- EPA, OSHA, and CFPB lack formal procedures to verify that prospective small business advisors for the review panels are in fact eligible small entity representatives.

- As a result, it turns out that "(T)he Small Business Advocacy Review panel process is manipulated by trade associations." These associations identify "small businesses" to advise the panels, participate in meetings with selected representatives, help write their comments, and may even submit their own comments.

- Many individuals nominated by trade associations to be small business advisors to the panels are actually representatives, board members, lawyers, or consultants for trade associations and do not own or operate a small entity that is likely to be affected by the rule under development.

- Adding to the problem is that the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy staff encouraged trade associations to participate in the small business review panel process in a variety of roles.

- In addition, "(T)he Office of Advocacy inappropriately collaborated with trade association representatives and 'small business' advisors in developing the content of comments submitted to the review panel. Since the Office of Advocacy is a formal member of the small business review panel that examines comments and makes recommendations based on them, it appears to be a manipulation of the process for Advocacy to also shape the comments submitted to the panel."

- As a result, on numerous occasions, "the 'small business' representatives advising the review panels recommended rule changes that went beyond the small business impacts that the panels were convened to review."

- The EPA and CFPB withheld the names of review panel participants from the public until after the publication of the rule under review, preventing questions about the qualifications of appointed small business advisors or potential conflicts of interest.

Of the 23 rules covered by the 20 review panels examined in the Center's study, 17 rules have been finalized. "Some of the public protection provisions in at least eight of the 17 final rules were, in our judgment, weakened as a result of the panel review process," said the Center for Effective Government.

"Big businesses and the trade associations that represent them have hijacked this process," said Frank Knapp, a small business owner and president of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce. "This effectively gives corporate interests early access to federal regulators and ensures that small business voices are not heard."

"The review process is intended to create an opportunity for input from small business," said Ronald White, director of regulatory policy for the Center for Effective Government. "It should not serve as another avenue for big businesses and industry lobbyists to try to weaken critical public health, environmental, worker safety and consumer finance protections."

Is this to suggest that small business owners actually want more government regulations, despite the fact that research shows that these business owners are already being crushed by massive amounts of government regulations? This leads to an interesting discussion, according to White.

He cited a survey of small business owners conducted by the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) which found, among other things, that 86 percent of small business owners believe that some regulation is necessary for a modern economy, and 93 percent believe that their businesses can live with some regulation, as long as it is "fair and manageable."

In addition, the ASBC survey found that 78 percent of small business respondents agreed that regulations are important to protect small businesses from unfair competition, and to "level the playing field" with big business. For example, three-fourths of small business respondents support stricter regulation of chemicals used in everyday products.

Overall, according to White, small businesses want to see companies that are causing larger economic, social and environmental problems be held accountable. "One reason is that small business owners are suffering from the downstream impacts," said White.

He added: "We recognize that regulations can be written in a way that imposes disproportionate impacts on small businesses, and the one purpose of the Small Business Advocacy Review process is to give actual small business owners the opportunity to raise those legitimate concerns, as well as suggest improvements directly to the regulators."

Furthermore, according to White, the Center for Effective Government's research has found that small business owners are interested in exploring how the regulatory process can provide support for small business owners, such as additional education about the regulations, ombudsmen or hotlines for counseling, and forms that are easier to fill out. Without direct access to the Small Business Advocacy Review process, small business owners lack these opportunities.