REEXAMINING 

REGULATIONS

Agencies Often Made 

Regulatory Changes, 

but Could Strengthen 

Linkages to 

Performance Goals

Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2014

GAO-14-268

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-268, a report to 

congressional requesters

April 2014

REEXAMINING REGULATIONS

Agencies Often Made Regulatory Changes, but Could 

Strengthen Linkages to Performance Goals

Why GAO Did This Study

Federal agencies issue thousands of 

regulations annually to address such 

national goals as public health and 

safety. Retrospective analysis can help 

agencies evaluate how existing 

regulations work in practice. GAO was 

asked to provide insights on agencies’ 

retrospective analyses. This report 

identifies for selected agencies (1) the 

results and anticipated outcomes of 

retrospective analyses agencies 

completed, (2) strategies, practices, or 

factors that affected agencies’ ability to 

implement these analyses, and (3) the 

extent to which agencies are 

incorporating the analyses into 

processes for measuring and achieving 

agency priority goals. Applying criteria 

from executive orders, GPRAMA, and 

related guidance, GAO analyzed 

documents from 22 executive agencies 

and 2 independent regulatory agencies 

that prepared final retrospective review 

plans. These agencies issued more 

than 96 percent of all final rules 

published between 2011 and 2013. 

GAO also obtained agency officials’ 

views through questionnaires and a 

roundtable of 9 agencies selected 

primarily on numbers of completed 

analyses. The officials’ views are not 

generalizable to all agencies. GAO 

also interviewed OMB staff.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that OMB work with 

agencies to improve reporting on 

results of retrospective analyses and 

strengthen links between those 

analyses and agencies’ performance 

goals by considering APGs when 

planning retrospective analyses, 

among other actions. OMB staff 

generally agreed with the 

recommendations in this report.

What GAO Found

Agencies often made changes to regulations in response to completed 

retrospective regulatory analyses, but could improve the reporting of progress. 

Executive Orders and related implementation guidance from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) require executive agencies, and encourage 

independent regulatory agencies, to develop and implement retrospective review 

plans. Agencies use semiannual updates to report on the progress and results of 

their analyses. The 22 executive agencies in GAO’s scope identified more than 

650 planned analyses and reported having completed and taken final actions on 

246 of those analyses by August 31, 2013. The two independent regulatory 

agencies in GAO’s scope each chose to develop a final retrospective review 

plan, although not required to do so. More than 90 percent of the completed 

analyses led executive agencies to revise, clarify, or eliminate regulatory text. 

Agencies also took other actions such as updating guidance to the public. 

Agencies most commonly reported three expected outcomes from actions they 

took: improving the effectiveness of regulations (112 of 246), reducing regulatory 

burden (99 of 246), and clarifying regulations or making other administrative 

changes (93 of 246), such as implementing new procedures. Agencies often 

reported more than one outcome. Agencies quantified expected savings for 38 of 

the 246 completed analyses, often attributing savings to reduced information 

collection burdens. However, agencies did not consistently include citations or 

links to the supporting analyses and data in their progress reports. While OMB 

guidance contains transparency requirements for agencies to inform the public, 

OMB could work with agencies to effectively implement the guidance to improve 

the usefulness of the information agencies report on the results of their analyses.

Officials from the 9 agencies that participated in GAO’s roundtable identified 

three key strategies and two barriers that most often affected their 

implementation of retrospective analyses. Strategies that facilitated planning and 

conducting analyses included: (1) establishing a centrally coordinated review 

process, (2) leveraging existing regulatory activities such as rulemaking and 

enforcement processes, and (3) using existing external feedback mechanisms 

such as advisory committees. The most commonly cited barriers were competing 

priorities for available staff and difficulty obtaining sufficient data.

Retrospective analysis can also help inform agencies’ priority goals (APG). The 

Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) 

requires agencies to assess whether regulations, among other activities, are 

contributing as planned to APGs. Agencies reported mixed experiences linking 

retrospective analyses to APGs. The seven roundtable agencies with APGs 

identified regulations contributing to their priority goals, but their retrospective 

analyses were only sometimes linked to APGs. In some cases, different offices in 

the same agency had mixed responses about whether such linkages existed. 

Several agency officials said staff conducting retrospective analyses were not 

involved in performance discussions at higher levels of the agency. To inform 

broader performance planning and reviews, retrospective analyses can be 

another potential data source for APGs. Agencies could strengthen that linkage 

by taking actions such as considering APGs, to the extent practicable, when 

planning retrospective analyses and identifying how they will measure the 

performance of significant new rules related to priority goals.

View GAO-14-268. For more information, 

contact Michelle Sager at (202) 512-6806 or 

sagerm@gao.gov
Page i GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

Letter 1

Background 5

Almost All Completed Retrospective Analyses Resulted in 

Changes to Regulations or Other Actions, but Progress 

Updates Could Be Improved 9

Agency Officials Identified Strategies and Barriers That Affected 

Their Implementation of Retrospective Analyses 20

Opportunities Exist to Improve Linkages between Regulatory 

Reviews and Priority Goals 25

Conclusions 34

Recommendations for Executive Action 35

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36

Appendix I Key Retrospective Analysis Requirements Listed in Executive Orders 

and Memorandums Issued Since January 2011 39

Appendix II Staff Contact and Acknowledgments 42

Tables

Table 1: Number of Planned and Completed Retrospective 

Regulatory Analyses for 22 Executive Agencies between 

January 2011 and August 2013 10

Table 2: Executive Orders and Memorandums Issued Since 

January 2011 Related to Retrospective Regulatory 

Analysis 39

Figures

Figure 1: Overview of Retrospective Analysis Results for 

Executive Agencies That Implemented Final Actions 

between January 2011 and August 2013 11

Figure 2: Breakdown of the Types of Reported Retrospective 

Analysis Outcomes for Executive Agencies That 

Implemented Final Actions from January 2011 through 

August 2013 13

Figure 3: DOT Example of How Regulations Link to an Agency 

Performance Goal 31

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

Abbreviations

APG agency priority goal

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives

BIS Bureau of Industry and Security

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

CFO Act Chief Financial Officers Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CFTC Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Commerce Department of Commerce

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOE Department of Energy

DOJ Department of Justice

DOT Department of Transportation

EHR Electronic Health Record

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FTC Federal Trade Commission

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

GPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act of 2010

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PIC Performance Improvement Council

State Department of State

Unified Agenda Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Actions

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

April 11, 2014

The Honorable Ron Johnson

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Mark R. Warner

Chairman

Task Force on Government Performance

Committee on the Budget

United States Senate

Regulation is one of many tools of government that federal agencies use 

to achieve such national goals as protecting the health and safety of the 

public and the environment.1 Each year, agencies issue thousands of 

rules, within the scope of their authorizing statutes, to address these 

goals. In light of their substantial social and economic benefits and costs, 

agencies must comply with multiple procedural and analytical 

requirements before issuing significant regulations.2 However, without 

careful oversight of those regulations once implemented, they might 

prove to be less effective than expected in achieving their intended goals, 

become outdated, or create unnecessary burdens. Regulations may also 

change the behaviors of regulated entities and the public in ways that 

cannot be predicted by prospective analysis before implementation. For 

these reasons, retrospective analysis can be important in evaluating how 

existing regulations are working in practice. Agencies could use 

retrospective analysis to examine how existing regulations have 

contributed to specific policy goals, to assess the effectiveness of their 

implementation, or to reexamine their estimated benefits and costs based 

on actual performance and experience.

 1

In addition to regulations, other tools of government include contracts, grants, direct 

services, tax expenditures, and research and development.

2

Significant regulatory actions are those that may have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more, among other things.
Page 2 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

For many years Congress and presidents have directed agencies to 

periodically review existing regulations through various statutes and 

executive orders. In addition, agencies often exercise their own 

discretionary authorities to review existing regulations, as we reported in 

2007.3 To further promote and institutionalize retrospective regulatory 

analysis, among other things, in 2011 and 2012 the administration issued 

Executive Orders 13563, 13579, and 13610, along with related Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) guidance.4 Among other provisions, 

those executive orders and guidance documents require executive 

agencies—and encourage independent regulatory agencies—to develop 

and implement retrospective review plans.5 Subsequent updates of 

agencies’ plans (now produced semiannually by executive agencies) also 

serve as the primary vehicle for agencies to report on the progress and 

results of their retrospective analyses. Furthermore, as a separate, 

broader effort to improve the performance of government agencies and 

provide greater accountability for results, Congress updated the statutory 

framework for performance management in the federal government—the 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)—with the 

GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA).6 Particularly relevant to this 

report, GPRAMA requires agencies to assess whether regulations, 

among many other tools and activities, are contributing as planned to 

agency priority goals, and to review their progress on those goals

quarterly.

 3

GAO, Reexamining Regulations: Opportunities Exist to Improve Effectiveness and 

Transparency of Retrospective Reviews, GAO-07-791 (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2007).

4

There is no one standard term or definition for the variety of activities that might be 

considered retrospective regulatory analysis. For example, in various contexts, these 

activities have been referred to as retrospective reviews or look-backs. In this report, we 

use terminology consistent with Executive Orders 13563, 13579, and 13610. We refer to 

the general plans and updates that agencies prepared in response to the executive orders 

as “retrospective review plans” and to the agencies’ individual analyses of specific existing 

regulations as “retrospective analyses.”

5

“Executive agencies” are cabinet departments and other agencies that answer directly to 

the President. “Independent regulatory agencies” refer to the boards and commissions 

identified as such in the Paperwork Reduction Act, for example, the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC). 44 U.S.C. § 3502(5).

6

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 

(Aug. 3, 1993). GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 

(Jan. 4, 2011).
Page 3 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

In this context, you asked us to provide insights concerning the scope, 

effectiveness, and results of agencies’ retrospective regulatory analyses. 

This report identifies for selected agencies (1) the results and anticipated 

outcomes of completed retrospective analyses included in agencies’

review plans and progress reports, (2) strategies, practices, or factors that 

facilitated or limited agencies’ ability to implement retrospective analyses, 

and (3) the extent to which agencies are incorporating retrospective 

analyses into their processes for measuring and achieving agency priority 

goals.

