a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2005 PAPERWORK 

REDUCTION ACT

New Approach May Be 

Needed to Reduce 

Government Burden 

on Public

GAO-05-424
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-424.

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. 

Highlights of GAO-05-424, a report to 

congressional requesters 

May 2005

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

New Approach May Be Needed to Reduce 

Government Burden on Public 

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 functions. 12 6 60

Avoids unnecessary duplication. 11 2 27

Reduces burden on the public, including small entities. 12 5 70

Uses language that is understandable to respondents. 12 1 0 11

Will be compatible with respondents’ recordkeeping practices. 12 3 09

Indicates period for which records must be retained. 6 3 30

Gives required information (e.g., whether response is mandatory). 12 4 80

Was developed by an office with necessary plan and resources. 11 2 09

Uses appropriate statistical survey methodology (if applicable). 1 1 00

Makes appropriate use of information technology. 12 8 40

Total 101 35 30 36

Source: Paperwork Reduction Act, Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 173-4, sec. 3506(c)(3). 

a

The total is not always 12 because not all certifications applied to all collections. 

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 (see table). 

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. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that OMB and 

the agencies take steps to improve 

review processes and compliance 

with the act. Also, the Congress 

may wish to consider mandating 

pilot projects to target some 

collections for rigorous analysis 

that includes public outreach. In 

commenting on a draft of this 

report, OMB and the agencies 

agreed with parts of the report and 

disagreed with others. 
Page i GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 8

Agency Review Processes Were Not Rigorous, and Public 

Consultation Was Limited 15

Four Agencies Generally Ensure That Collection Forms on Web 

Sites Are Approved and Inventoried 29

Four Agencies Did Not Always Ensure that Forms on Web Sites 

Displayed Public Scrutiny Information Required by the Act 31

Conclusions 34

Matters for Congressional Consideration 35

Recommendations for Executive Action 36

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37

Appendixes

Appendix I: Standards That Must Be Certified in Paperwork Reduction 

Act Submissions 44

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 47

Appendix III: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget 52

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 61

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor 64

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Treasury 66

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs 75

Tables Table 1: Standards for Information Collections Set by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act 2

Table 2: Support Provided by Agencies for Paperwork Reduction 

Act Standards in 12 Case Studies 17

Table 3: Estimated Rates of Unapproved and Expired Forms at 

Four Agencies 30

Table 4: Estimated Rates That Approved and Unexpired Forms on 

Agency Web Sites Did Not Include All Information 33

Table 5: Disposition of Sampled Collections 48
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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.
Page 1 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

May 20, 2005 Letr

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

1

Paperwork 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. 

2

In 1989, the Internal Revenue Service changed its formula for calculating burden hours, 

resulting in major changes to its estimates. 

3

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).

4

The act also provides a framework for management of information activities and 

information technology.
Page 2 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Source: Paperwork Reduction Act, Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 173-4, sec. 3506(c)(3).

5

OMB can approve an information collection for no longer than 3 years.

6

The 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).

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.
Page 3 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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

• 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;

• 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

• 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.
Page 4 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction 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 

7

Although 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.

8

Because 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.
Page 5 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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
Page 6 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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.
Page 7 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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 

9

Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 173, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2).
Page 8 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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 

purposes.10

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.
Page 9 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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.
Page 10 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

Paperwork Reduction under 

the Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 had three major purposes with 

regard to information collection:

• minimize the federal paperwork burden for individuals, small 

businesses, state and local governments, and other persons;

• minimize the cost to the federal government of collecting, maintaining, 

using, and disseminating information; and

• 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.
Page 11 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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:

• 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

• 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).
Page 12 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

• 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

• 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-98-

92 (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).
Page 13 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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).
Page 14 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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).
Page 15 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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 

Was Often Missing or 

Partial, Despite CIO 

Reviews 

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.
Page 16 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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. 
Page 17 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

Table 2: Support Provided by Agencies for Paperwork Reduction Act Standards in 12 Case Studies 

Source: Paperwork Reduction Act.

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.

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 

Concerning Duplication Was 

Often Missing or Partial

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 

Support provided

Standards Totala Yes Partial No

The collection is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions. 12 6 60

The collection avoids unnecessary duplication. 11 2 27

The collection reduces burden on the public, including small entities, to the extent practicable and 

appropriate. 12 5 70

The collection uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous language that is understandable to 

respondents. 12 1 0 11

The collection will be consistent and compatible with respondents’ current reporting and 

recordkeeping practices to the maximum extent practicable. 12 3 09

The collection indicates the retention period for any recordkeeping requirements for 

respondents.b 6 3 30

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 4 80

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. 11 2 09

The collection uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology (if applicable). 1 1 00

The collection uses information technology to the maximum extent practicable to reduce burden 

and improve data quality, agency efficiency, and responsiveness to the public. 12 8 40

Total 101 35 30 36
Page 18 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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 
Page 19 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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.

Support for Certifications on 

Reducing Burden Was Often 

Incomplete or Inaccurate

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.
Page 20 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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: 

• 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.
Page 21 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

• 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. 

• 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.

• 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. 

• 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. 
Page 22 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

• 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 

Concerning the Use of Collected 

Information Was Often Missing

Under the PRA, CIOs must certify that each collection of information 

submitted to OMB has been developed by an office that has planned and 

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).
Page 23 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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.
Page 24 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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 

• whether the collection is necessary;

• the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden imposed by the 

collection;

• ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• 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 
Page 25 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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 

• 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; 

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. 
Page 26 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

• 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.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: 

• 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.

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.
Page 27 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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).
Page 28 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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.
Page 29 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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:

• an estimated 61 forms (5 percent) were not approved by OMB or 

included in an inventory of approved forms.

• 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). 
Page 30 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

Table 3: Estimated Rates of Unapproved and Expired Forms at Four Agencies

Source: GAO.

Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.

a

For 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 

Agency 

Number of

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%)

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.
Page 31 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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: 

• the reason for collecting the information and a description of how the 

information will be used;

• an estimated time to complete the form (which gives the public an 

opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the estimated burden); 

• a statement informing the public whether responses are voluntary, 

mandatory (citing the authority), or required to obtain a benefit (citing 

the authority); 

• a currently valid OMB control number (indicating that the agency has 

been authorized to collect the information);

• 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

• 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).
Page 32 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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,

• 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); 

• 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

• 327 forms (27 percent) did not inform respondents of one or more of the 

required public notifications described above.
Page 33 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

Table 4: Estimated Rates That Approved and Unexpired Forms on Agency Web Sites Did Not Include All Information 

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.

a

For 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. 

Agency 

Number of

approved

forms

OMB control number

missing or incorrect

Expiration date

missing

Missing one or more

notices

Overall

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%)
Page 34 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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.
Page 35 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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 

Congressional 

Consideration

Given the identified weaknesses in current processes and the possibility of 

achieving significant paperwork reduction through other initiatives, the 

Congress may wish to consider mandating the development of pilot 

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
Page 36 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

• 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

• 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 

• emphasize the importance of information collection requirements and 

the need for management support;

• clarify the kinds of support it asks agency CIOs to provide for 

certifications, including that agencies have taken steps to 

• reduce burden on those providing the information,

• determine whether small entities are affected by the collection and to 

reduce reporting burden on these entities, and

• establish a plan for the management and use of information to be 

collected and identify necessary resources;

• direct agencies to consult with potential respondents beyond the 

publication of Federal Register notices; and

• 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, 
Page 37 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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

• 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;

• ensure that consultation with potential respondents occurs beyond the 

publication of Federal Register notices;

• remove all forms from agency Web sites that have not been approved by 

OMB until such approval is obtained; 

• add required information to all forms on Web sites that we identified as 

lacking this information; and 

• 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:

• 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 
Page 38 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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.

• 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. 

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 
Page 39 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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. 

• 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).
Page 40 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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. 

• 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.
Page 41 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

• 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.

• 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. 
Page 42 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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. 

• 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. 
Page 43 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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
Page 44 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

Appendix I

Standards That Must Be Certified in Apendxies

Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions ApendxiI

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. § 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;

1

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).
Appendix I

Standards That Must Be Certified in 

Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions

Page 45 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

“(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 

§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

Page 46 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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.”
Page 47 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApendxiI

Our objectives were to assess

• 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;

• 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

• 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 

• 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. 

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

Page 48 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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

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.

Definition of strata

Number in

population

Number selected

in sample

HUD 257 60

Labor 401 62

Treasury/IRS 808 67

VA 230 60

All other agencies 6,515 94

Total 8,211 343
Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 49 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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

1

We 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

Page 50 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

• 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

• expired collections, where OMB’s approval had lapsed;

• collections that did not properly display the expiration date (which 

indicates when OMB’s approval to collect the information ends);

• 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

• 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 

2

IRS 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

Page 51 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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: 

• 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.

• 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.
Page 52 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

Appendix III

Comments from the Office of Management 

and Budget ApendxiI

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

Page 53 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

See comment 3.

See comment 4.
Appendix III

Comments from the Office of Management 

and Budget

Page 54 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

See comment 5.

See comment 6.

See comment 7.
Appendix III

Comments from the Office of Management 

and Budget

Page 55 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

See comment 8.

See comment 9.

See comment 10.

See comment 11.
Appendix III

Comments from the Office of Management 

and Budget

Page 56 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

See comment 12.
Appendix III

Comments from the Office of Management 

and Budget

Page 57 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

The following are GAO’s comments on the Office of Management and 

Budget’s letter dated April 20, 2005. 

GAO Comments 1. 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. 

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

Page 58 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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 

1

Although 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

Page 59 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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 

2

Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 173, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2).
Appendix III

Comments from the Office of Management 

and Budget

Page 60 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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.

3

According 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.
Page 61 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development ApendxiIV

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

Page 62 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development

Page 63 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development’s letter dated April 20, 2005. 

GAO Comments 1. 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.

2. 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.

1

According 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.

2

Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 173, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2).
Page 64 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Labor ApendxiV

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

Page 65 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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.
Page 66 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Treasury ApendxiVI

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

Page 67 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

See comment 2.

See comment 3.

See comment 4.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Treasury

Page 68 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

See comment 5.

See comment 6.

See comment 7.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Treasury

Page 69 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

See comment 8.

See comment 9.

See comment 10.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Treasury

Page 70 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

See comment 11.

See comment 12.

See comment 13.

See comment 14.
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Treasury

Page 71 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of the Treasury’s 

letter dated April 19, 2005.

GAO Comments 1. 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. 

2. 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.

3. We disagree that the references in instructions and other IRS 

information products to specific sections of the tax code are sufficient 

1

According 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

Page 72 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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 

2

Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 173, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2).
Appendix VI

Comments from the Department of the 

Treasury

Page 73 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Page 74 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

14. We have deleted the reference to the IRS Commissioner in the final 

report recommendations. 
Page 75 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act

Appendix VII

Comments from the Department of Veterans 

Affairs ApendxiVI
Appendix VII

Comments from the Department of Veterans 

Affairs

Page 76 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act
Appendix VII

Comments from the Department of Veterans 

Affairs

(310707) Page 77 GAO-05-424 Paperwork Reduction Act
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 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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 posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

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, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

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