1

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules 

May 18, 2011 

I. Executive Summary of Preliminary Plan and Compliance with Executive Order 13563

Executive Order 13563 (Executive Order) recognizes the importance of maintaining a 

consistent culture of retrospective review and analysis throughout the executive branch. 

Determining the costs and benefits of a regulation before it is implemented is a challenging task 

and it often cannot be accomplished with perfect precision. The U.S. Department of Education’s 

(ED) plan is designed to create a defined policy, method, and schedule for identifying certain 

significant rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome. 

The review processes described in this plan are intended to facilitate the identification of 

regulations that warrant repeal or modification, or the strengthening, complementing, or 

modernizing of regulations, where necessary or appropriate. 

II. Scope of Plan

a. Background: ED supports States, local communities, institutions of higher education, 

and others in improving education nationwide and in helping to ensure that all Americans receive 

a quality education. We provide leadership and financial assistance pertaining to education at all 

levels to a wide range of stakeholders and individuals, including State educational agencies, 

early childhood programs, elementary and secondary schools, institutions of higher education, 

career and technical schools, nonprofit organizations, members of the public, and many others. 

These efforts are helping to ensure that all students will be ready for college and careers, and that 

all K-12 students have an open path towards postsecondary education. We also vigorously 

monitor and enforce the implementation of Federal civil rights laws in education programs and 

activities that receive Federal financial assistance, and support innovation, research, evaluation, 

and dissemination of findings to improve the quality of education. Overall, the programs we 

administer affect nearly every American during his or her life. 

In developing and implementing regulations, guidance, technical assistance, and 

approaches to compliance related to our programs, we are guided by the following three 

principles. First, we are committed to working closely with affected persons and groups. 

Specifically, we work with a broad range of interested parties and the general public, including 

parents, students, and educators; State, local, and tribal governments; and neighborhood groups, 

schools, colleges, rehabilitation service providers, professional associations, advocacy 

organizations, businesses, and labor organizations. 

Secondly, we are committed to ensuring our regulations are concise and minimize burden 

to the greatest extent possible while still helping ensure the achievement of program outcomes. 

And finally, we continue to seek greater and more useful public participation in our rulemaking 

activities through the use of transparent and interactive rulemaking procedures and new 

technologies. If we determine that it is necessary to develop regulations, we seek public 

participation at all key stages in the rulemaking process. 
2

These three guiding principles will be incorporated fully into our retrospective analyses 

of ED regulations. 

b. List all subagencies within the Department that are included in this plan: 

The following offices within ED are included in this plan: 

Office of the Secretary 

Office of the Deputy Secretary 

Office of the Under Secretary 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

Office of the Chief Information Officer 

Office of Management 

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education 

Office of Postsecondary Education 

Office of Federal Student Aid 

Office of English Language Acquisition 

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, including the Office of 

Special Education Programs, the National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research, and the Rehabilitation Services Administration 

Office of Inspector General 

Office of Innovation and Improvement 

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 

Office of Vocational and Adult Education 

Office of the General Counsel 

Office for Civil Rights 

Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development 

c. The following types of documents are covered under this plan: 

• Existing regulations 

• Significant guidance documents (to the extent they are associated with 

existing regulations) 

• Existing information collections (to the extent they are associated with 

existing regulations) 

• Priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria governing 

discretionary grant programs that are established through rulemaking but are 

not codified in the Code of Federal Regulations1

III. Public Access and Participation

a. Did the agency publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public input on 

developing plans? If yes, please provide a link to the notice. 



1

 When referring to the review of regulations throughout this plan, that review includes review of significant 

guidance documents and information collections associated with the regulations under review. 
3

No. However, ED will soon be publishing a notice requesting public comment on our 

preliminary plan in the Federal Register and posting it on our Open Government website. 

Through these notices, and pursuant to the President’s Memorandum on Administrative 

Flexibility, Lower Costs, and Better Results for State, Local, and Tribal Governments, ED will 

solicit feedback (including, when applicable, from students, their parents, and consumer and 

taxpayer representatives) on possible administrative flexibilities that ED may be able to provide 

to State, local, and tribal governments; non-profit organizations; institutions of higher education; 

community-based organizations; and other entities that receive funds under our programs. ED 

believes it will receive more meaningful feedback from the public and stakeholders by providing 

a specific draft plan for retrospective review and by including in that notice questions on possible 

administrative flexibilities that may be accomplished through regulatory revisions as well as 

through other methods. ED also intends to solicit this feedback on an ongoing basis through 

meetings with stakeholders. 

b. Brief summary of public comments to notice seeking input: N/A. 

c. Did the agency reach out to the public in addition to the public notice? N/A. 

