[House Report 106-643]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Rept. 106-643
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
======================================================================
SMALL BUSINESS REVIEW PANEL TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1999
_______
May 25, 2000.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Talent, from the Committee on Small Business, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1882]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Small Business, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 1882) to amend provisions of law enacted by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 to
ensure full analysis of potential impacts on small entities of
rules proposed by certain agencies, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
Purpose
The purpose of H.R. 1882 is to amend provisions of law
enacted by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 to ensure the full analysis of potential impacts on
small entities of rules proposed by certain agencies.
Specifically, it makes several technical amendments to the
small business advocacy review panel process, which is codified
in section 609 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Chapter 6 of
Title 5, United States Code). It also adds the Internal Revenue
Service as one of the covered agencies that must convene small
business advocacy review panels.
Need For Legislation
The development of H.R. 1882 has been a two-year effort
spearheaded by the work of the Subcommittee on Regulatory
Reform and Paperwork Reduction and the Subcommittee on
Government Programs and Oversight, which have held three joint
hearings on the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Process.
The Subcommittees also commissioned a General Accounting Office
(GAO) report that examined how the panel process was being
implemented. The oversight hearings by the Subcommittees, as
well as the GAO report, revealed several areas in which the
panel process could be clarified and strengthened. H.R. 1882
reflects these changes.
The General Accounting Office interviewed a number of small
entity representatives who had participated in the panel
process. Based on these interviews, as well as input from the
participating agencies, the GAO report contained several
suggestions about how the panel process could be strengthened.
These suggestions primarily focused on the following four
issues: (1) adjusting the time frames in which the panels are
conducted, (2) ensuring that there is an adequate mix of
representatives from the small entities that could be affected
by the rule, (3) enhancing the methods that the panels used to
gather comments, and (4) improving the background materials
provided by the regulatory agencies.
Issues of panel process timing were one area that GAO
highlighted. Several small entity representatives who had
participated in the panel process said that they would have
liked to have had more advance notice of panel meetings and
telephone conference calls with the panels. Some of these
representatives said that short advance notice had prevented
them from participating in certain efforts. One individual, who
had been identified as a possible small entity representative,
said that short notice of these meetings prevented him from
participating in the panel process at all. Most of those who
voiced this concern said that they would have liked additional
notice for panel meetings and telephone conference calls to
avoid conflicts with other scheduled commitments.
Other small entity representatives that were interviewed
said that they felt that they were not given enough time to
study the materials that were provided to them by the covered
agency. Many of these small entity representatives also said
that an additional one to two weeks would have allowed them to
consult with others (e.g., members of their professional
associations) before providing comments. One small entity
representative said that requiring comments from the
representatives shortly after they receive materials from the
agencies prevents them from providing the panels with an in-
depth perspective regarding the draft rule.
To address these concerns, H.R. 1882 requires the covered
agency to wait at least 30 days after information is provided
to the small entity representatives before convening a review
panel in order to provide time to review the materials that are
provided to them and to make any necessary scheduling
adjustments.
Another issue raised by the GAO report was the composition
of individuals who are chosen to be small entity
representatives (SERs). A consensus emerged that the best mix
of small entity representatives is one that includes both
individual small business owners and representatives from
associations and other regulatory consultants that represent
the interests of small entities. The individual small business
owners provide valuable ``hands-on'' insights, while
association representatives and other regulatory consultants
generally have more resources available to devote to examining
the proposed rule and have, in many cases, more expertise to
understand the often technical nature of proposed regulations.
H.R. 1882 addresses this by ensuring that the agency has
the authority to identify both sets of individuals to
participate as small entity representatives. Additionally,
requiring the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to concur with each
small entity representative chosen by the agency, as the
legislation does, provides an added check on the selection
process to help ensure that a good mix of SERs is identified.
Another issue that was raised as a result of the GAO report
was the method that the review panels use to collect advice and
recommendations from the small entity representatives. For the
most part, the review panels have relied on telephone
conference calls with the SERs to gather input during the panel
process. While most SERs said that they viewed telephone
conference calls as an efficient way for the review panel to
gather comments, others felt that telephone conference calls
limited the amount of discussion that could take place between
themselves and the panel.
