r ---__ GAO ---.~-_I”_-.~ -l*“..LI.I”II_-I-- _-_(.___ Novt~llrlwr l!)!lO EDUCATION REGULATIONS Reasons for Delays in Issuance IllIIIIll 142650 _, 1’ ,I 1 I ;I It 1 -_-_ . - .-.....,...- I--..... “”_.......__....l^.-l-l.-... -_.-_” .ll.-l.-^ ._..._I ..- “..l...*.l”----.----- --- ,! d 1 I - United States GAO General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20648 Human Resources Division B-239686 November l&l990 The Honorable Augustus F. Hawkins Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor House of Representatives The Honorable Pat Williams Chairman, Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education Committee on Education and Labor House of Representatives The Honorable William F. Goodling Ranking Minority Member Committee on Education and Labor House of Representatives This briefing report responds to your request that we review the rea- sons for delays in the Department of Education’s issuance of regulations related to three laws. We focused on the 83 regulations issued under the (l).‘Education of the Handicapped Act amendments of 1986 and 1988, (2) Higher Education amendments of 1986 and 19”87, and (3) Hawkins- Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement amendments of 1988, We also obtained information on Education’s efforts to improve its regulation issuance. On March 20, 1990, we briefed your offices on our preliminary results. This report summarizes and expands on that information. (See app. I.) Education is required by statute to issue regulations within 240 days Results in Brief after the Congress enacts legislation or to seek an extension from the appropriate committees. For the 83 regulations we reviewed, only 13 (16 percent) were issued within 240 days. For the 70 regulations not issued within the time frame, Education submitted to the committees, as required, a schedule of revised issue dates. Fifty-one (73 percent) of the 70 regulations were not issued by the revised dates. An average of 389 days-ranging from ‘72 to 988 days-were spent to develop the 80 regu- lations that had been issued at the time of our review. Education officials stated that the primary reasons regulations were not issued within established time frames included (1) the sheer volume of regulations to be issued during this time frame, (2) lengthy periods Page 1 GAO/HRD-91-4BR Education Regulations B-239696 required to obtain and respond to comments on the regulations, (3) com- plex legal and policy issues involved with the regulations, and (4) the fact that they were developing the regulations while performing their normal program duties. As percentages of the total time required to issue the regulations, Edu- cation’s program offices spent an average of about 53 percent, and its reviewing offices averaged about 23 percent. Obtaining the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) clearance and responding to public comments each averaged about 11 percent of the total issuance time, while obtaining the Office of the Secretary’s approval averaged about 2 percent. Section 431(g) of the General Education Provisions Act requires the Sec- Background retary of Education to issue regulations within 240 days of the enact- ment of legislation or to seek an extension. Within 60 days of enactment, the Secretary is required to submit to the appropriate committees a schedule of regulations to be issued within the following 180 days. If the schedule for issuance cannot be met, the Secretary is to submit a revised schedule for approval. All 83 regulations included in our review were classified as nonmajor regulations.’ For these rules, Education is to submit both the proposed (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) and final rules to OMB 10 days before publication, In each instance, OMB is expected to complete its review within 10 days. However, the lo-day periods may be extended upon request from the Director, OMB. Given such notice, agencies are not to publish a proposed or final rule until OMB’S views are considered. These procedures must be followed unless they conflict with deadlines imposed by statutes or judicial orders. Education assigns regulation development to offices with program expertise and to appropriate program and staff offices to ensure compli- ance with legal, policy, and other requirements. The Office of the Secre- tary and OMB must approve proposed and final regulations before they are published in the Federal Register for public comment. Figure 1 illus- trates the general sequence of events in Education’s development of regulations. ‘Regulations determined by executive departments and agencies to affect the economy by less than $100 million each year and not have a major impact on consumers, industries, or federal, state, or local governments. Page 2 GAO/HRlS914BR Education Regulations E233386 Figure 1: Qeneral Step8 in Education’s Regulation Development I (1) (10) Enactment of Legislation Publish Final Regulation \ lL . (2) (9) Analyze Legislation and If Needed, Respond to Determine Whether Letters From Members of Regulations Are Needed the Congress (3) (8) Prepare, Review, Obtain Prepare, Review, and Internal Comments on, and Revise Final Regulation Revise Draft Regulation (Repeat Steps 4 and 5) I I r Send Draft Regulation Receive, Analyze, and to Secretary for Review Incorporate Public and Approval Comments (5) (6) If Approved, Secretary If Approved, Proposed Sends Draft ’ Regulation Is Published Regulation to OMB for in Federal Register for Review and Approval Public Comment \ Page 3 GAO/HRD-914BR Education Regulations B-233636 We interviewed Education and OMB officials on their roles and responsi- Scopeand bilities in the regulatory process, including reasons why the regulations Methodology were delayed. We charted the number of calendar days to process the 83 regulations (see app. II), and obtained information on actions to expedite the regulatory process. We also obtained additional information on those regulations with the longest issuance times from five program offices: Office of Education Research and Improvement, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and Office of Vocational and Adult Education. (See app. III.) Of the 83 regulations reviewed, only 13 (16 percent) were issued within Regulations Were Not the 240-day time frame. Twelve of the 13 were technical amendments Issued Within that essentially incorporate statutory text into preexisting regulations, Established Time thereby eliminating many of the processing steps necessary for other regulations. Although Education submitted a revised schedule of new Frames issuance dates for the 70 regulations not issued within the time frame, 51(73 percent) of these still were not issued by the revised dates. At the completion of our review in mid-April 1990,80 of the 83 regula- tions had been issued. The average issuance time was 389 days, or nearly 13 months. (See table 1.) For the three unissued regulations, two had been in process for nearly 600 days and another for about 1,290 days as of mid-April 1990. Table 1: Number of Regulations Issued by Days and Overall Average Average Number of regulations issued within number of 241-365 366-540 More than days after Legislation .----._-.-...- ..-..-.-.- O-240 days days days 540 days Total enactment Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments ..__..-._....- ..^.. _..... ..“._...I..-- ..___ -_.---ll--- __..-- ---- 1 5 4 7 17 553 Hawkins-Stafford School Improvement Act Amendments 3 1 16 0 20 382 Higher Education Act Amendments ._..-. _ - ..-.. .-. . ---. 