Paperwork Reduction Act: Record Increase in Agencies' Burden Estimates
Published: 2003-04-11T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Paperwork Reduction Act requires federal agencies to minimize the paperwork burden they impose on the public. The act also requires agencies to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting covered information. GAO examined changes during the past fiscal year in federal agencies' paperwork burden estimates and their causes, focusing on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). GAO also examined changes in the number of violations of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: As of September 30, 2002, federal agencies estimated that there was about 8.2 billion "burden hours" of paperwork governmentwide. IRS accounted for about 6.7 billion burden hours (81 percent) of this estimate. The federal paperwork estimate increased by about 570 million burden hours during fiscal year 2002--nearly double the previous record increase for a 1-year period. IRS and the Department of Transportation (DOT) accounted for almost 90 percent of the increase. IRS increased its paperwork estimate by about 330 million burden hours during fiscal year 2002, which the agency said was primarily caused by growth in the number of taxpayers using Form 1040. DOT's burden estimate rose by about 165 million burden hours, an increase that the department said was almost entirely attributable to the reintroduction and reestimation of one information collection. Federal agencies identified 244 violations of the PRA during fiscal year 2002--a significant reduction from the number of violations reported during the previous fiscal year. OMB deserves a great deal of credit for this decrease in violations. However, 244 violations of the law during a single fiscal year are still troubling and should not be tolerated. Also, although some longstanding violations have been resolved, others remained open at the end of the fiscal year and, in some cases, had been open for 2 years or more.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the implementation of the  Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).  As you requested, I will discuss  changes in federal paperwork burden during the past year and their causes,  with a particular focus on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  I will also  revisit an issue that we have discussed during previous hearings before this  Committee—violations of the PRA in which information collections were  either not authorized by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or  those authorizations had expired.
In brief, the agencies’ estimate of federal paperwork at the end of fiscal  year 2002 stood at about 8.2 billion burden hours.  The paperwork estimate  increased by about 570 million burden hours from last year—nearly double  the previous record increase for a 1-year period that I reported last year.   Two agencies—IRS and the Department of Transportation (DOT)— accounted for almost 90 percent of the increase.  IRS increased its  paperwork estimate by about 330 million burden hours, most of which  involved adjustments to the agency’s burden-hour estimate for Form 1040.   DOT’s burden estimate rose by about 165 million burden hours, an increase  that was almost entirely attributable to the reintroduction and reestimation  of one information collection.
Also, federal agencies identified 244 violations of the PRA that occurred  during fiscal year 2002—a more than 40 percent reduction in the number of  violations that were reported during the previous fiscal year and about one- fourth the number reported for fiscal year 1998.  Some agencies reported  fewer violations in each of the last 3 fiscal years, but other agencies  reported increases in 1 or more of those years.  Although some  longstanding violations were resolved, others remained open at the end of  the fiscal year and had been in violation for 2 years or more at that point.   OMB has taken several actions to address PRA violations since last year’s  hearing—and deserves a lot of credit for the reductions that have occurred  in the past year.  However, 244 violations of the law during a single year are  still troubling and should not be tolerated.   We continue to believe that  OMB and the agencies can do more to ensure that the PRA is not violated  and that long-standing violations are resolved.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Before discussing these issues in detail, it is important to recognize that a  large amount of federal paperwork is necessary and serves a useful  purpose.  Information collection is one way that agencies carry out their  missions.  For example, IRS needs to collect information from taxpayers  and their employers to know the correct amount of taxes owed.  The  Bureau of the Census collects information that was used to reapportion  congressional representation and is being used for a myriad of other  purposes.  The events of September 11, 2001, have demonstrated the  importance of accurate, timely information.  On several occasions, we have  recommended that agencies collect certain data to improve operations and  evaluate their effectiveness.
