Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): OMB and Agency Responsibilities and Burden Estimates

Congressional research reportJun 15, 2009

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA):

OMB and Agency Responsibilities

and Burden Estimates

(name redacted)

Specialist in American National Government

(name redacted)

Legislative Attorney

June 15, 2009

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R40636

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

Summary

Federal agencies often collect information from the public to accomplish their missions, but those

information collection requirements can also impose a substantial paperwork burden on the

public. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3520) established the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

to provide central agency leadership and oversight of government-wide efforts to reduce

unnecessary paperwork burden and improve the management of information resources. The

PRA’s scope is very broad, both in terms of the federal agencies that must comply with its

requirements, and the types of information collection requirements and activities that are covered.

The PRA requires agencies to justify any collection of information from the public by

establishing the need and intended use of the information, estimating the burden that the

collection will impose on respondents, and showing that the collection is the least burdensome

way to gather the information. Agencies must receive OIRA approval for each information

collection request (signified by an OMB control number displayed on collection) before it is

implemented. Failure to obtain OIRA approval for an active collection, or the lapse of that

approval, represents a violation of the PRA, and the public is not required to provide the

requested information. As a result of OIRA initiatives in recent years, the number of reported

violations of the act declined from more than 800 in FY1998 to 15 in FY2007.

Paperwork burden is most commonly estimated in terms of “burden hours,” which is a function of

(1) the frequency of an information collection, (2) the estimated number of respondents, and (3)

the amount of time that the agency estimates it takes each respondent to complete the collection.

As of May 2009, the government-wide estimate was about 9.9 billion burden hours, an increase

of nearly 2 billion burden hours (25%) between 2004 and 2009. The Internal Revenue Service

(IRS) represents nearly 80% of the government-wide estimate (about 7.7 billion burden hours),

and more than 85% of the IRS estimate is driven by 10 large information collections. If the total

labor cost to complete federal paperwork is $40 per hour (including benefits and overhead), then

the 9.9 billion burden hours cost providers nearly $400 billion. About $60 billion in other

financial costs raises the total annual cost of federal paperwork to about $460 billion. However,

the benefits associated with these collections may far exceed these costs.

Some inspectors general (IGs) and the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief

Program (SIGTARP) have expressed concerns that the PRA’s commenting and review

requirements affect their ability to conduct timely audits and investigations, and have proposed

that they (like the Government Accountability Office) be exempted from the act’s requirements.

The PRA of 1995 authorized appropriations for OIRA to carry out the PRA’s requirements

through September 30, 2001. Since then, OIRA has been funded through OMB’s general

appropriation. Historically, the reauthorization of appropriations for OIRA has provided an

opportunity for Congress to amend the PRA and, in so doing, to try and improve the act’s

implementation. In the 111th Congress, the only proposed legislation to amend the PRA is H.R.

535, which would, if enacted, “provide for the suspension of fines under certain circumstances for

first-time paperwork violations by small business concerns.” Similar legislation was introduced

but not enacted in the 110th Congress (H.R. 456 and S. 281).

This report will be updated as other information becomes available.

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................1

Scope of the PRA........................................................................................................................2

Agency and OIRA Clearance Processes.......................................................................................3

Agency Clearance Process ....................................................................................................4

OIRA Clearance Process .......................................................................................................5

Expedited and Delegated OIRA Reviews...............................................................................5

PRA and Congress ......................................................................................................................6

Burden Reduction Goals in the 1995 Act .....................................................................................7

Agencies’ Burden-Hour Estimates...............................................................................................7

Program Changes and Adjustments ........................................................................................... 10

The Cost of Paperwork.............................................................................................................. 12

PRA Violations ......................................................................................................................... 13

PRA-Related Appropriations and Staffing Issues ....................................................................... 14

The PRA and Small Businesses ................................................................................................. 14

The PRA and Inspectors General............................................................................................... 15

Concluding Observations .......................................................................................................... 17

Burden-Reduction Approaches ............................................................................................ 17

The PRA and the IGs/SIGTARP.......................................................................................... 19

Reauthorization of OIRA .................................................................................................... 19

Figures

Figure 1. Agency Burden-Hour Estimates, 1998-2009 .................................................................8

Figure 2. Agency Burden-Hour Estimates as a Proportion of the Government-wide

Estimate, May 2009 ............................................................................................................... 10

Tables

Table 1. Agencies’ Burden-Hour Estimates, 1998-2009 ...............................................................8

Table 2. Ten Largest IRS Information Collections, May 2009 ......................................................9

Table 3. Number of Collections of Information by Size Category, May 2009 ............................. 18

Contacts

Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 20

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

Introduction

Federal agencies often must collect information from the public to accomplish their missions. For

example, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) collects information from taxpayers and their

employers to know the correct amount of taxes owed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

within the Department of Labor collects data that enable the President and Congress to gauge the

condition of the U.S. economy. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collects information

to insure compliance with the agency’s regulations, to evaluate the effectiveness of its programs,

and for other purposes. The Department of Agriculture requires that applicants for food stamps

and crop subsidies provide information to verify their eligibility. The U.S. Census Bureau

periodically collects information that is used to apportion congressional districts and for many

other purposes. Many agency information collections, recordkeeping requirements, and thirdparty disclosures are contained in or are authorized by regulations as monitoring or enforcement

tools. In fact, these paperwork requirements are sometimes the essence of the agencies’ regulatory

provisions.1 However valuable they are, though, federal information collection requirements can

also impose a substantial paperwork burden on the public. That burden can be a function of the

amount of information collected, the frequency with which the information is collected, and the

number of entities required to provide the information.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3520) was originally enacted in 1980,

and was substantively amended in 1986 and again in 1995.2 The stated purposes of the PRA

include (1) minimizing the burden of federal paperwork on individuals, small businesses, state

and local governments, and others; (2) ensuring the greatest public benefit from federal

information; (3) coordination of federal information resources management policies; and (4)

improving the quality and use of federal information. 3 The PRA of 1980 established the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

to provide central agency leadership and oversight of government-wide efforts to reduce

unnecessary paperwork burden and improve the management of information resources.4 The act

assigns specific responsibilities to both OIRA and federal agencies regarding (1) general

information resources management, (2) collection of information and the control of paperwork,

(3) information dissemination, (4) statistical policy and coordination, (5) records management, (6)

For example, EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program is essentially a database created through collections of

information imposed on businesses to inform the public about chemical hazards in their communities. TRI reports

require businesses in certain industries to report the quantity of any of more than 600 chemicals entering each

environmental medium on site, transfers of the chemicals in wastes to off-site locations, on-site treatment methods and

efficiency, and source reduction and recycling activities. For more information and the underlying statutory

requirements, see CRS Report RL32683, The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA): A

Summary, by (name redacted).

