[House Report 106-11]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Rept. 106-11,
1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Part 1
=======================================================================
PAPERWORK ELIMINATION ACT OF 1999
_______
February 8, 1999.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Talent, from the Committee on Small Business, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 439]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Small Business, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 439) to amend chapter 35 of title 44, United States
Code, popularly known as the Paperwork Reduction Act, to
minimize the burden of Federal paperwork demands upon small
businesses, educational and nonprofit institutions, Federal
contractors, State and local governments, and other persons
through the sponsorship and use of alternative information
technologies, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
Purpose
The purpose of the ``Paperwork Elimination Act of 1999'' is
to minimize the burdens of Federal paperwork demands upon small
businesses, educational and nonprofit institutions, Federal
contractors, State and local governments, and other persons
through the use of alternative information technologies,
including the use of electronic submission, maintenance, or
disclosure of information as a substitute for paper, or to more
effectively enable Federal agencies to achieve the purposes
expressed in Chapter 35 of Title 44, United States Code,
otherwise known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act''.
Summary
In brief, the Paperwork Elimination Act of 1999 is intended
to accomplish the following:
First, it specifically requires the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to promote the acquisition and
use of electronic transmission of information as a substitute
for paper when small businesses and individuals are required to
comply with the information needs of the Federal government.
Second, the Paperwork Reduction Act requires the Director
of OMB to maintain a government-wide strategic plans for
information resources management. Section 3 of H.R. 439
requires the Director of OMB to include in this plan a
description of progress in providing for the acquisition and
use of alternative technologies that provide for electronic
submission, maintenance, or disclosure of information. This
report is also to include the extent to which the paperwork
burden on small businesses and individuals has been reduced as
a result of the use of electronic transmission of information.
Third, it clearly states what Federal agencies are required
to do. Section 4(a) requires each Federal agency to provide the
option of electronically transmitting information when
complying with their regulations and other information needs.
Section 4(b) requires each Federal agency to certify to the
Director of OMB that each collection of information it
undertakes has provided, when appropriate, the optional use of
electronic transmission of information as a way to reduce, to
the extent practicable, paperwork burdens, particularly
paperwork burdens on small entities. Section 4(c) requires each
Federal agency to certify to the Director of OMB that, to the
maximum extent practicable, it has used alternative information
technologies to reduce burden, improve data quality, agency
efficiency, and responsiveness to the public.
Fourth, it prohibits each Federal agency from collecting
information until it has first published a notice in the
Federal Register describing how respondents may, if they
choose, submit the required information electronically.
Finally, it requires the Director of OMB, when reporting to
Congress, to include a report on how paperwork burdens on small
businesses and other persons have been reduced by using
electronic submission, maintenance, or disclosure of
information as a substitute for paper. Furthermore, it requires
this report to describe any instances where the use of
electronic transmission of information has added to paperwork
burdens, and specific identifications of instances relating to
the Internal Revenue Service.
Need for Legislation
As part of continuing efforts to enable the Federal
government to take advantage of the Information Age, the
Committee recognized the need to encourage and monitor the
progress of Federal agencies in their efforts to utilize new
``information technology'' to reduce the public cost of meeting
the Federal government's information needs. Moreover, a
specific need exists to allow those small businesses,
taxpayers, and others with access to computers and modems to
use them when dealing with the Federal government.
Witnesses before the Small Business Committee have
estimated that the American public expends an amount of time
and effort equal to 510 billion dollars, or some 9 percent of
the Gross Domestic Product in 1992, in order to meet the
Federal government's information needs. Small businesses bear a
disproportionate share of that cost.
The Federal government is lagging behind the rest of the
nation in using new technology. Individuals can now send and
receive mail, accomplish their personal banking transactions,
and even read a newspaper from a personal computer or phone.
Individuals should be able to conduct much of their business
with the government electronically as well. Legislation is
needed to seize the opportunity which the Information Age and
new information technologies have presented to reduce the huge
cumulative burden of meeting the Federal government's
information demands.
Clearly, the need exists to promote and monitor efforts to
minimize the burdens of Federal paperwork demands upon small
businesses, educational and nonprofit institutions, Federal
contractors, state and local governments, and other persons
through the use of alternative information technologies,
including the use of electronic submission, maintenance, or
disclosure of information as a substitute for paper.
