Paperwork Reduction Act: New Approach May Be Needed to Reduce
Government Burden on Public (20-MAY-05, GAO-05-424).
Americans spend billions of hours each year providing information
to federal agencies by filling out information collections
(forms, surveys, or questionnaires). A major aim of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) is to balance the burden of these collections
with their public benefit. Under the act, agencies' Chief
Information Officers (CIO) are responsible for reviewing
information collections before they are submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. As part of this
review, CIOs must certify that the collections meet 10 standards
set forth in the act. GAO was asked to assess, among other
things, this review and certification process, including
agencies' efforts to consult with the public. To do this, GAO
reviewed a governmentwide sample of collections, reviewed
processes and collections at four agencies that account for a
large proportion of burden, and performed case studies of 12
approved collections.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-05-424
ACCNO: A24537
TITLE: Paperwork Reduction Act: New Approach May Be Needed to
Reduce Government Burden on Public
DATE: 05/20/2005
SUBJECT: Agency missions
Chief information officers
Data collection
Federal law
Federal regulations
Forms (documents)
Government information
Information resources management
Noncompliance
Standards
Surveys
Regulatory agencies
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-424
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO Report to Congressional Requesters
May 2005
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
New Approach May Be Needed to Reduce Government Burden on Public
a
GAO-05-424
May 2005
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
New Approach May Be Needed to Reduce Government Burden on Public
[IMG]
What GAO Found
Governmentwide, agency CIOs generally reviewed information collections and
certified that they met the standards in the act. However, GAO's analysis
of 12 case studies at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the
Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor
showed that CIOs certified collections even though support was often
missing or partial (see table). For example, in nine of the case studies,
agencies did not provide support, as the law requires, for the standard
that the collection was developed by an office with a plan and resources
to use the information effectively. Because OMB instructions do not ask
explicitly for this support, agencies generally did not address it.
Further, although the law requires agencies both to publish notices in the
Federal Register and to otherwise consult with the public, agencies
governmentwide generally limited consultation to the publication of
notices, which generated little public comment. Without appropriate
support and public consultation, agencies have reduced assurance that
collections satisfy the standards in the act.
Processes outside the PRA review process, which are more rigorous and
involve greater public outreach, have been set up by IRS and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), whose missions involve numerous
information collections and whose management is focused on minimizing
burden. For example, each year, IRS subjects a few forms to highly
detailed, in-depth analyses, including extensive outreach to the public
affected and the information users. IRS reports that this
process-performed on forms that have undergone CIO review and received OMB
approval-has reduced burden by over 200 million hours since 2002. In
contrast, for the 12 case studies, the CIO review process did not reduce
burden. Without rigorous evaluative processes, agencies are unlikely to
achieve the PRA goal of minimizing burden while maximizing utility.
Support Provided by Agencies for Paperwork Reduction Act Standards in 12
Case Studies Support provided Standards: The information collection-
Totala Yes Partial No
Is necessary for the proper performance of agency 12 6 6 0
functions.
Avoids unnecessary duplication. 11 2 2 7
Reduces burden on the public, including small 12 5 7 0
entities.
Uses language that is understandable to respondents. 12 1 0 11
Will be compatible with respondents' recordkeeping 12 3 0 9
practices.
Indicates period for which records must be retained. 6 3 3 0
Gives required information (e.g., whether response is 12 4 8 0
mandatory).
Was developed by an office with necessary plan and 11 2 0 9
resources.
Uses appropriate statistical survey methodology (if 1 1 0 0
applicable).
Makes appropriate use of information technology. 12 8 4 0
Total 101 35 30 36
Source: Paperwork Reduction Act, Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 173-4, sec.
3506(c)(3).
aThe total is not always 12 because not all certifications applied to all
collections. United States Government Accountability Office
Contents
Letter
Results in Brief
Background
Agency Review Processes Were Not Rigorous, and Public
Consultation Was Limited Four Agencies Generally Ensure That Collection
Forms on Web Sites Are Approved and Inventoried Four Agencies Did Not
Always Ensure that Forms on Web Sites
Displayed Public Scrutiny Information Required by the Act Conclusions
Matters for Congressional Consideration Recommendations for Executive
Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
1 5 8
15
29
31 34 35 36 37
Appendixes
Appendix I:
Appendix II: Appendix III: Appendix IV:
Appendix V: Appendix VI: Appendix VII:
Standards That Must Be Certified in Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Comments from the Office of Management and Budget
Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
Comments from the Department of Labor
Comments from the Department of the Treasury
Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs
44 47 52
61 64 66 75
Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5:
Standards for Information Collections Set by the
Paperwork Reduction Act 2
Support Provided by Agencies for Paperwork Reduction
Act Standards in 12 Case Studies 17
Estimated Rates of Unapproved and Expired Forms at
Four Agencies 30
Estimated Rates That Approved and Unexpired Forms on
Agency Web Sites Did Not Include All Information 33
Disposition of Sampled Collections 48
Contents
Abbreviations
CIO Chief Information Officer
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
IRS Internal Revenue Service
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
VA Department of Veterans Affairs
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
A
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548
May 20, 2005
The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives
The Honorable Candice S. Miller
Chair, Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives
Each year, nearly every adult American and every business fills out at
least
one federally sponsored form, survey, or questionnaire that agencies need
to carry out their missions. For example, the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) uses forms to collect information from citizens and their employers
to determine taxes owed. Based on governmentwide estimates of
paperwork burden,1 the public spent about 8.1 billion hours in 2003
responding to or complying with information requirements-a 50 percent
increase since 1989, when burden was estimated at 5.4 billion hours.2
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA),3 agencies are required to
minimize the paperwork burden they impose on the public to carry out
their missions4 and to maximize the practical utility of the information
they
collect. Under PRA, agencies are required to submit all proposed
information collections to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
approval. Governmentwide, agencies maintain about 8,000 information
1Paperwork burden is defined as the time spent reading and understanding a
request for information, as well as the time spent developing, compiling,
recording, reviewing, and providing the information.
2In 1989, the Internal Revenue Service changed its formula for calculating
burden hours, resulting in major changes to its estimates.
3The Paperwork Reduction Act was originally enacted into law in 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-511, Dec. 11, 1980). It was reauthorized with minor amendments in
1986 (Pub. L. 99-591, Oct. 30, 1986) and was reauthorized a second time
with more significant amendments in 1995 (Pub. L. 10413, May 22, 1995).
4The act also provides a framework for management of information
activities and information technology.
collections covered by the act. Each year, agencies submit about 3,000 of
these to be approved or reapproved by OMB.5
In an effort to strengthen the act, the Congress amended the act in 1995
to establish, among other things, more detailed agency clearance
requirements. One of these requirements is that before an information
collection is submitted to OMB for approval, it must be reviewed by the
agency's Chief Information Officer (CIO).6 The CIO is to certify that the
collection meets 10 standards (see table 1) that are set forth in the act
and to provide support for these certifications.
Table 1: Standards for Information Collections Set by the Paperwork Reduction
Act
Standards
The collection is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions. The
collection avoids unnecessary duplication.
The collection reduces burden on the public, including small entities, to
the extent practicable and appropriate.
The collection uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous language that is
understandable to respondents.
The collection will be consistent and compatible with respondents' current
reporting and recordkeeping practices to the maximum extent practicable.
The collection indicates the retention period for any recordkeeping
requirements for respondents.
The collection informs respondents of the information they need to
exercise scrutiny of agency collections information (the reasons the
information is collected; the way it is used; an estimate of the burden;
whether responses are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or
mandatory; and a statement that no person is required to respond unless a
valid OMB control number is displayed).
The collection was developed by an office that has planned and allocated
resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the
information to be collected.
The collection uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology
(if applicable).
The collection uses information technology to the maximum extent
practicable to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency,
and responsiveness to the public.
Source: Paperwork Reduction Act, Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 173-4, sec.
3506(c)(3).
5OMB can approve an information collection for no longer than 3 years.
6The 1995 amendments used the phrase "senior official," which was later
changed to Chief Information Officer in the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L.
104-106, Feb. 10, 1996; Pub. L. 104-208, Sept. 30, 1996).
Agency compliance with these requirements is governed by OMB regulation (5
C.F.R. 1320; see app. I).
Among the other requirements of the act is that agencies are to consult
with the public and affected agencies on various issues, including ways to
minimize burden, and provide a 60-day period for the public to comment on
collections.
The CIO review and public consultation requirements were intended to
improve the quality of the information collection proposals, with the
ultimate aim of furthering the goals of the PRA: primarily, to minimize
the paperwork burden on the public while maximizing the public benefit and
utility of information collections.
The Congress is planning to reexamine the legislative framework for
managing information resources, including the PRA. To help the Congress
assess whether the act is achieving its purposes and provide information
to help the Congress in considering reauthorization, you asked us to
assess
o the extent to which, before information collections are submitted to
OMB for approval, agencies have (1) established effective processes for
CIOs to review information collections and certify that the 10 standards
in the act were met and (2) complied with the requirements to consult with
the public on such collections;
o the extent to which agencies ensure that collection forms on agency Web
sites are properly approved by OMB and included in an inventory of
approved collections; and
o the extent to which agencies ensure that collection forms on agency Web
sites disclose certain information that the public needs to exercise
scrutiny of agency activities, as required by the act.
To determine the extent to which agencies have established effective
processes, we performed detailed reviews of paperwork clearance processes
and collections at four agencies: the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of
Labor, and IRS. Together, these four agencies represent a broad range of
paperwork burdens, and in 2003, they accounted for about 83 percent of the
8.1 billion hours that is the estimated paperwork burden for all federal
agencies. Of this total, IRS alone accounted for over 80 percent.7 We also
selected 12 approved collections as case studies (three at each of the
four agencies) to determine how effective agency processes were.
In addition, we analyzed a random sample (343) of all OMB-approved
collections governmentwide as of May 2004 (8,211 collections at 68
agencies) to determine compliance with the act's requirements that the
agency (1) certify to OMB that the 10 standards in the act had been met,
(2) provide a 60-day public comment period in the Federal Register, and
(3) consult with the public and affected agencies on ways to minimize
burden and other issues associated with information collections. We
designed the random sample of 343 collections so that we could determine
compliance levels at the four agencies and governmentwide. We also
examined documents showing burden reductions from separate processes
established at (1) IRS's Office of Taxpayer Burden Reduction and (2) the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and interviewed responsible
officials.
To determine the extent to which agencies ensure that information
collection forms on their Web sites are approved, are included in an
inventory, and disclose required information, we first searched the four
agencies' Web sites to identify those forms and related collections that
were subject to PRA.8 Next, we determined whether these forms had been
reviewed and included in OMB's inventory of approved collections. For
approved forms, we examined whether they displayed certain required
information. For example, forms are required to display a valid OMB
7Although IRS accounts for 80 percent of burden, it does not account for
80 percent of collections: it accounted for 808 out of the total 8,211
collections governmentwide as of May 2004.
8Because of the design of agencies' Web sites, it is possible that we did
not identify all forms subject to PRA. At two agencies (IRS and HUD), we
selected random samples of the population of forms on their Web sites.
control number to indicate that the agency is authorized to collect the
information requested. Finally, we asked appropriate agency officials to
verify these results.
Further details on our scope and methodology are provided in appendix II.
We conducted our review from May 2004 to March 2005, in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief Governmentwide, agency CIOs generally reviewed
information collections before they were submitted to OMB and certified
that the 10 standards in the act were met. However, in our 12 case
studies, CIOs provided these certifications despite often missing or
partial support from the program offices sponsoring the collections.
Further, although the law requires CIOs to provide support for
certifications, agency files contained little evidence that CIO reviewers
had made efforts to improve the support offered by program offices. In
addition, to obtain comments from potential respondents regarding
collections, agency efforts were generally limited to publication of
notices in the Federal Register and did not include other types of public
consultation, as the act requires. Further, these notices elicited little
comment, and as a result, agencies did not obtain extensive insight into
respondents' views on such matters as the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected. Numerous factors have contributed to
these compliance problems, including a lack of management support and
weaknesses in OMB guidance. Without appropriate support and public
consultation, agencies have reduced assurance that collections satisfy the
standards in the act.
In contrast, IRS and EPA have used additional evaluative processes that
focus on reducing burden and that involve potential respondents to a much
greater extent. According to these agencies, their processes led to
significant reductions in burden on the public while maximizing the
utility of the information collections.
