U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Trey Gowdy, Chairman

Shining Light on 

Regulatory Dark Matter

Majority Staff Report 

115th Congress

March 2018
Page 1 of 22

Executive Summary

The growth of the number and cost of federal regulations imposes an increasing 

economic and administrative burden on the American economy. The Code of Federal 

Regulations now contains more than one million “regulatory restrictions,” which are command 

terms such as shall and must.

1 Accounting for the exact cost of regulations is complicated— 

though estimates range from hundreds of billions of dollars to over two trillion dollars.2While 

the associated costs are inexact, it is clear the scope and effect of regulations on our economy is 

vast.

Meanwhile, the volume of regulatory guidance is even less clear.3 Regulatory guidance is 

an agency’s statement of policy or interpretation of a statute or regulation, and it comes in many 

forms—memoranda, bulletins, circulars, manuals, and a wide variety of other agency 

documents.4 Though regulatory guidance does not have the force and effect of law, these lesserknown government documents can have significant effects on the public and can alter the 

behavior of regulated parties. While the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has required 

agencies to maintain a public inventory of significant guidance for more than a decade, many 

agencies fail to keep a definitive list of significant guidance documents. In many cases, the 

agencies fail to even identify certain guidance documents as significant in the first place.5

The ubiquitous and nebulous character of agency guidance prompted the Committee to 

conduct oversight in an effort to expose this regulatory “dark matter.” On December 8, 2017, and 

January 11, 2018, the Committee requested information from 46 federal agencies on their use of 

guidance, including how many guidance documents were issued over the prior ten years. The 

Committee also requested data related to compliance with applicable requirements for each such 

document. Agency responses were illuminating. 

 

1 See Patrick McLaughlin, Regulatory Data on Trump’s First Year ̧ MERCATUS CENTER (Jan. 30, 2018),

https://www.mercatus.org/publications/regulatory-data-trump-first-year. 2

CLYDEW. CREWS, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE, INSTITUTE, TEN THOUSAND COMMANDMENTS 2 (2017),

https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Ten%20Thousand%20Commandments%202017.pdf; see also Dan Bosch & Dan 

Goldbeck, 2017: The Year in Regulation, AM. ACTION F. (Jan. 5, 2018), 

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/2017-year-regulation/ (showing regulatory costs imposed since 

2005).

3 CLYDEWAYNECREWS, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, MAPPINGWASHINGTON’S LAWLESSNESS: AN 

INVENTORY OF “REGULATORY DARK MATTER” 19 (March2017),

https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Wayne%20Crews%20- 

%20Mapping%20Washington%27s%20Lawlessness%202017.pdf [hereinafter Reg. Dark Matter]

4 See OFFICE OFMGMT. & BUDGET, EXEC. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OMB M-07-07, MEMORANDUM FOR THE 

HEADS OFEXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES (2007), available at:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2007/m07-07.pdf [hereinafter Good 

Guidance Bulletin].

5 Reg. Dark Matter, supra note 3.
Page 2 of 22

This report compiles information produced by agencies in response to the Committee’s 

request. The Committee compiled an initial inventory totaling more than 13,000 guidance 

documents, with substantially more documents available on agency websites or online databases. 

Many agencies were able to produce a complete inventory of guidance documents, including 

some agencies which identified thousands. Most responding agencies also indicated their 

respective regulatory reform task forces plan to evaluate guidance documents under the 

requirements of Executive Orders 13,771 and 13,777. 

However, many responses to the Committee’s inquiry show significant problems with 

regulatory guidance practices. As an initial matter, many agencies were simply unable to provide 

a complete response, including several major regulatory agencies like the Department of Interior 

(DOI or Interior). After three months, nearly half of all agencies surveyed were unable to provide 

a complete inventory of guidance documents. Several agencies were unable to produce 

information for even a single guidance document. 

The data provided show agencies fail to comply with the Congressional Review Act and 

applicable executive orders and directives, like Executive Order 12,866 and the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Good Guidance Bulletin. The data also show some agencies neither 

understand nor apply this definition of guidance, despite it being issued more than 10 years ago. 

Federal agencies, particularly those that embraced the Administration’s call for 

regulatory reform and retrospective review in Executive Orders 13,771 and 13,777, are moving 

in the correct direction, but more can be done. To create permanent reform, agencies should 

address the deficiencies highlighted in this report and develop a culture of transparency and 

accountability for all regulatory actions, regardless of whether statutorily required notice and 

comment procedures apply. For those agencies that have not yet done so, the establishment of 

effective information management, particularly inventorying agency guidance assets, should be 

the first step.
Page 3 of 22

Contents 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1

Findings.............................................................................................................................................. 4

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Use and Effect of Guidance ........................................................................................................... 6

A Hazy View of Executive Agency Guidance Practices ................................................................... 8

Congressional Review Act: A Second Look .................................................................................. 9

Compliance with Executive Order 12,866 and Other Executive Branch Policy ......................... 11

Agency Guidance Practices: The Bright Spots ............................................................................ 12

Agency Guidance Practices: In Need of Improvement ................................................................ 13

Agency Guidance Practices: More Work to be Done .................................................................. 15

Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 20

Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix A: Letter to Agencies................................................................................................... 22

Appendix B – QQ: Productions of the Agencies ......................................................................... 22
Page 4 of 22

Findings

1. The universe of guidance documents is vast and expanding. Agencies provided 

information on more than 13,000 guidance documents issued since 2008. This represents 

only a portion of the complete universe of guidance documents. 

2. The federal government does not maintain a complete inventory of guidance 

documents. The Committee found agencies generally do not maintain a complete inventory 

of guidance documents. The Committee requested “a list of all guidance documents issued by 

your agency since January 1, 2008,” to include the title and form of the guidance, date of 

issuance, the issuing office or component, and whether the guidance was submitted for 

review. Of the 46 agencies that received the Committee’s request, only a few were able to 

produce a comprehensive list of guidance documents within two weeks, which showed the 

vast majority of agencies do not keep a current database of guidance documents. Over the 

course of three months: 

 Twenty-seven agencies fully responded, including two agencies that did not issue any 

guidance documents during the period in question. 