9 21 7 6 __---43 326 Total regulations 13 27 27 13 80 Overall average davs 389 The average of 389 days to issue the 80 regulations reflects both Educa- tion’s and OMB'S involvement in the regulatory issuance process. Educa- tion, responsible for the development and processing of regulations, averaged 348 (89 percent) of the 389 days-ranging from 63 to 912 Page 4 GAO/IUD-914BR Education Regulations days. OMB, essentially a reviewing office, averaged 41 (11 percent) of the 389 days-ranging from 4 to 116 days. OMB has a total of 20 days to complete its review of regulations-10 days each for the proposed and final regulations. However, 58 (73 per- cent) of the 80 issued regulations were not reviewed within this time frame. (See app. 11.)On average, OMB took 34 days to review 51 proposed regulations and 18 days to review the final versions of the 80 issued regulations. (See table 2.) Although 80 regulations were issued, 29 were issued as technical or emergency regulations, which require no publica- tion of a proposed regulation. Table 2: OMB’s Average Number of Days to Review Regulations 31 or O-10 11-20 21-30 more :ii%iit Regulation -- days days days days Total of days Proposed ------- 6 13 12 20 51 34 Final 36 24 7 13 80 16 As expected, Education’s program offices used most of the time in the Most Processing Time preparation of Department regulations. Program offices are responsible Spent by Program for developing and drafting the regulation, as well as obtaining and Offices responding to both internal and external comments. As shown in table 3, these offices averaged 53 percent of the total time to issue regulations. Table 3: Percentage Shares of Time Spent issuing Regulations Average percent of time from legislation enactment to reaulation issuance0 Education proaram offices 53 Education reviewing offices 23 --- Office of the Secretary 2 OMB 11 Public comment period 11 ------- __-- Total 100 aThis analysis represents 46 of the 80 regulations issued at the time of our review for which tracking information was available. For 34 of the 46 regulations, public comments were obtained. Page 5 GAO/HRD-91-4BR Education Regulations A major factor affecting processing time was the substantial increase in Major Reasonsfor Not regulatory work load from September 1986 through April 1988, Educa- Meeting Established tion officials stated. They added that some regulations addressed com- Time Frames plex legal and policy issues, requiring departmental staff to research complex legislative language, resolve policy questions, and balance responsibilities between federal and state or state and local governments in the final regulations. Officials also said a large amount of time was spent obtaining and responding to internal and external-including oMB-comments on the regulations. In this regard, Education must provide at least 30 days for the public to comment on proposed regulations. Education officials also told us that concurrent duties and responsibili- ties by program and reviewing offices contributed to delays in regula- tion processing. For example, program offices that write and process regulations must also perform their regular duties, such as awarding and administering grants or contracts and evaluating grantee perform- ance. Similarly, the Education offices, such as the Office of General Counsel, review regulatory documents in addition to performing their usual duties, OMB officials noted that its regulatory review staff also has numerous other responsibilities that can contribute to processing delays. Education Actions to to publish regulations. In February 1986, a task force was established to Improve Regulatory develop procedures to help expedite the rulemaking process and resolve Process problems or differences that may arise among Education’s program and staff offices that are providing review comments, In August 1987, Edu- cation’s Division of Regulation Management issued a manual that pro- vides instructions and standard formats for preparing regulations. An internal tracking system was also developed in August 1987 to help monitor the internal development and processing of regulations. We did not evaluate the effectiveness of these actions or whether additional actions could improve the regulatory process. Both Education and OMB provided written comments on a draft of this Agency Comments report. Education stated that the draft report, for the most part, accu- rately presented factual information but should have included addi- v tional information which is discussed in its comment letter. (See app. IV.) We made changes to the report as appropriate. However, some of Education’s suggested changes either were beyond the scope of our Page 0 GAO/HRD-91-4BR Education Regulations B-289888 work or, in our view, lacked sufficient basis to warrant changing our report. OMB stated that this report identified the contributions of key players in the regulation process, and that it would continue to work with Educa- tion to issue regulations expeditiously and responsibly. OMB suggested changes to how its regulation review responsibilities and the associated time frames were portrayed. Changes to the report were made, as appro- priate. (See app. V.) Copies of this briefing report are being sent to the Secretary of Educa- tion; the Director, OMB; and other interested parties. Please call me on (202) 275-1793 if you or your staffs have any questions about this report. Other major contributors are listed in appendix VI. Franklin Frazier Director, Education and Employment Issues Page 7 GAO/HR.D-91-4BR Education Regulations Contents Letter Appendix I Regulation Processing: Delays in Issuing Education Regulations Appendix II 26 Number of Calendar Days to Process83 Regulations Within Education and OMB Appendix III 31 Profiles of Selected Regional Educational Laboratories and Research and Development Centers Program 31 Education Regulations Chapter 1 - Migrant Education Program 32 National Resource Centers for Foreign Language and Area 34 Studies Early Intervention Programs for Infants and Toddlers 35 With Handicaps State Administered Adult Education and Discretionary 37 Programs Appendix IV 39 Comments From the Department of Education Appendix V 46 Comments From the Office of Management and Budget ” Page 8 GAO/HRD-914BR Education Regulations - Contenti Appendix VI 49 Major Contributors to This Briefing Report Tables Table 1: Number of Regulations Issued by Days and 4 Overall Average Table 2: OMB’s Average Number of Days to Review 5 Regulations Table 3: Percentage Shares of Time Spent Issuing 5 Regulations Table III. 1: Dates of Key Events in Development of 31 Regulation for Regional Educational Laboratories and Research and Development Centers Program Table 111.2:Dates of Key Events in Development of 32 Regulation for Chapter 1 - Migrant Education Program Table 111.3:Dates of Key Events in Development of 34 Regulation for National Resource Centers for Foreign Language and Area Studies Table 111.4:Dates of Key Events in Development of 35 Regulation for Early Intervention Programs for Infants and Toddlers With Handicaps Table 111.5:Dates of Key Events in Development of 37 Regulation for State Administered Adult Education and Discretionary Programs Figures Figure 1: General Steps in Education’s Regulation 3 Development Figure I. 1: Review Objectives 12 Figure 1.2: 83 Regulations Under Review 13 Figure 1.3: Review Methodology 14 Figure 1.4: Primary Offices Involved in Regulation 15 Processing Figure 1.5: Statutory Provision to Issue Regulations 16 Figure 1.6: 70 of 83 Regulations Not Issued Within 240 17 Days Figure 1.7: Average Processing Time for Education and 18 OMB Figure 1.8: 58 Regulations Not Reviewed by OMB Within 19 10 Days Page 9 GAO/HRD914BR Education Regulations Figure 1.9: ED Cited Major Reasons for Delays in Issuing 20 Regulations Figure I. 10: Substantial Increase in Regulatory Work Load 21 Figure I. 11: Lengthy Process in Issuing Regulations 22 Figure I. 12: Complex Legal and Policy Issues to Address 23 Figure I. 13: Multiple Duties and Responsibilities 24 Figure I. 14: Department Actions Taken to Expedite 25 Rulemaking Process Abbreviations DORM Division of Regulation Management ED Department of Education GAO General Accounting Office LJL4 local education agency NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking OMB Office of Management and Budget Page 10 GAO/m914BR JMucation Regulations Page 11 GAO/HRD914BR Education Regulations Ppe Kzation Processing:Delays in Issuing Education Regulations Figure 1.1 GAQ Review Objectives GAO was asked to: @Determinecauses for delays in publishing final regulations @Identify Education and OMB offices responsible for these delays Page 12 GAO/HRD914BR Rducation Regulations AppendLx I Regulation Froceesing! Delays In Issuing Education Regulations Figure 1.2 w 83 Regulations Under Review Legislation Number of Regulations @Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments (P.L. 99-457; P.L. 100-630) 17 *Hawkins-Stafford School Improvement Act Amendments (P.L. 100-297) 23 *Higher Education Act Amendments (P.L. 99-498; P.L. 100-50) 43 Total 83 Page 13 GAO/HlZD914BB Education Regulations Appendix I Regulation Processing: Delays in 18suing Education Regulations Figure 1.3 GAO Review Methodology l Collected and analyzed data on total days to process regulations l Interviewed Education and OMB officials on (1) processing procedures (2) reasons for delays l Conducted analyses of five regulations delayed for excessive periods of time Page 14 GAO/HRD914BR Education Regulations Appendix I Regulation Processinrf; Delays ln Issuing Education Rqplntiom Fiaure 1.4 GM Primary Offices Involved in Regulation Processing Education l Program offices *Office of General Counsel @Officeof Planning, Budget, and Evaluation @Officeof Management @Officeof Inspector General OMB @Officeof Information and Regulatory Affairs Page 16 GAO/HRLb91-4BR Education Regulation8 Appendix I Regulation Processing; Delays ln Issulng Education Regulations Flaure 1.5 Gm Statutory Provision to Issue Regulations Education is required to: l Issue regulations within 240 days of enactment l Submit issuance schedule to the Congress w,ithin 60 days of enactment 0Submit revised schedule for approval if original schedule cannot be met Page 16 GAO/HRD-914BR Education Regulations Regulation Procmwing: Delays in Issuing Education Regulations Figure I.6 GAO 70 of 83 Regulations Not Issued Within 240 Days km~ad within 240 days lsaued in over 240 days Page 17 GAO/BRD-914BR Education Regulations Appendix I Regnlatloll Procesrkyt: DeIays in Lesuing Education Reguhtiona Figure 1.7 G&I Average Processing Time for Education and OMB OMB (averages 41 days) b Edwatkm (averages 348 days) 88% Page 18 GAO/H&D-914BR Education Regulations -. Appendix I R8guhtion Proceselng:Delays in Ieeuing Education Regulationa Figure 1.8 G.A~ 58 Regulations Not Reviewed by OMB Within 10 Days Reviewed within 10 days Reviewed in over 10 daya Page 19 GAO/HRD914BR Education Regulations AQpndlw 1 r Regulation Promssing: Delays in Imuine Education Regulatbua Fiaure 1.9 GAQ ED Cited Major Reasons for Delays in Issuing Regulations Gubstantial increase in regulations to be issued @Time-consuming process 4omplex legal and policy issues to address *Multiple duties and responsibilities in addition to issuance of regulations Page 20 GAO/HRD-914BR Education Regulations Appendix I Regulation Processing: Delays in Iseuing Education Regulatioua Figure 1.10 GAO Substantial Increase in Regulatory Work Load Education had to issue more regulations (98) as a result of new legislation enacted during a 1-l/2-year period included in our review than it did during the prior 6-year period (95 regulations). Page 21 GAO/IiRD91-4BR Education Regulations Regulation Procosaing! Delay6 + lseuhg Education Regulations Figure 1.11 w Lengthy Process in Issuing Regulations l Identifying issues and drafting regulations l Responding to internal comments l Obtaining and responding to external commenti .OMB @Public Page 22 GAO/HRD-91-4BR Education Regulations Appendix I Regulation Processing: Delay8 in kwing Education Regulations Figure 1.12 G+JQComplex Legal and Policy Issues to Address l Complex laws and programs l Sensitive policy issues l Delicate balancing of responsibilities between federal, state, or local governments Page 23 GAO/Hl?B914BR Eaucation Regulations Appendix I Regulation Processing: Delays in,Issuhg Education Regulatious Figure 1.13 GAQ Multiple Duties and Responsibilities Program offices @regulation development @programevaluation @grantmanagement Office of General Counsel *regulation specification/review *litigation mother legal issues Page 24 GAO/HID914BR Education Regulations Appendix I Regulation Processing: Delays ln Issuing Education Reguiatioua Figure 1.14 w Department Actions Taken to Expedite Rulemaking Process l Established a task force l Streamlined review process l Developed regulations manual l Initiated internal tracking system Page 25 GAO/HRD91-4BR Education Regulations Appendix II Number of Calendar Days to Process83 Regulations Within Education and OMB Days in process within Days for Total OMB public Public law/regulation days Education NPRM’ Final comment Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1988 (P.L. 99-457) Handicapped infants and toddlers 988 822 38 38 90 Assistance to states for education of handicapped children 932 738 55 48 91 Services for deaf/ blind children and youth 922 851 20 21 30 Preschool arants 828 645 37 56 90 Training personnel for the education of the handicapped training information centers 764 670 49 15 30 Captioned film loan services for the deaf; educational media loan service for the handicapped 742 659 10 11 62 Handicapped special studies 658 532 14 22 90 Removal of architectural barriers 512 446 8 IO 48 Technology, educational media, and materials for the handicapped 512 456 16 10 30 Regional resource centers 485 434 b 51 b .-- - Research in education of the handicapped 400 392 b 8 b --- Secondary education and transitional services for handicapped youth 337 332 b 5 b --- Program for severely handicapped children 320 237 17 21 45 Handicapped Children’s Early Education Program -~ 307 251 14 12 ___- 30 Clearinghouses --- ..---.--- 280 210 30 --____--IO 30 Training personnel for education of the handicapped grants to state educational agencies for .~ traineeships 273 179 49 15 30 Postsecondary educationC 145 136 b 9 b Page 26 GAO/HRD-91-4BR Education Regulations Appendix II Number of calendar Days to Procem 88 Regulations Within Education and OMB Days in process within Days for Total OMB public Public law/regulation days Education NPRM’ Final comment Higher Education Amendments of 1986 (P.L. 99-498) Guaranteed student loan d program Regional educational laboratories and research and development centers 668 593 15 15 .____45 College library technology and cooperation grants 640 563 20 12 45 Educational Research Grant Program 640 558 18 19 45 Library career training 587 487 60 10 ---.- 30 National resource centers 581 534 6 11 30 Strengthening Research Library Resources Program 574 473 21 18 __- 62 Foreign language and area studies fellowshios 532 463 28 11 30 Library Research and Demonstration Program 474 402 b 72 b ---__ Student assistance general provisions (subpart 6) 410 400 b 10 b Perkins Loan Program (subpart C) 409 400 b 9 b State Student Incentive Grant Program 406 312 29 19 46 Minority Science lmbrovement Proaram 391 378 b 13 b _______~ Pell Grant Proaram 362 b b -..