The four agencies generally ensured that information collection forms on
Web sites were approved and inventoried, with some exceptions: an
estimated 5 percent of forms were not approved by OMB or included in an
inventory of approved forms. In nearly all cases, agency officials
maintained that these forms were not subject to the PRA; however, the
forms in question were, in fact, information collections subject to the
act. Collections that are not approved may not be necessary or useful and
may result in unnecessary burden on the public. In addition, an estimated
1 percent of forms were expired collections, for which OMB's approval had
lapsed.
The four agencies did not consistently ensure that collection forms on
agency Web sites included the public scrutiny information required by PRA.
Specifically, an estimated 41 percent of forms (497 of 1,203 forms with
current OMB approval) on the four agencies' Web sites-ranging from 13
percent at VA to 55 percent at HUD-contained one or more violations
(leaving out one or more of the notices that the act requires, such as a
statement indicating the reason for the collection and how the information
will be used). These cases of noncompliance are primarily attributable to
lapses in attention to established processes or the absence of such
processes. As a result, the public may be asked to respond to information
collections without being informed of the reasons for the collections or
other relevant information.
We discuss issues that the Congress may want to consider in its
deliberations on reauthorizing the act (including mandating pilot projects
to test and review alternative approaches to achieving PRA goals), and we
also make recommendations to the Director of OMB and the heads of the four
agencies to improve agency compliance with the act's provisions.
In providing written comments on a draft of this report, one agency agreed
with our recommendations, and four agencies partially agreed and partially
disagreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. (EPA also
provided technical comments via e-mail, which we have incorporated into
this report as appropriate.) We have reproduced the written comments in
appendixes III to VII.
Specifically, OMB agreed with most of our recommendations and stated that
the office intends to change its instructions to align more closely with
the PRA standards and considers that our research has identified potential
procedural weaknesses warranting further review and possible correction.
Labor and HUD agreed with many and VA with all of our recommendations and
described actions taken to correct PRA deficiencies that we identified.
However, OMB, the Treasury, Labor, and HUD disagreed with our position
that the PRA requires agencies both to publish a Federal Register notice
and to otherwise consult with the public; these agencies do not believe
that the requirement to otherwise consult applies to all collections, and
they indicate that complying with this requirement for all collections
would be burdensome and in some cases unnecessary. Despite the agencies'
disagreement, we consider the PRA requirement regarding public
consultation in addition to the 60-day Federal Register notice to be
unambiguous: both requirements are introduced together, with no
distinction between them: agencies shall "provide 60-day notice in the
Federal Register, and otherwise consult with members of the public and
affected agencies concerning each proposed collection..."9 We believe that
agencies should comply with current law. However, we are also concerned
that public consultation be efficient and effective; accordingly, among
the matters that we propose for congressional consideration is the
mandating of pilot projects to test and review alternative approaches to
achieving the PRA's goals.
OMB and the Treasury also disagreed with aspects of our finding concerning
support for certifications of the 10 PRA standards. Concerning our
conclusion in the draft that without appropriate support and public
consultation, agencies have little assurance that collections satisfy the
standards, OMB disagreed on the grounds that we do not provide specific
examples showing that lack of support or consultation resulted in a
collection lacking practical utility or imposing unnecessary burden. The
Treasury CIO disagreed with our findings concerning IRS's support for
standards (particularly those involving the elimination of unnecessary
duplication, reducing burdens on small business, and its ability to
effectively use the information collected), stating that IRS achieves
these goals through other means.
We believe that without improved compliance on the act's major provisions,
which require adequate support for certifications and public consultation
on all collections, the government cannot have adequate assurance that the
goals of the act will be achieved. Our review was aimed at examining
compliance with these provisions, which the Congress enacted as part of an
overall framework to minimize public burden and maximize utility.
Accordingly, we believe that agencies' not complying reduces the assurance
that these goals have been met. Analyzing specific
9Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 173, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2).
collections for their burden and utility or for compliance with the
standards was not part of the scope of our work.
OMB and the Treasury also disagreed with our finding that IRS's citation
on its forms of "the Internal Revenue laws of the United States" does not
comply with OMB's requirement that agencies cite the applicable law on
certain forms. We continue to believe that the IRS wording does not comply
with OMB's regulation, which states that agencies are to cite the specific
legal authority whenever the collection of information is required to
obtain or retain a benefit or is mandatory. OMB's guidance explains the
reason for this requirement as follows: "This should ensure a higher
response rate and help the respondent understand the benefit and/or need
to respond in an accurate, complete manner." If OMB determines that IRS's
circumstances are such that the requirement should be modified in this
case, it may decide to alter its regulation.
In addition, OMB, the Treasury, and HUD disagreed with specific details of
our findings that were based on how we interpreted OMB regulations; we
provide details of these disagreements and our response later in this
report and in appendixes III to VII.
Background Agencies of the U.S. government collect a wide variety of
information from many sources to carry out their missions. As we mentioned
earlier, the IRS collects information from individuals and their employers
to calculate the correct amount of taxes owed. The Census Bureau collects
information through the decennial census and other surveys that is used to
reapportion congressional representation, calculate federal funding
formulas, and for other purposes. Regulatory agencies, such as EPA,
collect information to ensure compliance with regulations, to evaluate the
effectiveness of programs, to determine eligibility for program benefits,
and for other
10
purposes.
While such information collection activities are important for the
fulfillment of agency missions, they can impose significant burdens on the
individuals, businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and other entities
that
10GAO, Paperwork Reduction Act: Agencies' Burden Estimates Due to Federal
Actions Continue to Increase, GAO-04-676T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 20,
2004), p. 2; EPA Paperwork: Burden Estimate Increasing Despite Reduction
Claims, GAO/GGD-00-59 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2000), p. 1.
are called upon to produce the information for the federal government.
Research, recordkeeping, and time to read instructions-all can result in
the devotion of considerable time and expense. As mentioned earlier,
agency estimates indicated that the public spent about 8.1 billion hours
in 2003 responding to requests for information from the federal
government.
The Origins of the Paperwork Reduction Act
The federal government has long recognized the tension between the
benefits and costs of information collection and the need to reduce
information collection burdens. The Federal Reports Act of 194211 first
established a review process whereby the Bureau of the Budget-which became
OMB in 1970-determined whether the collection of information by a federal
agency was necessary for the agency's proper performance or for any other
proper purpose.
In 1977, the Commission on Federal Paperwork reported that notwithstanding
the Federal Reports Act process, the federal paperwork burden had
continued to grow and that legislative exemptions over the years had
exempted as much as 80 percent of the federal paperwork burden from the
1942 act's clearance process. The Commission recommended reform of the old
paperwork clearance process, along with addressing information collection
as part of a broader approach to federal information resources management
(IRM). In 1980, the Congress enacted the Paperwork Reduction Act, which
largely followed the Commission's recommendations. The act supplanted the
Federal Reports Act, made virtually all federal agency information
collection activities subject to OMB review, and established broad
objectives for OMB oversight of the management of federal information
resources. To achieve these objectives, the 1980 act established the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within OMB and gave
this office a variety of oversight responsibilities over federal
information functions, including general information policy, reduction of
paperwork burden, federal statistical policy, records management,
information privacy, disclosure and security, and the acquisition and use
of information technology (then described as automatic data processing and
telecommunications functions).12
11Ch. 811, 56 Stat. 1078 (Dec. 24, 1942). 12Pub. L. 96-511, 94 Stat.
2815-6.
Paperwork Reduction under the Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 had three major purposes with regard
to information collection:
o minimize the federal paperwork burden for individuals, small
businesses, state and local governments, and other persons;
o minimize the cost to the federal government of collecting, maintaining,
using, and disseminating information; and
o maximize the usefulness of information collected by the federal
government.13
To achieve these purposes, the 1980 act required that federal agencies not
conduct or sponsor the collection of information unless approved by OMB.14
Under the law, OMB is required to determine that the agency collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility.15 Consistent with the act's requirements, OMB established a
process whereby its OIRA desk officers review proposals by executive
branch agencies, including independent regulatory agencies, to collect
information from 10 or more persons, whether the collections are voluntary
or mandatory. The act gave OMB 60 days to approve or disapprove any
collection request. If it approves the collection, OMB assigns a control
number and an expiration date, which is limited to no more than 3 years.16
13Pub. L. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812.
14Such collections may have a range of purposes: applications for
government benefits, program evaluation, general purpose statistics,
audit, program planning or management, research, and regulatory or
compliance reviews, all of which may occur in a variety of forms,
including questionnaires and telephone surveys.
15Pub. L. 96-511, 94 Stat 2819-21.
16In addition to the review of individual information collections, the act
included provisions for OMB to designate agencies to collect information
for other agencies in order to reduce duplication, set goals for the
reduction of the burdens of federal information collection activities, and
report annually to the Congress regarding paperwork reduction.
To assist agencies in fulfilling their responsibilities under the act, OMB
took various steps. It issued a regulation,17 and it also provided
agencies with instructions on filling out a standard form for submissions
and providing supporting statements. Further, it developed guidance,
which, while remaining in draft, is widely used as a handbook for agencies
on compliance with the law, according to OMB officials. For example, the
Department of Labor cited the handbook in responding to our questions
about its PRA collections.
Finally, in addition to the agency and OMB clearance process, the act
encouraged public participation by requiring the solicitation of public
comment on proposed collections and, through its "public protection
clause," by providing that individuals could not be penalized for failing
to respond to an information collection request that either does not
display a valid OMB control number or does not state that the request is
exempt from the act.
Implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act has not been without
controversy. Congressional hearings and reports, as well as our reports,
have identified issues of concern, including the following:
o Reduction of paperwork burdens. Despite the act's requirements,
including specific percentage paperwork reduction goals, the federal
paperwork burden has not declined over the life of the act but has
generally continued to increase.18
o Regulatory review. OMB's conduct of paperwork clearance in close
alignment with its review of agency regulations under presidential
executive orders has periodically raised questions about the extent to
which OMB review should affect the policies and substantive requirements
of agency decisions.19
175 C.F.R. Part 1320.
18We have documented this trend in previous work: for example, GAO,
Paperwork Reduction: Little Real Burden Change in Recent Years,
GAO/PEMD-89-19FS (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 1989); Paperwork Reduction
Act: Burden Increases and Violations Persist, GAO-02-598T (Washington,
D.C.: Apr. 11, 2002); GAO, Paperwork Reduction Act: Record Increase in
Agencies' Burden Estimates, GAO-03-619T (Washington, D.C.: April 11,
2003).
19S. Report 104-8 (Feb. 14, 1995), pp. 10, 21; S. Hearing 103-1030 (May
19, 1994); S. Hearing 101-588 (Feb. 21 and 22, 1990).
o Public participation. The ability of the public to contribute to and be
informed about agency and OMB paperwork clearance decisions has been a
concern of those who questioned the extent to which the process affects
the substance of agency program decisions, as well as those who argued
that the process has not been sensitive enough to the burdens placed on
respondents.20
o Information resources management. OMB and agencies have been criticized
for inadequate attention to the other information resources management
requirements of the act, ranging from overall IRM strategic planning to
specific functions such as information security and the management of
information technology.21
The Congress addressed these and other issues when reauthorizing the act
in 1986 and 1995. The 1986 reauthorization included relatively minor
amendments. The 1995 reauthorization, however, included significant
revisions in the paperwork reduction provisions, as well as new provisions
regarding information dissemination, statistical policy, and information
technology management. With regard to paperwork reduction, the
legislation's drafters stated that the intention was to revise the act to
make a more thorough and open agency paperwork clearance process to
improve the quality of paperwork reviews and public confidence in
government decision making.
20For example, organizations such as the Children's Defense Fund and
United Auto Workers that were critical of OMB's role in reviewing agency
information collection proposals asked the Congress to provide "greater
and stronger public participation," saying that the "more sunshine in the
process, the more open and accountable OMB will be." S. Hearing 101-588
(Feb. 21 and 22, 1990), p. 800. On the other hand, a representative of a
Paperwork Reduction Act Coalition, which included the U. S. Chamber of
Commerce, testified to Congress that "the more we can involve the public,
the better off we are [in improving paperwork reduction efforts]." S.
Hearing 103-1030 (May 19, 1994), p. 50.