 Eleven agencies partially responded, eight of which are continuing to produce 

material responsive to the request.

 Eight agencies did not produce any information about their guidance documents. 

3. Agencies are confused with respect to the definition of guidance. Some agencies are

unable to understand or effectively apply the OMB definition of guidance:

 The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) stated unless the Committee 

“placed meaningful limits on the definition,” HHS would “be unable to respond in [a] 

meaningful and productive way.” The Department stated the OMB definition was

“elusive” and “too broad to provide meaningful boundaries.” 

 The Department of Defense (DOD) reported issuing just five guidance documents 

since 2008. Many additional documents that meet OMB’s definition of guidance, 

however, are available on various DOD websites.

 The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reported issuing only 19 guidance 

documents since 2008. Many more are available on the Commission’s website.

4. Agencies are largely not compliant with the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Of the 

more than 13,000 guidance documents identified for the Committee, only 189 were 

submitted to Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in accordance with 

the CRA. Agencies may not be effectively identifying significant guidance documents or 

submitting all required guidance to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) 

for review. Agencies reported 536 significant guidance documents, but only 328 were 

reported to have been submitted to OIRA for review.
Page 5 of 22

Introduction

Clyde Wayne Crews, an expert in regulatory policy at the Competitive Enterprise 

Institute, coined the term “regulatory dark matter” to describe all the sub-regulatory activity in 

the federal regulatory state.6 The phrase, as he explains, is an allusion to the concept that what 

can be seen of the regulatory state is the equivalent to what can be seen in the universe. Planets 

and stars and other types of ordinary “visible matter” account for only about five percent of the 

matter in the universe. On the other hand, ninety-five percent of the universe is comprised of 

dark matter and dark energy, which are poorly understood and cannot be directly observed. 

Similarly, sub-regulatory activities—meaning policies and legal interpretations established 

outside of the rulemaking process—account for the vast majority of the regulatory state, but the 

nature and scope of those activities are unknown, as are the burdens on taxpayers and businesses. 

The line between regulations and guidance is hazy. Law provides little clarity, as the 

Administrative Procedure Act defines “rule” in such a way as to bring both within its bounds.7

Generally, however, when an agency intends to promulgate a policy that will have the force and 

effect of law, the agency issues a regulation through the notice and comment process.8

Regulations with the force and effect of law are often called “legislative rules.”9 Legislative rules 

differ from interpretive rules and agency statements of policy in that the latter two do not have 

the force and effect of law, and are therefore exempt from the notice and comment 

requirement.10

Guidance generally covers the latter two categories: statements of policy and 

interpretative rules.11 Statements of policy include agency statements issued to advise the public, 

prospectively, of how the agency plans to exercise its authority or to inform the public how it 

may comply with the law and applicable regulations.12 Interpretative rules are statements from an 

agency that are issued to advise the public of how the agency interprets the statutes it administers 

and the regulations it has promulgated.13

 

6 See Clyde Wayne Crews, Why Congress Must End Regulation by Guidance Document, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE 

INSTITUTE (Apr. 19, 2016), https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Wayne%20Crews%20- 

%20Why%20Congress%20Must%20End%20Regulation%20by%20Guidance%20Document.pdf; see also Hester 

Pierce, Regulating Through the Back Door at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 2 HARV. J.L. & PUB. 

POL’Y FEDERALIST EDITION 321, 385 (2014) (asserting that guidance is generally not procedurally rigorous, 

predictable, transparent, or deliberative).

7 See 5 U.S.C. § 551(4) (2016).

8 GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-15-368, REGULATORY GUIDANCE PROCESSES: SELECTED DEPARTMENTS 

COULD STRENGTHEN INTERNALCONTROL AND DISSEMINATION PRACTICES 14 (Apr. 2015),

https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669688.pdf [hereinafter GAO-15-368]

9 JARED P. COLE& TODD GARVEY, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., R44468, GENERAL POLICY STATEMENTS: LEGAL 

OVERVIEW 1 (2016). 10 See Id. 11 Id.; Jessica Mantel, Procedural Safeguards For Agency Guidance: A Source of Legitimacy For The Administrative 

State, 61 ADMIN. L. REV. 343, 350 (2009).

12 See COLE & GARVEY, Supra note 9; Robert A. Anthony, Interpretive Rules, Policy Statements, Guidances, 

Manuals, And The Like—Should Federal Agencies Use Them to Bind The Public, 41 DUKE L. J. 1311, 1325 (1992) 

(“A policy statement is an agency statement of substantive law or policy, of general or particular applicability and 

future effect, that was not issued legislatively and is not an interpretive rule.”) (internal citations omitted). 13 See COLE & GARVEY, Supra note 9; Anthony, supra note 12 (“An interpretive rule is an agency statement that was 

not issued legislatively and that interprets language of a statute (or of an existing legislative rule) that has some tangible 

meaning.”) (internal citations omitted).
Page 6 of 22

In 2007, the Office of Management and Budget established a government-wide policy for 

guidance documents in the “Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices” (Good 

Guidance Bulletin). The Good Guidance Bulletin defined guidance as a statement of general 

applicability and future effect that sets forth a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical issue 

or an interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue.14 The Good Guidance Bulletin also 

established requirements for agencies issuing significant guidance. A significant guidance 

document is one that may: (1) lead to an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; 

(2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory actions of another agency; 

(3) materially affect the budget; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues.15 Agency requirements 

for significant guidance documents include establishing a written approval process, maintaining 

an online list of such documents, and providing a public feedback mechanism.16

Use and Effect of Guidance

Agencies prefer guidance to legislative rules because they are more flexible, easier to 

promulgate, and can be written in plain language to be more accessible to the average person.17

A recent report by Professor Nicholas Parrillo published by the Administrative Conference of the 

United States (ACUS) stated agencies tend to prefer guidance because it is less time and resource 

intensive.18 However, the question of whether and how often to issue guidance versus a 

legislative rule is more complex than a simple determination of which is easier. Guidance can 

place a burden on regulated entities, and in some cases guidance can be more difficult to

understand than the underlying regulation it was intended to clarify, particularly for small entities 

who may lack the resources to hire compliance professionals.19

However, insufficient guidance can be problematic for industry as well.20 Regulated 

entities want to know how to comply with applicable laws and guidance documents help the 

regulated entities understand how the regulatory enforcement officials view the law.21 This 

combination of ease of use and necessity results in the proliferation of regulatory dark matter. 