Most of these small entity representatives also expressed a
preference for face-to-fact meetings instead of telephone
conference calls because they believed the discussions would be
fuller and would provide greater value to the panels. When
telephone conference calls were used, some small entity
representatives said they found it confusing when there were
numerous participants on the phone at once. One of these
representatives, for example, suggested setting an agenda to
clarify participation in the telephone conference calls.
H.R. 1882 helps to address this issue by requiring the
review panel to accommodate requests for face-to-face oral
presentations. This will help to ensure that the small entity
representatives who wish to devote the time and resources to
making face-to-face presentations will have the ability to
participate to the fullest extent. It also recognizes that
conference calls are still probably the most efficient way to
gather recommendations in a timely manner, and allows review
panels the ability to continue using the current method of
obtaining comments from the SERs.
One issue that was raised by the GAO report, but was not
addressed in the legislation was the issue of what materials
the agency should provide to the small entity representatives
and the review panel. Many small entity representatives who
have participated on panels said the materials that the
agencies provided to them about the draft rules permitted an
intelligent and informed discussion of the rules' potential
effects on small entities. However, other representatives said
they believed that the materials that the regulatory agencies
provided could have been improved, indicating that they
believed the materials were too vague or did not provide enough
information regarding the potential economic impact on small
entities.
The Committee considered specifying what material were
expected to be given to the small entity representatives.
However, because there was no consensus as to what exact
materials would be appropriate, the Committee did not address
this issue in the legislation, leaving the agencies to continue
providing materials in the manner that they currently do.
Nevertheless, the Committee does expect the agency to provide
materials that will allow the SERs to be meaningful
participants in the panel process. This includes, when the
information is available, a description of the major components
of the draft proposed rule; regulatory alternatives that the
agency is considering; economic analyses, and other data on the
cost, cost effectiveness, and benefits of the proposed rule;
and a description of the number and type of small entities
affected.
The Committee also recognizes that this type of information
is now always available for review, particularly given the time
constraints that the panel must operate under and the time
constraints that the rulemaking process often imposes.
Therefore, it is the hope of the Committee that the agencies
represented on the review panel will work collaboratively to
determine what information is necessary and available for
review both by the panel and the small entity representatives.
It is also expected that the covered agency will provide
additional material when requested to do so after the review
panel has been convened, provided that the materials requested
are reasonable and accessible.
The final major change that H.R. 1882 makes is that it
requires the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to meet the
requirements of the panel process. The addition of the IRS to
this process reflects the many complaints that this Committee
has received from small businesses across the nation that the
IRS, when developing regulations, repeatedly ignores small
businesses' unique requirements. It is also done with the
understanding that the IRS has historically been abysmal in
meeting the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
By extending the SBREFA panel process to the IRS, we are
helping small businesses deal with one of the most troublesome
agencies they face. The IRS places one of the largest burdens
on small businesses. The goal of H.R. 1882 is to bring the IRS
regulation-making process into the light of day, and open it up
to discussion. Small businesses must be allowed to participate
in the dialogue. They must be a part of the process. Anything
less is unfair--especially when it involves an institution like
the IRS, which has a major impact on small businesses.
It is the Committee's hope that adding the IRS as a covered
agency under the panel process will reinforce to the agency the
strong desire of the Congress to see that they fully consider
the impact of their regulations on small businesses. This is
something that the Committee will continue to monitor in the
future.
Committee Action
The Committee on Small Business has held a series of
hearings that examined the small business advocacy review panel
process that was established by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). These hearings were held
jointly by the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Paperwork
Reduction and the Subcommittee on Government Programs and
Oversight. They span a time period of over two years.