21See, for example, S. Report 104-8 (Feb. 14, 1995), pp. 15-19; H. Report
104-37 (Feb. 15, 1995), pp. 17-21; and our previous reports: GAO,
Information Technology Management: Governmentwide Strategic Planning,
Performance Measurement, and Investment Management Can Be Further
Improved, GAO-04-49 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2004); Information
Resources Management: Comprehensive Strategic Plan Needed to Address
Mounting Challenges, GAO-02-292 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 22, 2002);
Information Security: Serious Weaknesses Place Critical Federal Operations
and Assets at Risk, GAO/AIMD-9892 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 1998);
Information Security: Opportunities for Improved OMB Oversight of Agency
Practices, GAO/AIMD-96-110 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 24, 1996); Information
Technology Investment: A Governmentwide Overview, GAO/AIMD-95-208
(Washington, D.C.: July 31, 1995).
1995 Amendments Increase Requirements for Clearance of Information
Collections
The 1995 amendments to the act established detailed paperwork clearance
requirements for agencies before OMB review. The 1995 law required every
agency to establish a process under the official responsible for the act's
implementation, now the agency's CIO,22 to review program offices'
proposed collections. This official is to be sufficiently independent of
program responsibility to evaluate fairly whether information collections
should be approved. Under the law, the CIO is to review each collection of
information before submission to OMB, including reviewing the program
office's evaluation of the need for the collection and its plan for the
efficient and effective management and use of the information to be
collected, including necessary resources.23
As part of that review, the agency CIO must ensure that each information
collection instrument (form, survey, or questionnaire) complies with the
act. For example, the instrument must explain the reasons for the
collection and provide an estimate of the burden of the collection. In
addition, the agency is to provide an initial 60-day notice period (in
addition to the notice period that was already required after the
collection is forwarded to OMB for approval) and otherwise consult with
members of the public and affected agencies to solicit comments on (1)
whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of
the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate,
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected, and (4) ways to minimize the burden on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology.24 Finally, according to the act, the CIO
must certify that each proposed collection submitted to OMB for review
meets the act's 10 standards (presented in table 1) and provide support
for these certifications.
22The 1995 amendments used the 1980 act's reference to the agency "senior
official" responsible for implementation of the act. A year later,
Congress gave that official the title of agency Chief Information Officer
(the Information Technology Management Reform Act, Pub. L. 104-106, Feb.
10, 1996, which was subsequently renamed the Clinger-Cohen Act, Pub.
L. 104-208, Sept. 30, 1996).
23Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 172, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(1)(A).
24Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 173-4, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2).
Following satisfaction of these requirements, an agency may submit for OMB
review its proposed collections, whether for new collections or reapproval
of existing collections. The 1995 amendments, as under the original 1980
act, then rely on OMB to determine whether each agency information
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency's
functions. While not significantly altering OMB authorities, the 1995
amendments did modify the OMB provisions: for example, they shortened the
public comment period while information collection submissions are under
review at OMB from 60 days to 30 days (having added the 60-day initial
comment period that agencies are required to provide before they submit
collections to OMB).25 In addition, the amendments required OMB to make
its clearance decisions publicly available;26 they specifically addressed
extensions of current collections;27 and they clarified procedures for
review of information collections required by a regulation.28
Current Paperwork Clearance Process
Under the act as amended in 1995, and as currently required by OMB
regulations and guidance, the paperwork clearance process takes place in
two stages. First, as required by the act, the agency CIO must review each
proposed information collection. During this review, the public must be
given a 60-day period in which to submit comments, and the agency is to
otherwise consult with interested or affected parties about the proposed
collection. At the conclusion of the agency review, the CIO submits the
proposal to OMB for review for the second stage in the clearance process.
The agency submissions to OMB typically include a copy of the data
collection instrument (e.g., a form or survey) and a Paperwork Reduction
Act Submission (Standard Form 83-I). The 83-I requires agencies to answer
questions, and provide supporting documentation, about the proposed
information collection, such as why the collection is necessary, whether
it is new or an extension of a currently approved collection, whether it
is voluntary or mandatory, and the estimated burden hours. Further, the
CIO or the CIO's designee must sign the 83-I to certify, as required by
the act,
25Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 173, 44 U.S.C. 3507(b). 26Pub. L. 104-13, 109
Stat. 178, 44 U.S.C. .3507(e). 27Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 178, 44 U.S.C.
3507(h). 28Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 177, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
that the collection satisfies the 10 standards of the act (described in
table 1).
Following the OMB review, which includes an additional 30-day period for
soliciting public comment and may involve consultation between OMB and
agency staff, OMB makes its review decision. It informs the agency, and
maintains on its Web site a list of all approved collections and their
currently valid control numbers, including the form numbers approved under
each collection.
Agency Review Processes Were Not Rigorous, and Public Consultation Was
Limited
Governmentwide, agency CIOs generally reviewed information collections
before they were submitted to OMB and certified that the 10 standards in
the act were met. However, in our 12 case studies, CIOs provided these
certifications despite often missing or partial support from the program
offices sponsoring the collections. Further, although the law requires
CIOs to provide support for certifications, agency files contained little
evidence that CIO reviewers had made efforts to improve the support
offered by program offices. In addition, to obtain comments from potential
respondents regarding collections, agency efforts were generally limited
to publication of notices in the Federal Register and did not include
other types of public consultation, as the act requires. Numerous factors
have contributed to these conditions, including a lack of management
support and weaknesses in OMB guidance. Without appropriate support and
public consultation, agencies have reduced assurance that collections
satisfy the standards in the act.
In contrast, IRS and EPA have used additional evaluative processes that
focus on reducing burden and that involve potential respondents to a much
greater extent. According to these agencies, their processes led to
significant reductions in burden on the public while maximizing the
utility of the information collections.
Support for Certifications The 1995 amendments required agencies to
establish centralized processes Was Often Missing or for reviewing
proposed information collections within the CIO's office. Partial, Despite
CIO Among other things, the CIO's office is to certify, for each
collection, that
the 10 standards in the act have been met, and the CIO is to provide
aReviews record supporting these certifications.
The four agencies in our review had written directives that implemented
the review requirements in the act, including the requirement for CIOs to
certify that the 10 standards in the act were met. The estimated
certification rate ranged from 100 percent at IRS and HUD to 92 percent at
VA. Governmentwide, agencies certified that the act's 10 standards had
been met on an estimated 98 percent of the 8,211 collections.
However, in the 12 case studies that we reviewed, this CIO certification
occurred despite a lack of rigorous support that all standards were met.
Specifically, the support that was provided for certifying the 10
standards in the act was missing or partial on 65 percent (66 of 101) of
the certifications.29 Table 2 shows the result of our analysis of the case
studies.
29The total number of certifications does not total 120 (12 cases times 10
standards) because some standards did not apply to some cases.
Table 2: Support Provided by Agencies for Paperwork Reduction Act Standards in
12 Case Studies Support provided
Standards Totala Yes Partial No
The collection is necessary for the proper 12 6 6
performance of agency functions.
The collection avoids unnecessary duplication. 11 2 2
The collection reduces burden on the public,
including small entities, to the extent practicable
and
appropriate. 12 5 7
The collection uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous
language that is understandable to
respondents. 12 1 0
The collection will be consistent and compatible
with respondents' current reporting and
recordkeeping practices to the maximum extent 12 3 0
practicable.
The collection indicates the retention period for
any recordkeeping requirements for
respondents. b 6 3 3
The collection informs respondents of the information they need to
exercise scrutiny of agency
collections (i.e., the reasons the information is collected; the way it is
used; an estimate of the
burden; whether responses are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or
mandatory; and a
statement that no person is required to respond unless a valid OMB control
number is
displayed).b 12 48
The collection was developed by an office that has planned and
allocated resources for the
efficient and effective management and use of the information to 11 2 0
be collected.
The collection uses effective and efficient statistical survey 1 1 0
methodology (if applicable).
The collection uses information technology to the maximum extent
practicable to reduce burden
and improve data quality, agency efficiency, and responsiveness 12 8 4
to the public.
Total 101 35 30
Source: Paperwork Reduction Act.
aThe total number of certifications is not always 12 because not all
certifications applied to all collections.
bFor these two standards, the presence on the forms of the information
indicated was categorized as support, the absence of some elements was
categorized as partial support, and the absence of all elements was
categorized as no support.
As shown in table 2, certifications concerning avoiding unnecessary
duplication, reducing burden on the public, and ensuring that an agency
has a plan and resources for using the information collected-which are
critical to achieving the objectives of the act-were among those that
frequently lacked complete support. We discuss each of these examples
below.
Support for Certifications Under the act, CIOs are required to certify
that each information collection Concerning Duplication Was is not
unnecessarily duplicative. According to OMB instructions, agencies Often
Missing or Partial are to (1) describe efforts to identify duplication and
(2) show specifically
why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified
for the purpose described.
In 2 of 11 cases, agencies provided the description requested; for
example:
Program reviews were conducted to identify potential areas of duplication;
however, none were found to exist. There is no known Department or Agency
which maintains the necessary information, nor is it available from other
sources within our Department.
However, support for these certifications was missing in 7 cases. An
example is the following statement, used on all three IRS collections:
We have attempted to eliminate duplication within the agency wherever
possible.
This assertion provides no information on what efforts were made to
identify duplication or perspective on why similar information, if any,
could not be used. Further, the files contained no evidence that the CIO
reviewers challenged the adequacy of this support or provided support of
their own to justify their certification.
In an additional 2 cases, partial support was provided. An example is the
following, provided by Labor:
[The Employer Assistance Referral Network (EARN)] is a new, nationwide
service that does not duplicate any single existing service that attempts
to match employers with providers who refer job candidates with
disabilities. While similar job-referral services exist at the state
level, and some nation-wide disability organizations offer similar
services to people with certain disabilities, we are not aware of any
existing survey that would duplicate the scope or content of the proposed
data collection. Furthermore, because this information collection involves
only providers and employers interested in participating in the EARN
service, and because this is a new service, a duplicate data set does not
exist.
While this example shows that the agency attempted to identify duplicative
sources, it does not discuss why information from state and other
disability organizations could not be aggregated and used, at least in
part, to satisfy the needs of this collection.
The lack of support for these certifications appears to be influenced by a
variety of factors. IRS officials, for example, told us that (1) tax data,
by its very nature, is not collected by other agencies so there is no need
for IRS to contact them about proposed collections and (2) IRS has an
effective internal process for coordinating proposed forms among the
various IRS organizations that may have similar information. As a result,
these officials said that IRS does not need to further justify that its
collections are not
Support for Certifications on Reducing Burden Was Often Incomplete or
Inaccurate
duplicative. Nonetheless, the law and instructions require support for
these assertions, which was not provided.
In addition, agency reviewers told us that management assigns a relatively
low priority and few resources to reviewing information collections.
Further, program offices have little knowledge of and appreciation for the
requirements of the PRA. As a result of these conditions and a lack of
detailed program knowledge, reviewers often have insufficient leverage
with program offices to encourage them to improve their justifications.
Without support for these certifications, neither the agency nor the
public has adequate assurance that sufficient action has been taken to
identify and avoid unnecessary duplication-and reporting burden-in their
information collections.
The PRA also requires CIOs to certify that the collection reduces burden
on the public to the extent practicable and appropriate, including small
entities.30 OMB guidance emphasizes that agencies are to demonstrate that
they have taken every reasonable step to ensure that the collection of
information is the least burdensome necessary for the proper performance
of the agency functions, so that it can comply with legal requirements and
achieve program objectives. In addition, OMB instructions and guidance
direct agencies to provide specific information and justifications: (1)
estimates of the hour and cost burden of the collections and (2)
justifications for any collection that requires respondents to report more
often than quarterly, respond in fewer than 30 days, or provide more than
an original and 2 copies of documentation.
30OMB's instructions to agencies state that a small entity may be (1) a
small business, which is deemed to be one that is independently owned and
operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation; (2) a small
organization, which is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently
owned and operated and is not dominant in its field; or (3) a small
government jurisdiction, which is a government of a city, county, town,
township, school district, or special district with a population of less
than 50,000.
In regard to small entities, OMB guidance states that the standard
emphasizes such entities because these often have limited resources to
comply with information collections.31 The act cites various techniques
for reducing burden on these small entities,32 and the guidance includes
techniques that might be used to simplify requirements for small entities,
such as asking fewer questions, taking smaller samples than for larger
entities, and requiring small entities to provide information less
frequently. However, according to OMB instructions, agencies are required
to describe any methods used to reduce burden only if the collection of
information has a "significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities," rather than requiring such information for all small
entities, as the act requires.