According to the Parrillo report, “There is no comprehensive compilation of guidance, but 

everyone agrees its volume is oceanic.”22 Although, as Crews notes, “If thousands of regulations 

and directives were not a fact of life, there would exist less of a ‘need’ [for guidance].”23

 

14 Good Guidance Bulletin, supra note 4 at Sec. I(3). The Good Guidance Bulletin excludes “regulatory actions” as 

defined in Executive Order 12866, which is an action that promulgates or leads to the promulgation of a rule or 

regulation.

15 Good Guidance Bulletin, supra note 4 at Sec. I(4). 16 Good Guidance Bulletin, supra note 4 at Sec. II-III.

17 ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEDERAL AGENCY GUIDANCE: AN INSTITUTIONAL

PERSPECTIVE 30 (2017) [hereinafter Parrillo Report]. 18 Id. at 31.

19 See, e.g., NAT’L FED’N OF INDEP. BUS., THE FOURTH BRANCH & UNDERGROUND REGULATIONS 5 (2015)

https://www.nfib.com/pdfs/fourth-branch-underground-regulations-nfib.pdf. 20 Parrillo Report, supra note 17, at 28. 21Id. at 30. 22 Id. at 35. 23 Reg. Dark Matter, supra note 3.
Page 7 of 22

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals commented on the expansive use and 

unintended consequences of guidance documents in Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA. The 

court invalidated a guidance document because they found the document to have the 

force and effect of law. When contemplating the broader issue of agency guidance 

practices, the court said:

The phenomenon we see in this case is familiar. Congress 

passes a broadly worded statute. The agency follows with 

regulations containing broad language, open-ended phrases, 

ambiguous standards and the like. Then as the years pass, the 

agency issues circulars or guidance or memoranda, 

explaining, interpreting, defining and often expanding the 

commands in the regulations. One guidance document may 

yield another and then another and so on. Several words in a 

regulation may spawn hundreds of pages of text as the 

agency offers more and more detail regarding what its 

regulations demand of regulated entities. Law is made, 

without notice and comment, without public 

participation, and without publication in the Federal 

Register or the Code of Federal Regulations.

24

The court made this statement in 2000, though the use of regulatory guidance has continued 

relatively unabated—save for some regulatory reform efforts such as the 2007 Good Guidance 

Bulletin and other executive policies, like the Department of Justice’s decision to limit its 

reliance on guidance documents.25

 

24 Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015, 1020 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). 25 See Charlie Savage, Justice Dept. Revokes 25 Legal Guidance Documents Dating to 1975, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 21, 

2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/us/politics/justice-dept-guidance-documents.html.
Page 8 of 22

A Hazy View of Executive Agency Guidance Practices

To better understand the scope of agency guidance, the Committee asked 46 agencies for 

information about guidance documents issued over the last 10 years, including agencies tasked 

with enforcing laws concerning the environment, financial transactions, education, and public 

health.26 In addition to basic information about each guidance, the Committee also requested 

information to provide context around the role of guidance and the process for issuing guidance 

at each agency, such as:

▪ the form of guidance; 

▪ the issuing agency or office;

▪ an indication of whether the guidance was considered significant;

▪ an indication of whether the guidance was submitted to OIRA for review;

▪ an indication of whether the guidance was submitted to Congress and the GAO as 

required by the Congressional Review Act; and

▪ an indication of whether the guidance had been or would be reviewed by the agencies 

Regulatory Reform Task Force if the agency was covered under Executive Order 

13,771.27

 

26 The letter was initially sent to 40 agencies, including the Departments of: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, 

Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, 

Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. In addition to the: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Export-Import Bank, Federal Communications Commission, 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Federal Election Commission, Federal Labor 

Relations Authority, Federal Trade Commission, General Services Administration, Merit Systems Protection Board, 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, Nuclear Regulatory 

commission, Office of Personnel Management, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Postal Regulatory Commission, 

Railroad Retirement Board, Securities and Exchange Commission, Small Business Administration, Social Security 

Administration, and U.S. Agency for International Development. An additional six agencies were later added. The 

additional six agencies consisted of: Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Federal Maritime Commission, National Transportation Safety Board, Surface Transportation Board, and 

United States Postal Service. 27 Letter from Trey Gowdy, Blake Farenthold, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows & Gary Palmer, Chairman & 

Representatives, H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov’t reform, to 40 agency heads (Dec. 8, 2017) (on file with the 

Committee); See Appendix A for a copy of the letter.
Page 9 of 22

As of March 7, 2018, 25 agencies had provided a complete list of guidance documents 

and the other information requested.28 Eight agencies are in the process of producing 

information responsive to the Committee’s request.29 In total, these agencies have produced 

information about more than 13,000 guidance documents. 

However, over the course of three months, some agencies were not able to produce 

information to the Committee. Eight agencies responded with a commitment to produce 

information, but did not.30 Two agencies had no guidance to report.31 Three other agencies 

produced information so substantially incomplete as to raise questions about the adequacy of 

those agencies’ information management practices.32

To date—with nearly half of the agencies either having not produced information or 

having produced information on only a portion of their guidance documents issued over the 

previous decade—the Committee obtained information for more than 13,000 guidance 

documents. This total does not account for guidance documents available online on agency 

websites in database form when a list was not provided to the Committee. 