The first of these hearings was held over two days, On
April 15 and April 17, 1997. The hearing focused on the need
for good science in rulemaking and the use of cost-benefit and
risk analysis as essential management tools in the regulatory
process. The hearing also focused on the implementation and
performance of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSH), and the
Small Business Administration (SBA) Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the statutory requirements of the small business advocacy
review panel process. The new provisions added by SBREFA to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act required EPA and OSHA to implement a
panel process for considering and responding fairly to the
advice and recommendations of small businesses concerning the
impact and efficacy of proposed regulations.
This first hearing was comprised of four panels. The first
panel included distinguished scientists that emphasized the
need for good science in rulemaking and the availability of
scientific expertise in the United States. The second and third
panels included a number of small business owners who
underscored the adverse economic impacts that ill-conceived
regulations can have on the small business community. The
fourth panel was comprised by government witnesses, including:
Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business
Administration; Thomas E. Kelly, Chair, Small Business
Advocacy, Environmental Protection Agency; Robert Burt, Office
of Regulatory Analysis, U.S. Department of Labor, and Keith
Cole of the law firm of Beveridge & Diamond.
The testimony of the fourth panel focused solely on how the
advocacy review panel requirements were being implemented. Both
the provisions of the panel process that were working well, as
well as the ones where difficulties were being experienced were
highlighted.
The second joint subcommittee hearing was held on March 18,
1998. This hearing focused generally on the need for good
science and common sense rulemaking and the unfair financial
burdens borne by small businesses all over the Nation as a
result of unscientific, impractical, and unnecessary
regulations. More specifically, it examined how the small
business advocacy review panel process was working at the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, and the Small Business Administration.
In addition to receiving testimony from a number of
individuals who had participated in a small business advocacy
review panel, the Subcommittees heard once again from the
representatives of the agencies with responsibility for
implementing the review panels. The witnesses included Jere W.
Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business
Administration; Thomas E. Kelly, Chair, Small Business
Advocacy, Environmental Protection Agency; and Greg Watchman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. There was a consensus
among the witnesses that the panel process was working fairly
well, and should be continued. However, there were also a
number of issues that were raised that demonstrated where
changes to the panel process were worthy of consideration.
Specifically, the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration was of the view that the panel process provided
new leverage in its efforts to ensure that the regulatory
culture among the agencies fully understood the problems caused
small businesses by arbitrary and ill-conceived regulations.
Additionally, both EPA and OSHA indicated that they found merit
in the panel process.
The final joint hearing on this issue was held on March 11,
1999. The hearing was comprised of one panel of witnesses that
had direct experience with the small business advocacy review
panel process. The hearing focused on past experiences with
actual review panels that had been convened by EPA and OSHA. It
also examined draft legislation that had been developed to
amend the panel process requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
The one other resource that the Committee used in its
development of H.R. 1882 was a report that was completed by the
General Accounting Office (``Regulatory Reform: Implementation
of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Requirements,''
GAO-GGD-98-36, March 1998).
This report responded to requests that EPA's and OSHA's
implementation of SBREFA's advocacy review panel requirements
be examined. GAO's specific objectives were to (1) determine
whether EPA and OSHA had applied the advocacy review panel
requirements to all rules that they proposed between June 28,
1996 and June 28, 1997, that may have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities; (2) determine
whether the EPA and OSHA panels, the regulatory agencies
themselves, and SBA's Chief Counsel for Advocacy followed the
statute's procedural requirements for panels convened between
June 28, 1996 and November 1, 1997, and whether there were
differences among the panels in how the statute's requirements
were implemented; (3) identify the changes, if any, that EPA
and OSHA made to notices of proposed rulemaking as a result of
the panels' recommendations; and (4) identify any suggestions
that agency officials and small entity representatives may have
regarding how the advocacy review panel process could be
improved.
The Committee was pleased with the analysis and the
recommendations that GAO developed as a result of its
examination of agency practices. In particular, GAO offered
suggestions that focused on four primary issue areas: (1)
adjusting the time frames in which the panels are conducted,
(2) ensuring that there is an adequate mix of representatives
from the small entities that could be affected by the rule, (3)
enhancing the methods that the panels used to gather comments,
and (4) improving the background materials provided by the
regulatory agencies. These comments were based on
recommendations from both small entity representatives and
agency officials, and were a primary source of information for
the development of H.R. 1882.