IV. Current Agency Efforts Already Underway Independent of E.O. 13563

a. Summary of pre-existing agency efforts (independent of E.O. 13563) to conduct 

retrospective analysis of existing rules: 

ED has long been committed to ensuring that its regulations are reviewed and updated as 

necessary and appropriate. As outlined each year in ED’s Regulatory Plan,2 and through 

consistent application of the key principles outlined below, we have eliminated unnecessary 

regulations and identified situations in which major programs could be implemented without 

regulations or with limited regulatory action. 

In deciding when to regulate, we consider: 

• Whether regulations are essential to promote quality and equality of opportunity in 

education; 

• Whether a demonstrated problem can be resolved without regulation; 

• Whether regulations are necessary in order to provide a legally binding interpretation that 

resolves ambiguity; 

• Whether entities or situations subject to regulation are so diverse that a uniform approach 

through regulation would do more harm than good; and 

• Whether regulations are needed to protect the Federal interest; that is, to ensure that 

Federal funds are used for their intended purpose and to eliminate fraud, waste, and 

abuse. 

In deciding how to regulate, we are mindful of the following principles: 



2 See U.S. Department of Education, Statement of Regulatory Priorities, 75 FR 79509 (Dec. 20, 2010). 
4

• Regulate no more than necessary; 

• Minimize burden to the extent possible, and promote multiple approaches to meeting 

statutory requirements when possible; 

• Encourage coordination of federally funded activities with State and local reform 

activities; 

• Ensure that the benefits justify the costs of regulating; 

• To the extent possible, establish performance objectives rather than specify compliance 

behavior; and 

• Encourage flexibility, to the extent possible, so institutional forces and incentives achieve 

desired results. 

Additionally, we routinely review the priorities and requirements governing our 

discretionary grant competitions following the completion of those competitions to determine 

whether changes should be made for future competitions. 

Over the past two years, and operating under these principles, we have engaged in 

retrospective review of several key regulations that required updating to reflect changes in the 

authorizing statute, Administration priorities, or ED policies. We also began the process of 

developing a broader plan for a retrospective review of our regulations. Some examples of those 

efforts are as follows: 

• ED recently reviewed and revised its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations to 

implement changes made to FOIA in recent years. These amended regulations also took 

into account public guidance regarding FOIA issued by the White House and the 

Department of Justice. The revised regulations articulate more clearly to the public how 

ED processes FOIA requests for publicly available records, thereby promoting equality of 

opportunity and decreasing ambiguity. 

• In 2009 and 2010, ED reviewed and subsequently modified, following notice and public 

comment, its Education Department Acquisition Regulations (EDAR) to bring those 

regulations into alignment with changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulations. These 

modifications will increase the efficiency with which ED manages contracts. 

• Upon reauthorization of the Federal TRIO discretionary grant programs in the Higher 

Education Opportunity Act of 2008, ED reviewed its existing TRIO regulations and 

conducted negotiated rulemaking in 2009 and 2010 to comprehensively update and 

amend the regulations governing these programs. These amended regulations will help 

ensure that Federal funds are used for their intended purpose and resolve ambiguity for 

potential applicants, thereby ensuring that all eligible applicants have an opportunity to 

participate in the program. 

• Over the past two years, ED reviewed and revised a number of program integrity 

regulatory provisions associated with the Federal student aid programs authorized under 

Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). ED conducted this 

review in recognition of the fact that the student financial aid programs have grown 

dramatically in recent years, placing significantly more taxpayer funding at risk. In 
5

response to this dramatic growth in aid, we tightened our regulatory requirements in some 

areas (e.g., misrepresentation, State authorization, credit hours, and incentive 

compensation) while relaxing them in others (e.g., verification). This balanced approach, 

combined with our work on the “gainful employment” issue, will allow for additional 

growth in the aid programs while ensuring that we have appropriate safeguards in place 

to protect taxpayer funds. 

• In January 2011, ED successfully completed its 2010 Burden Reduction Initiative to 

reduce Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) burden by at least five percent. 

In fact, ED decreased the FAFSA burden by 5,405,813 hours, or more than 14 percent. 