Congressional Review Act: A Second Look 

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) is an important tool of Congressional oversight, 

allowing the legislative branch to review and overturn the regulatory actions of federal 

agencies.33 Agencies are required to report every rule to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) before the rule can take effect.34 Upon receipt, Congress may 

invalidate a rule by passing a resolution of disapproval, through an expedited process.35 For the 

purposes of the CRA, “rule” is an expansive term.36 According to GAO, guidance documents are 

 

28 These agencies are the: Securities and Exchange Commission, National Transportation Safety Board, Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Merit Systems Protection Board, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, Federal 

Maritime Commission, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Federal Housing Finance Agency, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Federal Election Commission, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Commodities Futures 

Trading Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Surface Transportation Board, Social Security 

Administration, Railroad Retirement Board, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, General Services Administration, Export-Important Bank of the United States, Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, Department of Education, Department of Labor, Department of Defense, and Department of 

Veterans Affairs. The responses of all agencies are appended to this report. See Appendices B-QQ.

29 These agencies are the: Department of Justice, Department of Housing and Urban Development, National Archives 

and Records Administration, Small Business Administration, Department of the Treasury, Department of Agriculture, 

Federal Depository Insurance Corporation, and Environmental Protection Agency. 30 These agencies are the: Department of Commerce, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade 

Commission, Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Department of State, Department of Transportation, 

and United States Agency for International Development.

31 These agencies are the Postal Regulatory Commission and the United States Postal Service. 32 These agencies are the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, and the Office 

of Personnel Management.

33 Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 34 5 U.S.C. § 801 (a)(1)(A) (2016). 35 See 5 U.S.C. § 802.

36 See MAEVE P. CAREY& CHRISTOPHER M. DAVIS, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., R43992, THECONGRESSIONAL

REVIEW ACT (CRA): FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 6 (2016) (noting that the CRA uses the broadest definition of rule 

available in the APA).
Page 10 of 22

CRA-eligible rules so long as they constitute: “(1) an agency statement, (2) of future effect, and

(3) designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy.”37

Since the CRA’s enactment, Congress has relied upon its expedited processes to 

invalidate 16 rules.38 The CRA requires each agency that promulgates a rule to submit to each 

house of Congress a report containing a copy of the rule, a concise statement describing the rule, 

and the proposed effective date of the rule.39A rule which must be submitted in this manner 

cannot take effect if it has not been submitted.40 Congress then has a prescribed period of time 

during which it may pass a joint resolution disapproving of the rule.41 If such a joint resolution is 

passed and signed by the President, the rule is invalidated and treated as if it had never been 

issued.42 A rule that is disallowed may not be reissued in substantially the same form and a new 

rule that is substantially the same cannot be issued unless specifically authorized by a new act of 

Congress.43

The information obtained by the Committee shows, of the more than 13,000 guidance 

documents identified, agencies sent only 189 to Congress and GAO in accordance with the CRA. 

To be sure, not all of the more than 13,000 guidance documents disclosed to the Committee 

necessarily qualify as a rule under the CRA.44 However, many of these guidance documents 

would likely qualify as rules under CRA’s capacious definition. 

 

37 U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, B-329272, OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, BOARD OF 

GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERALRESERVE SYSTEM, FEDERALDEPOSITINSURANCECORPORATION—APPLICABILITY OF 

THE CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT TO INTERAGENCY GUIDANCE ON LEVERAGED LENDING 5 (2017) [hereinafter 

GAO B-329272) 38 See Congressional Review Act FAQS, GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, https://www.gao.gov/legal/congressionalreview-act/faq (last visited Mar. 7, 2018).

39 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). 40 Id. 41 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(3)-(5). However, these rules that do take effect may still be voided within the prescribed timeframe 

and will be treated as though they never took effect.

42 5 U.S.C. § 801(f). 43 5 U.S.C. § 801(b)(2). 44 While expansive, the definition of a rule under CRA is not all-encompassing. Only agency statements of general 

applicability that prospectively implement law or policy, or prescribe or interpret law or policy are covered. See GAO 

B-329272, supra note 37, at 5. Agencies may make statements that are guidance but would not be considered a rule 

under the CRA, such as guidance of particular applicability, and are therefore exempt from the submission requirement. 

See 5 U.S.C. § 804(3).
Page 11 of 22

Compliance with Executive Order 12,866 and Other Executive Branch Policy 

OMB relies on the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to be the 

principal entity responsible for regulatory review. Under Executive Order 12,866, OIRA serves 

as the President’s regulatory traffic cop, reviewing proposed regulatory actions to ensure 

agencies are complying with applicable law and policies.45 The review process typically 

manifests as a back and forth between the agency and OIRA, and may begin prior to the formal 

submission of the rule.46At the conclusion of the process, OIRA may sign off on the rule or 

return it to the agency for further consideration.47 The OIRA review process has been shown to 

improve regulatory analysis.48

The mandate contained in Executive Order 12,866 also means OIRA has the authority to 

review significant guidance documents, which are considered significant regulatory actions 

under the order.49A significant guidance document is one likely to have an annual impact on the 

economy of $100 million or more, interfere with the activities or regulations of another agency, 

materially alter the budget impact of certain programs, or raise novel legal or policy issues.50

 

45 Exec. Order No. 12,866, 58 Fed. Reg. 51738 (Oct. 4, 1993) [hereinafter EO 12866]

46 See GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-03-929, RULEMAKING: OMB’S ROLE IN REVIEWS OF AGENCIES’ 

DRAFT RULES AND THE TRANSPARENCY OF THOSE REVIEWS 7-8 (Sept. 2003),

https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03929.pdf. 47 EO 12866, supra note 45. 48 See Patrick McLaughlin & Jerry Ellig, Does OIRA Review Improve the Quality of Regulatory Impact Analysis? 

Evidence from the Final Year of the Bush II Administration, 63 ADMIN. L. REV. 179 (2011).