To address our first objective, we reviewed relevant policies, executive 

orders, and related guidance to identify criteria. We analyzed published 

final retrospective regulatory review plans and progress reports from 22 

executive agencies and 2 independent regulatory agencies that published 

final and updated retrospective analyses between January 2011 and 

August 2013.7 In addition, we analyzed in greater detail those completed 

analyses that resulted in agencies implementing a final action by August 

31, 2013. These 24 agencies issued more than 96 percent of all final 

rules published within the time period covered in our review. The 

agencies within our scope include the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy (DOE), Health and Human 

Services (HHS), Homeland Security (DHS), Housing and Urban 

Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation (DOT), 

Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. We also included the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), General Services Administration, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Personnel Management, 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Small Business Administration, 

Social Security Administration, and, from the independent regulatory 

agencies, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal 

Trade Commission (FTC). Using criteria from Executive Orders 13563, 

13579, and 13610, and related guidance, we assessed information that 

agencies reported on concerning the implementation of their plans. This

included the number of completed retrospective analyses, the results and 

 7

We selected executive agencies based on the number of published final rules. To avoid 

duplication of effort, we did not include as part of our review the federal financial 

regulators, such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, whose retrospective 

review plans and activities were addressed in our December 2013 report on the 

implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act. We have, however, summarized relevant findings

from that report where appropriate. See GAO, Dodd-Frank Regulations: Agencies 

Conducted Regulatory Analyses and Coordinated but Could Benefit from Additional 

Guidance on Major Rules, GAO-14-67 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2013). 
Page 4 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

outcomes agencies reported, and whether agencies addressed other 

elements identified by the guidance. We specifically focused on those 

retrospective analyses that agencies had completed and for which they 

had taken a final action (including a decision to take no further action).8

We based our analysis of the results on the descriptions agencies 

reported in their retrospective review plans and updates, including 

anticipated outcomes agencies expect to realize in future years. Thus, we 

did not assess the accuracy or achievement of agencies’ reported 

outcomes.

To test the reliability of the data sources we used to identify agencies’

final and updated retrospective analyses, we corroborated key elements 

from the agencies’ plans and updates, such as the reported completion 

dates and expected outcomes of individual analyses. We did this by 

reviewing related published documents such as Federal Register notices 

and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

(Unified Agenda) and the Regulatory Plan.

9 We also interviewed officials 

within OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and 

confirmed that we included in our scope the most up-to-date agency 

review plans. We concluded that the data were sufficiently reliable for the 

purpose of identifying the scope and results of agencies’ retrospective 

analyses.

To address our second and third objectives, we selected nine agencies to 

participate in a structured questionnaire about their implementation of 

retrospective reviews, barriers and facilitators in using retrospective 

analyses to make regulatory decisions, and incorporating analyses into 

agency performance management.10 Subsequently, representatives from 

 8

We did not include cases where the agency had completed a retrospective analysis but 

had not implemented a final action by August 31, 2013—for example when an agency had 

only issued a proposed rule by our cut-off date.

9

The Unified Agenda, which is to be published every spring and fall, provides uniform 

reporting of data on regulatory and deregulatory activities under development throughout 

the federal government, covering approximately 60 departments, agencies, and 

commissions. Each edition of the Unified Agenda includes regulatory agendas from all 

federal entities that currently have regulations under development or review. The 

Regulatory Plan, which is published as part of the fall edition of the Agenda, identifies 

regulatory priorities and contains additional detail about the most important significant 

regulatory actions that agencies expect to take in the coming year.

10For three of the agencies, multiple offices or bureaus within the agency completed the 

questionnaire. 
Page 5 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

the nine agencies participated in a more detailed roundtable discussion. 

Our selection process was based primarily on those agencies that 

completed the greatest number of retrospective analyses during the time 

period covered in our review. In addition, we selected agencies whose 

analyses reported a mix of anticipated outcomes (such as reduced 

burden) and quantified costs and benefits. The selected agencies also 

reflect a mix of executive and independent regulatory agencies’

experiences. The nine agencies are: the Departments of Commerce, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, and 

Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal 

Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission. The 

views of officials from these agencies are not generalizable to all 

agencies, but provided insights from those agencies that most often met 

our selection criteria. We also met with OMB staff to supplement 

information obtained from the questionnaires and roundtable.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2013 to April 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Regulations are the means by which agencies establish legally binding 

requirements, codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).11

Typically, regulations require a desired action or prohibit certain actions 

by regulated parties. The regulatory process is governed by statutes, 

executive orders, and agencies’ policies and procedures that require 

agencies to evaluate the need for regulations, assess the potential effects 

of new regulations, and obtain public input (with certain exceptions) 

during their development. In addition, under various congressional and 

presidential directives, agencies are expected to systematically review 

 11The CFR annual edition is the codification of the general and permanent rules published 

in the Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the federal government.

Background

Retrospective Regulatory 

Analysis
Page 6 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

regulations to ensure they do not become outdated or overly 

burdensome, among other things.12 Agencies also may choose to review 

regulations at their own discretion, in response to feedback from 

regulated parties and agency staff or changes in technology and market 

conditions, among other inputs. Therefore, the normal rulemaking 

process often involves agencies reviewing their existing regulations.13

Over many years, we have reported on agencies’ activities related to 

retrospective regulatory analysis and have demonstrated its usefulness to 

Congress, agencies, and the public while recognizing the potential 

difficulties, such as data limitations and overlapping or duplicative 

requirements.

In 2011 and 2012, the administration issued new directives to agencies 

on how they should plan and assess analyses of existing regulations, 

among other subjects.

• Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review,” and related memorandums, directed each executive agency 

to develop and submit to OIRA a preliminary plan consistent with law 

and its resources and regulatory priorities under which the agency will 

periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine 

whether they should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed, 

so as to make the agency’s regulatory program more effective or less 

burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.14

• Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory 

Agencies,” encouraged independent regulatory agencies to develop 

and release to the public plans for retrospective analyses of existing 

significant rules.15

• Executive Order 13610, “Identifying and Reducing Regulatory 

Burdens,” contained additional requirements and guidance regarding 

 12For example, Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Section 5 of Executive 

Order 12866 both require agencies to periodically review certain existing regulations.

13For example, on EPA’s web page, in which the agency provides information to the public 

on the status of priority rulemakings and reviews of existing regulations, it states that of 

the agency’s current regulatory workload, almost two-thirds is a review of an existing 

regulation.

1476 Fed. Reg. 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011).

1576 Fed. Reg. 41,587 (July 14, 2011). Independent regulatory agencies are not required 

to comply with executive orders.
Page 7 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

public participation in retrospective reviews, setting priorities in 

implementing retrospective review plans (for example, focusing on 

initiatives that would reduce regulatory burdens), and agencies’

reporting on the status of their retrospective review efforts.16

OMB periodically issues guidance to agencies on implementing executive 

orders. Under Executive Order 12866, OMB’s OIRA is responsible for 

providing meaningful guidance and oversight so that each agency’s 

regulations are consistent with applicable law, the President’s priorities, 

and the principles set forth in executive orders. For example, on October 

26, 2011, the Administrator of OIRA issued a memorandum on the 

implementation of the retrospective review plans called for by Executive 

Order 13563. The memorandum provided more detailed guidance to 

agencies on how to address elements of the order on prioritizing review 

plans, seeking public comment, and reporting on the status of 

retrospective review efforts (including a suggested template for agencies 

to use for their reports). According to Executive Order 12866, OIRA is to 

be the repository of expertise concerning regulatory issues.

As we reported in 2007, agencies generally assess their existing 

regulations for a variety of purposes, including to determine whether (1) 

the expected outcomes of the regulation have been achieved, (2) the 

agency should retain, amend, or rescind the regulation, or (3) the actual 

benefits and costs of the implemented regulation correspond with 

estimates prepared at the time the regulation was issued. However, 

OMB’s guidance on the 2011 and 2012 orders particularly advised 

agencies to identify in their final plans specific reforms and initiatives that 

will significantly reduce existing regulatory burdens (including paperwork 

and reporting burdens) and promote economic growth and job creation. 

OMB also directed agencies to provide specific timelines and deadlines 

for implementation and to quantify burden and cost reductions to the 

extent feasible. Among other components of guidance on the conduct of 

retrospective analyses, agencies are expected to

• conduct a quantifiable assessment of the current costs and benefits of 

any proposed changes to existing regulations to the extent possible,

• develop plans for how they will measure the performance of 

regulations in the future,

 1677 Fed. Reg. 28,469 (May 14, 2012).
Page 8 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

• seek the public’s views on retrospective review plans and related 

analysis, and

• coordinate the development of the new retrospective plans with other 

retrospective review requirements.

The executive orders and related guidance addressed all seven of the 

recommendations we made in our 2007 report to ensure that agencies 

conduct effective and transparent retrospective reviews. Among the 

elements that we recommended incorporating in policies, procedures, or 

guidance were: minimum standards for documenting and reporting 

completed review results; including public input as a factor in regulatory 

review decisions; and consideration of how agencies will measure the 

performance of new regulations. For more information on key elements of 

the executive orders and guidance, which we used as criteria during our 

review, see appendix I.

GPRAMA requires the 24 agencies identified in the Chief Financial 

Officers (CFO) Act, or as otherwise determined by OMB, to develop 

agency priority goals (APG) every 2 years.17 These goals, which are a 

subset of the agency’s performance goals, are to reflect the highest 

priorities of each agency, as identified by the head of the agency, and be 

informed by broad crosscutting federal government priority goals as well 

as input from relevant congressional committees. Agencies are to identify 

the various regulations, as well as federal organizations, program 

activities, policies and other activities (both within and external to the 

agency) that contribute to each of their APGs and review progress 

quarterly. This information is to be included in agencies’ performance 

plans which are submitted to OMB for publication on Performance.gov.18

 1731 U.S.C. § 1120(b). The 24 CFO Act agencies, generally the largest federal agencies, 

are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and 

Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, 

Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the 

U.S. Agency for International Development, Environmental Protection Agency, General 

Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science 

Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Small 

Business Administration, and Social Security Administration. (31 U.S.C. § 901(b)).

