Statement

Paperwork Reduction Act: Burden Increases at IR-8 and Other Agencies

information for more than 3 years, and there are about 7,000 approved collections at any point in time. The PRA also says 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. The act requires that OIRA's annual report to Congress include a list of all violations of the act, and requires agencies to establish a process to ensure that each information collection is in compliance with these clearance requirements.

In the ICB for fiscal year 1999 that was published last April, OIRA listed a total of 872 violations of the PRA. Of these violations, 795 were instances in which OIRA authorizations had expired and 77 were collections that had not received OIRA approval. In our April 1999 testimony before this Committee, we concluded that OIRA had done little to address agencies' PRA violations and suggested several ways that OIRA could improve its performance.

Shortly after the hearing, in May 1999, the Acting Administrator of OIRA sent a memorandurn to agency chief information officers calling their attention to the violations in the ICB and noting that more than 370 of them remained unresolved (ie., the agencies still had not obtained OIRA authorization or had not indicated that they were no longer collecting the information). He said "[t]his situation is unacceptable, we must fix it immediately and prevent it from happening again.” He requested that each agency (1) provide a timetable for resolution of each violation listed in the ICB; (2) provide a timetable for resolution of each expiration of OIRA authorization since the end of fiscal year 1998, indicating for each collection whether or not the agency had discontinued its use; and (3) describe the procedures by which the agency's chief information officer would prevent future violations. The Deputy Director of OMB also notified the President's Management Council of the need to resolve the violations identified in the ICB and encouraged the members of the Council to work with the chief information officers to ensure they have the necessary resources and authority.

Most of the agencies responded to the Acting Administrator's memorandum, and they frequently indicated that they planned to improve their performance.' For example, the Chief Information Officer at USDA indicated that 47 of the more than 100 information collections that were

'OIRA was not able to provide us with responses from the Departments of Education and Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the National Science Foundation, and the Social Security Administration.

Page 13

GAO/T-GOD-00-114

Statement

Paperwork Reduction Act: Burden Increases at IBS and Other Agencies

Agencies Again Reported
Hundreds of PRA Violations

listed in the ICB as violations had been reinstated, and 5 other collections were pending approval by OMB. The Acting Chief Information Officer at DVA said that they would make every effort to prevent violations in the future, and that the agency's first challenge was to "eliminate all expired collections of information by September 30, 1999." (Emphasis in original.)

Some of the agencies also indicated that some of the information
collections identified in the ICB for fiscal year 1999 as being in violation of
the PRA were not violations. For example, USDA's Chief Information
Officer said that five of the collections were intentional expirations. The
Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget at HHS indicated that six
of the collections were incorrectly listed as violations for a variety of
reasons. Therefore, the number of PRA violations during fiscal year 1999
appears to have been somewhat less than the 872 reported in the ICB,
although the precise number of violations during that year remains
unclear.

In September 1999, the OIRA Administrator sent letters to the agencies notifying them of continuing and possible new violations and encouraging them to bring those violations into compliance. For example, in his letter to the Department of Justice, the Administrator said OIRA's records indicate that "there may be eight uncorrected violations dating back to last fiscal year, as well as at least 43 additional violations through unintentional expirations this year."

In addition to corresponding with the agencies, OIRA has taken other actions designed to reduce the number of violations. For example, for years, OIRA has sent agencies a monthly list of agency information collections whose OMB authorizations will expire within the next few months. OIRA has also added information about expired approvals to OMB's Internet home page. As a result, the Acting OIRA Administrator said last year that potential respondents would be able to inform the collecting agency, OMB, and Congress of the need for the agency to either obtain reinstatement of OMB approval or discontinue the collection.

The fiscal year 2000 ICB indicates that PRA violations are still a serious problem. Table 2 shows the number of information collections in each agency for which OIRA authorizations had expired (and the agencies appear to have continued to collect the information beyond the expiration dates), collections that did not receive OIRA authorizations, and the total number of PRA violations in each agency. As you can see, the 27 agencies indicated that 710 of their information collections were in violation of the PRA at some point during fiscal year 1999. Of these, 620 were instances in

Page 13

GAOT-GGD-00-114

OIRA indicated that many of the 710 violations had been resolved by the end of fiscal year 1999 (ie., OIRA authorization for the collection had been reinstated or the collection had been discontinued). However, more than 250 violations had not been resolved and, in some cases, had been

Page 14

GAOT-GOD-00-114

Statement

Paperwork Reduction Act: Burden Increases at IRS and Other Agencies

occurring for years. For example, OIRA authorization for 28 of USDA's collections had been expired since at least 1997 and no action had been taken to reinstate those authorizations or discontinue the collections by the end of the fiscal year.