49 See EO 12866 supra note 45; see also OFFICE OF MGMT. & BUDGET, EXEC. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, M-09-13, 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS AND ACTING HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES (Mar. 4, 2009). 50 Good Guidance Bulletin, supra note 4, at Sec. I(4).
Page 12 of 22

Independent regulatory agencies are exempt from submitting rules and guidance to OIRA 

under EO 12,866.51 The exemption does not prevent OIRA from reviewing material developed 

by independent regulatory agencies; for example, OIRA reviews Unified Agenda submissions 

and Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requests from independent regulatory 

agencies.52 While the President has the authority to expand OIRA’s review to independent 

regulatory agencies, the President has not done so and the Committee’s review of compliance 

with EO 12,866 is limited to guidance from non-independent regulatory agencies.

The information obtained by the Committee shows the agencies identified 536 significant 

guidance documents out of more than 13,000 guidance documents issued by non-independent 

agencies reviewed by the Committee. Agencies submitted only 328 guidance documents to 

OIRA for review—not all 536 significant guidance documents were submitted to OIRA. This 

discrepancy suggests either some confusion about what constitutes a significant guidance 

document, or weaknesses in the process, or unclear expectations about the submission of 

guidance.

Agency Guidance Practices: The Bright Spots 

The information obtained by the Committee also showed positive developments in 

agency guidance practices. Some agencies were able to produce information for significant 

numbers of guidance documents. Other agencies disseminate their guidance on their websites 

and maintain repositories of guidance documents, in some cases going beyond the Good 

Guidance Bulletin’s requirement that significant guidance documents be posted in this manner.53

 

51 See EO 12866 supra note 45 at Sec. 3(b). 52 See 42 U.S.C. § 3502(1) (2016). 53 See Good Guidance Bulletin, supra note 4, at Sec. III(1).
Page 13 of 22

Internal Tracking 

In response to the Committee’s request, two agencies, the Department of Education and 

the Department of Labor, provided information on more than 6,000 guidance documents—nearly 

half of the guidance documents listed in response to the entirety of the Committee’s request to 46 

federal agencies.54 Despite this sizeable amount of information, these two agencies were able to 

fully respond to the Committee’s request. Education and Labor’s ability to respond completely 

and promptly indicates the use of effective information management policies and adherence to 

those policies, allowing the agencies to effectively track and inventory policies and legal 

interpretations in use at the agencies. The recent regulatory reform Executive Orders may also be 

a contributing factor, as they require agencies to identify guidance documents that may be 

appropriate for rescission or repeal, which of course first requires the agency to inventory such 

guidance documents.55

Dissemination of Guidance 

In response to the Committee’s request, most agencies provided individual hyperlinks to 

webpages where the guidance documents can be found online. Some agencies maintain easily 

identifiable and navigable online repositories for their guidance documents on their websites— 

including some that place all guidance documents in their online repositories instead of only 

significant guidance documents, as is required by the Good Guidance Bulletin.56

Agency Guidance Practices: In Need of Improvement

The information obtained by the Committee also showed some areas where there is a 

clear need for government-wide improvement, like CRA compliance, but certain agencies 

demonstrated more serious deficiencies in their understanding of the limited requirements of 

guidance procedures. Specifically, certain agency responses indicated a systemic confusion or 

lack of familiarity with the underlying concept of guidance. The Committee’s request letter 

explained the wide variance of practices among agencies, but provided a citation to the OMB 

Good Guidance Bulletin for purposes of establishing a consistent and long-used definition. 

However, agencies still struggled with the response. 

Responses from the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC) suffered similar defects. DOD and SEC reported issuing five and nineteen 

guidance documents respectively over the last ten years.57

 

54 For the productions of these agencies, see infra Appendix I and Appendix J. 55 See, e.g., Exec. Order 13,771, 82 Fed. Reg. 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017); Exec. Order 13,777, 82 Fed. Reg. 12285 (Feb.

24, 2017).

56 See, e.g., Compliance and Guidance, CONSUMER FIN. PROT. BUREAU, https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policycompliance/guidance/ (last visited Mar. 2, 2018); Sub-agencies and offices at the Department of Labor list policy and 

guidance documents on their respective websites. See, e.g, Compliance Assistance, MINE SAFETY & HEALTH ADMIN., 

https://www.msha.gov/compliance-enforcement/compliance-assistance#policy (last visited Mar. 2, 2018).

57 See Letter from John H. Gibson II, Chief Management Officer, Dep’t of Def., to Trey Gowdy, Chairman, H. 

Comm. on Oversight & Gov’t Reform (Dec. 20, 2017) (on file with the Committee); See Letter from Bryan Wood, 

Director, Securities and Exchange Comm’n. Off. of Legis. & Intergovernmental Affairs, to Trey Gowdy, Mark

Meadows, Jim Jordan, Gary J. Palmer, & Blake Farenthold, Chairman and Representatives, H. Comm. on Oversight 

& Gov’t Reform (undated) (on file with the Committee).
Page 14 of 22

DOD oversees a procurement program which in recent years has exceeded $115 billion 

annually,58 and an overall departmental budget which has in recent years exceeded $595 billion 

annually.59 DOD utilizes several hundred thousand individual buildings; more than 5,000 

locations, sites, or bases; and over 30 million acres of land.60 The Department spends more 

money and employs more people on an annual basis than Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil, General 

Motors, and Ford.61 Understanding the enormous economic and employment footprint of the 

Department, Committee staff questioned DOD’s assertion the Department only issued five 

guidance documents in the past ten years. 

