This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-477T
entitled 'Paperwork Reduction Act: New Approaches Can Strengthen
Information Collection and Reduce Burden' which was released on March
8, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Government
Reform, House of Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST Wednesday, March 8, 2006:
Paperwork Reduction Act:
New Approaches Can Strengthen Information Collection and Reduce Burden:
Statement of Linda D. Koontz, Director:
GAO-06-477T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-477T, a report to the Subcommittee on Regulatory
Affairs, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Americans spend billions of hours each year providing information to
federal agencies by filling out forms, surveys, or questionnaires. A
major aim of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) is to minimize the
burden that these information collections impose on the public, while
maximizing their public benefit. Under the act, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) is to approve all such collections. In
addition, agency Chief Information Officers (CIO) are to review
information collections before they are submitted to OMB for approval
and certify that these meet certain standards set forth in the act.
GAO was asked to testify on the implementation of the act’s provisions
regarding the review and approval of information collections. For its
testimony, GAO reviewed previous work in this area, including the
results of an expert forum on information resources management and the
PRA, which was held in February 2005 under the auspices of the National
Research Council. GAO also drew on its earlier study of CIO review
processes (GAO-05-424) and alternative processes that two agencies have
used to minimize burden. For this study, 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.
What GAO Found:
Among the PRA provisions aimed at helping to achieve the goals of
minimizing burden while maximizing utility is the requirement for CIO
review and certification of information collections. GAO’s review of 12
case studies showed that CIOs provided these certifications despite
often missing or inadequate support from the program offices sponsoring
the collections. Further, although the law requires that support be
provided for certifications, agency files contained little evidence
that CIO reviewers had made efforts to get program offices to improve
the support they offered. Numerous factors have contributed to these
problems, including a lack of management support and weaknesses in OMB
guidance. Because these reviews were not rigorous, OMB, the agency, and
the public had reduced assurance that the standards in the act—such as
minimizing burden—were consistently met. To address the issues raised
by its review, GAO made recommendations to the agencies and OMB aimed
at strengthening the CIO review process and clarifying guidance. OMB
and the agencies report making plans and taking steps to address GAO’s
recommendations.
Beyond the collection review process, the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have set up
processes that are specifically focused on reducing burden. These
agencies, whose missions involve numerous information collections, have
devoted significant resources to targeted burden reduction efforts that
involve extensive public outreach. According to the two agencies, these
efforts led to significant reductions in burden. For example, each
year, IRS subjects a few forms to highly detailed, in-depth analyses,
reviewing all data requested, redesigning forms, and involving
stakeholders (both the information users and the public affected). 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.
When it considers PRA reauthorization, the Congress has the opportunity
to promote new approaches, including alternatives suggested by the
expert forum and by GAO. Forum participants made a range of suggestions
on information collections and their review. For example, they
suggested that OMB’s focus should be on broad oversight rather than on
reviewing each individual collection and observed that the current
clearance process appeared to be “pro forma.” They also observed that
it seemed excessive to require notices of collections to be published
twice in the Federal Register, as they are now. GAO similarly observed
that publishing two notices in the Federal Register did not seem to be
effective, and suggested eliminating one of these notices. GAO also
suggested that the Congress mandate pilot projects to target some
collections for rigorous analysis along the lines of the IRS and EPA
approaches. Such projects would permit agencies to build on the lessons
learned by the IRS and EPA and potentially contribute to true burden
reduction.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-477T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Linda Koontz at (202) 512-
6240 or koontzl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) and federal information collections.[Footnote 1] As you know, one
of the goals of the PRA is to help ensure that when the government asks
the public for information, the burden of providing this information is
as small as possible and the information itself is used effectively. In
other words, the goal is to minimize the paperwork burden while
maximizing the public benefit and utility of the information collected.
To achieve this goal, the PRA includes provisions that establish
standards and procedures for effective implementation and oversight of
information collections.[Footnote 2] Among these provisions is the
requirement that agencies not establish information collections without
having them approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
that before submitting them for approval, agencies' Chief Information
Officers (CIO) certify that collections meet 10 specified standards--
including that they avoid unnecessary duplication and reduce burden as
much as possible.
As you requested, I will discuss results from a May 2005 report that we
issued on PRA processes and compliance.[Footnote 3] In that work, we
reviewed agencies' processes to certify that information collections
meet PRA standards, and we described alternative processes that two
agencies have used to minimize burden. I will also discuss various
suggestions for alternative approaches to burden reduction that the
Congress may wish to consider.
In preparing this testimony, we reviewed our previous work on PRA
issues, including the results of an expert forum on information
resources management and the PRA, which was held in February 2005. To
convene this forum, we contracted with the National Academies' National
Research Council, which recruited panelists with expertise in the PRA
and related areas. The 1½ day legislative forum was attended by
observers from our agency, OMB, the Congressional Research Service, and
staff of the House Government Reform Committee. (Attachment 1 lists the
participants.)
