That in itself is a complex proposition because the 173 rulemaking entities in the federal government use a wide variety of systems. Some are still paper-only. A few are electronic and rich with features, such as automatic reminders on topics of interest and access to old rulings.
The Office of Management and Budget and the Environmental Protection Agency, the lead agency on a project called eRulemaking, envision the consolidation of redundant systems and, with it, significant savings, according to the business plan the EPA drew up in September.
That means the handful of agencies that already have electronic systems would shut all or part of them off and "migrate" to the new Web-based central docket. Those agencies without electronic capability would simply hook up to the new system. According to the OMB, a centralized docket would save $70 million over five years. The new system would cost about $20 million to build, plus $6 million a year to operate and maintain. Individual agencies would be assessed annual fees to participate, with the cost depending on how much they used it.
Though there have been some doubters, the project leaders put the idea of a centralized docket to a vote on Feb. 26, and won the support of 15 of 17 top agency policy and technology officials. Kim Nelson, the EPA's chief information officer, said the vote reflected "a high-level conceptual agreement of the vision."
The no votes came from the Federal Communications Commission and the Interior Department, which have built their own electronic dockets.
The FCC has run its own system since 1998. William Cline, director of the agency's reference information center, said a central docket would cost the agency more than it currently pays to maintain its own system. Another disadvantage, he said, is that the agency would have to continue to maintain a separate electronic system for access to older proceedings.
Lynn Scarlett, assistant secretary for policy, management and budget at the Interior Department, said she has questions about cost and the timeline for agencies to join the new system, though she supports the idea of a government-wide system. One of Interior's agencies, the Bureau of Land Management, has started an electronic docket.
Some agencies, primarily those without electronic capability, don't have those kinds of questions. They are already sold. "We are going there happily," said Chris Niedermayer, associate chief information officer for electronic government at the Department of Agriculture. "We were a supporter because a shared cost is better than doing it ourselves." She said it would cost Agriculture $885,000 in fiscal year 2005 to support all the agencies in the USDA -- an investment that she said "looks like a bargain to me. We couldn't build it and run it for that."
Karen Evans, OMB administrator for E-Government and Information Technology, said agencies with investments in existing systems have legitimate concerns. "We are working with the agencies and looking at this holistically," Evans said. "What we really have to do is demonstrate the value to them and to citizens."
Those who are skeptical of the project's progress focus on a point of contention: How will the central system "architecture" be built?
"Is it to take the best of the systems available across the government, which could produce a superb system, or take one particular agency system and impose it on other agencies?" asked Robert Carlitz, executive director of Information Renaissance, a nonprofit group that promotes public involvement in government via the Internet. Another idea is to build a system for agencies that don't have one and connect existing systems to it.
Project officials said no decisions have been made on the final form the system will take. The goal is to preserve the functions of existing dockets while requiring a user to visit only one Web site.
Proponents of the centralized system say its big advantage is government-wide search capability. For example, if the word "wetlands" was put into the system, all the deliberations across the government concerning wetlands would pop up. There would be no need for a docket number or identifying information that paper or electronic systems often require.
"One of the reasons for a centralized regulatory docket is that it will have the search capability that permits a citizen to participate in the rulemaking process without having to know the complex structure of the federal government," said Donald Arbuckle, deputy administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Not everyone agrees with that goal. Some current users of various federal dockets and some agency system managers say not enough work has been done to find out if that is what the public needs -- and will use -- even though there has been discussion about public participation at electronic rulemaking meetings and conferences.
"We have been disappointed that, although a major objective of the e-rulemaking effort is to enhance public involvement in the rulemaking process, EPA and OMB staff have not been willing to have any significant public input to their own development process in its early stages," Carlitz said.
The OMB's Evans said the EPA has been talking to users and has done "due diligence."
Sean Moulton, senior policy analyst for OMB Watch, a nonprofit group that promotes citizen participation in public policy, likes the idea of a centralized docket but wants hyperlinks to background information and the ability to "drill down" on an issue. "I really worry that we will get something simple or something that doesn't work," he said.
The General Accounting Office is examining the idea of a centralized docket at the request of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.). The goal of that investigation, said one person familiar with it, is: "Will it achieve the benefits they are claiming and save as much?"
Quelle: BizReport, 30.03.2004