For the first part of the certification, which focuses on reducing burden
on the public, the case examples generally contained the specific
information and justifications called for in the guidance. However, none
of the case examples contained support that addressed how the agency
ensured that the collection was the least burdensome necessary. According
to agency CIO officials, the primary cause for this absence of support is
that OMB instructions and guidance do not direct agencies to provide this
information explicitly as part of the approval package.
For the part of the certification that focuses on small businesses, our
governmentwide sample included reports from agencies of their undertaking
various activities that are consistent with this standard:
o Labor officials exempted 6 million small businesses from filing an
annual report; telephoned small businesses and other small entities to
assist them in completing a questionnaire; reduced the number of small
businesses surveyed; and scheduled fewer compliance evaluations on small
contractors.
31"Particularly for small businesses, paperwork burdens can force the
redirection of resources away from business activities that might
otherwise lead to new and better products and services, and to more and
better jobs. Accordingly, the Federal Government owes the public an
ongoing commitment to scrutinize its information requirements to ensure
the imposition of only those necessary for the proper performance of an
agency's functions." H. Report 104-37 (Feb. 15, 1995) p. 23.
32These include (a) establishing different compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables for respondents with fewer available resources;
(b) clarifying, consolidating, or simplifying compliance and reporting
requirements; and (c) exempting certain respondents from coverage of all
or part of the collection.
o VA officials conducted fewer compliance reviews of small businesses and
allowed small businesses to use commercially available claim forms instead
of the VA claim form.
o Interior officials equipped local offices with computers, copying
facilities, and materials to aid small businesses in reporting mining
operations.
For four of our case studies, however, complete information that would
support certification of this part of the standard was not available.
Seven of the 12 case studies involved collections that were reported to
impact businesses or other for-profit entities, but for 4 of the 7, the
files did not explain either why small businesses were not affected or
that burden could or could not be reduced even though such businesses were
affected. Referring to methods used to minimize burden on small business,
the files included statements such as "not applicable." Because OMB
instructions refer to "significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities," these statements do not inform the reviewer whether
there was an effort made to reduce burden on small entities or not. When
we asked agencies about these four cases, they indicated that the
collections did, in fact, affect small business.
o A HUD proposal showed that the collection would primarily impact
businesses and other for-profit entities. However, the supporting
statement said simply, "This information does not impact small businesses
or other small entities." It did not explain what steps the agency had
taken to support its conclusion that small businesses were not impacted.
When we asked for support for this conclusion, a HUD official acknowledged
that the conclusion was incorrect; according to this official, the
collection does impact small businesses, but it might not be possible to
reduce burden for them.
o Another HUD proposal was identified as impacting businesses and other
for-profit entities, and supporting material stated that "This collection
of information does not have an impact on small businesses or other small
entities." When we asked for support for this conclusion, program
officials acknowledged that some respondents to the Federal Register
notice had raised concerns about the impact on small entities. Moreover,
the supporting statement sent to OMB did not discuss these Federal
Register comments, as required by OMB instructions.
o Similarly, in an IRS collection involving a tax credit, the proposal
indicated that the collection would impact businesses. However, the
supporting statement with regard to small entities said only "not
applicable." When we asked for the support, an IRS official acknowledged
the mistake and said that small businesses probably were impacted.
OMB's instruction does not appropriately reflect the act's requirements
concerning small business: the act requires that the CIO certify that the
information collection reduces burden on small entities in general, to the
extent practical and appropriate, and provides no thresholds for the level
of economic impact or the number of small entities affected. OMB officials
acknowledged that their instruction is an "artifact" from a previous form
and more properly focuses on rulemaking rather than the information
collection process.
Without information in the supporting statement to explain actions taken
to minimize burden on the public, including small entities, decision
makers and the public would have reduced assurance that a proposed
collection satisfied this standard or that small entities are not unduly
burdened.
Support for Certifications Under the PRA, CIOs must certify that each
collection of information
Concerning the Use of Collected submitted to OMB has been developed by an
office that has planned and
Information Was Often Missing allocated resources for the efficient and
effective management and use of the information, including processing it
so as to enhance the utility of the information to agencies and the
public.33 OMB's guidance34 to agencies states that this certification is
intended to ensure that the collection of information will have "practical
utility," as defined in the PRA.35 That is, the CIO is to have carried out
the required review of the proposed collection, including ensuring that
there is a plan for the management and use of the
3344 U.S.C. 3506(c)(3)(H).
34OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, The Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995: Implementing Guidance for OMB Review of Agency
Information Collection, Draft (Aug. 16, 1999). Although this guidance is
still officially in draft, OMB officials stated that agencies are
generally aware of the guidance and are expected to follow it.
3544 U.S.C. 3502(11).
information to be collected, as well as identification of necessary
resources.36 Necessary resources include personnel, as well as supporting
equipment and other technological means to use the information in a timely
and useful fashion.37
In our case studies, however, we determined that 9 of 11 submissions did
not discuss such a plan or assert that adequate resources would be
available to enhance the utility of the information to agencies and the
public. The likely cause for these omissions is that OMB's instructions to
agencies on preparing information collection submissions are silent on how
agencies are to satisfy this standard. As a result, few program offices
(only those that look beyond these instructions to the guidance or the
law) are likely to address this issue.
Without information in the submission describing the plan and resources
for the information collection, decision makers and the public would lack
adequate assurance that a proposed collection satisfied this standard and
thus that the information would be used in a timely and useful fashion.
Agency Efforts to Seek Public Comment Were Limited
The 1995 amendments to the PRA specifically require agencies to consult
with the public on each proposed collection of information when the
proposal for approval or reapproval is being developed. According to the
act, such consultation is to take two forms: (1) publishing proposed
information collections in the Federal Register for a 60-day comment
period38 and (2) otherwise consulting with potential respondents to
information collections. (Examples of other means of consultation used in
our case studies include individually contacting up to nine potential
respondents,39 meetings held with professional groups, and publishing
notices on Web sites.) However, OMB guidance gives agencies discretion to
consult the public and others (other than through publication in the
3644 U.S.C. 3506(c)(1)(A); S. Report 104-8 (Feb. 14, 1995), pp. 45-46 ; H.
Report 104-37 (Feb. 15, 1995), pp. 43-44.
3744 U.S.C. 3502(11).
38The act requires agencies to publish two notices of proposed collections
in the Federal Register: an initial 60-day notice when the proposal is
first developed and a second 30-day notice when the proposal is submitted
to OMB.
39More than nine individuals would trigger the PRA requirement to develop
and obtain approval for a formal information collection.
Federal Register) on only those collections that "deserve such effort."
This guidance, however, is contrary to the act, which requires
consultations on each collection to solicit comments on
o whether the collection is necessary;
o the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the
collection;
o ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
o ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection techniques.
For an estimated 89 percent of collections governmentwide, agencies
provided the required initial 60-day notice in the Federal Register
requesting public comments on proposed collections. However, according to
our governmentwide sample, agencies did not generally use other means to
consult with the public and affected agencies, as required by the act,
performing these consultations for only an estimated 37 percent of all
collections. At the four agencies, the estimated consultation rate for all
collections ranged from 49 percent at IRS to 13 percent at VA. For the 12
collections that we reviewed, agencies performed these consultations for
less than half (5 of 12).
When agencies did make efforts to actively consult with potential
respondents, some reported that these efforts led to improvements to the
proposed collections. For example, VA officials stated that they obtained
valuable information through consulting with patient focus groups and with
experts in survey methods and data processing for a nationwide survey on
customer satisfaction.
The low levels of other types of consultation are particularly significant
in view of the sparse responses to the 60-day notices in the Federal
Register: An estimated 7 percent of notices of collections received one or
more comments. According to our sample of all collections at the four
agencies reviewed, the number of notices receiving at least one comment
ranged from an estimated 15 percent at Labor to an estimated 6 percent at
IRS.
A key reason that agencies do not comply with the PRA requirement to
"otherwise consult" is the OMB guidance giving agencies discretion not to
consult with the public other than through the Federal Register. Other
means of consultation may also require additional time and effort, and
agency PRA reviewers indicated that program offices are often interested
in minimizing the time required for PRA approvals.
If agencies do not actively consult with the public, they limit their
ability to determine whether proposed collections adequately satisfy the
act's standards that focus on impact on potential respondents, such as the
standards on burden, clarity, and recordkeeping. If information
collections do not satisfy these standards, they may be unnecessarily
burdensome because of lack of clarity, onerous recordkeeping requirements,
or other reasons.
Two Agencies Have Developed Processes to Reduce Burden Associated with
Information Collections
IRS and EPA have supplemented the standard PRA review process with
additional processes aimed at reducing burden while maximizing utility.
These agencies' missions require them both to deal extensively with
information collections, and their management has made reduction of burden
a priority.40
In January 2002, the IRS Commissioner established an Office of Taxpayer
Burden Reduction, which includes both permanently assigned staff and staff
temporarily detailed from program offices that are responsible for
particular information collections. This office chooses a few forms each
year that are judged to have the greatest potential for burden reduction
(these forms have already been reviewed and approved through the
conventional PRA process). The office evaluates and prioritizes burden
reduction initiatives by
o determining the number of taxpayers impacted;
o quantifying the total time and out-of-pocket savings for taxpayers;
o evaluating any adverse impact on IRS's voluntary compliance efforts;
40"IRS is committed to reducing taxpayer burden and established the Office
of Taxpayer Burden Reduction (OTBR) in January 2002 to lead its efforts."
Congressional testimony by the IRS Commissioner, April 20, 2004, before
the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources, and Regulatory
Affairs, House Committee on Government Reform.
o assessing the feasibility of the initiative, given IRS resource
limitations; and
o tying the initiative into IRS objectives.
Once the forms are chosen, the office performs highly detailed, in-depth
analyses, including extensive outreach to the public affected, the users
of the information within and outside the agency, and other stakeholders.
This analysis includes an examination of the need for each data element
requested. In addition, the office thoroughly reviews form design.41
The office's Director reports to the IRS Commissioner for the Small
Business and Self-Employed Division. The Director also heads a Taxpayer
Burden Reduction Council, which serves as a forum for achieving taxpayer
burden reduction throughout IRS. The work of the council may involve all
IRS divisions and functions, as well as outside stakeholders, including
other federal agencies, state agencies, tax practitioner groups, taxpayer
advocacy panels, and groups representing the small business community. IRS
reports that as many as 100 staff across IRS and other agencies can be
involved in burden reduction initiatives.
The council directs its efforts in five major areas:
o simplifying forms and publications;
o streamlining internal policies, processes, and procedures;
o promoting consideration of burden reductions in rulings, regulations,
and laws;
o assisting in the development of burden reduction measurement
methodology; and
o partnering with internal and external stakeholders to identify areas of
potential burden reduction.
41In congressional testimony, the IRS Commissioner stated that OMB had
referred another agency to IRS's Office of Taxpayer Burden Reduction as an
example of a "best practice" in burden reduction in government.
IRS reports that this targeted, resource-intensive process has achieved
significant reductions in burden: over 200 million burden hours since
2002. For example, it reports that about 95 million hours of taxpayer
burden were reduced through increases in the income-reporting threshold on
various IRS schedules.42 Another burden reduction initiative includes a
review of the forms that 15 million taxpayers use to request an extension
to the date for filing their tax returns.
(We did not verify the accuracy of IRS's reported burden hour savings. We
have previously reported that the estimation model that IRS uses for
compliance burden ignores important components of burden and has limited
capabilities for analyzing the determinants of burden.43 Moreover, IRS has
an effort under way to revise the methodology used to compute burden. That
new methodology, when completed, may result in different estimates of
reduced burden hours.)
Similarly, EPA officials stated that they have established processes for
reviewing information collections that supplement the standard PRA review
process. These processes are highly detailed and evaluative, with a focus
on burden reduction, avoiding duplication, and ensuring compliance with
PRA. According to EPA officials, the impetus for establishing these
processes was the high visibility of the agency's information collections
and the recognition, among other things, that the success of EPA's
enforcement mission depended on information collections being properly
justified and approved: in the words of one official, information
collections are the "life blood" of the agency.
42In addition, the office reports that IRS staff positions could be freed
up through its efforts to raise the reporting threshold on various tax
forms and schedules. Fewer IRS positions are needed when there are fewer
tax forms and schedules to be reviewed.
43GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Is Working to Improve Its Estimates of
Compliance Burden, GAO/GGD-00-11 (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2000).