As part of accomplishing this impressive burden reduction, ED also realized the other 

goals included as part of the initiative: (a) Consolidation of the FAFSA and SAR into 

one ICR to better reflect that the two are part of one business process--applying for 

Federal student financial aid; and (b) Simplifying the application experience for student 

aid applicants by shortening completion times, primarily through the use of improved 

technology such as “skip and assumption logic.” 

• In preparation for conducting a retrospective review of ED’s regulations, we have 

reviewed plans and strategies used by other agencies, journal articles, and Administrative 

Conference of the United States (ACUS) Recommendation 95-3, “Review of Existing 

Agency Regulations.” We also began considering methods for determining which 

regulations should be reviewed, strategies for engaging senior leadership, and how best to 

allocate resources for such a review. 

b. What specific rules, if any, were already under consideration for retrospective 

analysis? 

Prior to issuance of the Executive Order, and in establishing ED’s regulatory priorities for 

2011, we identified several specific regulations for retrospective review and determined that, 

based on that review, further amendments to these regulations are necessary. These regulations 

are as follows: 

 

• The Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program regulations in 34 CFR part 682 and 

the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program regulations in 34 CFR 

part 685. In the SAFRA Act, Title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation 

Act of 2010, Congress ended the making of new loans in the FFEL program, effective 

July 1, 2010. As a result, the Direct Loan program has expanded to be the single source 

of new Federal student loans. ED is evaluating to what extent some of the FFEL program 

regulations are no longer needed and what changes are needed within the Direct Loan 

program regulations to improve efficiency and modernize the operations of that program. 

ED has begun the negotiated rulemaking process for these regulations. 

• Regulations in 34 CFR parts 607, 608, 609, 628, and 637, governing the institutional 

development programs authorized by Titles III and V of the HEA. These regulations 

govern existing discretionary grant programs for minority-serving institutions. The 

Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 and the SAFRA Act created several new 
6

programs for minority-serving institutions; these new programs, however, are not covered 

by the existing regulations. We need to review and amend the existing regulations in 

order to streamline them across the different programs, to the extent feasible, and to 

ensure that they cover the newly authorized programs. Through these amendments, we 

plan to simplify the application process, thereby reducing burden on potential applicants. 

• ED’s regulations governing its direct grant and State-administered grant programs in 34 

CFR parts 74 through 99, also known as the Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). Over the last several years, we have identified 

provisions within these regulations that are obsolete or that require updating to take into 

account developments in technology and streamlined application submission processes, 

thereby reducing burden on our applicants and grantees. Additionally, in implementing 

several new grant programs under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(ARRA), we have identified key provisions in EDGAR that require substantive changes 

to improve transparency and improve the efficiency of our grant-making functions. 

• Regulations in 34 CFR part 99 regarding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act 

(FERPA). On April 8, 2011, ED issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend these 

regulations. These proposed amendments are necessary to ensure that ED’s 

implementation of FERPA continues to protect the privacy of education records, as 

intended by Congress, while allowing for the effective use of data in statewide 

longitudinal data systems (SLDS) as envisioned in the America COMPETES Act and 

under the ARRA. Improved access to data contained within an SLDS will reduce burden 

on States and greatly facilitate States’ efforts to evaluate education programs, to build 

upon what works and discard what does not, to increase accountability and transparency, 

and to contribute to a culture of innovation and continuous improvement in education. 

V. Elements of Preliminary Plan/Compliance with E.O. 13563 

a. How does the agency plan to develop a strong, ongoing culture of retrospective 

analysis? 

This plan, once finalized, will establish ED’s policy for conducting thorough and 

meaningful retrospective reviews and analyses of our regulations on an ongoing basis. This plan 

will be disseminated to all offices within ED, and all offices will participate in implementing the 

plan. 

ED has established a retrospective review team that is responsible for developing this 

plan and for coordinating the retrospective reviews going forward. This team will regularly 

report its progress in implementing the plan and conducting the retrospective reviews to Deputy 

Secretary Miller and other senior officials. As indicated below, ED intends to conduct its 

retrospective reviews biennially. Thus, retrospective reviews will become standard operating 

procedure in the agency. 

b. Prioritization. What factors and processes will the agency use in setting priorities? 
7

The factors ED will use in setting priorities for the retrospective review of its regulations 

are: 

• Have regulated parties expressed confusion about the regulations or requested changes to 

the regulations? 

