GAO-05-909R Posthearing Questions on Paperwork Reduction Act 

July 19, 2005 

The Honorable Candice S. Miller 

Chair 

The Honorable Stephen F. Lynch 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs 

Committee on Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Paperwork Reduction Act: Subcommittee Questions Concerning the Act’s 

Information Collection Provisions

This letter responds to your request of June 22, 2005, that we provide answers to 

questions relating to our June 14 testimony1

 on the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). 

At the June hearing, we discussed the estimates of government paperwork burden 

provided in the annual PRA report (known as the Information Collection Budget) that 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently released, as well as results 

from our report on agencies’ PRA processes and compliance.2 Your questions, along 

with our responses, follow. 

1. With the passage of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the intent of 

the Congress was to reduce the burden imposed on the public by federal 

agencies. Is the PRA in its current form an effective tool for reducing public 

burden? 

As discussed in our report, the PRA in its current form contains mechanisms 

intended to reduce the public burden. Among these is the requirement that OMB 

review all information collections, as well as the requirement put in place by the 1995 

amendments to the PRA, that agencies establish a process to review program offices’ 

proposed collections before the OMB review. This agency review process is to be 

carried out by the official responsible for the act’s implementation—now the agency’s 

 

1

GAO, Paperwork Reduction Act: Burden Reduction May Require a New Approach, GAO-05-778T 

(Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2005).

2

GAO, Paperwork Reduction Act: New Approach May Be Needed to Reduce Government Burden on 

Public, GAO-05-424 (Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2005). 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
2 GAO-05-909R Posthearing Questions on Paperwork Reduction Act 

Chief Information Officer (CIO)3—who is to be sufficiently independent of program 

responsibility to evaluate fairly whether information collections should be approved. 

As part of this process, the CIO is to certify that information collections meet 10 

standards set forth in the act, including that they reduce the burden on the public to 

the extent practicable and appropriate. 

However, as discussed in our report, the current implementation of this CIO review 

offers opportunities for improvement. As the case studies in our report demonstrate, 

the review has been reduced to a routine administrative process, rather than the 

rigorous analytical process envisioned by the Congress, and does not appear to be 

effective in reducing the burden. Accordingly, we recommended that agency CIOs 

strengthen support for certifications, a process that has the potential to improve the 

effectiveness of the review mechanism as a means to reduce the burden. More 

effective implementation would make the PRA in its current form a more effective 

tool for reducing the burden. 

In addition, we described more targeted approaches to burden reduction that have 

been pursued at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). Both IRS and EPA have reported success with these 

efforts, and we suggested in our report that the Congress may want to consider 

mandating the development of pilot projects to test and review the value of such 

approaches. However, we also noted that targeted reviews of the kind that IRS and 

EPA perform would require more resources than are now devoted to the CIO review 

process, and may not be warranted at agencies that do not have the extensive 

paperwork issues that these two agencies have. 

2. True reductions in the burden should take place due to program changes—either 

statutory or agency-initiated. Additionally, certain adjustments, such as those 

caused by the decreased burden associated with subsequent collections following 

the initial request, can reflect a real change in the burden experienced by the 

public.

Federal agencies may use adjustments to lessen the true burden increases 

caused by discretionary agency actions. How can current law be modified to 

ensure that agencies engage in activities that truly reduce the burden through 

discretionary program changes and not through simple adjustments?

First, there may be opportunities to achieve such burden reduction without 

modifications to the law. Under the current law, agency CIOs are required to certify 

that for each information collection, the agency has reduced the associated burden to 

the extent practicable. However, as we describe in our response to question 1, the 

certification process is currently more administrative than analytical. Improving the 

 

3

The 1995 amendments used the 1980 act’s reference to the agency “senior official” responsible for 

implementation of the act. A year later, the 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). 
3 GAO-05-909R Posthearing Questions on Paperwork Reduction Act 

execution of this process could increase agencies’ activities to reduce the burden 

through program changes. 

