Difference between revisions of "E-Government Act of 2002"

From acus wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "'''Citations:''' Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, (Dec. 17, 2002), codified inter alia at 44 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3606, 40 U.S.C. § 305, and 44 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3606, 40...")
 
 
(61 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
'''Citations:'''
+
[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ347/pdf/PLAW-107publ347.pdf Pub. L. No. 107-347], 116 Stat. 2899, Dec. 17, 2002, codified ''inter alia'' at 44 U.S.C. §§ [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title44/chapter36&edition=prelim 3601–3606] (2012), 44 U.S.C. §§ [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title44/chapter35/subchapter2&edition=prelim 3551-3558] (2012), 40 U.S.C. § [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title40-section305&num=0&edition=prelim 305] (2012), and 44 U.S.C. § [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title44-section3501&num=0&edition=prelim 3501] note (2012).
  
−
Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, (Dec. 17, 2002), codified inter alia at 44 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3606, 40 U.S.C. § 305, and 44 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3606, 40 U.S.C. § 305, and 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2004).”   Should be modified to say 44 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3606 (2012), 40 U.S.C. § 305 (2012), and 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012).
+
'''Lead Agency:'''
  
−
'''Lead Agency:'''
+
Office of Management and Budget, [https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/egov/ Office of E-Government and Information Technology]
  
−
The Office of E-Government and Information Technology, The Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-3018.
+
==Overview:==
  
−
'''Overview:'''
+
The E-Government Act of 2002 ([https://www.congress.gov/107/bills/hr2458/BILLS-107hr2458enr.pdf H.R. 2458]/[https://www.congress.gov/107/bills/s803/BILLS-107s803rfh.pdf S. 803]) was signed by President Bush on December 17, 2002, with an effective date for most provisions of April 17, 2003. It was intended to further the federal government’s approach to information dissemination in the Internet Age. It contains many requirements for the government, but the main provisions of interest to administrative lawyers relate to:
  
−
The E-Government Act of 2002 (H.R. 2458/S. 803) was signed by President George W. Bush on December 17, 2002, with an effective date for most provisions of April 17, 2003. It was intended to further the federal government’s approach to information dissemination in the Internet Age. It contains many requirements for the government, but the main provisions of interest to administrative lawyers are those that require:
+
*'''Public Information.''' To the extent practicable, agencies must provide a website that includes all “information about that agency” required to be published in the ''Federal Register'' under 5 U.S.C. [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section552&num=0&edition=prelim § 552(a)(1)-(2)].
  
−
• ''Public Information.'' To the extent practicable, agencies must provide a website that includes all “information about that agency” required
+
*'''Electronic Submission.''' To the extent practicable, agencies must accept electronically those submissions made in rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. § [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section553&num=0&edition=prelim § 553(c)].
  
−
<sup>1</sup> Pub. L. No 107-347 § 206(b). But note that subsection 552(a)(2) of Title 5 does not, by its terms, require publication of any documents; it merely makes specified documents available for public inspection and copying. Of course, many agencies now publish these materials on their websites. ''See also'' Exec. Order 13,563, § 2, 76 Fed. Reg. 3821, 3822 (Jan. 18, 2011) (“To the extent feasible and permitted
+
*'''Electronic Dockets.''' To the extent practicable, agencies must have an Internet-accessible rulemaking docket that includes all public comments and other materials that by agency rule or practice are included in the agency docket, whether submitted electronically.
  
−
471
+
*'''Privacy Impact Assessments.''' OMB is required to develop guidelines for privacy notices on agency websites, and agencies must conduct “privacy impact assessments” before collecting information that will be gathered, maintained, or disseminated using information technology, including “any information in an identifiable form permitting the physical or online contacting of a specific individual, if identical questions have been posed to, or identical reporting requirements imposed on, 10 or more persons, other than” federal agencies or employees. A number of agencies are also required to perform a special privacy assessment for proposed rules “on the privacy of information in an identifiable form, including the type of personally identifiable information collected and the number of people affected.”
  
−
to be published in the ''Federal Register'' under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1) and (2).<sup>1</sup>
+
The E-Government Act also served to codify many of the White House’s E-Government initiatives. It codifies OMB’s role by creating an E-Administrator and Office of E-Government in OMB. It endorses and requires agencies to support crossagency initiatives such as E-Rulemaking, Geospatial One-Stop, E-Records Management, E-Authentication (especially E-Signatures) and Disaster Management; FirstGov (now USA.gov); and enterprise architecture. It authorizes funds for these activities.
  
−
•       ''Electronic Submission.'' To the extent practicable, agencies must accept electronically those submissions made in rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. § 553(c).<sup>2</sup>
+
The E-Government Act also created new responsibilities for OMB to:
  
−
•       ''Electronic Dockets.'' To the extent practicable, agencies must have an Internet-accessible rulemaking docket that includes all public comments and other materials that by agency rule or practice are included in the agency docket, whether or not electronically submitted.<sup>3</sup>
+
*file an annual report to Congress;
  
−
•       ''Privacy Impact Assessments.'' OMB is required to develop guidelines for privacy notices on agency websites, and agencies must conduct “privacy impact assessments” before collecting information that will be gathered, maintained, or disseminated using information technology, and that “includes any information in an identifiable form permitting the physical or online contacting of a specific individual, if identical questions have been posed to, or identical reporting requirements imposed on, 10 or more persons, other than” federal agencies or employees.<sup>4</sup> It should be noted here that a number of agencies are also required by a recent appropriations act to do a special privacy assessment for proposed rules “on the privacy of information in an identifiable form, including the type of personally identifiable information collected and the number of people affected.”<sup>5</sup>
+
*sponsor ongoing dialogue with state, local, and tribal governments as well as the general public, the private, and the nonprofit sectors to find innovative ways to improve the performance of governments in collaborating on the use of information technology to improve the delivery of government information and services;
  
