[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 27, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55269-55272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25757]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


 Improving Implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act

AGENCY: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget.

ACTION: Request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) oversees agency 
information collection activities under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (PRA). While information collection is critical to evidence-based 
decisions and informed government operations, unnecessary paperwork 
requirements can impose serious burdens on the public, especially small 
entities. The PRA requires Federal agencies to minimize the burden on 
the public resulting from their information collections, and to 
maximize the practical utility of the information collected. OMB is 
committed to working with agencies and the public to promote compliance 
with the PRA and to reduce

[[Page 55270]]

unnecessary paperwork and improve PRA guidance and implementation. To 
that end, OMB is inviting comments from the public on how to strengthen 
and improve implementation of the PRA. Specifically, OMB seeks comments 
on reducing current paperwork burdens, especially on small entities; 
increasing the practical utility of information collected by the 
Federal Government; ensuring accurate burden estimates; and preventing 
unintended adverse consequences.

DATES: To ensure consideration, responses must be written and received 
by December 28, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Web site: www.regulations.gov.
     E-mail: [email protected].
     Fax: (202) 395-7245.
    Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available 
to the public through relevant Web sites. For this reason, please do 
not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such 
as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you 
send an e-mail comment, your e-mail address will be automatically 
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 
public docket and made available on the Internet. Please note that 
responses to this public comment request containing any routine notice 
about the confidentiality of the communication will be treated as 
public comments that may be made available to the public 
notwithstanding the inclusion of the routine notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mabel Echols, Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Records Management Center, Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10102, NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20503, Telephone: (202) 395-6880.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this Federal Register notice, OMB seeks 
public comments on possible initiatives to improve the implementation 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)--and in particular, to 
reduce the paperwork burden on the public, especially on small 
entities; to maximize the utility of the information collected; to 
ensure accurate burden estimates; to improve the process of OMB review; 
and to prevent unintended adverse consequences. OMB plans to use the 
comments it receives in response to this notice to inform its 
preparation of the 2010 Information Collection Budget (ICB), which is a 
report that will be provided to Congress on the Federal Government's 
effectiveness in implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB 
will also use these comments to inform its practices for evaluating 
information collections submitted to OMB by agencies.

Improving Paperwork Burden Estimates

    Agencies estimate PRA paperwork burden in terms of the time and 
financial resources the public devotes annually to responding to 
information collections. The term ``burden'' means the ``time, effort, 
or financial resources'' the public expends to provide information to 
or for a Federal agency, or otherwise fulfill statutory or regulatory 
requirements. 44 U.S.C. 3502(2); 5 CFR 1320.3(b). ``Burden'' therefore 
includes:
     Reviewing instructions;
     Using technology to collect, process, and disclose 
information;
     Adjusting existing practices to comply with requirements;
     Searching data sources;
     Completing and reviewing the response; and
     Transmitting or disclosing information.
    Currently, agencies estimate and report the burden of these 
activities in terms of the time, or burden hours, and the financial 
costs that the public devotes to reporting, recordkeeping, and 
disclosure requirements. In estimating the time and resources devoted 
to information collections, agency Chief Information Officer offices 
typically consult agency program staff, who are responsible for 
managing the information and thus possess the substantive knowledge 
that is essential to estimating the number of respondents to an 
information request relating to that program. The agency then uses its 
knowledge of the program to consider how much time a respondent would 
need to respond to the information request. Multiplying the amount of 
time per respondent by the number of respondents and the number of 
times the information is submitted each year produces the total annual 
burden hours imposed by a given collection.
    After agencies produce a preliminary burden estimate, several 
reviews of its accuracy take place. First, agencies solicit public 
feedback on the accuracy of their estimates in Federal Register notices 
that provide for an initial 60-day public comment period. Any comments 
received by the agency are used to refine the estimate that is 
submitted for OMB review. Second, OMB analysts who review agency 
information collection requests (ICRs) can provide comments on the 
agency's estimate. Finally, OMB review is accompanied by a second, 30-
day public comment period (initiated with a second Federal Register 
notice), during which the public can again submit comments on the 
burden estimates.
    Agencies have worked hard to improve their burden estimates, and 
several agencies have undergone extensive studies to do so. For 
example, the Internal Revenue Service accounts for a large share (over 
76 percent) of the Federal Government's total paperwork burden. In 
light of this fact, the IRS has devoted considerable resources to 
measuring the burden it imposes on taxpayers so that policymakers and 
the public can better understand the cost to society of tax collection 
and compliance with the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS has made efforts 
to improve the accuracy and transparency of taxpayer burden estimates. 
Starting in FY 2006, the IRS began using a new methodology based on a 
statistical model--the Individual Taxpayer Burden Model (ITBM)--to 
estimate the reporting burden imposed on individual taxpayers. The 
ITBM's approach to measuring burden focuses on the characteristics and 
activities of individual taxpayers rather than the forms they 
ultimately use.
    Despite public input and certain common methodological techniques, 
agency estimation methodologies can sometimes produce imprecise and 
inconsistent burden estimates. Some agencies have relied on program 
analysts to generate burden estimates based on their individual 
consideration of, for example, the number and types of questions asked, 
what records will need to be created and maintained, how long it will 
take people to complete these and other tasks, and how many people will 
be performing the tasks. These officials are often experts in their 
areas of responsibility and are usually familiar with the public's 
experience with responding to information collections they oversee. In 
some cases, however, it is not clear that their estimates are based on 
sufficiently rigorous or internally consistent methodologies. This is a 
particular concern in the case of large collections, the burden of 
which may be measured in millions of hours or tens of millions of 
dollars.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For more information on how agencies estimate their 
paperwork burden, please refer to pages 29-39 of the Information 
Collection Budget of the United States Government, FY 1999, Office 
of Management and Budget, which can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/icb-fy99.pdf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 55271]]