However, under the PRA, federal agencies are required to minimize the  paperwork burden they impose.  The original PRA of 1980 established the  Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within OMB to provide  central agency leadership and oversight of governmentwide efforts to  reduce unnecessary paperwork and improve the management of  information resources.  Currently, the act requires OIRA to develop and  maintain a governmentwide strategic information resources management  (IRM) plan.  In February 2002, we reported that OMB had not fully  developed and implemented a strategic IRM plan that articulated a  comprehensive federal vision and plan for all aspects of government  information, including reducing information burdens, and we  recommended that the agency develop such a plan.  During the past year  OMB has taken a number of actions that demonstrate progress in fulfilling  the PRA’s requirement of providing a unifying IRM vision with a focus on  burden reduction.  For example, OMB’s E-Government Strategy outlines  the federal government’s action plan for electronic government.  One focus  of that strategy is implementing initiatives that will reduce burden on  businesses by reducing redundant data collection and providing one-stop  streamlined support.  In addition, the Federal Enterprise Architecture  Business Reference Model provides an integrated view of the federal  government’s activities, thereby allowing agencies to look at federal  business operations and understand the gaps, overlaps, and opportunities  for consolidation.  Although OMB’s strategies and models are promising,  their ability to reduce paperwork burden and accomplish other objectives  depends on how OMB implements them.
OIRA also has overall responsibility for determining whether agencies’  proposals for collecting information comply with the PRA.  Agencies must  receive OIRA approval for each information collection request before it is  implemented.  Section 3514(a) of the PRA requires OIRA to keep Congress  “fully and currently informed” of the major activities under the act, and to  submit a report to Congress at least annually on those activities.  The  report must include, among other things, a list of all PRA violations and a  list of any increases in burden.  To satisfy this reporting requirement, OIRA  develops an Information Collection Budget (ICB) by gathering data from  executive branch agencies.  In November 2002, the OMB director sent a  bulletin to the heads of executive departments and agencies requesting  information to be used in preparation for the fiscal year 2003 ICB  (reporting on actions during fiscal year 2002).
OIRA published its ICB for fiscal year 2002 (showing changes in agencies’  burden-hour estimates during fiscal year 2001) in April 2002.  OIRA officials  told us that they did not expect to publish the ICB for fiscal year 2003 until  today’s hearing.  Therefore, we obtained unpublished data from OIRA to  identify changes in governmentwide and agency-specific “burden-hour”  estimates and PRA violations during fiscal year 2002.  We then compared  the data to agencies’ burden-hour estimates and violations in previous ICBs  to determine changes in the data over time.   “Burden hours” has been the principal unit of measure of paperwork  burden for more than 50 years and has been accepted by agencies and the  public because it is a clear, easy-to-understand concept.  However, it is  important to recognize that these estimates have limitations.  Estimating  the amount of time it will take for an individual to collect and provide  information or how many individuals an information collection will affect  is not a simple matter.  Therefore, the degree to which agency burden-hour  estimates reflect real burden is unclear.  Nevertheless, these are the best  indicators of paperwork burden available, and we believe they can be  useful as long as their limitations are kept in mind.
section_title: Governmentwide Paperwork Burden Estimate Has Increased
paragraphs: At the end of fiscal year 1995—just before the PRA of 1995 took effect— federal agencies estimated that their information collections imposed  about 7 billion burden hours on the public.  The amendment and  recodification of the PRA that year made several changes in federal  paperwork reduction requirements.  One such change required OIRA to set  a goal of at least a 10-percent reduction in the governmentwide burden- hour estimate for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997, a 5 percent  governmentwide burden reduction goal in each of the next 4 fiscal years,  and annual agency goals that reduce burden to the “maximum practicable  opportunity.”  Therefore, if federal agencies had been able to meet each of  these goals, the 7-billion burden-hour estimate in 1995 would have  decreased about 35 percent to about 4.6 billion hours by September 30,  2001.
However, as figure 1 shows, this anticipated reduction in paperwork  burden did not occur.  In fact, the data we obtained from OIRA show that  the governmentwide burden-hour estimate stood at more than 8.2 billion  hours as of September 30, 2002—about a 1.2 billion hour (17 percent)  increase since the PRA of 1995 took effect.  Nearly half of that increase  (about 570 million hours) occurred during fiscal year 2002 alone, and about  70 percent (about 860 million hours) occurred during the last 2 fiscal years.
It is also important to understand how the most recent estimate of federal  paperwork is allocated by the purpose of the collections.  As figure 2  shows, data that we obtained from the Regulatory Information Service  Center (RISC) indicate that almost 95 percent of the 8.2 billion hours of  estimated paperwork burden in place governmentwide as of September 30,  2002, was being collected primarily for the purpose of regulatory  compliance.  Less than 5 percent was being collected as part of  applications for benefits, and about 1 percent was collected for other  purposes.