According to these officials, the CIO staff are not generally closely
involved in burden reduction initiatives, because they do not have
sufficient technical program expertise and cannot devote the extensive
time required.44 Instead, these officials said that the CIO staff's focus
is on fostering high awareness within the agency of the requirements
associated with information collections, educating and training the
program office staff on the need to minimize burden and the impact on
respondents, providing an agencywide perspective on information
collections to help avoid duplication, managing the clearance process for
agency information collections, and acting as liaison between program
offices and OMB during the clearance process. To help program offices
consider PRA requirements such as burden reduction and avoiding
duplication as they are developing new information collections or working
on reauthorizing existing collections, the CIO staff also developed a
handbook45 to help program staff understand what they need to do to comply
with PRA and gain OMB approval.
In addition, program offices at EPA have taken on burden reduction
initiatives that are highly detailed and lengthy (sometimes lasting years)
and that involve extensive consultation with stakeholders (including
entities that supply the information, citizens groups, information users
and technical experts in the agency and elsewhere, and state and local
governments). For example, EPA reports that it amended its regulations to
reduce the paperwork burden imposed under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. One burden reduction method EPA used was to establish higher
thresholds for small businesses to report information required under the
act. EPA estimates that the initiative will reduce burden by 350,000 hours
and save $22 million annually. Another EPA program office reports that it
is proposing a significant reduction in burden for its Toxic Release
Inventory program.46
44These officials added that in exceptional circumstances the CIO office
has had staff available to perform such projects, but generally in
collaboration with program offices.
45EPA Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division,
ICR Handbook: EPA's Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, draft (revised March 2005).
46We did not verify the accuracy of EPA's burden reduction estimates.
Overall, EPA and IRS reported that they produced significant reductions in
burden by making a commitment to this goal and dedicating resources to it.
In contrast, for the 12 information collections we examined, the CIO
review process resulted in no reduction in burden. Further, the Department
of Labor reported that its PRA reviews of 175 proposed collections over
nearly 2 years did not reduce burden.47 Similarly, both IRS and EPA
addressed information collections that had undergone CIO review and
received OMB approval and nonetheless found significant opportunities to
reduce burden.
Four Agencies Generally Ensure That Collection Forms on Web Sites Are
Approved and Inventoried
The PRA and related regulations provide requirements for agencies to
obtain OMB approval for all information collections and to include all
collections in an inventory. OMB approval is indicated on associated forms
by a control number and a date indicating when the approval to collect the
information is to expire.48 OMB refers to collections that it has not
approved as "bootleg" collections.
In general, the four agencies had ensured that collections were approved
and inventoried. However, there were some exceptions:
o an estimated 61 forms (5 percent) were not approved by OMB or included
in an inventory of approved forms.
o an estimated 8 forms (1 percent) were expired collections, where OMB's
approval to collect the information had lapsed.
Table 3 shows these results for each agency.
47These reviews did result in a 1.3 percent reduction in calculated burden
by correcting mathematical errors in program offices' submissions.
48After the expiration date, the public cannot be penalized for not
responding (unless the collection is required by statute).
Table 3: Estimated Rates of Unapproved and Expired Forms at Four Agencies
Number of
Agency forms Not OMB-approved Approval expired Total
VA 208 15 (7%) 1 (1%) 16 (8%)
HUDa 423 26 (6%) 6 (1%) 32 (7%)
Labor 149 2 (1%) 1 (1%) 3(2%)
IRSa 492 18 (4%) 0 (0%) 18 (4%)
Totala 1,272 61 (5%) 8 (1%) 69 (5%)
Source: GAO.
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
aFor HUD and IRS, we followed a probability procedure based on random
selections. Since each sample could have provided a different estimate, we
express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample results
as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would
contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could
have drawn. All percentage estimates for HUD, IRS, and the total row have
margins of error of plus or minus 10 percentage points or less.
The lack of OMB approval for nearly all of these forms is attributable to
disagreement concerning what collections are covered by PRA. For example,
IRS's position was that the forms in question were in a category of
inquiry that does not fall under PRA. This category of inquiry, which is
considered routine and not burdensome to the respondent, includes
affidavits, oaths, affirmations, certifications, receipts, change of
address, consents, and acknowledgments. According to OMB's regulation,
this category is limited to those disclosures that require persons to
provide or display only facts necessary to identify themselves, e.g., they
entail no burden other than that necessary to identify the respondent, the
date, the respondent's address, and the nature of the instrument.49
Because the agency considered the forms to fall into this category, it did
not submit these forms for PRA review.
However, we determined that the forms in question entailed significant
burden, often requiring multiple signatures and the need to read and
understand extensive narrative explanations, including references to
various Internal Revenue Code sections or publications that the
49According to OMB's guidance, the phrase "nature of the instrument"
refers to a respondent's request for material, such as publications or
other information, from an agency. In these cases, agencies may ask
requesters to describe the material or information in sufficient detail
for the agency to respond appropriately.
respondents were expected to understand and follow. Accordingly, these
forms are covered by the act.
The eight expired collections, where OMB's approval to collect the
information had lapsed, can be attributed to agencies not following
established processes for obtaining OMB reapproval of existing
collections.
Information collections that are unapproved may not be necessary or useful
and may result in unnecessary burden on the public.
Four Agencies Did Not Always Ensure that Forms on Web Sites Displayed
Public Scrutiny Information Required by the Act
The PRA and related regulations provide requirements for agencies to
display certain information on federal forms or their instructions,
including the following:
o the reason for collecting the information and a description of how the
information will be used;
o an estimated time to complete the form (which gives the public an
opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the estimated burden);
o a statement informing the public whether responses are voluntary,
mandatory (citing the authority), or required to obtain a benefit (citing
the authority);
o a currently valid OMB control number (indicating that the agency has
been authorized to collect the information);
o a date indicating when OMB's approval to collect the information is to
expire (after which the public cannot be penalized for not responding);
and
o a statement that the public has a right not to respond to the request
for information if a valid OMB control number is not displayed.50
50The requirements for this statement and the OMB number are together
known as the "public protection provision," in that a person cannot be
penalized for not responding if either the control number or the statement
is absent. However, the public protection provision may not apply if the
collection is mandated by statute (e.g., the requirement to file a tax
return).
Agencies that fully comply with these requirements are considered to be
providing the public with an opportunity to hold agency officials
accountable. As stated in the applicable regulation (5 C.F.R. 1320.12),
the absence of an OMB control number on a collection will alert the public
that either the agency has failed to comply with applicable legal
requirements for the collection of information or the portion of the rule
containing the collection of information has no legal force and effect.
However, collection forms on the four agencies' Web sites did not
consistently include required information. Specifically, an estimated 41
percent of forms (487 of 1,179 total forms, excluding bootleg and expired
forms) on the four agencies' Web sites-ranging from 13 percent at VA to 55
percent at HUD-contained one or more violations. As shown in table 4, at
the four departments and agencies, we estimate that in the population of
1,179 forms,
o 105 (9 percent) did not properly display a currently valid OMB control
number (this number does not include the forms that OMB had not approved,
discussed earlier);
o 122 forms (10 percent) did not properly display the expiration date
(this number does not include the estimated 8 forms for which OMB's
approval had lapsed, discussed earlier); and
o 327 forms (27 percent) did not inform respondents of one or more of the
required public notifications described above.
Table 4: Estimated Rates That Approved and Unexpired Forms on Agency Web Sites
Did Not Include All Information
Number of
OMB control number Expiration Missing one Overall
approved date or more
Agency forms missing or incorrect missing notices noncompliance
VA 192 8 (4%) 0 (0%) 18 (9%) 24 (13%)
HUDa 391 83 (21%) 89 (23%) 87 (22%) 214 (55%)
Labor 146 14 (10%) 33 (23%) 20 (14%) 57 (39%)
IRSa 474 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 202 (43%) 202 (43%)
Totala 1,203 105 (9%) 122 (10%) 327 (27%) 497 (41%)
Source: GAO.
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding. In determining overall
compliance, a form was counted as noncompliant if it contained one or more
violations of the provisions shown on this table.
aFor HUD and IRS, we followed a probability procedure based on random
selections. Since each sample could have provided a different estimate, we
express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample results
as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would
contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could
have drawn. All percentage estimates for these two agencies and the total
row have margins of error of plus or minus 10 percentage points or less.
These levels of noncompliance can be attributed to multiple causes. VA and
HUD lacked established processes to monitor forms on agency Web sites. At
the Department of Labor, however, noncompliance can be attributed to
lapses in attention to established processes. Specifically, Labor's
Departmental Clearance Officer, along with each agency clearance officer,
is to check each month forms that are to be made available on the Internet
to ensure that the proper PRA disclosures are included before and after
posting. However, for 57 forms at Labor, including two of the three case
study collections, this was not done.
Labor officials reported that efforts are under way to provide a central
point of accountability for ensuring that all Web content is
PRA-compliant. This will be done by centralizing the administration and
management of the department's Web site content under the Office of Public
Affairs. As part of this effort, Labor reports that the CIO will work
closely with the Office of Public Affairs to ensure that all items posted
on Web sites are fully PRAcompliant.
Unless agencies closely monitor their Web sites to determine whether the
required PRA information is included in forms presented to respondents,
there is reduced assurance that agencies' established processes will be
followed.
In the case of IRS, most of the agency's noncompliance resulted from forms
that did not cite the tax law that requires the information to be
collected. OMB regulations and guidance state that agencies are to cite
the law or other authority whenever the collection of information is
required to obtain or retain a benefit (such as a passport or Social
Security payment) or is mandatory (with civil or criminal sanctions
imposed for failure to respond).51 However, the following typical PRA
notice on IRS forms omits the required reference to the law:
We ask for the information on this form to carry out the Internal Revenue
laws of the United States. You are required to give us the information. We
need it to ensure that you are complying with these laws and to allow us
to figure and collect the right amount of tax.
When we discussed with IRS officials why the specific tax law requiring
information to be reported was missing in one of our case studies, the IRS
Reports Clearance Officer stated that IRS's burden estimation methodology
increases the burden estimate when a specific law is mentioned in order to
include the time required to read the law. Further, IRS officials told us
that citing the "Internal Revenue laws of the United States" provided
adequate disclosure and that on many forms, it would be impractical to
cite a specific law authorizing the collection. Nonetheless, the
regulations require citation of the law so that respondents are fully
informed. Until IRS corrects this language on the forms, respondents may
not know what law is associated with the information requested.
If information collections do not comply with the PRA requirements
described, the public may be asked to provide information without
appropriate disclosure of the information that would allow the public to
exercise scrutiny of agencies' collections.
Conclusions The primary goal of the PRA-to minimize paperwork burden on
the public while maximizing the public benefit and utility of government
information collections-was the impetus for both the CIO review and public
consultation requirements of the act. However, as these processes are
51"If the collection is required to obtain or retain a benefit or
mandatory, the agency should
cite the legal authority therefore as part of the notice to the
respondents. This should ensure
a higher response rate and help the respondent understand the benefit
and/or need to
respond in an accurate, complete manner." OIRA, The Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995:
Implementing Guidance for OMB Review of Agency Information Collection,
draft
(Aug. 16, 1999), Ch. V, section D.4.
currently implemented, they have limited effect on the quality of support
provided for information collections. CIO reviews appear to be lacking the
rigor that the Congress envisioned. The additional comment period added in
1995 appears to have had limited effectiveness in obtaining the views of
the public, and agencies are not directly consulting with affected parties
as the act requires. Many factors have contributed to the current state of
agency review processes, including lack of management support, weaknesses
in OMB guidance, and insufficient agency attention to the requirements of
the PRA and related guidance. Until these factors are addressed, OMB,
federal agencies, and the public lack adequate assurance that government
information collections are necessary and that they appropriately balance
the resulting burden with the benefits of using the information collected.
The targeted approaches to burden reduction used by IRS and EPA represent
a promising alternative to the current process outlined in the PRA.
However, the agency's experience also suggests that to make such an
approach successful requires top-level executive commitment, extensive
involvement of program office staff with appropriate expertise, and
aggressive outreach to stakeholders. Indications are that such an approach
would also be more resource-intensive than the current process. Moreover,
such an approach may not be warranted at agencies that do not have the
level of paperwork issues that face IRS and similar agencies.
Consequently, it is critical that any efforts to expand the use of the IRS
and EPA models consider these factors.