After consulting with contracting experts and conducting a web search, Committee staff 

found numerous additional documents online, issued by DOD and appearing to qualify as 

guidance, most of which are available on the Department’s websites. Some examples include:

▪ A manual for interacting with the Defense Contract Audit Agency and information

directed as small businesses, available at

http://www.dcaa.mil/Home/AuditProcessOverview.62

▪ A set of frequently asked questions directed at contractors, available at

http://www.dcaa.mil/Content/Documents/FAQs_Contractor.pdf.63

Similarly, SEC oversees the issuance of securities and the American stock and option 

markets.64 The period for which the Committee requested data covered one of the largest 

financial crises in history.65 A cursory search by Committee staff turned up well in excess of 19 

guidance documents and interpretations on SEC’s website. Some examples include: 

▪ A database of Staff Accounting Bulletins, eight of which were issued within the

timeframe identified by the Committee, available at

https://www.sec.gov/interps/account.shtml.66 

58 Budget outlays for DOD procurement totaled $118.89 billion in FY 2016, $119.72 billion in FY 2017, and is

projected to be $125.41 billion in FY 2018. See DEP’T OF DEF., NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET ESTIMATES FOR FY

2018 (Aug. 2017), http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2018/FY18_Green_Book.pdf

[hereinafter DOD FY2018].

59 Budget outlays for DOD totaled $595.72 billion in FY 2016, $594.13 billion in FY 2017, and is projected to be

$646.82 billion in FY 2018. See DOD FY2018, supra note 58. 60 See DOD 101: Overview of the Department of Defense, DEP’T OF DEF., https://www.defense.gov/About/DoD- 101/ 

(last visited Mar. 2, 2018).

61 Id. 62 Audit Process Overview, DEF. CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY, http://www.dcaa.mil/Home/AuditProcessOverview (last 

visited Mar. 2, 2018).

63 Frequently Asked Questions: Contractor, DEF. CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY, 

http://www.dcaa.mil/Content/Documents/FAQs_Contractor.pdf (last visited Mar. 2, 2018). 64 About the SEC, SEC. & EXCH. COMM’N, https://www.sec.gov/about.shtml (last visited Mar. 2, 2018). 65 See, e.g., Kathryn Hopkins, Financial Crisis ‘Most Severe in Living Memory,’ Bank of England Warns, THE 

GUARDIAN (Oct. 28, 2008), https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/oct/28/financial-crisis-severe. 66 Selected Staff Accounting Bulletins, SEC. & EXCH. COMM’N, https://www.sec.gov/interps/account.shtml (last visited 

Mar. 2, 2018).
Page 15 of 22

▪ A collection of compliance and disclosure interpretations, with more than thirty 

issued within the timeframe identified by the Committee, available at 

https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cfguidance.shtml#sas.67

The failures of these agencies to identify guidance readily available on their agency 

websites, suggests they may be unclear on what constitutes guidance under OMB’s definition. 

The OMB Bulletin does not require independent agencies to comply, so it is plausible that SEC 

may be unfamiliar. On the other hand, DOD has had more than ten years to seek clarification if 

the Department lacked certainty about the definition. However, the concerns about DOD and 

SEC pale in comparison to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Agency Guidance Practices: More Work to be Done 

The Department of Health and Human Services accounts for nearly a quarter of federal 

outlays and administers more grant dollars than all other federal agencies combined.68 In the past 

three fiscal years, budgetary outlays for HHS have accounted for more than $1.1 trillion on an 

annual basis.69 Federal outlays during this period totaled $3.85 trillion in FY 2016, $3.98 trillion 

in FY 2017, and an estimated $4.17 trillion in FY 2018.70

Despite the significant federal resources devoted to the Department, HHS has a history of 

struggling with basic requirements in the Good Guidance Bulletin. In 2015, GAO issued a report 

on guidance practices focused on four agencies, one of which was HHS.71 GAO reported HHS

(1) had no written guidance procedures; (2) did not provide easy online access to significant 

guidance on a departmental website; (3) did not provide an opportunity for public feedback on 

guidance documents; and (4) was unable to determine the number of significant guidance 

documents issued by HHS.72

 

67 Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations, SEC. & EXCH. COMM’N, 

https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cfguidance.shtml#crowd (last visited Mar. 2, 2018). 68 Budgetary outlays for the Department of Health and Human Services and accounted for more than $1.1 trillion on an 

annual basis for the past three fiscal years. See HHS FY 2018 Budget in Brief, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES (May 23, 2017), https://www.hhs.gov/about/budget/fy2017/budget-in-brief/index.html [hereinafter HHS 

FY18]. Total federal outlays during this period totaled $3.85 trillion in FY2016, $3.98 trillion in FY2017, and an 

estimated $4.17 trillion in FY2018. See Historical Tables, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/hist-fy2019.pdf (last visited Feb. 15, 2018). 69 See HHS FY18, supra note 58. 70 See Historical Tables, supra note 68. 71 GAO-15-368 supra note 8. 72 Id.at 44-45.
Page 16 of 22

On December 22, 2017, HHS responded to the Committee’s request. The response 

described the Regulatory Reform Task Force, information previously provided to the Committee 

in testimony during a November 2017 joint subcommittee hearing.73 The response further 

identified three Department websites that contain guidance documents: one at HHS.gov, one at 

FDA.gov, and one at CMS.gov.74 Information about those websites follows, from most useful to 

least.

Figure 1: December 22, 2017 HHS Response75

 

73 Regulatory Reform Task Forces Check-In: Part II Before the Subcomm. on Healthcare, Benefits, and Administrative 

Rules and the Subcomm. on Intergovernmental Affairs of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform (2017) 

(statement of Charles Keckler, Associate Deputy Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services), 

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Keckler_Testimony_IGA-HCBAR-Reg.-Task- Forces-II.pdf. 74 Letter from Barbara Pisaro Clark, Acting Asst. Sec. Dept. Health & Human Serv., to Trey Gowdy, Chairman, H. 