Figure 3 shows that more than 60 percent of the governmentwide burden  estimate was primarily directed toward businesses or other for-profit  organizations.  About one-third of the burden was primarily on individuals  or households, and less than 3 percent was on state, local, or tribal  governments.
As of September 20, 2002, IRS accounted for about 99 percent of the  Department of the Treasury’s burden-hour estimate—nearly 6.7 billion  burden hours.  In fact, as figure 4 shows, IRS accounted for about 81  percent of the governmentwide burden-hour estimate (up from about 75  percent in September 1995).  Other agencies with burden-hour estimates of  100 million hours or more as of that date were the departments of Health  and Human Services (HHS) and Labor (DOL), DOT, the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA), and the Securities and Exchange Commission  (SEC). Because IRS constitutes such a significant portion of the  governmentwide burden-hour estimate, changes in IRS’ estimate can have  a significant—and even determinative—effect on the governmentwide  estimate.
subsections: section_title: Changes in Individual Agencies’ Estimates During Fiscal Year 2002
paragraphs: As table 1 shows, only a few agencies’ paperwork burden estimates  decreased during fiscal year 2002, most notably the Federal  Communications Commission (FCC)—from more than 40 million hours to  less than 27 million hours.  Other agencies, most notably the Department of  the Treasury (including IRS), DOT, HHS, and SEC, significantly increased  their burden hour estimates.   Still other agencies with relatively small  burden-hour totals experienced large percentage increases in their  estimates—most notably the Department of Housing and Urban  Development (HUD) (an 81 percent increase) and the Department of State  (a 76 percent increase).
However, changes in agencies’ bottom-line burden-hour estimates do not  tell the whole story and can be misleading.  It is also important to  understand how the agencies accomplished these results.  OIRA classifies  modifications in agencies’ burden-hour estimates as either “program  changes” or “adjustments.”
Program changes are the result of deliberate federal government action  (e.g., the addition or deletion of questions on a form) and can occur as a  result of new statutory requirements, agency-initiated actions, or  through the expiration or reinstatement of OIRA-approved collections.
Adjustments are not the result of deliberate federal government action,  but rather are caused by factors such as changes in the population  responding to a requirement or agency reestimates of the burden  associated with a collection of information.  For example, if the  economy declines and more people complete applications for food  stamps, the resultant increase in the Department of Agriculture’s  (USDA) paperwork estimate is considered an adjustment because it is  not the result of deliberate federal action.
The agencies’ ICB submissions identified what drove the changes in  agencies’ bottom-line burden-hour estimates during fiscal year 2002.  For  example, more than 80 percent of the 13 million hour decline in the FCC  estimate was due to the adjustment of one information collection.   However, OMB does not require agencies to explain the causes of  significant adjustments in agencies’ burden-hour estimates.  Therefore, it is  not clear whether the FCC adjustment reflected a real reduction in the  burden felt by the public (e.g., a change in the population responding to the  collection), or was simply a reestimation of the burden that already existed.   In any event, it appears that most of the FCC decrease was not the result of  agency burden-reduction initiatives.
In contrast, HHS indicated that the 37 million burden-hour increase in its  paperwork estimate during fiscal year 2002 was almost entirely driven by a  statutory program change in a single collection related to the enactment of  the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.  In its ICB  submission, HHS said the purpose of this statutory change was “to  establish standards for electronic transactions and for code sets to be used  in those transactions.”  HUD indicated that the 87 percent increase in its  burden estimate was entirely driven by program changes—specifically the  reinstatement of two information collections that had been in violation of  the PRA (i.e., HUD continued to collect the information without OMB  approval).  Therefore, although the department’s burden estimate  increased, the actual burden imposed on the public by the collection did  not change.