Congressional oversight activities will be enhanced by
requiring reporting on the progress of agencies and how
regulatory burdens have been reduced.
During the 104th Congress, the Government Programs
Subcommittee held hearings in which a number of witnesses
stressed the need for this legislation. Witnesses went into
great detail regarding the potential for significant cost
savings through the implementation of information management
systems which allow small businesses and the public to use
electronic technology.
These savings would be complemented by increased
productivity in the workplace due to the reduction in time
spent on paperwork submissions and updates. Mr. MarvinBeriss of
MB Associates, Inc., an expert in database information technology,
stated during a hearing in the 104th Congress that intelligent
electronic forms save time by automatically populating fields on the
same form that require the same information, such as name, social
security number, etc. Additionally, if such forms are used as part of a
Form Set comprised of multiple forms, the common information can be
automatically integrated onto all the forms in the set. This technology
has the potential to save significant time that would otherwise be
spent filling in forms, while concurrently insuring consistency and
efficiency.
Congress took an important first step towards using this
technology last year when it included in the Omnibus
Appropriations Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-277) legislation sponsored
by Senator Spencer Abraham which requires the development of
procedures for the use and acceptance of electronic signatures
by Executive agencies of the U.S. Government. This legislation
was of particular importance to the Committee on Small Business
because it included one provision that had been part of the
previous versions of the Paperwork Elimination Act that the
Committee considered in the 104th and 105th Congresses. This
particular provision gave the authority to the Director of OMB
to provide direction and oversee the acquisition and use of
alternative technologies that provide for the electronic
submission, maintenance, or disclosure of information as a
substitute for paper. The Paperwork Elimination Act of 1999
(H.R. 439) complements this legislation by clarifying the
authority and responsibilities of the Director of OMB, as well
as placing specific requirements on Federal agencies.
The Paperwork Elimination Act of 1999 amends chapter 35,
Title 44, United States Code, otherwise known as the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, by requiring all Federal agencies to
provide the option of electronic submission of information,
electronic compliance with regulations, and electronic
disclosure of information to all who must comply with Federal
information demands. Furthermore, Federal agencies would be
prohibited from collecting information until they have first
published a notice in the Federal Register detailing how the
information may be maintained, submitted, or disclosed
electronically. The Director of OMB would be required to
oversee the implementation of electronic submission,
compliance, and disclosure of information. The Director of OMB
would also be required to monitor and report on the progress of
Federal agencies in meeting these requirements, as well as how
regulatory burdens on small businesses have been reduced.
The Paperwork Elimination Act of 1999 amends and
complements the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which has
resulted in reduced regulatory burdens. The Paperwork
Elimination Act of 1999 strengthens the generic statute. It
clarifies provisions within the law requiring agencies to
consider and utilize information technology by specifying that
those small businesses and public persons with access to
computers and modems should have the option to use them when
dealing with the Federal government.
The Paperwork Elimination Act of 1999 emphasizes that
opportunities for the public to use electronic technologies for
data submission should be optional. The Act will in no way
hinder the ability of small businesses and individuals without
access to computers and modems to comply with Federal paperwork
requirements. The Act merely requires Federal agencies to
consider and provide the option to those who wish and are able
to use the technogy.
Committee Action
During the 104th Congress, H.R. 2715, the ``Paperwork
Elimination Act'', was introduced on December 5, 1995, by
Government Programs Subcommittee Chairman Peter G. Torkildsen,
for himself, Congresswomen Meyers and Smith, Congressmen
Talent, Manzullo, Zeliff, Ewing, Jones, LoBiondo, Bartlett,
Meehan, Chrysler, Metcalf, and Ramstad.
After introduction, the bill was referred to both the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the Committee
on Small Business. On March 27, 1996, Chairman Torkildesn held
a hearing on H.R. 2715 to consider all of the bill's
provisions.
Witnesses at the March 27, 1996, hearing included: The
Honorable Sally Katzen, Administrator, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget;
The Honorable Jere Glover, Chief Counsel, Office of Advocacy,
U.S. Small Business Administration; Ms. Monika Harrison,
Associate Administrator, Office of Business Initiatives, U.S.