In addition to the 1986 and 1995 amendments, the PRA has also been amended by other statutes that did not change

the act’s information collection requirements (e.g., the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 and

the Information Quality Act of 2000). For more information on the original PRA, the 1986 amendments, the 1995

amendments, and other statutes, see CRS Report RL30590, Paperwork Reduction Act Reauthorization and Government

Information Management Issues, by (name redacted). For more information on the Information Quality Act, see CRS

Report RL32532, The Information Quality Act: OMB's Guidance and Initial Implementation, by (name redacted).

44 U.S.C. § 3501(1).

44 U.S.C. § 3503. The PRA actually assigns these and other responsibilities to the Director of OMB, but requires the

Director to delegate to the Administrator of OIRA “the authority to administer all functions under this chapter.”

Therefore, in this report, duties that the act assigns to OMB are characterized as assigned to OIRA. For information on

OIRA and its regulatory review responsibilities, see CRS Report RL32397, Federal Rulemaking: The Role of the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

privacy and security, and (7) federal information technology. 5 This report focuses on the PRA’s

requirements regarding information collection and the control of paperwork. 6

Scope of the PRA

The scope of the PRA is very broad, both in terms of the federal agencies that must comply with

its requirements, and the types of information collection requirements and activities that are

covered. The PRA defines a covered “agency” as “any executive department, military department,

Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the

executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any

independent regulatory agency.”7 The act specifically excludes (1) the Government

Accountability Office (GAO, formerly the General Accounting Office); (2) the Federal Election

Commission; (3) the governments of the District of Columbia and of the territories and

possessions of the United States, and their various subdivisions; and (4) government-owned

contractor-operated facilities, including laboratories engaged in national defense research and

production activities. Therefore, the PRA’s requirements apply to virtually every executive branch

agency, including independent regulatory agencies that are sometimes excluded from oversight

and control by the President or OMB.8

The PRA generally defines a “collection of information” as the obtaining, causing to be obtained,

or disclosure of facts or opinions by or for an agency by 10 or more nonfederal “persons.”9 A

“person” is defined in the act as including individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations,

groups, and any element of a state or local government.10 Therefore, if a covered agency wants to

collect information from 10 or more of these non-federal entities, or to require 10 or more of

these entities to provide information to a third party or to the public (e.g., via a product labeling

requirement), that information collection or disclosure requirement is probably covered by the

PRA.

“Burden” is also broadly defined in the act to include all of the “time, effort, or financial

resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, or provide information to or for a Federal

agency,” including any time or other expenditure needed to review instructions, acquire

technology, or search data sources.11 For example, the paperwork burden associated with

See 44 U.S.C. § 3504 for the specific requirements placed on OIRA in these areas. See 44 U.S.C. § 3506 for the

requirements placed on federal agencies in these areas.

OMB’s regulations regarding controlling paperwork burden on the public are in 5 CFR Part 1320.

44 U.S.C. § 3502(1). Section 3502(5) defines the term “independent regulatory agency” as including such entities as

the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Securities and

Exchange Commission.

For example, under Executive Order 12866, OIRA also reviews agencies’ significant regulations before they are

published in the Federal Register, but does not review rules issued by independent regulatory agencies that Congress

created to be more independent of the President. However, if an independent regulatory agency’s rule contains an

information collection requirement, OIRA would review that requirement under the PRA.

As a result of the 1995 amendments to the act, the PRA covers collections of information “requiring the disclosure to

third parties or the public.” The amendments effectively overturned the Supreme Court’s decision in Dole v. United

Steelworkers of America, 494 U.S. 26 (1990). As a result, agency-initiated labeling requirements and other disclosures

to third parties are considered agency “collections of information” under the PRA.

44 U.S.C. § 3502(10).

44 U.S.C. § 3502(2).

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

completing a tax return includes not only the amount of time required to fill out the relevant

forms, but also the time and money needed to read the instructions, collect the required

information, and purchase any necessary software or hardware. The PRA requires agencies to

justify any collection of information from the public by establishing the need and intended use of

the information, estimating the burden that the collection will impose on respondents, and

showing that the collection is the least burdensome way to gather the information.

Paperwork burden is most commonly measured in terms of “burden hours.”12 The burden-hour

estimate for an information collection is a function of (1) the frequency of the information

collection, (2) the estimated number of respondents, and (3) the amount of time that the agency

estimates it takes each respondent to complete the collection. For example, if an agency estimates

that an information collection conducted twice each year will take each of the 10,000 respondents

10 hours to complete each time, the annual burden-hour estimate for the collection is 200,000

burden hours (2 times 10,000 times 10). As discussed more fully later in this report, as of May

2009, the government-wide paperwork burden estimate is nearly 10 billion burden hours.

While federal paperwork requirements are often unwelcomed by those required to complete them,

some information collection “burden” is voluntarily accepted by respondents in order to receive

certain benefits. For example, recipients of federal crop subsidies or food stamps must complete

Department of Agriculture application forms in order to receive payments. Similarly, certain

taxpayers elect to complete longer tax forms (e.g., the Form 1040 instead of the 1040-EZ) in

order to pay lower taxes. As a former OIRA administrator testified in 2008, “not all hours spent

have the same consequences.”13

The PRA does not apply to collections of information “during the conduct of a Federal criminal

investigation,” or “during the conduct of ... an administrative action or investigation involving an

agency against specific individuals or entities.”14 However, the PRA does apply to “the collection

of information during the conduct of general investigations ... undertaken with reference to a

category of individuals or entities such as a class of licensees or an entire industry.”15

Agency and OIRA Clearance Processes

The PRA generally requires OIRA to “oversee the use of information resources to improve the

efficiency and effectiveness of governmental operations to serve agency missions.”16 Agencies

must receive OIRA approval (signified by an OMB control number displayed on the information

collection) for each information collection request before it is implemented, and those approvals

must be renewed at least every three years. As discussed in more detail later in this report, failure

to obtain OIRA approval for an active collection, or the lapse of that approval, represents a

As discussed later in this report, OIRA also reports measurable financial costs associated with information

collections.

Ralph Lindeman, “House Small Business Panel Examines Need to Amend Paperwork Reduction Act,” BNA Daily

Report for Executives, February 29, 2008, p. A-32, quoting Sally Katzen, who was administrator of OIRA during the

Clinton Administration.