−
The Act also served to codify many of the White House’s E-Government initiatives. It codifies OMB’s role by creating an E-Administrator and Office of E-Government in OMB. It endorses and requires agencies to support crossagency initiatives such as E-Rulemaking, Geospatial One-Stop, E-Records Management, E-Authentication (especially E-Signatures) and Disaster Man-
+
*set standards for categorizing and indexing government information;
  
−
by law, each agency shall also provide, for both proposed and final rules, timely online access to the rulemaking docket on regulations.gov, including relevant scientific and technical findings, in an open format that can be easily searched and downloaded.”).
+
*set standards for agency websites;
  
−
<sup>2      </sup> Pub. L. No 107-347 § 206(c).
+
*create a public directory for agency websites;
  
−
<sup>3      </sup> ''Id.'' at § 206(d). This has now been realized through www.regualtions.gov. <sup>4</sup> ''Id.'' at § 208.
+
*select agencies to engage in pilot projects on data integration; and
  
−
<sup>5</sup> Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 Pub. L. No. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268 division H, § 522(a)(5). (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 552a note) (2004) (covering agencies within the Transportation, Treasury, Independent Agencies, and General Government Appropriations Act).
+
*improve access for people with and without computers.
  
−
agement; FirstGov (now USA.gov); and enterprise architecture). And it authorizes funds for these activities.
+
Other provisions in Title II authorize agencies to award “share-in-savings” contracts under which contractors share in the savings achieved by agencies through the provision of technologies that improve or accelerate their work. Under these provisions, the executive branch is supposed to ensure, consistent with applicable law, that these contracts are operated according to sound fiscal policy and limit authorized waivers for funding of potential termination costs to appropriate circumstances so as to minimize the financial risk to the government.
  
−
The Act also created new responsibilities for OMB to:
+
Title III is the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. It is very similar to Title X of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, also known as the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (amended by [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-113publ283/pdf/PLAW-113publ283.pdf Pub. L. No. 113-283] and codified at 44 U.S.C. §§ [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title44/chapter35/subchapter2&edition=prelim 3551–58]). Title IV contains an authorization of appropriations and effective dates. Title V contains a series of sections devoted to Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency.
  
−
•       File an annual report to Congress
+
==Legislative History==
  
−
•       Sponsor ongoing dialogue with state, local, and tribal governments as well as the general public, the private, and the nonprofit sectors to find innovative ways to improve the performance of governments in collaborating on the use of information technology to improve the delivery of government information and services
+
Representative Jim Turner introduced [https://www.congress.gov/107/bills/hr2458/BILLS-107hr2458enr.pdf H.R. 2458] with 40 co-sponsors on July 11, 2001. It was referred to the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy on September 18, 2002. The Subcommittee held hearings on October 1, 2002. The bill was forwarded by the Subcommittee to the full Committee by voice vote on October 8, 2002. It was reported to the House Floor Committee on Government Reform on November 14, 2002 (with substitute language). [https://www.congress.gov/107/crpt/hrpt787/CRPT-107hrpt787-pt1.pdf H. Rep. No. 107-787], pt. 1 (2002). After being referred sequentially to the House Judiciary Committee, it was discharged by that Committee on November 14, 2002. It passed the House (Committee of the Whole) by unanimous consent on November 15, 2002.
  
−
•       Set standards for categorizing and indexing government information
+
On the Senate side, a companion bill, [https://www.congress.gov/107/bills/s803/BILLS-107s803rfh.pdf S. 803], had been introduced on May 1, 2001, by Senator Joe Lieberman. After a hearing on July 11, 2001, before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, the Committee reported the bill to the Senate floor on June 24, 2002, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. [https://www.congress.gov/107/crpt/srpt174/CRPT-107srpt174.pdf S. Rep. No 107-174] (2002). On June 27, 2002, S. 803 passed the Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the title by unanimous consent. On November 15, 2002, the Senate received and agreed to H.R. 2458 as passed by the House, sending it to the President. President Bush signed it on December 17, 2002, as [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ347/pdf/PLAW-107publ347.pdf Pub. L. No. 107-347].
  
−
•       Set standards for agency websites
+
==Bibliography==
  
−
•       Create a public directory for agency websites
+
===Legislative History and Congressional Documents===
  
−
•       Select agencies to engage in pilot projects on data integration
+
*[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg86062/pdf/CHRG-107hhrg86062.pdf H.R. 2458 and S. 803, the E-Government Act of 2002], Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Tech. and Procurement Policy of the H. Comm. on Gov’t Reform, 107th Cong. (2002).
  
−
•       Improve access for people with and without computers
+
*[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg86064/pdf/CHRG-107hhrg86064.pdf Ensuring Coordination, Reducing Redundancy: A Review of OMB’s Freeze on IT Spending at Homeland Security Agencies], Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Tech. and Procurement Policy of the H. Comm. on Gov’t Reform, 107th Cong. (2002).
 +
*E-Government Act of 2002, [https://www.congress.gov/107/crpt/hrpt787/CRPT-107hrpt787-pt1.pdf H.R. Rep. No. 107-787] pt. 1 (2002).
 +
*E-Government Act of 2001, [https://www.congress.gov/107/crpt/srpt174/CRPT-107srpt174.pdf S. Rep. No. 107-174] (2002).
  
