The reviews addressed multiple purposes, such as examining  the efficiency and effectiveness of regulations and identifying  opportunities to reduce regulatory burden. The mix of reviews  conducted—in terms of the impetus to start a review and the purpose of  the review—varied not only across but also within the agencies that we  examined. Agencies’ officials reported they conducted discretionary reviews more  often than mandated studies. While most of the mandatory review  requirements identified by the selected agencies establish standard review  factors that agencies should consider when conducting their reviews— which agencies reported following—about half of the agencies within our  review have formal policies and procedures that establish a standards- based approach for conducting discretionary reviews. The Level of Documentation in Agencies’ Reviews Varied Depending on the Impetus and Phase of the Review, but Overall Could Be Improved

Agency documentation for selecting regulations to review varied from  detailed documentation of selection criteria considered to no  documentation of the selection process. Reviews Resulted in a Variety of Outcomes that Were Considered Useful, but Mandatory Reviews Most Often Resulted in No Change

Agency reviews of existing regulations resulted in various outcomes— from amending regulations to no change at all—that agencies and  knowledgeable nonfederal parties reported were useful. Conversely,  agency officials reported that their discretionary reviews more often  generated additional action. For example, Congress required FCC to conduct reviews of its  regulations that apply to the operation or activity of telecommunication  service providers to “determine whether any such regulation is no longer  necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic  competition between providers of such service.”
Agencies’ officials reported that reviews often had useful outcomes other  than changes to regulations, such as changes or additions to guidance and  other related documents, decisions to conduct additional studies, and  validation that existing rules were working as planned. Both agencies  and nonfederal parties identified the lack of public participation in the  review process as a barrier to the usefulness of reviews. Agency officials and nonfederal  parties also suggested a number of practices that could facilitate  conducting and improving the usefulness of regulatory reviews, including:  (1) development of a prioritization process to facilitate agencies’ ability to  address time and resource barriers and allow them to target their efforts at  reviews of regulations that are more likely to need modifications, (2) pre- planning for regulatory reviews to aid agencies in identifying the data and  analysis methodology that they will need to conduct effective reviews, and  (3) utilizing independent parties to conduct the reviews to enhance the  review’s credibility and effectiveness, among other things. Nonfederal parties also  cited this data limitation as a challenge to agency reviews. Limited Public Participation

Agencies and nonfederal parties identified the lack of public participation  in the review process as a barrier to the usefulness of reviews. In particular,  overlapping or duplicative reviews may strain limited agency resources. Minimum standards for documenting and reporting all completed  review results. Accordingly, for selected agencies, we are reporting on:  1.  the magnitude of retrospective review activity and type of  retrospective reviews agencies completed from calendar year 2001  through 2006, including the frequency, impetus (mandatory or  discretionary), and purposes of the reviews;  2.  the processes and standards that guide agencies’ planning, conduct,  and reporting on reviews, and the strengths and limitations of the  various review processes and requirements;  3.  the outcomes of reviews, including the perceived usefulness of the  reviews and how they affected subsequent regulatory activities; and  4.  the factors that appear to help or impede agencies in conducting or  using retrospective reviews, including which methods, if any, that  agencies and we identified as most cost-effective for conducting  reviews. GAO’s Federal Rules Database, which is used  to compile information on all final rules, showed that the nine agencies  accounted for almost 60 percent of all final regulations published from  2001 through 2006. transparency.
Why GAO Did This Study

Congress and presidents require agencies to review existing regulations to determine whether they should be retained, amended, or rescinded, among other things. GAO was asked to report the following for agency reviews: (1) numbers and types completed from 2001 through 2006; (2) processes and standards that guided planning, conducting, and reporting; (3) outcomes; and (4) factors that helped or impeded in conducting and using them. GAO evaluated the activities of nine agencies covering health, safety, environmental, financial, and economic regulations and accounting for almost 60 percent of all final regulations issued within the review period. GAO also reviewed available documentation, assessed a sample of completed reviews, and solicited perspectives on the conduct and usefulness of reviews from agency officials and knowledgeable nonfederal parties.

What GAO Found

From 2001 through 2006, the selected agencies completed over 1,300 reviews of existing regulations. The mix of reviews conducted, in terms of impetus (mandatory or discretionary) and purpose, varied among agencies. Mandatory requirements were sometimes the impetus for reviews, but agencies more often exercised their own discretionary authorities to review regulations. The main purpose of most reviews was to examine the effectiveness of the implementation of regulations, but agencies also conducted reviews to identify ways to reduce regulatory burdens and to validate the original estimates of benefits and costs. The processes and standards guiding reviews varied across agencies and the impetus and phase of the review process. They varied by the extent to which agencies applied a standards-based approach, incorporated public participation, and provided complete and transparent documentation. For example, while almost all agencies had standards for conducting mandatory reviews, only about half of the agencies had such standards for conducting discretionary views. The extent of public involvement varied across review phases, with relatively more in the selection process for discretionary reviews. Agencies more often documented all phases of mandatory reviews compared to discretionary reviews. The outcomes of reviews included amendments to regulations, changes to guidance and related documents, decisions to conduct additional studies, and confirmation that existing rules achieved the intended results. Mandated reviews, in particular, most often resulted in no changes. Agencies noted that discretionary reviews generated additional action more often than mandatory reviews. Agencies and nonfederal parties generally considered all of the various review outcomes useful. Multiple factors helped or impeded the conduct and usefulness of retrospective reviews. Agencies identified time and resources as the most critical barriers, but also cited factors such as data limitations and overlapping or duplicative review requirements. Nonfederal parties said that the lack of transparency was a barrier; they were rarely aware of the agencies' reviews. Both agencies and nonfederal parties identified limited public participation as a barrier. To help improve the conduct and usefulness of reviews, agencies and nonfederal parties suggested practices such as pre-planning to identify data needed to conduct effective reviews, a prioritization process to address time and resource barriers, high-level management support, grouping related regulations together when conducting reviews, and making greater use of diverse communication technologies and venues to promote public participation.