44 U.S.C. § 3518(c)(1) (emphasis added).

44 U.S.C. § 3518(c)(2) (emphasis added).

44 U.S.C. § 3504.

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

violation of the act, and triggers the PRA’s public protection provision. 17 Under that provision, 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, or if the agency does not inform the

respondents that they are not required to respond unless the collection of information contains a

valid OMB control number. OIRA can disapprove any collection of information if it believes the

collection is inconsistent with the requirements of the PRA.18

Agency Clearance Process

The PRA requires that each federal agency establish its own paperwork clearance process within

the agency’s office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO), and requires that the process be

“sufficiently independent of program responsibility to evaluate fairly whether proposed

collections of information should be approved under this subchapter.”19 An agency cannot

conduct a collection of information until after (1) undertaking a review by the agency before

submission to OIRA; (2) evaluating public comments received in response to a 60-day notice in

the Federal Register (or, if part of a proposed rule, comments received in response to the notice

of proposed rulemaking); (3) submitting to OIRA a certification that the proposed information

collection meets certain statutory requirements (e.g., that it is written in plain terms and is

“necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency”); and (4) publishing a

notice in the Federal Register that the certification has been submitted and providing other

information about the proposed collection (e.g., a description of the proposed collection and an

estimate of its burden). 20

In 2005, GAO reported that agency CIOs sometimes provided the required certifications despite

missing or inadequate support from the program offices sponsoring the collections.21 As a result,

GAO said that OMB, the agency, and the public have reduced assurance that the standards in the

act (e.g., avoiding duplication and minimizing burden) have been consistently met.22 GAO

suggested several options that Congress could consider to improve compliance (e.g., mandating

pilot projects on burden reduction), and recommended that OMB change its guidance in relation

to these issues. To date, neither Congress nor OMB has acted on GAO’s recommendations.

44 U.S.C. § 3512.

Independent regulatory agencies (e.g., the Federal Communications Commission and the Securities and Exchange

Commission) can, by majority vote, void any OIRA disapproval of a proposed collection of information. See 44 U.S.C.

§ 3507(f).

44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(1). Section 3506(a) requires the head of each agency to appoint a Chief Information Officer,

who reports directly to the agency head. The Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (later renamed

the Clinger-Cohen Act) established CIOs in each agency, replacing the original requirement in section 3506 of the PRA

for a “senior official” to carry out these responsibilities. See CRS Report RS21260, Information Technology (IT)

Management: The Clinger-Cohen Act and the Homeland Security Act of 2002, by (name redacted).

44 U.S.C. § 3507(a)(1).

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Paperwork Reduction Act: New Approach May Be Needed to Reduce

Government Burden on the Public, GAO-05-424, May 20, 2005. See also U.S. Government Accountability Office,

Paperwork Reduction Act: Burden Reduction May Require a New Approach, GAO-05-778T, June 14, 2005.

GAO-05-778T, p. 15.

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

OIRA Clearance Process

After an agency submits its proposed information collection request to OIRA (with the abovementioned certification), the PRA requires OIRA to provide at least 30 days for public comment

prior to deciding whether to approve the request.23 If a new proposed information collection is not

part of a proposed rule, the PRA requires OIRA to notify the submitting agency of its decision

within 60 days of the agency’s certification or Federal Register notice (whichever is later). If the

collection is part of a proposed rule, OIRA must notify the agency “as soon as practicable,” but

no later than the date that the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register.24 Before

approving a proposed collection of information, OIRA must determine whether the collection is

“necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency.”25

OIRA takes action on between 3,000 and 5,000 information collection requests (new approvals,

renewals, or revisions) each year, and those approvals can be for up to three years. OIRA

maintains a daily-updated PRA database showing each approved information collection by

department and agency, collection requests that are currently under review, collections that have

been reviewed in the previous 30 days, and collections that have recently expired. That database

is publicly available online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. As of May 14, 2009,

there were a total of 8,674 approved information collections in the OIRA inventory.

Although most information collection requests are approved, OIRA sometimes disapproves

agencies’ requests. For example, in November 2008, OIRA disapproved an information collection

requirement in a Federal Communications Commission rule that would have required wireline

and wireless carriers to have an emergency backup power source for their networks. OIRA

reportedly concluded that, contrary to the PRA’s requirements, the agency did not seek and

evaluate public comment on this reporting requirement and did not demonstrate the practical

utility of the information. 26

Expedited and Delegated OIRA Reviews

The PRA also provides for “fast-track” OIRA reviews in emergency situations. Specifically, an

agency may request that OIRA authorize a collection of information upon the agency head’s

determination that:

(A) a collection of information- (i) is needed prior to the expiration of time periods

established ... ; and (ii) is essential to the mission of the agency; and

(B) the agency cannot reasonably comply with the provisions of [the PRA] because—(i)

public harm is reasonably likely to result if normal clearance procedures are followed; (ii) an

unanticipated event has occurred; or (iii) the use of normal clearance procedures is

44 U.S.C. § 3507(b). This comment period is in addition to the 60 days of public comment that are required prior to

submission of the proposed collection to OIRA.

Executive Order 12866 permits OIRA to review the substance of agencies’ proposed rules for up to 90 days before

they are published in the Federal Register.

44 U.S.C. § 3508.

Cheryl Bolen, “OMB Disapproves New FCC Rule Requiring Backup Power for Wireless,” BNA Daily Report for

Executives, December 12, 2008, p. A-6.

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

reasonably likely to prevent or disrupt the collection of information or is reasonably likely to

cause a statutory or court ordered deadline to be missed.27

Once the agency head requests an expedited authorization, the act requires OIRA to “approve or

disapprove any such authorization request within the time requested by the agency head and, if

approved, shall assign the collection of information a control number.”28 If the agency head made

such an authorization request of OIRA, he or she could then also specify a short time frame for

OIRA to approve such a request, and conduct the collection of information “without compliance

with the provisions of [the PRA] for a maximum of 180 days after the date on which the Director

received the request to authorize such collection.”29 OIRA would not need to provide 30 days of

public comment prior to an approval or disapproval decision within the agency head-specified

timeframe regarding the collection of information authorization request.30 Nor would the agency

head need to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting public comment. 31

Also, the act permits OIRA to delegate final approval authority to an agency for specific

programs or activities, or for all agency purposes, if OIRA concludes that the official in charge of

the agency review process is “sufficiently independent of program responsibility to evaluate fairly

whether proposed collections of information should be approved and has sufficient resources to

carry out this responsibility effectively.”32 OIRA can delegate this authority by publishing a rule

in the Federal Register.

PRA and Congress

The PRA requires OIRA to keep Congress and congressional committees “fully and currently

informed of the major activities” under the act.33 Specifically, the act requires OIRA to submit an

annual report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives

describing, among other things, the extent to which agencies have reduced information collection

burdens on the public. To satisfy this requirement, OIRA develops an annual Information

Collection Budget (ICB) by gathering data from agencies. 34 The most recent ICB (published in

October 2008) reflects changes in agencies’ information collections between fiscal years 2006

and 2007.

The congressional committees with general legislative jurisdiction regarding the PRA are the

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on

44 U.S.C. § 3507(j)(1); see also 5 C.F.R. § 1320.13.

44 U.S.C. § 3507(j)(2).

Ibid.