____ 260 102 Housing and other educational facilities loan program ---____ - __- 301 -- 231 27 13 30 -~ Strengthening institutions programs 301 244 23 4 30 Strengthening historically black colleges and universities 301 245 17 9 30 National diffuse network 301 237 27 7 30 Student assistance general provisions (subpart H) 299 292 b 7 b .____ -__---....- Veterans Educational Outreach Program 298 246 14 8 __-. 30 Office of Educational Research and Improvement Fellows Program 297 219 28 20 30 Jacob K. Javits Program 293 245 8 10 -30 (continued) Page 27 GAO/HRD-91-4BR Education Regulations Appendix II Number of Calendar Days to Procesn 93 Regulations Within Education ind OMB Days in process within Days for Total OMB public Public law/reaulation days Education NPRM’ Final comment Cooperative Education Program 292 230 28 4 30 Income continaent loans 292 217 1 42 32 Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Program 285 275 b 10 b International Research and Studies Program 285 275 b 10 b Educational Opportunity b b Center Proaram 285 275 10 Business and International b b Education Proaram 285 275 10 Student support services 280 271 b 9 b Talent search 279 270 b 9 b Upward Bound Program 279 270 b 9 b Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education innovative projects for community services and financial indeoendence 277 228 6 13 30 Christa McAuliffe Fellowship Program 270 158 58 9 45 HEP/CAMP__-~____- 257 188 11 10 48 Patricia Roberts Harris FellowsC 236 207 b 8 b -~- Law School Clinical Exberience ProaramC 181 174 b 7 b Endowment Challenge Grant ProgramC 173 161 b 12 b Congressional Teacher Scholarship ProaramC 161 148 b 13 b LEADC 158 102 11 13 32 Pell Grant Family contribution schedule, b b 1987-88c 105 96 9 Pell Grant Pro ram cost-of- b b attendance, 18 87-88” 105 96 9 Higher Education Technical Amendments Act of 1997 (P.L. 100-50) Strengthening Institutions ProgramC 72 68 b 4 b Strengthening historically black colleges and universitiesC 72 63 b 9 b (continued) Page 28 GAO/HRD-914BR Education Regulations Appendix II Number of Calendar Days to Process 88 Regulations Within Education and OMB Days in process within Days for Total OMB public Public law/regulation days Education NPRM’ Final comment Hawkins-Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Aniendments of 1988 IP.L. 100-2971’ 1-- . . Pi Chapter 2. federal, state, -- and local partnership for educational improvement e __-.- --_____.~. Chapter 1 - state operated programs for handicapped children e --- Chapter 1 - Migrant Education Program (SEAS) 543 382 61 40 60 Women’s Educational Equity Program 504 387 32 40 45 Impact Aid -Section 3 498 309 72 27 90 State administered and national discretionary programs for adult education 478 308 96 13 61 Mathematics-Science Education-State Programs . -..._ ___--- 470 292 ~-- 77 39 --~ 62 National Program for Mathematics and Science Education 470 365 69 6 30 Chapter 1 - Program for Neglected and Delinquent Children ~~-~. .-_____-. 447 306 69 12 60 National Diffusion Network ____-407 275 36 36 60 Migrant Education Even Start Program~. _____ 393 306 23 2 62 Chapter 1 - basic programs operated by local education - .._~ agencies ~~~~~. (LEAS) 387 252 57 18 ___~---_.. 60- Indian Education Fellowship .._.._~ Program _- -.-.~ _-....--~~- 386 ___~_.. 243 56 -__ 27 60 Indian education general provisions and discretionary grant programs 379 ___- 283 13 21 62 Chapter 1 - Migrant education coordination programs for SEAS 377 365 b 12 b ____.-___. - Magnet schools assistance 373__-____ 248 72 8 __-____~---- 45 (continued) Page 29 GAO/HRD-914BR Education Regulations Appendix II Y Number of Calendar Days to Process 83 Regulations Within Education ind OMB Days in process within Days for Total OMB public Public law/reaulation days Education NPRM’ Final comment General Education Provisions Act- enforcement-OALJ and notice 373 267 27 19 60 Indian education formula arant oroarams-(LEAS) 372 194 86 30 62 Fund for the Improvement & Reform of Schools and Teaching (FIRST) 370 289 --__21 14 46 Chapter 1-Even Start Program 330 192 75 10 53 Bilingual education technical amendments 160 121 b 39 b SAFA - Section 2 technical b b amendments 159 119 40 Vocational education b b programs 137 129 8 aNotice of proposed rulemaking. bNot available. CTechnical amendments dUnissued as of April 15, 1990. As of this date, 1,286 calendar days had elapsed since legislation requiring regulations to be issued was enacted. Wnissued as of April 15, 1990. As of this date, 595 calendar days had elapsed since legislation requiring regulations to be issued was enacted. Page 30 GAO/HRD914BB Education Regulations \ Appendix PI1 I. Profiles of SelectedEducation Regulations - Program office-Office of Educational Research and Improvement Regional Educational Laboratories and Time from enactment of legislation to publication of final regula- Research and tion-668 days Development Centers Comments received on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)-3 Program Length of published NPRM-45 pages Length of published final regulations-54 pages Table 111.1:Dates of Key Events in Development of Regulation for Regional Event Date Educational Laboratories and Research Legislation enacted 10/17/06 and Development Centers Program _I_--- --- Draft regulation sent from program office to Office of General Counsel’s Division of Regulatory Management (DORM) ___- 3/l 7107 Circulated for internal ED comments 3/20/07 Internal review process completed 2/l 1I88 NPRM send to OMB fo%%k ~-~.. and approval 2j24j08 NPRM approved bv OMB 8 . 3/l 0180 I , NPRM published in Federal Register 3122180 End of public comment period 5/Q6/08 FDi~na;gulation incorporating public comments sent from program office to ---._...---------- 6/l 5/80 Circulated for internal ED comments 6/l 5100 Internal review process completed 7/l 9100 --~ Prooosed final reaulation sent to OMB for review and aooroval 7/25/80 Final regulation approved by OMB .---.. -- 8/09/E@ Final regulation published 0/l 5100 Major reason for delays- Education’s May 30, 1990, response to our office stated that: . These regulations were among 73 new regulations required by the many reauthorization statutes enacted in 1986. Although the Department was successful in markedly improving its productivity in issuing regulations stemming from those laws, the average time for completion of final reg- ulations, including this one, increased due to the vastly increased regula- tory work load. However, these regulations were issued in ample time to govern awards for fiscal year 1988, the first year that the regulations were needed. Page 31 GAO/BRD914BR Education Regulations Appendix III Profile5 of Sclcctcd Education Regulations Program office -Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Chapter 1 - Migrant Education Program Time from enactment of legislation to publication of final regula- tion-543 days comments received on NPRM-4,829 Length of published NPRM-53 pages Length of published final regulations-168 pages Table 111.2:Dates of Key Events in Development of Regulation for Event Data Chapter 1 - Migrant Education Program -_____-___ Leaislation enacted 4128188 Draft regulation sent from program office to DORM 6/O l/88 Circulated for internal ED comments 6/02/88 Internal review orocess comoleted i i to2/88 NPRM sent to OMB for review and approval 11IO9188 NPRM approved by OMB l/09/89 NPRM publlshed in Federal Register l/26/89 End of oublic comment oeriod 3127189 Final regulation incorporating public comments sent from program office to DORM _---_-.-.