1831 U.S.C. §§ 1115(b)(5)(C), 1122(b)(3)(C). OMB is required to develop a single, 

government-wide performance website to communicate government-wide and agency 

performance information. The website—implemented by OMB as Performance.gov—is 

required to make available information on APGs and cross-agency priority goals, updated 

on a quarterly basis; agency strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual 

performance reports; and an inventory of all federal programs. 

Agency Priority Goals
Page 9 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

In April 2013, we reported that OMB’s review process does not 

systematically check whether agencies have identified all relevant 

contributors to APGs.19 In that report we therefore recommended that 

OMB work to ensure that agencies adhere to its guidance for website 

updates by providing complete information about regulations, among 

other things, that contributed to each APG. OMB staff agreed with this 

recommendation.20

The 22 executive agencies within the scope of our review identified 665 

initiatives (planned retrospective regulatory analyses) in the final review 

plans and subsequent updates prepared in response to Executive Orders 

13563 and 13610. Between January 2011 and the end of August 2013, 

the agencies completed and had taken at least some final action on 246 

of those planned analyses (see table 1).21 Because agencies’ analyses 

are part of an ongoing process, the information in table 1 represents a 

snapshot of agencies’ progress reported as of August 31, 2013.

 19GAO, Managing for Results: Agencies Should More Fully Develop Priority Goals under 

the GPRA Modernization Act, GAO-13-174 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 19, 2013).

20As of April 3, 2014, OMB had not provided a status update for this open 

recommendation.

21There were also instances where agencies completed reviews, but had not implemented 

a final action by August 31, 2013. For example, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reviewed 

regulations administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 

(ATF) to extend the term of import permits for firearms, ammunition, and defense articles 

from 1 year to 2 years. According to DOJ, the additional time will allow importers sufficient 

time to complete the importation of the authorized commodity and is expected to result in 

a substantial cost and time savings for both the industry and ATF. The agency had 

projected issuing the rule in November 2013 but did not do so.

Almost All Completed 

Retrospective 

Analyses Resulted in 

Changes to 

Regulations or Other 

Actions, but Progress 

Updates Could Be 

Improved
Page 10 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

Table 1: Number of Planned and Completed Retrospective Regulatory Analyses for 

22 Executive Agencies between January 2011 and August 2013

Agency

Planned 

retrospective 

analyses

Completed analyses 

with final action 

implemented by 

August 31, 2013

Department of Transportation 98 36

Department of Health and Human 

Services

83 33

Department of State 73 31

Department of Commerce 46 24

Environmental Protection Agency 37 18

Small Business Administration 27 13

Department of Defense 37 11

Department of Energy 18 11

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

27 11

Department of the Treasury 18 9

Department of Homeland Security 21 8

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

17 7

Office of Personnel Management 16 7

Department of Labor 20 7

Department of Education 15 6

Department of the Interior 16 4

General Services Administration 34 4

Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation

14 3

Social Security Administration 16 3

Department of Agriculture 13 0

Department of Justice 2 0

Department of Veterans Affairs 17 0

Total 665 246

Source: GAO analysis of regulatory agencies’ retrospective regulatory review plans and updates.

Note: For the purpose of this review, we counted the number of retrospective analyses rather than the 

number of regulations that may have been included in an analysis. A single analysis can cover more 

than one regulation and the number of regulations covered in an analysis can vary.
Page 11 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

Agencies’ reports on the progress of their planned retrospective analyses 

and related documentation showed that analyses completed by the end of 

August 2013 almost always resulted in the agencies taking additional 

specific actions, as shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: Overview of Retrospective Analysis Results for Executive Agencies That 

Implemented Final Actions between January 2011 and August 2013

Note: For purposes of this report, we defined a completed retrospective analysis as one for which the 

agency both completed the analysis and implemented a final action by August 31, 2013. A final action 

includes instances where an agency determined no additional action was needed. Although the two 

subcategories under “additional action needed” were mutually exclusive in the review conducted for 

this report, this may not always be the case. A completed analysis could lead an agency to both 

amend the CFR and take other actions affecting the reviewed regulation.

In 225 of the 246 completed analyses we examined (more than 90 

percent), the reviews led to agencies amending sections of the CFR to 

revise, clarify, or eliminate regulatory text. For example, DHS amended 

regulations administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

to allow for the publication of seizure and intent-to-forfeit notices on an 

official government forfeiture website.22 Previously, notices were posted 

for three successive weeks in a newspaper circulated at the CBP port and 

in the judicial district where CBP seized the property. According to DHS, 

the changes are intended to reduce administrative costs and improve the 

effectiveness of CBP’s notice procedures as Internet publication will 

 2278 Fed. Reg. 6027 (Jan. 29, 2013).

Executive Agencies Often 

Changed Regulations to 

Improve Effectiveness or 

Reduce Burden
Page 12 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

reach a broader range of the public and provide access to more parties 

who may have an interest in the seized property.

Another 18 of the 246 completed retrospective analyses resulted in 

agencies taking some other type of action, such as revising agency 

guidance or evaluation criteria, affecting implementation of the regulations 

that had been reviewed. For example, DOT conducted a public meeting in 

February 2012 concerning the criteria used when determining an 

applicant’s minimum level of fitness for special permits and approvals by 

the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration under 

hazardous materials regulations. Based on the comments DOT received 

during the meeting, the agency decided to undertake a major 

restructuring of the fitness determinations process and may consider 

rulemaking once the restructuring is complete. The remaining three

completed analyses within our scope resulted in an agency determining 

that no further action was needed. For example, in one of its completed 

analyses, EPA sought public feedback on a 2003 water quality trading 

policy to determine whether revisions to the related policy could help 

increase the adoption of market-based approaches. But after holding 

public workshops and webinars on the subject, the agency decided that 

no revisions were necessary.23

Agencies most commonly identified three categories of expected 

outcomes from the actions they took in response to completed 

retrospective analyses: (1) improving the effectiveness of regulations; (2) 

reducing the burden on regulated entities; and (3) providing clarity on 

regulations or making other administrative changes. In addition, agencies 

also amended regulations to address statutory changes. These outcomes 

are not mutually exclusive because agencies reported multiple categories 

of outcomes for many of the completed analyses. Figure 2 displays a 

breakdown of the expected outcomes that agencies reported for their 

completed analyses.

 23The other two instances where agencies determined no additional action was needed 

appeared in updates of DOT and HHS retrospective review plans. 
Page 13 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

Figure 2: Breakdown of the Types of Reported Retrospective Analysis Outcomes 

for Executive Agencies That Implemented Final Actions from January 2011 through 

August 2013

Notes: Results represent 19 agencies and 246 completed retrospective analyses. The outcome 

categories are not mutually exclusive. Agencies reported outcomes in multiple categories for 76 of the 

completed analyses.

• Agencies identified improving the effectiveness of regulations as an 

expected outcome of 112 completed retrospective analyses. For 

example, DOT revised its regulations related to Railroad Locomotive 

Safety Standards in 2012 to improve their effectiveness by 

incorporating current industry and engineering best practices related 

to locomotive electronics.24 The number of outcomes in this category 

underscores one of the findings in our 2007 report, when agencies 

said that their primary purpose for conducting most retrospective 

analyses is to examine the effectiveness of the implementation of 

regulations.25

• Agencies cited reducing burden on regulated parties as an anticipated 

outcome of 99 completed retrospective analyses. For example, in 

October 2012 the Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration removed incomequalification requirements related to renewing Gulf of Mexico 

 2477 Fed. Reg. 21,312 (Apr. 9, 2012).

25GAO-07-791.
Page 14 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

commercial reef fish permits and increased the maximum crew size 

for vessels that possess both charter and commercial permits.26 The 

stated intent of this rule is to remove permit requirements the agency 

viewed as no longer applicable to current commercial fishing practices 

and to improve safety at sea. The prevalence of outcomes in this 

category is consistent with one of the central goals of the executive 

orders and OMB guidance on the retrospective analysis initiative—

reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens and costs on individuals, 

businesses, and state, local, and tribal governments.

• For 93 of the completed analyses, agencies indicated that the actions 

they took would clarify regulations or make another type of 

administrative change. For example, in response to one of its 

analyses, the Department of State (State) implemented new 

procedures for its Summer Work Travel Program in 2011. The agency 

clarified which U.S. host employers and third-party overseas agents or 

partners could assist in the administration of the core functions of 

exchange programs.27

• We found 44 instances of agencies amending existing regulations in 

response to statutory changes. For example, DOE published a final 

rule in July 2013 to implement provisions in the Energy Conservation 

and Production Act that require the department to update the baseline 

federal energy efficiency performance standards for the construction 

of new federal commercial and multi-family high-rise residential 

buildings.28

Executive Order 13610 directed agencies to give priority to regulatory 

reforms that would produce significant quantifiable monetary savings or 

reductions in paperwork burdens, while protecting public health, welfare, 

safety, and the environment.29 OMB’s guidance further directed agencies 

to quantify burden and cost reductions to the extent feasible when 

 2677 Fed. Reg. 64,237 (Oct. 19, 2012).

2776 Fed. Reg. 23,177 (Apr. 26, 2011).

28 78 Fed. Reg. 40,945 (July 9, 2013). 

29A June 2012 memorandum from the Administrator of OIRA identified nine types of steps 

(such as eliminating redundant or unnecessary collections, simplified applications, and 

use of electronic communications) that agencies could take to reduce paperwork and 

reporting burdens, consistent with Executive Order 13610 and the Paperwork Reduction 

Act.

