As noted earlier, before a rule can become effective, it must be filed in accordance with the statute. GAO conducted a review to determine whether all final rules covered by CRA and published in the Register were filed with the Congress and GAO. We performed this review to both verify the accuracy of our database and to ascertain the degree of agency compliance with CRA. We were concerned that regulated entities may have been led to believe that rules published in the Federal Register were effective when, in fact, they were not unless filed in accordance with CRA. Our review covered the 10-month period from October 1, 1996, to July 31, 1997. In November 1997, we submitted to OIRA a computer listing of the rules that we found published in the Federal Register but not filed with our Office. This initial list included 498 rules from 50 agencies. OIRA distributed this list to the affected agencies and departments and instructed them to contact GAO if they had any questions regarding the list. Beginning in mid-February, because 321 rules remained unfiled, we followed up with each agency that still had rules which were unaccounted for. Our Office has experienced varying degrees of responses from the agencies. Several agencies, notably the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation, took immediate and extensive corrective action to submit rules that they had failed to submit and to establish fail-safe procedures for future rule promulgation. Other agencies responded by submitting some or all of the rules that they had failed to previously file. Several agencies are still working with us to assure 100 percent compliance with CRA. Some told us they were unaware of CRA or of the CRA filing requirement. Overall, our review disclosed that: 279 rules should have been filed with us; 264 of these have subsequently 182 were found not to be covered by CRA as rules of particular applicability or agency management and thus were not required to be filed; 37 rules had been submitted timely and our database was corrected; and 15 rules from six agencies have thus far not been filed. We do not know if OIRA ever followed up with the agencies to ensure compliance with the filing requirement; we do know that OIRA never contacted GAO to determine if all rules were submitted as required. As a result of GAO’s compliance audit, however, 264 rules now have been filed with GAO and the Congress and are thus now effective under CRA. In our view, OIRA should have played a more proactive role in ensuring that agencies were both aware of the CRA filing requirements and were complying with them. One area of consistent difficulty in implementing CRA has been the failure of some agencies to delay the effective date of major rules for 60 days as required by section 801(a)(3)(A) of the act. Eight major rules have not permitted the required 60-day delay, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s major rule regarding the expedited removal of aliens. Also, this appears to be a continuing problem since one of the eight rules was issued in January 1998. We find agencies are not budgeting enough time into their regulatory timetable to allow for the delay and are misinterpreting the “good cause” exception to the 60-day delay period found in section 808(2). Section 808(2) states that, notwithstanding section 801, “any rule which an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” shall take effect at such time as the federal agency promulgating the rule determines. This language mirrors the exception in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to the requirement for notice and comment in rulemaking. 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(B). In our opinion, the “good cause” exception is only available if a notice of proposed rulemaking was not published and public comments were not received. Many agencies, following a notice of proposed rulemaking, have stated in the preamble to the final major rule that “good cause” existed for not providing the 60-day delay. Examples of reasons cited for the “good cause” exception include (1) that Congress was not in session and thus could not act on the rule, (2) that a delay would result in a loss of savings that the rule would produce, or (3) that there was a statutorily mandated effective date. The former administrator of OIRA disagreed with our interpretation of the “good cause” exception. She believed that our interpretation of the “good cause” exception would result in less public participation in rulemaking because agencies would forgo issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking and receipt of public comments to be able to invoke the CRA “good cause” exception. OIRA contends that the proper interpretation of “good cause” should be the standard employed for invoking section 553(d)(3) of the APA, “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule,” for avoiding the 30-day delay in a rule’s effective date required under the APA. Since CRA’s section 808(2) mirrors the language in section 553(b)(B), not section 553(d)(3), it is clear that the drafters intended the “good cause” exception to be invoked only when there has not been a notice of proposed rulemaking and comments received. One early question about implementation of CRA was whether Executive agencies or OIRA would attempt to avoid designating rules as major and thereby avoid GAO’s review and the 60-day delay in the effective date. While we are unaware of any rule that OIRA misclassified to avoid the major rule designation, the failure of agencies to identify some issuances as “rules” at all has meant that some major rules have not been identified. CRA contains a broad definition of “rule,” including more than the usual “notice and comment” rulemakings under the Administrative Procedure Act which are published in the Federal Register. “Rule” means the whole or part of an agency statement of general applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy. “All too often, agencies have attempted to circumvent the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act by trying to give legal effect to general policy statements, guidelines, and agency policy and procedure manuals. Although agency interpretative rules, general statements of policy, guideline documents, and agency and procedure manuals may not be subject to the notice and comment provisions of section 553(c) of title 5, United States Code, these types of documents are covered under the congressional review provisions of the new chapter 8 of title 5.” On occasion, our Office has been asked whether certain agency action, issuance, or policy constitutes a “rule” under CRA such that it would not take effect unless submitted to our Office and the Congress in accordance with CRA. For example, in response to a request from the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, Senate Committee on Energy and Resources, we found that a memorandum issued by the Secretary of Agriculture in connection with the Emergency Salvage Timber Sale Program constituted a “rule” under CRA and should have been submitted to the Houses of Congress and GAO before it could become effective. Likewise, we found that the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan issued by the United States Forest Service was a “rule” under CRA and should have been submitted for congressional review. OIRA stated that, if the plan was a rule, it would be a major rule. The Forest Service has in excess of 100 such plans promulgated or revised which are not treated as rules under CRA. Many of these may actually be major rules that should be subject to CRA filing and, if major rules, subject to the 60-day delay for congressional review. In testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Resources regarding the Tongass Plan, the Administrator of OIRA stated that, as was the practice under the APA, each agency made its own determination of what constituted a rule under CRA and by implication, OIRA was not involved in these determinations. We believe that for CRA to achieve what the Congress intended, OIRA must assume a more active role in guiding or overseeing these types of agency decisions. Other than an initial memorandum following the enactment of CRA, we are unaware of any further OIRA guidance. Because each agency or commission issues many manuals, documents, and directives which could be considered “rules” and these items are not collected in a single document or repository such as the Federal Register, for informal rulemakings, it is difficult for our Office to ascertain if agencies are fully complying with the intent of CRA. Having another set of eyes reviewing agency actions, especially one which has desk officers who work on a daily basis with certain agencies, would be most helpful. We have attempted to work with Executive agencies to get more substantive information about the rules and to get such information supplied in a manner that would enable quick assimilation into our database. An expansion of our database could make it more useful not only to GAO for its use in supporting congressional oversight work, but directly to the Congress and to the public. Attached to this testimony is a copy of a questionnaire designed to obtain basic information about each rule covered by CRA. This questionnaire asks the agencies to report on such items as (1) whether the agency provided an opportunity for public participation, (2) whether the agency prepared a cost-benefit analysis or a risk assessment, (3) whether the rule was reviewed under Executive orders for federalism or takings implications, and (4) whether the rule was economically significant. Such a questionnaire would be prepared in a manner that facilitates incorporation into our database by electronic filing or by scanning.