    In addition, OMB is aware of the possibility that information 
collections may impose significant burdens on small businesses. Because 
of economies of scale, a collection may be more burdensome for a small 
entity than for a large one. However, currently there is no uniform 
method for agencies to account for situations in which a collection may 
have a disproportionate impact on a particular type of respondent, such 
as a small entity.
    In summary, there is some variation across individual agencies in 
the methodologies used for estimating the time and financial burden 
associated with their collections. This variation makes it difficult to 
ensure accurate assessment on the part of all individual agencies and 
to upgrade government-wide performance in implementing the PRA.

OMB Seeks Comment on How To Improve the Current Situation, Including:

     Examples of substantially inaccurate burden estimates for 
information collections, including an analysis of the inaccuracy and, 
if possible, the collection's OMB Control Number.
     New or improved practices for estimating burden, such as 
new burden estimation methodologies and recommendations about how to 
use technology and social media applications to seek comments from 
those most informed about a collection's burden.
     Possible distinctions, in burden estimates, between 
mandatory and voluntary information collections.
     Examples of information collections (if possible, 
including the OMB Control Number) that inaccurately estimate the impact 
of burden upon small entities.
     Whether the creation of a separate burden estimate for 
small entities is necessary and, if so, the best methodology by which 
to estimate burden.
     Whether and how burden hours should be monetized. If so, 
should a single valuation of time (as represented, for example, by a 
respondent's wage rate or the fee paid to a contractor) be used for all 
collections, or should it be derived separately for different types of 
collections? Also, should a single valuation be used for all 
respondents to a particular collection, or should valuations differ 
according to respondent characteristics?
     Whether OMB should establish a means for reporting annual 
burden estimates rather than the three-year average burden estimates 
that are commonly reported today.
    In submitting comments to this notice, please provide supporting 
evidence where feasible--with data, specific examples of information 
collections, and, if possible, the collections' OMB Control Numbers--
along with concrete recommendations.