Finally, agencies are generally ensuring (with some exceptions) that forms
available on their Web sites are approved, but deficiencies remain in
providing the public with all information required by the PRA. Agencies
have not established or consistently followed processes for monitoring
forms on their Web sites. Without such processes, the PRA goals regarding
the public scrutiny of information collections will not be met.
Matters for Given the identified weaknesses in current processes and the
possibility of
achieving significant paperwork reduction through other initiatives,
theCongressional Congress may wish to consider mandating the development
of pilot Consideration projects to test and review the value of approaches
such as those used by
IRS and EPA. In structuring these pilots, the Congress may wish to
consider
requiring
o the Director, OMB, to issue guidance to agencies on implementing this
approach, including criteria for assessing collections along the lines of
the process currently employed by IRS and
o agencies participating in pilots to submit to OMB and publish on their
Web sites (or through other means) an annual plan on the collections
targeted for review, specific burden reduction goals for those
collections, and a report on reductions achieved to date.
In addition, in view of the few comments these notices elicit, the
Congress may wish to consider eliminating the requirement to publish the
initial 60-day notice in the Federal Register requesting public comments
on proposed collections.
Recommendations for Executive Action
We recommend that the Director, OMB, take five actions. First, we
recommend that the Director alter OMB's current guidance to all federal
agencies to
o emphasize the importance of information collection requirements and the
need for management support;
o clarify the kinds of support it asks agency CIOs to provide for
certifications, including that agencies have taken steps to
o reduce burden on those providing the information,
o determine whether small entities are affected by the collection and to
reduce reporting burden on these entities, and
o establish a plan for the management and use of information to be
collected and identify necessary resources;
o direct agencies to consult with potential respondents beyond the
publication of Federal Register notices; and
o require agencies to periodically review Web sites to (1) identify any
forms that may not have been approved by OMB and (2) ensure that all
approved forms include required information.
In addition, to help ensure that program office staff, as well as CIO
staff, is fully aware of the requirements and importance of the
information process,
we recommend that the Director make the revised guidance available to all
agency personnel.
We recommend that the Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development, Labor,
the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs direct responsible CIOs to
o strengthen agency support for CIO certifications, including with regard
to the necessity of collection, burden reduction efforts, and plans for
the use of information collected;
o ensure that consultation with potential respondents occurs beyond the
publication of Federal Register notices;
o remove all forms from agency Web sites that have not been approved by
OMB until such approval is obtained;
o add required information to all forms on Web sites that we identified
as lacking this information; and
o improve oversight by periodically reviewing the Web sites of agencies
and their agents to ensure that all forms are approved and contain
information required by PRA.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report to OMB, the four agencies we reviewed,
and EPA for review and comment. Five agencies provided written comments,
which varied in scope and detail (EPA provided technical comments by
e-mail, which have been included in the report as appropriate). The five
letters received are reproduced in appendixes III through VII, along with
our detailed responses. Of the five agencies, one agreed with our
recommendations, and the remaining four agreed with some recommendations
but disagreed with certain aspects of our findings, conclusions, or
recommendations.
The comments provided by the five agencies included the following points
of agreement with our report:
o The Administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
expressed OMB's agreement with most of the recommendations and stated that
the office is considering changing OMB instructions to align them more
closely to the 10 standards in the act and is exploring alternative
approaches to advising agencies on their PRA
responsibilities. The OIRA Administrator also stated that the report is a
useful first step that has identified potential procedural weaknesses that
warrant further review and possible corrective action. The Administrator
further agreed with us that targeted approaches to burden reduction of the
types used by IRS and EPA may not be warranted at all agencies, depending
on their paperwork issues.
o The CIO of HUD stated that the department has begun correcting PRA
deficiencies by removing unapproved forms from the department's Web site,
strengthening controls over forms on the Web site, and improving standards
for certification.
o The CIO of the Department of Labor stated that the department has taken
action to implement some of our recommendations by consolidating
production of all Labor Web sites to ensure that Labor's posting of forms
is aligned with the department's PRA process.
o The Secretary of Veterans Affairs concurred with all of our
recommendations and described the actions to be taken to comply with PRA.
However, four of the five agencies expressed disagreement with one or more
specific points in our report.
o OMB, the Treasury, Labor, and HUD disagreed with our recommendation to
ensure that public consultation occurs on each collection in addition to
the act's required 60-day Federal Register notice; OMB also disagreed with
our related recommendation that it alter its guidance to direct agencies
to consult with potential respondents beyond publication of the Federal
Register notices. The OIRA Administrator stated that the office interprets
publication in the Federal Register as the "principal means of agency
consultation with the public," and that PRA notices on forms "provide an
opportunity for further public input." According to the Administrator, OMB
believes that on those collections that are particularly important,
additional consulting should occur. The Treasury CIO stated that the PRA
does not specify when agencies are to consult and that the notices on
IRS's forms satisfy the requirement to consult (these are the standard PRA
notices that, among other things, solicit public comments). The Department
of Labor's CIO stated that publication of the Federal Register notice is
sufficient (particularly for routine renewals of collections), that to do
more would not be a good use of agency resources, and that the
rulemaking process involves "give and take" with the regulated community
that "meets the practical purposes intended by the PRA requirements for
consultation." The CIO of HUD agreed that more efforts could be made to
seek public comment, but stated that extensive public outreach on all
information collection submissions is impracticable (particularly for
approval renewals and for small and short-term collections).
We disagree with the agencies' positions on public consultation. The
language of the act clearly requires consultation to occur on every
collection: agencies shall "provide 60-day notice in the Federal Register,
and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies
concerning each proposed collection..."52 Given this unambiguous statutory
language, we believe that OMB should direct agencies to consult on every
collection, as the law requires. However, we are also concerned that
public consultation be efficient and effective; accordingly, among the
matters that we propose for congressional consideration is the mandating
of pilot projects to test and review alternative approaches to achieving
the PRA's goals. We disagree with the position of OMB and the Treasury
that asking the public to comment on approved forms satisfies the law's
requirement. OMB's regulation requires that forms include a request that
the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of
burden estimates and suggestions for reducing burden. This requirement,
however, is separate from the PRA requirement that agencies consult with
the public. We also disagree with the Treasury that the act does not
specify when agencies are to consult. The act states that an agency "shall
not conduct or sponsor the collection of information unless in advance of
the adoption or revision of the collection of information (1) the agency
has ... evaluated the public comments received under section 3506(c)(2),"
which is the section establishing the public consultation requirement
cited above. We disagree with the Labor CIO that the give and take of the
rulemaking process with the regulated community meets the purposes
intended by the PRA's consultation requirement. Although some information
collections are associated with rulemaking, many are not. The act's
requirements for consultation apply to all information collections.
o OMB, the Treasury, and HUD disagreed with our finding that certain
forms have been improperly treated as certifications and elections that
are not subject to the PRA.
52Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 173, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2).
We continue to believe that the forms in question do not properly fall
into this category, because they entail significant burden. OMB's
regulation states that the certifications and elections exemption only
applies "provided that [forms] entail no burden other than that necessary
to identify the respondent, the date, the respondent's address, and the
nature of the instrument..."53 In contrast, these forms contain multiple
requirements that go beyond this threshold. For example, the IRS forms
include requirements for respondents to report income or expense
information, apply for a Social Security number if needed, read various
IRS publications, submit additional IRS forms, obtain multiple signatures,
become familiar with various Internal Revenue Code sections, submit copies
of the completed forms to various IRS offices, and retain a copy for their
records.
o OMB and the Treasury disagreed with our position that IRS's reference
to "the Internal Revenue laws of the United States" on its forms does not
satisfy OMB's regulation requiring the specific legal authority to be
cited. In addition, the Treasury CIO stated that the references in
instructions and other IRS information products to specific sections of
the tax code are sufficient to provide taxpayers with the knowledge of
what law requires them to report their information.
OMB's regulation states that agencies are to cite the specific legal
authority whenever the collection of information is required to obtain or
retain a benefit or is mandatory. OMB's guidance explains the reason for
this requirement as follows: "This should ensure a higher response rate
and help the respondent understand the benefit and/or need to respond in
an accurate, complete manner." If OMB determines that IRS's circumstances
are such that the requirement should be modified in this case, it may
decide to alter its regulation. We also disagree that references in
instructions and information products to specific sections of the tax code
serve to provide taxpayers with the knowledge of what law requires them to
report their information; many of these references are not related to the
law requiring persons to report the specific information asked for on the
form, but rather explain how to fill out the form.
53According to OMB's guidance, the phrase "nature of the instrument"
refers to a respondent's request for material, such as publications or
other information, from an agency. In these cases, agencies may ask
requesters to describe the material or information in sufficient detail
for the agency to respond appropriately.
o OMB disagreed with our conclusion, stated in various forms throughout
the draft report, that without appropriate support and public
consultation, agencies have little assurance that collections satisfy the
standards in the act. According to the OIRA Administrator, this conclusion
is not justified because the draft report does not provide specific
examples showing that lack of support or consultation resulted in a
collection lacking practical utility or imposing unnecessary burden.
We disagree with OMB's overall comment that the information in the draft
report does not support our conclusion. Our review was aimed at examining
compliance with the overall framework the Congress enacted to minimize
public burden and maximize utility. Accordingly, we believe that agencies'
not complying with that framework reduces the assurance that these goals
have been met. Analyzing specific collections for their burden and utility
was not part of the scope of our work.
o The Treasury CIO disagrees with the "implied conclusion" in our draft
report that CIO and OMB reviews were inadequate because they did not
produce reductions in burden similar to those of IRS's Office of Taxpayer
Burden Reduction (OTBR). OMB similarly disagrees with our conclusion that
"the standard PRA review process resulted in no reduction in burden" in
the 12 case studies, because we did not demonstrate that burden reduction
would have been feasible if the CIO review of these collections had been
more rigorous. According to the Treasury CIO, it is unrealistic to expect
the Treasury CIO (or OMB) to have the resources and expertise to undertake
complex burden reduction initiatives, as OTBR does, involving as many as
100 staff, and that charging an agency's CIO with carrying out PRA
responsibilities is not particularly suited for an agency with separate
bureaus with distinct missions, like the Treasury. The CIO suggests that
burden reduction reviews may benefit from responsibility being transferred
to an organizational level with the requisite program knowledge and
expertise.
We make no such "implied conclusion." Instead, our report concludes that
CIO reviews were inadequate because they were not fully compliant with the
requirements of the PRA. In addition, the report describes how CIO
reviews, as currently implemented by agencies, are not yielding the level
of reductions reported by the OTBR process. Consequently, our report
highlights the OTBR process-as well as a similar EPA effort-as promising
alternatives to the current process.
Our statement that the review process resulted in no reduction in burden
is a factual statement, rather than a conclusion. Furthermore, the
reported success of OTBR reviews suggests the feasibility of further
burden reduction. However, we are unable to determine whether the current
process could achieve similar reductions because none of the agencies we
reviewed had a process that was fully compliant with PRA requirements. As
a result, we are recommending that OMB and agencies improve the current
process and suggesting that the Congress consider exploring promising
alternative approaches.
o The Treasury CIO takes issue with our finding that IRS's support was
often absent or incomplete in certifying that the 10 standards in PRA had
been met (particularly those involving the elimination of unnecessary
duplication, reducing burdens on small business, and its ability to
effectively use the information collected). With respect to eliminating
unnecessary duplication, for example, the CIO stated that no other agency
collects tax information collected by the IRS. Moreover, the development
and review of all tax forms is centralized within one IRS office, which
eliminates the possibility that one IRS office might develop an
information collection that overlaps with one developed by another office.
We continue to believe that IRS's support was often absent or incomplete
in certifying that the 10 standards in PRA had been met. PRA requires
agencies to have support for its certifications (similar to the support
that IRS requires of taxpayers' deductions), and we examined whether the
support that IRS provided for certification of the act's 10 standards
(including the elimination of unnecessary duplication) was adequate, not
whether IRS was in compliance with the standards. We found that such
support was often absent or incomplete in the IRS collections we reviewed.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Director of OMB, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development,
the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary
of the Treasury, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
and interested congressional committees. We will also provide copies to
others on request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge
on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Should you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-6240 or Al Stapleton, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-3418. We
can also be reached by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov and stapletona@gao.gov,
respectively. Other key contributors to this report included Barbara
Collier, David Plocher, Theresa Roberson, and Warren Smith.
