Regulations are the means by which agencies establish legally binding requirements, codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Typically, regulations require a desired action or prohibit certain actions by regulated parties. The regulatory process is governed by statutes, executive orders, and agencies’ policies and procedures that require agencies to evaluate the need for regulations, assess the potential effects of new regulations, and obtain public input (with certain exceptions) during their development. In addition, under various congressional and presidential directives, agencies are expected to systematically review regulations to ensure they do not become outdated or overly burdensome, among other things. Agencies also may choose to review regulations at their own discretion, in response to feedback from regulated parties and agency staff or changes in technology and market conditions, among other inputs. Therefore, the normal rulemaking process often involves agencies reviewing their existing regulations. Over many years, we have reported on agencies’ activities related to retrospective regulatory analysis and have demonstrated its usefulness to Congress, agencies, and the public while recognizing the potential difficulties, such as data limitations and overlapping or duplicative requirements. In 2011 and 2012, the administration issued new directives to agencies on how they should plan and assess analyses of existing regulations, among other subjects. Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” and related memorandums, directed each executive agency to develop and submit to OIRA a preliminary plan consistent with law and its resources and regulatory priorities under which the agency will periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine whether they should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed, so as to make the agency’s regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13579, “Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies,” encouraged independent regulatory agencies to develop and release to the public plans for retrospective analyses of existing significant rules. Executive Order 13610, “Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens,” contained additional requirements and guidance regarding public participation in retrospective reviews, setting priorities in implementing retrospective review plans (for example, focusing on initiatives that would reduce regulatory burdens), and agencies’ reporting on the status of their retrospective review efforts. OMB periodically issues guidance to agencies on implementing executive orders. Under Executive Order 12866, OMB’s OIRA is responsible for providing meaningful guidance and oversight so that each agency’s regulations are consistent with applicable law, the President’s priorities, and the principles set forth in executive orders. For example, on October 26, 2011, the Administrator of OIRA issued a memorandum on the implementation of the retrospective review plans called for by Executive Order 13563. The memorandum provided more detailed guidance to agencies on how to address elements of the order on prioritizing review plans, seeking public comment, and reporting on the status of retrospective review efforts (including a suggested template for agencies to use for their reports). According to Executive Order 12866, OIRA is to be the repository of expertise concerning regulatory issues. As we reported in 2007, agencies generally assess their existing regulations for a variety of purposes, including to determine whether (1) the expected outcomes of the regulation have been achieved, (2) the agency should retain, amend, or rescind the regulation, or (3) the actual benefits and costs of the implemented regulation correspond with estimates prepared at the time the regulation was issued. However, OMB’s guidance on the 2011 and 2012 orders particularly advised agencies to identify in their final plans specific reforms and initiatives that will significantly reduce existing regulatory burdens (including paperwork and reporting burdens) and promote economic growth and job creation. OMB also directed agencies to provide specific timelines and deadlines for implementation and to quantify burden and cost reductions to the extent feasible. Among other components of guidance on the conduct of retrospective analyses, agencies are expected to conduct a quantifiable assessment of the current costs and benefits of any proposed changes to existing regulations to the extent possible, develop plans for how they will measure the performance of regulations in the future, seek the public’s views on retrospective review plans and related analysis, and coordinate the development of the new retrospective plans with other retrospective review requirements. The executive orders and related guidance addressed all seven of the recommendations we made in our 2007 report to ensure that agencies conduct effective and transparent retrospective reviews. Among the elements that we recommended incorporating in policies, procedures, or guidance were: minimum standards for documenting and reporting completed review results; including public input as a factor in regulatory review decisions; and consideration of how agencies will measure the performance of new regulations. For more information on key elements of the executive orders and guidance, which we used as criteria during our review, see appendix I. GPRAMA requires the 24 agencies identified in the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act, or as otherwise determined by OMB, to develop agency priority goals (APG) every 2 years. These goals, which are a subset of the agency’s performance