------___-______ 7/03/89 Circulated for internal ED comments 7103189 Internal review process completed 8/17/89 Proposed final regulation ~_ sent to OMB for review and approval 9/01/89 Final regulationapproved ---______ by OMB 10/11/89 _____-- Final reaulation published 1O/23/89 Major reasons for delays- Education’s May 30, 1990, response to our office stated that: . Publication of the unprecedented volume of regulations required by the many 1986 reauthorization statutes had not been fully completed when the Hawkins-Stafford Act was enacted, thereby continuing to compete for departmental and OMB resources. The 23 regulations, including this one, required by the 1988 Hawkins-Stafford Act severely taxed an already overburdened system. l The Migrant Education Program regulations involved numerous complex legal and policy issues, and required a careful balancing of interests among migrant children and their parents, local school districts, and state educational agencies. Page 32 GAO/HRD-914BR Education Regulations Appendix III PxMles of Selected Education Begulatione l The regulations had to be coordinated and kept consistent with the other Chapter 1 program regulations also under development, including Chapter ~/LEASregulations, which were required by statue to be pre- ceded by regional meetings and negotiated rulemaking before being pub- lished in proposed form. With respect to a number of significant policies, publication of the Migrant Education Program regulations had to await the completion of the Chapter L/LEASregulations, so that consistency could be maintained among the various Chapter 1 programs. . The Department provided 60 days for public comment on the proposed rules, 30 days beyond the minimum required by law. . During the comment period, the Department received nearly 5,000 let- ters expressing views on the proposed rules, including letters from Mem- bers of Congress, many of which presented difficult issues requiring careful examination and considered resolution. Due to the many public comments and the issues presented, the final regulations comprised 168 typed pages. . The regulations contained certain paperwork requirements, which had to be reviewed and approved by OMBunder the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Page 33 GAO/HBD914BR Education Regulations Appendix III Profiles of Selected Education Regulations Program office-Office of Postsecondary Education National Resource Centers for Foreign Time from enactment of legislation to publication of final regula- Language and Area tion-581 days Comments received on NPRM-10 Length of published NPRM-17 pages Length of published final regulations-19 pages Table 111.3:Dates of Key Event8 In Development of Regulatlon for National Event -____- --.- Date Resource Centers for Foreign Language Legislation enacted I O/I 7186 and Area Studies Draft regulation sent from .-.-.- program office to DORM ___--- - i 120187 Circulated for internal ED comments i /20/87 Internal review process completed a/27/87 NPRM ____ sent---.--...-_----_-.__~------- - _____- to OMB for review and approval 911o/a7 NPRM approved by OMB 9/i 6ta7 NPRM published in Federal Register -____----- ~-- i o/02/87 End of public comment period I /02fa7 Final regulation incorporating public comments sent from program office to DORM -- Circulated for internal ED comments i /29/aG Internal review ___.__-....-------- process -__--.--.completed --- -__ 4/22/aa Proposed final reaulation sent to OMB for review and approval 5/06iaa Final regulation approved by OMB 5~17/aa Final reaulation oublished 512otaa Major reason for delays-Education’s May 30,1990, response to our office stated that: 9 These regulations were among 73 new regulations required by the many reauthorization statutes enacted in 1986. Although the Department was successful in markedly improving its productivity in issuing regulations stemming from those laws, the average time for completion of final reg- ulations, including this one, increased due to the vastly increased regula- tory work load. However, these regulations were issued in ample time to govern awards for fiscal year 1988, the first year that the regulations were needed. Page 34 GAO/HRD-91-4BR Education Regulations Appendir Ill ProfIlm 0fSoM EZducationRego.lati0n.a Program office-Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Early Intervention Services Programs for Infants and Toddlers With Time from enactment tion-988 days of legislation to publication of final regula- Handicaps Comments received on ~PR~-2,660 Length of published NPRM-62 pages Length of published final regulations-224 pages Table 111.4:Dates of Key Events in Development of Regulation for Early Event Date Intervention Programs for Infants and Legislation enacted 1O/00/86 Toddlers With Handicaps Draft -.- regulation sent from program office to DORM l/14/07 Circulated ..-_____ for internal ED comments l/14/07 Internal _._---. review process completed 9/30/87 NPRM sent to OMB---for review and approval -- 1O/06 107 NPRM approved by OMB 1l/13/87 NPRM published in Federal Register i1p3fa7 End of public comment period 2/l 6188 Final regulation incorporating public comments sent from program office to DORM ____- 0/23/08 Circulated for internal ED comments -___- 8/23/W Internal -~ review process completed 5/K@ Proposed -- --- final regulation sent to OMB for review and approval 5/l 2189 Final regulation approved by OMB 6/l 9109 Final regulation published 6/22/89 Major reasons for delays-Education’s May 30, 1990, response to our office stated that: l These regulations were among 73 new regulations required by the many reauthorization statues enacted in 1986. Although the Department was successful in markedly improving its productivity in is:;iGng regulations stemming from those laws, the average time for completion of final reg- ulations, including this one, increased due to the vastly increased regula- tory work load. . The legal and policy issues under the legislation authorizing this pro- gram were numerous and particularly complex, requiring careful coordi- nation with other legislation governing the education of handicapped Page 35 GAO/HRD-91-4BR Education Regulation Appendix III lwfllea or seleaed Rducatlon Eiegulationa children and laws governing numerous state and local agencies and pri- vate service providers that are involved with young children. . The Department initially provided more than 60 days for public com- ment, exceeding the 30-day minimum required by law. In response to requests for additional time, the Department extended the public com- ment period by an additional month, bringing the total to 90 days. . The Department received more than 2,500 letters of public comment on the proposed rules. These letters raised many complex and policy- sensitive issues and required careful consideration and resolution by the Department. Due to the many issues raised in the public comments, the final regulations were extensively revised, and the final document was 224 typed pages in length. . The regulations contained certain paperwork requirements, which had to be reviewed and approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. Page 36 GAO/HRI%914BR Education Regulations Appendix Itf ProfilM of Selected Education Rqulation8 Program office-Office of Vocational and Adult Education State Administered Adult Education and Time from enactment of legislation to publication of final regula- Discretionary tion-477 days Programs Comments received on NPRM-35 Length of published NPRM-1 24 pages Length of published final regulations-149 pages Table 111.5:Dates of Key Event8 in Development of Regulation for State Event Date Administered Adult Education and Legislation enacted Discretionary Program8 ..