Executive Agencies 

Largely Attributed 

Quantified Savings to 

Reducing Burden
Page 15 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

reporting on the progress of their retrospective analyses.30 Agencies 

identified quantified cost savings in the published progress updates 

regarding 38 of the 246 completed analyses in our scope. Half of those 

38 analyses focused on reducing burden, including reducing the costs of 

information collection burdens.31 For example, HHS issued final rules in 

May 2012 to remove unnecessary regulatory and reporting requirements 

for hospitals and other health care providers.32 The agency reduced the 

burden to providers and suppliers by modifying, removing, or streamlining 

regulations that the agency identified as excessively burdensome. For 

example, HHS eliminated a requirement for non-physician personnel to 

have special training in administering blood transfusions and intravenous 

medications. The agency expects these changes to yield more than $5 

billion in savings over the next 5 years. In the 38 cases where agencies 

quantified savings estimates, the extent to which agencies reported 

information about the methodologies, assumptions, and time periods 

used to develop those estimates varied. For example, not all agencies 

identified in their progress reports the discount rate used to discount 

future savings. In addition, agencies sometimes reported savings 

estimates based on varying time frames. Without additional information 

on agencies’ methodologies and key assumptions used to estimate 

savings in their plan updates and progress reports, a reader cannot 

determine the total cumulative amount of savings that agencies expected 

to result from these retrospective analyses. Including more detailed 

information behind savings estimates would also be consistent with the 

internal control standard for information and communication, which states 

that agencies must have relevant, reliable, and timely information for both 

external and internal uses.33 Such information could also help Congress 

 30In practice, agencies reported the progress of their retrospective analyses in updated 

“retrospective review plans.” For discussion purposes in this report, we may use the term 

“progress reports” or “updates” to clarify when we are referring to agencies’ plans that 

contain progress reports or updates on their retrospective analyses versus the agencies’

original review plans.

31Agencies also anticipated quantified cost savings for some of the completed reviews 

that we did not include in our analysis because agencies had not yet taken final actions. 

For example, in August 2013 DOT proposed a rule regarding driver vehicle inspection 

reports filed by truck drivers that the agency estimates could save $1.7 billion annually in 

time and paperwork burdens. 78 Fed. Reg. 48,125 (Aug. 7, 2013). DOT expects to issue 

the final rule in November 2014.

3277 Fed. Reg. 29,002 and 29,034 (May 16, 2012).

33 GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
Page 16 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

and the public to better understand the basis for agencies’ estimates and 

the extent to which estimates may be comparable.

In other cases, agencies identified but did not quantify expected savings. 

For example, HHS encouraged that all clinical quality measures be 

electronically reported beginning in 2014 as part of the Medicare and 

Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program.34 Instead of 

entering data manually or assembling paperwork, providers would instead 

generate a file from the EHR system. HHS reported that it expects this 

change to result in savings, but the agency did not quantify such savings. 

Agency officials we spoke with described impediments to quantifying the 

costs and benefits of their regulations, such as obtaining sufficient data, 

which we will discuss further in a later section of this report.

The executive orders and related OMB guidance contain transparency 

requirements intended to better inform the public and solicit input about 

agencies’ retrospective analyses. The orders outline general principles, 

along with some basic requirements, while guidance memorandums 

provide more detailed explanations and instructions on how agencies 

should implement the orders. Among these requirements, agencies were 

directed to make their retrospective analyses available to the public within 

a reasonable time period and to release their analyses, including the 

supporting data, online whenever possible. OMB guidance further 

recommended that agencies post their analyses on their individual “Open 

Government” web pages.35

Consistent with executive orders and OMB guidance, almost all of the 

agencies included in our review published retrospective review plans 

either on their agency websites or other locations. Also, 20 published 

drafts of their plans in the Federal Register for public comment. Overall, 

this represents greater transparency compared to conditions we found in 

our 2007 report. In 2007, we found limitations in agencies’ documentation 

and reporting of discretionary retrospective analyses. In addition, 

 3477 Fed. Reg. 53,967 (Sept. 4, 2012).

35As part of the President’s Open Government Directive in 2009, OMB directed agencies 

to create an “Open Government” web page to serve a variety of purposes and as a step 

toward the goal of creating more open government. 

Executive Agencies 

Increased the 

Transparency of Review 

Plans, but Could Improve 

the Usefulness of 

Progress Reports to the 

Public
Page 17 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

nonfederal parties cited this lack of transparency as a barrier to the 

usefulness of retrospective analyses to the public.

Although many agencies in our scope for this review posted their 

retrospective review plans online, the ease of finding review plans and the 

comprehensiveness of the plans varied across agencies. For example, 

agencies did not always post plans on their “Open Government” web 

pages as recommended in OMB guidance. In some cases, agencies 

directed readers to multiple plans to identify outcomes from past 

retrospective analyses, but did not always explicitly state whether the 

current plan included or excluded a comprehensive list of analyses and 

outcomes. The White House web page, which posts a compiled list of 

agency plans, did not always include agencies’ semiannual progress 

reports showing the outcomes and progress of analyses. The last 

updates posted on that web page were in May 2012.36 OMB OIRA staff 

provided us with updated information in April 2014 explaining that the 

agency made a deliberate decision to discontinue updating the list of 

progress updates on the White House web page in an effort to reinforce 

that the responsibility reside with the individual agencies to post all of 

their plans and updates on their “Open Government” web pages.37 During 

our review, agencies’ plan updates and progress reports provided only 

summary information about completed analyses. Agencies did not always 

provide citations or references in the progress reports that a reader could 

use to look up published rules that contain more detailed descriptions of 

agencies’ analyses and the underlying data. Without more consistent and 

comprehensive reporting, the public may not be fully aware of the scope, 

progress, and results of agencies’ planned analyses. Providing links or 

citations that point readers to documentation of the supporting analyses 

and data, as outlined in the executive orders and guidance, would help 

agencies to better adhere to executive directives, enhance the public 

transparency of retrospective analyses, and improve the usefulness of 

reporting.

 36As of March 31, 2014, that site (http://www.whitehouse.gov/21stcenturygov/actions/21stcentury-regulatory-system) listed only the initial final plans completed and updates through 

May 2012.

37In April 2014, OIRA staff told us they believe that all of the executive agencies have now 

posted their updates on their own “Open Government” web pages, but acknowledged that 

this information may not always be easy to find. 
Page 18 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

Independent regulatory agencies were not required to develop 

retrospective review plans, but were encouraged to do so in Executive 

Order 13579 and a related memorandum providing additional guidance.38

Both of the independent regulatory agencies included within our scope, 

FCC and FTC, posted their final retrospective review plans on their 

agency websites. FCC also posted its final retrospective review plans in 

the Federal Register whereas FTC did not. Neither agency provided 

updates to the plans that identified the results or progress of their 

reviews, but are also not required to do so. However, both agencies said 

they have well-established practices to regularly review regulations and 

report outcomes. For example, FTC has a long-standing practice of 

maintaining a schedule, published annually, to ensure that each rule is 

reviewed approximately every 10 years. The commission modifies the 

schedule to accelerate the review of rules when it observes economic or 

marketplace changes that necessitate a rule review. FCC provided 

additional explanation that it did not develop an updated plan partly due to 

transitions among the agency’s top leadership. Specifically, the chairman 

position for the commission was vacant until November 4, 2013.

We checked on planned analyses that FCC and FTC had identified in 

their plans and identified multiple completed analyses within the time 

period for our review. All of the two agencies’ completed retrospective 

analyses that we reviewed resulted in changes to regulations, most often 

to improve the effectiveness of the regulations or make administrative 

changes. Of the 32 completed FCC analyses in our scope, 30 resulted in 

administrative changes, in particular cumulatively eliminating about 190 

regulations that were obsolete. For example, FCC eliminated outdated 

and unnecessary reporting requirements related to international 

telecommunications traffic.39 Twenty of FCC’s analyses focused on 

improving the effectiveness of the regulations, one focused on burden 

reduction, and two responded to statutory changes. Four of FTC’s six 

completed analyses resulted in changes to improve the effectiveness of 

the regulations, four reduced burden, three addressed administrative 

changes, and two responded to statutory changes. Similar to executive 

agencies, these numbers are not mutually exclusive as some analyses 

 38OMB provided additional guidance to independent regulatory agencies in memorandum 

M-11-28, Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies,”

issued on July 22, 2011.

3976 Fed. Reg. 42,567 (July 19, 2011).

Independent Regulatory 

Agencies Followed a 

Different Retrospective 

Analysis Planning Process 

than Executive Agencies
Page 19 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

led to multiple reported outcomes. For example, as part of its ongoing 

regulatory analysis of the Appliance Labeling Rule, FTC streamlined data 

reporting requirements for manufacturers, clarified testing requirements 

and enforcement provisions, improved online energy label disclosures, 

and made several minor technical changes and corrections.40

In a December 2013 report on Dodd-Frank Act regulations, we assessed 

financial regulatory agencies’ plans to conduct retrospective reviews of 

existing rules.41 We found that federal financial regulators vary in their 

approaches and progress in developing and implementing plans to 

conduct retrospective reviews of their existing Dodd-Frank and other rules 

in recognition of Executive Order 13579. One of the independent financial 

regulatory agencies covered in that report, the Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (CFTC) developed a final retrospective review plan. 

CFTC outlined a two-phase plan to conduct periodic retrospective reviews 

of its existing regulations in a June 2011 Federal Register notice. Under 

the first phase, CFTC reported that it has examined and revised a number 

of its existing regulations as part of its implementation of the Dodd-Frank 

Act. Under the second phase, CFTC plans to conduct retrospective 

reviews of the remainder of its regulations after substantial completion of 

its Dodd-Frank Act rulemakings. CFTC provided OMB with periodic status 

reports on its retrospective review plan and reported in July 2013 that it is 

still in phase one. The Securities and Exchange Commission is in the 

process of developing a retrospective review plan. Other prudential 

regulators reported that they generally view their retrospective rule 

reviews conducted by statute or policy to be consistent with Executive 

Order 13579’s principles and objectives. Thus, they did not develop a 

plan directly in response to the order.

 4078 Fed. Reg. 2200 (Jan. 10, 2013).

41GAO-14-67.
Page 20 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

Officials from the nine agencies that we selected to complete 

questionnaires and participate in our roundtable discussion cited many 

strategies and practices their agencies used as facilitators, or factors the 

agencies encountered as barriers, which affected their ability to 

implement key retrospective analysis requirements or guidance. The 

following sections highlight those facilitators and barriers that were most 

commonly reported by officials across the nine agencies.