• Can the regulations be understood and implemented without extensive legal 

interpretation, non-regulatory guidance, or technical assistance? 

• Have regulated parties expressed concern about unwarranted regulatory burden? Do the 

regulations create an unnecessary administrative burden? 

• What is the estimated timeline for reviewing and possibly amending the regulations? For 

instance, will ED need to conduct negotiated rulemaking to amend the regulations, and 

does ED need amended regulations in place by a certain date? 

• Has Congress amended the authorizing statute such that prompt review of existing 

regulations is necessary? 

• Does ED anticipate reauthorization of the authorizing statute in the near term such that 

prompt review of existing regulations would likely be disrupted or not lead to regulatory 

revisions that could be implemented before reauthorization? 

• Are the regulations outmoded, unnecessary, or out of date? If so, are they impeding the 

proper administration of the relevant program? 

• Are the current regulations sufficient to administer the applicable programs? 

• Are the regulations necessary to conduct the grant program or can the program be 

implemented based entirely on the statutory provisions or through using appropriate 

provisions of EDGAR? 

• Have issues with the regulations been identified in audits (Office of Inspector General 

(OIG), Government Accountability Office (GAO), Single Audits)? Are there repeat audit 

findings or conflicting views on what the regulations mean? 

• Are the regulations essential for program effectiveness and financial integrity? For 

example, does ED or another oversight entity monitor compliance with the regulations? 

c. Initial list of candidate rules for review over the next two years: 

In addition to those regulations currently under review, we have preliminarily identified a 

number of other regulatory provisions that we believe warrant retrospective review. As indicated 

below, program offices will be asked to conduct a retrospective review of these and other 

regulatory provisions in the next several months. These are as follows: 
8

• Regulations in 34 CFR part 300 under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) and reporting requirements under Part B of IDEA. We have heard 

from a number of States about burden associated with some provisions of our current Part 

B, IDEA regulations and annual reporting requirements. We intend to conduct a 

thorough review of these regulations and requirements to assess their effectiveness and 

determine whether burden can be reduced, without diminishing the rights of students with 

disabilities. 

• Regulations in 34 CFR part 350 relating to programs administered by the National 

Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). In reviewing these 

regulations, ED seeks to identify regulatory changes that could improve the process for 

awarding grants and reduce the burden for eligible entities who apply for discretionary 

funds under the programs administered by NIDRR. 

• Regulations in 34 CFR 388.21 for the State Vocational Rehabilitation Unit In-Service 

Training Program. The Department is concerned that the current formula may lead to 

inequitable or inefficient distribution of funding among eligible entities and is interested 

in identifying changes that might increase the effectiveness of this program. 

• Regulations in 34 CFR parts 400 through 491 governing career and technical education 

programs. These regulations have not been updated since the most recent reauthorization 

in the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006. We 

will consider whether regulations are needed to improve the administration and 

effectiveness of the program. 

• Regulations in 34 CFR part 104 implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973. These regulations, which are designed to eliminate discrimination on the basis of 

handicap in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, have not been 

updated since 2000. We will consider whether changes are needed to improve the 

administration and implementation of the regulations. 

• Regulations in 34 CFR parts 655, 656, 657, 658, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, and 669 

governing the postsecondary international education programs. Following 

reauthorization of the HEA in 2008, ED made limited technical amendments to these 

regulations. However, a more comprehensive review of these regulations is necessary. 

Specifically, ED needs to review and amend these regulations to streamline them across 

the different programs to reduce burden on potential applicants, to the extent feasible, and 

to ensure that they provide the flexibility necessary to address emerging issues in 

international education. 

• Regulations in 34 CFR parts 673, 674, 675, and 676 governing the campus-based Federal 

Student Aid programs. ED has regulations governing these formula grant programs that 

require updating and streamlining. We will consider changes that are needed to improve 

the administration and efficiency of these programs, while reducing burden on regulated 

parties. 
9

• Regulations governing discretionary grant programs for which the authorization has been 

repealed or for which Congress has not provided funding in some time. These include 

regulations for The Endowment Challenge Grant program in 34 CFR part 628, the Urban 

Community Service Program in 34 CFR part 636, the Christa McAuliffe Fellowship 

Program in 34 CFR part 237, and in the Bilingual Education: Graduation Fellowship 

Program 34 CFR part 535. We will repeal the regulations for the programs that are no 

longer authorized and consider whether the regulations for authorized but no longer 

funded programs are still necessary. 

d. Structure and Staffing. High-level agency official responsible for retrospective 

review. 