~_.._4/2a/as-.. Draft reaulation sent from proaram office to DORM 7121taa Circulated for internal ED comments 7/22/aa Internal review process completed -__ ---.-.2/i 6188 i NPRM sent to OMB for review and approval i 2123188 NPRM approved by OMB 3129189 --- NPRM published in Federal Register 4112189 End of public comment period 6112189 ----__ Enal regulation incorporating public comments sent from program office to DORM 6121/a9 Circulated for internal ED comments 6122189 __- Internal review process comoleted 7105ia9 Proposed final regulation sent to OMB for review and approval 7127189 Final regulation approved by OMB a/09/89 Final regulation published 8/l B/89 Major reasons for delays- Education’s May 30, 1990, response to our office stated that: . The unprecedented volume of regulations required by the six 1986 reauthorizations had not been fully completed when the Hawkins- Stafford Act was enacted, thereby continuing to compete for depart- mental and OMB resources. The 23 regulations, including this one, required by the 1988 Hawkins-Stafford Act severely taxed an already overburdened system. l The regulations presented numerous complex issues, requiring a careful balancing of the interests of adult beneficiaries and state and local gov- ernment entities, as well as other agencies and organizations eligible to participate under the various programs affected. Page 37 GAO/HRDOl-PBR Education Regulations Appendix III Profiles of Selected Education Regulation 9 The Department provided 60 days for public comment, 30 days more than the minimum required by statute. l The Department received a substantial number of public comments on NPRM,raising many significant issues that required careful consideration and resolution. Page 38 GAO/BRD-914BR Education Regulations Appendix IV Cbnments From the Department of Education UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFEDUCATION OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL THE GENERAL COUNSEL SEP 61990 Mr. Franklin Frazier Director, Education and Employment Issues United States General Accounting office Washington, D.C. 20540 Dear Mr. Frazier: The Secretary has received your letter of August 9, 1990, transmitting a draft report on the promulgation of certain regulations of the Department of Education. In general, the draft report accurately presents factual information provided by the Department to GAO staff, with a few exceptions noted in the attachment to this letter. However, the report does not reflect some significant information provided by the Department that is pertinent to the congressional inquiry that led to GAO's review. The information relating to our major concerns is set forth in the attachment. In summary: (1) The draft report fails to acknowledge the significant accomplishments of the Department in meeting the enormous regulatory workload caused by the enactment of a multitude of reauthorization statutes in 1986-1988. Through intrtiduction of management reforms and emergency measures, the Department increased the number of regulatory documents it published in fiscal year 1987 by 60 percent over the prior year. Although there was an increase in the average time needed to publish a regulation because of the great number that were required by the new legislation, only 16 of the 83 regulations took longer than 18 months to complete, a remarkable accomplishment under the circumstances. (2) The draft report omits the information, provided at the request of GAO, showing that this Department compares favorably to other similar Federal agencies in developing regulations. (3) The draft report fails to acknowledge the information provided by the Department to GAO showing how departmental personnel resources have declined. This necessarily affected the Department's ability to meet the massive increase in regulatory workload caused by the 1986-1988 reauthorizations. 4~1, MAhYLANL) A”t SW WA5HINLlUN UL 1”11)2 Page39 GAO/HR.I%914BREducationRegulatioua Appendix IV Canmenta Fkom the Department of Education (4) The draft report omits the information provided by the Department showing that the time required to issue regulations did not harm the programs, inconvenience the public, or cause delay in fully implementing congressional intent. The Department took a number of significant actions to avoid these consequences, including setting priorities among the regulations, issuing interim non-regulatory guidance, and instituting management reforms to facilitate the production of priority documents. (5) The draft report makes no reference to the suggestions offered by the Department, at GAO's request, for improving the production of regulations for education programs. The Congress could take a number of useful actions in this regard. I believe that the draft report would be significantly strengthened and would be of much greater use to the Department and to Congress if the above matters were addressed. Thank you for this opportunity to provide the Department's views. Page 40 GAO/HRD914BR Education Regulations Appendix IV Commenta From the Department of Education ATTACHMENT I. Errors in the draft GAO reDort . The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) does not have to "approve" regulations before they go to the Secretary. Only the Secretary and OMB must approve Now on p. 2. regulations. (Report, p. 3) . GAO's diagram of the regulations development process contains two errors: (1) the Department's analysis of legislation typically begins well before enactment, usually when both the House and the Senate have passed bills covering similar programs or subjects; and (2) final regulations &wavs must be approved by the Secretary and OMB (not just "if Needed," as stated in Now on p. 3. the draft report). (Report, p. 3A) II. -matters rel&ins to the draft GAO reuort A. The Dewartment's Prior record in Dromuluatinq ations . Under the prior Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), from 1974 (when the 240-day schedule requirement was enacted) through 1979 (when HEW issued its last education regulations), it took an average of 530 days from the enactment of an education statute to issuance of final regulations. . From May, 1980, when the Department was created, through August, 1986, Congress enacted legislation requiring the Department to issue 95 regulations. These regulations were issued, on the average, 335 days following enactment of the legislation. B. The mmem faced bv the DeDartment in 198 6- 19 88 . From September, 1986 through April, 1988, Congress enacted legislation requiring 98 regulations, including the 83 regulations reviewed by GAO. This was more than the number of regulations required by all legislation enacted in the prior six years of the Department's existence. . Prior to 1986, the Department had never issued more than 66 regulations in one year (HEW's Education Division once issued 71 regulations in a year (1975)). As a result of the 1986 legislation, the Department's regulatory workload totalled 195 wendins reaulatorv actwn S. Page 41 GAO/HRD-91-4BR Education Regulations AppendixIV Comments FromtheDepartment ofEducation . The primary reason for the length of time it took to issue all of the regulations under the 1986-1988 laws was the extraordinary number of regulations required to carry out those statutes. For example, in 1986, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) was faced with the necessity of issuing regulations under both its special education programs (the regulations subject to the GAO investigation) m all of its program authorities under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, in addition to its