A second way to potentially achieve such burden reductions—which does involve 

changes to the PRA—was discussed in our report. The Congress could consider 

mandating the establishment of pilot projects to test and review the targeted 

approaches to burden reduction used by IRS and EPA. Such pilot projects would 

encourage agencies to explore different possible activities having the potential to 

truly reduce the burden. However, as mentioned earlier, targeted reviews of the kind 

that IRS and EPA do would require more resources than are now devoted to the CIO 

review process, and may not be warranted at agencies with less extensive paperwork 

issues than there is at these two agencies.4

3. As the Congress considers reauthorization of the PRA, what changes to the 

information collection requirements of the act should the Congress consider? 

In our report, we identified two changes that we believe the Congress should 

consider. First, we suggested that the Congress consider amending the act to 

mandate pilot projects similar to the targeted efforts being implemented by IRS and 

EPA and to measure and evaluate the success of these projects. Second, we suggest 

that the Congress consider eliminating the additional public comment period (the 60-

day notice) added by the 1995 amendments (see the answer to question 8). In 

addition, in light of the lack of understanding of the current PRA requirement that 

public consultation occur on all collections, the Congress might consider clarifying 

what level of public consultation it expects for new and existing collections (see the 

answer to question 9). 

4. The GAO recommends the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) take five actions to improve agency compliance with the PRA. 

Furthermore, the GAO recommends five actions to be undertaken by the 

agencies subject to its investigation. What actions could the Congress take to 

ensure these recommendations are realized by agencies governmentwide? 

Some of the actions we recommended to OMB would, if implemented, have 

governmentwide impact, such as clarifying its guidance in various ways and directing 

agencies to review forms on agency Web sites for PRA compliance. As part of our 

standard processes, we systematically follow up on recommendations and make 

information on their status available to the Congress. Accordingly, we will be 

reviewing the actions of OMB and the other agencies to respond to our 

recommendations. In addition, the Congress could continue to hold regular oversight 

hearings where it could monitor follow-up on our recommendations and their 

governmentwide effect. 

 

4

IRS and six other agencies account for more than 90 percent of the federal burden; thus, relatively 

small reductions in the burden imposed by these agencies could have a major effect on reducing the 

paperwork burden governmentwide. 
4 GAO-05-909R Posthearing Questions on Paperwork Reduction Act 

5. What are some problems associated with specific burden reduction goals, such 

as those mandated by the 1995 PRA? How can the Congress mandate specific 

burden reductions caused by agency-initiated program changes? 

A major problem associated with these goals is that, so far, they have not produced 

the intended results. We commented in our testimony on the government’s lack of 

success in meeting the specific burden reductions mandated by the 1995 PRA. Our 

recommendation that the CIO review process be strengthened is one possible 

approach to improving agencies’ success in reducing the burden. 

A second problem is the intrinsic difficulty of accurately estimating the burden. As 

we said in our testimony, “Because of limitations in the ability to develop accurate 

burden estimates, the degree to which agency burden-hour estimates reflect the real 

burden is unclear.” It is challenging to estimate the amount of time it will take for a 

respondent to collect and provide the information or how many individuals an 

information collection will affect.5

 OMB’s latest report6 on the paperwork burden also 

alludes to this difficulty, observing with regard to IRS that “... in an effort to more 

accurately measure the paperwork burden, IRS is currently evaluating its current 

methodology which, although vastly more sophisticated than that used by most 

federal agencies, has recognized shortcomings. The current methodology is based on 

survey data almost 20 years old and measures only certain types of taxpayer 

compliance burdens. It has limited ability to predict changes in the compliance 

burden resulting from changes in tax policy or tax system administration.” 

In regard to mandating specific burden reductions, we made a related suggestion in 

our report. Specifically, we suggested that the Congress may wish to mandate the 

development of pilot projects to test and review the value of approaches such as 

those used by IRS and EPA. As part of this pilot, agencies could identify specific 

burden reduction goals for the targeted collections and report on reductions 

achieved. 