44 U.S.C. § 3507(b). Section 3507(b) states: “The Director shall provide at least 30 days for public comment prior to

making a decision under subsection (c), (d), or (h), except as provided under subsection (j).” Subsection (c) addresses

proposed collections of information not contained in a proposed rule.

44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(2)(A). Section 3506(c)(2)(A) states: “With respect to the collection of information and the

control of paperwork, each agency shall ... except as provided under ... section 3507(j), provide 60-day notice in the

Federal Register, and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed

collection of information, to solicit comment.”

44 U.S.C. § 3507(i)(1).

44 U.S.C. § 3514(a)(1)(A).

To view copies of the ICBs from recent years, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_infocoll/#icbusg.

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

Oversight and Government Reform. The House and Senate Committees on Small Business may

also have legislative jurisdiction regarding PRA amendments involving small businesses, and

have held oversight hearings regarding the PRA’s implementation. 35

Burden Reduction Goals in the 1995 Act

One of the key features of the PRA of 1995 was the requirement that OIRA, in consultation with

the agency heads, set annual government-wide goals for the reduction of information collection

burdens by at least 10% in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, and by at least 5% in each of the

succeeding four fiscal years (i.e., fiscal years 1998 through 2001). The act also required OIRA to

establish agency-specific burden reduction goals each year representing “the maximum

practicable opportunity in each agency.”

At the end of FY1995 (i.e., just before the PRA of 1995 took effect), the government-wide burden

estimate stood at about 7 billion burden hours. Therefore, if all federal agencies had been able to

meet each of the government-wide burden reduction goals in the 1995 act, by September 30,

2001, the burden-hour estimate would have decreased by about 35% to about 4.6 billion hours.

However, this reduction did not occur. In fact, as of September 30, 2001, the government-wide

burden estimate was nearly 7.7 billion burden hours. By September 30, 2002, that estimate stood

at more than 8.2 billion hours—a 17% increase since the PRA of 1995 took effect. Nearly half of

that increase occurred during FY2002 alone, and about 70% occurred during fiscal years 2001

and 2002.

Agencies’ Burden-Hour Estimates

No numerical government-wide burden reduction goals have been established since FY2001. As

both Table 1 and Figure 1 below indicate, federal agencies’ government-wide burden-hour

estimates declined somewhat in 2003 and 2004, but those estimates have increased substantially

since then (from just under 8 billion burden hours in 2004 to nearly 10 billion burden hours in

2009). Some of the most substantial increases occurred in the two-year period between 2005 and

2007, when the government-wide burden-hour estimates increased by a total of 17% (from about

8.2 billion burden hours to about 9.6 billion burden hours). Although OIRA has not published an

ICB showing burden-hour estimates after 2007, the on-line PRA database indicates that as of

May 2009, the government-wide paperwork estimate stood at more than 9.9 billion burden hours.

For example, on February 28, 2009, the House Committee on Small Business held a hearing on “Improving the

Paperwork Reduction Act for Small Businesses.” See http://www.house.gov/smbiz/democrats/hearings/hearing-02-2808-paperwork/hearing-02-28-08-paperwork.htm for the testimony provided at this hearing. See also Ralph Lindeman,

“House Small Business Panel Examines Need to Amend Paperwork Reduction Act,” BNA Daily Report for Executives,

February 29, 2008, p. A-32.

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

Table 1. Agencies’ Burden-Hour Estimates, 1998-2009

Estimated Number of Burden Hours (in millions)

Department of the

Treasury

All Other

Agencies

Total

1998

5,702.24

1,248.90

6,951.14

1999

5,909.74

1,274.75

7,183.82

2000

6,156.80

1,204.92

7,361.72

2001

6,415.85

1,215.89

7,631.74

2002

6,750.43

1,472.74

8,223.17

2003

6,589.76

1,509.03

8,098.79

2004

6,406.18

1,565.00

7,971.18

2005

6,434.99

1,805.52

8,240.51

2006

6,965.63

1,957.87

8,923.50

2007

7,630.70

2,011.70

9,642.40

2009 (May)

7,747.88

2,176.29

9,924.18

Fiscal Year

Source: The data from 1998 through 2007 are from OIRA’s Information Collection Budgets, 1999 through

2008. The May 2009 data are from OMB’s online database at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

Note: Neither OIRA’s Information Collection Budgets nor OIRA’s online database provide burden estimates for

2008. Those data will not be available until the next Information Collection Budget is published later in 2009.

Figure 1. Agency Burden-Hour Estimates, 1998-2009

12,000.00

10,000.00

8,000.00

6,000.00

4,000.00

2,000.00

0.00

1998 1999

2000

2001 2002

2003 2004

2005

2006 2007

2008 2009

(May)

Source: The data from 1998 through 2007 are from OIRA’s Information Collection Budgets, 1999 through

2008. The May 2009 data are from OMB’s online database at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

Notes: Neither OIRA’s Information Collection Budgets nor OIRA’s online database provide burden estimates

for 2008. Those data will not be available until the next Information Collection Budget is published later in 2009.

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

As Table 1 also indicates, the government-wide paperwork burden-hour estimate is largely

driven by information collections at the Department of the Treasury. Until 2005, the Treasury

estimate was more than 80% of the government-wide estimate. Since 2005, however, the

Treasury proportion has fallen to slightly below 80%, primarily because of increases in the nonTreasury burden-hour estimates. The Department of the Treasury estimate is, in turn, driven

almost entirely by the IRS. For example, as of May 2009, IRS information collections represented

nearly 99.5% of the Treasury estimate of more than 7.7 billion burden hours.36

Within the IRS, a few large information collections drive the agency’s total estimate. Table 2

below shows the 10 largest IRS information collections in May 2009, which totaled nearly 6.6

billion burden hours—85.6% of the IRS estimate (which was about 7.7 million burden hours),

and 66.4% of the government-wide estimate (which was more than 9.9 million burden hours).

Just one collection, the U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, accounts for nearly 3.8 billion burden

hours.37

Table 2.Ten Largest IRS Information Collections, May 2009

OMB Control Number

Title of Information Collection

Burden-Hour Estimate

1545-0074

U.S. Individual Income Tax Return

3,789,792,628

1545-0099

U.S. Return of Partnership Income

721,761,123

1545-0092

U.S. Income Tax Return for Estates and Trusts

446,272,566

1545-0130

U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation

420,860,930

1545-0123

Form 1120, U.S. Corporate Income Tax Return

364,168,243

1545-0029

Forms 941, 941-PR and 941-SS, Employer’s Quarterly

Federal Tax Return

361,309,544

1545-0172

Depreciation and Amortization

217,399,275

1545-1974

Profit and Loss from Business

103,702,448

1545-0184

Sales of Business Property

100,633,248

1545-1466

Third-Party Disclosure Requirements in IRS Regulations

68,885,183

Total

—

6,594,785,188

Source: OIRA’s PRA database, available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, May 2009.