Agency officials identified multiple strategies or practices that helped to 

facilitate their ability to conduct productive retrospective analyses. They 

most commonly identified three strategies or practices as being most 

significant in their experience. Two-thirds or more of the agencies cited 

each of the following three strategies as facilitators.

Six of the nine agencies reported that a standard centralized review 

process to develop retrospective review plans and track the progress of 

outcomes was a helpful strategy. Agencies often achieved this 

centralization through their policy analysis or general counsel’s offices. In 

some instances, agencies also formed intradepartmental working 

groups.42 For example, DHS, which manages the retrospective analysis 

process through its general counsel’s office, has an ongoing working 

group of representatives from CBP, Coast Guard, U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the 

National Protection and Programs Directorate, Transportation Security 

Administration, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These 

representatives are responsible for conducting analyses within their 

component and building retrospective analysis into the agency culture. 

According to agency officials, the working group helps the department’s 

components share best practices and learn from each other. FCC officials 

also said that centralizing their retrospective review effort in the general 

counsel’s office, while seeking input from each bureau and office, is a key 

factor that is helping the agency to implement retrospective analyses.

 42For additional information on interagency groups and collaboration, see GAO, Managing 

for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance Collaboration in Interagency 

Groups, GAO-14-220 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2014).

Agency Officials 

Identified Strategies 

and Barriers That 

Affected Their 

Implementation of 

Retrospective 

Analyses

Agencies Identified Three 

Key Strategies to Facilitate 

Retrospective Analyses

Establish a Centrally 

Coordinated Review Process 

to Develop Review Plans
Page 21 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

Six of the nine agencies reported that leveraging existing regulatory 

activities—such as regulatory planning, rulemaking, and enforcement 

processes—assisted them in implementing the executive orders and 

related guidance. Officials from most agencies reported that, when 

developing new rules, they examine existing regulations related to the 

rule as a normal course of conducting business. Agency officials 

expressed frustration at the misperception that they are not reviewing 

existing regulations, when in fact most of their regulatory activities involve 

such reviews. Agencies identified many examples of how they leveraged 

existing regulatory activities to develop their retrospective review plans in 

response to the executive orders. For example, the day-to-day regulatory 

enforcement activities of law enforcement staff informed which 

regulations to review and provided valuable information for assessing 

regulations. DOT reported that one of its agencies identified 15 to 20 

regulations to review based on inspectors who noted consistent problems 

in the field, repeated questions from the public seeking clarification on 

certain regulations, and petitions for regulatory changes. Similarly, FTC 

reported that its law enforcement staff saw how regulations were working 

in the marketplace and provided ideas on whether to accelerate a review 

of a rule to address changes in the marketplace. These staff members 

were heavily involved in the regulatory review process and used their 

knowledge to inform how rules were working in practice. To help develop 

FCC’s review plan, agency officials said that they used existing review 

processes, such as the statutorily required biennial review of regulations 

related to telecommunications regulations.

All of the agencies said that they used existing external feedback 

mechanisms to identify and evaluate regulatory reforms. In general, 

agency officials said that such mechanisms, which include petitions, 

listening sessions, and meetings with informed stakeholders, were more 

effective and useful than general public comments obtained through 

Federal Register notices. For example, one DHS official said that when 

commenting on the rulemaking process, members of the public tended to 

voice their opinions about general policy topics unrelated to the regulation 

being reviewed and, often, did not provide useful suggestions for 

regulatory changes. Some agency officials noted that the feedback they 

received from informed stakeholders, such as regulated entities, and 

policy advocacy groups, was more targeted and therefore more helpful for 

retrospective review purposes.

Among other specific examples of useful feedback mechanisms, HHS 

officials with the Office of Policy and Planning within the Office of the 

National Coordinator for Health Information Technology said stakeholder 

Leverage Existing Regulatory 

Activities to Identify Needed 

Changes

Use Existing Feedback 

Mechanisms to Identify and 

Evaluate Regulatory Reforms
Page 22 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

feedback and emails requesting regulatory interpretations in a final rule 

were most useful because they helped them focus on areas of ambiguity 

or potential burden that could be reduced by altering or removing the 

regulatory requirement. One DOT official said the agency has advisory 

committees for almost all of its public safety regulatory areas. These 

committees include regulated entities and public safety advocates who 

regularly meet with DOT to recommend approaches to new, and revisions 

to, existing regulations at the front end of the process—usually before a 

proposed rule is published in the Federal Register. The DOT official said 

this helps the revision process run much more smoothly than it would 

otherwise. One FCC official said the agency has several active channels 

already in place to obtain public input in addition to the comments it 

receives from its commissioners, bureau chiefs, and advisory committees. 

Other agencies reported having similar feedback mechanisms that they 

considered to be most useful.

A few of the agencies identified other helpful strategies for facilitating 

retrospective reviews. For example, the State Department requires its 

staff to submit a checklist to track the retrospective reviews of existing 

rules and reviews of proposed and final rules. This checklist served as an 

official record of the systematic review and addressed the elements of 

each significant rule. DHS said that compiling information about its 

regulations (for example, in a database), such as the normalized costs 

and benefits or the small entity impacts of each regulation, has been a 

useful tool. This information assisted the agency in identifying major cost 

drivers and regulations that were candidates for retrospective review and 

analysis. Another strategy cited by DOE was interagency discussion to 

identify and implement best practices adopted by other agencies. To 

obtain useful information from stakeholders, FTC adopted a standardized 

series of questions that provided a starting point to facilitate public 

comment on regulations subject to retrospective review.

While agency officials representing the nine agencies participating in our 

roundtable identified multiple challenges or barriers to conducting 

retrospective reviews, the most commonly cited barriers identified as 

being most significant to their experience were (1) competing priorities 

and (2) difficulty obtaining sufficient data. The officials confirmed that 

these two factors have been persistent impediments to implementing 

retrospective analyses. This is consistent with barriers we found in our 

Agencies Also Identified Other 

Helpful Strategies

Persistent Barriers to 

Implementing 

Retrospective Analyses 

Remain
Page 23 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

2007 report.43 More than half of the agencies mentioned both of these 

factors as barriers to conducting retrospective reviews.

Seven of the nine agencies cited competing priorities, particularly in a 

constrained budget environment, as a significant challenge to conducting 

retrospective regulatory analyses. Specifically, they referred to having a 

limited number of staff with the needed expertise to conduct retrospective 

analyses and other regulatory activities that are also among their 

agencies’ priorities. For example, Commerce, DHS, and DOT officials 

reported that responding to new regulatory mandates imposed by 

Congress has been the focus for their staff, thereby limiting the amount of 

time and resources available to conduct retrospective analyses. DHS 

officials, in particular, pointed out that their agency cannot reassign 

existing staff to focus solely on retrospective reviews. HHS officials cited 

staff turnover across program areas and having limited staff with the 

necessary expertise to conduct retrospective analyses. According to 

agency officials, this issue can be exacerbated by requirements to report 

the same information multiple times to accomplish agencies’ goals 

through duplicative processes. For example, in addition to conducting 

retrospective reviews, HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services considers the need to eliminate or revise old, obsolete, or 

duplicative regulations when it reviews its plans quarterly for regulatory 

revisions or the need for new regulations. The agencies’ feedback on this 

issue echoed the findings in our 2007 report. In that report, agencies cited 

lack of time and resources as the most critical barriers to their ability to 

conduct retrospective analyses because of the need to perform analyses 

simultaneously with other mission-critical activities.44 This challenge of 

effectively balancing agency efforts among competing priorities reinforces 

the importance of the processes agencies use to select and prioritize 

which regulations to target for retrospective analysis. The challenge is 

magnified when considered in the context of a very extensive, and 

growing, inventory of existing regulations from which agencies must 

choose regulations to retrospectively assess within the limits of available 

resources.

 43GAO-07-791.

44To help address this issue, we recommended that agency policies and guidance include 

defined selection criteria for prioritization of retrospective analyses, which was later 

reflected in the executive orders and OMB guidance.

Competing Priorities Hinder 

Agencies’ Ability to Conduct 

Retrospective Analyses
Page 24 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

Five of the nine agencies cited a lack of data to identify improvements 

attributed to regulations as a barrier to conducting reviews. In particular, 

agency officials cited challenges related to obtaining information from 

industry, the cost of data from outside sources, and the potential to 

transfer some data-collection burdens to the states, which face similar 

resource constraints. For example, DOT officials said that for their agency 

to have better data for some cost-benefit analyses, it would have to put 

an additional burden on states to collect it, such as with police officers 

filling out longer accident forms to more accurately code how someone 

was injured. In addition, a DOT official said the data may be unavailable 

or too expensive to obtain, and it often can be against a regulated entity’s 

interest to provide certain information. DHS said most of the data needed 

to conduct retrospective analyses of its regulations require original data 

collection efforts to obtain potentially business-sensitive information from 

industry. According to DHS officials, restrictions under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act make it difficult to obtain information from a sufficient 

number of regulated entities to produce meaningful and useful results. A 

DOE official also said that additional data are constantly sought by its 

scientists and economists, and many data sets are expensive and have 

strict user requirements. Some agencies we spoke with noted, however, 

that at times they have more readily accessible existing data that can help 

inform their efforts to assess the performance of regulations. For 

example, to aid in its enforcement responsibilities, Commerce’s Bureau of 

Industry and Security (BIS) uses U.S. export data already collected by the 

Census Bureau, which is another component within the department. One 

BIS official said these data help the agency conduct cost-benefit analyses 

and measure how their regulations are working. The barriers discussed 

above are consistent with findings from our 2007 report, in which 

agencies reported they lacked the information and data needed to 

conduct reviews, such as baseline data for assessing regulations that 

they promulgated many years ago.45

Agencies also confirmed other barriers that affected their ability to 

implement retrospective analyses, such as difficulty in (1) distinguishing 

between which results were produced by the regulation versus other 

factors, (2) resolving differences in opinion among internal or external 

stakeholders on the results, and (3) using the results to make regulatory 

 45As discussed in the background section of the report, we previously recommended—

and OMB subsequently incorporated in guidance to agencies—that agencies should 

consider how they will measure the performance of new regulations when issued.