−
Title I and much of Title II of this lengthy Act, covering the above egovernment provisions, are reproduced in this Sourcebook. Other provisions in Title II authorize agencies to award “share-in-savings” contracts under which contractors share in the savings achieved by agencies through the provision of technologies that improve or accelerate their work. Under these provisions, the executive branch is supposed to ensure, consistent with applicable law, that these contracts are operated according to sound fiscal policy and limit authorized waivers for funding of potential termination costs to appropriate circumstances so as to minimize the financial risk to the government.
+
===Executive Orders and OMB/OIRA Documents===
 +
<div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">
 +
*[https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/management/egov/#R Archived Reports]
 +
*[https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FY-2020-FISMA-Report-to-Congress.pdf Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 Annual Report to Congress Fiscal Year 2020] (2021)
 +
*[https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Cybersecurity-Risk-Determination-Report-FINAL_May-2018-Release.pdf Federal Cybersecurity Risk Determination Report and Action Plan] (2018)
 +
*OMB Circular A-130, [https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/OMB/circulars/a130/a130revised.pdf Managing Information as a Strategic Resource] (July 27, 2016)
 +
*OMB Memorandum M-19-21, [https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/M-19-21.pdf Transition to Electronic Records] (June 28, 2019)
 +
*Executive Order 13892, [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-10-15/pdf/2019-22624.pdf Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication] (Oct. 9, 2019)
 +
</div>
  
−
Title III of this Act is the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. It is very similar to Title X of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, also known as the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (codified principally at 44 U.S.C. §§ 3541–49). Title IV contains an authorization of appropriations and effective dates. Title V contains a series of sections devoted to Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency. '''Legislative History:'''
+
===ACUS Recommendations===
  
−
Rep. Jim Turner, (D-TX) introduced H.R. 2458 with 40 co-sponsors on July 11, 2001. It was referred to the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy on September 18, 2002. The Subcommittee held hearings on October 1, 2002. The bill was forwarded by the Subcommittee to the full Committee by voice vote on October 8, 2002. It was reported to the House Floor Committee on Government Reform on November 14, 2002 (with substitute language), H. Rep. No. 107-787 (Part I), 107th Cong. 2d Sess. After being referred sequentially to the House Judiciary Committee, it was discharged by that Committee on November 14, 2002. It passed the House (Committee of the Whole) by unanimous consent on November 15, 2002.
+
*2011-1, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation-2011-1-Legal-Considerations-in-e-Rulemaking.pdf Legal Considerations in e-Rulemaking]
 +
*2011-8, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/Recommendation-2011-8-E-Rulemaking-Innovations.pdf Agency Innovations in E-Rulemaking]
 +
*2013-5, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Social%20Media%20Rec_Final_12_9_13.pdf Social Media in Rulemaking]
 +
*2017-4, [https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/marketable-permits Marketable Permits]
 +
*2018-3, [https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/electronic-case-management-federal-administrative-adjudication Electronic Case Management Systems in Federal Administrative Adjudications]
 +
*2018-5, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation-2018-5%20%28Public%20Availability%20of%20Adjudication%20Rules%29.pdf Public Availability of Adjudication Rules]
 +
*2018-6, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202018-6%2C%20Improving%20Access%20to%20Regulations.gov%27s%20Rulemaking%20Dockets%20FINAL.pdf Improving Access to Regulations.gov’s Rulemaking Dockets]
 +
*2019-3, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-3%2C%20Public%20Availability%20of%20Agency%20Guidance%20Documents.pdf Public Availability of Agency Guidance Documents.pdf Public Availability of Agency Guidance Documents]
 +
*2020-6, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Recommendation%202020-6%2C%20Agency%20Litigation%20Webpages.pdf Agency Litigation Webpages.pdf Agency Litigation Websites]
 +
*Statement #20, [https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/agency-use-artificial-intelligence Agency Use of Artificial Intelligence]
 +
*2021-1, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Final%20-%20Managing%20Mass%20Computer-Generated%20and%20Falsely%20Attributed%20Comments.pdf Managing Mass, Computer Generated, and Falsely Attributed Comments]
  
−
On the Senate side, a companion bill, S. 803, had been introduced on May 1, 2001, by Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT). After a hearing on July 11, 2001, before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, the Committee reported the bill to the Senate floor on June 24, 2002, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. S. Rep. No 107-172. On June 27, 2002, S. 803 passed the Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the title by unanimous consent. On November 15, 2002, the Senate received and agreed to H.R. 2458 as passed by the House, sending it to the President. President Bush signed it on December 17, 2002, as Public Law 107-347.
+
===GAO Documents===
 +
<div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">
 +
*GAO-03-901, [https://www.gao.gov/assets/240/239747.pdf Electronic Rulemaking: Efforts to Facilitate Public Participation Can Be Improved] (2003).
 +
*GAO-03-1169T, [https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-03-1169t.pdf Electronic Government: Progress and Challenges in Implementing the Office of Personal Management's Initiatives] (2003).
 +
*GAO-04-561T, [https://www.gao.gov/assets/120/110754.pdf Electronic Government: Initiatives Sponsored by the Office of Management and Budget Have Made Mixed Progress] (2004).
 +
*GAO-05-12, [https://www.gao.gov/assets/250/244965.pdf Electronic Government: Federal Agencies Have Made Progress Implementing the E-Government Act of 2002] (2004).
 +
*GAO-05-420, [https://www.gao.gov/assets/250/246115.pdf Electronic Government: Funding of the Office of Management and Budget’s Initiatives] (2005).
 +
*GAO-05-777, [https://www.gao.gov/assets/250/247696.pdf Electronic Rulemaking: Progress Made in Developing Centralized E-Rulemaking System] (2005).
 +
*GAO-12-782, [https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-12-782.pdf Electronic Government Act: Agencies Have Implemented Most Provisions, but Key Areas of Attention Remain] (2012).
 +
*GAO-13-94, [https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-13-94.pdf Geospatial Information: OMB and Agencies Need to Make Coordination a Priority to Reduce Duplication] (2013).  
 +
*GAO-14-758, [https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-758.pdf Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Some Privacy and Security Procedures for Data Collections Should Continue Being Enhanced] (2014).
 +
*GAO-16-267, [https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-16-267.pdf Face Recognition Technology: FBI Should Better Ensure Privacy and Accuracy] (2016).
 +
*GAO-16-469, [https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-16-469.pdf Information Technology: Federal Agencies Need to Address Aging Legacy Systems] (2016).  
 +
*GAO-22-104603, [https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104603.pdf Chief Information Officers: Private Sector Practices Can Inform Government Roles] (2022).
 +
*GAO-22-105065, [https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105065.pdf Privacy: Dedicated Leadership Can Improve Programs and Address Challenges] (2022).
 +
</div>
  