In reviewing our previous work, we focused particularly on our May 2005
report and a subsequent June testimony.[Footnote 4] For this report and
testimony, 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 the Internal Revenue Service (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 of estimated paperwork burden for all federal agencies.
Of this total, IRS alone accounted for about 80 percent.[Footnote 5] 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 regarding
agency certification of the 10 standards and consultation with the
public. We designed the random sample so that we could determine
compliance levels at the four agencies and governmentwide. Finally,
although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was not one of the
agencies whose processes we reviewed, we analyzed documents and
interviewed officials concerning the agency's efforts to reduce the
burden of its information collections. Further details on our scope and
methodology are provided in our report.
All work on which this testimony is based was conducted in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Among the PRA provisions aimed at the goal of minimizing burden while
maximizing utility is the requirement for CIO review and certification
of information collections. Governmentwide, agency CIOs generally
reviewed information collections before they were submitted to OMB and
certified that the required standards in the act were met. However, our
review of 12 case studies showed that CIOs provided these
certifications despite often missing or inadequate 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 get
program offices to improve the support that they offered. Numerous
factors contributed to these problems, including a lack of management
support and weaknesses in OMB guidance. Because these reviews were not
rigorous, OMB, the agency, and the public have reduced assurance that
the standards in the act--such as avoiding duplication and minimizing
burden--were consistently met. In light of these findings, we
recommended (among other things) that agencies strengthen the support
provided for CIO certifications and that OMB update its guidance to
clarify and emphasize this requirement. OMB and the agencies report
making plans and taking steps to address GAO's recommendations.
In relation to information collections, IRS and EPA have developed and
used additional evaluative processes that focus specifically on
reducing burden. These processes are targeted, resource-intensive
efforts that involved extensive outreach to stakeholders. According to
these agencies, their processes led to significant reductions in burden
on the public while maximizing the utility of the information
collections. In contrast, for the 12 case studies, the CIO review
process did not reduce burden.
When it considers PRA reauthorization, the Congress should consider
some new approaches, including alternatives suggested by the expert
forum and by our findings. Forum participants developed several
suggestions regarding the review of information collections. For
example, they suggested that OMB should focus on broad oversight rather
than on reviews of each individual collection; they described this
approach as a "retail" process that appeared to have become "pro
forma." They also observed that it seemed excessive to require notices
of collections to be published twice in the Federal Register, as they
are now. We too observed that publishing two notices in the Federal
Register seemed to be ineffective, as they elicited very little public
comment; we suggested eliminating one of them. In addition, we
suggested that the Congress mandate pilot projects to target some
collections for rigorous analysis along the lines of the IRS and EPA
approaches. Such projects would permit agencies to build on the lessons
learned by the IRS and EPA and potentially contribute to true burden
reduction.
Background:
Collecting information is one way that federal agencies carry out their
missions. For example, IRS needs to collect information from taxpayers
and their employers to know the correct amount of taxes owed. The U.S.
Census Bureau collects information used to apportion congressional
representation and for many other purposes. When new circumstances or
needs arise, agencies may need to collect new information. We
recognize, therefore, that a large portion of federal paperwork is
necessary and serves a useful purpose.
Nonetheless, besides ensuring that information collections have public
benefit and utility, federal agencies are required by the PRA to
minimize the paperwork burden that they impose. Among the provisions of
the act aimed at this purpose are requirements for the review of
information collections by OMB and by agency CIOs.
Under PRA, federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor the collection
of information unless approved by OMB. 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.[Footnote 6] Consistent with
the act's requirements, OMB has established a process to review all
proposals by executive branch agencies (including independent
regulatory agencies) to collect information from 10 or more persons,
whether the collections are voluntary or mandatory.
In addition, the act as amended in 1995 requires every agency to
establish a process under the official responsible for the act's
implementation (now the agency's CIO) [Footnote 7] 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.[Footnote 8] As part of that review, the agency CIO must
ensure that each information collection instrument (form, survey, or
questionnaire) complies with the act. The CIO is also to certify that
the collection meets 10 standards (see table 1) 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 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 the fact 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).
[End of table]
The paperwork clearance process currently takes place in two stages.
The first stage is CIO review. During this review, the agency is to
publish a notice of the collection in the Federal Register. 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. The agency submissions
to OMB typically include a copy of the data collection instrument
(e.g., a form or survey) and an OMB submission form providing
information (with supporting documentation) about the proposed
information collection, including 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.
Included in the submission is the certification by the CIO or the CIO's
designee that the collection satisfies the 10 standards.
The OMB review is the second stage in the clearance process. This
review may involve consultation between OMB and agency staff. During
the review, a second notice is published in the Federal Register, this
time with a 30-day period for soliciting public comment. At the end of
this period, OMB makes its decision and informs the agency. OMB
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.
