About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


24 Harv. J. on Legis. 1 (1987)
The Paperwork Reduction Act: Paperwork Reduction Meets Administrative Law

handle is hein.journals/hjl24 and id is 7 raw text is: ARTICLE THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: PAPERWORK REDUCTION MEETS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW WILLIAM F. FUNK* In the Papervork Reduction Act of 1980, Congress created administra- tive procedures aimed at decreasing federal papervork. Building upon earlier legislation, the Act centralized in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the review and clearance of all federal collections of in- formation from the general public. In addition, the Act contained a Public Protection provision intended to provide a means of private enforcement of the Act. In this Article, Professor Funk reviews the legislative history and im- plemnentation of the Paperwork Reduction Act and argues that in practice the Act has severe shortcomings. He contends that, despite its title, the Act in fact provides OMB with significant power over the substantive programs of other agencies. Professor Funk also argues that notwith- standing the intent of the drafters the Public Protection provision is vir- tually useless. Finally, Professor Funk calls for an end to specialized legislation aimed at government papenvork. Instead, he argues, paper- work requirements should be evaluated by the same cost-benefit analysis used in reviewing all other government regulations. Contents I. Background: The Federal Reports Act ................. 7 A. The Problem Perceived: The Legislative Histoty of the Federal Reports Act ........................... 7 B. Practice Under the Federal Reports Act ............ 10 C. Inadequacies and the Regulatoty Agencies .......... 13 D. Judicial Review and the Federal Reports Act ........ 16 I. The Paperwork Comnmnission ........................... 20 III. The Information Collection Budget .................... 22 * Professor of Law, Lewis and Clark Law School. B.A., Harvard University, 1967; J.D., Columbia University, 1973. This Article is based on a study prepared for the Administrative Conference of the United States. The author wishes to thank the nu- merous individuals who were interviewed in connection with that study, without whose memories and insight this Article could not have been written. In addition, the author wishes to thank Jeffrey Lubbers of the Administrative Conference for his support and suggestions as well as the number of people who provided valuable comments on an earlier draft of this Article submitted to the Rulemaking Committee of the Conference.