−
'''Bibliography:'''
+
===Other Government Documents===
  
−
== I. Legislative History ==
+
*Gen. Serv. Admin., [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2003-07-11/pdf/03-17634.pdf E-Authentication Policy for Federal Agencies], 68 Fed. Reg. 41370 (July 11, 2003).
−
1.     H.R. 2458 and S. 803, To Enhance the Management and Promotion ofElectronic Government Services and Processes by Establishing an Office of Electronic Government Within the Office of Management and Budget, and by Establishing a Broad Framework of Measures That Require Using InternetBased Information Technology to Enhance Citizen Access to Government Information and Services, and for Other Purposes, Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Technology and Procurement Policy of the H. Comm. on Gov’t Reform, 107th Cong., 2d Sess., on, Sept. 18, 2002 (Serial No. 107184), ''available at'' <nowiki>http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/</nowiki> getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_house_hearings&docid=f:86062.wais.
+
*Nat’l Archives & Records Admin., [https://www.archives.gov/about/plans-reports/e-gov Implementation of the E-Government Act] (FY 2006-2017).
  
−
2.     Ensuring Coordination, Reducing Redundancy: A Review of OMB’sFreeze on IT Spending at Homeland Security Agencies, Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Technology and Procurement Policy of the H. Comm. on Gov’t Reform, 107th Cong., 2d Sess., Oct. 1, 2002 (Serial No. 107-186), ''available at'' <nowiki>http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_</nowiki> house_hearings&docid=f:86064.wais.
+
===Books and Articles===
 +
<div style="column-count:2;-moz-column-count:2;-webkit-column-count:2">
  
−
== II. Other Government Documents ==
+
*Thomas C. Beierle, [https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-03-22.html Discussing the Rules: Electronic Rulemaking and Democratic Deliberation] (Apr. 2003) (Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper 03-22).
−
1.     Administrative Conference of the U.S., Recommendation 2011-1, LegalConsiderations in e-Rulemaking, 76 Fed. Reg. 48,789 (Aug. 9, 2011) (background report by Dooling, cited below).
 
  
−
2.     Administrative Conference of the U.S., Recommendation 2011-8,Agency Innovations in E-Rulemaking, 77 Fed. Reg. 2264 (Jan. 17, 2011) (background report by Cary Coglianese (2012) cited below).
+
*Barbara H. Brandon & Robert D. Carlitz, [https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/admin54&div=52&id=&page= Online Rulemaking and Other Tools for Strengthening Our Civil Infrastructure], 54 Admin. L. Rev. 1421 (2002).
  
−
3.     Administrative Conference of the U.S., Recommendation 2013-5,Social Media in Rulemaking, 78 Fed. Reg. 76,269 (Dec. 13, 2013) (background report by Herz, cited below).
+
*Barbara H. Brandon, ''An Update on the E-Government Act and Electronic Rulemaking'', 29 Admin. & Reg. L. News 7, Fall 2003.
  
−
4.     General Services Administration, ''E-Authentication Policy for Federal Agencies'', Request for Comments, 68 Fed. Reg. 41,370 (July 11, 2003) (issued in cooperation with OMB).
+
*Cary Coglianese, [https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=faculty_scholarship E-Rulemaking: Information Technology and the Regulatory Process], 56 Admin. L. Rev. 353 (2004).
  
−
5.     U.S. General Accounting Office, ''Electronic Rulemaking: Efforts to Facilitate Public Participation Can Be Improved'', GAO-03-901 (Sept. 2003).
+
*Cary Coglianese, [https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1971&context=faculty_scholarship Enhancing Public Access to Online Rulemaking Information], 2 Mich. J. Envtl. & Admin. L. 1 (2012).
  
−
6.     Office of Management and Budget, ''FY 2003 Report to Congress on Implementation of the E-Government Act'' (2004).
+
*Cary Coglianese, Stuart Shapiro & Steven J. Balla, ''Unifying Rulemaking Information: Recommendations for the New Federal Docket Management System'', 57 Admin. L. Rev. 621 (2005).
  
−
7.     U.S. General Accounting Office, ''Electronic Government: Initiatives Sponsored by the Office of Management and Budget Have Made Mixed Progress'', GAO-04-561T (Mar. 24 2004).
+
*''Connecting Democracy: Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communications (''Stephen Coleman & Peter M. Shane eds., MIT Press 2013).
  
