Discussion Leader: Sally Katzen
Main Points:
• In the coming years, rulemaking should go beyond the obvious and should use the new technology to enhance the rulemaking process and create meaningful rules.
• Some basic objectives should include increasing public participation, increasing transparency, and letting agencies state their individual needs for rulemaking.
• Public awareness of the existence of e-government should be raised and the rulemaking process should be explained in an easily comprehensible manner.
• Continually changing technology should be used to achieve increased public participation and to create better rules.
• There should be a consistent format for e-rulemaking; however it should be compatible with several different types of software.
     o Comments should be able to be submitted to the agency in XML after submission to a single e-rulemaking site

Other points of discussion:
• ACUS should be reinvented to include the new technologies and to handle e-rulemaking
• The technology used should be flexible
     o Compatible with different software
     o Possible public discussion over the software, flexibility of the logistics of e-rulemaking and rules
     o Public participation on the formation of the e-rulemaking site and process

• Understanding of the history of electronic rulemaking
     o Originally OMB wanted e-rulemaking to be in one place
           Can we still include mass participation by agencies and the public?
     o OIRA – E-Government initiatives: chose the most important/pressing initiatives and gave them priority
     o Given to the EPA
• The true goals of e-rulemaking need to be identified
     o Increase public participation?
     o Enhance rulemaking, create better rules?
     o Take rulemaking back to the beginning/basics?
• Make sure new rules are sustainable in court
• Education within agencies
     o Introduce agency employees to the new technology
     o Peer review before the proposals are published
           Less litigation
• Understand adoption limitations
• Understand investment returns
• Technology options
• Performance measurement
• Allow for preformatted comments

Discussion Leader: Cindy Skrzycki
Main Points:
• There are dockets that work in a certain way now, why or how would we change them
     o Digital divide
     o Bureaucracy
     o What are we going to have to do
     o How are we going to do it
     o What are the standards/what should they be
• Every agency should have to have e-dockets and electronic capability
     o One centralized docket may not work for everyone
     o Increase public access to the internet
     o Give the public as much information as possible and not limit the time and ability to give input
• Keep the process simple

Other Points Discussed:
ABSA
• Sees a lot of what e-gov is supposed to do, but believes it may be overkill
Department of Energy
• E docket, .Gov
     o Create a better procedure, get more participation
     o No centralized docking
           E docket allows for comments after the deadline, but .Gov does not
     o 2x as much preamble as content
     o Good alternative, but if it creates additional work on top of what is already expected, the it is burdensome
Environmental Protection Agency
• Beginning to identify the performance measures
     o Example: Does it cause an increase in quality of rules
Marine and Fishery Group
• Need a system of dockets (like module 2)
• How can we make our rules more effective?
General Accounting Office
• Will change their docket within the next 60 days to become more centralized
• Is there another viable configuration?
The State Department: Office of Legal Advice
• Unsure of a need for an electronic docket or a centralized system
• If they do make one, they will keep it simple
Office of the Federal Register
• Oversee the rulemaking process
• Help facilitate public participation in rulemaking
     o One of the fore-fathers of .Gov
• Ideas flow better in smaller groups
     o Businesses are closer to their own clients
Washington Post
• Interested in following the e-rulemaking initiative
National Federation of Independent Businesses
• Rulemaking is important to small businesses
• Small businesses don’t participate as much
     o They are already overworked with filling out paperwork to do more
     o Don’t see the direct benefit
     o Would like to see the procedure improved
Important objectives
• 1000 rule related notices a year
     o Need to restrict expanding or get a leadership going
• Expand public use of the internet
• Sustainable deliberation where the meaning of individual rules is actually gained
     o Pushed harder after or before the initial introduction?
     o The public needs to be more informed; foster public deliberation
     o How do you frame the issues to elicit that kind of deliberation?
• Need help putting supportive documentation online
• E-strategy in the federal government may be problematic because it may create entrenchment in bureaucracy
• Instead of one centralized docket, bring each group’s existing docket to the same level
     o Build a centralized docket for those who do not have already existing dockets
• Do small businesses have the capacity to accept edockets?
• EPA may pose some requirements that are hard to comply with
     o Laws requiring all agencies to convert all paper to electronic dockets
• Each agency should develop a plan to increase public participation
     o By the time an agency publishes a proposal it’s too late for any public input
     o There should be no presumption that the public knows anything about the government or how it works
     o Never stop taking public input on a given rule
     o E-responses are very low
• Agencies have concerns about how rulemaking will effect them