Small Business Administration; Mr. Pedro Alfonso, President,
Dynamic Concepts, Inc., testifying on behalf of National Small
Business United; Mr. Marvin Beriss, President, MB Associates,
Inc.; and Melvin Gerald, M.D., testifying on behalf of the
American Academy of Family Physicians.
At the hearing, OIRA Administrator Katzen testified, ``As
we read this bill, it makes it very clear Congress' expectation
that agencies are to do everything they can to provide
opportunities for, and indeed promote the use of, electronic
maintenance, submission, or disclosure of information.''
She further stated that, `` * * * in signing the 1995
Paperwork Reduction Act, President Clinton specificaly
recognized the concerns now recognized in H.R. 2715; ` * * *
from this point forward, I want all of our agencies to provide
for the electronic submission of every new government form or
to demonstrate to OMB why it cannot be done that way. The old
way will still be available, but I think once people see how
fast and efficient electronic filing can be, we'll see less
paperwork and more of these.' ''
Administrator Katzen proceeded to testify about the
regulations issued by OMB on August 29, 1995, implementing the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. As part of those regulations,
OMB explicitly included provisions directed at this
Congressional and Presidential interest in having agencies
expand the opportunities for the public to submit information
electronically. Ms. Katzen suggested an amendment to Section
5(a) of the bill which was later adopted by the Committee and
added to the bill.
Another witness, Chief Counsel for Advocacy Jere Glover,
testified ``it is clear that the innovations can lead to
significant cost savings by eliminating paper copies and the
need for expensive file storage. To the extent that the current
legislative proposal, H.R. 2715, clarifies Congressional intent
behind the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, by requiring
agencies to permit the `optional' electronic filing of reports,
the Office of Advocacy believes it can benefit small business--
at least those with electronic capability.''
Small business witnesses testified favorably on the cost
and time savings that would result from the implementation of
this legislation.
A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) reported that ``H.R. 2715 would not significantly
increase costs to the Federal government.'' CBO went on to say
that the technology already existed to allow Federal agencies
to comply with the Act and that the administrative cost of
directing and overseeing the initiative would not be
significant. Also as confirmed by CBO, the bill contained no
mandates, as defined in Public Law 104-4.
After taking into consideration the testimony of the
witnesses at the March 27, 1996 hearing and the comments from
CBO on H.R. 2715, the Committee on Small Business held a mark-
up of H.R. 2715 on March 29, 1996. By voice vote, with a
requisite quorum of the Committee members present, the full
Committee voted to report H.R. 2715, as amended, favorably to
the full House.
After reviewing the legislation and a detailed legislative
history created by the Small Business Committee, including the
CBO findings, Chairman Clinger, on behalf of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, waived that Committee's
jurisdiction over this legislation.
On April 24, 1996, H.R. 2715, as reported, was considered
on the House floor under an open rule. The legislation passed
the House by a vote of 418 to 0. The legislation was
subsequently discharged from the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs and sent to the desk for action.
Unfortunately, the Senate ran out of time at the end of the
session before it could act on this measure.
During the 105th Congress, H.R. 852, the Paperwork
Elimination Act of 1997, was introduced on February 26, 1997 by
Committee on Small Business Chairman James M. Talent. After
introduction, the bill was referred to both the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight and the Committee on Small
Business.
A preliminary estimate from the CBO stated that H.R. 852
would not significantly increase costs to the Federal
government. The CBO also stated that the technology to allow
Federal agencies to comply with the Act already existed and
that the administrative costs would not be significant. The CBO
also confirmed that H.R. 852 contained no mandates, as defined
in Public Law 104-4.
In light of the fact that H.R. 852 was virtually identical
to H.R. 2715, and after taking into account the extensive
legislative history of H.R. 2715 developed in the 104th
Congress, the Chairman of the Committee on Small Business, in
consultation with the Committee's Ranking Minority Member,
decided to move forward with the Committee's consideration of
H.R. 852 without any further hearings.
On March 6, 1997, the Committee on Small Business held a
mark-up of H.R. 852. By voice vote, with a requisite quorum of
the Committee members present, the full Committee voted to
report H.R. 852 favorably to the full House.