−
8.     National Archives & Records Administration, ''FY 2004 Implementation of the E-Government Act'' (Dec. 6, 2004), ''available at'' http:// www.archives.gov/about/plans-reports/e-gov.
+
*Bridget C.E. Dooling, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Legal-Issues-and-e-Rulemaking-3-17-11.pdf Legal Issues in e-Rulemaking] (Mar. 17, 2011) (report to ACUS).
  
−
9.     U.S. Government Accountability Office, ''Electronic Government: Federal Agencies Have Made Progress Implementing the E-Government Act of 2002'', GAO-05-12 (Dec. 10, 2004).
+
*Cynthia R. Farina et al., [https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=ceri Rulemaking 2.0: Understanding and Getting Better Public Participation], 65 U. Miami L. Rev. 395 (2011).
  
−
10.   U.S. Government Accountability Office, ''Electronic Government: Funding of the Office of Management and Budget’s Initiatives'' (GAO-05420) (Apr. 25, 2005).
+
*Michael Herz, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Herz%20Social%20Media%20Final%20Report.pdf Using Social Media in Rulemaking: Possibilities and Barriers] (Nov. 21, 2013) (report to ACUS).
  
−
11.   U.S. Government Accountability Office, ''Electronic Rulemaking: Progress Made in Developing Centralized E-Rulemaking System'', GAO-05777 (Sept. 9, 2005).
+
*Stephen M. Johnson, ''The Internet Changes Everything: Revolutionizing Public Participation and Access to Government Information Through the Internet'', 50 Admin. L. Rev. 277 (1998).
  
−
12.   Office of Management and Budget, ''Expanding E-Government: Improved Service Delivery for the American People Using Information Technology'' (Dec. 2005), ''available at'' <nowiki>http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budintegration/</nowiki> expanding_egov_2005.pdf.
+
*Stephen M. Johnson, [http://www.administrativelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Beyond-the-Usual-Suspects-ACUS-Rulemaking-2-and-a-Vision-for-Broader-More-Informed-and-More-Transparent-Rulemaking.pdf Beyond the Usual Suspects: ACUS, Rulemaking 2.0, and a Vision for Broader, More Informed, and More Transparent Rulemaking], 65 Admin. L. Rev. 77 (2013)
  
−
13.   Office of Management and Budget, ''Expanding E-Government: Making a Difference for the American People Using Information Technology'' (Dec. 2006), ''available at'' <nowiki>http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/documents/</nowiki> expanding_egov_2006.pdf.
+
*Jaime Klima, [https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1078&context=dltr The E-Government Act: Promoting E-Quality or Exaggerating the Digital Divide?], 2 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 1-9 (2003).
  
−
14.   Office of Management and Budget, ''FY 2007 Report to Congress on the Benefits of the E-Government Initiatives'' (Feb. 2007), ''available at'' http:// www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/documents/FY07_Benefits_Report.pdf.
+
*Jeffrey S. Lubbers, The Future of Electronic Rulemaking: A Research Agenda, Regulatory Policy Program Paper RPP-2002-04 (Mar. 2002), ''reprinted in'' 27 Admin. & Reg. L. News 6, Summer 2002.
  
−
15.   Administrative Conference of the U.S., Recommendation 2011-1,''Legal Considerations in e-Rulemaking'', 76 Fed. Reg. 48,789 (Aug. 9, 2011).
+
*Jeffrey S. Lubbers, [http://www.administrativelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/A-Survey-of-Federal-Agency-Rulemakers-Attitues-About-E-Rulemaking.pdf A Survey of Federal Agency Rulemakers’ Attitudes About E-Rulemaking], 62 Admin. L. Rev. 451 (2010).
  
−
16.   Office of Management and Budget, ''FY 2014 Report to Congress on the Benefits of the E-Government Initiatives'' (Jan. 2014)'', available at'' <nowiki>http://www</nowiki>. whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/fy14_omb_report_ to_congress_on_the_benefits_of_e-government_initiatives.pdf.
+
*Oscar Morales & John Moses, ''e-Rulemaking’s Federal Docket Management System'' (May 24, 2006).
  
−
== III. Books and Articles ==
+
*John Morison, ''e-Democracy: On-Line Civic Space and the Renewal of Democracy?'', 17 Can. J. L. & Juris. 129 (2004).
−
1.     Thomas C. Beierle, ''Discussing the Rules: Electronic Rulemaking and Democratic Deliberation'' (2003) (Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 03-22), ''available at'' <nowiki>http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-DP-03-2.pdf</nowiki>.
 
  
−
2.     Barbara H. Brandon & Robert D. Carlitz, ''Online Rulemaking and Other Tools for Strengthening Our Civil Infrastructure'', 54 Admin. L. Rev. 1421 (2002).
+
*Beth Simone Noveck, [https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1580&context=fac_articles_chapters Designing Deliberative Democracy in Cyberspace: the Role of the Cyberlawyer], 9 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 1 (2003).
  
−
3.     Barbara H. Brandon, ''An Update on the E-Government Act and Electronic Rulemaking'', 29 Admin. & Reg. L. News 7 (Fall, 2003).
+
*Beth Simone Noveck, [https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1781&context=fac_articles_chapters The Electronic Revolution in Rulemaking], 53 Emory L.J. 433 (2004).
  
−
4.     Cary Coglianese, ''E-Rulemaking: Information Technology and the Regulatory Process'', 56 Admin. L. Rev. 353 (2004).
+
*John C. Reitz, ''Section VI: Computers and Law, E-Government,'' 54 Am. J. Comp. L. 733 (2006).
  