Comm. on Oversight & Gov’t Reform (Dec. 22, 2017) (on file with the Committee) [hereinafter Clark Letter]. 75 Id.
Page 17 of 22

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm 

The FDA is required by law to 

maintain a publicly available comprehensive 

list of guidance.76 FDA is also required to 

establish written procedures for developing 

guidance, provide an opportunity for public 

comment for certain guidances, and maintain 

an appeals process for guidance.77 According 

to GAO, the Good Guidance Bulletin was 

informed by FDA’s guidance practices.78

The link HHS provided in December 

to FDA’s guidance repository was, by far, the 

most responsive part of the Department’s 

answer to the Committee. FDA’s website 

includes a searchable database of more than 

two thousand final guidance documents, with 

links to each document. The Department, 

however, did not provide any indication of 

which guidance documents were significant, 

whether any were submitted to OIRA for 

review, whether any were submitted to GAO 

and Congress in compliance with CRA, or 

whether the Regulatory Reform Task Force 

has reviewed or has plans to review any of

the documents. Figure 2: FDA Website79

 

76 21 U.S.C. § 371(h)(3) (2016). 77 21 U.S.C. § 371(h). 78 GAO-15-368, supra note 8, at 4.

79 Search for FDA Guidance Documents, FOOD AND DRUG ADMIN.,

https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm (last visited Mar. 6, 2018).
Page 18 of 22

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 

https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Regulations-and-Guidance.html

The Centers for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services (CMS) website was 

confusing, to say the least. The webpage 

was titled “Regulations & Guidance” and 

seemed to provide links to material that 

could possibly be relevant. However, under 

the heading “Guidance” at the top of the 

page, CMS provides a list of links which 

include: (1) Advisory Committees, (2) CMS 

Records Schedule, (3) CMS Small Business 

Administration Ombudsman, (4) CMS 

Small Entity Compliance Guides, (5) 

Executive Order Guidance, (6) Manuals, (7) 

Privacy Act System of Records, (8) Privacy 

Office, (9) Transmittals, and (10) Rulings. 

The “Advisory Committees” link 

directs to a page about advisory 

committees,80 the “Privacy Office” link 

directs to a page about the privacy office,81

and the “CMS Small Business 

Administration Ombudsman” link directs to 

the Ombudsman’s webpage.82 None of those 

appear to provide any information other than 

general information about their intended

subjects, and no guidance documents. Figure 4: CMS Website83

The “Executive Order Guidance” link directs to the CMS webpage that provides 

information about the since-rescinded Executive Order 13,422, which established some guidance 

requirements for agencies under the Bush Administration.84

 

80 Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, 

https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/index.html (last visited Mar. 5, 2018). 81 Privacy Office, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Dataand-Systems/Computer-Data-and-Systems/Privacy/Privacy_Office.html (last visited Mar. 5, 2018). 82 CMS Small Business Administration Ombudsman, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, 

https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/CMSSmallBusAdminOmbuds/index.html (last visited Mar. 

5, 2018).

83 Executive Order Guidance, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, https://www.cms.gov/Regulations- andGuidance/Guidance/EOG/index.html (last visited Mar. 5, 2018).

84 Executive Order Guidance, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, https://www.cms.gov/Regulations- andGuidance/Guidance/EOG/index.html (last visited Mar. 5, 2018).
Page 19 of 22

CMS last modified that page on October 24, 2016, which is well over five years after the 

Bush-era EO was rescinded.85 This site, however, provides at least some information about 

guidance documents. According to the webpage, “At present, there are approximately 37,000 

documents on the CMS website and many, perhaps most of these, include guidance.”86

The webpage also offers the public an opportunity to submit comments, directing readers 

to “click on the FAQs link located under Tools at the bottom of the page and then click on the 

Submit Request link at the top of the page to submit your comment.” However, 

there is no “Tools” at the bottom of the page. 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

https://www.hhs.gov/regulations

In its response to the Committee, the 

Department stated, “The Department’s regulatory 

web portal provides information and guidance on a 

number of Department policies.”87 The third and 

final link HHS provided, however, does not appear 

to have any connection to guidance documents. In 

fact, the webpage does not contain the word 

“guidance.”88

Requests for Additional Information from HHS 

In light of the Department’s outsized portion 

of the federal budget and the serious deficiencies 

with respect to the Department’s response, 

Committee staff requested additional information, 

which was met with resistance. During the course of 

the Committee’s engagement with the Department, 

it became clear the Department suffered from the 

lack of any internal tracking mechanism for existing 

guidance documents or any central planning process 

for the development and promulgation of guidance 

documents.89 Figure 5: HHS Website90

 

85 Exec. Order No. 13,497, 74 Fed. Reg. 6113 (Jan. 2009). 86 Executive Order Guidance, supra note 82. 87 Clark Letter, supra note 72 (emphasis added). 88 Laws & Regulations, DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., https://www.hhs.gov/regulations (last visited Mar. 6 

2018).

89 See Email from Dir. for Oversight & Investigations, Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., to majority staff, H. Comm. on 

Oversight & Gov’t Reform (Feb. 22, 2018 6:08 p.m.) (on file with the Committee) (explaining there is no internal 

document and the production of responsive documents could exceed 100,000 pages).

90 Laws & Regulations, DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., https://www.hhs.gov/regulations (last visited Mar. 6 

2018).
Page 20 of 22

On February 15, 2018 Assistant Secretary for Legislation Matthew Bassett informed the 

Committee: “Inasmuch as most HHS guidance documents that are labeled as such are available 

on-line, HHS replied on December 22” and “there is no universally accepted definition of 

‘guidance document.’”91 The letter also stated the Good Guidance Bulletin’s definition of 

guidance “was too broad to provide meaningful boundaries to an otherwise elusive term” and 

without any “meaningful limits on the definition of ‘guidance document,’ [HHS] will be unable 

to respond in a meaningful and productive way.”92

Signs of Progress at HHS 

Shortly after the February 15 letter from HHS Assistant Secretary for Legislation 

Matthew Bassett, HHS provided a response to a question from Rep. Mark Meadows during a 

November 14, 2017, subcommittee hearing.93 At the hearing, Rep. Meadows asked each of the 

three witnesses for information about the catalogue of guidance material at each agency. Unable 

to provide even a general estimate of the universe of guidance documents at HHS, the 