Other than IRS, the federal agencies with the largest estimated paperwork burdens as of May 14,

2009 were:

•

the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (473.1 million burden

hours);

•

the Department of Transportation (DOT) (302.3 million burden hours);

•

the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (204.4 million burden hours);

As of May 14, 2009, OMB’s online database indicated that the IRS burden-hour estimate was 7,707,115,181 (905

information collections), and the Treasury burden-hour estimate was 7,747,881,818 (1,281 information collections).

Although considered a single information collection, the U.S. Individual Income Tax Return includes more than 200

forms and schedules (e.g., 1040, 1040-EZ, and W-4). For a complete list, see http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/

PRAICList?ref_nbr=200710-1545-038.

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

•

the Department of Labor (DOL) (179.9 million burden hours);

•

EPA (157.1 million burden hours);

•

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (145.1 million burden hours); and

•

the Department of Agriculture (USDA) (126.5 million burden hours).

As Figure 2 below illustrates, however, the IRS burden-hour estimate is more than three

times as large as all other federal agencies combined.

Figure 2. Agency Burden-Hour Estimates as a Proportion of the

Government-wide Estimate, May 2009

DOT, 3.0%

SEC, 2.1%

DOL, 1.8%

HHS, 4.8%

EPA, 1.6%

DHS, 1.5%

USDA, 1.3%

All other

agencies, 6.2%

IRS , 77.7%

Source: OIRA’s PRA database, available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, May 2009.

Notes: Percentages are based on a government-wide estimate of 9,924.18 million burden hours.

Program Changes and Adjustments

OIRA classifies modifications in agency burden-hour estimates as either “program changes” or

“adjustments.” Program changes are the result of deliberate federal government action, and

represent additions or reductions to existing paperwork requirements that are imposed either

through new statutory requirements or an agency’s own initiative. 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, an increase in the number of burden hours required for

the federal Food Stamp Program because of a downturn in the economy (resulting in an increase

in the number of applicants) would be considered an adjustment. Similarly, a revision of the

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

burden estimate because of a better understanding of the number of applicants or the time

required to fill out the application would also be considered an adjustment. On the other hand, a

change in the number of questions asked on the application, or a change in the frequency with

which applicants must provide information, would be considered a program change.

In recent years, most of the increases in the government-wide burden-hour estimates have been

attributed to adjustments, not program changes. For example, OIRA reported that nearly 80%

(562.8 million hours) of the 718.9 million hour increase in the government-wide burden estimates

between fiscal years 2006 and 2007 shown in Table 1 above (from 8,923 million burden hours to

9,642.4 million burden hours) was caused by adjustments, not program changes. Most of those

adjustments were at the Department of the Treasury (503.2 million of the 562.8 million burden

hours). Although OIRA indicated in its PRA report that these adjustments were for a “select set of

tax forms accounts,” the report did not indicate whether they were caused by reestimates (and, as

a result, did not represent real increases in paperwork burden) or by changes in the population

required to complete these forms (reflecting actual increases in cumulative burden).

OIRA also reported that federal paperwork increased by 156.1 million burden hours between

fiscal years 2006 and 2007 as a result of program changes, most of which (149.1 million burden

hours) were attributed to “new statutes.” Within this category, OIRA said the largest single factor

was the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-357), which caused IRS to revise the

individual taxpayer return (including the addition of Form 5695 on “Residential Energy Credits”),

and caused the burden-hour estimate to increase by 71.5 million burden hours.38

“Agency actions” unrelated to new statutes reportedly caused federal paperwork to increase by

23.8 million burden hours between fiscal years 2006 and 2007, almost all of which (21 million

hours) was attributed to the Department of the Treasury. Major elements of this total included the

following:

•

the addition of several lines to tax Form 990 (7.5 million burden hours);

•

additional information required in relation to the U.S. Return of Partnership

Income (7.2 million burden hours);

•

additional information required in relation to the U.S. Income Tax Return for an

S Corporation (2.3 million burden hours); and

•

revision of forms and schedules related to the Claim for Refund of Excise Taxes

(2.4 million burden hours).

OIRA’s most recent report on the PRA also contains lengthy discussions of ongoing or

completed agency efforts to reduce paperwork burden. For example, the report said that:

•

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services within the Department of Homeland

Security had an ongoing initiative that was expected to eliminate the need for

applicants, employers, and attorneys to file redundant biographical or corporate

data when requesting benefits (reducing estimated burden by more than 1.5

million burden hours);

OIRA reported that this change was actually made because of court decisions that interpreted tax legislation, which

OIRA then classified as a statutory change.

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

•

the Department of Heath and Human Services had an initiative to eliminate or

revise obsolete forms, promote the use of electronic reporting and signatures, and

reduce reporting frequency (expected to reduce estimated burden by more than

5.3 million burden hours); and

•

the IRS is attempting to establish a more efficient and less burdensome process

for filing the S-Corporation Form 2553 (preliminarily estimated to reduce burden

by 8 million burden hours).

In at least one instance, however, agency burden reduction claims appear to have been

overstated. In March 2000, GAO reported that most of EPA’s claims to have reduced

paperwork burden by 24 million burden hours and saved businesses and communities

hundreds of millions of dollars between fiscal years 1995 and 1998 were “misleading,”

and in fact were the result of agency reestimates, changes in the economy or respondents’

technology, or the planned maturation of program requirements. 39 GAO pointed out that

agencies can also reduce their burden estimates by violations of the act (e.g., by allowing

approvals to expire while continuing to collect the information), and said “it is not clear

that burden-hour reductions that are based on reestimates, changes in the economy, or

violations are what Congress had in mind when the PRA was enacted. Therefore, if

Congress and the public want a fuller picture of how the PRA’s burden-reduction goals

are being implemented, they will have to carefully review the information in OIRA’s ICB

reports....”40

The Cost of Paperwork

Although federal paperwork is most commonly measured in terms of burden hours, OIRA also

collects information from federal agencies on the financial costs that are sometimes associated

with information collection requirements—e.g., costs for equipment, supplies, information

technology systems, and postage related to the collection of the information. These financial costs

were not explicitly included in the PRA’s definition of burden until the 1995 amendments to the

act, and OIRA has said in the past that agency practices in developing these costs vary widely.41

As of May 2009, OIRA reported that that these annual financial costs totaled nearly $62.5 billion

for the active collections—about the same as they were 10 years earlier.42

In the past, agencies were also required to convert their burden hours into dollar costs. To do so,

agencies estimated a wage rate that was applicable to the burden hours associated with the

collection. According to OIRA, this wage rate should also include overhead and fringe benefit

costs associated with the relevant employees’ time. Therefore, OIRA said, the appropriate wage

rate to use for a technical employee who is paid $20 per hour may well exceed $40 per hour when

U.S. General Accounting Office, EPA Paperwork: Burden Estimate Increasing Despite Burden Reduction Claims,

GAO/GGD-00-59, March 16, 2000.

