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. In total, OSHA and  OPPTS took years to complete all the steps of their processes from  initiation through dissemination of their products on asbestos in  automotive brakes—approximately 5-½ years for OSHA and  approximately 3-½ years for OPPTS. 2  illustrates one of the potential hazards.) Review

The review phase requires internal agency reviews and approvals and  might also include interagency reviews, external reviews, or both. The final products are posted on OSHA’s Web site, by product  type. Sometimes there is a press release, but  not always. Figure 5  illustrates the OPPTS process for preparing communication products. The agency’s processes set no  specific time frames for how long development of a product should take. OPPTS  typically develops a Communication Plan to ensure that its announcement  and release of a particular product is tailored to reach the intended  audience. 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. These differences are to be expected,  given the legal effect and consequences of rules. 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. These changes move the treatment of significant  guidance closer to the requirements for rules. Communication products provide crucial information to  regulated parties and the general public. 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. 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. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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).

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 OPPTS' 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 clutches--approximately 5-? years for OSHA and approximately 3-? 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 agencies' 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. OSHA's policies for disseminating products focus on responsibilities for posting and maintaining final products on the agency's 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 agencies' 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 agencies' processes for preparing communication products and those for rules have significant differences. In contrast to the agencies' 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 public's 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 agencies' 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.