The 1995 PRA amendments also require OMB to set specific goals for
reducing burden from the level it had reached in 1995: at least a 10
percent reduction in the governmentwide burden-hour estimate for each
of fiscal years 1996 and 1997, a 5 percent governmentwide burden
reduction goal in each of the next 4 fiscal years, and annual agency
goals that reduce burden to the "maximum practicable opportunity." At
the end of fiscal year 1995, federal agencies estimated that their
information collections imposed about 7 billion burden hours on the
public. Thus, for these reduction goals to be met, the burden-hour
estimate would have had to decrease by about 35 percent, to about 4.6
billion hours, by September 30, 2001. In fact, on that date, the
federal paperwork estimate had increased by about 9 percent, to 7.6
billion burden hours. As of March 2006, OMB's estimate for
governmentwide burden is about 10.5 billion hours[Footnote 9]--about
2.5 billion hours more than the estimate of 7.971 billion hours at the
end of fiscal year 2004.[Footnote 10]
Over the years, we have reported on the implementation of PRA many
times. [Footnote 11]In a succession of reports and testimonies, we
noted that federal paperwork burden estimates generally continued to
increase, rather than decrease as envisioned by the burden reduction
goals in PRA. Further, we reported that some burden reduction claims
were overstated. For example, although some reported paperwork
reductions reflected substantive program changes, others were revisions
to agencies' previous burden estimates and, therefore, would have no
effect on the paperwork burden felt by the public. In our previous
work, we also repeatedly pointed out ways that OMB and agencies could
do more to ensure compliance with PRA. In particular, we have often
recommended that OMB and agencies take actions to improve the paperwork
clearance process.
Agency Processes for Reviewing Information Collections Were Not
Effective:
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 get
program offices to improve the support that they offered. 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.
Support for Certifications Was Often Missing or Partial, Despite CIO
Reviews:
Among the PRA provisions intended to help achieve the goals of
minimizing burden while maximizing utility are the requirements for CIO
review and certification of information collections. The 1995
amendments required agencies to establish centralized processes for
reviewing proposed information collections within the CIO's office.
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 a record supporting these certifications.
The four agencies in our review all 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 for certification was
missing or partial on 65 percent (66 of 101) of the
certifications.[Footnote 12] Table 4 shows the result of our analysis
of the case studies.
Table 2: Support Provided by Agencies for Paperwork Reduction Act
Standards in 12 Case Studies:
Standards: The collection is necessary for the proper performance of
agency functions;
Total[A]: 12;
Support provided: Yes: 6;
Support provided: Partial: 6;
Support provided: No: 0.
Standards: The collection avoids unnecessary duplication;
Total[A]: 11;
Support provided: Yes: 2;
Support provided: Partial: 2;
Support provided: No: 7.
Standards: The collection reduces burden on the public, including small
entities, to the extent practicable and appropriate;
Total[A]: 12;
Support provided: Yes: 5;
Support provided: Partial: 7;
Support provided: No: 0.
Standards: The collection uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous
language that is understandable to respondents;
Total[A]: 12;
Support provided: Yes: 1;
Support provided: Partial: 0;
Support provided: No: 11.
Standards: The collection will be consistent and compatible with
respondents' current reporting and recordkeeping practices to the
maximum extent practicable;
Total[A]: 12;
Support provided: Yes: 3;
Support provided: Partial: 0;
Support provided: No: 9.
Standards: The collection indicates the retention period for any
recordkeeping requirements for respondents.[B];
Total[A]: 6;
Support provided: Yes: 3;
Support provided: Partial: 3;
Support provided: No: 0.
Standards: The collection informs respondents of 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 the fact that no person is required to respond unless
a valid OMB control number is displayed.[B];
Total[A]: 12;
Support provided: Yes: 4;
Support provided: Partial: 8;
Support provided: No: 0.
Standards: 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;
Total[A]: 11;
Support provided: Yes: 2;
Support provided: Partial: 0;
Support provided: No: 9.
Standards: The collection uses effective and efficient statistical
survey methodology (if applicable);
Total[A]: 1;
Support provided: Yes: 1;
Support provided: Partial: 0;
Support provided: No: 0.
Standards: The collection uses information technology to the maximum
extent practicable to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency
efficiency, and responsiveness to the public;
Total[A]: 12;
Support provided: Yes: 8;
Support provided: Partial: 4;
Support provided: No: 0.
Standards: Totals;
Total[A]: 101;
Support provided: Yes: 35;
Support provided: Partial: 30;
Support provided: No: 36.
Sources: Paperwork Reduction Act, GAO.
[A] The total number of certifications is not always 12 because not all
certifications applied to all collections.
[B] For 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.