−
5.     Cary Coglianese, ''Enhancing Public Access to Online Rulemaking Information'', 2 Mich. J. Envtl. & Admin. L. 1 (2012).
+
*Todd Rubin, [https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Regulations.gov%20Report%20FINAL%2012%203%202018.pdf Regulations.gov and the Federal Docket Management System] (Dec. 1, 2018) (report to ACUS).
  
−
6.     Cary Coglianese, Stuart Shapiro & Steven J. Balla, ''Unifying Rulemaking Information: Recommendations for the New Federal Docket Management System'', 57 Admin. L. Rev. 621 (2005).
+
*David Schlosberg, Stephen Zavetoski & Stuart Shulman, ''To Submit a Form or Not to Submit a Form, That Is the (Real) Question: Deliberation and Mass Participation in U.S. Regulatory Rulemaking'' (2005).
  
−
7.     Connecting Democracy—Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communications, Stephen Coleman & Peter M. Shane eds. (MIT Press 2013).
+
*''Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal through the Internet'' (Peter M. Shane ed., 2004).
  
−
8.     Bridget C.E. Dooling, ''Legal Issues in E-Rulemaking'', 63 Admin. L. Rev. 893 (2011).
+
*Peter M. Shane, [https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/72613/ISJLP_V1N1_147.pdf Turning GOLD into EPG: Lessons from Low-Tech Democratic Experimentalism for Electronic Rulemaking and Other Ventures in Cyberdemocracy], 1 J. of L. & Pol’y for the Info. Soc’y 147 (2005).
  
−
9.     Cynthia R. Farina et al., ''Rulemaking 2.0'', 65 U. Miami L. Rev. 395 (2011).
+
*Stuart Shapiro & Cary Coglianese, [https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&context=faculty_scholarship First Generation E-Rulemaking: An Assessment of Regulatory Agency Websites], Univ. of Pa. Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 07-15 (April 11, 2007).
  
−
10.   Michael Herz, ''Using Social Media in Rulemaking: Possibilities and Barriers'', ''available at'' <nowiki>http://ssrn.com/abstract=2371406</nowiki>.
+
*Stuart W. Shulman, [https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/72614/ISJLP_V1N1_111.pdf The Internet Still Might (but Probably Won’t) Change Everything: Stakeholder Views on the Future of Electronic Rulemaking], 1 J. of L. & Pol’y for the Info. Soc’y 111 (2004).
 +
*Stuart W. Shulman, [https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=erulemaking E-Rulemaking: Issues in Current Research and Practice], 28 Int’l J. Pub. Admin. 621 (2005).
  
−
11.   Stephen M. Johnson, ''The Internet Changes Everything: Revolutionizing Public Participation and Access to Government Information Through the Internet'', 50 Admin. L. Rev. 277 (1998).
+
*Michael Tonsing, ''Two Arms! Two Arms! E-Government Is Coming!'', 51 Fed. Law. 18 (2004).
  
−
12.   Stephen M. Johnson, ''Beyond the Usual Suspects: ACUS, Rulemaking 2.0, and a Vision for Broader, More Informed, and More Transparent Rulemaking'', 65 Admin. L. Rev. 77, 79 (2013)
+
*Hui Yang & Jamie Callen, ''Near Duplicate Detection for eRulemaking'', in Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Digital Government Research (2005).
  
−
13.   Jaime Klima, ''The E-Government Act: Promoting E-Quality or Exaggerating the Digital Divide?'', 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 9 (2003).
+
*Stephen Zavestoski & Stuart W. Shulman, ''The Internet and Environmental Decision Making: An Introduction'', 15 Org. & Env’t 323 (2002).
 +
 +
</div>
  
−
14.   Jeffrey S. Lubbers, ''The Future of Electronic Rulemaking: A Research Agenda'', Regulatory Policy Program Paper RPP-2002-04 (Mar. 2002), Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, ''available at'' http:// www.ksg.harvard.edu/cbg/research/rpp/RPP-2002-04.pdf, ''reprinted in'' 27 Admin. & Reg. L. News 6 (Summer 2002).
+
===Agency Regulations===
  
−
15.   Jeffrey S. Lubbers, ''A Survey about Federal Agency Rulemakers’ Attitudes About E-Rulemaking'', 62 Admin. L. Rev. 451 (2010).
+
*Office of Personnel Management, Information Technology Exchange Program ([https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1a940470f3b9226f4cdea3e05b1e17d7&mc=true&node=pt5.1.370&rgn=div5 5 C.F.R. Part 370]).
  
−
16.   Oscar Morales & John Moses, ''e-Rulemaking’s Federal Docket Management System'' (May 24, 2006), ''available at'' http:// erulemaking.ucsur.pitt.edu/doc/Crossroads.pdf.
+
==Statutory Provisions==
 +
E-Government Act of 2002
  
−
17.   John Morison, ''e-Democracy: On-Line Civic Space and the Renewal of Democracy?'', 17 Can. J. L. & Juris. 129 (2004).
+
*Title 44 U.S. Code, [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title44/chapter35/subchapter2&edition=prelim Chapter 35, Subchapter II—Information Security]
−
 
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title44-section3551&num=0&edition=prelim § 3551. Purposes]
−
18.   Beth Simone Noveck, ''Designing Deliberative Democracy in Cyberspace: the Role of the Cyberlawyer'', 9 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 1 (2003).
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title44-section3552&num=0&edition=prelim § 3552. Definitions]
−
 
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title44-section3553&num=0&edition=prelim § 3553. Authority and functions of the Director and the Secretary]
−
19.   Beth Simone Noveck, ''The Electronic Revolution in Rulemaking'', 53 Emory L.J. 433 (2004).
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title44-section3554&num=0&edition=prelim § 3554. Federal agency responsibilities]
−
 
