Cutting Federal Paperwork Burden

Summary#

H.R. 10535, the Paperwork Reduction Modernization Act of 2026, would amend section 3506 of title 44 of the United States Code. Its stated aim is to reduce the burden of federal information collections and require agencies to review them; that aim is not a guaranteed result. The bill was introduced in the House and referred to committee, so it is not law.

  • Federal agencies would have to evaluate ways to reduce the burden on people who provide information. The bill names using data already collected by the same or another agency, electronic collection methods, and statistical sampling.
  • An agency’s information collection would have to be the least burdensome necessary to obtain the information, supported by that evaluation.
  • The Director would have to require each agency to review its information collections within 18 months after enactment, and every three years after that.
  • Agencies would have to identify collections that are unnecessary, could be changed to reduce burden, or duplicate another agency’s collection. The bill does not require agencies to end or change a collection after identifying it.

What it means for you#

  • People and organizations providing information to federal agencies: Agencies would have to consider named alternatives and the least-burdensome-necessary standard. This could lead to less burdensome requests, but the bill does not guarantee that any particular form or request will change.
  • Federal agencies: They would have new evaluation and review duties. The bill does not set out how agencies must conduct reviews, publish results, or act on their findings.
  • General public: The bill does not directly change a benefit, tax, fee, or penalty.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s cost.

  • The bill does not provide a funding amount or cost estimate, or say how many staff or resources the reviews would require.
  • It does not create a fee, fine, or new benefit.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define “burden” or explain how agencies should decide what is “least burdensome necessary.”
  • It does not say what agencies must do after identifying a collection as unnecessary, reducible, or duplicative.
  • It does not specify review methods, public reporting, oversight, or consequences for failing to meet the new duties.
  • The supplied material does not include the current text of section 3506, so the existing review and approval process—and how these changes fit with its other duties—could not be verified.
  • The bill gives a deadline for the first review but no separate start date for its other requirements. Passage is uncertain.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to address information requests that are unnecessary, duplicative, or more burdensome than needed.
  • Requiring agencies to consider existing data, electronic collection, and sampling gives them specific alternatives to assess rather than relying only on the current collection method.
  • Regular reviews could help agencies identify requests that may no longer be needed or could be changed.

Case against#

  • The bill requires agencies to identify possible problems but does not require them to end or change the collections they flag.
  • The bill does not set out a common review method, reporting duty, or enforcement measure, so how consistently agencies carry out the reviews is unclear.
  • The new reviews and evaluations would require agency resources, but the bill provides no cost estimate or funding.