[End of table]
For example, under the act, CIOs are required to certify that each
information collection is not unnecessarily duplicative. According to
OMB instructions, agencies 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.
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.
In 7 cases, moreover, support for these certifications was missing. 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.
A second example is provided by the standard requiring each information
collection to reduce burden on the public, including small
entities,[Footnote 13] to the extent practicable and appropriate. 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 agency functions. 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 two copies of
documentation.
With regard to small entities, OMB guidance states that the standard
emphasizes such entities because these often have limited resources to
comply with information collections.[Footnote 14] The act cites various
techniques for reducing burden on these small entities,[Footnote 15]
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.
Our review of the case examples found that for the first part of the
certification, which focuses on reducing burden on the public, the
files 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 examples of various agency activities
that are consistent with this standard. For instance, 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.
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:
* even though such businesses were affected, that burden could or could
not be reduced.
Referring to methods used to minimize burden on small business, the
files included statements such as "not applicable." 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.
OMB's instructions to agencies on this part of the certification
require agencies 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." This 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.
The lack of support for these certifications appears to be influenced
by a variety of factors. In some cases, as described above, OMB
guidance and instructions are not comprehensive or entirely accurate.
In the case of the duplication standard specifically, IRS officials
said that the agency does not need to further justify that its
collections are not duplicative because (1) tax data are not collected
by other agencies, so there is no need for the agency to contact them
about proposed collections, and (2) IRS has an effective internal
process for coordinating proposed forms among the agency's various
organizations that may have similar information. Nonetheless, the law
and instructions require support for these certifications, 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.
When support for the PRA certifications is missing or inadequate, OMB,
the agency, and the public have reduced assurance that the standards in
the act, such as those on avoiding duplication and minimizing burden,
have been consistently met.
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.[Footnote 16]
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 CIO process). The office evaluates and prioritizes burden reduction
initiatives by:
* determining the number of taxpayers impacted;
* quantifying the total time and out-of-pocket savings for taxpayers;
* evaluating any adverse impact on IRS's voluntary compliance efforts;
* assessing the feasibility of the initiative, given IRS resource
limitations; and:
* 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.[Footnote 17]
The office's Director[Footnote 18] heads a Taxpayer Burden Reduction
Council, which serves as a forum for achieving taxpayer burden
reduction throughout IRS. IRS reports that as many as 100 staff across
IRS and other agencies can be involved in burden reduction initiatives,
including other federal agencies, state agencies, tax practitioner
groups, taxpayer advocacy panels, and groups representing the small
business community.
The council directs its efforts in five major areas:
* simplifying forms and publications;
* streamlining internal policies, processes, and procedures;
* promoting consideration of burden reductions in rulings, regulations,
and laws;
* assisting in the development of burden reduction measurement
methodology; and:
* partnering with internal and external stakeholders to identify areas
of potential burden reduction.
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.[Footnote 19] 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.[Footnote 20]
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.
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.[Footnote 21] 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 handbook[Footnote 22] 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.[Footnote 23]
Both the EPA and IRS programs involve extensive outreach to
stakeholders, including the public. This outreach is particularly
significant in view of the relatively low levels of public consultation
that occur under the standard review process. As we reported in May
2005, public consultation on information collections is often limited
to publication of notices in the Federal Register.[Footnote 24] As a
means of public consultation, however, these notices are not effective,
as they elicit few responses. An estimated 7 percent of the 60-day
notices of collections in the Federal Register 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. In contrast, according to EPA and IRS, their efforts at public
consultation are key to their burden reduction efforts and an important
factor in their success.
Overall, EPA and IRS reported that their targeted processes 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.[Footnote 25] 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.
Agencies Could Strengthen CIO Review:
In our 2005 report, we concluded that the CIO review process was not
working as Congress intended: It did not result in a rigorous
examination of the burden imposed by information collections, and it
did not lead to reductions in burden. In light of these findings, we
recommended (among other things) that agencies strengthen the support
provided for CIO certifications and that OMB update its guidance to
clarify and emphasize this requirement.
Since our report was issued, the four agencies have reported taking
steps to strengthen their support for CIO certifications:
* According to the HUD CIO, the department established a senior-level
PRA compliance officer in each major program office, and it has revised
its certification process to require that before collections are
submitted for review, they be approved at a higher management level
within program offices.
* The Treasury CIO established an Information Management Sub-Council
under the Treasury CIO Council and added resources to the review
process.
* According to the VA's 2007 budget submission, the department obtained
additional resources to help review and analyze its information
collection requests.
* According to the Office of the CIO at the Department of Labor, the
department intends to provide guidance to components regarding the need
to provide strong support for clearance requests and has met with
component staff to discuss these issues.