pre-existing substantial regulatory workload. . The effect of the 1986 avalanche of regulations can be seen by comparing OSERS' record in implementing its prior reauthorization legislation, which was enacted in December, 1983 (Public Law 98-199). Under that law, OSERS was required to issue 12 regulations. The regulations were published, on the average, 264 days after enactment of the statute. . Under the 1986 reauthorizations, OSERS was required to promulgate 17 regulations just for its special education programs, in addition to the regulations required for its vocational rehabilitation programs. The average for OSERS' 17 special education regulations was 553 days from enactment, compared to 264 days under the 1983 legislation when the Department was not faced with the flood of new laws enacted in 1986-1988. C. m Dewartment's accomwlishments . To meet the enormous regulatory workload stemming from the 1986-1988 enactments, the Department instituted a number of procedural reforms to streamline the Department's clearance procedures, including an earlier start-up of regulations preparation and a reduction in the number of offices within the Department that review draft regulations. This resulted in a 60% increase in the number of regulations published in fiscal year 1987 over the prior year, and a continued higher rate of production of regulations in succeeding years. . Although the average time for promulgating regulations under the 1986-1988 laws increased over the Department's past record, due to the greatly increased number of regulations under development, all of the regulations were issued without undue delays, under the circumstances. Of the 83 regulations in question, 13 were issued within the initial 240-day schedule, 40 were issued within 12 months, and all but 16 were completed within 18 months of enactment. -2- Page42 GAO/HRD914BREducationRegulatlone Appendix Iv Commenta From the Department of Education . The Department has continued to devise and institute management improvements to assist in issuing regulations even more quickly. For example, the Department was successful in significantly reducing the time taken to issue certain final regulations under the Hawkins-Stafford Act through use of an expedited clearance procedure. . The Department is also experimenting with an expanded use of automated computer systems to facilitate the clearance of regulations, as available technology permits. D. The DeDar+&lu!znt's record comnared to other Federal . GAO requested information on other Federal agencies' promulgation of regulations. We found that other Federal agencies do not typically keep information regarding the length of time it takes them to issue regulations. To make a comparison, we surveyed all regulations issued during fiscal year 1989 (October 1, 1988-September 30, 1989) by certain comparable Federal agencies that administer financial assistance programs. The survey did not include regulations based on scientific data, in order to consider only documents similar to the regulations of the Department of Education. . Thirty such regulations were issued by those other agencies in fiscal year 1989, implementing 53. statutory provisions. For implementation of 22 of the 51 statutory provisions, rulemaking procedures were waived (i.e., no public comment was solicited prior to issuing final regulations). . The average time taken by those other agencies to issue final regulations was JJ&Q days from enactment of the pertinent legislation, including regulations for which public comment procedures were waived. By comparison, the Department of Education averaged 367 days from enactment for regulations under new legislation passed in the years 1980-1987. The average for the Department's regulations under review by GAO is approximately ZBp days from enactment (with three regulations still pending as of April, 1990). E. me Deoartment's wersonnel resources . Since 1981, the Department's Salaries and Expenses appropriation has declined, in constant dollars, from $291 million in fiscal year 1981 to $230 million in -3- Page 43 GAO/HRD-91-4BR Education Regulations Appendix IV Comments From the Department of Education fiscal year 1989. . This has resulted in a corresponding decline in the number of employees in the Department (in FTE usage) from 6,883 in 1981 to 4,425 u in 1989. During this period, the Department's responsibilities, by any measure (including significantly increased overall appropriations and numbers of separate programs), have expanded substantially. congress has consistently appropriated less for the Department's Salaries and Expenses account than the amounts requested by the Administration. . This loss of personnel resources has had a particularly adverse effect on the Department's ability to absorb significant increases in workload in a short period, as happened under the 1986-1988 legislation. F. Effect of rea wla t' ions on oroarams. the public. and lementation of conaressional intent The Department successfully took a number of actions that ensured that the time taken to issue regulations under the 1986-1988 laws did not harm the affected programs, inconvenience affected parties, or delay full implementation of congressional intent. . No funds have ever been lapsed by the Department due to a failure to issue regulations. When priorities had to be set among regulatory actions, the Department gave first attention to those necessary to make awards within the Federal fiscal year. . For the Stafford Loan program, the Department gave first priority to issuing regulations on the most pressing problem faced by the Federal program: student loan defaults. Those regulations have been completed and are currently being implemented. . As an interim measure, the Department issued non- regulatory guidance to assist affected parties in carrying out congressional intent. For example, the Department issued extensive guidance to assist educational institutions, lenders, and guarantee agencies in implementing changes to the Stafford Loan program made by the Higher Education Amendments of 1986. The implementation of the 1986 amendments has in no way been delayed due to the lack of regulations. JJ The latter figure is updated. In the information initially provided to GAO, the estimated 1989 FTE usage was given as 4,402. However, the difference is negligible. -4- Page 44 GAO/HRD-914BR Education Regulations . AppendixIV CommentsFromtheDepartment ofEducation G. Recommendationam For some programs, additional extensive public comment periods are mandated by statute (90 days for all regulations under Part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act: 90 days for all regulations for the Impact Aid programs). These comment periods are required regardless of the significance of the particular regulations being proposed. Under the 1988 Hawkins-Stafford legislation, the Department was required to augment public comment procedures by conducting a series of regional meetings and then a modified regulatory negotiation to determine the content of the Chapter 1 proposed regulations. Not only did the regional meetings and regulatory negotiation add to the time to issue the Chapter 1 regulations, but those add-on procedures took many personnel and other resources that would have been devoted to the other regulations that were being developed under the Hawkins-Stafford legislation. All of these procedures are added to, not in lieu of, the normal public comment procedures under the General Education Ptovisions Act (GEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act, which govern rulemaking by the Department. The Department has the following recommendations that