Ibid., p. 38.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Information Collection Budget for FY1999, p. 261, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/icb-fy99.pdf.

For the May 2009 figure, see http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAReport?operation=5. In the FY1999 ICB, OIRA

reported these costs as $51.9 billion in FY1998, and estimated them at $68.3 billion in FY1999. OIRA reported these

costs from FY1999 to FY2002 as between $59 billion and $89 billion, but has not reported them in ICBs since FY2002.

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

other costs are added in (e.g., health and life insurance, retirement contributions, office space,

heating and air conditioning, and office supplies).43

Monetization of agency burden-hour estimates in this way can yield large dollar amounts. For

example, if one assumes that the typical person filling out federal paperwork earns $20 per hour

(likely a conservative assumption, given the complicated nature of many information collection

requirements), 44 and if overhead and fringe benefit expenses raise that hourly rate to $40, then

monetization of the May 2009 burden-hour estimate results in a total cost of $396 billion (9.9

billion burden hours times $40 per hour). Adding the other financial costs ($62.5 billion per year

in the most recent ICB) yields a total estimated annual cost of federal paperwork of $458.5

billion. However, given the varied purposes of these requirements (e.g., verification of taxes

owed, benefits payments, and regulatory enforcement), the benefits of federal paperwork may

greatly exceed these costs.

PRA Violations

As noted earlier in this report, failure to obtain OIRA approval for an active information

collection, or the lapse of that approval, represents a violation of the PRA. The public protection

provisions of the act state that:

no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of

information that is subject to this subchapter if (1) the collection of information does not

display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter;

or (2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information

that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays

a valid control number.45

However, courts have held that agency violations of the PRA do not create a private right of

action, and are therefore not judicially reviewable. 46

OIRA must include in its annual PRA report “a list of all violations” of the act.47 OIRA’s PRA

report for 2008 indicated that the number of violations have fallen sharply in recent years, from

more than 350 in FY2002 to 15 in FY2007.48 All 15 violations were new in FY2007 (i.e., no

carry-overs from previous fiscal years). The Department of Transportation was rated as “poor”

(with five or more violations), and five departments and agencies were rated as “need

improvement” (one to four violations)—the Departments of Energy, Justice, and Health and

Human Services; the Small Business Administration, and the Social Security Administration. All

other departments and agencies had no violations.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Information Collection Budget for FY1999, p. 35, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/icb-fy99.pdf.

For example, in The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms, by W. Mark Crain and Thomas D. Hopkins

(available at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs264tot.pdf), the authors used wage rates of more than $37 per hour to

calculate the cost of tax compliance in 2004.

44 U.S.C. § 3512(a).

See Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 224

F.2d 1115 (S.D. Tex. 2002); Tozzi v. EPA, 148 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2001).

44 U.S.C. § 3514(a)(2)(A)(ii).

See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/icb/2008_icb_final.pdf for a copy of this report.

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

OIRA’s efforts to control PRA violations came in the wake of a series of critical reports by GAO.

For example, in 2004, GAO reported that PRA violations had fallen from a high of 872 in

FY1998 to 223 in FY2003.49 While praising OIRA for taking action to address PRA violations

(e.g., using its PRA database to identify information collections that have recently expired), GAO

said that OIRA could do more, including notifying budget examiners within OMB that an agency

is collecting information in violation of the PRA, and allowing them to put pressure on the

agency to come into compliance with the act. In its 2007 PRA report, OIRA described its recent

efforts to improve agency compliance (e.g., the enhancement of its database to enable agencies to

prepare a “watchlist” of collections that will expire shortly).50

PRA-Related Appropriations and Staffing Issues

The PRA of 1995 authorized $8 million in appropriations to OIRA in fiscal years 1996 through

2001 to carry out the purposes of the act “and for no other purpose.” Since 2001, the PRA and

OIRA (which, as noted previously, was created by the PRA) have operated without an

appropriations authorization. OIRA does not have a specific line item in the annual budget, so its

funding is part of OMB’s appropriation. Similarly, OIRA’s staffing levels are allocated from

OMB’s totals.

In the 108th Congress, a provision in H.R. 2432 as originally introduced would have required the

OMB Director to “assign, at a minimum, the equivalent of at least 2 full time staffers to review

the Federal information collection burden on the public imposed by the Internal Revenue

Service.” As noted previously, the IRS accounts for about 80% of the estimated paperwork

burden government-wide, but OIRA indicated that it devoted less than one full-time equivalent

staff person to reviewing the agency’s paperwork requests (reportedly because much of the

burden is mandated by statute or is outside of the agency’s control).51 The George W. Bush

Administration objected to this specific direction of OIRA staff, so the sponsors of the bill agreed

to delete this requirement before the legislation was approved by the House of Representatives in

May 2004. No similar proposed legislation has been introduced in the 111th Congress.

The PRA and Small Businesses

One of the agency certifications that the PRA requires to be submitted to OIRA is that the

proposed information collection reduces the amount of paperwork burden to the extent

practicable, “including with respect to small entities.”52 The act goes on to describe techniques

that can be used to accomplish this goal, including “(i) establishing differing compliance or

reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who

are to respond; (ii) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting

requirements; or (iii) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part

U.S. General Accounting Office, Paperwork Reduction Act: Agencies’ Paperwork Burden Estimates Due to Federal

Actions Continue to Increase, GAO-04-676, April 20, 2004.

See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/icb/2008_icb_final.pdf, p. 11.

See, for example, U.S. General Accounting Office, Paperwork Reduction Act: Implementation at IRS, GAO/GGD99-4, November 16, 1998.

44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(3)(C).

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

thereof.”53 Some studies indicate that paperwork requirements are more burdensome on small

businesses than larger companies.54

In June 2002, Congress enacted and the President signed the Small Business Paperwork Relief

Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-198). The act amended the Paperwork Reduction Act to, among other

things, require each agency to establish a single point of contact to act as a liaison for small

business concerns with regard to information collection and paperwork issues. It also directed

agencies to make a special effort to reduce information collection burdens for small businesses

with fewer than 25 employees. OMB was directed to publish in the Federal Register and make

available on the Internet an annual list of the compliance assistance resources available to small

businesses. 55 The act also established an interagency task force to study the feasibility of

streamlining information collection requirements on small businesses. OIRA’s second and most

recent report on this task force in June 2004 contained “findings and recommendations intended

to reduce the burden imposed on small businesses by government paperwork information

collection requirements.”56 For example, it identified opportunities for improved consolidation or

coordination of information dissemination efforts, and described an internet-based system to help

small businesses understand and comply with existing paperwork requirements.57

In the 111th Congress, H.R. 535 would, if enacted, amend the PRA to “provide for the suspension

of fines under certain circumstances for first-time paperwork violations by small business

concerns.” Fines would only be allowed under certain circumstances (e.g., when the head of the

agency determines that the violation presents a danger to public health or safety, or was not

corrected within six months). Similar legislation was introduced but not enacted in the 110th

Congress (H.R. 456 and S. 281), and was a provision in other legislation that was not enacted

(H.R. 1012).