OMB reported that its guidance to agencies will be updated through a
planned automated system,[Footnote 26] which is expected to be
operational by the end of this year. According to the acting head of
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the new system will
permit agencies to submit clearance requests electronically, and the
instructions will provide clear guidance on the requirements for these
submissions, including the support required. This official stated that
OMB has worked with agency representatives with direct knowledge of the
PRA clearance process in order to ensure that the system and its
instructions clearly reflect the requirements of the process. If this
system is implemented as described and OMB withholds clearance from
submissions that lack adequate support, it could lead agencies to
strengthen the support provided for their certifications.
According to PRA Experts, the Current Approach to Paperwork Reduction
Could Be Improved:
In considering PRA reauthorization, the Congress has the opportunity to
take into account ideas that were developed by the various experts at
the PRA forum that we organized in 2005. These experts noted, as we
have here, that the burden reduction goals in the act have not been
met, and that in fact burden has been going up. They suggested first
that the goal of reducing burden by 5 percent is not realistic, and
also that such numerical goals do not appropriately recognize that some
burden is necessary. The important point, in their view, is to reduce
unnecessary burden while still ensuring maximum utility.
Forum participants also questioned the level of attention that OMB
devotes to the process of clearing collections on what they called a
"retail" basis, focusing on individual collections rather than looking
across numerous collections. In their view, some of this attention
would be better devoted to broader oversight questions. In their
discussion, participants mentioned that the clearance process informs
OMB with respect to its other information resource management
functions, but that this had not led to high-level integration and
coordination. It was suggested that the volume of collections to be
individually reviewed could impede such integration.
Participants made a number of suggestions regarding ways to reduce the
volume of collections that OMB reviews, with the goal of freeing OMB
resources so that it could address more substantive, wide-ranging
paperwork issues. Options that they suggested including limiting OMB
review to significant and selected collections, rather than all
collections. This would entail shifting more responsibility for review
to the agencies, which they stated was one of the avowed purposes of
the 1995 amendments: to increase agencies' attention to properly
clearing information collection requests. One way to shift this
responsibility, the forum suggested, would be for OMB to be more
creative in its use of the delegation authority that the act provides.
(Under the act, OMB has the authority to delegate to agencies the
authority to approve collections in various circumstances.) Also,
participants mentioned the possibility of modifying the clearance
process by, for example, extending beyond 3 years the length of time
that OMB approvals are valid, particularly for the routine types of
collections. This suggestion was paired with the idea that the review
process itself should be more rigorous; as the panel put it, "now it's
a rather pro forma process." They also observed that two Federal
Register notices seemed excessive in most cases.
To reduce the number of collections that require OMB review, another
possibility suggested was to revise the PRA's definition of an
information collection. For example, the current definition includes
all collections that contact 10 or more persons; the panel suggested
that this threshold could be raised, pointing out that this low
threshold makes it hard for agencies to perform targeted outreach to
the public regarding burden and other issues (such as through customer
satisfaction questionnaires or focus groups). However, they had no
specific recommendation on what the number should be. Alternatively,
they suggested that OMB could be given authority to categorize types of
information collections that did not require clearance (for example,
OMB could exempt collections for which the response is purely
voluntary).
Finally, the forum questioned giving agency CIOs the responsibility for
reviewing information collections. According to the forum, CIOs have
tended to be more associated with information technology issues than
with high level information policy.
Our previous work has not addressed every topic raised by the forum, so
we cannot argue for or against all these suggestions. However, the work
in our May 2005 report is consistent with the forum's observations in
some areas, including the lack of rigor in the review process and the
questionable need for two Federal Register notices. I would like to
turn here, Madam Chairman, to the matters for congressional
consideration that we included in that report.
Our Work Suggests Ways to Explore New Approaches:
We observed that to achieve burden reduction, the targeted approaches
used by IRS and EPA were a promising alternative. However, the
agencies' experiences also suggest that to make such approaches
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 all
agencies, since not all agencies have the level of paperwork issues
that face IRS and similar agencies.
On the basis of the conclusions in our May 2005 report, we suggested
that the Congress consider mandating the development of pilot projects
to test and review the value of approaches to burden reduction similar
to those used by IRS and EPA. OMB would issue guidance to agencies on
implementing such pilots, including criteria for assessing collections
along the lines of the process currently employed by IRS. According to
our suggestion, agencies participating in such pilots would 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. We also suggested that in view of the limited effectiveness of
the 60-day notice in the Federal Register in eliciting public comment,
this requirement could be eliminated.
Under a pilot project approach, an agency would develop a process to
examine its information collections for opportunities to reduce burden.
The experiences at IRS and EPA show that targeted burden reduction
efforts depend on tapping the expertise of program staff, who are
generally closely involved in the effort. That is, finding
opportunities to reduce burden requires strong familiarity with the
programs involved.
Pilot projects would be expected to build on the lessons learned at IRS
and EPA. For example, these agencies have used a variety of approaches
to reducing burden, such as:
* sharing information--for example, by facilitating cross-agency
information exchanges;
* standardizing data for multiple uses ("collect once--use multiple
times");
* integrating data to avoid duplication; and:
* re-engineering work flows.