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title44-section3555&num=0&edition=prelim § 3555. Annual independent evaluation]
−
20.   John C. Reitz, ''Section VI: Computers and Law, E-Government,'' 54 Am. J. Comp. L. 733 (2006).
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title44-section3556&num=0&edition=prelim § 3556. Federal information security incident center]
−
 
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title44-section3557&num=0&edition=prelim § 3557. National security systems]
−
21.   David Schlosberg, Stephen Zavetoski & Stuart Shulman, ''To Submit a Form or Not to Submit a Form, That Is the (Real) Question: Deliberation and Mass Participation in U.S. Regulatory Rulemaking'' (2005), ''available at'' <nowiki>http://erulemaking.ucsur.pitt.edu/doc/papers/SDEST_stanford_precon</nowiki>. pdf.
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title44-section3558&num=0&edition=prelim § 3558. Effect on existing law]
−
 
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title44-section3559&num=0&edition=prelim § 3559. Federal websites required to be mobile friendly]
−
22.   Peter M. Shane, ed., Democracy Online: the Prospects for PoliticalRenewal through the Internet (2004).
+
*Title 44 U.S. Code, [http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title44/chapter36&edition=prelim Chapter 36—Management and Promotion of Electronic Government]
−
 
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title44-section3601&num=0&edition=prelim § 3601. Definitions]
−
23.   Peter M. Shane, ''Turning GOLD into EPG: Lessons from Low-Tech Democratic Experimentalism for Electronic Rulemaking and Other Ventures in Cyberdemocracy'', 1 Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 147 (2005).
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title44-section3602&num=0&edition=prelim § 3602. Office of Electronic Government]
−
 
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title44-section3603&num=0&edition=prelim § 3603. Chief Information Officers Council]
−
24.   Stuart Shapiro & Cary Coglianese, ''First Generation E-Rulemaking: An Assessment of Regulatory Agency Websites'', Univ. of Pa. Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 07-15 (April 11, 2007), ''available at'' http:// papers.ssrn.com/abstract=980247.
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title44-section3604&num=0&edition=prelim § 3604. E-Government Fund]
−
 
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title44-section3605&num=0&edition=prelim § 3605. Program to encourage innovative solutions to enhance electronic Government services and processes]
−
25.   Stuart W. Shulman, ''The Internet Still Might (but Probably Won’t) Change Everything: Stakeholder Views on the Future of Electronic Rulemaking'' (2004), ''available at'' <nowiki>http://erulemaking.ucsur.pitt.edu/doc/reports/erulemaking_final.pdf</nowiki>.
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title44-section3606&num=0&edition=prelim § 3606. E-Government report]
−
 
+
*Other Provisions
−
26.   Stuart W. Shulman, ''E-Rulemaking: Issues in Current Research and Practice'', 28 Int’l J. Pub. Admin. 621 (2005).
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title40-section305&num=0&saved=%7CZ3JhbnVsZWlkOlVTQy1wcmVsaW0tdGl0bGU0MC1zZWN0aW9uMzAx%7C%7C%7C0%7Cfalse%7Cprelim 40 U.S.C. § 305. Electronic Government and information technologies]
−
 
+
**[http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title44-section3501&num=0&edition=prelim 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note. Paperwork Reduction Act]
−
27.   Michael Tonsing, ''Two Arms! Two Arms! E-Government Is Coming!'', 51 Fed. Law. 18 (July, 2004).
 
−
 
 
−
28.   Hui Yang & Jamie Callen, ''Near Duplicate Detection for eRulemaking'', in Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Digital Government Research (2005), ''available at'' <nowiki>http://erulemaking.ucsur.pitt.edu</nowiki> /doc/papers/ dgo05-huiyang.pdf.
 
−
 
 
−
29.   Stephen Zavestoski & Stuart W. Shulman, ''The Internet and Environmental Decision Making: An Introduction'', 15 Org. & Env’t 323 (2002).
 
−
 
 
−
'''Agency Regulations:'''
 
−
 
 
−
1. Office of Personnel Management, 5 C.F.R. pt. 370 (2015), ''Information Technology Exchange Program'' (implementing sections 209(b)(6) and (c) of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-347)).
 
−
 
 
−
'''Appendix:'''
 
−
 
 
−
1. E-Government Act of 2002, U.S.C. 44 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3606 (2012), 40 U.S.C. § 305 (2012), and 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012).
 

Latest revision as of 01:14, 9 August 2023

Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, Dec. 17, 2002, codified inter alia at 44 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3606 (2012), 44 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3558 (2012), 40 U.S.C. § 305 (2012), and 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012).

Lead Agency:

Office of Management and Budget, Office of E-Government and Information Technology

Overview:

The E-Government Act of 2002 (H.R. 2458/S. 803) was signed by President Bush on December 17, 2002, with an effective date for most provisions of April 17, 2003. It was intended to further the federal government’s approach to information dissemination in the Internet Age. It contains many requirements for the government, but the main provisions of interest to administrative lawyers relate to:

  • Public Information. To the extent practicable, agencies must provide a website that includes all “information about that agency” required to be published in the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1)-(2).
  • Electronic Submission. To the extent practicable, agencies must accept electronically those submissions made in rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. § § 553(c).
  • Electronic Dockets. To the extent practicable, agencies must have an Internet-accessible rulemaking docket that includes all public comments and other materials that by agency rule or practice are included in the agency docket, whether submitted electronically.
  • Privacy Impact Assessments. OMB is required to develop guidelines for privacy notices on agency websites, and agencies must conduct “privacy impact assessments” before collecting information that will be gathered, maintained, or disseminated using information technology, including “any information in an identifiable form permitting the physical or online contacting of a specific individual, if identical questions have been posed to, or identical reporting requirements imposed on, 10 or more persons, other than” federal agencies or employees. A number of agencies are also required to perform a special privacy assessment for proposed rules “on the privacy of information in an identifiable form, including the type of personally identifiable information collected and the number of people affected.”