Agencies Reported Difficulty 

Obtaining Sufficient Data to 

Identify Improvements 

Attributed to Regulations and 

Other Barriers
Page 25 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

decisions. For example, FTC reported that its ability to use analytical 

results of retrospective reviews to make changes to regulations were 

affected to a moderate extent by the difficulty in distinguishing between 

which results were produced by the regulation and which stemmed from 

other factors. In addition, FCC said its ability to use analytical results of 

retrospective reviews for the same purpose was affected to a moderate 

extent by the difficulty in resolving differences of opinion among internal 

or external stakeholders. Few agencies identified strategies to overcome 

the barriers discussed above. For example, the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, within the Department of Commerce, combined two 

processes to leverage limited resources. The agency implemented 

retrospective review practices at the same time they were issuing new 

rules related to the Leahy Smith America Invents Act. In general, there 

was ultimately no consensus among the roundtable participants about 

strategies that might be more widely employed to effectively implement 

retrospective review while overcoming these barriers. However, later in 

this report we will discuss a related recommendation that we made to 

OMB in June 2013 to help address this matter. We recommended that the 

agency develop a detailed approach to examine such difficulties.46

Retrospective reviews are just one way, among others such as program 

evaluations, to help agencies evaluate their own performance. Given how 

important regulations are to the missions of regulatory agencies, the 

information generated from retrospective reviews can be leveraged to 

directly inform agency annual performance goals and measurement. 

Moreover, as discussed earlier, GPRAMA requires certain agencies, as 

determined by OMB, to develop APGs every 2 years. In addition to 

developing APGs, which are a subset of agencies’ broader performance 

goals, agencies are required to identify the various regulations, as well as 

federal organizations and other program activities (both within and 

external to the agency) that contribute to each of their APGs, and review 

progress on a quarterly basis.47 This information is to be published on a 

 46GAO, Managing for Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement the GPRA 

Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance Challenges, GAO-13-518

(Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2013).

47The two independent regulatory agencies that participated in our roundtable 

discussions—FCC and FTC—were not selected by OMB to develop APGs. However, they

are to develop annual performance goals and identify the various contributors to each of 

those goals.

Opportunities Exist to 

Improve Linkages 

between Regulatory 

Reviews and Priority 

Goals
Page 26 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

governmentwide performance website, which OMB has implemented as 

Performance.gov, as well as in agencies’ performance plans submitted to 

OMB.48 In April 2013, we concluded that OMB’s review process does not 

systematically check whether agencies have identified all relevant 

contributors to APGs. Thus, we recommended that the Director of OMB 

ensure that agencies adhere to OMB’s guidance for website updates by 

providing complete information about regulations, among other activities, 

that contribute to each APG.49 Our review of the criteria agencies used for 

retrospective reviews shows they used multiple criteria, none of which 

explicitly mention ties to performance goals.50 Although the executive 

orders and guidance did not specifically direct agencies to include their 

broader performance goals, such as APGs, as a criterion, agencies may 

be missing a key opportunity to link these two activities.

Agencies’ responses about linkages between retrospective analyses and 

APGs were mixed. Three agencies (DOE, DHS, and DOT) said their 

recently completed, current, or future retrospective analyses were linked 

to their APGs to either a moderate or great extent. To illustrate this 

linkage, DOE said one of its APGs includes energy and costs savings as 

well as greenhouse gas reduction through the issuance of new or revised 

energy efficiency standards. As part of the agency’s process for issuing 

revised standards, DOE said it considers retrospective analyses of the 

existing standards to determine if greater efficiency can be achieved at 

lower costs or with lower burden on the regulated community. Responses 

from the other agencies varied, generally stating that either (1) there was 

little to no connection between retrospective analyses and APGs or (2) 

agency officials did not know or had no basis to judge whether such 

linkages existed.51 In instances where multiple offices or bureaus within 

an agency completed the questionnaire, the responses also varied. For 

 4831 U.S.C. §§ 1115(b)(5)(C), 1122(b)(3)(C). 

49GAO-13-174. As of April 3, 2014, OMB had not provided a status update for this open 

recommendation.

50 However, two agencies reported that when setting priorities for their retrospective 

analyses, they consider whether regulations are achieving their intended outcomes. 

Another agency cited a connection between its retrospective analyses and strategic 

planning efforts.

51Responses from the two independent regulatory agencies we spoke with—FCC and 

FTC—reflected that they are not required to develop APGs under GPRAMA. 

Agencies Reported Mixed 

Experiences Linking 

Retrospective Analyses to 

APGs
Page 27 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

example, based on the responses we received from multiple offices within 

some agencies, it appears there is a mixed understanding or awareness 

of whether retrospective analyses are linked to APGs. This can be 

explained, in part, by the division of responsibilities within an agency 

where the office or staff responsible for carrying out retrospective 

analyses differs from the staff responsible for carrying out broader agency 

performance reviews.

Although only three agencies in our review reported moderate or great 

linkages between their retrospective analyses and APGs, agency officials 

in offices from seven of the nine agencies identified regulations as key 

contributors to APGs. For example, while State reported little to no 

linkage between its retrospective analyses and APGs, the agency 

identified categories of regulations that contribute to three APGs, 

including “strengthening diplomacy and development by leading through 

civilian power.” State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs administers regulations 

that directly support this goal. DHS identified specific categories of 

regulations that contribute to its fiscal year 2013 APGs. For example, 

security regulations directly support the agency’s APG to “strengthen 

aviation security counterterrorism capabilities by using intelligence-driven 

information and risk-based decisions.” Immigration and border 

management regulations directly support DHS’ APG to “improve the 

efficiency of the process to detain and remove criminal aliens.”

Most agencies cited linkages between retrospective analyses and agency 

goals other than APGs, such as agency strategic objectives or 

performance goals. However, the extent of these linkages varied. For 

example, Commerce’s BIS said its retrospective analyses are tied to 

other agency goals to a great extent. During our roundtable discussion, 

one BIS official said the bureau’s regulations directly support a 

department-level strategic objective. This linkage is documented in BIS’ 

fiscal year 2015 budget submission and Commerce’s fiscal year 2014-

2018 strategic plan, which shows how BIS regulations contribute toward 

Commerce’s strategic objective to increase U.S. exports by broadening 

and deepening the U.S. exporter base.52 In addition, FTC said its ongoing 

retrospective review program ensures that FTC’s rules target deceptive 

and unfair practices while also addressing changing market conditions 

 52According to BIS’ fiscal year 2015 budget submission, the agency is not a leader or a 

participant in any APGs.
Page 28 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

and avoiding undue burdens on legitimate business activity. Although 

agencies identified examples where they established such linkages as 

described above, they may not be able to do so in all instances. Some 

agency officials we spoke with emphasized that regulations are only one 

contributor, among others, to broader agency performance goals being 

examined at higher levels within the agency. For example, one DOE 

official indicated there may not necessarily be a one-for-one linkage 

between an individual regulation and a single specific goal. Further, in a 

March 2004 report, we found other difficulties regulatory agencies face in 

measuring performance including (1) obtaining data to demonstrate 

results, (2) accounting for factors outside of the agency’s control that 

affect results, and (3) dealing with the long time periods often needed to

see results.53

We asked agencies the extent to which they would like to receive more 

assistance or guidance on incorporating retrospective analyses into 

measuring and achieving agency goals, including APGs. Agencies 

expressed varying degrees of interest in receiving such assistance. In the 

cases where agencies received additional guidance on this matter, it was 

provided either internally within the individual agency or from OMB’s 

OIRA. Only one of the nine agencies reported receiving additional 

assistance or guidance from other federal oversight offices and groups, 

such as the Performance Improvement Council (PIC).54 Given the 

common, long-standing difficulties agencies have continued to face in 

measuring the performance of various types of federal programs and 

activities, including regulations, we recommended in June 2013 that OMB 

work with the PIC to develop a detailed approach to examine these 

difficulties across agencies. This work would include identifying and 

sharing any promising practices from agencies that have overcome 

difficulties in measuring performance of these programs and activities.55

 53See for example GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid 

Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: March 10, 

2004).

54We also asked agencies to identify any assistance they received from two additional 

federal oversight entities—the Regulatory Working Group and OMB’s Office of 

Performance and Personnel Management. PIC is responsible for assisting OMB in 

improving federal government performance and achieving cross-agency priority goals. 

Among its responsibilities, the council is to facilitate the exchange among agencies of 

useful performance improvement practices and work to resolve government-wide or 

crosscutting performance issues. 31 U.S.C. §§ 1124(b)(2)(D),(E).

55GAO-13-518.
Page 29 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

OMB staff agreed with this recommendation. As of March 2014, PIC staff 

told us they have taken initial steps to implement this recommendation 

through a pilot effort focused on acquisition, which is related to one of the 

areas highlighted in our June 2013 report. They said they plan to expand 

the model to focus on other issues, such as regulations and grants. 

According to PIC officials, it is too early in the process to have any 

supporting documentation related to these plans. We will continue to 

monitor progress on this effort.

As noted earlier, one of the potential purposes for conducting 

retrospective analyses is to assess whether regulations, once 

implemented, achieved the expected benefits at the expected costs. 

However, the efforts of agencies included in our review to re-evaluate 

original cost-benefit analyses associated with their regulations varied. In 

response to our questionnaire, only three agencies reported that they 

often conduct reviews of regulations to determine whether the regulations 

are accomplishing the originally intended benefits at the expected cost. 

The other six agencies generally reported that they rarely, if ever, do this 

or did not know. Some agencies said they will sometimes revisit costbenefit estimates to improve methods or models for conducting such 

analyses in the future.56 However, according to a few agency officials, 

they do not believe redoing past cost-benefit analyses is useful in the 

context of making decisions about individual regulations looking forward. 

In a broader context however, reexamining benefits and costs achieved 

after a regulation is implemented could provide data useful for 

performance reviews, including assessments of APGs, and is consistent 

with regulatory executive orders and guidance. One of the principles in 

Executive Order 13563 states that the regulatory system must measure, 

and seek to improve, the actual results of regulatory requirements. 