Pilot projects would be most appropriate for agencies for which
information collections are a significant aspect of the mission. As the
results and lessons from the pilots become available, OMB may choose to
apply them at other agencies by approving further pilots.[Footnote 27]
Lessons learned from the mandated pilots could thus be applied more
broadly.
In developing processes to involve program offices in burden reduction,
agencies would not have to impose a particular organizational structure
for the burden reduction effort. For instance, the burden reduction
effort might not necessarily be performed by the CIO. For example, at
IRS, the Office of Burden Reduction is not connected to the CIO,
whereas at EPA, CIO staff are involved in promoting burden reduction
through staff education and outreach. However, the EPA CIO depends on
program offices to undertake specific initiatives. Under a mandate for
pilot projects, agencies would be encouraged to determine the approach
that works best in their own situations.
Finally, both IRS and EPA engaged in extensive outreach to the public
and stakeholders. In many cases, this outreach involves contacts with
professional and industry organizations, which are particularly
valuable because they allow the agencies to get feedback without the
need to design an information collection for the purpose (which would
entail its own review process, burden estimate, and so on). According
to agency officials, the need to obtain OMB approval for an information
collection if they contact more than nine people often inhibits
agencies' use of questionnaires and similar types of active outreach to
the public.[Footnote 28] Agencies are free, however, to collect
comments on information posted on Web sites. OMB could also choose to
delegate to pilot project agencies the authority to approve collections
that are undertaken as part of public outreach for burden reduction
projects.
The work we reported in May and June 2005 strongly suggested that
despite the importance of public consultation to burden reduction, the
current approach is often ineffective. Federal Register notices elicit
such low response that we questioned the need for two such notices (the
60-day notice during the agency review and the 30-day notice during the
OMB review). Eliminating the first notice, in our view, is thus not
likely to decrease public consultation in any significant way. Instead,
our intent was for agencies, through pilot projects, to explore ways to
perform outreach to information collection stakeholders, including the
public, that will be more effective in eliciting useful comments and
achieving real reductions in burden.
In summary, Madam Chairman, the information collection review process
appeared to have little effect on paperwork burden. As our review
showed, the CIO review process, as currently implemented, tended to
lack rigor, allowing agencies to focus on clearing an administrative
hurdle rather than on performing substantive analysis. Going further,
the expert forum characterized the whole clearance process as "pro
forma." The forum also made various suggestions for improving the
clearance process; many of these were aimed at finding ways to reduce
its absorption of OMB resources, such as by changing the definition of
an information collection. Both we and the forum suggested removing one
of the current administrative hurdles (the 60-day Federal Register
notice).
Although these suggestions refer to specific process improvements, the
main point is not just to tweak the process. Instead, the intent is to
remove administrative impediments, with the ultimate aim of refocusing
agency and OMB attention away from the current concentration on
administrative procedures and toward the goals of the act--minimizing
burden while maximizing utility. To that end, we suggested that the
Congress mandate pilot projects that are specifically targeted at
reducing burden. Such projects could help to move toward the outcomes
that the Congress intended in enacting PRA.
Madam Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For future information regarding this testimony, please contact Linda
Koontz, Director, Information Management, at (202) 512-6420, or
koontzl@gao.gov. Other individuals who made key contributions to this
testimony were Timothy Bober, Barbara Collier, David Plocher, Elizabeth
Powell, J. Michael Resser, and Alan Stapleton.
[End of section]
Attachment 1. Forum: The Legislative Framework for Information
Resources Management:
Forum Participants:
Prudence S. Adler;
Associate Executive Director Association of Research Libraries.
William Barron;
Princeton University;
formerly National Opinion Research Center.
Gary Bass;
Founder and Executive Director, OMB Watch.
Maya Bernstein;
Administrative Law & Information Policy; formerly OMB and IRS Privacy
Officer.
Daniel Chenok;
Vice President, SRA International; formerly OMB.
Sharon S. Dawes;
Director, Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany,
State University of New York.
James Flyzik;
Partner, Guerra, Kiviat, Flyzik and Associates;
formerly Department of Treasury and Secret Service.
Robert M. Gellman;
Privacy & Information Policy Consultant;
formerly counsel to the House of Representatives' Subcommittee on
Information, Justice, Transportation and Agriculture.
Harry A. Hammitt;
Editor of Access Reports, FOIA Journal.
Jefferson Hill;
Independent Consultant;
formerly OMB.
Sally Katzen;
Professor and Independent Consultant;
formerly OMB.
Andrew Langer;
Manager, Regulatory Policy National Federation of Independent Business.
David LeDuc;
Director, Public Policy, Software & Information Industry Association.