Name/Position Title: Tony Miller, Deputy Secretary 

Email address: tony.miller@ed.gov 

e. How does the agency plan to ensure that the agency’s retrospective team and 

process maintain sufficient independence from the offices responsible for writing and 

implementing regulations? 

The retrospective review team will include representatives of the following offices: 

Office of the Deputy Secretary; Office of the Under Secretary; Office of Planning, Evaluation, 

and Policy Development; Budget Service; and the Office of the General Counsel. These offices 

do not have primary responsibility for drafting or implementing regulations. Additionally, the 

team will consult, as appropriate, with other offices that have agency-wide responsibilities, such 

as the Office of Inspector General. 

 f. Describe agency actions, if any, to strengthen internal review expertise. This could 

include training staff, regrouping staff, hiring new staff, or other methods. 

 The review team will be trained on the prioritization factors that ED has identified above 

and on our principles for regulating. The principles and the prioritization factors will be used as 

the key criteria in conducting the review. 

 g. How will the agency plan for retrospective analysis over the next two years, and 

beyond? 

ED will be publishing the preliminary plan for public comment and, following the receipt 

of public comment, will revise the plan accordingly. At the same time, the retrospective review 

team will be asking program offices, budget analysts, and program attorneys to complete a 

retrospective review survey that requests information on existing regulations (see response to 

question VI(c) below). The team will coordinate the retrospective reviews and provide periodic 

reports to Deputy Secretary Miller and other senior officials on the progress and results of those 

reviews. 
10

Once these reviews have been completed, the retrospective review team will analyze the 

results and develop recommendations to senior officials about which regulations should be 

amended (or what other actions other than regulation could be taken to reduce burden). Taking 

into account the prioritization factors listed above and agency resources, and working with senior 

officials, ED will develop a schedule for the amendment of those regulations identified for 

revision. 

While ED is conducting these reviews, it will analyze the public comments that it 

receives on the draft plan and incorporate any changes into the final plan. ED intends to conduct 

its retrospective reviews biennially. 

h. How will the agency decide what to do with the analysis? 

The retrospective review team will use the results of the analysis to develop 

recommendations for senior officials regarding whether regulations should be amended and 

whether alternatives to regulating, such as updating guidance or modifying reporting 

requirements, should instead be used to reduce burden, simplify program implementation, or 

improve understanding of the regulations. 

i. What are the agency’s plans for revising rules? How will agencies periodically 

revisit rules (e.g., though sunset provisions, during regular intervals)? 

ED will revise regulations based on the results of the retrospective reviews, the 

recommendations of the retrospective review team, and the decisions of senior officials. As 

indicated above, ED intends to conduct its retrospective reviews biennially. 

j. Describe how the agency will coordinate with other Federal agencies that have 

jurisdiction or similar interests: 

ED will work through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office 

of Management and Budget and with its existing contacts at other agencies as it is conducting its 

retrospective reviews and any subsequent amendments to our regulations. These agencies 

include the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, the Social Security Administration, and the U.S. Small Business 

Administration. With respect to our discretionary grant programs, we have consulted and will 

continue to consult with other Federal agencies engaged in similar activities to assess ways in 

which we can reduce overlap and redundancy and share best practices, including in such areas as 

pre-award risk assessments and audit reviews. 

k. Will the plan be peer reviewed? 

There has been a thorough internal review of the preliminary plan by all offices within 

ED and any revisions made as a result of the public comment we receive on the draft plan will 

undergo a similarly thorough review. 

If yes, please describe those plans: 
11

The preliminary plan has undergone several levels of Departmental review. We have 

actively engaged and sought input from ED’s senior leaders in developing the plan. The plan 

was presented to ED’s Policy Committee for input and recommendations by senior policy 

officials. Based on recommendations from the Policy Committee, changes were made to the 

plan, and further changes were made as a result of the review by a larger group of ED staff who 

are directly responsible for administering the programs that would be affected by any changes to 

the regulations. As necessary, meetings were held to answer questions and reconcile differences. 

ED will soon be publishing the preliminary plan for public comment and will seek 

informal feedback from stakeholders. Following receipt of public and stakeholder input, ED will 

consider further revisions to the plan. The final plan will undergo a similar internal review as the 

preliminary plan. 