Linda D. Koontz Director, Information Management Issues
Appendix I
Standards That Must Be Certified in Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions
The 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act established detailed
paperwork clearance requirements for agencies before information
collections are proposed to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review. The 1995 law required every agency to establish a process under
the official responsible for the act's implementation, now the agency
Chief Information Officer,1 to review program offices' proposed
collections and certify that they meet 10 standards. These standards are
codified at 5 C.F.R. 1320.9. The standards read as follows:
"As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of
information, the agency (through the head of the agency, the Senior
Official, or their designee) shall certify (and provide a record
supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of
information-
"(a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical
utility;
"(b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably
accessible to the agency;
"(c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on
persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with
respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. S: 601(6)), the use of such techniques as:
"(1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are
to respond;
"(2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements; or collections of information; or
"(3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any
part thereof;
1The 1995 amendments used the 1980 act's reference to the agency "senior
official" responsible for implementation of the act. A year later,
Congress gave that official the title of agency Chief Information Officer
(the Information Technology Management Reform Act, Pub. L. 104-106, Feb.
10, 1996, which was subsequently renamed the Clinger-Cohen Act, Pub.
L. 104-208, Sept. 30, 1996).
Appendix I
Standards That Must Be Certified in
Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions
"(d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is
understandable to those who are to respond;
"(e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the
maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping
practices of those who are to respond;
"(f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time
persons are required to maintain the records specified;
"(g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under
S:1320.8(b)(3);"
[5 C.F.R. 1320.8(b)(3) requires that each collection of information
"informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom
the collection of information is addressed of:
"(i) the reasons the information is planned to be and/or has been
collected;
"(ii) the way such information is planned to be and/or has been used to
further the proper performance of the functions of the agency;
"(iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, the average burden of the
collection (together with a request that the public direct to the agency
any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any
suggestions for reducing this burden);
"(iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary,
required to obtain or retain a benefit (citing authority) or mandatory
(citing authority);
"(v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any
(citing authority); and
"(vi) the fact that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number."]
"(h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated
resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the
Appendix I
Standards That Must Be Certified in
Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions
information to be collected, including the processing of the information
in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the
information to agencies and the public;
"(i) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology
appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected;
and
"(j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information
technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency
and responsiveness to the public."
Appendix II
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Our objectives were to assess
o the extent to which, before information collections are submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, agencies have (1)
established effective processes for Chief Information Officers (CIO) to
review information collections and certify that the 10 standards in the
act were met and (2) complied with the requirements to consult with the
public on such collections;
o the extent to which agencies ensure that collection forms on agency Web
sites are properly approved by OMB and included in an inventory of
approved collections; and
o the extent to which agencies ensure that collection forms on agency Web
sites disclose certain required information that the public needs to
exercise scrutiny of agency activities.
To determine the extent that federal agencies have established effective
processes to review proposed information collections, we performed two
levels of work: (1) a governmentwide analysis of collections from OMB's
database of over 8,200 approved collections and (2) detailed audit work
including case study reviews and applicable internal controls at four
agencies that represented about 83 percent of the PRA burden hours at 68
agencies governmentwide.
At the governmentwide level, we selected a stratified random probability
sample of 343 collections from a population of 8,211 OMB-approved
collections as of May 2004 to estimate the percentage of collections in
compliance with the act's requirements
o to issue a notice in the Federal Register providing a 60-day public
comment period;
o for the CIO to certify that the 10 information management standards in
the act had been met; and
o for the agency to consult with the public and affected agencies on ways
to minimize burden.
We stratified the population into five groups by defining a stratum for
each of the four agencies included in the case study and a fifth stratum
for all other agencies. Disposition of sampled collections is provided in
table 5.
Appendix II
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
With this probability sample, each collection in the population had a
known and nonzero probability of being selected. Each sampled collection
was subsequently weighted in the analysis to account statistically for all
the members of the population, including those that were not selected.
Table 5: Disposition of Sampled Collections
Number in Number selected
Definition of strata population in sample
HUD 257
Labor 401
Treasury/IRS 808
VA 230
All other agencies 6,515
Total 8,211 343
Source: GAO.
Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections,
each sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have
drawn. Since each sample could have provided a different estimate, we
express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample results
as a 95 percent confidence interval. This is the interval that would
contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could
have drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the
confidence intervals in this report will include the true values in the
sample population.
At the detailed agency audit level, we compared the act's requirements
with the paperwork clearance processes used at three departments and one
agency: the Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA), Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), and Labor, as well as the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) in the Department of the Treasury. Together, these departments and
agencies represented a broad range of paperwork collections and accounted
for about 83 percent of all 68 agencies' 8.1 billion hours of paperwork
burden in 2003-with IRS alone accounting for over 80 percent. In addition,
these agencies represent a mixture of regulatory agencies (IRS and Labor)
and benefit-focused agencies (HUD and VA). We also examined these
agencies' written directives and orders for reviewing proposed collections
for compliance with the act's requirements.
Appendix II
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
We also selected for detailed case reviews 12 OMB-approved collections (3
at each agency) using the following criteria: a mixture of new and
existing collections, burden hours that exceeded 4,000 hours, and
collections that originated in more than one agency program office. For
example, at VA, we examined collections from both the benefit and health
program offices. We compared the agencies' processes and practices in
these case studies with the (1) act's requirements, (2) OMB's regulation
and draft guidance to agencies, and (3) agencies' written directives and
orders. For each of the 10 certifications, we determined the extent to
which the support provided in the case study files met each of these
requirements and classified them as meeting all elements of the
requirement (yes), not meeting any of the elements of the requirement
(no), or meeting some but not all elements of the requirement (partial).
Finally, we interviewed agency officials about their processes to review
proposed information collections.
To determine the extent to which the four agencies ensure that all
collections were reviewed, included in an inventory, and disclose required
information, we first identified the population of forms available via the
agency's Web site that were subject to PRA. Because of the design of
agencies' Web sites, it is possible that we did not identify all forms
subject to PRA. Conversely, some forms we initially had identified as
subject to PRA were subsequently removed from our review when agencies
provided additional information that showed the forms were exempt under
the act. Next, we examined for compliance all of the forms that we could
locate on the VA and Labor Web sites and examined a stratified random
probability sample of forms on the IRS and HUD Web sites. We randomly
selected 119 forms from the 492 on the IRS Web site and selected a
stratified random sample of 253 forms from the 423 on the HUD Web site.
With these probability samples, each form in the population had a known
and nonzero probability of being selected. Each sampled form was
subsequently weighted in the analysis to account statistically for all the
members of the population, including those that were not selected.
We used the results of our analyses to estimate the percentages of the
following five categories of PRA violations:1
1We did not determine whether the Web site forms properly described the
nature and extent of confidentiality provided to respondents' information,
because it would not have been practical for us to attempt to determine in
each case whether there was a law authorizing the confidentiality.
Appendix II
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
o collections that had never been sent to OMB for approval (these were in
total violation of the act's paperwork clearance requirements, including
the requirement to issue a Federal Register notice providing a 60-day
comment period); 2
o expired collections, where OMB's approval had lapsed;
o collections that did not properly display the expiration date (which
indicates when OMB's approval to collect the information ends);
o collections that did not properly display the OMB control number, which
indicates that the agency has been authorized to collect the information
(this category includes forms that were not on the agency's inventory of
approved collections that OMB maintains on its Web site); and
o collections that did not inform respondents of one or more of the five
required notifications (e.g., the right not to respond if a valid OMB
control number is not displayed).
We did not analyze the information collections or the rate of violations
based on the different purposes for which the information is requested
(e.g., program planning, research).
Finally, we asked agencies to confirm or refute our findings. This
included sending each of the four agencies a listing of those collections
that we identified as having PRA violations that fell into one or more of
the five categories noted above and requesting that the agencies indicate
whether or not they concurred with our determination. When warranted by
the agency material provided in response to our request, we revised our
determination that a collection was in violation of the PRA.
All percentage estimates from the samples have margins of error of plus or
minus 10 percent or less, unless otherwise noted.
After updating our review records as a result of agency responses, we
checked the reliability of our review determinations and data entry by
having a second reviewer check random samples of records drawn from
2IRS forms with multiple schedules and attachments were counted as one
form. Our analyses of the sample of forms from IRS's Web site is limited
to a determination of whether the required PRA information was disclosed
(not whether the form was approved by OMB).
Appendix II
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
the data sets we created to contain our review results. A second reviewer
checked 25 percent of the records from our sample of 343 collections drawn
from OMB's approved collections database and 10 percent of the records
from our four agency Web site forms data set. In both data sets,
individual data element errors were around 1 percent of all data elements
examined, and all identified errors were corrected. We also performed
automated error checks and analyses to detect problems with the data. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
this report.
In accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, we
also determined that the computer-generated data in OMB's database of
information collections that we relied on for this report was sufficiently
accurate and complete for our purposes. Specifically:
o We randomly selected 60 active collections in the database population
of 8,211 for all 68 agencies as shown on OMB's Web site as of May 2004.
o Next, we compared the information in the database with the information
on the source documents-i.e., agencies' Standard Form 83s submitted to OMB
as well as OMB's memoranda on its decision whether to approve the proposed
collection. Based on sample results, in which we found no errors, we can
conclude with 95 percent confidence that the information was accurately
recorded in OMB's database.
Finally, we randomly selected 90 collections from the population of all
active collections governmentwide stored in folders at OMB as of July 2004
and found all 90 were recorded in the database. Based on the sample
results, in which we found no errors, we can conclude with 95 percent
confidence that OMB's database of information collections was complete. We
also determined from the OMB official responsible for receiving and
storing agencies' submittals what steps OMB takes to ensure that all
agency submissions are received and recorded in the database.
Appendix III
Comments from the Office of Management and Budget
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
Appendix III
Comments from the Office of Management
and Budget
See comment 1.
See comment 2. See comment 3.
See comment 4.
Appendix III
Comments from the Office of Management
and Budget
See comment 5.
See comment 6.
See comment 7.
Appendix III
Comments from the Office of Management
and Budget
See comment 8. See comment 9.
See comment 10.
See comment 11.
Appendix III
Comments from the Office of Management
and Budget
See comment 12.
Appendix III
Comments from the Office of Management
and Budget
The following are GAO's comments on the Office of Management and Budget's
letter dated April 20, 2005.
GAO Comments 1.
2.
3.
4.
We disagree with OMB's overall comment that the information in the draft
report does not support our conclusion. We continue to believe that
without improved compliance on the act's major provisions, the government
has reduced assurance that the goals of the act will be achieved. Our
review was aimed at examining compliance with these provisions, which the
Congress enacted as part of an overall framework to minimize public burden
and maximize utility. Accordingly, we believe that agencies' not complying
reduces the assurance that these goals have been met.
We agree that we did not cite specific examples of increased burden and
reduced utility. However, analyzing specific collections for their burden
and utility was not part of the scope of our work. See comment 1.
We disagree with OMB's implication that our suggestion regarding
eliminating the 60-day notice is incongruous with our interest in
increasing public consultation. Our suggestion is not aimed at reducing
opportunities for public consultation, but rather at recognizing that this
approach to consultation appears not to be effective.
We disagree with OMB's characterization of our review as a "limited
study." We compared the act's requirements with the paperwork clearance
processes used at four agencies that, together, represent a broad range of
paperwork collections and accounted for about 83 percent of all 68
agencies' 8.1 billion hours of paperwork burden in 2003. We also
interviewed agency officials about their processes for reviewing proposed
information collections. In addition, for each of the 12 case studies (3
cases at each of the four agencies), we compared the agencies' processes
and practices in these case studies with (1) the act's requirements, (2)
OMB's regulation and draft guidance to agencies, and (3) agencies' written
directives and orders. For each of the act's 10 certifications, we
determined the extent to which the support provided in the case-study
files met each of these requirements.
In addition to the 12 case studies, we randomly selected 343 cases from
over 8,200 collections at 68 agencies that we used to determine
Appendix III
Comments from the Office of Management
and Budget
compliance levels at the four agencies and governmentwide with the act's
requirements to issue a notice in the Federal Register providing a 60-day
public comment period; for the CIO to certify that the 10 information
management standards in the act had been met; and for the agency to
consult with the public and affected agencies on ways to minimize burden.
5. We disagree with OMB's implication that our finding regarding support
for certifications is not a matter of concern. The Administrator states
that OMB is unsurprised that we found variation in degrees of detail and
the volume of documentation, and that OMB is confident that its approvals
of collections are based on sufficient evidence. However, our concern is
not based on variation in degrees of detail or volume, but on the adequacy
of the support provided. The law requires the CIO to provide a record
supporting the certifications. Our analysis of these records concluded
that the support provided was often missing or partial. We did not review
OMB's processes for approving information collections.