As I indicated earlier, it is unclear whether the number of violations is going down, going up, or staying about the same. On the surface, it appears that the number of violations is going down (from 872 to 710). However, some of the expirations that OIRA identified as violations in the fiscal year 1999 ICB were not violations, so the real extent of change is less than it appears. At USDA and DVA, though, it is clear that not much progress has been made. In fiscal year 1998, there were 103 violations at USDA; the recently published ICB lists 116 violations during fiscal year 1999. Last year's ICB indicated that there were 128 violations at DVA during fiscal year 1998; the agency's submission for this year lists 116 violations during fiscal year 1999. Even if the number of PRA violations governmentwide is going down, we believe that 710 violations of the act in 1 year is still far too many.

In last year's testimony, we provided an estimate of the monetary cost associated with 28 PRA violations that had been the subject of correspondence between OIRA and the Subcommittee. To estimate that cost, we multiplied the number of burden hours associated with the violations by an OMB estimate of the "opportunity cost" associated with each hour of IRS paperwork. As a result, we estimated that the 28 violations imposed nearly $3 billion in unauthorized burden on the public. However, we were unable to estimate the opportunity costs of all PRA violations because the ICB did not provide information on the number of burden hours associated with each of the violations.

The fiscal year 2000 ICB also does not identify the number of burden hours for each violation, so we again cannot provide an estimate of the opportunity costs that all of these violations represent. Nevertheless, we continue to believe that these violations represent potentially significant opportunity costs to the public. Several of the USDA-expired collections that we highlighted last year continued to be violations during fiscal year 1999, and each collection imposed substantial costs on the public. For example:

USDA's authorization to collect the report of acreage information collection expired on June 30, 1997, with an annual estimated burden of 2.8 million burden hours. In November 1997, OIRA disapproved reinstatement of this collection as "lacking need and practical utility." Nevertheless,

Page 15

GAOT-GOD-00-114

Statement

Paperwork Reduction Act: Burden Increases at IES and Other Agencies

USDA continues to collect the information. As of September 30, 1999, the collection had imposed 6.4 million burden hours of paperwork without OIRA approval (2.25 years times 2.85 million burden hours per year). At a wage rate of $26.50 per burden hour, the opportunity cost for this violation was nearly $170 million.*

• USDA's authorization to collect the noninsured crop disaster assistance information collection expired on May 31, 1998, with an annual estimated burden of 10.1 million burden hours. As of September 30, 1999, the collection had imposed 13.5 million burden hours of paperwork without OIRA approval. Therefore, the opportunity cost associated with this violation was about $357 million.

OIRA and Agencies Can Do
More to Ensure Compliance
With the PRA

Not all of the expired collections were this large. Furthermore, reauthorization of these collections will not save the public the estimated opportunity costs. Nevertheless, another way to view paperwork burden is in monetary terms, and these figures illustrate the significance of the violations that continue to occur.

As I indicated earlier, OIRA has undertaken several efforts since last year's violations of the PRA during fiscal year 1999, it is reasonable to question hearing to encourage agencies to comply with the PRA. However, with 710

the effectiveness of those efforts, and even whether OIRA alone can deal with this situation.

For example, although adding information about expired approvals to OMB's Internet home page is a step in the right direction, this approach places the burden of responsibility to detect unauthorized collections on the public. As we emphasized during last year's hearing, it is OIRA, not the public, that has the statutory responsibility to review and approve agencies' collections of information and identify all PRA violations.

Of the two types of PRA violations (collections without OMB authority and collections whose authority has expired), collections whose OMB authority has expired are the most numerous and the easiest to identify. However, OIRA's current procedures do not appear capable of detecting even these violations in a timely manner. For example, although OIRA has sent agencies a monthly list of information collections whose OMB approvals are about to expire, the agencies are not required to respond to

'As we noted last year, OMB has estimated the opportunity cost associated with filling out tax forms at $26.50 per hour. Although OMB noted that the hourly cost of a technical employee (including overhead and fringe benefits) may exceed $40 per hour, we used $26.50 as the applicable wage rate in our calculations.

Page 16

GAO/T-GGD-00-114