After reviewing the legislation and the accompanying CBO
findings with the Chairman of the National Economic Growth,
Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee,
Chairman Dan Burton, on behalf of the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight, waived that Committee's jurisdiction over
the legislation. He stated, however, that the waiver of
jurisdiction with respect to H.R. 852 would not limit the
jurisdiction of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee
on any future consideration of Federal paperwork reduction
legislation.
On March 13, 1997, H.R. 852, as reported, was considered on
the House floor under an open rule. The legislation passed the
House by a vote of 395-0. The legislation was subsequently
referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Unfortunately, the Senate failed to act on the measure, other
than what was included in the Omnibus Appropriations Act,
before the end of the session.
H.R. 439, the Paperwork Elimination Act of 1999, was
introduced on February 2, 1999 by the Chairman of the Committee
on Small Business, James M. Talent, for himself and
Representatives Velazqueze, Kelly, Pascrell, Sweeney, and
Schakowsky. After introduction, the bill was referred to both
the Committee on Government Reform and the Committee on Small
Business.
In light of the fact that H.R. 439 is virtually identical
to both H.R. 2715 and H.R. 852, and after taking into account
the extensive legislative history of these bills in previous
Congresses, the Chairman of the Committee on Small Business, in
consultation with the Committee's Ranking Minority Member,
decided to move forward with the Committee's consideration of
H.R. 439 without any further hearings.
On February 3, 1999, the Committee on Small Business held a
mark-up of H.R. 439. During debate of the legislation, Mr.
Davis inquired whether the bill provided financial assistance
to help small business owners who do not currently have the
equipment or technical expertise needed to submit information
electronically. While the legislation does not authorize any
financial assistance, Chairman Talent indicated that the
Committee would explore ways in which Federal agencies may be
able to provide this support. Mr. Bartlett recommended that
Federal agencies, to the extent that they are able to, should
provide technical assistance to those small business owners who
are in need ofit. At the conclusion of debate, with a requisite
quorum of the Committee members present, the full Committee voted by
voice vote to report H.R. 439 favorably to the full House.
After reviewing the legislation and the accompanying CBO
findings with Rep. David McIntosh, Chairman of the National
Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs
Subcommittee, Chairman Dan Burton, on behalf of the Committee
on Government Reform, waived that Committee's jurisdiction of
H.R. 439. That waiver, however, would not limit the
jurisdiction of the Government Reform Committee on any future
consideration of Federal paperwork reduction legislation.
Section-by-Section Analysis
section 1. short title
This legislation is entitled the ``Paperwork Elimination
Act of 1999''.
section 2. promotion of use of electronic information technology
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
is required to promote the acquisition and use of electronic
submission, maintenance, or disclosure of information as a
substitute for paper as an option for entities complying with
the regulatory information needs of Federal agencies. This
provision is added to sec. 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. 35) which outlines the Director's obligations to
advance the use of information technology.
section 3. assignment of tasks and deadlines
Sec. 3505(a)(3) of the Paperwork Reduction Act requires the
Director of OMB, in consultation with the General Services
Administration (GSA), National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA), and Office of Personnel Management (OPM), to develop
and maintain a government-wide strategic plan for information
resources management. This provision amends sec. 3505(a)(3) by
inserting the requirement to include in this plan a progress
report on the extent to which the paperwork burden on small
businesses and individuals has been relieved as a result of the
use of electronic submission, maintenance, or disclosure of
information as a substitute for paper.
section 4. federal agency responsibilities
Subsection (a)
This provision amends sec. 3506(c)(1)(B) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act to require each Federal agency, when it is
appropriate, to provide respondents with the option of
submitting, maintaining, or disclosing information
electronically when complying with Federal regulations.
Subsection (b)
This provision amends sec. 3506(c)(3)(C) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act to require each Federal agency to certify to the
Director of OMB each collection of information that it
undertakes has reduced to the extent practicable the burden of
paperwork on small businesses and individuals by allowing for
the optional submission, maintenance, or disclosure of
information electronically.