would assist in avoiding delays in issuing future regulations. . The Congress should simplify or eliminate the numerous special procedures that apply to the issuance of the Department's regulations, including the mandatory 90- day public comment periods that apply to some regulations. . The Department reiterates its opposition to regulatory negotiation procedures imposed by Congress on the Department's rulemaking process. An evaluation of the development of the Chapter 1 regulations demonstrated that regulatory negotiation is not an appropriate technique for developing education regulations. Regulatory negotiation, as devised by the Administrative Conference of the United Statee, is useful where discrete, conflicting economic interest5 exist, and litigation over the final regulations is likely. These criteria do not apply to the Department's regulations. -5- Page45 GAO/BRD-914BREducationRegnlations Appendix V CommentsFrom the Office of Management ’ and Budget EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WASHINGTON, O.C. 20503 SEP I 3 1990 Mr. Franklin Frazier Director, Education and Employment Issues Human Resources Division U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 Dear Mr. Frazier: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the General Accounting Office (GAO) report, 'VRegulation Processing: Delays in Issuing Education Regulations," requested by Congressmen Augustus Hawkins, Pat Williams, and William F. Goodling. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) appreciates Congress' concern over the time period between the enactment of education statutes and the promulgation of regulations pursuant to such legislation. We welcome the publication of GAO findings, which identify the relative contributions of key players in the regulatory process. OMB continues to work with the Department of Education (ED) to issue regulations expeditiously and responsibly, given the dictates of congressional statutes, administration policy, and OMB review standards as outlined in Executive Order (E.O.) No. 12291. OMB has concerns, however, over several portions of the report as currently written. These issues relate to incomplete statements about OMB responsibilities for reviewing regulations in accordance with E.O. 12291, and to potentially misleading presentations of the time frame in which OMB acted on rules submitted for review by ED. GAO asserts that "OMB is to complete its review within 10 days Now an p, 5. for both the proposed and final regulations" on page 5 of its Now on p. 2. report; a similar statement appears on page 3. As noted in Section 3 of E.O. 12291, however, this lo-day period may be extended upon request from the Director of OMB. Given such notice, agencies must consult with OMB concerning a pending regulation, and must "refrain from publishing" a proposed rule until OMB completes its review, or a final rule until the agency has incorporated both OMB views and agency responses into the rulemaking file. Under E.O. 12291, agencies and OMB are to follow these procedures unless they conflict with deadlines imposed by statutes or judicial orders. We believe that the relevant section5 of the report should be revised to explicate OMB's authority correctly. Page 46 GAO/HRD-914BR Education Regulations Appendix V Comments From the Offlce of Management and Budget 2 OMB also notes that in several places, the report presents review times for both OMB and ED in a misleading context. Specifically, Now on p, 5. the GAO statement cited above (page 5) could be interpreted as meaning that OMB's lo-day, extendable response time applies to both proposed and final rules, taken together. As GAO mentions elsewhere in the document, the lo-day time frame applies twice: once for the proposed rule, and once for the final. Taken together, OMB has 20 days to respond for both proposed and final rules, and has the authority to extend this time period. This distinction should be noted. We register a similar comment in response to the GAO regulatory Now on p, 3. flow chart, presented on page 3a. Step #8, review and revision of final regulations, is needed in virtually all cases. The chart should indicate clearly that OMB conducts regulatory reviews at both stages, allowing readers to understand accurately that OMB acts at two different points during the rulemaking process. Now on p, 6. Another case of misleading presentation occurs on page 7, and is Now on p. 22 repeated in the chart on page 24. GAO repeats the correct assertion by ED officials that their responses to OMB comments added time to the issuance of regulations. But by GAO's accounting methods in this report, the time during which ED responded to OMB concerns is registered as OMB review time, with the exception of two rules (in the 83-rule sample) that OMB suspended after ED had not responded for a period of several weeks. While we do not disagree with this accounting convention, we object to a means of presentation where ED's response time first appears on OMB's clock, but where OMB is then cited as a contributing factor to the long time frame accounted for on ED's clock. The two statements are contradictory. Assuming that GAO does not reVise its accounting procedure, OMB should not be cited as a cause of longer response time by ED. Now on p, 6. Finally, GAO notes on page 8 that ED program offices must develop regulations while also performing many other duties. OMB appreciates this, and notes that OMB staff also have numerous responsibilities aside from regulatory review. During the 1987- 1989 period in which GAO collected its data, OMB staff responsible for reviewing ED rules also examined nearly twice as many submissions of government requests for information from the Department of Education and related agencies; the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 requires OMB to review public sector demands for information from private citizens. In conclusion, OMB welcomes the release of this GAO report on the development of education regulations. We again thank GAO for the Page 47 GAO/HRD-914BR Education Regulations Appendix V Comments From the Offlce qf Management and Budget 3 opportunity to comment, and repeat the assurance that OMB and ED will continue efforts to issue rules expeditiously and responsibly. Sincerely, i .v 04 /AZ /z/j,I b ames B. MacRae, Jr. Acting Administrator and Deputy Administrator Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs cc: Mr. Bill Milletary GAO Investigator . Page 48 GAO/HRD-914BR Education Regulations Appendix VI Major ~Contributmsto This Briefing Report Fred E. Yohey, Jr., Assistant Director, (202) 401-8623 Human Resources William C. Milletary, Assignment Manager Division, Darlene M. Bell, Evaluator-in-Charge Washington, D.C. Andrea Rozner, Evaluator (104840) Page 49 GAO/~BMBR Education Regulations ‘i’ht~ first five copit’s of each GAO report are free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should he sent. to the following address, acconi- pauit*ci by a check or money order made out to the Sug)~!rint,~ndcIit of Docuuir~nts, when necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be uraileci t.0 a single address are discounted 25 percent. I1.S. Gmeral Accounting Office I’.(). Hex 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20877 Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 275-6241 I ..^.. -... .--I ___lll._ -_.I -__--. ~ _.. .l_.“_..-^__~.l__l”“----~--~ --.--.*m-- Pir~t-Class M&l Postage & l?ees Paid GAO Ol’f’i(‘iilI Ihsintw
Education Regulations: Reasons for Delays in Issuance
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-11-15.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)