H.R. 1882 was introduced on May 20, 1999. On May 25, 1999,
the Committee on Small Business met for the purpose of
considering and reporting H.R. 1882. H.R. 1882 was introduced,
considered as read, and opened for amendment. No amendments
were offered. Chairman Talent moved to pass H.R. 1882 and
report it to the House. At 2:15 p.m., by voice vote, a quorum
being present, the Committee passed the bill, H.R. 1882, and
ordered it reported.
Section-By-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
Designates the bill as the ``Small Business Review Panel
Technical Amendments Act of 1999.''
Section 2. Findings and purposes
(a) The Congress finds the following:
(1) A vibrant and growing small business sector is critical
to creating jobs in a dynamic economy.
(2) Small businesses bear a disproportionate share of
regulatory costs and burdens.
(3) Federal agencies must consider the impact of their
regulations on small businesses early in the rulemaking
process.
(4) The Small Business Advocacy Review Panel process that
was established by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 has been effective in allowing small
businesses to participate in rules that are being developed by
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration.
(b) The purposes of this Act are the following:
(1) To provide a forum for the effective participation of
small businesses in the Federal regulatory process.
(2) To clarify and strengthen the Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel process.
(3) To expand the number of Federal agencies that are
required to convene Small Business Advocacy Review Panels.
Section 3. Ensuring full analysis of potential impacts on small
entities of rules proposed by certain agencies
Section 3 rewrites section 609(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (Chapter 6 of Title 5, United States Code),
making several technical amendments to small business advocacy
review panel process.
First, it clarifies who has responsibility for choosing the
small entity representatives (SERs). The current statute allows
both the Chief Counsel for Advocacy and the agency to identify
small entity representatives. This dual appointment method
causes confusion and weakens accountability over the small
entity representative appointment procedure. The legislation
corrects this by specifying that it is the agency's
responsibility to choose the small entity representatives, but
requires the Chief Counsel to concur with each SER identified
by the agency.
Second, it clarifies that the covered agency cannot convene
the review panel until at least 30 days after the covered
agency transmits information about the draft proposed rule to
the small entity representatives. This is designed to address
the problem that small entity representatives identified of not
having enough time to review the information that was provided
to them. Under this change, the small entity representatives
would have at least 30 days to review the information provided
to them. This change would also give the agency promulgating
the rule some flexibility in deciding when to convene its
review panel, while at the same time not unnecessarily delaying
the process.
Third, it clarifies that a small entity representative
shall have the opportunity to give an oral presentation to the
review panel if the small entity representative so desires.
Fourth, it changes the way in which the final report of the
review panel is handled. Currently, there is no requirement
that the report of the review panel be printed in the Federal
Register. Nor is there any requirements as to when the report
of the review panel should be made public as part of the
rulemaking record. As a practical matter, not everyone can come
to Washington, DC, to inspect a covered agency's rulemaking
record. The legislation merely requires that the report of the
review panel be printed in the Federal Register within 120
days. A number of those who have participated in the panel
process have complained that they did not know whether their
advice and recommendations were addressed by the covered agency
because the panel report was not made public in a timely
manner. The legislation corrects this situation by requiring a
covered agency to print the report of the review panel in the
Federal Register together with the notice of proposed
rulemaking, or as a separate item if the notice of proposed
rulemaking occurs more than 120 days after the report is
completed.
Section 4. Definitions
Section 4 amends section 609(d) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (Chapter 6 of Title 5, United States Code) to
include the Internal Revenue Service of the Department of the
Treasury as one of the covered agencies that must convene small
business advocacy review panels. Currently, the advocacy review
panel requirements only apply to the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of
the Department of Labor.
