Paperwork Reduction Act: New Approach May Be Needed to Reduce Government Burden on Public
Published: 2005-05-20T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Americans spend billions of hours each year providing information to federal agencies by filling out information collections (forms, surveys, or questionnaires). A major aim of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) is to balance the burden of these collections with their public benefit. Under the act, agencies' Chief Information Officers (CIO) are responsible for reviewing information collections before they are submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. As part of this review, CIOs must certify that the collections meet 10 standards set forth in the act. GAO was asked to assess, among other things, this review and certification process, including agencies' efforts to consult with the public. To do this, GAO reviewed a governmentwide sample of collections, reviewed processes and collections at four agencies that account for a large proportion of burden, and performed case studies of 12 approved collections.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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. 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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, 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.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), agencies are required to  minimize the paperwork burden they impose on the public to carry out  their missions 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 collections covered by the act. Each year, agencies submit about 3,000 of  these to be approved or reapproved by OMB.
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). 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.
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.
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. 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. 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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.
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  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.
subsections: section_title: The Origins of the Paperwork Reduction Act
paragraphs: 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 1942 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).
section_title: Paperwork Reduction under the Act
paragraphs: 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.
To achieve these purposes, the 1980 act required that federal agencies not  conduct or sponsor the collection of information unless approved by  OMB. 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. 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.
To assist agencies in fulfilling their responsibilities under the act, OMB took  various steps. It issued a regulation, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
section_title: 1995 Amendments Increase Requirements for Clearance of Information Collections
paragraphs: 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, 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.
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. 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.
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). In addition, the  amendments required OMB to make its clearance decisions publicly  available; they specifically addressed extensions of current collections;  and they clarified procedures for review of information collections  required by a regulation.
section_title: Current Paperwork Clearance Process
paragraphs: 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,  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.
section_title: Agency Review Processes Were Not Rigorous, and Public Consultation Was Limited
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Support for Certifications Was Often Missing or Partial, Despite CIO Reviews
paragraphs: The 1995 amendments required agencies to establish centralized processes  for reviewing proposed information collections within the CIO’s office.  Among other things, the CIO’s office is to certify, for each collection, that  the 10 standards in the act have been met, and the CIO is to provide a  record supporting these certifications.
The four agencies in our review 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. Table 2 shows the result of our analysis of the case studies.
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.
subsections: section_title: Support for Certifications Concerning Duplication Was Often Missing or Partial
paragraphs: Under the act, CIOs are required to certify that each information collection  is not unnecessarily duplicative. According to OMB instructions, agencies  are to (1) describe efforts to identify duplication and (2) show specifically  why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified  for the purpose described.
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.
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. 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  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.
section_title: Support for Certifications on Reducing Burden Was Often Incomplete or Inaccurate
paragraphs: The PRA also requires CIOs to certify that the collection reduces burden on  the public to the extent practicable and appropriate, including small  entities. 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.
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. The act cites various techniques for  reducing burden on these small entities, 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.
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.
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.
section_title: Support for Certifications Concerning the Use of Collected Information Was Often Missing
paragraphs: 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. OMB’s guidance to agencies  states that this certification is intended to ensure that the collection of  information will have “practical utility,” as defined in the PRA. 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 information to be collected, as well as identification of necessary  resources. Necessary resources include personnel, as well as supporting  equipment and other technological means to use the information in a timely  and useful fashion.
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.
section_title: Agency Efforts to Seek Public Comment Were Limited
paragraphs: 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  period 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, 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  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   ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be   ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including  through the use of automated collection techniques.
For an estimated 89 percent of collections governmentwide, agencies  provided the required initial 60-day notice in the Federal Register  requesting public comments on proposed collections. However, according  to our governmentwide sample, agencies did not generally use other means  to consult with the public and affected agencies, as required by the act,  performing these consultations for only an estimated 37 percent of all  collections. At the four agencies, the estimated consultation rate for all  collections ranged from 49 percent at IRS to 13 percent at VA. For the 12  collections that we reviewed, agencies performed these consultations for  less than half (5 of 12).