In some cases, we found the agencies’ explanations in their ICB  submissions for the changes in their burden estimates somewhat  misleading and/or inconsistent.  For example, DOT indicated in its  summary table that virtually all of the department’s 165 million burden- hour increase in its estimate was driven by program changes—specifically,  an “agency action.”  However, the narrative that the department submitted  to OMB indicated that almost all of this change was driven by the  reinstatement of a collection that had been in violation (“Driver’s Records  of Duty Status”) and an adjustment to the collection’s burden estimate.   DOT’s estimate of the burden associated with this collection declined about  42 million burden hours when the violation occurred during fiscal year  2001, so the adjustment was about 120 million hours.  Documentation that  we obtained from DOT’s Office of the Chief Information Officer indicated  that the adjustment was caused by significant increases in the department’s  estimates of the time needed for drivers and motor carriers to perform  certain tasks.  Therefore, the actual burden associated with this  information collection did not change.  The same information was being  collected when the authorization had lapsed during fiscal year 2001 and  when it was reinstated during fiscal year 2002.  The rest of the increase was  caused by the department’s reestimation of the burden, not a change in the  burden itself.
section_title: Reasons for Changes in IRS Burden Estimate
paragraphs: The increase in the IRS burden-hour estimate during fiscal year 2002 (about  330 million burden hours) was more than the increase in the rest of the  government combined.  Therefore, although all agencies must ensure that  their information collections impose the least amount of burden possible, it  is clear that the key to controlling federal paperwork governmentwide lies  in understanding and controlling the increases at IRS.
The Department of the Treasury’s ICB submission indicated that more than  80 percent of the increase in the department’s estimate during fiscal year  2002 (about 280 million burden hours) was caused by adjustments.  An IRS  official told us that this adjustment was largely driven by an increase in the  number of taxpayers using Form 1040.
IRS identified a number of burden-hour increases that it said were caused  by the underlying statutes.  For example, IRS said that it added more than  18 million burden hours to its estimate because of changes to Form 1040  and its associated schedules and instructions that were precipitated by the  Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.  Also, IRS  said it added nearly 17 million hours to the burden associated with Form  4562 (“Depreciation and Amortization”) because of changes made by the  Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002.
However, IRS said that other increases in its burden-hour estimate were  made at the agency’s initiative—not because of new statutes.  For example,  the agency said that an increase of more than 22 million hours in its  estimate for Form 941 and related forms were due to changes “requested by  IRS.”
The Department of the Treasury also indicated in its ICB submission that it  had taken a number of initiatives to reduce paperwork burden.  For  example, beginning with the 2002 tax year, Treasury said that IRS had  eliminated the requirement on small corporate filers (i.e., those with total  receipts and assets of less than $250,000) to file certain schedules with  their returns, resulting in a reduction of about 26 million burden hours.   Treasury also said it had decided to increase the threshold for taxpayers  having to file Schedule B (Form 1040) from $400 to $1,500.  As a result, the  department said that more than 10 million fewer taxpayers would have to  file the schedule—about one-third of those who previously had to file.   However, Treasury did not estimate how many burden hours would be  reduced as a result of that action.
section_title: Focusing on IRS to Control Paperwork
paragraphs: In summary, the agencies’ information collection estimates for the ICB  being released today indicate that federal paperwork continues to increase  at a record pace, and that IRS continues to account for most of the  increases in estimated burden.  Because IRS constitutes such a significant  portion of the annual increases and the governmentwide burden-hour  estimate, one strategy to address increases in federal paperwork could be  to focus more of OIRA’s burden-reduction efforts on that agency.  Just as  increases in IRS’s estimates have had a determinative effect on the  governmentwide estimates, reduction in the IRS estimates can have an  equally determinative effect.  For example, just one IRS information  collection (related to Form 1040) is estimated to impose more paperwork  burden than all of the non-Treasury collections combined.  Just five IRS  information collections represent about half of the 8.2 billion hour  paperwork estimate governmentwide.  A small reduction in the burden  associated with those five collections could have a major effect on the  governmentwide effort to reduce paperwork burden.
However, significant reduction of the burden hours associated with these  and other IRS information collections may ultimately depend upon  congressional action.  IRS officials maintain that the agency’s paperwork  burden totals reflect the information that is needed to administer the tax  laws.  Therefore, they suggest that significant reductions in IRS’s  paperwork burden would require changes to the tax laws.  Within the  current tax laws, however, IRS has some discretion that can affect  paperwork burden.  For example, in January 2001 IRS altered the threshold  over which businesses must pay employment taxes on a quarterly rather  than a more frequent basis.  In general, when considering reductions in the  amount or frequency of data collection, IRS must also balance the potential  for decreasing its ability to ensure that taxpayers fulfill their tax obligations  with the amount of burden imposed.
section_title: Agencies Identified Fewer PRA Violations
paragraphs: I would now like to turn to the other main topic that you asked us to  address—PRA violations.  The PRA prohibits an agency from conducting or  sponsoring a collection of information unless (1) the agency has submitted  the proposed collection and other documents to OIRA, (2) OIRA has  approved the proposed collection, and (3) the agency displays an OMB  control number on the collection.  The act also requires agencies to  establish a process to ensure that each information collection is in  compliance with these clearance requirements.  OIRA is required to submit  an annual report to Congress that includes a list of all violations.  Under the  PRA, no one can be penalized for failing to comply with a collection of  information subject to the act if the collection does not display a valid OMB  control number.  OIRA may not approve a collection of information for  more than 3 years, and there are currently about 8,000 approved  collections.