Subsequent guidance from the OIRA Administrator noted that this “points 

to the need for empirical assessment of the consequences of rules.”

Broadening the focus to think about retrospective reviews as a contributor 

to agency performance metrics related to APGs, rather than only in the 

 56EPA’s retrospective review plan includes a retrospective study of the costs of EPA 

regulations to evaluate whether cost estimates developed before and after regulations 

were implemented differ substantially. The results may lead to the agency improving its 

cost estimation methodology. This study was not completed within the time frame covered 

by our review. Further, EPA officials said their retrospective reviews usually do examine 

whether rules are achieving the intended benefits and that compliance cost is considered 

when developing revised rules.
Page 30 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

context of examining a single regulation, may encourage agencies to 

revisit opportunities for more of this type of analysis.

The focus of retrospective analyses differs from agency performance 

reviews. Agencies’ retrospective analyses tended to examine regulations 

on a micro level rather than their contribution to broader APGs. 

Regulations are developed and implemented individually, and often reexamined individually. In addition, the impetus for reviews is often 

statutory requirements, changes in the regulatory environment that affect 

the rule, availability of agency resources, or executive order 

requirements. The selection of which rule to review is typically tied to 

criteria such as the number of complaints or comments from regulated 

parties and the public, whether there have been changes in technology or 

other conditions since the regulation was issued, the potential for burden 

reduction, or the number of years since a regulation was promulgated or 

last reviewed, rather than whether it will be subject to upcoming 

performance goal discussions. The regulatory process and executive 

orders outlining how to conduct retrospective reviews have helped to 

shape the focus and timing of reviews.

In contrast, agencies’ performance reviews are designed to examine 

measures that cut across programs and policy tools at a macro level. For 

example, reviews of agency priority goals typically examine how agencies 

are accomplishing broad mission goals that may be implemented by a 

wide range of regulations, programs, grants, or other tools. As an 

illustrative example, in DOT’s fiscal year 2014 performance plan, the 

agency organized the descriptions of its planned performance—including 

its agency priority goals—into broad themes under its strategic goals. As 

shown in figure 3, DOT identified the regulations and enabling legislation 

that contribute to its APG for aviation safety.

Opportunities Exist to 

Better Link Retrospective 

Analyses and Agency 

Priority Goals
Page 31 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

Figure 3: DOT Example of How Regulations Link to an Agency Performance Goal

Given the specific focus of retrospective regulatory analyses, several 

agency officials said the staff conducting the analyses often oversee 
Page 32 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

implementation of the regulation and are not involved in, or sometimes 

aware of, performance discussions that are held at higher levels of the 

agency. Similar to the earlier discussion about barriers, agency officials 

said it may sometimes be difficult to isolate the effect of the regulation 

versus other external factors contributing to the same outcome. Including 

consideration of APGs as another part of planning and reporting 

retrospective reviews could strengthen these linkages. Currently, the 

selection of regulations to review is generally driven by a bottom-up 

process, while performance reviews are driven by a top-down process. 

While both processes have a useful purpose and structure, retrospective 

reviews could help inform broader performance discussions if agencies 

were to better link (1) the selected regulations to review, (2) the timing of 

reviews, and (3) the information assessed. First, as previously noted, the 

selection of rules to review is typically tied to specific criteria. Including 

whether a regulation contributes to an APG expected to be reviewed by 

management as one of the criteria for prioritizing reviews could help 

retrospective analyses contribute useful information to the discussion of 

whether and how goals are being accomplished. Second, better 

alignment between the timing of when regulations are reviewed and when 

APGs related to those regulations are examined by agency leadership 

would help to ensure that evaluations are conducted when the information 

would be most useful. Third, examining regulations that collectively 

contribute to a specific APG could also improve the usefulness of 

retrospective reviews. As illustrated in figure 3, multiple DOT regulations 

contributed to the agency’s APG on aviation safety.

Greater attention to the cumulative effects of regulations would also help 

agencies to better address certain key analytical and management 

principles. First, this would be consistent with Executive Order 13610’s 

direction that agencies consider the cumulative effects of their 

regulations, among other priorities. In addition, as agencies implement 

their APGs under GPRAMA, they are required to identify and assess the 

various contributors to those goals, which can include multiple 

regulations. Information generated from retrospective analyses can serve 

as one source of valuable information about such cumulative effects. 

Finally, this would help agencies to meet the internal control standard for 

information and communications. Among other things, the standard states 

that program managers need operational data to determine whether the 

agency is meeting its strategic and annual performance goals for 
Page 33 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

accountability and for the effective and efficient use of resources.57

Cumulative analysis could include joint reviews with other agencies as 

appropriate. Four agencies we spoke with reported conducting joint 

reviews with other agencies. For example, HHS officials said the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, a division within HHS, co-regulates a 

shared list of select agents and toxins with the Animal Plant Health and 

Inspection Service (APHIS) within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

According to HHS, APHIS provides input during related retrospective 

reviews of these regulations. This type of joint review can provide more 

comprehensive and useful information about the collective impact of the 

rules on performance and on the regulated community.

To better position agencies to conduct future retrospective analyses that 

could contribute to performance reviews, it is important for agencies to 

have considered in advance how they will evaluate their regulations. In 

2007, we recommended that during the promulgation of certain new rules 

(such as significant rules) agencies consider whether and how they will 

measure the performance of the regulation, including how and when they 

will collect, analyze, and report the data needed to conduct a 

retrospective review. Consistent with that recommendation, OMB 

guidance on implementing retrospective analysis states that future 

regulations should be designed and written in ways that facilitate 

evaluation of their consequences and thus promote retrospective 

analyses. OMB asked agencies to identify in their retrospective review 

plans what metrics the agencies will use to evaluate regulations after they 

have been implemented. We asked OIRA the extent to which agencies 

are implementing that guidance. One OIRA official said his office has 

seen some evidence of agencies writing rules in ways that promote future 

retrospective analyses. He cited a December 2013 final rule by 

Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration regarding 

regulations to reduce the threat of ship collisions with North Atlantic right 

whales.58 The final rule removed an expiration date (or “sunset clause”) 

contained in the regulations but included provisions for the agency to 

review the costs and benefits of the rule on a periodic basis, as required 

by Executive Order 13563. The agency expects to conduct such a review 

no later than 5 years from the publication of the final rule. The rule also 

 57GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

5878 Fed. Reg. 73,726 (Dec. 9, 2013).
Page 34 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

discussed data and metrics the agency could use as measures of 

effectiveness. Ensuring that agencies build in such performance metrics 

and a timeline for evaluating regulations after implementation would not 

only help facilitate retrospective analyses, but also help to lay a 

foundation to more closely tie retrospective analyses to reviews of 

broader agency priority goals. Moreover, GPRAMA’s requirements for 

agencies to identify and assess how their various programs and activities, 

including regulations, contribute to agency performance goals and APGs 

further underscore the need for agencies to take such action.

We have long advocated the potential usefulness to Congress, agencies, 

and the public of conducting retrospective regulatory analyses while 

recognizing the potential difficulties of doing so. From January 2011 

through August 2013, executive agencies identified more than 650 

initiatives (planned retrospective regulatory analyses). Of these initiatives, 

246 resulted in agencies implementing some type of final action by 

August 31, 2013. The majority of the completed reviews have led to 

regulatory changes focused on outcomes such as reducing burden and 

improving the effectiveness of regulations. While OMB has provided a 

sample template for agencies to use for reporting on the progress and the 

results of retrospective analyses, it could do more to enhance the 

transparency and usefulness of the information provided to the public. 

Although agencies posted their retrospective review plans online, 

obtaining a comprehensive picture of agencies’ progress was difficult 

when results were spread across multiple plans. In addition, consistently 

providing links or citations to the supporting analyses and data, and 

including more detail on the methodologies and key assumptions used to 

estimate savings, would help Congress and the public to better 

understand the basis for projected results.

Given how important regulations are to the missions of regulatory 

agencies, the information generated from retrospective analyses can also 

be leveraged to inform APGs, which are a subset of agencies’ broader

performance goals. The broader perspective and focus of performance 

management and reviews may also enhance evaluation of the 

effectiveness of regulations beyond what is possible through retrospective 

analysis alone. This is especially true given the practical limits to the 

number of analyses that could be done compared to the large and 

growing inventory of regulations. We recognize that agencies conduct 

retrospective analyses for many reasons. However, contributing to 

evaluation of agency priority goals could also be among those reasons. 

Therefore, agencies should at least consider whether opportunities exist 

Conclusions
Page 35 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

to inform performance reviews when selecting which regulations to 

retrospectively review. Among the agencies that participated in our 

roundtable, few identified examples where their retrospective review 

analyses were linked to APGs. Steps that agencies can take to 

strengthen the linkages between retrospective reviews and performance 

reviews include identifying specific regulations that contribute to APGs 

and including whether a regulation contributes to a key performance goal 

expected to be reviewed by management as one of the criteria for 

prioritizing retrospective reviews. Doing so may also provide greater 

impetus for agencies to review the benefits and costs of existing 

regulations as part of their retrospective analyses. Many of the agencies 

we spoke with reported rarely doing so in the context of reviewing 

individual regulations, and some agencies saw little value to the 

investment. However, there would be more incentive to measure benefits 

and costs if retrospective analyses were viewed in the broader context of 

providing information on the actual, rather than projected, performance 

and results of regulatory programs and agencies. This would also 

reinforce existing guidance that agencies should identify how they will 

measure the performance of new significant regulations when originally 

published.

The executive branch has already incorporated many, but not all, of our 

prior relevant recommendations into current guidance. Some of the 

opportunities to improve reporting on outcomes of retrospective analyses 

and strengthen linkages between these analyses and APGs could be 

implemented through augmenting existing guidance. However, additional 

opportunities for improvement depend in part on efforts to ensure that 

agencies are consistently held accountable for implementing existing 

guidance.