The PRA and Inspectors General

One PRA-related issue of concern in recent years has been whether the act’s requirements should

apply to audits and investigations being conducted by agency Inspectors General (IGs). OIRA

considers the IGs to be subject to the PRA, and has required them to (1) allow the public to

comment on their proposed collections of information, and (2) submit those proposed collections

to agency CIOs and OIRA for review and approval. Several IGs have said that the PRA’s

requirements have affected their ability to conduct timely audits and investigations, and that the

requirement for agency and OIRA approval compromises their independence.58 For example, IG

Id.

See, for example, W. Mark Crain and Thomas D. Hopkins, The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms

(available at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs264tot.pdf), which indicated that the cost of tax compliance

paperwork is 67% higher in small firms than in large firms.

These lists of compliance assistance resources are available on the OMB website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

inforeg/infocoll.html#sbpra and on the SBA website at http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman/compliance/

complianceassist.html.

See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/sbpr2004.pdf for a copy of the most recent report on

SBPRA.

In 1998, Congress enacted the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (44 U.S.C. § 3504 note), which required that

by October 2003, federal agencies provide the public, when practicable, with the option of submitting, maintaining, and

disclosing information electronically, instead of on paper.

Memorandum from Howard Nicholson, Office of Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Paperwork

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

offices at the EPA and SEC have reported that they had limited certain surveys to fewer than 10

respondents in order to avoid the PRA’s requirements.59 Another IG office reportedly turned to

GAO to undertake a survey that encountered “PRA compliance constraints.”60 One IG office

reportedly conducted a congressionally-required audit without adherence to the PRA because

obtaining agency and OIRA approval for the collection would have caused the office to miss the

congressionally-established reporting deadline. Other IGs have decided not to undertake

information collections because of the PRA requirements.61

Similar concerns regarding the effect of the PRA have been expressed by the Special Inspector

General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) in connection with his oversight of

the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA). 62 In January 2009, the SIGTARP was

reportedly told by OMB that he could not send an inquiry letter to the recipients of TARP funds

asking how those funds were being used without first obtaining comments from TARP recipients,

and then explaining to OMB how he had taken the comments into account in redrafting the

inquiry letter.63 However, after Senator Grassley sent a letter to the Director of OMB questioning

these requirements, the SIGTARP received emergency OMB approval for this collection of

information.

Neither the PRA nor the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (IG Act), specifically

indicates whether IGs should be considered covered “agencies” under the PRA,64 nor whether IG

audits and investigations should be covered. Although the PRA specifically excludes GAO and

other entities from the act’s coverage, IGs (which were created two years before the PRA was

enacted in 1980) were not similarly excluded, and it could be argued that GAO has similar

auditing and investigative functions to those of IGs.65 Likewise, EESA does not exclude the

(...continued)

Reduction Act and its Impact on Inspectors General (Feb. 8, 2008) [hereinafter Nicholson memorandum]; Letter from

J. Anthony Ogden, Chair, Legislation Committee, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, to

Senators Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,

Re: Proposed Amendment to Paperwork Reduction Act (Mar. 24, 2009) [hereinafter Ogden letter].

Ogden letter, supra note 58.

Nicholson memorandum, supra note 58.

Ogden letter, supra note 58.

Information in this section was drawn from CRS Report R40099, The Special Inspector General for the Troubled

Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), by (name redacted).

Letter to The Honorable Peter R. Orszag, Director, Office of Management and Budget, from Senator Charles E.

Grassley, Ranking Member of the Committee on Finance (Jan. 30, 2009).

As mentioned previously in this report, the PRA defines “agency” as “any executive department, military

department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive

branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency.”

Few court cases have explored or defined the definition of “agency” in the PRA. See, for example, Shane v. Buck, 658

F. Supp. 908 (D. Utah 1985) aff’d by 817 F.2d 87 (10th Cir. 1987) and Kuzma v. United States Postal Service, 798 F.2d

29 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1043 (1987), in which the courts concluded that the U.S. Postal Service was

not subject to the requirements of the PRA.

One principle of statutory interpretation, that the inclusion of one is the exclusion of others, may pertain to this

situation: “Where Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions to a general prohibition, additional exceptions are

not to be implied, in the absence of a contrary legislative intent.” Andrus v. Glover Const. Co., 446 U.S. 608, 616-17

(1980) (citing Continental Casualty Co. v. United States, 314 U.S. 527, 533 (1942)). However, context may render this

principle inapplicable, and the Supreme Court has also concluded that a statutory listing may be “exemplary, not

exclusive.” Nations Bank v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 513 U.S. 251, 257 (1995). In Kuzma v. United States Postal

Service, the court stated: “In contrast, the Postal Rate Commission is referred to specifically as an agency subject to the

requirements of the PRA. See 44 U.S.C. § 3502(10). It is clear, therefore, that Congress could have explicitly subjected

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

SIGTARP from the PRA’s requirements. As noted earlier in this report, the PRA applies to

collections of information during general investigations “undertaken with reference to a category

of individuals or entities,” but it does not apply to collections “during the conduct of a Federal

criminal investigation” or “during the conduct of ... an administrative action or investigation

involving an agency against specific individuals or entities.”66 Legislative and non-legislative

alternatives to address concerns about the application of the PRA to IGs are discussed below.

Concluding Observations

Although the burden reduction goals in the PRA of 1995 were not met, in the absence of a

counterfactual (i.e., if the PRA had not been enacted), it is less clear how successful the act has

been in achieving the more general goal of “minimizing” paperwork burden on the public.

Agency and OIRA reviews of agencies’ information collection requests have presumably had

some effect in keeping federal paperwork burden lower than it would have been in the absence of

the PRA and those reviews. It is also important to keep in mind that the benefits that flow from

federal information collection requirements (e.g., determining whether the appropriate amount of

taxes have been paid, and whether federal environmental laws are being obeyed) may exceed the

costs they impose on the reporting public. Also, the costs associated with regulatory information

collections may be far less than if more “command-and-control” regulatory approaches had been

used. Nevertheless, the nearly 2 billion burden-hour growth in the government-wide paperwork

estimate between 2004 and 2009 (a 25% increase in five years) is likely to suggest to some that

more should be done to minimize federal paperwork burden.

