The SAB is authorized to, among  other things, review the adequacy of the scientific and technical basis of  EPA’s proposed regulations. Unlike CASAC, which was established by amendments to the Clean Air  Act, the SAB was established under ERDDAA, and since 1980, has been  required to provide scientific advice to designated congressional  committees when requested. Our Preliminary Observations Indicate That EPA’s Procedures for Processing Congressional Requests to the SAB Do Not Ensure Compliance with ERDDAA

Our preliminary observations indicate that EPA’s procedures for  processing congressional requests for scientific advice from the SAB do  not ensure compliance with ERDDAA because the procedures are  incomplete and do not fully account for the statutory access designated  congressional committees have to the SAB. Specifically, EPA policy  documents do not clearly outline how the EPA Administrator, the SAB  staff office, and members of the SAB panel are to handle a congressional  committee’s request for advice from the SAB. The SAB  charter briefly noted how congressional committees could access SAB  advice, stating; “While the SAB reports to the EPA Administrator,  congressional committees specified in ERDDAA may ask the EPA  Administrator to have SAB provide advice on a particular issue.” (GAO  italics) Beyond what the charter states, however, no EPA policy specified  a process the Administrator should use to have the SAB review a  congressional request and provide advice. However, under the   agencies are to clearly document  federal standards of internal control,internal controls and the documentation is to appear in management  directives, administrative policies, or operating manuals. Specifically, officials told us that EPA considers  whether the questions are science or policy driven, whether they are  important to science and the agency, and whether the SAB has already  undertaken a similar review. However, these criteria are not documented. In addition, under ERDDAA, the SAB is required to provide requested  scientific advice to select committees, regardless of EPA’s judgment. As  EPA has not fully responded to the committee’s two 2013 requests to the  SAB, by clearly documenting its procedures for reviewing congressional  requests to determine which questions should be taken up by the SAB  and criteria for evaluating requests, the agency can provide reasonable  assurance that its staff process these and other congressional committee  requests consistently and in accordance with both FACA and ERDDAA. Furthermore, the charter states that, when scientific advice is requested  by one of the committees specified in ERDDAA, the Administrator will,  when appropriate, forward the SAB’s advice to the requesting  congressional committee. Such specificity would be consistent with federal  standards of internal control that call for clearly documenting internal  controls. We will continue to monitor these  issues and, as we finalize our work in this area, we will consider making  recommendations, as appropriate. We plan to issue our final results in  June 2015. CASAC Has Provided Certain Types of Advice Related to Air Quality Standards

CASAC has provided certain types of advice related to the review of  NAAQS. The Clean Air Act requires CASAC to review air quality criteria  and existing NAAQS every 5 years and advise EPA of any adverse public  health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects that may result from  various strategies for attainment and maintenance of NAAQS. According to a senior EPA official, CASAC has carried out its role in  reviewing the air quality criteria and the NAAQS but has never provided  advice on adverse social, economic, or energy effects of strategies to  implement the NAAQS because EPA has never asked it to. In a June 2014 letter to the EPA Administrator, CASAC indicated that, at  the agency’s request, it would review the impacts (e.g., the economic or  energy impacts) of strategies for attaining or maintaining the NAAQS but  stressed that such a review would be separate from reviews of the  scientific bases of NAAQS. According to a senior EPA  official, the agency has no plans to ask CASAC to provide advice on  adverse effects.
Why GAO Did This Study

EPA formulates rules to protect the environment and public health. To enhance the quality and credibility of such rules, EPA obtains advice and recommendations from the SAB and CASAC—two federal advisory committees that review the scientific and technical basis for EPA decision making. ERDDAA requires the SAB to provide both the EPA Administrator and designated congressional committees with scientific advice as requested. Amendments to the Clean Air Act established CASAC to, among other things, provide advice to the Administrator on NAAQS.
This testimony reflects GAO's preliminary observations from its ongoing review that examines (1) the extent to which EPA procedures for processing congressional requests to the SAB ensure compliance with ERDDAA and (2) the extent to which CASAC has provided advice related to NAAQS.
GAO reviewed relevant federal regulations and agency documents, and interviewed EPA, SAB, and other relevant officials.
GAO is not making any recommendations in this testimony, but as it finalizes its work in this area, GAO will consider making recommendations, as appropriate.

What GAO Found

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) procedures for processing congressional requests for scientific advice from the Science Advisory Board (SAB) do not ensure compliance with the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (ERDDAA) because these procedures are incomplete. For example, they do not clearly outline how the EPA Administrator, the SAB staff office, and others are to handle a congressional committee's request. While the procedures reflect EPA's responsibility to exercise general management controls over the SAB and all its federal advisory committees under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), including keeping such committees free from outside influence, they do not fully account for the specific access that designated congressional committees have to the SAB under ERDDAA. For example, EPA's policy documents do not establish how EPA will determine which questions would be taken up by the SAB. EPA officials told GAO that, in responding to congressional requests, EPA follows the same process that it would apply to internal requests for questions to the SAB, including considering whether the questions are science or policy driven or are important to science and the agency. However, EPA has not documented these criteria. Under the federal standards of internal control, agencies are to clearly document internal controls. Moreover, under ERDDAA, the SAB is required to provide requested scientific advice to select committees. By clearly documenting how to process congressional requests received under ERDDAA, including which criteria to use, EPA can provide reasonable assurance that its staff process responses consistently and in accordance with law. Furthermore, EPA's charter states that, when scientific advice is requested by one of the committees specified in ERDDAA, the Administrator will, when appropriate forward the SAB's advice to the requesting congressional committee. EPA policy does not specify when it would be “appropriate” for the EPA Administrator to take this action. Such specificity would be consistent with clearly documenting internal controls. GAO will continue to monitor these issues and plans to issue a report with its final results in June 2015.
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) has provided certain types of advice related to the review of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), but has not provided advice on adverse social, economic, or energy effects related to NAAQs. Under the Clean Air Act, CASAC is to review air quality criteria and existing NAAQS every 5 years and advise EPA of any adverse public health, welfare, social, economic, or energy effects that may result from various strategies for attainment and maintenance of NAAQS. An EPA official stated that CASAC has carried out its role in reviewing the air quality criteria and the NAAQS, but CASAC has never provided advice on adverse social, economic, or energy effects related to NAAQS because EPA has never asked CASAC to do so. In a June 2014 letter to the EPA Administrator, CASAC indicated it would review such effects at the agency's request. According to a senior EPA official, the agency has no plans to ask CASAC to provide advice on such adverse effects.