When agencies did make efforts to actively consult with potential  respondents, some reported that these efforts led to improvements to the  proposed collections. For example, VA officials stated that they obtained  valuable information through consulting with patient focus groups and  with experts in survey methods and data processing for a nationwide  survey on customer satisfaction.
The low levels of other types of consultation are particularly significant in  view of the sparse responses to the 60-day notices in the Federal Register:  An estimated 7 percent of notices of collections received one or more  comments. According to our sample of all collections at the four agencies  reviewed, the number of notices receiving at least one comment ranged  from an estimated 15 percent at Labor to an estimated 6 percent at IRS.
A key reason that agencies do not comply with the PRA requirement to  “otherwise consult” is the OMB guidance giving agencies discretion not to  consult with the public other than through the Federal Register. Other  means of consultation may also require additional time and effort, and  agency PRA reviewers indicated that program offices are often interested  in minimizing the time required for PRA approvals.
If agencies do not actively consult with the public, they limit their ability to  determine whether proposed collections adequately satisfy the act’s  standards that focus on impact on potential respondents, such as the  standards on burden, clarity, and recordkeeping. If information collections  do not satisfy these standards, they may be unnecessarily burdensome  because of lack of clarity, onerous recordkeeping requirements, or other  reasons.
section_title: Two Agencies Have Developed Processes to Reduce Burden Associated with Information Collections
paragraphs: 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.
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;   assessing the feasibility of the initiative, given IRS resource limitations;   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.
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,   assisting in the development of burden reduction measurement   partnering with internal and external stakeholders to identify areas of  potential burden reduction.
IRS reports that this targeted, resource-intensive process has achieved  significant reductions in burden: over 200 million burden hours since 2002.  For example, it reports that about 95 million hours of taxpayer burden  were reduced through increases in the income-reporting threshold on  various IRS schedules. 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. 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.
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. Instead, these officials said that the CIO staff’s focus is on  fostering high awareness within the agency of the requirements associated  with information collections, educating and training the program office  staff on the need to minimize burden and the impact on respondents,  providing an agencywide perspective on information collections to help  avoid duplication, managing the clearance process for agency information  collections, and acting as liaison between program offices and OMB during  the clearance process. To help program offices consider PRA requirements  such as burden reduction and avoiding duplication as they are developing  new information collections or working on reauthorizing existing  collections, the CIO staff also developed a handbook 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.
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. 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.
section_title: Four Agencies Generally Ensure That Collection Forms on Web Sites Are Approved and Inventoried
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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. 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  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.
section_title: Four Agencies Did Not Always Ensure that Forms on Web Sites Displayed Public Scrutiny Information Required by the Act
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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 PRA- compliant.
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.
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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Matters for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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,  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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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  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…” 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.
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  entail no burden other than that necessary to  identify the respondent, the date, the respondent’s address, and the nature  of the instrument…” 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.
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.
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.
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.
section_title: Standards That Must Be Certified in Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions
paragraphs: 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, 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; “(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  “(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  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.”
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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   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.
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.
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.
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: 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); 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  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.
section_title: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Office of Management and  Budget’s letter dated April 20, 2005.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 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  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, 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  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…” 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  only applies “provided that  entail no burden other than that  necessary to identify the respondent, the date, the respondent’s  address, and the nature of the instrument…” 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 cost- effectiveness of a number of different options for achieving the goals of  the PRA.
section_title: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Housing and  Urban Development’s letter dated April 20, 2005.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 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  entail no burden other than that necessary to  identify the respondent, the date, the respondent’s address, and the  nature of the instrument…” 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…”  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.
section_title: Comments from the Department of Labor
paragraphs: The following is GAO’s comment on the Department of Labor’s letter dated  April 21, 2005.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comment
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Comments from the Department of the Treasury
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of the Treasury’s  letter dated April 19, 2005.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 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  entail no burden other  than that necessary to identify the respondent, the date, the  respondent’s address, and the nature of the instrument…” 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  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…” (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  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.  14. We have deleted the reference to the IRS Commissioner in the final  report recommendations.