Herb Lin;
Senior Scientist, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, The
National Academies.
Jeffrey Lubbers;
Fellow in Law and Government, American University, Washington College
of Law;
formerly Administrative Conference of the U.S.
Charles McClure;
Francis Epps Professor and Director, Information Use Management &
Policy Institute, Florida State University.
David L. McClure;
Research Director Gartner;
formerly Council for Excellence in Government and GAO.
Bruce McConnell;
President and Founder, McConnell International;
formerly OMB.
Patrice McDermott;
Deputy Director, Office of Government Relations, American Library
association.
Michael McGill;
McGill Associates and Internet2.
Lynn McNulty;
Consultant, McConnell International, LLC;
formerly NIST.
Doug Robinson;
Executive Director, National Association of State Chief Information
Officers.
J. Timothy Sprehe;
President, Sprehe Information Management Associates.
Ari Schwartz;
Associate Director, Center for Democracy and Technology.
Miron Straf;
Deputy Director, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education, The National Academies.
Jeanne Young;
Independent Consultant;
formerly Federal Reserve Board of Governors Records Officer and NAGARA
officer.
[End of table]
Others in Attendance:
At the forum, others attending included GAO staff and a number of other
observers:
Donald Arbuckle;
Deputy Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Michelle Ash;
Minority Senior Legislative Counsel, House Committee on Government
Reform.
Krista Boyd;
Minority Counsel, House Committee on Government Reform.
Curtis Copeland;
Congressional Research Service.
Dan Costello;
Policy Analyst, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Michael Formica;
Director of Energy and Environment, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Eva Kleederman;
Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Management and Budget.
Kristy Lalonde;
Policy Analyst, Office of Management and Budget.
David McMillen;
Minority Professional Staff Member, House Committee on Government
Reform.
Jim Moore;
Counsel, House Committee on Government Reform.
Kim Nelson;
Policy Analyst, Office of Management and Budget.
Lew Oleinick;
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Kenneth Peskin;
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Victoria Proctor;
Senior Professional Staff Member, House Committee on Government Reform.
Edward Schrock;
House Committee on Government Reform.
Katherine Wallman;
Branch Chief, Statistics Branch, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs.
[End of table]
In addition, staff of the National Academies' National Research
Council, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, helped to
develop and facilitate the forum: Charles Brownstein, Director;
Kristen Batch, Research Associate;
and Margaret Huynh, Senior Program Assistant.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Paperwork Reduction Act: Subcommittee Questions Concerning the Act's
Information Collection Provisions. GAO-05-909R. Washington, D.C.: July
19, 2005.
Paperwork Reduction Act: Burden Reduction May Require a New Approach.
GAO-05-778T. Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2005.
Paperwork Reduction Act: New Approach May Be Needed to Reduce
Government Burden on Public. GAO-05-424. Washington, D.C.: May 20,
2005.
Paperwork Reduction Act: Agencies' Paperwork Burden Estimates Due to
Federal Actions Continue to Increase. GAO-04-676T. Washington, D.C.:
April 20, 2004.
Paperwork Reduction Act: Record Increase in Agencies' Burden Estimates.
GAO-03-619T. Washington, D.C.: April 11, 2003.
Paperwork Reduction Act: Changes Needed to Annual Report. GAO-02-651R.
Washington, D.C.: April 29, 2002.
Paperwork Reduction Act: Burden Increases and Violations Persist. GAO-
02-598T. Washington, D.C.: April 11, 2002.
Information Resources Management: Comprehensive Strategic Plan Needed
to Address Mounting Challenges. GAO-02-292. Washington, D.C.: February
22, 2002.
Paperwork Reduction Act: Burden Estimates Continue to Increase. GAO-01-
648T. Washington, D.C.: April 24, 2001.
Electronic Government: Government Paperwork Elimination Act Presents
Challenges for Agencies. GAO/AIMD-00-282. Washington, D.C.: September
15, 2000.
Tax Administration: IRS Is Working to Improve Its Estimates of
Compliance Burden. GAO/GGD-00-11. Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2000.
Paperwork Reduction Act: Burden Increases at IRS and Other Agencies.
GAO/T-GGD-00-114. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 2000.
EPA Paperwork: Burden Estimate Increasing Despite Reduction Claims.
GAO/GGD-00-59. Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2000.
Federal Paperwork: General Purpose Statistics and Research Surveys of
Businesses. GAO/GGD-99-169. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 1999.
Paperwork Reduction Act: Burden Increases and Unauthorized Information
Collections. GAO/T-GGD-99-78. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 1999.
Paperwork Reduction Act: Implementation at IRS. GAO/GGD-99-4.
Washington, D.C.: November 16, 1998.
Regulatory Management: Implementation of Selected OMB Responsibilities
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act. GAO/GGD-98-120. Washington, D.C.:
July 9, 1998.