The E-Government Act also served to codify many of the White House’s E-Government initiatives. It codifies OMB’s role by creating an E-Administrator and Office of E-Government in OMB. It endorses and requires agencies to support crossagency initiatives such as E-Rulemaking, Geospatial One-Stop, E-Records Management, E-Authentication (especially E-Signatures) and Disaster Management; FirstGov (now USA.gov); and enterprise architecture. It authorizes funds for these activities.

The E-Government Act also created new responsibilities for OMB to:

  • file an annual report to Congress;
  • sponsor ongoing dialogue with state, local, and tribal governments as well as the general public, the private, and the nonprofit sectors to find innovative ways to improve the performance of governments in collaborating on the use of information technology to improve the delivery of government information and services;
  • set standards for categorizing and indexing government information;
  • set standards for agency websites;
  • create a public directory for agency websites;
  • select agencies to engage in pilot projects on data integration; and
  • improve access for people with and without computers.

Other provisions in Title II authorize agencies to award “share-in-savings” contracts under which contractors share in the savings achieved by agencies through the provision of technologies that improve or accelerate their work. Under these provisions, the executive branch is supposed to ensure, consistent with applicable law, that these contracts are operated according to sound fiscal policy and limit authorized waivers for funding of potential termination costs to appropriate circumstances so as to minimize the financial risk to the government.

Title III is the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. It is very similar to Title X of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, also known as the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (amended by Pub. L. No. 113-283 and codified at 44 U.S.C. §§ 3551–58). Title IV contains an authorization of appropriations and effective dates. Title V contains a series of sections devoted to Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency.

Legislative History

Representative Jim Turner introduced H.R. 2458 with 40 co-sponsors on July 11, 2001. It was referred to the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy on September 18, 2002. The Subcommittee held hearings on October 1, 2002. The bill was forwarded by the Subcommittee to the full Committee by voice vote on October 8, 2002. It was reported to the House Floor Committee on Government Reform on November 14, 2002 (with substitute language). H. Rep. No. 107-787, pt. 1 (2002). After being referred sequentially to the House Judiciary Committee, it was discharged by that Committee on November 14, 2002. It passed the House (Committee of the Whole) by unanimous consent on November 15, 2002.

On the Senate side, a companion bill, S. 803, had been introduced on May 1, 2001, by Senator Joe Lieberman. After a hearing on July 11, 2001, before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, the Committee reported the bill to the Senate floor on June 24, 2002, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. S. Rep. No 107-174 (2002). On June 27, 2002, S. 803 passed the Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the title by unanimous consent. On November 15, 2002, the Senate received and agreed to H.R. 2458 as passed by the House, sending it to the President. President Bush signed it on December 17, 2002, as Pub. L. No. 107-347.

Bibliography

Legislative History and Congressional Documents

Executive Orders and OMB/OIRA Documents

ACUS Recommendations

GAO Documents

Other Government Documents

Books and Articles

  • Barbara H. Brandon, An Update on the E-Government Act and Electronic Rulemaking, 29 Admin. & Reg. L. News 7, Fall 2003.
  • Cary Coglianese, Stuart Shapiro & Steven J. Balla, Unifying Rulemaking Information: Recommendations for the New Federal Docket Management System, 57 Admin. L. Rev. 621 (2005).
  • Connecting Democracy: Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communications (Stephen Coleman & Peter M. Shane eds., MIT Press 2013).
  • Stephen M. Johnson, The Internet Changes Everything: Revolutionizing Public Participation and Access to Government Information Through the Internet, 50 Admin. L. Rev. 277 (1998).
  • Jeffrey S. Lubbers, The Future of Electronic Rulemaking: A Research Agenda, Regulatory Policy Program Paper RPP-2002-04 (Mar. 2002), reprinted in 27 Admin. & Reg. L. News 6, Summer 2002.
  • Oscar Morales & John Moses, e-Rulemaking’s Federal Docket Management System (May 24, 2006).
  • John Morison, e-Democracy: On-Line Civic Space and the Renewal of Democracy?, 17 Can. J. L. & Juris. 129 (2004).
  • John C. Reitz, Section VI: Computers and Law, E-Government, 54 Am. J. Comp. L. 733 (2006).
  • David Schlosberg, Stephen Zavetoski & Stuart Shulman, To Submit a Form or Not to Submit a Form, That Is the (Real) Question: Deliberation and Mass Participation in U.S. Regulatory Rulemaking (2005).
  • Democracy Online: The Prospects for Political Renewal through the Internet (Peter M. Shane ed., 2004).
  • Michael Tonsing, Two Arms! Two Arms! E-Government Is Coming!, 51 Fed. Law. 18 (2004).
  • Hui Yang & Jamie Callen, Near Duplicate Detection for eRulemaking, in Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Digital Government Research (2005).
  • Stephen Zavestoski & Stuart W. Shulman, The Internet and Environmental Decision Making: An Introduction, 15 Org. & Env’t 323 (2002).

Agency Regulations

  • Office of Personnel Management, Information Technology Exchange Program (5 C.F.R. Part 370).

Statutory Provisions

E-Government Act of 2002

Retrieved from "https://sourcebook.acus.gov/index.php?title=E-Government_Act_of_2002&oldid=1647"