Section 4 also defines the term ``small entity
representative'' to mean a small entity, which is already
defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or an individual or
organization that represents a small entity. This clarification
was made in the legislation to underscore the fact that
representatives from small business associations and other
trade groups, as well as regulatory consultants, often have
more resources and expertise available to participate in the
panel process than do individual and small entities. There is
no disagreement that actual small business owners bring
experience and insights that are vital to a successful review
panel. However, representatives of trade associations and other
regulatory consultants who represent the interests of small
entities can also be valuable participants that should not be
excluded from the panel process.
Section 5. Effective date
This section states that the changes made by H.R. 1882
shall take effect ninety days after the legislation is enacted.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 28, 1999.
Hon. James M. Talent,
Chairman, Committee on Small Business,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1882, the Small
Business Review Panel Technical Amendments Act of 1999.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark Hadley
and Cynthia Dudzinski.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 1882--Small Business Review Panel Technical Amendments Act of 1999
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1882 would cost about
$2 million each year over the 2000-2004 period, assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts. H.R. 1882 would not
affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures would not apply. The bill contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets
of state, local, or tribal governments.
Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (SBREFA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
must convene panels, prior to publishing regulations, to
analyze the potential impact of those regulations on small
businesses. Panels consist of employees of the agency proposing
the regulation, the Small Business Administration (SBA), and
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Panels collect
advice from representatives of the small business that would be
affected and submit a report to the agency proposing the
regulation.
H.R. 1882 would amend SBREFA to include the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS), thus requiring that agency to convene
panels to analyze some of the regulations it intends to issue.
The bill also would change the panel process by allowing small
business representatives to make oral presentations to panels,
extending the period of review, requiring agencies to print
reports by panels in the Federal Register, and making agencies
provide more information.
Based on the number of regulations the IRS expects to issue
each year and the experiences of EPA and OSHA, CBO estimates
that implementing H.R. 1882 would cost the IRS less than $2
million a year. (We expect that the bill would apply to fewer
than 10 IRS regulations each year.) In addition, CBO estimates
that implementing the changes to the panel review process would
cost EPA, OSHA, OMB, and SBA less than $500,000 a year.
The CBO staff contacts are Mark Hadley and Cynthia
Dudzinski. This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Committee Cost Estimate
Pursuant to the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee estimates that the amendments to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act contained in H.R. 1882 will not increase
appropriations over the next five fiscal years. Furthermore,
pursuant to clause 3(d)(2)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that
implementation of H.R. 1882 will not significantly increase
administrative costs. This is consistent with the estimate of
the Congressional Budget Office.
Discharge by Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, May 26, 1999.
Hon. James Talent,
Chairman, Committee on Small Business,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Talent: I am writing to you regarding H.R.
1882, legislation that was ordered reported by your Committee
on May 25, 1999. As you know, H.R. 1882 was referred to both
the Committee on the Judiciary and your Committee because its
provisions fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of each of our
committees.
The Judiciary Committee does not object to the substance of
H.R. 1882 as ordered reported by your committee. In fact, the
language of the bill was developed through consultation between
our respective staffs, and reflects the judgment of this
committee. For this reason, and in order to expedite scheduling
of this legislation on the House floor, the Committee is
willing to be discharged from further consideration of the
bill. However, this does not in any way waive this Committee's
jurisdiction over the bill or related legislation, or over the
general subject matters contained in the bill which fall within
this Committee's jurisdiction. I also reserve the right to
request that Members of the Judiciary Committee be appointed to
serve on any conference committee appointed with respect to
this legislation.
Thank you for your continued cooperation in this and other
matters falling within our joint jurisdiction.
Sincerely,
Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman.
Oversight Findings
In accordance with clause 4(c)(2) of rule X of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee states that no
oversight findings or recommendations have been made by the
Committee on Government Reform with respect to the subject
matter contained in H.R. 1882.
In accordance with clause (2)(b)(l) of the rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the oversight findings
and recommendations of the Committee on Small Business with
respect to the subject matter contained in H.R. 1882 are
incorporated into the descriptive portions of this report.