As table 2 shows, the agencies indicated in their ICB submissions that a  total of 244 PRA violations occurred during fiscal year 2002 (i.e., were  either carried over from the previous year or were new violations).  As in  previous years, most (217) of these violations were collections whose OIRA  approvals had expired and had not been reauthorized.  Four cabinet  departments were responsible for nearly 60 percent of the violations— USDA, the Department of Commerce (DOC), HUD, and the Department of  Veterans Affairs (DVA).
subsections: section_title: Number of Violations Has Declined in Recent Years
paragraphs: As figure 5 shows, the number of PRA violations that the agencies  identified has fallen markedly during the past 5 fiscal years—from 872  violations during fiscal year 1998 to 244 during fiscal year 2002.  The  decline in the number of violations between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year  2002 is particularly notable.  Last year, OIRA only asked the cabinet  departments and EPA to report data on violations.  The number of  violations during fiscal year 2002 in just those agencies was less than half  the number reported by the same agencies during fiscal year 2001 (200  versus 402).
As figure 6 shows, federal agencies vary in the extent and the consistency  with which they have been able to reduce their number of violations.  In  some agencies, the number of violations has gone down in each of the last 3  fiscal years (e.g., USDA and the Department of Justice).  In other agencies,  the number of violations has gone up during this period (e.g., DOC) or  exhibited an inconsistent pattern (e.g., HUD and DVA).
Notably, some cabinet departments were able to completely eliminate their  violations during the past fiscal year—the Department of the Treasury  (from 14 violations during fiscal year 2001 to zero during fiscal year 2002);  DOT (from 12 violations to zero); DOL (from 8 violations to zero); and the  Department of Energy (from 6 violations to zero).
section_title: OIRA Efforts to Reduce Violations
paragraphs: OIRA deserves a great deal of the credit for the reduction in the number of  PRA violations during the past year.  In June 2002—2 months after last  year’s hearing before this Committee—the OIRA Administrator sent a  memorandum to agency chief information officers (CIOs), general  counsels, and solicitors emphasizing the importance of compliance with  the PRA.  The Administrator said that, despite recent progress, the number  of overall and unresolved violations was still “unacceptably high,” and  asked each agency to identify progress on violations reported in the ICB for  fiscal year 2001 and to identify any new violations that had occurred since  September 30, 2001.  He also asked the agencies to describe the procedures  that they had in place to prevent future violations, and said OIRA was  planning to meet with the CIOs and general counsels of the five agencies  with the highest number of overall, long-standing, or high-burden  violations—USDA, HHS, HUD, the Department of State, and DVA.
In November 2002, the OIRA Administrator sent another memorandum to  the CIOs, noting that although most agencies had done a good job of  resolving existing violations, some were still having problems in this area.   He also reported that six agencies had reported 10 or more new violations  from October 2001 through June 2002—USDA, DOC, the Department of  State; the Federal Emergency Management Administration, the National  Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Small Business  Administration.  The Administrator said OIRA’s goal was “to achieve zero  violations by no later than April 1, 2003,” and urged each agency to  reexamine the efficacy of its PRA clearance system.  To assist in that effort,  he attached a list of collections that had expired in the previous 30 days and  those that were due to expire in the next 150 days, and asked the agencies  to take action to resolve existing violations and to prevent future ones.
section_title: Long-standing Violations Still a Problem
paragraphs: In our previous testimonies on the implementation of the PRA, we noted  that many of the agencies’ PRA violations had been occurring for years.    The agencies appear to have made some progress in this area, resolving  certain long-standing violations by either obtaining OMB clearance or  discontinuing the collections.  For example, during fiscal year 2002, the  Department of the Interior resolved three violations that had been  occurring since 1993 or 1994.  DVA resolved five violations that had been  occurring since 1996 or 1997.
