Officials said that  they developed this estimate prior to completing the three assessments  previously described and that at the time they developed this estimate,  there was a lack of published information about how much it cost to  develop or operate paper or electronic rulemaking systems. They primarily  used their professional judgment, information about costs for developing  and operating EPA’s paper and electronic rulemaking systems, and  information provided by OMB about the number of rulemaking entities to  develop the estimate. Agency officials we spoke with  noted that representatives of all agencies are free to participate on the  Executive Committee, the Advisory Board, or any working group. Work Conducted Mostly Consistent with Key Practices but Written Agreements Did Not Include Performance Measures

While managing the development of the centralized e-Rulemaking system,  e-Rulemaking officials have, for the most part, followed key practices for  successfully managing a project. The first agencies began migrating to the  centralized e-Rulemaking system in May 2005 and the public is scheduled  to have access to the system in September 2005. While all agencies will  eventually migrate to the centralized system, the schedule for doing so may  change, due in part to funding issues. Officials Have Process for Approving Changes to the System Based on Agency and Public Input as More Agencies Migrate to It

In May 2005, the agencies included in phase I of the migration schedule— EPA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Animal and  Plant Health Inspection Service within the Department of Agriculture, a  portion of the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Archives  and Records Administration—began migrating to the centralized e- Rulemaking system. For example, one agency said that their system tracks hearings as  well as regulatory dockets. Using  two cost and risk models and comparing the three designs to industry best  practices was a sound approach to use in order to select which design  should be implemented. In addition, because there was a lack of published  information about the costs to develop or operate either a paper or  electronic rulemaking system, e-Rulemaking officials used their  professional judgment and own experiences to estimate how much the  centralized e-Rulemaking system could save the federal government. Recommendation

E-Rulemaking officials established a governance structure that allowed it  to successfully collaborate with other agencies about how to develop and  implement the centralized e-Rulemaking system and used most of the key  practices included in this report for managing an initiative. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

While the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) oversees the e- Rulemaking initiative, it named the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) managing partner for the initiative. We also reviewed a contractor’s  analysis of the capabilities of current e-Rulemaking systems, a contractor’s  summary of assessments of the three identified alternative designs  including analyses of operational risks and security vulnerabilities, and  documentation related to the basis for e-Rulemaking officials’ and the e- Rulemaking Initiative Executive Committee’s recommendation about  which design alternative to implement. To acquire agency views on the collaboration that has occurred,  we randomly selected 12 of the 27 agencies that serve on the e-Rulemaking  Initiative Advisory Board and interviewed officials from those agencies  about their experiences with the collaboration efforts.
Why GAO Did This Study

The E-Government Act of 2002 requires regulatory agencies, to the extent practicable, to ensure there is a Web site the public can use to comment on the numerous proposed regulations that affect them. To accomplish this, the Office of Management and Budget named the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the managing partner for developing a governmentwide e-Rulemaking system that the public can use for these purposes. Issues GAO was asked to address include: (1) EPA's basis for selecting a centralized system, (2) how EPA collaborated with other agencies and agency views of that collaboration, and (3) whether EPA used key management practices when developing the system.

What GAO Found

E-Rulemaking officials and the e-Rulemaking Initiative Executive Committee considered three alternative designs and chose to implement a centralized e-Rulemaking system based on cost savings, risks, and security. Officials relied on an analysis of the three alternatives using two cost and risk assessment models and a comparison of the alternatives to industry best practices. Prior to completing this analysis, officials estimated the centralized approach would save about $94 million over 3 years. They said when they developed this estimate, there was a lack of published information about costs related to paper or electronic rulemaking systems. They used their professional judgment and information about costs for developing and operating EPA's paper and electronic systems, among other things, to develop the estimate. E-Rulemaking officials extensively collaborated with rulemaking agencies and most officials at the agencies we contacted thought the collaboration was effective. E-Rulemaking officials created a governance structure that included an executive committee, advisory board, and individual work groups that discussed how to develop the e-Rulemaking system. We contacted 14 of the 27 agencies serving on the advisory board and most felt their suggestions affected the system development process. Agency officials offered several examples to support their views, such as how their recommendations for changes to the system's design were incorporated. While managing the development of the centralized system, e-Rulemaking officials followed all but a few of the key practices for successfully managing an initiative. For example, officials did not have written agreements with participating agencies that included system performance measures. The first agencies began migrating to the centralized system in May 2005 with the public scheduled to have access in September 2005. Eventually, all rulemaking agencies will migrate to the centralized system; however, the schedule is tentative due in part to funding issues. As agencies migrate, e-Rulemaking officials are planning changes to the system including adding capabilities that exist in electronic systems operated by some agencies.