Reducing Paperwork Burden and Maximizing the Utility of Information 
Collected by the Federal Government

    Over the years, the number of hours that the public has spent 
responding to Federal Government information collections has been 
steadily increasing. In FY 2000, the public spent an estimated 7.4 
billion hours responding to information collections subject to the PRA. 
In FY 2007, the number of hours grew to an estimated 9.64 billion, an 
increase of more than 30 percent. Much of this increase is attributed 
to factors that make it difficult for agencies to control their 
paperwork burden, such as new statutory requirements and demographic 
and economic changes. A much smaller portion is a result of 
discretionary decisions made by agencies that increase burden.
    While the overall trend in paperwork burden has been rising, 
several agencies have dramatically reduced the burden of their 
collections, and in some cases improved the utility of a collection in 
the process. The following are examples of successful initiatives by 
agencies to reduce burden on the public:
     The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) expanded 
electronic reporting options for its National Fire Incident Reporting 
System (NFIRS), which allows the Department to analyze fire incident 
data at the Federal, State, and local levels. The revised system 
continues to help DHS identify common fire trends on a national scale, 
but in a more efficient manner. The revisions to the system resulted in 
a reduction of 1.28 million burden hours and $17.545 million in costs 
to respondents.
     Within the Department of Health and Human Services, the 
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) managed a work 
group to examine some of its forms for possible duplication or 
redundancy with currently approved Standard Forms. The group found that 
the health professions programs could operate with the Standard Forms, 
allowing HRSA to discontinue one of its program-specific forms, the 
Competing Grant Training Application. As a result, burden was reduced 
by 101,531 hours.
     The Social Security Administration (SSA) reduced the 
amount of time necessary to complete the initial online filing for 
Social Security retirement and disability benefits by enabling 
respondents to sign the application electronically, rather than in hard 
copy. This portion of the SSA's Signature Proxy Initiative resulted in 
an annual reduction of 32,401 hours.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See page 5 of the Information Collection Budget of the 
United States Government, FY 2007, Office of Management and Budget, 
which can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/icb/fy_2007_icb_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agencies also often undertake efforts to improve the utility of 
information that they collect through relatively small increases in 
burden. For example, statistical agencies routinely pretest new surveys 
or new items for existing surveys to ensure that respondents understand 
the question being asked, have the information to be able to respond, 
and are able to convey their response in accordance with the options 
provided by the agency. Similarly, agencies conducting program 
evaluations or research studies often engage in small-scale formative 
or exploratory research to inform larger-scale investigations. With 
increasing use of the Internet to collect and disseminate information, 
more agencies are also engaging in usability testing to improve their 
Web sites and electronic forms and questionnaires.
    OMB is committed to helping agencies build on these initiatives and 
to ensuring that the PRA is implemented in a way that suits current 
conditions. OMB is also aware that concerns have been expressed about 
unintended consequences of the administration of the Act, including 
delays in the conduct of surveys and research in contexts in which 
citizens are asked, but not required, to respond to information 
collection requests by the Federal Government.
    In this notice, OMB is seeking public comment to provide new ideas 
for reducing paperwork burden and ensuring practical utility. As part 
of its efforts to improve this situation, OMB invites comments from the 
public on all issues relating to improvement of the implementation of 
the PRA, including but not limited to the following topic areas:
     How can OMB improve the PRA review process in a way that 
increases efficiency and timeliness for agencies while ensuring 
practical utility and minimizing burden on the public?
     Under the PRA, what are the relevant differences among 
collections that are mandatory, mandatory to receive a benefit, and 
voluntary, and what practices could OMB implement in its review 
processes to recognize these differences? In addition, how would such 
practices achieve the PRA goals of reducing current paperwork

[[Page 55272]]

burdens and increasing the practical utility of information collected 
by the Federal Government?
     Should OMB encourage agencies to adopt ``one-stop'' 
information collection techniques, which consolidate multiple forms via 
a single electronic form to reduce the burden on the public? How should 
OMB encourage agencies to take advantage of online tools to simplify 
the completion of already-approved surveys or mobile technology to 
deliver a survey by alternative means?
     What practices could OMB implement under the PRA to 
facilitate the use of new technologies, such as social media, as well 
as future technologies, while supporting the Federal Government's 
responsibilities for Information Resource Management?
     What new steps, if any, might be taken under the PRA to 
eliminate any redundant or excessive mandatory information collections, 
especially in connection with programs that now impose the most 
significant burdens, including tax, health, and transportation 
programs?
     Examples of successful paperwork burden reduction 
practices implemented by an agency that could be implemented by other 
agencies. Please provide recommendations, and if possible, OMB control 
numbers.

Cass R. Sunstein,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. E9-25757 Filed 10-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P