However, the agencies also indicated that many other long-standing  violations had not been addressed.  Of the 244 violations that occurred  during fiscal year 2002, 120 were still occurring at the end of the fiscal year  (September 30, 2002).  Forty-five of these 120 violations had been occurring  for at least 1 year at that point, and 27 had been occurring for at least 2  years.
Some agencies had a particularly large number of long-standing unresolved  violations.
USDA indicated that 27 of its 66 violations were unresolved as of  September 30, 2002.  Of these, 14 had been occurring for more than 1  year, and 6 had been in violation for more than 2 years.  Three of the  USDA collections had been in violation for at least 5 years—since 1997.
HUD indicated that 23 of its 24 violations during fiscal year 2002 were  unresolved as of September 30, 2002.  Of these, 17 had been occurring  for at least 1 year, and 13 had been in violation for at least 2 years.
SBA indicated that 8 of its 9 violations during fiscal year 2002 were  unresolved as of September 30, 2002.  Of these, 6 had been occurring for  at least 1 year, and 4 had been occurring for at least 2 years.
Federal agencies brought a number of their unresolved violations into  compliance after the fiscal year ended.  For example, by the end of January  2003, HUD had resolved 15 of its 23 violations that were open at the end of  fiscal year 2002.  USDA resolved 12 of its 27 open violations by January  2003.  Overall, 46 of the 120 violations that were still occurring as of  September 30, 2002, were resolved between that date and the end of  January 2003.  However, that still leaves 74 violations occurring during  fiscal year 2002 that had not been resolved by the end of January 2003.
section_title: Violations and Costs
paragraphs: In our testimony in previous years, we provided an estimate of the  monetary cost associated with certain PRA violations.  To estimate that  cost, we multiplied the number of burden hours associated with the  violations by an OMB estimate of the “average value of time” associated  with each hour of paperwork.  Although the ICBs list the information  collections that were in violation during the previous year, they do not  show the number of burden hours associated with each of the violations.   Therefore, we obtained data from OIRA on the estimated number of burden  hours for the 45 information collections that had been in violation for at  least 1 year as of September 30, 2002.
The data suggest that PRA violations may constitute significant costs for  those who provide the related information.  The 45 violations that we  examined involved an estimated 48 million burden hours of paperwork, or  (at $30 per hour) about $1.4 billion in costs.  Just 2 of the 45 collections  accounted for more than $1 billion in estimated opportunity costs.
Many of the information collections that were in violation were being  administered for regulatory purposes, so if the respondents knew that the  collections were not valid they might not have completed the required  forms.  However, other violations involved collections in which individuals  or businesses were applying for benefits such as loans or subsidies.   Therefore, it is not clear whether these individuals or businesses would  have refused to complete the required forms if they knew that the  collections were being conducted in violation of the PRA.
section_title: OIRA Can Do More to Address Violations
paragraphs: Although OIRA and the agencies have clearly made progress in reducing  the overall number of PRA violations in recent years, more progress is  needed.  As I am sure that the Administrator would agree, 244 violations of  the law in 1 year is not acceptable.  Agencies can and should achieve OIRA’s  goal of zero violations.
As I noted earlier, OIRA has taken a number of steps during the past year to  try to address this problem.  As we recommended last year, OIRA has used  its database to identify information collections that (1) have recently  expired and attempted to determine whether the agencies are continuing to  collect the information and (2) are about to expire, thereby attempting to  prevent future violations.  OIRA has also asked the agencies to describe the  procedures that they have in place to prevent future violations and has met  with agencies that have the highest number of overall, long-standing, or  high-burden violations.  We believe that these actions precipitated the  improvements that occurred during fiscal year 2002, and will have positive  benefits for years to come.
However, OIRA still has not taken some of the actions that we previously  recommended to improve compliance with the PRA.  For example, OIRA  could notify the budget side of OMB that an agency is collecting  information in violation of the PRA and encourage the appropriate  resource management office to use its influence to bring the agency into  compliance.  OIRA could also encourage the use of “best practices” learned  from agencies with a good record of PRA compliance.  Agencies that have  recently eliminated their violations altogether (e.g., the Department of the  Treasury, DOT, and DOL) may have much to teach agencies that continue to  violate the act.