6. We disagree with OMB's position that in order to conclude that "the
standard PRA review process resulted in no reduction in burden" in the 12
case studies,1 we would have to demonstrate that burden reduction would
have been feasible if the CIO review of these collections had been more
rigorous. It is a fact, rather than a conclusion, that we found no burden
reduction resulting from any agency's CIO review of the collections in our
review; similarly, the Department of Labor found no burden reduction for
175 of its reviews. In addition, OTBR's reported success in reducing
burden for collections already approved by both the CIO and OMB suggests
that additional reductions are feasible. However, we are unable to
determine the magnitude of reductions possible under the current CIO
review process because none of the agencies we reviewed have processes
that fully comply with PRA requirements. By implementing our
recommendations to improve the current review process and make it fully
compliant, OMB and agencies-and the Congress-should then have the means to
measure the results of this process and compare these with the results of
alternative approaches. In addition, we agree that the program offices
1Although OMB did not raise this point, we have clarified our report to
refer to "the CIO review process" rather than "the standard PRA review
process" to avoid any ambiguity about the scope of our conclusion.
Appendix III
Comments from the Office of Management
and Budget
often have the expertise to identify burden reduction activities-a
position wholly consistent with the PRA. Under the act, program
offices-rather than the CIO-have the responsibility for justifying their
proposed information collections.
7. We disagree with OMB's position on public consultation. The language of
the act clearly requires consultation to occur on every collection:
agencies shall "provide 60-day notice in the Federal Register, and
otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies
concerning each proposed collection..."2 Given this unambiguous statutory
language, we believe that OMB should direct agencies to consult on every
collection, as we recommended. We disagree that asking the public to
comment on approved forms satisfies that requirement. OMB's regulation
does require that forms include a request that the public direct to the
agency any comments concerning the accuracy of burden estimates and
suggestions for reducing burden. This requirement, however, is separate
from the PRA requirement that agencies consult with the public.
8. We do not agree that our report is of limited scope because it does not
provide concrete evidence of unnecessary burden or reduced utility with
respect to individual collections. See comment 4.
9. See comment 3.
10. We do not agree with OMB's opinion that IRS forms do not need to cite
specific legal authority requiring the information to be collected. OMB's
regulation states that agencies are to cite the specific legal authority
whenever the collection of information is required to obtain or retain a
benefit or is mandatory. OMB's guidance explains the reason for this
requirement as follows: "This should ensure a higher response rate and
help the respondent understand the benefit and/or need to respond in an
accurate, complete manner." If OMB determines that IRS's circumstances are
such that the requirement should be modified for IRS, it may decide to
alter its regulation.
11. We disagree with OMB's position that the IRS forms we discussed fall
into the category of certification and election not subject to the PRA.
OMB's regulation states that the certifications and elections exemption
2Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 173, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2).
Appendix III
Comments from the Office of Management
and Budget
only applies "provided that [forms] entail no burden other than that
necessary to identify the respondent, the date, the respondent's address,
and the nature of the instrument..."3 In contrast, these forms contain
multiple requirements that go beyond this threshold. For example, the IRS
forms include requirements for respondents to report income or expense
information, apply for a Social Security number if needed, read various
IRS publications, submit additional IRS forms, obtain multiple signatures,
become familiar with various Internal Revenue Code sections, submit copies
of the completed forms to various IRS offices, and retain a copy for their
records.
12. We disagree with OMB that before it can determine to implement our
recommendation on public consultation, it should wait for additional
evidence on its cost-effectiveness. It is our position that the act's
language currently requires consultation to occur on each collection. We
do suggest, however, that the Congress may wish to consider mandating the
development of pilot projects to test and review the value of alternative
approaches to the current process; such pilot projects could help OMB
develop evidence regarding the costeffectiveness of a number of different
options for achieving the goals of the PRA.
3According to OMB's guidance, the phrase "nature of the instrument" refers
to a respondent's request for material, such as publications or other
information, from an agency. In these cases, agencies may ask requesters
to describe the material or information in sufficient detail for the
agency to respond appropriately.
Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
See comment 1.
See comment 2.
Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Appendix IV
Comments from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's letter dated April 20, 2005.
GAO Comments 1.
2.
We disagree with HUD's position that certain forms that we identified in
our review are certifications not subject to PRA. OMB's regulation states
that the certifications and elections exemption only applies "provided
that [forms] entail no burden other than that necessary to identify the
respondent, the date, the respondent's address, and the nature of the
instrument..."1 HUD's forms require respondents to incur a significant
amount of burden that exceeds this threshold.
Although the HUD CIO believes that extensive public outreach on all
collections is impracticable, PRA clearly requires public consultation to
occur on every collection: agencies shall "provide 60-day notice in the
Federal Register, and otherwise consult with members of the public and
affected agencies concerning each proposed collection..."2 Approval
renewals and small and short-term collections are not exempt from this
requirement. We believe that agencies should comply with current law.
However, we are also concerned that public consultation be efficient and
effective; accordingly, among the matters that we propose for
congressional consideration is the mandating of pilot projects to test and
review alternative approaches to achieving the PRA's goals.
1According to OMB's guidance, the phrase "nature of the instrument" refers
to a respondent's request for material, such as publications or other
information, from an agency. In these cases, agencies may ask requesters
to describe the material or information in sufficient detail for the
agency to respond appropriately.
2Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 173, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2).
Appendix V
Comments from the Department of Labor
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
See comment 1.
Appendix V
Comments from the Department of Labor
The following is GAO's comment on the Department of Labor's letter dated
April 21, 2005.
GAO Comment 1. We disagree with Labor's interpretation of the act's public
consultation provision. The act's language is very specific in requiring
consultation on each collection. We disagree that the give and take of the
rulemaking process with the regulated community meets the purposes
intended by the PRA's consultation requirement. Although some information
collections are associated with rulemaking, many are not. The act's
requirements for consultation apply to all information collections. We
believe that agencies should comply with current law. However, we are also
concerned that public consultation be efficient and effective;
accordingly, among the matters that we propose for congressional
consideration is the mandating of pilot projects to test and review
alternative approaches to achieving the PRA's goals.
Appendix VI
Comments from the Department of the Treasury
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
See comment 1.
Appendix VI
Comments from the Department of the
Treasury
See comment 2.
See comment 3.
See comment 4.
Appendix VI
Comments from the Department of the
Treasury
See comment 5.
See comment 6.
See comment 7.
Appendix VI
Comments from the Department of the
Treasury
See comment 8.
See comment 9.
See comment 10.
Appendix VI
Comments from the Department of the
Treasury
See comment 11.
See comment 12.
See comment 13.
See comment 14.
Appendix VI
Comments from the Department of the
Treasury
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Treasury's
letter dated April 19, 2005.
GAO Comments 1.
2.
3.
We disagree with the CIO's position that the 15 forms under discussion
were properly treated as certifications and elections that are not subject
to the PRA. We continue to believe that the forms in question do not
properly fall into this category, because they entail significant burden.
OMB's regulation states that the certifications and elections exemption
only applies "provided that [forms] entail no burden other than that
necessary to identify the respondent, the date, the respondent's address,
and the nature of the instrument..."1 In contrast, these forms contain
multiple requirements that go beyond this threshold. For example, the IRS
forms include requirements for respondents to report income or expense
information, apply for a Social Security number if needed, read various
IRS publications, submit additional IRS forms, obtain multiple signatures,
become familiar with various Internal Revenue Code sections, submit copies
of the completed forms to various IRS offices, and retain a copy for their
records.
We disagree with the CIO's position that IRS's general reference to the
Internal Revenue laws of the United States provides enough information for
respondents to know what specific law requires their information to be
reported. OMB's regulation states that agencies are to cite the specific
legal authority whenever the collection of information is required to
obtain or retain a benefit or is mandatory. OMB's guidance explains the
reason for this requirement as follows: "This should ensure a higher
response rate and help the respondent understand the benefit and/or need
to respond in an accurate, complete manner." If OMB determines that IRS's
circumstances are such that the requirement should be modified for IRS, it
may decide to alter its regulation.
We disagree that the references in instructions and other IRS information
products to specific sections of the tax code are sufficient
1According to OMB's guidance, the phrase "nature of the instrument" refers
to a respondent's request for material, such as publications or other
information, from an agency. In these cases, agencies may ask requesters
to describe the material or information in sufficient detail for the
agency to respond appropriately.
Appendix VI
Comments from the Department of the
Treasury
to provide taxpayers with the knowledge of what law requires them to
report their information. Many of these references are not related to the
law requiring persons to report the specific information asked for on the
form, but rather explain how to fill out the form.
4. We disagree with the Treasury CIO's statement that the PRA does not
specify when agencies are to consult and that the notices on IRS's forms
satisfy the requirement to consult. The act states that an agency "shall
not conduct or sponsor the collection of information unless in advance of
the adoption or revision of the collection of information (1) the agency
has ... evaluated the public comments received under section 3506(c)(2),"
which is the section establishing the public consultation requirement.
Asking the public to comment on approved forms does not satisfy that
requirement. OMB's regulation directs agencies to ask for comments on
forms, but this requirement is in addition to the PRA public consultation
requirement.
5. We disagree with the position of the Treasury CIO (and OMB) on public
consultation. The language of the act clearly requires consultation to
occur on every collection: agencies shall "provide 60-day notice in the
Federal Register, and otherwise consult with members of the public and
affected agencies concerning each proposed collection..."2 (See also
comment 4.) We believe that agencies should comply with current law.
However, we are also concerned that public consultation be efficient and
effective; accordingly, among the matters that we propose for
congressional consideration is the mandating of pilot projects to test and
review alternative approaches to achieving the PRA's goals.
6. Our report does not contain the "implied conclusion" cited by the
Treasury CIO. Instead, our report concludes that CIO reviews were
inadequate because they failed to fully comply with PRA requirements.
Further, we are not suggesting that the CIO's office conduct efforts
similar to those of OTBR. Instead, our report highlights the OTBR
process-as well as an EPA effort-as promising alternatives to the current
process.
7. We agree that there may be benefit in having burden reduction
initiatives performed by those with the requisite program knowledge and
expertise (regardless of who has the ultimate responsibility for
2Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 173, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2).
Appendix VI
Comments from the Department of the
Treasury
these initiatives). This position is consistent with the current process
in which program offices, rather than the CIO, have responsibility for
justifying their proposed information collections.
8. Regarding the draft report's finding that IRS's support was often
absent or incomplete in certifying that the 10 standards in the PRA had
been met, our draft report did not conclude that IRS was not in compliance
with the act's 10 standards or that any of its collections involved
unnecessary duplication, failed to reduce burdens on small business, or
did not use the information it collected. Rather, we reported that the PRA
requires agencies to have support for its certifications, and we found
such support was often absent or incomplete in the IRS collections we
reviewed.
9. Although the Treasury CIO indicates that the IRS's information
collections do not involve unnecessary duplication, the IRS collections we
reviewed did not consistently provide support for the agency's
certification of this position. Without information in the submission
describing actions taken to avoid unnecessary duplication, decision makers
and the public would have reduced assurance that a proposed collection
satisfied this standard.
10. The Treasury CIO cites various IRS initiatives that reduced burden on
small business, all of which were the result of OTBR efforts. We point out
in our report, however, that the standard on reducing burden is not
limited to small business and that our review was aimed at determining
whether CIO review files on IRS collections provided adequate support for
this standard.
11. The act requires the CIO to certify that the collection was developed
by an office that has plans to use the information. The Congress did not
exempt IRS from this requirement despite its functional organizational
structure.
12. We have revised our recommendation to clarify that the Secretary of
Treasury should direct the responsible CIO to ensure that consulting with
potential respondents occurs, as the act requires.
13. The PRA prohibits the head of an agency from collecting information
from respondents without prior OMB approval of the collection, taxpayer
confusion notwithstanding. Accordingly, IRS should comply with the law.
Appendix VI
Comments from the Department of the
Treasury
14. We have deleted the reference to the IRS Commissioner in the final
report recommendations.
Appendix VII
Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs
Appendix VII
Comments from the Department of Veterans
Affairs
Appendix VII
Comments from the Department of Veterans
Affairs
GAO's Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.govFederal Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Relations Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***