Burden-Reduction Approaches

The most appropriate approaches to reduce federal paperwork burden depend on the source of

that burden. If, as the IRS and other agencies suggest, most of the burden associated with their

information collections is statutorily required, then the primary responsibility for reducing that

burden rests with Congress. There is some evidence to indicate that this is true in at least some

instances. In 1999, GAO reported that the statutes underlying 13 of 27 regulatory concerns gave

the rulemaking agencies no discretion in establishing the regulatory requirements at issue, and in

12 other concerns the agencies had only some discretion in establishing those requirements. 67

However, in some cases, agencies have claimed that their paperwork burden increases are

statutorily required, but then later claimed reductions in that burden as agency initiatives (e.g., by

reducing the frequency of the collection from twice a year to once a year, or by shortening a

form). This sequence of events suggests that while Congress may require agencies to collect

certain types of information, it may also give the agencies discretion regarding how much

information is required, how often, and from what precise population of respondents. In such

situations, federal agencies and OIRA may bear much of the responsibility for reducing federal

paperwork burden.

(...continued)

the USPS to the terms of the PRA had it wished to do so.” 798 F.2d 29, 32 (2d Cir. 1986).

44 U.S.C. § 3518(c)(1) (emphasis added).

U.S. General Accounting Office, Regulatory Burden: Some Agencies’ Claims Regarding Lack of Rulemaking

Discretion Have Merit, GAO/GGD-99-20, January 8, 1999.

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

OIRA and federal agencies may also be able to play a greater role in burden reduction. As noted

earlier in this report, some in Congress have proposed that OIRA devote a certain minimum

number of staff to the review of IRS information collections.68 Another possible approach is for

OIRA to focus its efforts on the larger information collections—similar to the way that OIRA’s

regulatory reviews have focused only on draft rules that are at least “significant” under Executive

Order 12866.69 As Table 3 below indicates, most of the nearly 8,700 active information

collections as of May 2009 had estimated paperwork burdens of less than 4,000 hours. Clearances

for information collections below a certain threshold could be delegated to federal agencies,

thereby potentially expediting the review and clearance process, and allowing OIRA to spend

more time on the collections with the largest burden. However, GAO’s 2005 report on agency

certifications suggests that such delegations of clearance authority may need to be limited to those

agencies with demonstrated capabilities in this area.70

Table 3. Number of Collections of Information by Size Category, May 2009

Number of Burden Hours in

Collection of Information

Number of Collections of

Information in Size Category

Cumulative Number of

Collections of Information

0 - 50

853

51 - 200

831

1,684

201 - 500

761

2,445

501 - 1,000

687

3,132

1,001 - 2,000

752

3,884

2,001 - 4,000

732

4,616

4,001 - 8,000

685

5,301

8,001 - 15,000

663

5,964

15,001 - 30,000

555

6,519

30,001 - 50,000

401

6,920

50,001 - 100,000

433

7,353

100,001 - 500,000

719

8,072

500,001 - 1,000,000

203

8,275

1,000,001 - 10,000,000

314

8,589

10,000,001 - 100,000,000

8,657

100,000,001+

8,667

Source: OMB’s PRA database, available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

In the 108th Congress, a provision in H.R. 2432 as originally introduced would have required the OMB Director to

“assign, at a minimum, the equivalent of at least 2 full time staffers to review the Federal information collection burden

on the public imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.”

Under Executive Order 12291, from 1981 until 1993, OIRA reviewed the substance of all covered agencies’

regulations—about 2,000 to 3,000 rules each year. Under Executive Order 12866, OIRA has reviewed only about 500

to 700 “significant” regulations each year, thereby allowing OIRA to spend more time on each rule.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Paperwork Reduction Act: New Approach May Be Needed to Reduce

Government Burden on the Public, GAO-05-424, May 20, 2005.

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

The PRA and the IGs/SIGTARP

If Congress decided to respond to recent concerns about the application of the PRA to IGs or the

SIGTARP, Congress could exempt all or certain types of information collections by these entities

from the act’s requirements—similar to the way that the PRA currently exempts GAO’s

information collections. 71 Those exemptions could be accomplished by amending the PRA’s

definition of an “agency,” or by amending the IG Act or EESA. The Legislation Committee of the

Council of the IGs on Integrity and Efficiency has proposed an exemption for IGs from PRA

collection of information requirements, which would amend 44 U.S.C. § 3518(c) to exclude from

the PRA information collections “during the conduct of any investigations, audits, inspections,

evaluations, or other reviews” by federal statutory IG offices.72 S. 976, introduced by Senator

Grassley, would amend 44 U.S.C. § 3518(c) to exclude such collections of information. This bill

would exempt such collections of information by IGs established in the IG Act, Special IGs

established by statute (such as SIGTARP), the Council of the IGs on Integrity and Efficiency, and

the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, which is comprised of IGs from several

departments and agencies.

Alternatively, there are non-legislative options. If OIRA wanted to do so, it could use its authority

under the PRA to exempt certain IG and/or SIGTARP collections from review (e.g., those

involving specific individuals or entities), or OIRA could provide expedited reviews to those

entities’ information collection requests. Another option would be for an IG (including the

SIGTARP) to use the subpoena powers of its office to compel the production of the information

needed. Section 6(a)(4) of the IG Act states that “each Inspector General, in carrying out the

provisions of this Act, is authorized ... to require by subpoena the production of all information,

documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data in any medium (including

electronically stored information, as well as any tangible thing) and documentary evidence

necessary in the performance of the functions assigned by this Act.” IG subpoenas are judicially

enforceable by order of a United States district court.

Reauthorization of OIRA

The PRA of 1995 authorized appropriations for OIRA to carry out the PRA’s requirements

through September 30, 2001. Since then, OIRA has been funded through OMB’s general

appropriation. Historically, the reauthorization of appropriations for OIRA has provided an

opportunity for Congress to amend the PRA and, in so doing, to try and improve the act’s

implementation. Although the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs of the House Committee on

Government Reform and Oversight held general hearings on the PRA in March and July 2006, no

legislation was before the subcommittee at the time, and no legislation to reauthorize OIRA

appropriations has been submitted since 2001.

The former President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, a council of presidentially-appointed IGs that has now

been codified, reconstituted, and renamed under the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, has previously suggested

amendments that would add a new 44 U.S.C. § 3502(1)(E) exemption for federal IGs to the PRA definition of

“agency.” See President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE), Conflict between the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995 and the Independence of Inspectors General under the Inspector General Act of 1978, March 2007.

Ogden letter, supra note 58.

Congressional Research Service

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in American National Government

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

(name redacted)

Legislative Attorney

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.