Paperwork Reduction: Information on OMB's and Agencies' Actions.
GAO/GGD-97-143R. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 1997.
Paperwork Reduction: Governmentwide Goals Unlikely to Be Met. GAO/T-
GGD-97-114. Washington, D.C.: June 4, 1997.
Paperwork Reduction: Burden Reduction Goal Unlikely to Be Met. GAO/T-
GGD/RCED-96-186. Washington, D.C.: June 5, 1996.
Environmental Protection: Assessing EPA's Progress in Paperwork
Reduction. GAO/T-RCED-96-107. Washington, D.C.: March 21, 1996.
Paperwork Reduction: Burden Hour Increases Reflect New Estimates, Not
Actual Changes. GAO/PEMD-94-3. Washington, D.C.: December 6, 1993.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The 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. 104-13,
May 22, 1995).
[2] Such 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 all of which may occur in a variety of forms, including
questionnaires and telephone surveys.
[3] GAO, Paperwork Reduction Act: New Approach May Be Need to Reduce
Government Burden on Public, GAO-05-424 (Washington, D.C.: May 20,
2005).
[4] GAO, Paperwork Reduction Act: Burden Reduction May Require a New
Approach, GAO-05-778T (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2005).
[5] Although IRS accounted for about 80 percent of burden, it did not
account for 80 percent of collections: it accounted for 808 out of the
total 8,211 collections governmentwide as of May 2004.
[6] 44 U.S.C. 3508.
[7] The 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).
[8] 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(1)(A).
[9] Some of this increase may have arisen because IRS adopted a new
technique for estimating burden. As the IRS accounts for about 80
percent of burden, as mentioned earlier, any change in IRS estimates
has a major impact on governmentwide totals. The IRS previously changed
its formula for calculating burden hours in 1989. At that time, the
change resulted in major increases: the agency's paperwork burden
estimate increased by 3.4 billion hours, and the governmentwide burden-
hour estimate nearly tripled.
[10] The 7.971 billion hours as of the end of fiscal year 2004 was a
slight decrease (1.6 percent) from the previous year-end estimate of
about 8.099 billion.
[11] We have included a list of related GAO products at the end of this
statement.
[12] The total number of certifications does not total 120 (12 cases
times 10 standards) because some standards did not apply to some cases.
[13] OMB'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.
[14] "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.
[15] These 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.
[16] "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.
[17] In 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.
[18] The Director reports to the IRS Commissioner for the Small
Business and Self-Employed Division.
[19] In 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.
[20] We did not verify the accuracy of IRS's reported burden-hour
savings. We have previously reported that the estimation model that IRS
has used for compliance burden ignored important components of burden
and had limited capabilities for analyzing the determinants of burden.
See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Is Working to Improve Its Estimates of
Compliance Burden, GAO/GGD-00-11 (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2000). IRS
has recently begun to introduce a revised methodology for computing
burden that may result in different estimates of burden-hour savings.
[21] These officials added that in exceptional circumstances the CIO
office has had staff available to perform such projects, but generally
in collaboration with program offices.
[22] EPA 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).
[23] We did not verify the accuracy of EPA's burden reduction
estimates.
[24] In our May 2005 report, we reported that agencies were only
publishing notices and performing no further consultation, and we took
the position that the PRA requires agencies both to publish a Federal
Register notice and to otherwise consult with the public. We
recommended that OMB clarify its guidance on this point and that
agencies increase public consultation. OMB, the Treasury, Labor, and
HUD disagreed with our position on the grounds that it was not a good
use of agency resources to consult on every collection; in their view,
additional consultation should occur only on those collections that are
particularly important. We consider, however, that the PRA's language
is unambiguous: 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…" Pub. L. 104-13, 109
Stat. 173, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). We believe that agencies should comply
with current law. However, we are also concerned that public
consultation be efficient and effective; accordingly, we suggested that
pilot projects be developed to test and review alternative approaches
to achieving the PRA's goals.
[25] These reviews did result in a 1.3 percent reduction in calculated
burden by correcting mathematical errors in program offices'
submissions.
[26] The new system, ROCIS (the RISC/OIRA Consolidated Information
System), is operated for OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) by the Regulatory Information Service Center (RISC) of
the General Services Administration.
[27] OMB currently has this authority under PRA. As mentioned earlier,
OMB also has the authority to delegate to agencies the authority to
approve collections in various circumstances. It may choose to delegate
such authority at agencies whose pilot projects demonstrate success in
reducing burden through information management improvements of the
types mentioned.
[28] In certain instances, agencies may be able to get "generic
clearances" if they routinely conduct information collections using
very similar methods. For example, an agency may want to develop a
generic customer satisfaction survey that can be customized for use
with different groups. See Memorandum to the President's Management
Council from the Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB, "Guidance on Agency Survey and Statistical Information
Collections" (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 20, 2006).