goals, are to reflect the highest priorities of each agency, as identified by the head of the agency, and be informed by broad crosscutting federal government priority goals as well as input from relevant congressional committees. Agencies are to identify the various regulations, as well as federal organizations, program activities, policies and other activities (both within and external to the agency) that contribute to each of their APGs and review progress quarterly. This information is to be included in agencies’ performance plans which are submitted to OMB for publication on Performance.gov. In April 2013, we reported that OMB’s review process does not systematically check whether agencies have identified all relevant contributors to APGs. In that report we therefore recommended that OMB work to ensure that agencies adhere to its guidance for website updates by providing complete information about regulations, among other things, that contributed to each APG. OMB staff agreed with this recommendation. The 22 executive agencies within the scope of our review identified 665 initiatives (planned retrospective regulatory analyses) in the final review plans and subsequent updates prepared in response to Executive Orders 13563 and 13610. Between January 2011 and the end of August 2013, the agencies completed and had taken at least some final action on 246 of those planned analyses (see table 1). Because agencies’ analyses are part of an ongoing process, the information in table 1 represents a snapshot of agencies’ progress reported as of August 31, 2013. Agencies’ reports on the progress of their planned retrospective analyses and related documentation showed that analyses completed by the end of August 2013 almost always resulted in the agencies taking additional specific actions, as shown in figure 1. In 225 of the 246 completed analyses we examined (more than 90 percent), the reviews led to agencies amending sections of the CFR to revise, clarify, or eliminate regulatory text. For example, DHS amended regulations administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to allow for the publication of seizure and intent-to-forfeit notices on an official government forfeiture website. Previously, notices were posted for three successive weeks in a newspaper circulated at the CBP port and in the judicial district where CBP seized the property. According to DHS, the changes are intended to reduce administrative costs and improve the effectiveness of CBP’s notice procedures as Internet publication will reach a broader range of the public and provide access to more parties who may have an interest in the seized property. Another 18 of the 246 completed retrospective analyses resulted in agencies taking some other type of action, such as revising agency guidance or evaluation criteria, affecting implementation of the regulations that had been reviewed. For example, DOT conducted a public meeting in February 2012 concerning the criteria used when determining an applicant’s minimum level of fitness for special permits and approvals by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration under hazardous materials regulations. Based on the comments DOT received during the meeting, the agency decided to undertake a major restructuring of the fitness determinations process and may consider rulemaking once the restructuring is complete. The remaining three completed analyses within our scope resulted in an agency determining that no further action was needed. For example, in one of its completed analyses, EPA sought public feedback on a 2003 water quality trading policy to determine whether revisions to the related policy could help increase the adoption of market-based approaches. But after holding public workshops and webinars on the subject, the agency decided that no revisions were necessary. Agencies most commonly identified three categories of expected outcomes from the actions they took in response to completed retrospective analyses: (1) improving the effectiveness of regulations; (2) reducing the burden on regulated entities; and (3) providing clarity on regulations or making other administrative changes. In addition, agencies also amended regulations to address statutory changes. These outcomes are not mutually exclusive because agencies reported multiple categories of outcomes for many of the completed analyses. Figure 2 displays a breakdown of the expected outcomes that agencies reported for their completed analyses. Agencies identified improving the effectiveness of regulations as an expected outcome of 112 completed retrospective analyses. For example, DOT revised its regulations related to Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards in 2012 to improve their effectiveness by incorporating current industry and engineering best practices related to locomotive electronics. The number of outcomes in this category underscores one of the findings in our 2007 report, when agencies said that their primary purpose for conducting most retrospective analyses is to examine the effectiveness of the implementation of regulations. Agencies cited reducing burden on regulated parties as an anticipated outcome of 99 completed retrospective analyses. For example, in October 2012 the Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration removed income- qualification requirements related to renewing Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish permits and increased the maximum crew size for vessels that possess both charter and commercial permits. The stated intent of this rule is to remove permit requirements the agency viewed as no longer applicable to current commercial fishing practices and to improve safety at sea.