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. Agency Priority Goals

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. OMB staff agreed with this  recommendation. 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). 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. 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 other cases, agencies identified but did not quantify expected savings. Independent Regulatory Agencies Followed a Different Retrospective Analysis Planning Process than Executive Agencies

Independent regulatory agencies were not required to develop  retrospective review plans, but were encouraged to do so in Executive  Order 13579 and a related memorandum providing additional guidance. Agency Officials Identified Strategies and Barriers That Affected Their Implementation of Retrospective Analyses

Officials from the nine agencies that we selected to complete  questionnaires and participate in our roundtable discussion cited many  strategies and practices their agencies used as facilitators, or factors the  agencies encountered as barriers, which affected their ability to  implement key retrospective analysis requirements or guidance. In  some instances, agencies also formed intradepartmental working  groups. Leverage Existing Regulatory Activities to Identify Needed Changes

Six of the nine agencies reported that leveraging existing regulatory  activities—such as regulatory planning, rulemaking, and enforcement  processes—assisted them in implementing the executive orders and  related guidance. Other agencies reported having similar feedback mechanisms that they  considered to be most useful. The agency implemented  retrospective review practices at the same time they were issuing new  rules related to the Leahy Smith America Invents Act. Agencies Reported Mixed Experiences Linking Retrospective Analyses to APGs

Agencies’ responses about linkages between retrospective analyses and  APGs were mixed. We asked agencies the extent to which they would like to receive more  assistance or guidance on incorporating retrospective analyses into  measuring and achieving agency goals, including APGs. OMB staff agreed with this recommendation. Opportunities Exist to Better Link Retrospective Analyses and Agency Priority Goals

The focus of retrospective analyses differs from agency performance  reviews. Given the specific focus of retrospective regulatory analyses, several  agency officials said the staff conducting the analyses often oversee  implementation of the regulation and are not involved in, or sometimes  aware of, performance discussions that are held at higher levels of the  agency. From January 2011  through August 2013, executive agencies identified more than 650  initiatives (planned retrospective regulatory analyses). While OMB has provided a  sample template for agencies to use for reporting on the progress and the  results of retrospective analyses, it could do more to enhance the  transparency and usefulness of the information provided to the public. However, contributing to  evaluation of agency priority goals could also be among those reasons. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve agencies’ retrospective regulatory review processes and  reporting, and strengthen linkages between retrospective reviews and  agency performance management, we recommend the Director of the  Office of Management and Budget direct the Administrator of the Office of  Information and Regulatory Affairs to take the following three actions:  1. Work with regulatory agencies to implement existing guidance, and  update guidance where needed, to improve the reporting of outcomes  in their retrospective regulatory review plans by taking actions such  as: publishing a link to updated plans, which list recent results and  anticipated outcomes, on the White House website;  submitting evidence that agencies listed updates of their plans on  their “Open Government” web pages; providing more comprehensive information on completed reviews  in agencies’ most recent plans and progress reports by (1)  ensuring the most recent published plan contains a complete  accounting of all completed reviews rather than expecting readers  to review multiple plans, and (2) including the supporting analysis  and data for results by listing a link or citation to the related  documentation. Ensure that the contributions made by regulations toward the  achievement of APGs are properly considered and improve how  retrospective regulatory reviews can be used to help inform  assessments of progress toward these APGs by directing in guidance  that agencies take such actions as:  identifying whether a regulation contributes to an APG expected to  be reviewed by management as one of the criteria for prioritizing  retrospective analyses and for the timing of these analyses; and once an agency prioritizes a retrospective analysis based, in part,  on its support of an APG, improving the usefulness of that  analysis by examining regulations that collectively contribute to  the goal in the scope of the review as appropriate. In oral comments received on April 3, 2014, staff from OMB’s Office of  Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) generally agreed with the  recommendations in this report.
Why GAO Did This Study

Federal agencies issue thousands of regulations annually to address such national goals as public health and safety. Retrospective analysis can help agencies evaluate how existing regulations work in practice. GAO was asked to provide insights on agencies' retrospective analyses. This report identifies for selected agencies (1) the results and anticipated outcomes of retrospective analyses agencies completed, (2) strategies, practices, or factors that affected agencies' ability to implement these analyses, and (3) the extent to which agencies are incorporating the analyses into processes for measuring and achieving agency priority goals. Applying criteria from executive orders, GPRAMA, and related guidance, GAO analyzed documents from 22 executive agencies and 2 independent regulatory agencies that prepared final retrospective review plans. These agencies issued more than 96 percent of all final rules published between 2011 and 2013. GAO also obtained agency officials' views through questionnaires and a roundtable of 9 agencies selected primarily on numbers of completed analyses. The officials' views are not generalizable to all agencies. GAO also interviewed OMB staff.

What GAO Found

Agencies often made changes to regulations in response to completed retrospective regulatory analyses, but could improve the reporting of progress. Executive Orders and related implementation guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) require executive agencies, and encourage independent regulatory agencies, to develop and implement retrospective review plans. Agencies use semiannual updates to report on the progress and results of their analyses. The 22 executive agencies in GAO's scope identified more than 650 planned analyses and reported having completed and taken final actions on 246 of those analyses by August 31, 2013. The two independent regulatory agencies in GAO's scope each chose to develop a final retrospective review plan, although not required to do so. More than 90 percent of the completed analyses led executive agencies to revise, clarify, or eliminate regulatory text. Agencies also took other actions such as updating guidance to the public. Agencies most commonly reported three expected outcomes from actions they took: improving the effectiveness of regulations (112 of 246), reducing regulatory burden (99 of 246), and clarifying regulations or making other administrative changes (93 of 246), such as implementing new procedures. Agencies often reported more than one outcome. Agencies quantified expected savings for 38 of the 246 completed analyses, often attributing savings to reduced information collection burdens. However, agencies did not consistently include citations or links to the supporting analyses and data in their progress reports. While OMB guidance contains transparency requirements for agencies to inform the public, OMB could work with agencies to effectively implement the guidance to improve the usefulness of the information agencies report on the results of their analyses.
Officials from the 9 agencies that participated in GAO's roundtable identified three key strategies and two barriers that most often affected their implementation of retrospective analyses. Strategies that facilitated planning and conducting analyses included: (1) establishing a centrally coordinated review process, (2) leveraging existing regulatory activities such as rulemaking and enforcement processes, and (3) using existing external feedback mechanisms such as advisory committees. The most commonly cited barriers were competing priorities for available staff and difficulty obtaining sufficient data.
Retrospective analysis can also help inform agencies' priority goals (APG). The Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requires agencies to assess whether regulations, among other activities, are contributing as planned to APGs. Agencies reported mixed experiences linking retrospective analyses to APGs. The seven roundtable agencies with APGs identified regulations contributing to their priority goals, but their retrospective analyses were only sometimes linked to APGs. In some cases, different offices in the same agency had mixed responses about whether such linkages existed. Several agency officials said staff conducting retrospective analyses were not involved in performance discussions at higher levels of the agency. To inform broader performance planning and reviews, retrospective analyses can be another potential data source for APGs. Agencies could strengthen that linkage by taking actions such as considering APGs, to the extent practicable, when planning retrospective analyses and identifying how they will measure the performance of significant new rules related to priority goals.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that OMB work with agencies to improve reporting on results of retrospective analyses and strengthen links between those analyses and agencies' performance goals by considering APGs when planning retrospective analyses, among other actions. OMB staff generally agreed with the recommendations in this report.