Subsection (c)
This provision amends sec. 3506(c)(3)(J) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act to require each Federal Agency to certify to the
Director of OMB that, to the extent practicable, it used
alternative information technologies to reduce burden, improve
data quality, and make agencies more efficient and responsive
to the public.
section 5. public information collection activities; submission to
director; approval and delegation
This provision amends sec. 3507(a)(1)(D)(ii) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act to prohibit Federal agencies from
collecting information until they have first published a notice
in the Federal Register describing how the information may, if
appropriate, be electronically submitted, maintained, or
disclosed by a respondent.
section 6. responsiveness to congress
This provision amends sec. 3514(a)(2) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act to require the Director of OMB, when responding
to Congress annually or at other times, to report on how the
collection of information by electronic means has affected
regulatory burdens on small businesses and other persons. This
report must specifically include any instance in which the
electronic maintenance, submission, or disclosure of
information has added to the regulatory burden on small
business. It should also specifically identify instances
referring to the information required from small businesses by
the Internal Revenue Service.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, February 4, 1999.
Hon. James M. Talent,
Chairman, Committee on Small Business,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 439, the Paperwork
Elimination Act of 1999.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is John R.
Righter.
Sincerely,
------ ------
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 439--Paperwork Elimination Act of 1999
CBO estimates that enacting this bill would not
significantly increase costs to the federal government. Because
the bill would not affect direct spending or receipts, pay-as-
you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 439 contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on
state, local, or tribal governments.
H.R. 439 would build on the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. Specifically, the bill would encourage federal agencies
to use electronic information technologies to reduce the burden
on individuals and businesses that disclose information to or
contract with the federal government. In addition, the bill
would designate the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as
the agency responsible for promoting and monitoring the use of
these technologies.
The bill, however, would not require agencies to acquire
and implement new information technologies, and the authority
to use these technologies already exists. OMB would incur
administrative costs to direct and oversee government-wide
activities involving the use of alternative information
technologies; we estimate that such additional costs would not
be significant. Consequently, we estimate that H.R. 439 would
not significantly increase costs to the federal government.
The CBO staff contact is John R. Righter. This estimate was
approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for
Budget Analysis.
Committee Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(2)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that
implementation of H.R. 439 will not significantly increase
administrative costs. The Committee feels that implementation
of H.R. 439 may actually decrease administrative costs. This
concurs with the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office.
Waiver of Jurisdiction by Government Reform Committee
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Washington, DC, February 4, 1999.
Hon. James Talent,
Chairman, Committee on Small Business,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Talent: This letter responds to your request
that the Committee on Government Reform waive its primary
jurisdiction over H.R. 439, as introduced on February 2, 1999.
After reviewing this legislation, I have agreed to waive the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform.
H.R. 439 would build on the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, which was signed into law on May 22, 1995 (Public Law
104-13). Specifically, the bill would encourage the use of
electronic information technology by federal agencies as a way
of reducing the burden on individuals and businesses that
disclose information to or contract with the federal
government. In addition, the bill would designate the Office of
Management and Budget as the agency responsible for promoting
and monitoring the use of these technologies.
As you know, House Rule X, Organization of Committees,
grants the Government Reform and Oversight Committee with
jurisdiction over ``Federal paperwork reduction.'' The waiver
of H.R. 439 is not designed to limit our jurisdiction over any
future consideration of Federal paperwork reduction
legislation.
Thank you for your dedication and hard work on this issue.
I look forward to working with you on this and other issues
throughout the 106th Congress.
Sincerely,
Dan Burton, Chairman.
Oversight Findings
In accordance with clause 4(c)(2) of rule X of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee states that no
oversight findings or recommendations have been made by the
Committee on Government Reform with respect to the subject
matter contained in H.R. 439.
In accordance with clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the oversight findings and
recommendations of the Committee on Small Business with respect
to the subject matter contained in H.R. 439 are incorporated
into the descriptive portions of this report.