Statement of Constitutional Authority
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(l) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in Article I, Section 8, clause 18, of the
Constitution of the United States.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 609 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE
Sec. 609. Procedures for gathering comments
(a) * * *
[(b) Prior to publication of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis which a covered agency is required to
conduct by this chapter--
[(1) a covered agency shall notify the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
provide the Chief Counsel with information on the
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and the type of small entities that might be
affected;
[(2) not later than 15 days after the date of receipt
of the materials described in paragraph (1), the Chief
Counsel shall identify individuals representative of
affected small entities for the purpose of obtaining
advice and recommendations from those individuals about
the potential impacts of the proposed rule;
[(3) the agency shall convene a review panel for such
rule consisting wholly of full time Federal employees
of the office within the agency responsible for
carrying out the proposed rule, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of
Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel;
[(4) the panel shall review any material the agency
has prepared in connection with this chapter, including
any draft proposed rule, collect advice and
recommendations of each individual small entity
representative identified by the agency after
consultation with the Chief Counsel, on issues related
to subsections 603(b), paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) and
603(c);
[(5) not later than 60 days after the date a covered
agency convenes a review panel pursuant to paragraph
(3), the review panel shall report on the comments of
the small entity representatives and its findings as to
issues related to subsections 603(b), paragraphs (3),
(4) and (5) and 603(c), provided that such report shall
be made public as part of the rulemaking record; and
[(6) where appropriate, the agency shall modify the
proposed rule, the initial regulatory flexibility
analysis or the decision on whether an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis is required.]
(b)(1) Before the publication of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis that a covered agency is required to
conduct under this chapter, the head of the covered agency
shall--
(A) notify the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (in this subsection
referred to as the ``Chief Counsel'') in writing;
(B) provide the Chief Counsel with information on the
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and the type of small entities that might be
affected; and
(C) not later than 30 days after complying with
subparagraphs (A) and (B)--
(i) with the concurrence of the Chief
Counsel, identify affected small entity
representatives; and
(ii) transmit the information referred to in
subparagraph (B) to the identified small entity
representatives for the purposes of obtaining
advice and recommendations about the potential
impacts of the draft proposed rule.
(2)(A) Not earlier than 30 days after the covered agency
transmits information pursuant to paragraph (1)(C)(ii), the
head of the covered agency shall convene a review panel for the
draft proposed rule. The panel shall consist solely of full-
time Federal employees of the office within the covered agency
that will be responsible for carrying out the proposed rule,
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office
of Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel.
(B) The review panel shall--
(i) review any material the covered agency has
prepared in connection with this chapter, including any
draft proposed rule;
(ii) collect advice and recommendations from the
small entity representatives identified under paragraph
(1)(C)(i) on issues related to paragraphs (3), (4), and
(5) of section 603(b) and section 603(c); and
(iii) allow any small entity representative
identified under paragraph (1)(C)(i) to make an oral
presentation to the panel, if requested.
(C) Not later than 60 days after the date a covered agency
convenes a review panel pursuant to this paragraph, the review
panel shall report to the head of the covered agency on--
(i) the comments received from the small entity
representatives identified under paragraph (1)(C)(i);
and
(ii) its findings regarding issues related to
paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of section 603(b) and
section 603(c).
(3) The head of the covered agency shall print in the Federal
Register the report of the review panel under paragraph (2)(C),
by the earlier of--
(A) 120 days after the date the head of the covered
agency receives the report; or
(B) as part of the publication of the notice of
proposed rulemaking for the proposed rule.
(4) Where appropriate, the covered agency shall modify the
draft proposed rule, the initial regulatory flexibility
analysis for the draft proposed rule, or the decision on
whether an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is required
for the draft proposed rule.
* * * * * * *
[(d) For purposes of this section, the term ``covered
agency'' means the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the Department
of Labor.]
(d) For the purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``covered agency'' means the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration of the Department of
Labor, and the Internal Revenue Service of the
Department of the Treasury; and
(2) the term ``small entity representative'' means a
small entity, or an individual or organization that
represents a small entity.
* * * * * * *