VI. Components of Retrospective Cost-Benefit Analysis

a. What metrics will the agency use to evaluate regulations after they have been 

implemented? For example, will the agency use increases in net benefits, increases in cost 

effectiveness ratios, or something else? 

 ED will use several metrics to evaluate regulations after they have been implemented. 

These metrics are as follows: 

• Have there been numerous questions from stakeholders asking for further clarification of, 

or further amendment to, the regulations on points it would be feasible or desirable to 

address or clarify in the regulations? 

• What, if any, guidance has ED provided to clarify the regulations following issuance of 

the regulations and has the guidance provided the clarification needed? 

• What does information obtained from ED data collections, including data collected 

through evaluations, grantee performance reports, and other sources tell us about changes 

in net benefits, cost-effectiveness ratios, or other financial metrics? 

• With respect specifically to ED’s regulations implementing Parts B and C of IDEA, ED 

already publishes a quarterly list of correspondence that it sends in response to requests 

from stakeholders. This correspondence provides guidance and interpretations of the 

IDEA and its implementing regulations. We will continue to monitor the substance of 

this correspondence and the number of inquiries received to assess whether regulatory 

changes may be necessary. 

• Has implementation of the regulations led to unfair or unequal access to funding? 

b. What steps has the agency taken to ensure that it has the data available with which 

to conduct a robust retrospective analysis? 
12

The retrospective review team will develop a template for offices to use in collecting data 

on the metrics identified above. ED also is exploring using a customer survey on an ongoing 

basis to obtain feedback and data from the public on ED regulations. 

c. How, if at all, will the agency incorporate experimental designs into retrospective 

analyses? 

Although ED will not be incorporating experimental designs into its analyses, its 

retrospective analysis of a given set of regulations will begin with independent reviews from the 

following: (1) program staff who are responsible for overseeing the implementation of the 

regulations; (2) the program attorney who advises the program staff on the legal aspects of 

administering the program; and (3) budget staff who are knowledgeable about the allowable uses 

of program funds. Each individual will independently complete a review survey that requests 

information on at least the following questions (which correspond to the prioritization factors 

described above): 

• Have regulated parties identified a lack of clarity or need for changes in the regulations? 

If so, what regulatory provisions cause confusion or need change? 

• Can the regulations be understood and implemented without extensive legal 

interpretation, non-regulatory guidance, or technical assistance? 

• Have regulated parties expressed concern about unwarranted regulatory burden? Do the 

regulations create an unnecessary administrative burden? If so, what regulatory 

provisions might be unduly burdensome and why? 

• What is the estimated timeline for reviewing and possibly amending the regulations? For 

instance, will ED need to conduct negotiated rulemaking to amend the regulations and 

does ED need amended regulations in place by a certain date? 

• Has Congress amended the authorizing statute such that prompt review of existing 

regulations is necessary? 

• Does ED anticipate reauthorization of the authorizing statute in the near term? If yes, 

how will reauthorization affect existing regulations? 

• Are the regulations outmoded, unnecessary, or out of date? If so, are they impeding the 

proper administration of the relevant program? Please identify specific regulatory 

provisions that are obsolete or out of date and provide a brief explanation. 

 

• What does the evidence from program evaluations, including those that use experimental 

designs, reveal about the efficacy of the regulations and the need for changes? 

• Are the current regulations sufficient to administer the applicable programs? If not, what 

specific changes would you recommend to update the existing regulations? 
13

• Are regulations necessary to conduct the grant program or can the program be 

implemented based on the statutory provisions? If regulations are necessary, what 

specific areas need to be covered in the regulations? 

• Have issues with the regulations been identified in audits (OIG, GAO, Single Audits)? 

Are there repeat audit findings or conflicting views on what the regulations mean? 

• Are the regulations essential for program effectiveness and financial integrity? For 

example, does ED or any other oversight entity monitor compliance with the regulations? 

• What are the costs and benefits of removing a regulatory requirement, and what would be 

the effect on students and program accountability? 

VII. Publishing the Agency’s Plan Online

a. Will the agency publish its retrospective review plan and available data on its Open 

Government website (www.agency.gov/open). If yes, please provide the name of a technical 

staff person who will be charged with updating the plans online. 

ED will publish its plan on its Open Government website (www.ed.gov/open). As 

indicated above, ED intends to solicit public comment on its plan as well. The technical person 

who will be charged with updating the plan online is Kirk Winters, who can be reached at 

kirk.winters@ed.gov.