Statement of Constitutional Authority
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in Article I, section 8, clause 18, of the
Constitution of the United States.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(g) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
CHAPTER 35 OF TITLE 44, UNITED STATES CODE
CHAPTER 35--COORDINATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3504. Authority and functions of Director
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) With respect to Federal information technology, the
Director shall--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) ensure, through the review of agency budget
proposals, information resources management plans and
other means--
(A) agency integration of information
resources management plans, program plans and
budgets for acquisition and use of information
technology; and
(B) the efficiency and effectiveness of
inter-agency information technology initiatives
to improve agency performance and the
accomplishment of agency missions; [and]
(5) promote the use of information technology by the
Federal Government to improve the productivity,
efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal programs,
including through dissemination of public information
and the reduction of information collection burdens on
the public[.]; and
(6) specifically promote the acquisition and use of
alternative information technologies that provide for
electronic submission, maintenance, or disclosure of
information as a substitute for paper and for the use
and acceptance of electronic signatures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3505. Assignment of tasks and deadlines
(a) In carrying out the functions under this chapter, the
Director shall--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) in consultation with the Administrator of General
Services, the Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, the Archivist of the United
States, and the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management, develop and maintain a Governmentwide
strategic plan for information resources management,
that shall include--
(A) a description of the objectives and the
means by which the Federal Government shall
apply information resources to improve agency
and program performance;
(B) plans for--
(i) reducing information burdens on
the public, including reducing such
burdens through the elimination of
duplication and meeting shared data
needs with shared resources;
(ii) enhancing public access to and
dissemination of, information, using
electronic and other formats; and
(iii) meeting the information
technology needs of the Federal
Government in accordance with the
purposes of this chapter; [and]
(C) a description of progress in applying
information resources management to improve
agency performance and the accomplishment of
missions[.]; and
(D) a description of progress in providing
for the acquisition and use of alternative
information technologies that provide for
electronic submission, maintenance, or
disclosure of information as a substitute for
paper and for the use and acceptance of
electronic signatures, including the extent to
which such progress accomplishes reduction of
burden on small businesses or other persons.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3506. Federal agency responsibilities
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) With respect to the collection of information and the
control of paperwork, each agency shall--
(1) establish a process within the office headed by
the Chief Information Officer designated under
subsection (a), that is sufficiently independent of
program responsibility to evaluate fairly whether
proposed collections of information should be approved
under this chapter, to--
(A) * * *
(B) ensure that each information collection--
(i) is inventoried, displays a
control number and, if appropriate, an
expiration date;
(ii) indicates the collection is in
accordance with the clearance
requirements of section 3507; [and]
* * * * * * *
(iv) provides to persons required to
submit information the option to use,
where appropriate, electronic
submission, maintenance, or disclosure
of information; and
* * * * * * *
(3) certify (and provide a record supporting such
certification, including public comments received by
the agency) that each collection of information
submitted to the Director for review under section
3507--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) reduces to the extent practicable and
appropriate the burden on persons who shall
provide information to or for the agency,
including with respect to small entities, as
defined under section 601(6) of title 5, the
use of such techniques as--
(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 thereof; or
(iv) the promotion and optional use,
where appropriate, of electronic
submission, maintenance, or disclosure
of information.
* * * * * * *
[(J) to the maximum extent practicable, uses
information technology to reduce burden and
improve data quality, agency efficiency and
responsiveness to the public.]
(J) to the maximum extent practicable, uses
information technology, including alternative
information technologies, that provide for
electronic submission, maintenance, or
disclosure of information, to reduce burden and
improve data quality, agency efficiency, and
responsiveness to the public.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3507. Public information collection activities; submission to
Director; approval and delegation
(a) An agency shall not conduct or sponsor the collection of
information unless in advance of the adoption or revision of
the collection of information--
(1) the agency has--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) published a notice in the Federal
Register--
(i) stating that the agency has made
such submission; and
(ii) setting forth--
(I) a title for the
collection of information;
(II) a summary of the
collection of information;
(III) a brief description of
the need for the information
and the proposed use of the
information;
(IV) a description of the
likely respondents and proposed
frequency of response to the
collection of information;
(V) an estimate of the burden
that shall result from the
collection of information;
[and]
(VI) notice that comments may
be submitted to the agency and
Director; and
(VII) a description of how
respondents may, if
appropriate, electronically
submit, maintain, or disclose
information under the
collection of information.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3514. Responsiveness to Congress
(a)(1) * * *
(2) The Director shall include in any such report a
description of the extent to which agencies have--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) improved public access to Government information;
[and]
(D) improved program performance and the
accomplishment of agency missions through information
resources management[.]; and
(E) reduced the collection of information burden on
small businesses and other persons through the use of
electronic submission, maintenance, or disclosure of
information as a substitute for the use of paper,
including--
(i) a description of instances where such
substitution has added to burden; and
(ii) specific identification of such
instances relating to the Internal Revenue
Service.
* * * * * * *