6. The Administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) stated that OMB is considering changing instructions for agencies to 

align them more closely to the 10 standards in the PRA. How can the Congress 

ensure that any proposed revisions to OMB guidance are aligned with relevant 

statutes, either existing or new? 

As part of our standard recommendation follow-up, we will be reviewing OMB’s 

actions to revise its guidance in the ways we recommended, and we will make the 

results of this follow-up available to the Congress. The Congress could also continue 

to hold regular oversight hearings where it could monitor OMB’s actions. 

 

5

See GAO, EPA Paperwork: Burden Estimate Increasing Despite Reduction Claims, GAO/GGD-00-59

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2000) for how one agency estimates the paperwork burden. 6

Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Managing 

Information Collection: Information Collection Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 

2005 (May 2005), http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2005_icb_final.pdf. 
5 GAO-05-909R Posthearing Questions on Paperwork Reduction Act 

7. Has the PRA been effective in facilitating communication between federal 

agencies and the public as information collections are developed and reviewed? 

Are there any provisions of the PRA that agencies have cited as being a 

disincentive to reach out to the public? 

Although the act provides mechanisms to encourage communication between federal 

agencies and the public, the implementation of these mechanisms could be more 

effective. That is, the act explicitly states in section 3506 (c)(2)(A) that, in addition to 

providing a 60-day notice in the Federal Register, each agency shall otherwise consult 

with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed 

collection of information. However, agencies have not complied with this 

requirement. We reported that a key reason for this noncompliance is OMB’s 

guidance that such consultation is optional. According to this guidance, agencies 

should “otherwise consult,” or affirmatively reach out to the public, only on those 

collections that OMB says “deserve such effort.” As we stated in our report, if 

agencies do not actively consult with the public, they limit their ability to determine 

whether proposed collections adequately satisfy the act’s standards. As a result, their 

collections may be unnecessarily burdensome because of lack of clarity, 

unnecessarily onerous recordkeeping requirements, or other reasons. 

We also concluded that the 60-day Federal Register comment period has had limited 

effectiveness in obtaining the views of the public. As we reported, most agencies 

provided the required 60-day Federal Register notice, but only an estimated 7 percent 

of those notices generated one or more comments. We believe the Federal Register

notice is not effective in facilitating communication between federal agencies and the 

public because it generates so few comments. Moreover, in the act’s second required 

Federal Register notice, the public has another opportunity to provide its views. For 

these reasons, other types of consultation are important and should be encouraged. 

For example, some agencies post proposed collections on their Web sites and ask the 

public to comment. Similarly, OMB could establish links on its Web site to each 

agency’s proposed collections (as is done with agencies’ proposed regulations on 

(www.regulations.gov) and ask for public comments. 

Agencies have cited another disincentive to undertaking active consultation: The act 

defines a collection of information requiring approval as the obtaining of facts or 

opinions by an agency that calls for answers to identical questions posed to 10 or 

more persons. According to agencies, this 10-person provision restricts their ability to 

consult with the public on their proposed information collection requests. We 

reported in 2000, for example, that EPA officials “noted that the extent and nature of 

the agency’s public consultations is limited by the PRA’s requirements. . . . A survey 

or a series of meetings with 10 or more potential respondents to a proposed 

information collection would itself constitute a collection of information, thereby 

triggering the [OMB] approval process and adding the burden associated with the 

collection to the agency’s total.”7

 OMB’s instructions to agencies acknowledge this 

constraint and state that “agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain 

 

7

GAO/GGD-00-59, 23. 
6 GAO-05-909R Posthearing Questions on Paperwork Reduction Act 

information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample 

(fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable.” 

However, OMB has the option of developing alternatives to allow agencies to consult 

on these matters. For example, it could devise and approve a standard public 

consultation survey asking for responses to proposals for (or renewals of) 

information collections that agencies could use without further OMB approval. 