Department’s Associate Deputy Secretary agreed to provide a “plan of action on how [HHS is] 

going to address that request” within 14 days.94

On February 26, 2018, more than three months after the hearing, HHS provided a 14-day 

“Action Plan for Guidance Document Survey,” detailing a two to three month process of 

identifying and compiling guidance at HHS.95 In assembling the list, HHS “will be tracking any 

guidance documents that match the GGP Bulletin (§I(3)) definition of ‘guidance document.’”96

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Committee found some agencies are largely in compliance with applicable law and 

statutes regarding the issuance of guidance, while other agencies have considerable deficiencies 

and shortcomings in their guidance processes, indicated by the disparity between the reported 

number of significant guidance documents and the reported number of guidance documents 

submitted to OIRA for review. The rate at which agencies did not submit their guidance 

documents to Congress and GAO, as is often required by the CRA, also suggests agencies are 

unaware of certain statutory mandates. Those agencies which have not produced a response to 

the Committee simply may not know what guidance they have issued and whether it was issued 

in accordance with applicable law.

 

91 Letter from Matthew Bassett, Assistant Sec’y for Legis., Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., to Trey Gowdy, Chairman, 

H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov’t Reform (Feb. 15, 2018) (on file with the Committee).

92 Bassett Letter, supra note 89.

93 Regulatory Reform Task Forces Check-In: Part II Before the Subcomm. on Healthcare, Benefits, and Administrative 

Rules and the Subcomm. on Intergovernmental Affairs of the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform, 115th Cong. 

(2017).

94 Id

95 Email from Dir. for Oversight & Investigations, Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., to majority staff, H. Comm. on 

Oversight & Gov’t Reform (Feb. 26, 2018 4:32 p.m.) (on file with the Committee).

96 Id.
Page 21 of 22

The following recommendations would introduce a measure of discipline and improve 

transparency with respect to how federal agencies process and track guidance documents:

1. Congressional Review Act Compliance. Agencies should comply with the CRA. The low 

rate at which agencies reported submitting guidance documents from the past decade to 

Congress and GAO in accordance with the CRA suggests agencies are unclear on what 

is required of them by the statute. When there is a lack of clarity about whether a 

guidance document should be submitted to Congress and GAO under the CRA, agencies 

should seek guidance from GAO and Congress.

2. Online Repositories. All agencies should follow the examples of agencies like the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau97 and the Department of Labor98 to make their 

guidance documents available in an online repository, complying with both the letter and 

the spirit of the Good Guidance Bulletin. Such publishing would alleviate the burden on 

regulated entities of seeking out new guidance documents issued by their regulators by 

placing the onus on the regulators to assemble and organize these documents. To advance 

transparency goals, a legislative solution could include a reporting requirement for 

agencies to post all guidance documents in a centralized location, such as a repository or 

library maintained on agency websites.

3. Mandate Effective Guidance Practices. Congress should consider legislation to codify 

existing requirements in executive directives, such as the Good Guidance Bulletin, 

which may improve Congressional oversight of agency regulatory activities and prevent 

future administrations from rescinding these directives at will. The Good Guidance 

Bulletin requires agencies to adopt best practices, like having written procedures for the 

issuance of significant guidance documents,99 requiring disclosure of certain information 

like the issuing agency or office and the date of issuance,100 maintaining an online 

database of significant guidance documents,101 and soliciting input from stakeholders 

and the public on significant guidance documents.102

 

97 See Compliance and Guidance, CONSUMER FIN. PROT. BUREAU, https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policycompliance/guidance/ (last visited Mar. 2, 2018).

98 Sub-agencies and offices at the Department of Labor list policy and guidance documents on their respective websites. 

See, e.g., Compliance Assistance, MINE SAFETY & HEALTH ADMIN., https://www.msha.gov/complianceenforcement/compliance-assistance#policy (last visited Mar. 2, 2018). 99 Good Guidance Bulletin, supra note 4, Sec. II(1). 100 Id. at Sec. II(2). 101 Id. at Sec. III(1). 102 Id. at Sec. III(2).
Page 22 of 22

Appendices 

Appendix A: Letter to Agencies

Appendix B – QQ: Productions of the Agencies 

1. Appendix B – Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

2. Appendix C – Commodities Futures Trading Commission

3. Appendix D – Consumer Product Safety Commission

4. Appendix E – Chemical Safety Board

5. Appendix F – Department of Homeland Security

6. Appendix G – Department of Defense

7. Appendix H – Department of Justice

8. Appendix I – Department of Labor 

9. Appendix J – Department of Education 

10. Appendix K – Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

11. Appendix L – Department of Energy

12. Appendix M – Environmental Protection Agency

13. Appendix N – Export-Import Bank

14. Appendix O – Federal Depository Insurance Corporation 

15. Appendix P – Federal Election Commission

16. Appendix Q – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

17. Appendix R – Federal Housing Financing Agency 

18. Appendix S – Federal Labor Relations Authority 

19. Appendix T – Federal Maritime Commission

20. Appendix U – General Services Administration

21. Appendix V – Department of Health and Human Services

22. Appendix W – Department of Housing and Urban Development 

23. Appendix X – Department of the Interior

24. Appendix Y – Merit Systems Protection Board

25. Appendix Z – National Archives and Records Administration 

26. Appendix AA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration

27. Appendix BB – Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

28. Appendix CC – National Transportation Safety Board

29. Appendix DD – Office of Personnel Management

30. Appendix EE – Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

31. Appendix FF – Postal Regulatory Commission

32. Appendix GG – Railroad Retirement Board

33. Appendix HH – Small Business Administration

34. Appendix II – Securities and Exchange Commission

35. Appendix JJ – Social Security Administration

36. Appendix KK – Department of State

37. Appendix LL – Surface Transportation Board 

38. Appendix MM – Department of Transportation 

39. Appendix NN – Department of the Treasury

40. Appendix OO – Department of Agriculture 

41. Appendix PP – United States Postal Service

42. Appendix QQ – Department of Veterans Affairs