To improve agencies’ retrospective regulatory review processes and 

reporting, and strengthen linkages between retrospective reviews and 

agency performance management, we recommend the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget direct the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs to take the following three actions:

1. Work with regulatory agencies to implement existing guidance, and 

update guidance where needed, to improve the reporting of outcomes 

in their retrospective regulatory review plans by taking actions such 

as:

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 36 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

• publishing a link to updated plans, which list recent results and 

anticipated outcomes, on the White House website;

• submitting evidence that agencies listed updates of their plans on 

their “Open Government” web pages;

• providing more comprehensive information on completed reviews 

in agencies’ most recent plans and progress reports by (1) 

ensuring the most recent published plan contains a complete 

accounting of all completed reviews rather than expecting readers 

to review multiple plans, and (2) including the supporting analysis 

and data for results by listing a link or citation to the related 

documentation.

2. Ensure that the contributions made by regulations toward the 

achievement of APGs are properly considered and improve how 

retrospective regulatory reviews can be used to help inform 

assessments of progress toward these APGs by directing in guidance 

that agencies take such actions as:

• identifying whether a regulation contributes to an APG expected to 

be reviewed by management as one of the criteria for prioritizing 

retrospective analyses and for the timing of these analyses; and

• once an agency prioritizes a retrospective analysis based, in part, 

on its support of an APG, improving the usefulness of that 

analysis by examining regulations that collectively contribute to 

the goal in the scope of the review as appropriate.

3. Ensure that OIRA, as part of its oversight role, monitor the extent to 

which agencies have implemented the guidance on retrospective 

regulatory review requirements outlined in the related executive 

orders and confirm that agencies have identified how they will assess 

the performance of regulations in the future.

We provided a draft of this report to the Director of the Office of

Management and Budget, the Secretaries of Commerce, Energy, Health 

and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, and Transportation, as 

well as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the 

Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission and Federal 

Trade Commission.

In oral comments received on April 3, 2014, staff from OMB’s Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) generally agreed with the 

recommendations in this report. In response to our first recommendation, 

OIRA staff generally agreed but said they were open to taking actions 

other than updating the White House website in light of a decision to 

discontinue posting agencies’ updates as individual agencies assume 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 37 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

primary responsibility for posting updates on their “Open Government” 

web pages. OIRA staff were supportive of identifying ways to improve 

agencies’ posting and reporting of retrospective analyses and progress 

updates. In response to our second recommendation, OIRA staff agreed 

and said the agency is currently working on strategies to help facilitate 

agencies’ ability to consider and improve how retrospective reviews can 

be used to help inform APGs, and otherwise be better integrated into 

agency strategic decision making. In response to our third 

recommendation, OIRA staff agreed, emphasizing that this remains a 

priority and therefore they would continue to monitor the extent to which 

agencies implement the guidance on retrospective regulatory review 

requirements. Further, OIRA staff said that as part of its review of 

agencies’ rules, unified agendas, and regulatory plans, OIRA will continue 

to encourage agencies to identify beforehand how they will evaluate the 

effectiveness of a regulation after it has been put in place. OIRA staff also 

provided technical comments and clarifications, which we incorporated as 

appropriate. 

The Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, Health and Human 

Services, and State, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 

Federal Trade Commission provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Director 

of the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretaries of Commerce, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, and 

Transportation, as well as the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency and the Commissioners of the Federal 

Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission. We are 

also sending copies of this report to relevant congressional committees. 

In addition, the report is available at no charge on GAO’s website at 

http://www.gao.gov.
Page 38 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-6806 or sagerm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who have made contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix II.

Michelle Sager

Director, Strategic Issues
Appendix I: Key Retrospective Analysis 

Requirements Listed in Executive Orders and 

Memorandums Issued Since January 2011

Page 39 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

Table 2 provides a summary of the various executive orders and related 

memorandums that were issued since January 2011 related to agencies’

retrospective regulatory review plans and analyses. For presentation 

purposes, we highlighted the elements of these directives that relate to 

(1) planning retrospective analyses, (2) implementing these plans and 

analyses, and (3) reporting the results of completed analyses.

Table 2: Executive Orders and Memorandums Issued Since January 2011 Related to Retrospective Regulatory Analysis

Planning Retrospective Regulatory Analyses

Develop retrospective review plans that 

describe progress, anticipated 

accomplishments, and proposed timelines 

for relevant regulatory reform actions.

Executive Orders

• Exec. Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”

• Exec. Order 13610, “Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens”

• Exec. Order 13579 (for independent agencies), “Regulation and Independent 

Regulatory Agencies”

Executive Memorandums

• M-11-10, Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,”

(Feb. 2, 2011)

• M-11-19, “Retrospective Analysis of Existing Significant Regulations,” (Apr. 25, 2011)

• M-11-25, “Final Plans for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules,” (June 14, 2011)

• “Implementation of Retrospective Review Plans,” (Oct. 26, 2011)

• M-11-28, Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory 

Agencies,” (July 22, 2011)

Seek the views of the public on 

retrospective review plans.

Executive Orders

• Exec. Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”

• Exec. Order 13610, “Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens”

• Exec. Order 13579 (for independent agencies), “Regulation and Independent 

Regulatory Agencies”

Executive Memorandums

• M-11-10, Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,”

(Feb. 2, 2011)

• M-11-25, “Final Plans for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules,” (June 14, 2011)

• “Implementation of Retrospective Review Plans,” (Oct. 26, 2011)

• M-11-28, Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory 

Agencies,” (July 22, 2011)

Submit updated retrospective review plans 

semiannually to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs and release them 

to the public.

Executive Order

• Exec. Order 13610, “Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens”

Executive Memorandums

• M-11-10, Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,”

(Feb. 2, 2011)

• M-11-19, “Retrospective Analysis of Existing Significant Regulations,” (Apr. 25, 2011)

• M-11-25, “Final Plans for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules,” (June 14, 2011)

• “Implementation of Retrospective Review Plans,” (Oct. 26, 2011)

Appendix I: Key Retrospective Analysis 

Requirements Listed in Executive Orders and 

Memorandums Issued Since January 2011
Appendix I: Key Retrospective Analysis 

Requirements Listed in Executive Orders and 

Memorandums Issued Since January 2011

Page 40 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

Conducting Retrospective Regulatory Analyses

Conduct a quantifiable assessment of the 

current costs and benefits of any 

proposed changes to existing regulations 

to the extent possible.

Executive Orders

• Exec. Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”

• Exec. Order 13610, “Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens” (give priority to 

reviews with quantifiable costs and benefits)

Executive Memorandums

• M-11-10, Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,”

(Feb. 2, 2011)

• M-11-25, “Final Plans for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules,” (June 14, 2011)

• “Implementation of Retrospective Review Plans,” (Oct. 26, 2011)

• M-11-28, Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory 

Agencies,” (July 22, 2011)

Give consideration to the cumulative 

effects of their own regulations, including 

cumulative burdens, and to the extent 

practicable and consistent with law give 

priority to reforms that would make 

significant progress in reducing those 

burdens while protecting public health, 

welfare, safety, and our environment.

Executive Orders

• Exec. Order 13610, “Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens”

• Exec. Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (indirectly 

related—consideration of cumulative effects of regulations when doing analysis in 

general)

Executive Memorandums

• M-11-10, Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,”

(Feb. 2, 2011)

• M-11-28, Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory 

Agencies,” (July 22, 2011)

Seek the views of the public on 

retrospective review analysis.

Executive Memorandums

• M-11-10, Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,”

(Feb. 2, 2011)

• M-11-28, Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory 

Agencies,” (July 22, 2011)

Vest responsibility for retrospective review 

with a high-level agency official who can 

secure cooperation across the agency.

Executive Memorandums

• M-11-10, Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,”

(Feb. 2, 2011)

• M-11-28, Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory 

Agencies,” (July 22, 2011)

Maintain sufficient independence from the 

offices responsible for writing and 

implementing regulations.

Executive Memorandums

• M-11-10, Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,”

(Feb. 2, 2011)

• M-11-28, Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory 

Agencies,” (July 22, 2011)

Coordinate the development of the new 

retrospective plans with other 

retrospective review requirements, such 

as the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 

§610.

Executive Memorandums

• M-11-10, Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,”

(Feb. 2, 2011)

• M-11-28, Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory 

Agencies,” (July 22, 2011)
Appendix I: Key Retrospective Analysis 

Requirements Listed in Executive Orders and 

Memorandums Issued Since January 2011

Page 41 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

Reporting Results of Retrospective Analyses

Provide specific timelines for 

implementation of reforms based on 

retrospective reviews, to the extent 

possible, particularly focusing on highpriority reforms that promise significant 

cost savings.

Executive Order

• Exec. Order 13610, “Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens”

Executive Memorandums

• M-11-10, Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,”

(Feb. 2, 2011)

• M-11-19, “Retrospective Analysis of Existing Significant Regulations,” (Apr. 25, 2011)

Release retrospective analyses and their 

supporting data to the public by posting 

them online whenever possible.

Executive Orders

• Exec. Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”

• Exec. Order 13610, “Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens”

• Exec. Order 13579 (for independent agencies), “Regulation and Independent 

Regulatory Agencies”

Executive Memorandums

• M-11-10, Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,”

(Feb. 2, 2011)

• M-11-19, “Retrospective Analysis of Existing Significant Regulations,” (Apr. 25, 2011)

• “Implementation of Retrospective Review Plans,” (Oct. 26, 2011)

• M-11-28, Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory 

Agencies,” (July 22, 2011)

Source: GAO analysis of executive orders and executive memorandums.
Appendix II: Staff Contact and 

Acknowledgments

Page 42 GAO-14-268 Reexamining Regulations

Michelle Sager, (202) 512-6806 or sagerm@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, Tim Bober, Assistant Director, 

Leah Q. Nash, Latesha Love, Lou V.B. Smith, and Wesley Sholtes made 

major contributions to this report. Tom Beall, Tim Guinane, Andrea 

Levine, Benjamin T. Licht, Donna Miller, Cindy Saunders, Stephanie 

Shipman, and Stewart Small also made key contributions to this report.

Appendix II: Staff Contact and 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(451035)
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.