8. In its report, the GAO suggests that the Congress may want to consider 

eliminating the requirement that agencies publish an initial 60-day notice in 

the Federal Register for proposed collections. Can you elaborate on this 

suggestion? Would eliminating the required 60-day notice decrease public 

involvement in the development of an agency’s information collection? Is there 

a legislative alternative to eliminating the 60-day notice requirement? For 

example, how could the Congress change existing law to create an exemption for 

routine information collections and/or for collections that impose a minimal 

amount of burden on the public? 

Our suggestion that the Congress consider eliminating the publication of the initial 

60-day notice in the Federal Register is based on our observation that this notice had 

limited effectiveness in generating public involvement. (We did not analyze the 

responses generated by the second 30-day Federal Register notice as part of our 

review.) In our view, eliminating this notice would not, therefore, appreciably 

decrease public involvement in the development of information collections. If 

agencies instead performed other types of consultation, as we recommended, we see 

the potential for a net increase in public involvement.8

 

If the Congress chooses not to eliminate this notice, it could create exemptions for 

certain types of collections, such as extensions (currently approved collections that 

are being extended with no change) or “voluntary” collections (that is, where the 

public is under no obligation to respond; for these, agencies have an incentive to 

minimize burden so as to encourage the public to respond when there is no legal 

obligation to do so). Alternatively, the Congress could create an exemption for 

proposed collections that impose a minimal number of burden hours or affect only a 

small number of respondents. Such exemptions could free up agency resources that 

could be devoted to improving compliance on more significant collections. We have 

not studied the relative merits of these alternatives, however. 

9. In the GAO report, OMB and three agencies disagreed with GAO’s assertion that 

public consultation occur on each collection in addition to the required 60-day 

Federal Register notice. The Department of Labor’s CIO expressed concern that 

additional public consultation, particularly for routine renewals of collections, 

 

8

Other types of consultation might include holding meetings with representative groups, posting 

information on Web sites, and so on. For example, IRS convenes periodic meetings between its 

personnel and representatives of the American Bar Association, the National Society of Public 

Accountants, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and other professional groups to 

discuss tax law and tax forms. During these meetings there are opportunities for those attending to 

make comments on forms used for information collection. 
7 GAO-05-909R Posthearing Questions on Paperwork Reduction Act 

would not be a good use of agency resources. 

If the Congress were to consider altering this particular provision to improve 

its effectiveness as a tool to improve public consultation, can legislative 

corrections be made to differentiate between significant collections and routine 

collections and/or collections that impose a minimal amount of burden? If so, 

how can the Congress modify the PRA to facilitate public outreach without 

forcing agencies to spend valuable resources engaging in such activities for 

routine information collections or when such actions are considered 

unnecessary? 

If the Congress wants to alter the existing public consultation requirements in the 

PRA, it has various alternatives for creating exemptions. For example, it could create 

an exemption for certain types of collections, such as extensions of currently 

approved collections or voluntary collections. Alternatively, the Congress could 

create an exemption for proposed collections that impose a minimal amount of 

burden on the public or affect only a small number of respondents. We have not 

studied the relative merits of these alternatives, however. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

We provided a draft of this letter to OMB officials for comment. The Chief for the 

Health, Transportation and General Government Branch in OMB’s Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs stated that OMB had no comments. 

 - - - - - - 

In responding to these questions, we relied on past work related to our review of 

agencies’ processes for reviewing paperwork collections under the act. We conducted 

our work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards 

during June and July 2005. 

We are sending copies of this letter to the Director of OMB and to other interested 

parties. Copies will also available at no charge at our Web site at www.gao.gov. 
8 GAO-05-909R Posthearing Questions on Paperwork Reduction Act 

Should you or your offices have any questions on matters discussed in this letter, 

please contact me at (202) 512-6240 or by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov. Contact points 

for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this correspondence 

include Al Stapleton, Assistant Director; Barbara Collier; Nancy Glover; David 

Plocher; and Warren Smith. 

Linda D. Koontz 

Director, Information Management Issues 

(310742)
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. 
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. 

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.” 

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 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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 

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 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER