
Regulatory Process Initiatives Reveal Opportunities for Improvements, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-939T] (Washington, 
D.C.: July 27, 2005). 

[49] In his guide to federal agency rulemaking, Jeffrey Lubbers 
identified three important functions of the rulemaking record: (1) 
aiding public participation in the rulemaking; (2) providing the basis 
for the agency's decision whether to adopt a rule and, if so, what 
provisions the rule should include; and (3) assisting judicial review 
of the final rulemaking decision. Lubbers, A Guide to Federal 
Rulemaking, p. 320. 

[50] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-929]. 

[51] We recommended that OMB take actions to improve the transparency 
of reviews of draft rules whenever they occur, not just during formal 
reviews, but OMB disagreed with the recommendations. 

[52] 5 U.S.C. ï¿½ 552(b)(2). 

[53] OPPTS officials identified an exception, under section 406 of the 
Toxic Substances Control Act, which directs EPA and other agencies to 
publish--and "from time to time" revise or update--an information 
pamphlet about residential lead-based paint hazards. According to the 
statute, both the initial issuance and any revisions of the pamphlet 
must occur after notice and an opportunity for public comment. 15 
U.S.C. ï¿½ 2686. 

[54] Information on agencies' current and past regulatory agendas and 
plans and OMB's regulatory reviews is available electronically through 
[hyperlink, http://www.RegInfo.gov]. The annual regulatory plans 
identify agencies' regulatory priorities and contain additional details 
about the most significant regulatory actions agencies expect to take 
in the coming year. 

[55] These include the SCOUT system that the agency uses to track 
communication products that it is about to release to the public and 
the PROTRACK system that tracks the review process for communication 
products. 

[56] The bulletin defines a "guidance document" as an agency statement 
of general applicability and future effect, other than a regulatory 
action (as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended), that sets 
forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue or an 
interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue. 

[57] The bulletin defines an economically significant guidance document 
as a "significant guidance document that may reasonably be anticipated 
to lead to an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy or a sector of the 
economy, except that economically significant guidance documents do not 
include guidance documents on Federal expenditures and receipts." 

[58] We found that there is no single term or definition used by the 
agencies to refer to general regulatory communication products. EPA 
tends to use the term communication products, and OSHA tends to refer 
to them as compliance assistance products or compliance assistance 
material. For consistency in this report, we generally use the term 
communication products, unless specifically referring to a particular 
agency, category of products, or both. Also, for purposes of 
consistency, we generally use the term processes to encompass the 
policies, procedures, and practices used by each agency to initiate, 
develop, review, and disseminate communication products. 

[59] Further, EPA/OPPTS officials indicated that it would take up to 6 
months to identify or develop a population of products classified by 
type from which a sample could be drawn. 

[60] Non-employees outside the automotive repair industry who typically 
repair or replace their own brakes at home. These individuals are not 
subject to the OSHA requirements in this Safety and Health Information 
Bulletin. For more information about EPA's asbestos program, do-it-
yourselfers may visit EPA's website at [hyperlink, 
http://www:epa.gov/asbestos] or you may call the asbestos ombudsman's 
hotline/clearing house at 1-800-368-5888. 

[61] Asbestos in Brakes Exposure and Risk of Disease. Richard A. Lemen, 
PhD. MSPH, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 45: 229-237 (2004). 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 
*** End of document. ***